[Transcriber's note: Obvious printer's errors have been corrected, allother inconsistencies are as in the original. The author's spellinghas been maintained. 

In some cases, part of the illustration's captions were illegible. ]

[Illustration: Hon. Schuyler Colfax. ]

 HISTORY

 OF THE

 THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS

 OF THE

 UNITED STATES. 

 By WILLIAM H. BARNES, A. M. , AUTHOR OF "THE BODY POLITIC. "

 _WITH PORTRAITS. _

 NEW YORK: HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, 327 TO 335 PEARL STREET. 1868. 

 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1868, by WILLIAM H. BARNES, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia. 

PREFACE. 

The history of the Thirty-Ninth Congress is a sequel to that of theRebellion. This having been overthrown, it remained for Congress toadminister upon its effects. It depended upon the decisions ofCongress whether the expected results of our victories should berealized or lost. 

Now that the work of the Thirty-Ninth Congress stands forth complete, people naturally desire to know something of the manner in which therough material was shaped into order, and the workmanship by which thewhole was "fitly joined together. " It can not be said of this fabricof legislation that it went up without "the sound of the hammer. " Therap of the gavel was often heard enforcing order or limiting thelength of speeches. 

Discussion is the process by which legislation is achieved; hence nohistory of legislation would be complete without presenting theprogress of debate preparatory to the adoption of important measures. The explanation of what our legislators did is found in what theysaid. Debates, as presented in the following pages, are by necessitymuch abridged. No attempt has been made to give a summary or synopsisof speeches. That which seemed to be the most striking orcharacteristic passage in a speech is given, in the words of theorator. 

Many things said and done in the Thirty-Ninth Congress, of greatimportance to the nation, are by necessity omitted. The reader, informing his opinion of Congressional character and ability, will bearin mind that those who speak most frequently are not always the mostuseful legislators. Men from whom no quotation is made, and to whom nomeasure is attributed in the following pages, may be among theforemost in watchfulness for their constituents, and faithfulness tothe country. 

If it should seem that one subject -- the negro question -- occupiedtoo much of the time and attention of Congress, it must be borne inmind that this subject was thrust upon Congress and the country by theissue of the Rebellion, and must be definitely and finally settledbefore the nation can be at rest. "Unsettled questions have no pity onthe repose of mankind. "

No attempt has been made to present a journal of Congressionalproceedings, giving a detail of what was said and done from day to dayin the Senate and the House. There was always some great nationalquestion under consideration in one or the other House, forming anuninterrupted series of discussions and transactions. To present thesein review is to give a history of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, sincethey distinguish it from all its predecessors, and make it historical. 

CONTENTS. 

 CHAPTER I. --Opening Scenes. 

 (Page 13-21. )

 Momentous Events of the Vacation -- Opening of the Senate -- Mr. Wade -- Mr. Sumner -- Mr. Wilson -- Mr. Harris -- Edward McPherson -- As Clerk of the preceding Congress, he calls the House to order -- Interruption of Roll-call by Mr. Maynard -- Remarks by Mr. Brooks -- His Colloquy with Mr. Stevens -- Mr. Colfax elected Speaker -- His Inaugural Address -- The Test Oath. 

 CHAPTER II. --Locations of the Members and Cast of the Committees. 

 (Page 22-32. )

 Importance of surroundings -- Members sometimes referred to by their seats -- Senator Andrew Johnson -- Seating of the Senators -- Drawing in the House -- The Senate Chamber as seen from the Gallery -- Distinguished Senators -- The House of Representatives -- Some prominent characters -- Importance of Committees -- Difficulty in their appointment -- Important Senate Committees -- Committees of the House. 

 CHAPTER III. --Formation of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. 

 (Page 33-49. )

 Lack of Excitement -- Cause -- The Resolution -- Dilatory Motions -- Yeas and Nays -- Proposed Amendments in the Senate -- Debate in the Senate -- Mr. Howard -- Mr. Anthony -- Mr. Doolittle -- Mr. Fessenden -- Mr. Saulsbury -- Mr. Hendricks -- Mr. Trumbull -- Mr. Guthrie -- Passage of the Resolution in the Senate -- Yeas and Nays -- Remarks of Mr. Stevens on the Amendment of the Senate -- Concurrence of the House -- The Committee appointed. 

 CHAPTER IV. --Suffrage in the District of Columbia. 

 (Page 50-94. )

 Duty of Congress to Legislate for the District of Columbia -- Suffrage Bill introduced into the House -- Speech by Mr. Wilson -- Mr. Boyer -- Mr. Schofield -- Mr. Kelly -- Mr. Rogers -- Mr. Farnsworth -- Mr. Davis -- Mr. Chanler -- Mr. Bingham -- Mr. Grinnell -- Mr. Kasson -- Mr. Julian -- Mr. Thomas -- Mr. Darling -- Mr. Hale's Amendment -- Mr. Thayer -- Mr. Van Horn -- Mr. Clarke -- Mr. Johnson -- Mr. Boutwell. 

 CHAPTER V. --The Freedmen. 

 (Page 95-103. )

 Necessities of the Freedmen -- Committee in the House -- Early Movement by the Senate in behalf of Freedmen -- Senator Wilson's Bill -- Occasion for it -- Mr. Cowan Moves its reference -- Mr. Reverdy Johnson advises deliberation -- A Question of time With Mr. Sherman -- Mr. Trumbull promises a more efficient Bill -- Mr. Sumner presents proof of the bad condition of affairs in the South -- Mr. Cowan and Mr. Stewart produce the President as a Witness for the Defense -- Mr. Wilson on the Testimony -- "Conservatism" -- The Bill absorbed in greater measures. 

 CHAPTER VI. --The Freedmen's Bureau Bill in the Senate. 

 (Page 104-137. )

 The Bill introduced and referred to Judiciary Committee -- Its provisions -- Argument of Mr. Hendricks against it -- Reply of Mr. Trumbull -- Mr. Cowan's Amendment -- Mr. Guthrie wishes to relieve Kentucky from the operation of the bill -- Mr. Creswell desires that Maryland may enjoy the benefits of the bill -- Mr. Cowan's Gratitude to God and Friendship for the Negro -- Remarks by Mr. Wilson -- "The short gentleman's long speech" -- Yeas and Nays -- Insulting title. 

 CHAPTER VII. --The Freedmen's Bureau Bill in the House. 

 (Page 138-157. )

 The Bill Reported To the House -- Mr. Eliot's Speech -- History -- Mr. Dawson Vs. The Negro -- Mr. Garfield -- The Idol Broken -- Mr. Taylor Counts the Cost -- Mr. Donnelly's Amendment -- Mr. Kerr -- Mr. Marshall On White Slavery -- Mr. Hubbard -- Mr. Moulton -- Opposition From Kentucky -- Mr. Ritter -- Mr. Rosseau's Threat -- Mr. Shanklin's Gloomy Prospect -- Mr. Trimble's Appeal -- Mr. Mckee an Exceptional Kentuckian -- Mr. Grinnell on Kentucky -- The Example of Russia -- Mr. Phelps -- Mr. Shellabarger's Amendment -- Mr. Chanler -- Mr. Stevens' Amendments -- Mr. Eliot Closes the Discussion -- Passage of The Bill -- Yeas and Nays. 

 CHAPTER VIII. --The Senate and the Veto Message. 

 (Page 158-187. )

 Mr. Trumbull on the Amendments of the House -- Mr. Guthrie exhibits feeling -- Mr. Sherman's deliberate Conclusion -- Mr. Henderson's sovereign remedy -- Mr. Trumbull on patent medicines -- Mr. Mcdougall a white Man -- Mr. Reverdy Johnson on the power to pass the Bill -- Concurrence of the House -- The Veto Message -- Mr. Lane, of Kansas -- His efforts for delay -- Mr. Garrett Davis -- Mr. Trumbull's reply to the President -- The Question taken -- Yeas and Nays -- Failure of passage. 

 CHAPTER IX. --The Civil Rights Bill in the Senate. 

 (Page 188-219. )

 Duty of Congress consequent upon the Abolition of Slavery -- Civil Rights Bill introduced -- Reference to Judiciary Committee -- Before the Senate -- Speech By Mr. Trumbull -- Mr. Saulsbury -- Mr. Van Winkle -- Mr. Cowan -- Mr. Howard -- Mr. Johnson -- Mr. Davis -- Conversations with Mr. Trumbull and Mr. Clark -- Reply of Mr. Johnson -- Remarks by Mr. Morrill -- Mr. Davis "wound Up" -- Mr. Guthrie's Speech -- Mr. Hendricks -- Reply of Mr. Lane -- Mr. Wilson -- Mr. Trumbull's closing remarks -- Yeas And Nays on the passage of the Bill. 

 CHAPTER X. --The Civil Rights Bill in the House of Representatives. 

 (Page 220-244. )

 The Bill referred to the Judiciary Committee and reported back -- Speech by the Chairman of the Committee -- Mr. Rogers -- Mr. Cook -- Mr. Thayer -- Mr. Eldridge -- Mr. Thornton -- Mr. Windom -- Mr. Shellabarger -- Mr. Broomall -- Mr. Raymond -- Mr. Delano -- Mr. Kerr -- Amendment by Mr. Bingham -- His Speech -- Reply by his Colleague -- Discussion closed by Mr. Wilson -- Yeas and Nays on the passage of the Bill -- Mr. Le Blond's proposed title -- Amendments of the House accepted by the Senate. 

 CHAPTER XI. --The Civil Rights Bill and the Veto. 

 (Page 245-293. )

 Doubts as to the President's Decision -- Suspense ended -- The Veto Message -- Mr. Trumbull's Answer -- Mr. Reverdy Johnson defends the Message -- Rejoinder -- Remarks of Mr. Yates -- Mr. Cowan appeals to the Country -- Mr. Stewart shows how States may make the Law a Nullity -- Mr. Wade -- Mr. McDougall on Persian Mythology -- Mr. J. H. Lane defends the President -- Mr. Wade -- The President's Collar -- Mr. Brown -- Mr. Doolittle -- Mr. Garrett Davis -- Mr. Saulsbury -- Yeas And Nays in the Senate -- Vote in the House -- The Civil Rights Bill becomes a Law. 

 CHAPTER XII. --The Second Freedmen's Bureau Bill becomes a Law. 

 (Page 294-306. )

 The Discovery of the Majority -- The Senate Bill -- The House Bill -- Its Provisions -- Passage of the Bill -- Amendment and Passage in the Senate -- Committee of Conference -- The Amendments as Accepted -- The Bill as Passed -- The Veto -- The Proposition of a Democrat accepted -- Confusion in Leadership -- Passage of the Bill over The Veto -- It Becomes a Law. 

 CHAPTER XIII. --First Words on Reconstruction. 

 (Page 307-323. )

 Responsibility of the Republican Party -- Its Power and Position -- Initiatory Step -- Mr. Stevens speaks for himself -- Condition of the Rebel States -- Constitutional Authority under which Congress should act -- Estoppel -- What Constitutes Congress -- The First Duty -- Basis of Representation -- Duty on exports -- Two Important Principles -- Mr. Raymond's Theory -- Rebel States still in the Union -- Consequences of the Radical Theory -- Conditions to be required -- State Sovereignty -- Rebel Debt -- Prohibition of Slavery -- Two Policies contrasted -- Reply of Mr. Jenckes -- Difference in Terms, not in Substance -- Logic of the Conservatives leads to the Results of the Radicals. 

 CHAPTER XIV. --The Basis of Representation in the House. 

 (Page 324-372. )

 First work of the Joint Committee -- The Joint Resolution proposing a Constitutional Amendment -- Mr. Stevens' reasons for speedy action -- Protracted Discussion Commenced -- Objections to the Bill by Mr. Rogers -- Defense by Mr. Conkling -- Two other Modes -- How States might Evade the Law -- Not a Finality -- Wisconsin and South Carolina -- Amendment for Female Suffrage proposed -- Orth on Indiana and Massachusetts -- Obscuration of the Sun -- More Radical Remedy desired -- A Kentuckian gratified -- Citations from the Census -- Premium for Treason -- White Slaves -- Power to amend well-nigh exhausted -- Objections to the Suffrage Basis -- "Race" and "Color" ambiguous -- Condition of the Question -- Recommitted -- Final Passage. 

 CHAPTER XV. --The Basis of Representation in the Senate. 

 (Page 373-414. )

 The Joint Resolution goes to the Senate -- Counter-proposition by Mr. Sumner -- He Speaks Five Hours -- Mr. Henderson's Amendment -- Mr. Fessenden -- Mr. Henry S. Lane -- Mr. Johnson -- Mr. Henderson -- Mr. Clark's Historical Statements -- Fred. Douglass' Memorial -- Mr. Williams -- Mr. Hendricks -- Mr. Chandler's "blood-letting Letter" -- Proposition of Mr. Yates -- His Speech -- Mr. Buckalew against New England -- Mr. Pomeroy -- Mr. Sumner's second Speech -- Mr. Doolittle -- Mr. Morrill -- Mr. Fessenden meets Objections -- Final Vote -- The Amendment defeated. 

 CHAPTER XVI. --Representation of the Southern States. 

 (Page 417-433. )

 Concurrent Resolution -- A "Venomous Fight" -- Passage in the House -- The Resolution in the Senate -- "A Political Wrangle" deprecated -- Importance of the Question -- "A Straw in a Storm" -- Policy of the President -- Conversation between two Senators -- Mr. Nye's Advice to Rebels -- "A Dangerous Power" -- "Was Mr. Wade once a Secessionist?" -- Garrett Davis' Programme for the President -- "Useless yet Mischievous" -- The Great Question Settled. 

 CHAPTER XVII. --The Reconstruction Amendment in the House. 

 (Page 434-451. )

 A Constitutional Amendment proposed and postponed -- Proposition by Mr. Stewart -- The Reconstruction Amendment -- Death of its Predecessor lamented -- Opposition to the Disfranchisement of Rebels -- "The Unrepentent Thirty-three" -- Nine-tenths Reduced to One-twelfth -- Advice to Congress -- The Committee denounced -- Democratic and Republican Policy compared -- Authority without Power -- A Variety of Opinions -- An Earthquake predicted -- The Joint Resolution passes the House. 

 CHAPTER XVIII. --The Reconstruction Amendment in the Senate. 

 (Page 452-455. )

 Difference between Discussions in the House and in the Senate -- Mr. Sumner proposes to postpone -- Mr. Howard takes Charge of the Amendment -- Substitutes proposed -- The Republicans in Council -- The Disfranchising Clause stricken out -- Humorous Account by Mr. Hendricks -- The Pain and Penalties of not holding Office -- A Senator's Piety appealed to -- Howe vs. Doolittle -- Marketable Principles -- Praise of the President -- Mr. McDougall's Charity -- Vote of the Senate -- Concurrence in the House. 

 CHAPTER XIX. --Report of the Committee on Reconstruction. 

 (Page 466-472. )

 An important State Paper -- Work of the Committee -- Difficulty of obtaining information -- Theory of the President -- Taxation and Representation -- Disposition and doings of the Southern People -- Conclusion of the Committee -- Practical Recommendations. 

 CHAPTER XX. --Restoration of Tennessee. 

 (Page 473-482. )

 Assembling of the Tennessee Legislature -- Ratification of the Constitutional Amendment -- Restoration of Tennessee proposed in Congress -- The Government of Tennessee not Republican -- Protest against the Preamble -- Passage in the House -- New Preamble proposed -- The President's Opinion deprecated and disregarded -- Passage in the Senate -- The President's Approval and Protest -- Admission of Tennessee Members -- Mr. Patterson's Case. 

 CHAPTER XXI. --Negro Suffrage. 

 (Page 483-501. )

 Review of the preceding action -- Efforts of Mr. Yates for Unrestricted Suffrage -- Davis's Amendment to Cuvier -- The "Propitious Hour" -- The Mayor's Remonstrance -- Mr. Willey's Amendment -- Mr. Cowan's Amendment for Female Suffrage -- Attempt to out-radical the Radicals -- Opinions for and against Female Suffrage -- Reading and Writing as a Qualification -- Passage of the Bill -- Objections of the President -- Two Senators on the Opinions of the People -- The Suffrage Bill becomes a Law. 

 CHAPTER XXII. --The Military Reconstruction Act. 

 (Page 502-551. )

 Proposition by Mr. Stevens -- "Piratical Governments" not to be recognized -- The Military Feature introduced -- Mr. Schofield's Dog -- The Only Hope of Mr. Hise -- Conversation concerning the Reconstruction Committee -- Censure of a Member -- A Military Bill Reported -- War Predicted -- The "Blaine Amendment" -- Bill passes the House -- In the Senate -- Proposition to Amend -- Mr. McDougall desires Liberty of Speech -- Mr. Doolittle pleads for the Life of the Republic -- Mr. Sherman's Amendment -- Passage in the Senate -- Discussion and Non-concurrence in the House -- The Senate unyielding -- Qualified Concurrence of the House -- The Veto -- "The Funeral of the Nation" -- The Act -- Supplementary Legislation. 

 CHAPTER XXIII. --Other Important Acts. 

 (Page 552-560. )

 Equalizing Bounties -- The Army -- The Department of Education -- Southern Homesteads -- The Bankrupt Law -- The Tariff -- Reduction of Taxes -- Contracting the Currency -- Issue of Three Per Cents. -- Nebraska and Colorado -- Tenure of Office. 

 CHAPTER XXIV. --The President and Congress. 

 (Page 561-567. )

 The President's treatment of the South -- First Annual Message -- Mr. Sumner's Criticism -- The President triumphant -- He damages his Cause -- Humor of Mr. Stevens -- Vetoes Overridden -- The Question submitted to the People -- Their Verdict -- Summary of Vetoes -- Impeachment -- Charges by Mr. Ashley -- Report of the Committee. 

 CHAPTER XXV. --Personal. 

 (Page 568-576. )

 Contested Seats -- Mr. Stockton votes for Himself -- New Jersey's Loss of two Senators -- Losses of Vermont -- Suicide of James H. Lane -- Death in the House -- General Scott -- Lincoln's Eulogy and Statue -- Mr. Sumner on Fine Arts in the Capitol -- Censure of Mr. Chanler -- Petition for the Expulsion of Garret Davis -- Grinnell assaulted by Rousseau -- The Action of the House -- Leader of the House. 

 Biographical Sketches 577

LIST OF PORTRAITS. 

 PAGE 1. --Hon. Schuyler Colfax, Frontispiece. 

 2. --Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, 29

 3. --Hon. William D. Kelley, 59

 4. --Hon. Sidney Clarke, 89

 5. --Hon. Thomas A. Hendricks, 109

 6. --Hon. Henry Wilson, 135

 7. --Hon. Samuel C. Pomeroy, 171

 8. --Hon. Reverdy Johnson, 203

 9. --Hon. James F. Wilson, 239

 10. --Hon. William M. Stewart, 275

 11. --Hon. Ebon C. Ingersoll, 307

 12. --Hon. Robert C. Schenck, 353

 13. --Hon. Richard Yates, 399

 14. --Hon. Edwin D. Morgan, 453

 15. --Hon. William B. Stokes, 481

 16. --Hon. George H. Williams, 517

 17. --Hon. John Conness, 541

 18. --Hon. James M. Ashley, 567

INTRODUCTORY. 

By HON. SCHUYLER COLFAX, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

The Congress that has just passed away has written a record that willbe long remembered by the poor and friendless, whom it did not forget. Misrepresented or misunderstood by those who denounced it as enemies, harshly and unjustly criticised by some who should have been itsfriends, it proved itself more faithful to human progress and libertythan any of its predecessors. The outraged and oppressed found inthese congressional halls champions and friends. Its key-note ofpolicy was protection to the downtrodden. It quailed not before themightiest, and neglected not the obscurest. It lifted the slave, whomthe nation had freed, to the full stature of manhood. It placed on ourstatute-book the Civil Rights Bill as our nation's magna charta, grander than all the enactments that honor the American code; and inall the region whose civil governments had been destroyed by avanquished rebellion, it declared as a guarantee of defense to theweakest that the freeman's hand should wield the freeman's ballot; andthat none but loyal men should govern a land which loyal sacrificeshad saved. Taught by inspiration that new wine could not be safely putin old bottles, it proclaimed that there could be no safe or loyalreconstruction on a foundation of unrepentant treason and disloyalty. 

The first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress proposed, as their planof Reconstruction, a Constitutional Amendment. It was a bond of publicjustice and public safety combined, to be embodied in our nationalConstitution, to show to our posterity that patriotism is a virtue andrebellion is a crime. These terms were more magnanimous than were everoffered in any country under like circumstances. They were kind, theywere forbearing, they were less than we had a right to demand; but inour anxiety, in our desire to close up this question, we made theproposition. How was it received? They trampled upon it, they spatupon it, they repudiated it, and said they would have nothing to dowith it. They were determined to have more power after the rebellionthan they had before. 

When this proposition was repudiated, we came together again, at thesecond session of the same Congress, to devise some other plan ofreconstruction in place of the proffer that had been spurned. We putthe basis of our reconstruction, first, upon every loyal man in theSouth, and then we gave the ballot also to every man who had only beena traitor. The persons we excluded, for the present, from suffrage inthe South, were not the thousands who struggled in the rebel army, notthe millions who had given their adhesion to it, but only those menwho had sworn allegiance to the Constitution and then added to treasonthe crime of perjury. 

Though we demand no indemnity for the past, no banishment, noconfiscations, no penalties for the offended law, there is one thingwe do demand, there is one thing we have the power to demand, and thatis security for the future, and that we intend to have, not only inlegislation, but imbedded in the imperishable bulwarks of our nationalConstitution, against which the waves of secession may dash in futurebut in vain. We intend to have those States reconstructed on suchenduring corner-stones that posterity shall realize that our fallenheroes have not died in vain. 

CHAPTER I. 

OPENING SCENES. 

 Momentous Events of the Vacation -- Opening of the Senate -- Mr. Wade -- Mr. Sumner -- Mr. Wilson -- Mr. Harris -- Edward McPherson -- As Clerk of the preceding Congress, he calls the House to order -- Interruption of Roll-call by Mr. Maynard -- Remarks by Mr. Brooks -- His Colloquy with Mr. Stevens -- Mr. Colfax elected Speaker -- His Inaugural Address -- The Test Oath. 

The Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, convened in theCapitol at Washington on the fourth of December, 1865. Since theadjournment of the Thirty-eighth Congress, events of the greatestmoment had transpired--events which invested its successor withresponsibilities unparalleled in the history of any precedinglegislative body. 

Abraham Lincoln, sixteenth President of the United States, had beenslain by the hand of the assassin. The crime had filled the land withhorror. The loss of its illustrious victim had veiled the nation inunaffected grief. 

By this great national calamity, Andrew Johnson, who on the fourth ofMarch preceding had taken his seat simply to preside over thedeliberations of the Senate, became President of the United States. 

Meanwhile the civil war, which had been waged with such terribleviolence and bloodshed for four years preceding, came to a suddentermination. The rebel armies, under Generals Lee and Johnston, hadsurrendered to the victorious soldiers of the United States, who intheir generosity had granted to the vanquished terms so mild and easyas to excite universal surprise. 

Jefferson Davis, Alexander H. Stephens, and some other leaders in therebellion, had been captured and held for a time as State prisoners;but, at length, all save the "President of the Confederate States"were released on parole, and finally pardoned by the President. 

The President had issued a proclamation granting amnesty and pardon to"all who directly or indirectly participated in the rebellion, withrestoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves, " oncondition of their subscribing to a prescribed oath. By the provisionsof this proclamation, fourteen classes of persons were excepted fromthe benefits of the amnesty offered therein, and yet "any personbelonging to the excepted classes" was encouraged to make specialapplication to the President for pardon, to whom clemency, it wasdeclared, would "be liberally extended. " In compliance with thisinvitation, multitudes had obtained certificates of pardon from thePresident, some of whom were at once elected by the Southern people, to represent them, as Senators and Representatives, in theThirty-ninth Congress. 

The President had further carried on the work of reconstruction byappointing Provisional Governors for many of the States lately inrebellion. He had recognized and entered into communication with theLegislatures of these States, prescribing certain terms on which theymight secure representation in Congress, and recognition of "all theirrights under the Constitution. "

By these and many other events which had transpired since theexpiration of the preceding Congress, the legislation pertaining toreconstruction had become a work of vast complexity, involvingprinciples more profound, and questions more difficult, than everbefore presented for the consideration and solution of men assembledin a legislative capacity. 

At twelve o'clock on the day designated in the Constitution for themeeting of Congress, the Senate assembled, and was called to order byHon. Lafayette S. Foster, President pro tempore. Senators fromtwenty-five States were in their seats, and answered to their names. Rev. E. H. Gray, Chaplain of the Senate, invoked the blessing ofAlmighty God upon Congress, and prayed "that all their deliberationsand enactments might be such as to secure the Divine approval, andinsure the unanimous acquiescence of the people, and command therespect of the nations of the earth. "

Soon after the preliminary formalities of opening the Senate hadtranspired, Benjamin F. Wade, Senator from Ohio, inaugurated thelabors of the Thirty-ninth Congress, and significantly foreshadowedone of its most memorable acts by introducing "a bill to regulate theelective franchise in the District of Columbia. "

The Senate signified its willingness to enter at once upon active dutyby giving unanimous consent to Mr. Sumner, Senator from Massachusetts, to introduce a number of important bills. The measures thus broughtbefore the Senate were clearly indicative of the line of policy whichCongress would pursue. The bills introduced were designed "to carryout the principles of a republican form of government in the Districtof Columbia;" "to present an oath to maintain a republican form ofgovernment in the rebel States;" "to enforce the amendment to theConstitution abolishing slavery;" "to enforce the guarantee of arepublican form of government in certain States where governments havebeen usurped or overthrown. "

Senator Wilson, of Massachusetts, was not behind his distinguishedcolleague in his readiness to enter upon the most laboriouslegislation of the session. He introduced "a bill to maintain thefreedom of the inhabitants in the States declared in insurrection bythe proclamation of the President on the first of July, 1862. "

Senator Harris, of New York, long known as one of the ablest juristsof his State, and recently an eminent member of the Senate's JudiciaryCommittee, directed attention to his favorite field of legislativelabor by introducing "a bill to reörganize the Judiciary of the UnitedStates. "

While the Senate was thus actively entering upon the labors of thesession, a somewhat different scene was transpiring in the other endof the Capitol. 

Long before the hour for the assembling of Congress, the halls, thegalleries, and corridors of the House of Representatives were throngedwith such crowds as had never before been seen at the opening of asession. The absorbing interest felt throughout the entire country inthe great questions to be decided by Congress had drawn great numbersto the Capitol from every quarter of the Union. Eligible positions, usually held in reserve for certain privileged or official persons, and rarely occupied by a spectator, were now filled to their utmostcapacity. The Diplomatic Gallery was occupied by many unskilled in themysteries of diplomacy; the Reporters' Gallery held many listeners andlookers on who had no connection with newspapers, save as readers. The"floor" was held not only by the "members, " who made the hall vocalwith their greetings and congratulations, but by a great crowd ofpages, office-seekers, office-holders, and unambitious citizens, whothronged over the new carpet and among the desks. 

The hour having arrived for the assembling of Congress, EdwardMcPherson, Clerk of the last House of Representatives, brought downthe gavel on the Speaker's desk, and called the House to order. Themembers found their seats, and the crowd surged back up the aisles, and stood in a compact mass in the rear of the last row of desks. 

Edward McPherson, who at that moment occupied the most prominent andresponsible place in the nation, had come to his position through aseries of steps, which afforded the country an opportunity of knowinghis material and capacity. A graduate of Pennsylvania College in 1848, editor, author, twice a Congressman, and Clerk of the House ofRepresentatives in the Thirty-eighth Congress, he had given evidencethat he was reliable. Having shown himself a thoroughly conscientiousman in the performance of all his public duties, the great interestsof the nation were safe in his hands. 

The country had been greatly concerned to know how the Clerk wouldmake up the Roll of the House, and whether the names of members electfrom the late rebellious States would be called at the opening of thesession. If this should be done, the first step would be gained by theRepresentatives of those States toward holding seats in Congress towhich the majority at the North considered them not entitled. It hadeven been intimated that the color of constitutionality which theywould gain from recognition by the Clerk would be used to justify anassertion of their claims by force. What the Clerk would do, as masterof the rolls and presiding officer of the House, was not long indoubt. 

The Clerk proceeded to call the roll of Representatives elect, whilethe subordinates at the desk took note of the responses. He called thenames of Congressmen from the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and so forth, in a certain order which had beencustomary time immemorial in naming the States. In this orderTennessee had place after Kentucky and before Indiana. When the nameof the last Representative from Kentucky had been called, the decisivemoment arrived. The delegation from Tennessee were on the floor, readyto answer to their names. The Clerk passed over Tennessee and wentdirect to Indiana. As soon as the first member from Indiana hadresponded, there arose a tall, black-haired, dark-faced figure, thatevery body recognized as Horace Maynard, of Tennessee. He shook hiscertificate of election at the Clerk, and began to speak, but thegavel came down with a sharp rap, and a firm, decided voice was heardfrom the desk, "The Clerk declines to have any interruption during thecall of the roll. " The roll-call then proceeded without furtherinterference to the end. When, at last, the Clerk had finished hislist of Representatives and Territorial Delegates, Mr. Maynard oncemore arose. "The Clerk can not be interrupted while ascertainingwhether a quorum is present, " says the presiding officer. The count ofthe assistants having been completed, the Clerk announced, "Onehundred and seventy-six members having answered to their names, aquorum is present. " Mr. Morrill immediately moved that the Houseproceed to the election of Speaker. "Before that motion is put, " saidMr. Maynard, again arising. The Clerk was ready for the emergency, andbefore Mr. Maynard could complete his sentence, he uttered theimperative and conclusive words, "The Clerk can not recognize asentitled to the floor any gentleman whose name is not on this roll. " Abuzz of approbation greeted the discreet ruling of the Clerk. Thedifficult point was passed, and the whole subject of the admission ofSouthern Representatives was handed over intact, to be deliberatelyconsidered after the House should be fully organized for business. 

Mr. Morrill, in moving to proceed to the election of a Speaker, hadforgotten or neglected to demand the previous question, and thus cutoff debate. Mr. James Brooks, most plausible in address, and mostready in talk on the side of the minority, saw the point leftunguarded by his opponents, and resolved to enter. Born in Maine, nowa citizen of New York, and editor of the "Express, " Mr. Brooks was inCongress for the fourth time a champion of what he deemed the rightsof the South, and not in accordance with the prevailing sentiments inhis native and adopted States. 

Mr. Brooks obtained the floor, and desired to amend the motion. Hethought the roll should be completed before proceeding to the electionof Speaker. "I trust, " said he, "that we shall not proceed to anyrevolutionary, any step like that, without at least hearing from thehonorable gentleman from Tennessee. If Tennessee is not in the Union, by what right does the President of the United States usurp his placein the White House when an alien and a foreigner, and not from a Statein the Union?"

At this stage, a man of mark--five times a Representative in Congress, but now twelve years away from the capital and a new member--JohnWentworth, of Chicago--elevated his tall and massive form, and with astentorian voice called Mr. Brooks to order. The Clerk having fairlydecided that gentleman entitled to the floor on the question ofproceeding to the election of a Speaker, Mr. Wentworth sat down, andMr. Brooks in resuming his remarks improved his chance to administerrebuke in a manner which provoked some mirth. "When the honorablegentleman from Illinois is better acquainted with me in this House, "said Mr. Brooks, "he will learn that I always proceed in order, andnever deviate from the rules. " Mr. Brooks then returned to hischampionship of Mr. Maynard: "If he is not a loyal man, and is notfrom a State in this Union, what man, then, is loyal? In the darkestand most doubtful period of the war, when an exile from his own State, I heard his eloquent voice on the banks of the St. Lawrence arousingthe people of my own State to discharge their duties to the country. "

Mr. Brooks joined Virginia with Tennessee, and asked the Clerk to givehis reasons for excluding the names of Representatives from theseStates from the roll. The Clerk replied that he had acted inaccordance with his views of duty, and was willing to let the recordstand; if it was the desire of the House to have his reasons, he wouldgive them. 

"It is not necessary, " said Thaddeus Stevens; "we know all. "

"I know, " replied Mr. Brooks, "that it is known to all in one quarter, but that it is not known to many in other quarters in this House, whythis exclusion has been made. I should know but little, if I had notthe record before me of the resolution adopted by the Republicanmajority of this House, that Tennessee, Louisiana, and Virginia wereto be excluded, and excluded without debate. Why without debate? Aregentlemen afraid to face debate? Are their reasons of such a characterthat they dare not present them to the country, and have to resort tothe extraordinary step of sideway legislation, in a private caucus, toenact a joint resolution to be forced upon this House without debate, confirming that there are no reasons whatever to support this positionexcept their absolute power, and authority, and control over thisHouse? If the gentleman from Pennsylvania would but inform me at whatperiod he intends to press this resolution, I would be happy to beinformed. "

"I propose to present it at the proper time, " was the response of Mr. Stevens, provoking laughter and applause. 

Mr. Brooks replied: "Talleyrand said that language was given to man toconceal ideas, and we all know the gentleman's ingenuity in the use oflanguage. The proper time! When will that be?" Mr. Brooks thenproceeded at some length to answer this question. He supposed theproper time would be as soon as the House was organized, and beforethe President's message could be heard and considered, that the actionof the House might silence the Executive, and nullify the expositionwhich he might make, and become a _quasi_ condemnation of the actionof the President of the United States. 

Mr. Brooks was at length ready to close, and sought to yield the floorto a Democratic member. The Republicans, however, were ready to meetthe emergency, and objected to the floor being yielded in such a wayas would cause delay without furthering the business of organizing theHouse. Points of order were raised, and efforts made to entangle theClerk, but in vain. His rulings were prompt, decisive, and effectual. The moment a Republican fairly held the floor, the previous questionwas moved, the initial contest was over, and the House proceeded toelect a Speaker. 

A stoop-shouldered, studious-looking gentleman, now for the sixthsuccessive term a member of Congress--Justin S. Morrill, ofVermont--arose and nominated Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana. On the otherside of the house, a gentleman from New York portly in his person, nowentering on his second Congressional term--Charles H. Winfield--nominatedJames Brooks, of New York. Four members took their seats behind theClerk to act as tellers. The responses were at length all given, andthe numbers noted. Mr. Morrill, one of the tellers, announced theresult--"Mr. Colfax, one hundred and thirty-nine; Mr. Brooks, thirty-six. " The Clerk formally announced the result, and steppedaside; his work as presiding officer of the Thirty-ninth Congress wasat an end. 

In the place thus made vacant appeared the man but a moment beforeelected to the position by the largest political majority ever givento a Speaker of the House. A well-proportioned figure of medium size, a pleasing countenance often radiant with smiles, a style of movementquick and restless, yet calm and self-possessed, were characteristicof him upon whom all eyes were turned. In the past a printer andeditor in Indiana, now in Congress for the sixth term and electedSpeaker the second time, SCHUYLER COLFAX stood to take the oath ofoffice, and enter upon the discharge of most difficult and responsibleduties. He said:

"Gentlemen of the House of Representatives: The reässembling ofCongress, marking as it does the procession of our national history, is always regarded with interest by the people for whom it is tolegislate. But it is not unsafe to say that millions more than everbefore, North, South, East, and West, are looking to the Congresswhich opens its session to-day with an earnestness and solicitudeunequaled on similar occasions in the past. The Thirty-eighth Congressclosed its constitutional existence with the storm-cloud of war stilllowering over us, and after nine months' absence, Congress resumes itslegislative authority in these council halls, rejoicing that fromshore to shore in our land there is peace. 

"Its duties are as obvious as the sun's pathway in the heavens. Representing in its two branches the States and the people, its firstand highest obligation is to guarantee to every State a republicanform of government. The rebellion having overthrown constitutionalState governments in many States, it is yours to mature and enactlegislation which, with the concurrence of the Executive, shallestablish them anew on such a basis of enduring justice as willguarantee all necessary safeguards to the people, and afford what ourMagna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, proclaims is the chiefobject of government--protection to all men in their inalienablerights. The world should witness, in this great work, the mostinflexible fidelity, the most earnest devotion to the principles ofliberty and humanity, the truest patriotism and the wiseststatesmanship. 

"Heroic men, by hundreds of thousands, have died that the Republicmight live. The emblems of mourning have darkened White House andcabin alike; but the fires of civil war have melted every fetter inthe land, and proved the funeral pyre of slavery. It is for you, Representatives, to do your work as faithfully and as well as did thefearless saviors of the Union in their more dangerous arena of duty. Then we may hope to see the vacant and once abandoned seats around usgradually filling up, until this hall shall contain Representativesfrom every State and district; their hearts devoted to the Union forwhich they are to legislate, jealous of its honor, proud of its glory, watchful of its rights, and hostile to its enemies. And the stars onour banner, that paled when the States they represented arrayedthemselves in arms against the nation, will shine with a morebrilliant light of loyalty than ever before. "

Mr. Colfax having finished his address, took the following oath, whichstood as the most serious obstacle in the way of many elected toCongress from the Southern States:

 "I do solemnly swear that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God!"

The subordinate officers were then elected by resolution, and theHouse of Representatives being organized, was ready to enter upon itswork. 

CHAPTER II. 

LOCATIONS OF THE MEMBERS AND CAST OF THE COMMITTEES. 

 Importance of surroundings -- Members sometimes referred to by their seats -- Senator Andrew Johnson -- Seating of the Senators -- Drawing in the House -- The Senate-chamber as seen from the Gallery -- Distinguished Senators -- The House of Representatives -- Some prominent characters -- Importance of Committees -- Difficulty in their appointment -- Important Senate Committees -- Committees of the House. 

The localities and surroundings of men have an influence on theiractions and opinions. A matter which, to the casual observer, seems sounimportant as the selection and arrangement of the seats of Senatorsand Representatives, has its influence upon the legislation of thecountry. Ever since parties have had an existence, it has beenconsidered of vital moment that those of one political faith in adeliberative body should occupy, as nearly as possible, the samelocality. 

It is sometimes of service to a reader, in attempting to understandthe reported proceedings of Congress, to know the localities of themembers. Each seat has a sort of history of its own, and becomes insome way identified with its occupant. Members are frequently alludedto in connection with the seats they occupy. Sometimes it happensthat, years after a man has gone from Congress, it is convenient andsuggestive to refer to him by his old place in the chamber. As anillustration, Mr. Trumbull, in his speech on the veto of the CivilRights Bill, desiring to quote Andrew Johnson, Senator, against AndrewJohnson, President, referred to "a speech delivered in this body by aSenator occupying, I think, the seat now occupied across the chamberby my friend from Oregon (Mr. Williams). "

A necessary and important part of the adjustment of the machinery, atthe opening of each Congress, is the selection of seats. As theSenators serve for six years, and many of them have been reëlectedmore than once, there are comparatively few changes made at theopening of any Congress. The old members generally choose to retaintheir accustomed seats, and the small number that come in as newSenators choose among the vacant seats, as convenience or caprice maydictate. 

In the House of Representatives the formality of drawing for seats isnecessary. That this may be conveniently and fairly done, at theappointed time all the members retire to the antechambers, leaving theseats all unoccupied. The Clerk draws at random from a receptaclecontaining the names of all the members. As the members are called, one by one, they go in and occupy such seats as they may choose. Theunlucky member whose name last turns up has little room for choice, and must be content to spend his Congressional days far from theSpeaker, on the remote circumference, or to the right or left extreme. 

There are in the Senate-chamber seventy seats, in three tiers ofsemi-circular arrangement. If all the old Southern States wererepresented by Senators on the floor, the seats would be more thanfull. As it was in the Thirty-ninth Congress, there were a number ofvacant desks, all of them situated to the right and left of thepresiding officer. 

In a division of political parties nearly equal, the main aisle fromthe southern entrance would be the separating line. As it was, theRepublican Senators occupied not only the eastern half of the chamber, but many of them were seated on the other side, the comparatively fewDemocratic Senators sitting still further to the west. 

Seated in the gallery, the spectator has a favorable position tosurvey the grand historic scene which passes below. His eye isnaturally first attracted to the chair which is constitutionally theseat of the second dignitary in the land--the Vice-President of theUnited States. That office, however, has no incumbent, since he whotook oath a few months before to perform its duties was called tooccupy a higher place, made vacant by a most atrocious crime. Theevent, however, cost the Senate little loss of dignity, since thechair is filled by a President _pro tempore_ of great ability andexcellence--Lafayette S. Foster, Senator from Connecticut. 

The eye of the spectator naturally seeks out Charles Sumner, who sitsaway on the outer tier of seats, toward the south-east corner of thechamber; and near him, on the left, are seen the late Governors, nowSenators, Morgan and Yates, of New York and Illinois. Immediately infront of them, on the middle tier of seats, is an assemblage of oldand distinguished Senators--Trumbull, Wilson, Wade, and Fessenden. Tothe right of the Vice-President's chair, and in the row of seatsneares this desk, sits the venerable and learned lawyer, ReverdyJohnson, of Maryland. Just in his rear sits the youthful Sprague, ofRhode Island, to whose right is seen Sherman, of Ohio. To the rear ofthese Senators, in the outer segment of seats, sits, or perhapsstands, Garrett Davis, of Kentucky, the most garrulous of old men, continually out of temper with the majority, yet all the time markedby what he calls his "usual courtesy. " To the left of Davis, beyondNesmith, of Oregon, and the other and more silent Senator fromKentucky, sits Saulsbury, of Delaware, unless he should be traversingthe carpeted space in the rear of his seat, like a sentinel of theSenate. 

Far different is the sight presented to the spectator who looks downfrom the galleries of the House of Representatives. The immense areabelow is supplied with two hundred and fifty-three seats, with desksarranged in semi-circular rows, having a point in front of theSpeaker's desk as a focus. On the right of the spectator, as he looksfrom the gallery in front of the Speaker, is the Republican side ofthe House. But this prosperous organization has grown so rapidly sinceits birth, ten years ago, that it has overstepped all old andtraditional party limitations. One-half of the House is not sufficientto afford its representatives adequate accommodations. Republicanmembers have passed over the main aisle, and occupy half of theDemocratic side, having pressed the thin ranks of their opponents tothe extreme left. 

As the spectator scans the House, his eye will rest on ThaddeusStevens, whose brown wig and Roman cast of countenance mark theveteran of the House. He sits in the right place for a leader of theRepublicans, about half-way back from the Speaker's desk, on thediagonal line which divides the western side of the House, where hecan readily catch the Speaker's eye, and be easily heard by all hisfriends. Immediately in his rear is his successor in the chairmanshipof the Committee of Ways and Means--Mr. Morrill, of Vermont. To theright, across the aisle, is Elihu B. Washburn, of Illinois, the oldestmember in continuous service in the House; and to his rear is Henry J. Raymond, of the Times. To the right, and partly in the rear of Mr. Stevens, are a number of noteworthy men: among them are GeneralSchenck, General Garfield, and "Long John" Wentworth, of Chicago. Fararound to the right, and much nearer, the Speaker's desk, is seen aman distinguished in civil and military history, who once occupied theSpeaker's chair--General Banks, of Massachusetts. In physical contrastwith him, sits--in the adjoining desk, a tall, dark, beardedCalifornian--General John Bidwell, a new member of the House. On theopposite side of the House, among the Democrats, is the seat of JohnA. Bingham, who now returns to Congress after an absence of one term, whom his friends describe as the "best-natured and crossest-lookingman in the House. " James Brooks, most plausible and best-natured ofDemocrats, notwithstanding the inroads of the Republicans, sturdilykeeps his seat near the main aisle. His seat, however, he is destinedto lose before many months in favor of a contestant, who will occupythe other side of the chamber. 

In looking down upon so large an assemblage, a large part of which isso distant, the eye of the spectator will weary in the attempt todiscover and recognize individuals, however familiar, amidst the busythrong. 

In preparing for the work of legislation, a matter of more importancethan the arrangement of the seats is the cast of the committees. Mostof the labor of legislative bodies is done by committees. As it isimpossible for any one Congressman to give that minute and particularattention to all the numerous interests demanding legislation, essential to a wise determination as to what bills should bepresented, and how they should be drawn in every case, the varioussubjects are parceled out among those whose opportunities, interests, or inclinations have led them to give particular attention to thematters committed to their charge. The perfection of legislation onparticular subjects depends not more on the wisdom of the entire bodyof legislators than on the good sense of the committees thatdeliberate upon them. Much of the efficiency and success of thelegislative acts of Congress will depend upon the structure of thecommittees that do the laborious work of preparing business for thebody. Tracing the stream of legislative enactment still nearer to itssource, it will be found that the work of a committee takes a decidedtinge from the character of its chairman. 

It consequently becomes a matter of great interest to the country, atthe opening of each Congress, to know who constitute the committees. One of the most arduous and responsible duties of the Speaker of theHouse of Representatives is the selection of committees and fillingtheir chairmanships. Fitness and special adaptation are supposed toconstitute the rule by which choice is made. Many elements, however, enter into the work which are not a part of this philosophy. It isimpossible that the presiding officer should know unerringly who isabsolutely the fittest man for any position, and if he possessed suchsuperhuman knowledge he would still be trammeled by long-establishedrules of precedence and promotion. There is often a regular gradationby which men arrive at positions which is not in direct ratio to theirfitness for their places. 

Notwithstanding all the errors which were unavoidable elements in thework, committees were never better constituted than those of theThirty-ninth Congress. 

The Senate being comparatively small in numbers, and, moreover, byusage, doing most of the details of this business in caucus, theannouncement of the committees in this body was made on Wednesday, thethird day of the session. On the other hand, the size of the House, the large proportion of new and unknown members appearing every term, the number and magnitude of the committees, and the fact that the dutyof appointment devolved upon the Speaker, combined to render thereading out of committeemen in the latter body impossible before thefollowing Monday, one week after the assembling of Congress. 

Of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Charles Sumner wasappointed chairman. This is a very important committee, being thedirect channel of communication between the State Department and theSenate. It being the constitutional duty of the Senate to pass uponall treaties, and to decide upon qualifications of all personsnominated by the Executive to represent the United States in foreigncountries, the labors of this committee are arduous and responsible. The chairmanship of this committee was filled by a Senator of mosteminent fitness and ability. His literary culture, and attainments asa scholar, his general legal ability and familiarity with the laws ofnations, his residence abroad for several years, and his longmembership in the Senate, now of fourteen years' duration, all markedhim as wisely chosen for his important position. 

On account of the immense National debt accumulated in the war, andthe complication of the financial affairs of the nation, the Committeeon Finance has an important bearing upon the interests of the country, unknown until recent years. William P. Fessenden was the Senatorchosen chairman of this committee. His success in his privatebusiness, his appointment, in 1864, as the head of the TreasuryDepartment, and his service in the Senate since 1853 as member of theFinance Committee, and since 1859 as its chairman, all indicated thepropriety of his continuance in this position. Second on the list ofthis committee stood Senator Sherman, of Ohio, who has been describedas "_au fait_ on National Banks, fond of figures, and in love withfinances. "

The Committee on Commerce was constituted with Senator Chandler, ofMichigan, as its chairman. Himself most successful in commercial life, in which he had attained distinction before coming to the Senate, andrepresenting a State having a greater extent of coast and betterfacilities for commerce than any other inland community in the world, Senator Chandler was eminently suitable as head of the Committee onCommerce. His associates being selected from Maine, New York, Vermont, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Oregon, left unrepresented no importantcommercial interest in the nation. 

The Committee on Manufactures was headed by William Sprague, Senatorfrom Rhode Island, a State having the largest capital invested, andmost persons employed in manufactures, in proportion to population, ofany in the Union. Senator Sprague himself having been educated in thecounting-room of a manufacturing establishment, and having control ofone of the largest manufacturing interests in the country, was theappropriate person for such a position. 

The agricultural States of Ohio, Kansas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, andKentucky furnished the members of the Committee on Agriculture, withSenator Sherman at its head. 

Of the Committee on the Judiciary, a Senator has given a description. In a speech delivered in the Senate, December 12, 1865, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, said: "From its very organization the Senate designs tomake that committee its constitutional adviser--not that its opinionsare to be conclusive or controlling on the vote of any member of thisbody, like the opinion of the bench of Judges in the House of Lords;but its members are chosen in consideration of their high professionalability, their long experience, and well-known standing as jurists, inorder that their report upon constitutional questions may be entitledto the highest consideration. And, sir, if you look into theorganization of the Judiciary Committee appointed by the Senate at thepresent session, what is it? There is the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull], for years Judge of the Supreme Court of that State beforehe entered this body, who, for ten years and more, has been afaithful, laborious, distinguished member of that committee, and forthe last four years its chairman. And there sits my honorable friendfrom New York [Mr. Harris], for twenty years before he came here knownand distinguished among the able jurists and judges of that greatState. And there is the honorable Senator from Vermont [Mr. Poland]. He has, it is true, just entered this body, but his reputation as ajurist preceded his coming, and he comes here to fill the place inthis chamber, and is put upon this Judiciary Committee to fill theplace of him of whom I will say, without disparagement to any, that hewas the ablest jurist of us all--the late distinguished Senator fromVermont [Mr. Collamer]. And there is the Senator from New Hampshire[Mr. Clark], from the far East, and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Stewart], from the Pacific coast, and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Hendricks], from the central region, each of whom stands eminent inthe profession in the State which he represents, and all of whom arerecognized here among the ablest jurists of this body. "

Some of the great political questions destined to engage the attentionof the Thirty-ninth Congress invested the _Committee on the Districtof Columbia_ with a national interest, although its duties pertainedchiefly to the local concerns of the immediate neighborhood of thecapital. Its chairman, Mr. Morrill, of Maine, as well as its members, among whom were Wade, Sumner, and Yates, gave it character andability, and afforded assurance that the great questions involvedwould be calmly met and honestly answered. 

[Illustration: Thaddeus Stevens, representative from Pennsylvania. ]

In the House of Representatives, the _Committee of Ways and Means_ hasever been regarded of first importance, and its chairman has beenconsidered leader of the House. Its duties, though of a somewhatmiscellaneous character, relate chiefly to devising the ways and meansof raising revenue. The fact that the Constitution provides that "allbills for raising revenue shall originate in the House ofRepresentatives, " gives the Committee of Ways and Means a sort ofpreeminence over all other committees, whether of the Senate or theHouse. 

The work of the Committee of Ways and Means, as it had existed beforethe Thirty-ninth Congress, was, at the opening of this session, divided among three committees; one retaining the old name and stillremaining the leading committee, a second on _Appropriations_, and athird on _Banking and Currency_. 

Of the new Committee of Ways and Means, Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, was appointed chairman--a Representative of ten years' experience inthe House, who had seen several years of service on the samecommittee. While his abilities and habits, as a student and a thinker, well adapted him for the work of conducting his committee by wisedeliberation to useful measures, yet they were not characteristicsfitting him with readiest tact and most resolute will to "handle theHouse. "

Thaddeus Stevens, the old chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, was appointed the head of the new Committee on Appropriations. Hisvigilance and integrity admirably fitted him for this position, whilehis age made it desirable that he should be relieved of the arduouslabors of the Committee of Ways and Means. Of this committee he hadbeen chairman in the two preceding Congresses, and had filled a largespace in the public eye as leader of the House. His age--over seventyyears--gave him the respect of members the majority of whom were bornafter he graduated at college--the more especially as these advancedyears were not attended with any perceptible abatement of theintellectual vivacity or fire of youth. The evident honesty andpatriotism with which he advanced over prostrate theories and policiestoward the great ends at which he aimed, secured him multitudes offriends, while these same qualities contributed to make him manyenemies. The timid became bold and the resolute were made stronger inseeing the bravery with which he maintained his principles. He had ahabit of going straight to the issue, and a rugged manner ofpresenting his opinions, coupled with a cool assurance, which, one ofhis unfriendly critics once declared, "sometimes rose almost to thesublime. " He alone, of all the members of the Pennsylvania Convention, in 1836, refused to sign the new State Constitution, because it robbedthe negro of his vote. It was a fitting reward that he, in 1866, should stand in the United States House of Representatives, at thehead of a majority of more than one hundred, declaring that theoppressed race should enjoy rights so long denied. 

The Committee on Banking and Currency had as chairman Theodore M. Pomeroy, of New York, who had served four years in Congress. Perhapsits most important member was Samuel Hooper, a Boston merchant andfinancier, who, from the outset of his Congressional career, nowentering upon the third term, had been on the Committee of Ways andMeans, of which he still remained a member, the only Representativeretaining connection with the old committee and holding a place in oneof the new offshoots from it. 

Hiram Price, of Iowa, was appointed chairman of the Committee on thePacific Railroad. The Speaker of the House, in his recent visit to thePacific coast, had been impressed with the importance of this work, and wisely chose as members of this committee Representatives fromPennsylvania, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, Missouri, Kansas, California, and Oregon. 

A committee of much importance to Congress and the country--that ofCommerce--had for its chairman Elihu B. Washburn, of Illinois, who hadbeen in the previous Congress the oldest member in continuous service, and hence was styled "Father of the House. "

The Committee on Elections subsequently lost some of its importance inthe public estimation by the creation of a special committee toconsider subjects of reconstruction and the admission of Southernmembers; yet the interests confided to it demanded ability, which ithad in its chairman, Henry L. Dawes, of Massachusetts, as well as inthe Representatives that constituted its membership. 

The legislation relative to our vast unoccupied domain, having to passthrough the Committee on Public Lands, renders this committee one ofmuch importance. The honesty and ability of its chairman, George W. Julian, of Indiana, together with his long experience in Congress, gave to the recommendations of this committee great character andweight. 

Of the Committee on the Judiciary, James F. Wilson, of Iowa, wasappointed for the second time as chairman. George S. Boutwell, ofMassachusetts, and other Representatives of ability, were appointed asmembers of this committee. Since the duty devolved upon it of takingtestimony in regard to the impeachment of the President, thiscommittee attracted public attention to a degree never known before. 

The interests of manufactures were not likely to suffer in the handsof a committee in which the first place was held by James K. Moorhead, tanner's apprentice, and pioneer of cotton manufactures inPennsylvania, and the second by Oakes Ames, a leading manufacturer ofMassachusetts. 

Agriculture--the most gigantic material interest in America--wasintrusted to a committee having John Bidwell, of California, as itschairman, and members chosen from Iowa, Indiana, Vermont, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York. 

The chairmanship of the Committee on Military Affairs was bestowedupon a major-general of volunteers from Ohio, Robert C. Schenck; whilemembership on the committee was given to a Connecticut colonel, HenryC. Deming; a New Hampshire brigadier-general, Gilman Marston; aKentucky major-general, Lovell H. Rousseau; a New York Colonel, JohnH. Ketchum, and four civilians. 

Nathaniel P. Banks, Henry J. Raymond, and other men of much ability, were appointed on the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

Special committees were appointed on the important subjects ofBankruptcy and the Freedmen. Of the committee on the former, Thomas A. Jenckes was appointed chairman. Thomas D. Eliot, of Massachusetts, wasmade chairman of the Committee on the Freedmen. 

Many other committees were appointed whose labors were arduous andnecessary to our legislation, yet, as they had to do with subjects ofno great general interest, they need not be named. 

There was another committee, however, of great importance whosemembers were not yet designated. The resolution by which it should becreated, was yet to pass through the ordeal of discussion. The processby which this committee was created will be described in the followingchapter. 

CHAPTER III. 

FORMATION OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION. 

 Lack of Excitement -- Cause -- The Resolution -- Dilatory Motions -- Yeas and Nays -- Proposed Amendments in the Senate -- Debate in the Senate -- Mr. Howard -- Mr. Anthony -- Mr. Doolittle -- Mr. Fessenden -- Mr. Saulsbury -- Mr. Hendricks -- Mr. Trumbull -- Mr. Guthrie -- Passage of the Resolution in the Senate -- Yeas and Nays -- Remarks of Mr. Stevens on the Amendments of the Senate -- Concurrence of the House -- The Committee appointed. 

Since it was known throughout the country that members-elect fromTennessee and other States recently in rebellion would appear atWashington on the opening of the Thirty-ninth Congress, and demandrecognition of their right to represent their constituents, all eyeswere turned to observe the action which would be taken on the subject. It was anticipated that the question would be sprung at once, and thata season of storm and excitement would ensue, unparalleled in thepolitical history of the nation. Since the American people areexceedingly fond of excitements and sensations, the expectation oftrouble in Congress drew immense numbers to its galleries on the firstday of the session. Lovers of sensation were doomed to disappointment. Correspondents and reporters for the press, who were prepared tofurnish for the newspapers descriptions of an opening of Congress"dangerously boisterous, " were compelled to describe it as"exceptionally quiet. "

The cause of this unexpected state of things was the fact that themajority had previously come to the wise conclusion that it would notbe well to pass upon the admission of Southern members in open sessionand amid the confusion of organization. As there was so muchdifference of opinion concerning the _status_ of the communitiesrecently in rebellion, and such a variety of considerations must beregarded in reaching wise conclusions, it was deemed advisable thatthe whole subject should be calmly and deliberately investigated by aselect number of able and patriotic men from both Houses of Congress. 

Accordingly, on the first day of the session, soon after the House wasorganized, Mr. Thaddeus Stevens offered the following importantRESOLUTION:

 "_Resolved_, by the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled, that a joint committee of fifteen members shall be appointed, nine of whom shall be members of the House, and six members of the Senate, who shall inquire into the condition of the States which formed the so-called Confederate States of America, and report whether they or any of them are entitled to be represented in either House of Congress, with leave to report at any time by bill or otherwise; and until such report shall have been made, and finally acted upon by Congress, no member shall be received into either House from any of the said so-called Confederate States; and all papers relating to the representation of the said States shall be referred to the said committee without debate. "

To avoid the delay occasioned by a protracted debate, Mr. Stevenscalled the previous question. The minority perceived the impossibilityof preventing the final passage of the resolution, yet deemed it theirduty to put it off as far as possible by their only availablemeans--"dilatory motions. " They first objected to the introduction ofthe resolution, under the rule that unanimous consent must be given topermit a resolution to come before the House without notice given on aprevious day. To meet this difficulty, Mr. Stevens moved to suspendthe rules to enable him to introduce the resolution. On this motionthe yeas and nays were demanded. To suspend the rules under suchcircumstances required a two-thirds' vote, which was given--onehundred and twenty-nine voting for, and thirty-five against themotion. The rules having been suspended, the resolution was regularlybefore the House. A motion was then made to lay the resolution on thetable, and the yeas and nays demanded. Thirty-seven were in favor ofthe motion, and one hundred and thirty-three against it. Before a callfor the previous question is available to cut off debate, it must, bythe rules of the House, be seconded by one-fifth of the memberspresent. This having been done, the vote was taken by yeas and nays onthe concurrent resolution submitted by Mr. Stevens. One hundred andthirty-three voted in favor of the resolution, and thirty-six againstit, while thirteen were reported as "not voting. " As this vote was onan important measure, and is significant as marking with considerableaccuracy the political complexion of the House of Representatives, itshould be given in detail. 

The following are the names of those who voted "Yea:"

 Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blow, Boutwell, Brandegee, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clark, Sidney Clark, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Hill, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Ketchum, Kuykendall, Laflin, Latham, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, Marvin, McClurg, McIndoe, McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Orthe, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Phelps, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, William H. Randall, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Smith, Spaulding, Starr, Stevens, Stilwell, Thayer, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, Welker, Wentworth, Whaley, Williams, James F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge. 

The following members voted "Nay:"

 Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Boyer, Brooks, Chanler, Dawson, Denison, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grider, Aaron Harding, Hogan, James M. Humphrey, Johnson, Kerr, Le Blond, McCullough, Niblack, Nicholson, Noell, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Strouse, Tabor, Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Winfield, and Wright. 

The following are reported as "not voting:"

 Messrs. Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Blaine, Farquhar, Harris, Edwin N. Hubbell, Jones, Marshall, Plants, Rousseau, Sloan, Francis Thomas, Voorhees, and William B. Washburn. 

Thus the resolution passed the House. The immense size of this bodyrequired that, by stringent rule, debate should have limitation, andeven sometimes be cut off altogether by the operation of previousquestion. This arrangement enabled skillful and resolute leaders tocarry through this measure within an hour's time, whereas, in theSenate, a body of less than one-third the size, it passed after adelay of several days, and at the end of a discussion of considerablelength. 

On the day following the passage of the resolution in the House ofRepresentatives, it was read in the Senate. Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, objecting to its being considered on the day of its reception, under aregulation of the Senate it was postponed. 

After the lapse of a week, on Tuesday, December 12, the resolution wastaken up for consideration in the Senate. Mr. Anthony moved to amendthe enacting clause so as to change it from a joint resolution to aconcurrent resolution, since, under its original shape, it wouldrequire the President's approval. 

This amendment having been made, Mr. Anthony moved to further amendthe resolution by striking out all after the word "otherwise. " Thefollowing are the words proposed to be stricken out:

 "And until such report shall have been made and finally acted on by Congress, no member shall be received into either house from any of the said so-called Confederate States; and all papers relating to the representation of said States shall be referred to the said committee without debate. "

Mr. Howard, of Michigan, preferred the resolution as it came from theHouse of Representatives. "It contains within itself a pledge on thepart of the two houses, that until the report of this importantcommittee shall have been presented, we will not reädmit any of therebel States, either by the recognition of their Senators or theirRepresentatives. I think the country expects nothing less than this atour hands. I think that portion of the loyal people of the UnitedStates who have sacrificed so much of blood and treasure in theprosecution of the war, and who secured to us the signal victory whichwe have achieved over the rebellion, have a right to at least thisassurance at our hands, that neither house of Congress will recognizeas States any one of the rebel States until the event to which I havealluded. 

"Sir, what is the present position and _status_ of the rebel States?In my judgment they are simply conquered communities, subjugated bythe arms of the United States; communities in which the right ofself-government does not now exist. Why? Because they have been forthe last four years hostile, to the most surprising unanimity hostile, to the authority of the United States, and have, during that period, been waging a bloody war against that authority. They are simplyconquered communities, and we hold them, as we know well, as the worldknows to-day, not by their own free will and consent as members of theUnion, but solely by virtue of our military power, which is executedto that effect throughout the length and breadth of the rebel States. There is in those States no rightful authority, according to my view, at this time, but that of the United States; and every political act, every governmental act exercised within their limits, must necessarilybe exercised and performed under the sanction and by the will of theconqueror. 

"In short, sir, they are not to-day loyal States; their population arenot willing to-day, if we are rightly informed, to perform peaceably, quietly, and efficiently the duties which pertain to the population ofa State in the Union and of the Union; and for one I can not consentto recognize them, even indirectly, as entitled to be represented ineither house of Congress at this time. The time has not yet come, inmy judgment, to do this. I think that, under present circumstances, itis due to the country that we should give them the assurance that wewill not thus hastily reädmit to seats in the legislative bodies herethe representatives of constituencies who are still hostile to theauthority of the United States. I think that such constituencies arenot entitled to be represented here. "

Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, said: "The amendment was proposed fromno opposition to what I understand to be the purpose of the wordsstricken out. That purpose I understand to be that both houses shallact in concert in any measures which they may take for thereconstruction of the States lately in rebellion. I think that thatobject is eminently desirable, and not only that the two houses shallact in concert, but that Congress shall act in concert with theExecutive; that all branches of the Government shall approach thisgreat question in a spirit of comprehensive patriotism, withconfidence in each other, with a conciliatory temper toward eachother, and that each branch of the Government will be ready, ifnecessary, to concede something of their own views in order to meetthe views of those who are equally charged with the responsibility ofpublic affairs. 

"The words proposed to be stricken out refer to the joint committee ofthe two houses of Congress matters which the Constitution confides toeach house separately. Each house is made, by the Constitution, thejudge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its ownmembers. 

"There is one other reason why I move this amendment, and that is, that the resolution provides that papers shall be referred to thiscommittee without debate. This is contrary to the practice of theSenate. The House of Representatives has found it necessary, for theorderly transaction of its business, to put limitations upon debate, hence the previous question and the hour rule; but the Senate hasalways resisted every proposition of this kind, and submitted to anyinconvenience rather than check free discussion. Senators around me, who were here in the minority, felt that the right of debate was avery precious one to them at that time, and, as it was not taken fromthem, they are not disposed to take it from the minority now. 

"The purpose of all that is stricken out can be effected by theseparate action of the two houses, if they shall so elect. The Houseof Representatives, having passed this resolution by a great vote, will undoubtedly adopt, in a separate resolution, what is herestricken out; and, except so far as relates to the restriction upondebate, I shall, if this amendment be adopted and the resolutionpassed, offer a resolution substantially declaring it to be theopinion of the Senate that, until this committee reports--presumingthat it will report in a reasonable time--no action should be takenupon the representation of the States lately in rebellion. "

Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, said: "All of these great questions, concerning reconstruction, pacification, and restoration of civilgovernment in the Southern States, representation in this body, or anything which concerns of Federal relations with the several States, ought to be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Such has beenthe practice of this Government from the beginning. Great questions ofconstitutional law, questions concerning the relations of the Union tothe States and the States to the Union, and above all, and without anyexception, all questions relating to representation in this body, toits membership, have always been referred to the Judiciary Committee. 

"There is nothing in the history of the Senate, there is nothing inthe constitution of this committee, which would send these greatconstitutional questions for advisement and consideration to any othercommittee than the Committee on the Judiciary. To place theirconsideration in the hands of a committee which is beyond the controlof the Senate, is to distrust ourselves; and to vote to send theirconsideration to any other committee, is equivalent to a vote of wantof confidence in the Judiciary Committee. 

"I object to this resolution, because, upon these great questionswhich are to go to the joint committee, the Senate does not stand uponan equality with the House. This resolution provides that, of thejoint committee of fifteen, nine shall be appointed by the House ofRepresentatives, six only by the Senate, giving to the House portionof the committee a majority of three. We all know that in jointcommittees the members vote, not as the representatives of the twohouses, but _per capita_. The vote of a member of the committee fromthe House weighs precisely the same as the vote of a member of thecommittee from the Senate; so that, to all intents and purposes, if wepass this concurrent resolution, which we can not repeal but by theconcurrence of the other house, we place the consideration of thesegrave questions in the hands of a committee which we can not control, and in which we have no equal voice. 

"Under the Constitution, upon all subjects of legislation but one, thetwo houses are equal and coördinate branches of Congress. That onerelates to their representation in the bodies, to their membership, that which constitutes their existence, which is essential to theirlife and their independence. That is confided to each house, and toeach house alone, to act for itself. It judges for itself upon theelections, returns, and qualifications of its members. It judges, itadmits, it punishes, it expels. It can not share that responsibilitywith any other department of the Government. It can no more share itwith the other house than it can share it with the Supreme Court orwith the President. It is a matter over which its jurisdiction isexclusive of every other jurisdiction. It is a matter in which itsdecisions, right or wrong, are absolute and without appeal. In myopinion the Senate of the United States can not give to a committeebeyond its control this question of the representation in this body, without a loss of its self-respect, its dignity, its independence;without an abandonment of its constitutional duty and a surrender ofits constitutional powers. 

"There is another provision in this resolution, as it stands, that weshall refer every paper to the committee without debate. Yes, sir, theSenate of the United States is to be led like a lamb to the slaughter, bound hand and foot, shorn of its constitutional power, and gagged, dumb; like the sheep brought to the block! Is this the condition towhich the Senator from Michigan proposes to reduce the Senate of theUnited States by insisting upon such a provision as that contained inthe resolution as it comes from the House of Representatives?

"There is a still graver objection to this resolution as it stands. The provision that 'until such report shall have been made and finallyacted on by Congress, no member shall be received into either housefrom any of the so-called Confederate States, ' is a provision which, by law, excludes those eleven States from their representation in theUnion. Sir, pass that resolution as it stands, and let it receive thesignature of the President, and you have accomplished what therebellion could not accomplish, what the sacrifice of half a millionmen could not accomplish in warring against this Government--you havedissolved the Union by act of Congress. Sir, are we prepared tosanction that? I trust never. 

"The Senator from Michigan talks about the _status_ of these States. He may very properly raise the question whether they have anyLegislatures that are capable of electing Senators to this body. Thatis a question of fact to be considered; but as to whether they areStates, and States still within the Union, notwithstanding their civilform of government has been overturned by the rebellion, and theirLegislatures have been disorganized, that they are still States inthis Union is the most sacred truth and the dearest truth to everyAmerican heart, and it will be maintained by the American peopleagainst all opposition, come from what quarter it may. Sir, the flagthat now floats on the top of this Capitol bears thirty-six stars. Every star represents a State in this Union. I ask the Senator fromMichigan, does that flag, as it floats there, speak the nation's truthto our people and to the world, or is it a hypocritical, flauntinglie? That flag has been borne at the head of our conquering legionsthrough the whole South, planted at Vicksburg, planted at Columbia, Savannah, Charleston, Sumter; the same old flag which came down beforethe rebellion at Sumter was raised up again, and it still bore thesame glorious stars; 'not a star obscured, ' not one. 

"These people have been disorganized in their civil governments inconsequence of the war; the rebels overturned civil government in thefirst place, and we entered with our armies and captured therebellion; but did that destroy the States? Not at all. We entered theStates to save them, not to destroy them. The guarantee of theConstitution is a guarantee to the States, and to every one of theStates, and the obligation that rests upon us is to guarantee to SouthCarolina a republican form of government as a State in this Union, andnot as a Territory. No State nor the people of any State had any powerto withdraw from the Union. They could not do it peacefully; theyundertook to do it by arms. We crushed the attempt; we trampled theirarmies under our feet; we captured the rebellion; the States are ours;and we entered them to save, and not to destroy. 

"The Constitution of the United States requires the President, fromtime to time, to give to Congress information of the state of theUnion. Who has any right to presume that the President will notfurnish the information which his constitutional duty requires? He hasat his control all the agencies which are necessary. There is the ableCabinet who surround him, with all the officers appointed under them:the post-masters under the Post-office Department, the treasury agentsunder the Treasury Department, and almost two hundred thousand menunder the control of the War Department, in every part of this'disaffected' region, who can bring to the President information fromevery quarter of all the transactions that exist there. That thePresident of the United States will be sustained, in the views whichhe takes in his message, by the people of this country, is as certainas the revolutions of the earth; and it is our duty to actharmoniously with him, to sustain him, to hold up his hands, tostrengthen his heart, to speak to him words of faith, friendship, andcourage. 

"I know that in all these Southern States there are a thousand thingsto give us pain, sometimes alarm, but notwithstanding the badappearance which from time to time presents itself in the midst ofthat boiling caldron of passion and excitement which the war has leftstill raging there, the real progress which we have made has been mostwonderful. I am one of those who look forward with hope, for I believeGod reigns and rules in the affairs of mankind. I look beyond theexcitement of the hour and all the outbreaking passion which sometimesshows itself in the South, which leads them to make enactments intheir Legislatures which are disgraceful to themselves, and can neverbe sanctioned by the people of this country, and also in spite of allthe excitement of the North, I behold the future full of confidenceand hope. We have only to come up like men, and stand as the realfriends of the country and the Administration, and give to the policyof the President a fair and substantial trial, and all will be well. "

Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, then remarked: "When this resolution wasfirst promulgated in the newspapers as having been agreed upon, Iapproved it because I sympathized with its object and purpose. I didnot examine it particularly; but, looking simply at what it wasdesigned for, it met my approbation simply for this reason: that thisquestion of the reädmission of these Confederate States, so called, and all the questions connected with that subject, I conceived to beof infinite importance, requiring calm and serious consideration, andI believe that the appointment of a committee, carefully selected bythe two houses, to take that subject into consideration, was not onlywise in itself, but an imperative duty resting upon therepresentatives of the people in the two branches of Congress. Formyself, I was not prepared to act upon that question at once. I am notone of those who pin their faith upon any body, however eminent inposition, or conceive themselves obliged, on a question of greatnational importance, to follow out any body's opinions simply becausehe is in a position to make those opinions, perhaps, somewhat moreimperative than any other citizen of the republic. Talk about theAdministration! Sir, we are a part of the Administration, and a veryimportant part of it. I have no idea of abandoning the prerogatives, the rights, and the duties of my position in favor of any body, however that person or any number of persons may desire it. In sayingthis, I am not about to express an opinion upon the subject anyfurther than I have expressed it, and that is, that in questions ofsuch infinite importance as this, involving the integrity and welfareof the republic in all future time, we are solemnly bound, and ourconstituents will demand of us that we examine them with care andfidelity, and act on our own convictions and not upon the convictionsof others. 

"I do not agree with the honorable Senator from Wisconsin, that bypassing a simple resolution raising a committee of our own body, andreferring to it certain papers, if we conclude to do so, we areinfringing upon the rights of any body or making an intimation withregard to any policy that the President may have seen fit to adopt andrecommend to the country. Sir, I trust there are no such things asexclusive friends of the President among us, or gentlemen who desireto be so considered. I have as much respect for the President of theUnited States probably as any man. I acted with him long, and I mightexpress the favorable opinions which I entertain of him here, if theywould not be out of place and in bad taste in this body. That I amdisposed and ready to support him to the best of my ability, as everygentleman around me is, in good faith and with kind feeling in allthat he may desire that is consistent with my views of duty to thecountry, giving him credit for intentions as good as mine, and withability far greater, I am ready to asseverate. 

"But, sir, I do not agree with the doctrine, and I desire to enter mydissent to it now and here, that, because a certain line of policy hasbeen adopted by one branch of the Government, or certain views areentertained by one branch of the Government, therefore, for thatreason alone and none other, that is to be tried, even if it isagainst my judgment; and I do not say that it is or is not. That is aquestion to be considered. I have a great respect, not for myself, perhaps, but for the position which I hold as a Senator of the UnitedStates; and no measure of Government, no policy of the President, orof the head of a department, shall pass me while I am a Senator, if Iknow it, until I have examined it and given my assent to it; not onaccount of the source from which it emanates, but on account of itsown intrinsic merits, and because I believe it will result in the goodof my country. That is my duty as a Senator, and I fear nomisconstruction at home on this subject or any other. 

"Now, therefore, sir, I hope that, laying aside all these matters, which are entirely foreign, we shall act upon this resolution simplyas a matter of business. No one has a right to complain of it that weraise a committee for certain purposes of our own when we judge it tobe necessary. It is an imputation upon nobody; it is an insult tonobody; it is not any thing which any sensible man could ever findfault with, or be disposed to do so. It is our judgment, ourdeliberate judgment, our friendly judgment--a course of action adoptedfrom regard to the good of the community, and that good of thecommunity comprehends the good of every individual in it. "

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, said: "This resolution is veryobjectionable to my mind. It is for the appointment of a committee ofthe two houses to determine and to report upon what? The right ofrepresentation of eleven States in this body. What determines therights of those States to representation here? Is it the views of themembers of the House of Representatives? Do we stand in need of anylight, however bright it may be, that may come from that distinguishedquarter? Are we going to ask them to illuminate us by wisdom, andreport the fact to us whether those States are entitled torepresentation on this floor?

"Mr. President, on the first day of your assemblage after the battleof Manassas, you and they declared, by joint resolution, that theobject for which the war was waged was for no purpose of conquest orsubjugation, but it was to preserve the union of the States, and tomaintain the rights, dignity, and equality of the several Statesunimpaired. While that war was being waged there was no action, eitherof this house or of the House of Representatives, declaring that, whenit was over, the existence of those States should be ignored, or theirright to representation in Congress denied. Throughout the wholecontest the battle-cry was 'the preservation of the Union' and 'theUnion of the States. ' If there was a voice then raised that thoseStates had ceased to have an existence in this body, it was so feebleas to be passed by and totally disregarded. 

"Sir, suppose this committee should report that those States are notentitled to representation in this body, are you bound by theiraction? Is there not a higher law, the supreme law of the land, whichsays if they be States that they shall each be entitled to twoSenators on this floor? And shall a report of a joint committee of thetwo houses override and overrule the fundamental law of the land? Sir, it is dangerous as a precedent, and I protest against it as an humblemember of this body. If they be not States, then the object avowed forwhich the war was waged was false. "

Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, said: "I shall vote against this resolutionbecause it refers to a joint committee a subject which, according tomy judgment, belongs exclusively to the Senate. I know that theresolution no longer provides in express terms that the Senate, pending the continuance of the investigation of this committee, willnot consider the question of credentials from these States, but ineffect it amounts to that. The question is to be referred to thecommittee, and according to usage, and it would seem to be the verypurpose of reference that the body shall not consider the subjectwhile the question is before them. I could not vote for a resolutionthat refers to a joint committee a subject that this body alone candecide. If there are credentials presented here, this body must decidethe question whether the person presenting the credentials is entitledto a seat; and how can this body be influenced by any committee otherthan a committee that it shall raise itself?"

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, then followed: "If I understood theresolution as the Senator from Indiana does, I should certainly votewith him; but I do not so understand it. It is simply a resolutionthat a joint committee be raised to inquire into the condition of theStates which formed the so-called Confederate States of America, andto report whether they or any of them are entitled to be representedin either House of Congress, with leave to report at any time by billor otherwise. It is true, as the Senator says, that after havingraised this committee, the Senate will not be likely to take action inregard to the admission of the Senators from any of these States untilthe committee shall have had a reasonable time at least to act andreport; but it is very desirable that we should have joint action uponthis subject. It would produce a very awkward and undesirable state ofthings if the House of Representatives were to admit members from oneof the lately rebellious States, and the Senate were to refuse toreceive Senators from the same State. 

"We all know that the State organizations in certain States of theUnion have been usurped and overthrown. This is a fact of which wemust officially take notice. There was a time when the Senator fromIndiana, as well as myself, would not have thought of receiving aSenator from the Legislature, or what purported to be the Legislature, of South Carolina. When the people of that State, by theirRepresentatives, undertook to withdraw from the Union and set up anindependent government in that State, in hostility to the Union, whenthe body acting as a Legislature there was avowedly acting againstthis Government, neither he nor I would have received Representativesfrom it. That was a usurpation which, by force of arms, we have putdown. Now the question arises, Has a State government since beeninaugurated there entitled to representation? Is not that a fairsubject of inquiry? Ought we not to be satisfied upon that point? Wedo not make such an inquiry in reference to members that come fromStates which have never undertaken to deny their allegiance to theGovernment of the United States. Having once been admitted as States, they continue so until by some positive act they throw off theirallegiance, and assume an attitude of hostility to the Government, andmake war upon it; and while in that condition, I know we should allobject that they, of course, could not be represented in the Congressof the United States. Now, is it not a proper subject for inquiry toascertain whether they have assumed a position in harmony with theGovernment? and is it not proper that that inquiry should be made thesubject of joint action?"

Mr. Guthrie, of Kentucky, wished to ask the friends of this resolutionif it was contemplated that this committee should take evidence, andreport that evidence to the two houses. "If, " said he, "they are onlyto take what is open to every member of the Senate, the fact that therebellion has been suppressed; the fact that the President of theUnited States has appointed officers to collect the taxes, and, insome instances, judges and other officers; that he has sent thepost-office into all the States; that there have been found enoughindividuals loyal to the country to accept the offices; the fact thatthe President has issued his proclamation to all these States, appointing Provisional Governors; that they have all electedconventions; that the conventions have rescinded the ordinances ofsecession; that most of them have amended their constitutions andabolished slavery, and the Legislatures of some of them have passedthe amendment to the Constitution on the subject of slavery--if theyare only to take these facts, which are open and clear to us all, Ican see no necessity for such a committee. My principal objection tothe resolution is, that this committee can give us no informationwhich we do not now possess, coupled with the fact that the loyalconservative men of the United States, North, South, East, and West, do most earnestly desire that we shall so act that there shall be nolonger a doubt that we are the United States of America, in fullaccord and harmony with each other. 

"I know it has been said that the President had no authority to dothese things. I read the Constitution and the laws of this countrydifferently. He is to 'take care that the laws be faithfullyexecuted;' he is to suppress insurrection and rebellion. The power isput in his hands, and I do not see why, when he marches into a rebelState, he has not authority to put down a rebel government and put upa government that is friendly to the United States, and in accordancewith it. I do not see why he can not do that while the war goes on, and I do not see why he may not do it after the war is over. Thepeople in those States lie at the mercy of the nation. I see nousurpation in what he has done, and if the work is well done, I, forone, am ready to accept it. Are we to send out a commission to seewhat the men whom he has appointed have done? It is said that they arenot to be relied on; that they have been guilty of treason, and wewill not trust them. I hope that no such ideas will prevail here. Ithink this will be a cold shock to the warm feelings of the nation forrestoration, for equal privileges and equal rights. They were ininsurrection. We have suppressed that insurrection. They are nowStates of the Union; and if they come here according to the laws ofthe States, they are entitled, in my judgment, to representation, andwe have no right to refuse it. They are in a minority, and they wouldbe in a minority even if they meant now what they felt when theyraised their arms against the Government; but they do not, and ofthose whom they will send here to represent them, nineteen out oftwenty will be just as loyal as any of us--even some of those who tookup arms against us. 

"I really hope to see some one move a modification of the test oath, so that those who have repented of their disloyalty may not beexcluded, for I really believe that a great many of those who took uparms honestly and wished to carry out the doctrines of secession, andwho have succumbed under the force of our arms and the great force ofpublic opinion, can be trusted a great deal more than those who didnot fight at all. 

"To conclude, gentlemen, I see no great harm in this resolution exceptthe procrastination that will result from it, and that will give usnothing but what we have before us. "

The question being taken, the resolution, as amended, passed theSenate, thirty-three voting in the affirmative and eleven in thenegative. The following are the names of those who voted for theresolution:

 Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Creswell, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Howard, Howe, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Norton, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates. 

The following Senators voted against the resolution:

 Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson, Riddle, Saulsbury, Stockton, and Wright. 

Five Senators were absent: Messrs. Cragin, Davis, Henderson, McDougall, and Nesmith. 

On the day succeeding the adoption of the concurrent resolution by theSenate, the amendments of that body came before the House ofRepresentatives. Mr. Thaddeus Stevens moved that the House concur inthe amendments of the Senate. He said: "The Senate took what to themappeared to be the proper view of their prerogatives, and, though theydid not seem to differ with us as to the main object, the mode ofgetting at it with them was essential, and they very properly put theresolution in the shape they considered right. They have changed theform of the resolution so as not to require the assent of thePresident; and they have also considered that each house shoulddetermine for itself as to the reference of papers, by its own actionat the time. To this I see no objection, and, while moving to concur, I will say now, that when it is in order I shall move, or some othergentleman will move when his State is called, a resolution preciselysimilar, or very nearly similar, to the provision which the Senate hasstricken out, only applicable to the House alone. "

The House then concurred in the amendments of the Senate, so theresolution passed in the following form:

 "_Resolved_, by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That a joint committee of fifteen members shall be appointed, nine of whom shall be members of the House, and six members of the Senate, who shall inquire into the condition of the States which formed the so-called Confederate States of America, and report whether they, or any of them, are entitled to be represented in either house of Congress, with leave to report at any time, by bill or otherwise. "

A resolution subsequently passed the House, "That all papers offeredrelative to the representation of the late so-called ConfederateStates of America, shall be referred to the joint committee of fifteenwithout debate, and no members shall be admitted from either of saidso-called States until Congress shall declare such States entitled torepresentation. "

On the fourteenth of December the Speaker announced the names of thecommittee on the part of the House. They were: Thaddeus Stevens, ElihuB. Washburn, Justin S. Morrill, Henry Grider, John A. Bingham, RoscoeConkling, George S. Boutwell, Henry T. Blow, and Andrew J. Rogers. 

On the twenty-first of December the following gentlemen were announcedas members of the committee on the part of the Senate: William PittFessenden, James W. Grimes, Ira Harris, Jacob M. Howard, ReverdyJohnson, and George H. Williams. 

Thus, before the adjournment of Congress for the holidays, the JointCommittee of Fifteen on Reconstruction had been appointed andempowered to proceed with investigations of the utmost importance tothe country. Hated by the late insurgents of the South, who expectedlittle leniency at its hands; opposed by politicians at the North, whoviewed it as an obstacle in the way of their designs, and evenmisrepresented by the President himself, who stigmatized it as a"Central Directory, " this committee went forward in the discharge ofits important duties, without fear or favor, having a marked influenceupon the doings of Congress and the destinies of the country. 

Meanwhile other important measures were enlisting the attention ofCongress, and were proceeding, by the slow but steady steps ofparliamentary progress, to their final consummation. 

CHAPTER IV. 

SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

 Duty of Congress to legislate for the District of Columbia -- Suffrage Bill introduced into the House -- Speech by Mr. Wilson -- Mr. Boyer -- Mr. Schofield -- Mr. Kelley -- Mr. Rogers -- Mr. Farnsworth -- Mr. Davis -- Mr. Chanler -- Mr. Bingham -- Mr. Grinnell -- Mr. Kasson -- Mr. Julian -- Mr. Thomas -- Mr. Darling -- Mr. Hale's amendment -- Mr. Thayer -- Mr. Van Horn -- Mr. Clarke -- Mr. Johnson -- Mr. Boutwell. 

Whatever differences of opinion may exist as to the authority ofCongress to legislate for States loyal or disloyal, or forTerritories, there is entire unanimity as to the power and duty ofCongress to enact laws for the District of Columbia. Here there is nocountercurrent of "reserved rights" or "State sovereignty" opposed tothe authority of Congress. 

Congress being responsible for the legislation of the District ofColumbia, we naturally look in that direction for an exhibition inminiature of the policy of the national legislature on questionsrelating to the interests of the nation at large. If slaveryflourished and the slave-market existed in the capital, it was becausea majority of the people of the United States were willing. So soon asthe nation became anti-slavery, the "peculiar institution" could nolonger exist in the District of Columbia, although it might stillsurvive in other localities. 

The General Government having become completely disenthralled from thedominion of slavery, and a wide-spread opinion prevailing at the Norththat all loyal men should enjoy the right of suffrage, the members ofthe Thirty-ninth Congress convened with a sense of duty impelling themto begin the great work of political reform at the capital itself. Hence Mr. Wade, as we have seen, on the first day of the session, introduced "Senate bill Number One, " designed, as its title declared, "to regulate the elective franchise in the District of Columbia. " Inthe House of Representatives, on the second day of the session, Mr. Kelley introduced "a bill extending the right of suffrage in theDistrict of Columbia. " This bill was referred to the JudiciaryCommittee. 

In the House of Representatives, on the 18th of December, Mr. Wilson, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a bill extendingthe right of suffrage in the District of Columbia. The bill providedthat from all laws and parts of laws prescribing the qualification ofelectors for any office in the District of Columbia, the word "white"should be stricken out; also, that from and after the passage of thebill, no person should be disqualified from voting at any electionheld in the District of Columbia on account of color; also, that allacts of Congress, and all laws of the State of Maryland in force inthe District of Columbia, and all ordinances of the cities ofWashington and Georgetown inconsistent with the provisions of thebill, should be repealed and annulled. 

This bill was made the special order for Wednesday the 10th ofJanuary. 

Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, whose duty it was, as chairman of the JudiciaryCommittee, to report the bill, opened the discussion by speaking asfollows in favor of the measure:

"Can we excuse ourselves in continuing a limitation on the right ofsuffrage in the capital of the republic that has no justification inreason, justice, or in the principles on which we profess to havebased our entire political system? Upon this question there seems tohave been but little difference of opinion among the men who laid thefoundation and built the superstructure of this Government. In thosedays no limitation was placed upon the enjoyment of the defensiverights of the citizen, including the right of suffrage, on account ofthe color of the skin, except in the State of South Carolina. All ofthe other States participating in the formation of the Government ofthe United States had some limitation, based on sex, or age, orproperty placed upon the right of suffrage; but none of them so farforgot the spirit of our Constitution, the great words of theDeclaration of Independence, or the genius of our institutions, as toinquire into the color of a citizen before allowing him the greatdefensive right of the ballot. It is true, that as the republic movedoff in its grand course among the nations a change occurred in theminds and practices of the people of a majority of the States. Thelove of liberty, because of its own great self, and not because of itsapplication to men of a particular color, lost its sensitive characterand active vitality. The moral sense of the people became dormantthrough the malign influence of that tolerated enemy to all social andgovernmental virtue, human slavery. The public conscience slumbered, its eyes closed with dollars and its ears stuffed with cotton. Whenthese things succeeded the active justice, abounding mercy, and loveof human rights of the earlier days, State after State fell into thedark line of South Carolinian oppression, and adopted heranti-republican limitation of the right of suffrage. A few Statesstood firm and kept their faith, and to-day, when compared with thebruised and peeled and oppression-cursed State of South Carolina, stand forth as shining examples of the great rewards that are pouredupon the heads of the just. Massachusetts and South Carolina, the onetrue, the other false to the faith and ideas of the early life of thenation, should teach us how safe it is to do right, and how dangerousit is to do wrong; how much safer it is to do justice than it is topractice oppression. 

"But, sir, not the States alone fell into this grievous error. TheGeneral Government took its stand upon the side of injustice, andapostatized from the true faith of the nation, by depriving a portionof its citizens of the political right of self-defense, the use of theballot. What good has come to us from this apostasy? Take the historyof the municipal government of this city, and what is there in itspages to make an American feel proud of the results of this departurefrom the principles of true democracy? Is there a worse governed cityin all the republic? Where in all the country was there to be foundsuch evidences of thriftless dependence as in this city before thecold breath of the North swept down here during the rebellion andimparted a little of 'Yankee' vigor to its business and population?Where within the bounds of professed fidelity to the Government wastrue loyalty at a lower ebb, and sympathy with the rebellion at higherflood; freedom more hated, and emancipation more roundly denounced;white troops harder to raise, and black ones more heartily despised;Union victories more coldly received, and reverses productive of lessdespondency, than right among that portion of the voting populationand its adjuncts which control the local elections in this District?With what complaisance the social elements of this capital fosteredthe brood of traitors who rushed hence to the service of the rebellionin 1861! Are these fruits of our errors pleasing?

"I would not be vindictive, I would be just. I do not want tolegislate against the white citizen for the purpose of advancing theinterests of the colored citizen. It is best to guard against all suchlegislation. Let the laws which we pass here be of such purerepublican character, that no person can tell from the reading of themwhat color is stamped upon the faces of the citizens of the UnitedStates. Let us have no class legislation, no class privileges. Let ourlaws be just and uniform in their operation. This is the smooth seaupon which our ship of state may sail; all others are tempestuous anduncertain. 

"And now, Mr. Speaker, who are the persons upon whom this bill willoperate, if we shall place it upon the statute-book of the nation?They are citizens of the United States and residents of the Districtof Columbia. It is true that many of them have black faces, but thatis God's work, and he is wiser than we. Some of them have faces markedby colors uncertain; that is not God's fault. Those who hate black menmost intensely can tell more than all others about this mixture ofcolors. But, mixed or black, they are citizens of this republic, andthey have been, and are to-day, true and loyal to their Government;and this is vastly more than many of their contemners can claim forthemselves. In this District a white skin was not the badge of loyaltywhile a black skin was. No traitor breathed the air of this capitalwearing a black skin. Through all the gradations of traitors, fromWirz to Jeff. Davis, criminal eyes beamed from white faces. Throughall phases of treason, from the bold stroke of Lee upon thebattle-field to the unnatural sympathy of those who lived within thisDistrict, but hated the sight of their country's flag, runs the bloodwhich courses only under a white surface. While white men were fleeingfrom this city to join their fortunes with the rebel cause, thereturning wave brought black faces in their stead. White enemies wentout, black friends came in. As true as truth itself were these poormen to the cause of this imperiled nation. Wherever we have trustedthem, they have been true. Why will we not deal justly by them? Whyshall we not, in this District, where the first effective legislativeblow fell upon slavery, declare that these suffering, patient, devotedfriends of the republic shall have the power to protect their ownrights by their own ballots? Is it because they are ignorant? Sir, weare estopped from that plea. It comes too late. We did not make thisinquiry in regard to the white voter. It is only when we see a manwith a dark skin that we think of ignorance. Let us not stand on thisnow in relation to this District. The fact itself is rapidly passingaway, for there is no other part of the population of the District sodiligent in the acquisition of knowledge as the colored portion. Inspite of the difficulties placed in their pathway to knowledge by thewhite residents, the colored people, adults and children, are pressingsteadily on. 

"Taken as a class, they surely show themselves possessed of enough ofthe leaven of thrift, education, morality, and religion to render itsafe for us to make the experiment of impartial suffrage here. Let usmake the trial. A failure can work no great harm, for to us belongsthe power to make any change which the future may show to benecessary. How can we tell whether success or failure shall be thefruit of a practical application of the principles upon which ourinstitutions rest, unless we put them to a fair test? Give every man afair chance to show how well he can discharge the duties of fullyrecognized citizenship. This is the way to solve the problem, and inno other way can it be determined. That success will attend theexperiment I do not doubt. Others believe the result will prove quitethe reverse. Who is right and who wrong can be ascertained only byputting the two opinions to a practical test. The passage of this billwill furnish this test, and to that end I ask for it the favorableconsideration of this house. "

Mr. Boyer, of Pennsylvania, said: "The design of this bill is toinaugurate here, upon this most conspicuous stage, the first act ofthe new political drama which is intended to culminate in the completepolitical equality of the races and the establishment of negrosuffrage throughout the States. Constitutional amendments with thisview have been already introduced at both ends of the Capitol. Theobject of the leaders of this movement is no longer concealed; and ifthere is any thing in their action to admire, it is the candor, courage, and ability with which they press their cause. The agitationis to go on until the question has been settled by the country, and itmay as well be met here upon the threshold. The monstrous propositionis nothing less than the absorption into the body politic of thenation of a colored population equal to one-sixth of all theinhabitants of the country, as the census reports will show. Fourmillions of the population so to be amalgamated have been just setfree from a servitude, the debasing influences of which have many atime been vividly depicted in the anti-slavery speeches of the verymen who are the most prominent champions of this new politicalgospel. 

"The argument in favor of the American negro's right to vote must bemeasured by his capacity to understand and his ability to use suchright for the promotion of the public good. And that is the verymatter in dispute. But the point does not turn simply upon theinferiority of the negro race; for differences without inferiority mayunfit one race for political or social assimilation with another, andrender their fusion in the same government incompatible with thegeneral welfare. It is, as I conceive, upon these principles that wemust settle the question whether this is a white man's government. 

"The negro has no history of civilization. From the earliest ages ofrecorded time he has ever been a savage or a slave. He has populatedwith teeming millions the vast extent of a continent, but in noportion of it has he ever emerged from barbarism, and in no age orcountry has he ever established any other stable government than adespotism. But he is the most obedient and happy of slaves. 

"Of all men, the negroes themselves are best contented with theirsituation. They are not the prime movers in the agitations whichconcern them. An examination of the tables of the last census willdemonstrate that they do not attach much importance to politicalrights. It will be found that the free people of color are mostnumerous in some of those States which accord them the fewestpolitical privileges; and in those States which have granted them theright of suffrage they seem to see but few attractions. In Marylandthere were, in 1860, 83, 942 free people of color; in Pennsylvania, 56, 949; in Ohio, 36, 673. In neither of those States were they voters. In the State of New York, where they could not vote except under aproperty qualification, which excluded the most of them, they numbered49, 005. But in Massachusetts, where they did then and do now vote, there were but 9, 602. And in all New England, (except Connecticut, where they are not allowed to vote, ) there were at the last census but16, 084. If the American negro, in his desire and capacity forself-government, bore any resemblance to the Caucasian, he woulddistinguish himself by emigration; and, spurning the soil which hadenslaved his race, he would seek equality and independence in a morecongenial clime. But the spirit of independence and hardy manhoodwhich brought the Puritans to the shores of a New England wildernesshe lacks. He will not even go to Massachusetts now, although, insteadof a stormy ocean, his barrier is only an imaginary State line, andinstead of a howling wilderness, he is invited to a land resoundingwith the myriad voices of the industrial arts, and instead of paintedsavages with uplifted tomahawks, he has reason to expect a crowd ofmale and female philanthropists, with beaming faces and outstretchedhands, to welcome him and call him brother. There will he findlecturers to prove his equality, and statesmen to claim him as anassociate ruler in the land. If he cares for these things, or is fitfor them, why does he linger outside upon the very borders of hispolitical Eden? Why does he not enter into it--avoiding Connecticut inhis route--and take possession? The fact is, that the fine politicaltheories set up in his behalf are not in accordance with the naturalinstinct of the negro, which, in this particular, is truer than thephilosophy of his white advisers. 

"They are but superficial thinkers who imagine that the organicdifferences of races can be obliterated by the education of theschools. The qualities of races are perpetuated by descent, and arethe result of historical influences reaching far back into thegenerations of the past. An educated negro is a negro still. Thecunning of the chisel of a Canova could not make an enduringCorinthian column out of a block of anthracite; not because of itscolor, but on account of the structure of its substance. He mightindeed, with infinite pains, give it the form, but he could not impartto it the strength and adhesion of particles required to enable it tobrave the elements, and the temple it was made to support would sooncrumble into ruin. "

Mr. Schofield, of Pennsylvania, said: "The cheapest elevator and bestmoralizer for an oppressed and degraded class is to inspire them withself-respect, with the belief in the possibility of their elevation. Bestow the elective franchise upon the colored population of thisDistrict, and you awaken the hope and ambition of the whole racethroughout the country. Hitherto punishment has been the onlyincentive to sobriety and industry furnished these people by Americanlaw. They were kept too low to feel disgrace, and reward wasinconsistent with the theory of 'service owed. ' Let us try now thepersuasive power of wages and protection. If colored suffrage is stillconsidered an experiment, this District is a good place in which totry it. The same objections do not exist here that are urged on behalfof some of the States. No constitutional question intervenes. Here, atleast, Congress is supreme. The law can be passed, and if it is foundto be bad, a majority can repeal it. The colored race is too small innumbers here to endanger the supremacy of the white people, but largeand loyal enough to counteract to some extent disloyal proclivities. 

"Both the precept and practice of our fathers refute the allegationthat this is exclusively a white man's government. If we can not nowconsent to so slight a recognition, as proposed by this bill, of thegreat underlying theory of our Government, as declared and practicedby our fathers, we are thrown back upon that new and monstrousdoctrine, that the five millions of our colored population, and theirposterity forever, have no rights that a white man is bound torespect. 

"Who pronounces this crushing sentence? The political South. And whatis this South? The Southern master and his Northern minion. Have thesepeople wronged the South? Have they filled it with violence, outrage, and murder? No, sir; they are remarkably gentle, patient, andrespectful. Have they despoiled its wealth or diminished its grandeur?No, sir; their unpaid toil has made the material South. They removedthe forests, cleared the fields, built the dwellings, churches, colleges, cities, highways, railroads, and canals. Why, then, does theSouth hate and persecute these people? Because it has wronged them. Injustice always hates its victim. They are forced to look to theNorth for justice. And what is the North? Not the latitude of frosts;not New England and the States that border on the lakes, theMississippi, and the Pacific. The geographical is lost in thepolitical meaning of the word. The North, in a political sense, meansjustice, liberty, and union, and in the order in which I have namedthem. Jefferson defined this 'North' when he wrote 'all men arecreated equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienablerights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 'This North has no geographical boundaries. It embraces the friends offreedom in every quarter of this great republic. Many of its bravestchampions hail from the geographical South. The North, that did notfear the slave power in its prime, in the day of its politicalstrength and patronage, when it commanded alike the nation and themob, and for the same cruel purpose, will not be intimidated by itsexpiring maledictions around this capital. The North must pass thisbill to vindicate its sincerity and its courage. The slave power hasalready learned that the North is terrible in war, and forgiving andgentle in peace; let its crushed and mangled victims learn from thepassage of this bill, that the justice of the North, unlimited bylines of latitude, unlimited by color or race, slumbereth not. "

Mr. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, followed: "In preparing to begin the workof reconstructing the grandest of human governments, shattered for atime by treason, and in endeavoring to ascertain what we should do, and how and when it should be done, I have consulted no popularimpulse. Groping my way through the murky political atmosphere thathas prevailed for more than thirty years, I have seated myself at thefeet of the fathers of our country, that I might, as far as mysuggestions would go, make them in accordance with the principles ofthose who constructed our Government. I can make no suggestion for theimprovement of the primary principles or general structure of ourGovernment, and I would heal its wounds so carefully that it shoulddescend to posterity unstained and unmarred as it came, under theguidance of Providence, from the hands of those who fashioned it. 

[Illustration: Hon. William D. Kelley, representative fromPennsylvania. ]

"For whom do we ask this legislation? In 1860, according to thecensus, there were fourteen thousand three hundred and sixteen coloredpeople in this District, and we ask this legislation for the maleadults of that number. Are they in rags and filth and degradation? Thetax-books of the District will tell you that they pay taxes on$1, 250, 000 worth of real estate, held within the limits of thisDistrict. On one block, on which they pay taxes on fifty odd thousanddollars, there are but two colored freeholders who have not boughtthemselves out of slavery. One of them has bought as many as eightpersons beside himself--a wife and seven children. Coming to freedomin manhood, mortgaged for a thousand or fifteen hundred dollars as hisown price, he has earned and carried to the Southern robber thousandsof dollars, the price extorted for his wife and children, and is now afreeholder in this District. They have twenty-one churches, which theyown, and which they maintain at an annual cost of over twenty thousanddollars. Their communing members number over forty-three hundred. Intheir twenty-two Sunday-schools they gather on each Sabbath over threethousand American children of African descent. They maintain, sir, tothe infamous disgrace of the American Congress and people, thirty-three day schools, eight of which are maintained exclusively bycontributions from colored citizens of the District; the remainder bytheir contributions, eked out by contributions from the generouspeople of the North; and every dollar of their million and a quarterdollars of real estate and personal property is taxed for schools toeducate the children of the white people of the District, the fathersof many of those children having been absent during the war fightingfor the Confederacy and against our constitutional flag. Who shallreproach them with being poor and ignorant while Congress, which hasexclusive jurisdiction over the District, has, till last year, robbedthem day by day, and barred the door of the public school againstthem? Such reproach does not lie in the white man's mouth; at anyrate, no member of the Democratic party ought to utter it. "

The debate was continued on the day following. Mr. Rogers, of NewJersey, having obtained the floor, addressed the House for two hours. He said: "I hold that there never has been, in the legislation of theUnited States, a bill which involved so momentous consequences as thatnow under consideration, because nowhere in the history of thiscountry, from the time that the first reins of party strife were drawnover the land, was any political party ever known to advocate thedoctrine now advocated by a portion of the party on the other side ofthis House, except within the last year, and during the heat andstrife of battle in the land. The wisdom of ages for more than fivethousand years, and the most enlightened governments that ever existedupon the face of the earth, have handed down to us that grandprinciple that all governments of a civilized character have been andwere intended especially for the benefit of white men and white women, and not for those who belong to the negro, Indian, or mulatto race. 

"It is the high prerogative which the political system of this countryhas given to the masses, rich and poor, to exercise the right ofsuffrage and declare, according to the honest convictions of theirhearts, who shall be the officers to rule over them. There is noprivilege so high, there is no right so grand. It lies at the veryfoundation of this Government; and when you introduce into the socialsystem of this country the right of the African race to compete at theballot-box with the intelligent white citizens of this country, youare disturbing and embittering the whole social system; you rend thebonds of a common political faith; you break up commercial intercourseand the free interchanges of trade, and you degrade the people of thiscountry before the eyes of the envious monarchs of Europe, and fillour history with a record of degradation and shame. 

"Why, then, should we attempt at this time to inflict the system ofnegro suffrage upon those who happen to be so unfortunate as to residein the District of Columbia? This city bears the name of GeorgeWashington, the father of our country; and as it was founded by him, so I wish to hand it down to those who shall come after us, preservingthat principle which declares that the sovereignty is in the whitepeople of the country, for whose benefit this Government wasestablished. I am not ready to believe that those men who have laiddown their lives in the battles of the late revolution, who came fromtheir homes like the torrents that sweep over their native hills andmountains, those men who gathered round the sacred precincts of thetomb of Washington to uphold and perpetuate our proud heritage ofliberty, intended to inflict upon the people of this District, or ofthis land, the monstrous doctrine of political equality of the negrorace with the white at the ballot-box. 

"No such dogma as this was ever announced by the Republican party intheir platforms. When that party met at Chicago, in 1860, they tookpains to enunciate the great principle of self-government whichunderlies the institutions of this country, that each State has theright to control its own domestic policy according to its own judgmentexclusively. I ask the gentlemen on the other side of the house toallow the people of the District of Columbia to exercise the samegreat right of self-government, to determine by their votes at theballot-box whether they desire to inaugurate a system of politicalequality with the colored people of the District. 

"Self-government was the great principle which impelled our fathers toprotest against the powers of King George. That was the principlewhich led the brave army of George Washington across the ice of theriver Delaware. It was the principle which struck a successful blowagainst despotism, and planted liberty upon this continent. It was theprinciple that our fathers claimed the Parliament of England had noright to invade, and drove the colonies into rebellion, because lawswere passed without their consent by a Parliament in which they wereunrepresented. 

"I am here to-day to plead for the white people of this District, uponthe same grounds taken by our fathers to the English Parliament, infavor of self-government and the right of the people of the Districtto be heard upon this all-important question. Although we may have alegal yet we have no moral right, according to the immutableprinciples of justice, and according to the declaration of Holy Writ, that we should do unto others as we would they should do unto us, toinflict upon the people of this District this fiendish doctrine ofpolitical equality with a race that God Almighty never intended shouldstand upon an equal footing with the white man and woman in social orcivil life. "

Mr. Farnsworth, of Illinois, replied: "He [Mr. Rogers] says this is awhite man's Government. 'A white man's Government!' Why, sir, did notthe Congress of the United States pass a law for enrolling into theservice of the United States the black man as well as the white man?Did not we tax the black man as well as the white man? Does he notcontribute his money as well as his blood for the protection anddefense of the Government? O, yes; and now, when the black man comeshobbling home upon his crutches and his wooden limbs, maimed for life, bleeding, crushed, wounded, is he to be told by the people who calledhim into the service of the Government, 'This is a white man'sGovernment; you have nothing to do with it?' Shame! I say, eternalshame upon such a doctrine, and upon the men who advocate it!

"What should be the test as to the right to exercise the electivefranchise? I contend that the only question to be asked should be, 'Ishe a man?' The test should be that of manhood, not that of color, orraces, or class. Is he endowed with conscience and reason? Is he animmortal being? If these questions are answered in the affirmative, hehas the same right to protection that we all enjoy. 

"I am in favor, Mr. Speaker, of making suffrage equal and universal. Ibelieve that greater wisdom is concentrated in the decisions of theballot-box when all citizens of a certain age vote than when only apart vote. If you apply a test founded on education or intelligence, where will you stop? One man will say that the voter should be able toread the Constitution and to write his name; another, that he shouldbe acquainted with the history of the United States; another willdemand a still higher degree of education and intelligence, until youwill establish an aristocracy of wisdom, which is one of the worstkinds of aristocracy. Sir, the men who formed this Government, whobelieved in the rights of human nature, and designed the Government toprotect them, believed, I think, as I do, that when suffrage is madeuniversal, you concentrate in the ballot-box a larger amount of wisdomthan when you exclude a portion of the citizens from the right ofsuffrage. 

"I grant, sir, that many of the colored men whom I would enfranchiseare poor and ignorant, but we have made them so. We have oppressedthem by our laws. We have stolen them from their cradles and consignedthem to helpless slavery. The shackles are now knocked from theirlimbs, and they emerge from the house of bondage and stand forth asmen. Let us now take the next grand step, a step which must commenditself to our judgment and consciences. Let us clothe these men withthe rights of freemen, and give them the power to protect theirrights. 

"Sir, as I have already remarked, we have passed through a fieryordeal. There are but few homes within our land that are not madedesolate by the loss of a son or a father. The widow and the orphanmeet us wherever we turn. The maimed and crippled soldiers of therepublic are every-where seen. Many fair fields have becomecemeteries, where molder the remains of the noble men who have laiddown their lives in defense of our Government. We thought that we hadattained the crisis of our troubles during the progress of the war. But it has been said that the ground-swell of the ocean after thestorm is often more dangerous to the mariner than the tempest itself;and I am inclined to think that this is true in reference to thepresent posture of our national affairs. The storm has apparentlysubsided; but, sir, if we fail to do our duty now as a nation--andthat duty is so simple that a child can understand it; no elaborateargument need enforce it, as no sophistry can conceal it; it is simplyto give to one man the same rights that we give to another--if we failnow in this our plain duty as a nation, then the ship of state is inmore peril from this ground-swell on which we are riding than it wasduring the fierce tempest of war. I trust that this Congress will havethe firmness and wisdom to guide the old ship safely into the haven ofpeace and security. This we can do by fixing our eyes upon the guidingstar of our fathers--the equal rights of all men. "

The discussion was resumed on the following day, January 12, by Mr. Davis, of New York: "Republican government can never rest safely, itcan never rest peacefully, upon any foundation save that of theintelligence and virtue of its subjects. No government, republican inform, was ever prosperous where its people were ignorant and debased. And in this Government, where our fathers paid so much attention tointelligence, to the cultivation of virtue, and to all considerationswhich should surround and guard the foundations of the republic, I amsure that we would do dishonor to their memory by conferring thefranchise upon men unfitted to receive it and unworthy to exercise it. 

"I am perfectly aware that in many States we have given the electivefranchise to the white man who is debased and ignorant. I regret it, because I think that intelligence ought always, either as to the blackor the white man, to be made a test of suffrage. And I glory in theprinciples that have been established by Massachusetts, whichprescribes, not that a man should have money in his purse, but that heshould have in his head a cultivated brain, the ability to read theConstitution of his country, and intelligence to understand his rightsas a citizen. 

"I have never been one of those who believed that the black man had'no rights that the white man was bound to respect. ' I believe thatthe black man in this country is entitled to citizenship, and, byvirtue of that citizenship, is entitled to protection, to the fullpower of this Government, wherever he may be found on the face ofGod's earth; that he has a right to demand that the shield of thisGovernment shall be held over him, and that its powers shall beexerted on his behalf to the same extent as if he were the proudestgrandee of the land. But, sir, citizenship is one thing, and the rightof suffrage is another and a different thing; and in circumstancessuch as exist around us, I am unwilling that general, universal, unrestricted suffrage should be granted to the black men of thisDistrict, as is proposed by the bill under consideration. 

"This whole subject is within the power of Congress, and if we grantrestricted privilege to-day, we can extend the exercise of thatprivilege to-morrow. Public sentiment on this, as on a great manysubjects, is a matter of slow growth and development. That is thehistory of the world. Development upon all great subjects is slow. Thedevelopment of the globe itself has required countless ages before itwas prepared for the introduction of man upon it. And take theprogress of the human race through the historic age--kingdoms andempires, systems of social polity, systems of religion, systems ofscience, have been of no rapid growth, but long centuries intervenedbetween their origin and their overthrow. 

"The Creator placed man on earth, not for the perfection of theindividual, but the race; and therefore he locked up the mysteries ofhis power in the bosom of the earth and in the depths of the heavens, rendering them invisible to mankind. He made man study those secrets, those mysteries, in order that his genius might be cultivated, hisviews enlarged, his intellect matured, so that he might gradually risein the scale of being, and finally attain the full perfection forwhich his Creator designed him. 

"Thus governments, political systems, and political rights have beenthe subjects of study and improvement; changes adapted to the advanceof society are made; experiments are tried, based upon reason and uponjudgment, and those are safest which in their gradual introductionavoid unnecessary violence and convulsion. 

"I submit, sir, whether it be wise for us now so suddenly to alter soentirely the political _status_ of so great a number of the citizensof this District, in conferring upon them indiscriminately the rightof franchise. "

Mr. Chanler, of New York, then addressed the House:

"If, sir, it should ever be your good fortune to visit romantic oldSpain, and to enter the fortress and palace of Alhambra, the fairestmonument of Moorish grandeur and skill, as this Capitol is the prideof American architecture, you may see cut in stone a hand holding akey, surmounting the horse-shoe arch of the main gateway. They are thethree types of strength, speed, and secresy, the boast of a now fallenSaracen race, sons of that sea of sand, the desert, who carried theglory of Islam to furthest Gades. In an evil hour of civil strife andbitter hatred of faction, the Alhambra was betrayed to Spain, 'to feedfat an ancient grudge' between political chiefs. The stronghold of therace, with the palace, the sacred courts of justice, and all the rareworks of art--the gardens of unrivaled splendor--all that was theirown of majesty, strength, and beauty, became the trophies of another. 

"The legend of the Saracen exile tells the story of penitence andshame; and to the last moment of his sad life he sighs in the sultrydesert for the fair home of his ancestors, the gorgeous Alhambra. We, too, are descended from a race of conquerors, who crossed the ocean toestablish the glory of civil and religious liberty, and secure freedomto themselves and their posterity. To-day we are assembled in theAlhambra of America; here is our citadel; here our courts of highestresort; around these halls cluster the proudest associations of theAmerican people; they seem almost sacred in their eyes. No hostilefoot of foreign foe or domestic traitor has trodden them in triumph. Above it floats the flag, the emblem of our Union. That Union is theemblem of the triumphs of the white race. That race rules by theballot. Shall we surrender the ballot, the emblem of our sovereignty;the flag, the emblem of our Union; the Union, the emblem of ournational glory, that they may become the badges of our weakness andthe trophies of another race? Never, sir! never, never!

"Shall the white laborer bow his free, independent, and honored browto the level of the negro just set free from slavery, and, by yieldingthe entrance to this great citadel of our nation, surrender themastery of his race over the Representatives of the people, theSenate, and Supreme Court of this Union? Then, sir, the whiteworkingman's sovereignty would begin to cease to be. 

"Then the most democratic majesty of American liberty would be humbledin the little dust which was lately raised by a brief campaign of twohundred thousand negro troops, and even they led by white officers, while millions of white soldiers held the field in victory by theirown strength and valor. Deny it if ye dare! Sir, I know that this is awhite man's Government, and I believe the white workingman has themanhood which shall preserve it to his latest posterity, pure andstrong, in 'justice tempered with mercy. '

"There may be a legend hereafter telling of the exile ofRepresentatives now on this floor, who, in the hour of party spite, betrayed the dominion of their race here, and the stronghold of theirpeople's liberty, to a servile and foreign race. "

Near the close of Mr. Chanler's remarks, his time having been extendedby courtesy of the House, a forensic passage at arms occurred betweenthat gentleman and Mr. Bingham, of Ohio. Mr. Chanler had said: "I denythat any obligation rests against this Government to do any thing morefor the negro than has already been done. 'On what meats doth thisCæsar feed that he has grown so great?' The white soldier did as muchwork as he, fought as well, died as bravely, suffered in hospitals andin the field as well as he. More than this, the white soldier foughtto liberate the slave, and did do it. The white soldier did more: hefought to preserve institutions and rights endeared to him by everyhallowed association; to overthrow the rebellion of his brotheragainst their Commonwealth and glorious Union; to preserve thesovereignty of the people against the conspiracy of a slavearistocracy, if you will; to maintain the fabric of the Governmentbuilt by their fathers for them and their race in every country ofkindred men who, downtrodden and disenfranchised, look to this countryas a sure refuge. The white soldier fought as a volunteer, as aresponsible, free, and resolute citizen, knowing for what he fought, and generously letting the slave share with him the honor, andbestowing on him more than his share of the profits of the white man'svictory over his equal and the negro's master. 

"We are willing that the negro should have every protection which thelaw can throw around him, but there is a majesty which 'hedges in aking. ' That he ought not to have until he shows himself 'every inch aking. '

 "'Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow. '

 "'Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. '

"We are opposed to thrusting honor on the negro. He is to-day, as arace, as dependent on the power and skill of the white race forprotection as when he was first brought from Africa. Not one act oftheirs has proved the capacity of the black race for self-government. They have neither literature, arts, nor arms, as a race. They havenever, during all the changes of dynasties or revolution of States, risen higher than to be the helpers of the contending parties. Theyhave had the same opportunity as the Indian to secure theirindependence of the white race, but have never systematically evenattempted it on this continent, although they have been educated withequal care, and in the same schools as the white man. Their race hasbeen subject to the white man, and has submitted to the yoke. "

Mr. Bingham. --"I understood the gentleman to say, that the coloredrace had failed to strike for their rights during the late rebellion. I wish to remind the gentleman of the fact, which ought to bring ablush to the cheek of every American citizen, that at the beginning ofthis great struggle, a distinguished general, who, I have no doubt, received the political support of the gentleman himself for thePresidency, and who, then at the head of an American army within theCommonwealth of Virginia, issued his proclamation, as general incommand of the army, notifying the insurgents in arms against theConstitution that, if their slaves rose in revolt for their liberty, he, Major-General McClellan, by the whole force of the army at hiscommand, would crush them with an iron hand. Yet the gentleman gets uphere to-day, after a record of that sort, to cast censure upon thispeople because they did not strike for their liberties against thecombined armies of the republic and the armies of treason!"

Mr. Chanler. --"My honorable friend from Ohio may have made a goodpoint against General McClellan, but he has made none against me. Iadmit that they have made successful insurrections, but my argumentwas not to the effect that the negro race was not capable of thebloodiest deeds. I avoided entering into that question. I assertedthat they had made successful insurrection; that they had held thewhite race under their heel in Hayti and St. Domingo. I would onlysay, with regard to this question of race, that I assert there is norecord of the black race having proved its capacity forself-government as a race; that they have never struck a blow forfreedom, and maintained their freedom and independence as individualswhen free. I appeal to history, and to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham], and I speak as a student of history, and the representativeof a race whose proudest boast is that their capacity forself-government is the only charter of their liberty. I assail norace; I assail no man. I have taken the greatest pains to prove thatthe inalienable rights of the black man are as sacred to me as thoseinalienable rights I have received from my God. If the gentlemanmisunderstood me, I hope he will accept this explanation. If I havenot met his question, I will now yield the floor to him to continue. "

Mr. Bingham. --"And I continue thus far, that the gentleman's speechcertainly has relation to the rights of the black man within theRepublic of the United States. What he may say of their historyoutside of the jurisdiction of this country, it is not very importantfor me to take notice of. But inasmuch as the gentleman has seen fit, in his response to what I said, to refer to the testimony of history, I will bear witness now, by the authority of history, that this veryrace of which he speaks is the only race now existing upon this planetthat ever hewed their way out of the prison-house of chattel slaveryto the sunlight of personal liberty by their own unaided arm. So muchfor that part of the gentleman's argument as relates to history. "

Mr. Chanler. --"Does the gentleman allude now to what has been done inother lands than this? I ask the question because he says he does notlike me to go outside of the jurisdiction of this country, and Itherefore ask him not to go too far into Africa. "

Mr. Bingham. --"I am not in Africa. I refer to what the gentlemanreferred to himself. The insurrection in St. Domingo, I say, standswithout a parallel in the history of any race now living on thisearth, and I challenge the gentleman to refute that statement fromhistory. "

Mr. Chanler. --"That is admitted. "

Mr. Bingham. --"That is admitted. Then I want to know, with a fact likethat conceded, what sort of logic, what sort of force, what sort ofreason, what sort of justice is there in the remark of the gentlemanmade here in a deliberative assembly touching the question of thepersonal enfranchisement of the black race, when he says in thestatement here, right in the face of that fact, that they only areentitled to their liberty who strike the blow for and maintain theirliberty? They did strike the blow in Hayti, and did maintain theirliberty there. They struck such a blow for liberty there as no otherrace of men under like circumstances ever before struck, nowrepresented by any organized community upon this planet; and that thegentleman conceded. And yet this sort of argument is to be adducedhere as reason why these people in the District of Columbia should notreceive the consideration of this House, and be protected in theirrights as men. If the gentleman's remark is not adduced for thatpurpose, then it is altogether foreign to our inquiry. If thegentleman can assign any other reason for the introduction of any suchargument as that, I should like to hear him. "

Mr. Chanler. --"I merely wish to say, in reply to the gentleman, that Ihave read history a little further back. I remember when the Britishfleet and the British army held out a similar threat to the white raceof this country. The proclamation of General McClellan did keep downthe negroes; and this fact proves what I assert--that they are a raceto be kept under. No race capable of achieving its liberty by its ownefforts, would have listened for one moment to the paper threats ofall the generals in the world. The negroes listened to McClellan, andthey shrank behind the bush. They are bushmen in Africa. They are adependent race, unwilling--I assert it from the record ofhistory--unwilling to assert their independence at the risk of theirlives. By their own efforts they never have attained, and I firmlybelieve they never will attain, their liberty. "

Mr. Bingham replied: "I desire to say to the gentleman from New York, when he talks of being a 'student of history, ' that before thetribunal of history the facts are not against me nor against thecolored race. I beg leave to say to the gentleman that these peoplehave borne themselves as bravely, as well, and, I may add, as wiselyduring the great contest just closed, as any people to whom he canpoint, situated in like circumstances, at any period of the world'shistory. They were in chains when the rebellion broke out. Theyconstituted but one-sixth of the whole body of the people. By theterms of the Constitution of the United States, if they lifted a handin the assertion of their right to freedom, they were liable thatmoment to be crushed by the combined power of the Republic, calledout, in pursuance of the very letter of the Constitution, 'to suppressinsurrection. ' Yet, notwithstanding the fact that their whole livinggeneration and the generations before them, running back twocenturies, had been enslaved and brutalized, reduced to the sad andmiserable condition of chattels, which, for want of a better name, wecall a 'slave'--an article of merchandise, a thing of trade, with noacknowledged rights in the present, and denied even the hope of aheritage in the great hereafter--yet, sir, the moment that the word'Liberty' ran along your ranks, the moment that the word'Emancipation' was emblazoned upon your banners, those men who, withtheir ancestors, had been enslaved through five generations, rose asone man to stand by this republic, the last hope of oppressed humanityupon the earth, until they numbered one hundred and seventy-fivethousand arrayed in arms under your banners, doing firmly, unshrinkingly, and defiantly their full share in securing the finalvictory of our arms. I have said this much in defense of men who hadthe manhood, in the hour of the nation's trial, to strike for the flagand the unity of the republic in the tempest of the great conflict, and to stand, where brave men only could stand, on the field of poisedbattle, where the earthquake and the fire led the charge. Sir, I amnot mistaken; and the record of history to which I have referred doesnot, as the gentleman affirms it does, make against me. "

Mr. Grinnell, of Iowa, in reply to Mr. Chanler, said: "He [Mr. Chanler] proceeds to say that they are now, as a class, dependent aswhen they were brought from their native wilds in Africa. Sir, Ibelieve if the gentleman were master of all languages, if he were toattempt to put into a sentence the quintessence, the high-wines, andsublimation of an untruth, he could not have more concentrated hislanguage into a libel. 

"What is the fact, sir? It is perfectly notorious that these fourmillion slaves have not only taken care of themselves amid all theingenious impediments which tyrants could impose, but they have borneupon their stalwart shoulders their masters, millions of people, for acentury. Why, sir, it seemed as impossible for a man to swim theAtlantic with Mount Atlas upon his back, or make harmonious base tothe thunders of heaven. But these men have achieved the world'swonder--coming out from the tortures of slavery, from theprison-house, untainted with dishonor or crime, and out of the warfree, noble, brave, and more worthy of their friends, always true tothe flag. 

"Mr. Speaker, it was in fable that a man pointed a lion to the picturewhich represented the king of the forest prostrate, with a man's footon his neck, and asked what he thought of that. The reply was, 'Lionshave no painters. ' For days the unblushing apostles of sham Democracyhave in this House drawn pictures of the ignorance and degradation ofthe people of color in the District of Columbia. Had the subjects oftheir wanton defamation had a Representative here, there would havebeen a different coloring to the picture, and I would gladly leavetheir defense to the Representatives of classes who have by hundredsdarkened these galleries with their sable countenances, waiting fordays to hear the decisive vote which announces that their freedom isnot a mockery. 

"Who are they to whom this bill proposes to give suffrage? They aretwenty thousand people, owning twenty-one churches, maintainingthirty-three day schools, and paying taxes on more than one and aquarter million dollars' worth of real property. Thirty per cent. Oftheir number were slaves; but the census does not show that there is aDemocratic congressional district in the Union where a largerproportion of its population are found attendant at the churches or inthe schools. 

"They did not follow the example of their pale-faced neighbors, to thenumber of thousands, crossing the line to join in the rebellion; butthree thousand and more of their number went into the Union army, nearly one thousand of whom, as soldiers, fell by disease and battlein the room of those who wept on Northern soil for rebel defeats, andnow decry the manhood and withhold just rights from our true nationaldefenders. 

"In the South they were our friends. In the language of an officialdispatch of Secretary Seward to Minister Adams, 'Every-where theAmerican general receives his most useful and reliable informationfrom the negro, who hails his coming as the harbinger of freedom. ' Notone, but many, of our generals have proclaimed that the negro hasgained by the bayonet the ballot. Admiral Du Pont made mention of thenegro pilot Small, who brought out the steamer Planter, mounting arifled and siege gun, from Charleston, as a prize to us, under thevery guns of the enemy. He brought us the first trophy from FortSumter, and information more valuable than the prize. 

"The celebrated charge of the negro brigade at the conflict at PortHudson has passed into history. The position of the colored people inthe State of Iowa reflects lasting honor on their loyalty, and ourbrave white soldiers would not have me withhold the facts. In theState there were between nine hundred and a thousand people of theirclass subject to military duty. Of that number more than seven hundredentered the army. They put to blush the patriotism of the dominantrace in all Democratic districts. Seven-tenths of a class, without theinducement of commissions as lieutenants, captains, colonels, commissaries, or quartermasters, braving the hate and vengeance ofrebels, rushing into the deadly imminent breach in the darkest hour ofour struggle! Where is the parallel to this? They had no flag; it wasa mockery. There was no pledge of political franchise. Does historycite us to a country where so large a per cent. Of the population wentforth for the national defense? It was not under the Cæsars; andHarold, in the defense of Britain, left behind him a larger per cent. Of the stalwart and the strong. They were more eager to maintain thenational honor than the zealots to rescue Jerusalem from theprofanation of infidels. Not Frank or Hun, nor Huguenot or Roundhead, or mountaineer, Hungarian, or Pole, exceeded their sacrifices madewhen tardily accepted. And this is the race now asking our favor. 

"Mr. Speaker, it will be one of the most joyful occasions of my lifeto give expression to my gratitude by voting a ballot to those whoowed us so little, yet have aided us so faithfully and well. Myconscience approves it as a humane act to the millions who forcenturies have groaned under a terrible realization that on the sideof the oppressor there is power. 

"My purpose is not to leave that heritage of shame to my children, that I forgot those whose blood fed our rivers and crimsoned the sea, and left them outcasts in the 'land of the free, ' preferring whitetreason to sable loyalty. I rather vote death the penalty for thechief traitor, all honor and reward for our soldiery, and a ballot, safety, and justice for the poor. "

On the 15th of January the discussion was continued by Mr. Kasson, ofIowa, who said: "Much has been said in this debate about the gallantryof the negro troops, and about the number of negro troops in the war. Gentlemen have declared here so broadly that we were indebted to themfor our victories as to actually convey the impression that they wonnearly all the victories accomplished by the armies of the UnitedStates, and that to them are we indebted for the salvation of ourcountry and our triumph over the rebellion. 

"I do not agree with them in the extent of their praise, nor thegrounds upon which it has been placed. One gentleman, I think it wasthe gentleman from Pennsylvania, speaks of our debt to the negroes, because they have fought our battles for us. This is a falsificationof the condition of the negroes, and of the history of the country inthis particular. _Those negroes fought for their liberty_, which wasinvolved in the preservation of the Union of the States. They foughtwith us to accomplish the maintenance of the integrity of the country, which carried with it the liberty of their own race; and what wouldhave been said of the negroes if they had not, under suchcircumstances, come forward and united with us? While I yield to thenegro troops the credit of having exhibited bravery and manhood whenput to the test, I do not yield to them the exclusive or chief creditof having won the victory for the Government of my country inpreserving this Union. Let us not, under false assertions of fact, send out to the country and the world from this floor the declarationthat the white race of this country are wanting in the gallantry, thedevotion, and the patriotism which ultimately secured for our armiestriumph, and for our nation perpetuity. 

"Unless intelligence exists in this country, unless schools aresupported and education diffused throughout the country, ourinstitutions are not safe, and either anarchy or despotism will be theresult; and when you propose substantially to introduce at oncethree-quarters of a million or a million of voters, the great mass ofwhom are ignorant and unable to tell when the ballot they vote isright side up, then I protest against such an alarming infusion ofignorance into the ballot-box, into that sacred palladium, as we havealways called it, of the liberties of our country. Let us introducethem by fit degrees. Let them come in as fast as they are fit, andtheir numbers will not shock the character of our institutions. 

"I turn for a single moment to call attention to the philanthropy ofthe proposition. If you introduce all without regard to qualification, without their being able to read or write, and thus to understand thequestions on which they are to decide, what would be the effect? Youwill take away from them the strongest incentive to learn to read orwrite. As a race, it is not accustomed to position and property; ithas no homesteads, it has no stake in the country; and unless they arerequired to be intelligent, and qualified to understand somethingabout our institutions and our laws, and the questions which aresubmitted to the people from time to time, you say then to them, 'Nomatter whether or not you make progress in civilization or education, you shall have all the rights of citizenship, ' and in that way youtake away from them all special motive to education and improvement. On the contrary, if the ability to read and write and understand theballot is made the qualification on the part of these people toexercise the right of voting, the remaining portion will see thatcolor is not exclusion. They would all aspire to the qualificationitself as preliminary to the act. You can submit no motive to thatrace so powerful for the purpose of developing in them the educationand intelligence required. 

"I say, therefore, on whatever grounds you put it, whether you regardthe safety of our institutions or the light of philanthropy, youshould insist on qualifications substantially the same as thoserequired in the State of Massachusetts. And let me say that, takingthe State of Massachusetts as an example of the result of generalintelligence and qualified suffrage, and a careful guardianship of theballot-box, I know of no more illustrious example in this or any othercountry of its importance. 

"With a credit that surpasses that of the United States, with ahistory that is surpassed by no State in the Union, with wealth thatis almost fabulous in proportion to its population, with a prosperityalmost unknown in the history of the world, that State stands beforeus to-day in all her dignity, strength, wealth, intelligence, andvirtue. And if we, by adopting similar principles in other States, cansecure such results, we certainly have an inducement to consider wellhow far this condition is to be attributed to her diffused education, and to the provisions of her constitution. "

At the close of Mr. Kasson's speech, a colloquy occurred between himand his colleague, Mr. Price, eliciting the fact that the question ofnegro suffrage in Iowa had been squarely before the people of thatState in the late fall election, and their vote had been in favor ofthe measure by a majority of sixteen thousand. 

Mr. Julian, of Indiana, having obtained the floor near the hour ofadjournment, made his argument on the following day, when theconsideration of the question was resumed. In answer to the objectionthat negro voting would "lead to the amalgamation of the races orsocial equality, " he said: "On this subject there is nothing left toconjecture, and no ground for alarm. Negro suffrage has been veryextensively tried in this country, and we are able to appeal to facts. Negroes had the right to vote in all the Colonies save one, under theArticles of Confederation. They voted, I believe, generally, on thequestion of adopting the Constitution of the United States. They havevoted ever since in New York and the New England States, saveConnecticut, in which the practice was discontinued in 1818. Theyvoted in New Jersey till the year 1840; in Virginia and Maryland till1833; in Pennsylvania till 1838; in Delaware till 1831; and in NorthCarolina and Tennessee till 1836. I have never understood that in allthis experience of negro suffrage the amalgamation of the races wasthe result. I think these evils are not at all complained of to thisday in New England and New York, where negro suffrage is stillpracticed and recognized by law. "

In answer to the argument that a "war of races" might ensue, Mr. Julian said: "Sir, a war of races in this country can only be theresult of denying to the negro his rights, just as such wars have beencaused elsewhere; and the late troubles in Jamaica should teach us, ifany lesson can, the duty of dealing justly with our millions offreedmen. Like causes must produce like results. English law made theslaves of Jamaica free, but England failed to enact other laws makingtheir freedom a blessing. The old spirit of domination never died inthe slave-master, but was only maddened by emancipation. For thirtyyears no measures were adopted tending to protect or educate thefreedmen. At length, and quite recently, the colonial authoritiespassed a whipping act, then a law of eviction for people of color, then a law imposing heavy impost duties, bearing most grievously uponthem, and finally a law providing for the importation of coolies, thustaxing the freedmen for the very purpose of taking the bread out ofthe mouths of their own children! I believe it turns out, after all, that these outraged people even then did not rise up against the localgovernment; but the white ruffians of the island, goaded on by theirown unchecked rapacity, and availing themselves of the infernalpretext of a black insurrection, perpetrated deeds of rapine andvengeance that find no parallel anywhere, save in the acts of theirnatural allies, the late slave-breeding rebels, against our flag. Sir, is there no warning here against the policy of leaving our freedmen tothe tender mercies of their old masters? Are the white rebels of thisDistrict any better than the Jamaica villains to whom I have referred?The late report of General Schurz gives evidence of some importantfacts which will doubtless apply here. The mass of the white people inthe South, he says, are totally destitute of any national feeling. Thesame bigoted sectionalism that swayed them prior to the war is almostuniversal. Nor have they any feeling of the enormity of treason as acrime. To them it is not odious, as very naturally it would not be, under the policy which foregoes the punishment of traitors, and givesso many of them the chief places of power in the South. And theirhatred of the negro to-day is as intense and scathing and as universalas before the war. I believe it to be even more so. The proposition toeducate him and elevate his condition is every-where met with contemptand scorn. They acknowledge that slavery, as it once existed, isoverthrown; but the continued inferiority and subordination of thecolored race, under some form of vassalage or serfdom, is regarded bythem as certain. Sir, they have no thought of any thing else; and ifthe ballot shall be withheld from the freedmen after the withdrawal ofmilitary power, the most revolting forms of oppression and outragewill be practiced, resulting, at last, in that very war of races whichis foolishly apprehended as the effect of giving the negro hisrights. "

A serious question confronted Mr. Julian, namely: How couldRepresentatives from States which negroes by constitutional provisionare forbidden to enter, be expected, to vote for negro suffrage inthis District? He said: "In seeking to meet this difficulty, severalconsiderations must be borne in mind. In the first place, the demandfor negro suffrage in this District rests not alone upon the generalground of right, of democratic equality, but upon peculiar reasonssuperinduced by the late war, which make it an immediate practicalissue, involving not merely the welfare of the colored man, but thesafety of society itself. If civil government is to be revived at allin the South, it is perfectly self-evident that the loyal men theremust vote; but the loyal men are the negroes and the disloyal are thewhites. To put back the governing power into the hands of the very menwho brought on the war, and exclude those who have proved themselvesthe true friends of the country, would be utterly suicidal andatrociously unjust. Negro suffrage in the districts lately in revoltis thus a present political necessity, dictated by the selfishness ofthe white loyalist as well as his sense of justice. But in our WesternStates, in which the negro population is relatively small, and theprevailing sentiment of their white people is loyal, no such emergencyexists. Society will not be endangered by the temporary postponementof the right of negro suffrage till public opinion shall render itpracticable, and leaving the question of suffrage in the loyal Statesto be decided by them on its merits. If Indiana had gone out of herproper place in the Union, and her loyal population had been found tooweak to force her back into it without negro bullets and bayonets, andif, after thus coercing her again into her constitutional orbit, herloyalists had been found unable to hold her there without negroballots, the question of negro suffrage in Indiana would mostobviously have been very different from the comparatively abstract onewhich it now is. It would, it is true, have involved the question ofjustice to the negroes of Indiana, but the transcendently broader andmore vital question of national salvation also. Let me add further, that should Congress pass this bill, and should the ballot be given tothe negroes in the sunny South generally, those in our Northern andWestern States, many of them at least, may return to their native landand its kindlier skies, and thus quiet the nerves of conservativegentlemen who dread too close a proximity to those whose skins, owingto some providential oversight, were somehow or other not stamped withthe true orthodox luster. 

"The ballot should be given to the negroes as a matter of justice tothem. It should likewise be done as a matter of _retributive_ justiceto the slaveholders and rebels. According to the best information Ican obtain, a very large majority of the white people of this Districthave been rebels in heart during the war, and are rebels in heartstill. That contempt for the negro and scorn of free industry, whichconstituted the mainspring of the rebellion, cropped out here duringthe war in every form that was possible, under the immediate shadow ofthe central Government. Meaner rebels than many in this District couldscarcely have been found in the whole land. They have not beenpunished. The halter has been cheated out of their necks. I am verysorry to say that under what seems to be a false mercy, a misappliedhumanity, the guiltiest rebels of the war have thus far been allowedto escape justice. I have no desire to censure the authorities of theGovernment for this fact. I hope they have some valid excuse for theiraction. This question of punishment I know is a difficult one. Thework of punishment is so vast that it naturally palsies the will toenter upon it. It never can be thoroughly done on this side of thegrave. And were it practicable to punish adequately all the mostactive and guilty rebels, justice would still remain unsatisfied. Farguiltier men than they are the rebel sympathizers of the loyal States, who coolly stood by and encouraged their friends in the South in theirwork of national rapine and murder, and while they were ever ready togo joyfully into the service of the devil, were too cowardly to wearhis uniform and carry his weapons in open day. But Congress in thisDistrict has the power to punish by ballot, and there will be abeautiful, poetic justice in the exercise of this power. Sir, let itbe applied. The rebels here will recoil from it with horror. Some ofthe worst of them, sooner than submit to black suffrage, willdoubtless leave the District, and thus render it an unspeakableservice. To be voted down and governed by Yankee and negro ballotswill seem to them an intolerable grievance, and this is among theexcellent reasons why I am in favor of it. If neither hanging norexile can be extemporized for the entertainment of our domesticrebels, let us require them at least to make their bed on negroballots during the remainder of their unworthy lives. Of course theywill not relish it, but that will be their own peculiar concern. Theirdarling institution must be charged with all the consequences of thewar. They sowed the wind, and, if required, must reap the whirlwind. Retribution follows wrong-doing, and this law must work out itsresults. Rebels and their sympathizers, I am sure, will fare as wellunder negro suffrage as they deserve, and I desire to leave them, asfar as practicable, in the hands of their colored brethren. Nor shallI stop to inquire very critically whether the negroes are _fit_ tovote. As between themselves and white rebels, who deserve to be hung, they are eminently fit. I would not have them more so. Will you, Mr. Speaker, will even my conservative and Democratic friends, beparticularly nice or fastidious in the choice of a man to vote down a_rebel_? Shall we insist upon a perfectly finished gentleman andscholar to vote down the traitors and white trash of this District, who have recently signalized themselves by mobbing unoffendingnegroes? Sir, almost any body, it seems to me, will answer thepurpose. I do not pretend that the colored men here, should they getthe ballot, will not sometimes abuse it. They will undoubtedly makemistakes. In some cases they may even vote on the side of their oldmasters. But I feel pretty safe in saying that even white men, perfectly free from all _suspicion_ of negro blood, have sometimesvoted on the wrong side. Sir, I appeal to gentlemen on this floor, andespecially to my Democratic friends, to say whether they can not callto mind instances in which white men have voted wrong? Indeed, itrather strikes me that white voting, ignorant, depraved, party-ridden, _Democratic_ white voting, had a good deal to do in hatching into lifethe rebellion itself, and that no results of negro voting are likelyto be much worse. "

After an hour occupied by Mr. Randall and Mr. Kelley, both ofPennsylvania, in a colloquial discussion of the history and presentposition of their State upon the subject of negro suffrage, Mr. Thomas, of Maryland, addressed the House. After setting forth theinjustice the passage of the bill would work toward the people of hisState, he said:

"If I believed that the matter of suffrage was the only mode to helpthe negro in his elevation, and the only safeguard to his protection, or guarantee to his rights, I would be willing to give it to him now, subject to proper qualifications and restrictions. But I am honest inmy conviction that, uneducated and ignorant as he is, a slave from hisbirth, and subject to the will and caprice of his master, with none ofthe exalted ideas of what that privilege means, and with but a faintconception of the true position he now occupies, the negro is not theproper subject to have conferred upon him this right. I believe if itis given to him, that in localities where his is the majority vote, parties will spring up, each one bidding higher than the other for hisballot, and that in the end the negro-voting element will becontrolled by a few evil and wicked politicians, and as something tobe bought and sold as freely as an article of merchandise. I amsatisfied of another fact, from my experience of the Southern negro, that if they are ever allowed to vote, the shrewd politician of theSouth, who has been formerly his master, will exert more influenceover his vote than all the exhortations from Beecher or Cheever. 

"It is a notorious fact that the Southern planter maintained hispolitical influence over the poor white man of the South, because thepoor white man was dependent on him for his living and support. Andyou will find, when it is too late, that the Southern planter willmaintain the same political influence over the poor, uneducated, ignorant, and dependent African, even to a greater extent than heformerly exercised over what used to be called the 'poor white trash. '

"Mr. Speaker, let us not, because we have the majority here to-day, pass upon measures which, if we were evenly divided, we would hesitateto pass. Let us not, because we are called radicals, strike at theroots of society, and of the great social and political systems thathave existed for over a century, and attempt to do in a day, withoutany preparation, what, to do well and safely, will require years ofpatience on the part of the freedmen, and earnest, honest exertions toelevate, improve, and educate on our part. Let us look at thisquestion as statesmen, not as partisans. Let us not suppose that theparties of to-day will have a perpetual existence, and that becausethe negro, freed and emancipated by us, would naturally vote on theside of his deliverer to-day, that it is any guarantee, when newparties are formed and a competition arises, that the whole or themajor part of his vote will be cast on the right side. White men andblack men are liable to the same infirmities. 

"Let us rather, sir, rejoice at what has been already done for him, and be content to watch his future. Let us help to elevate and improvehim, not only in education, but in morals. Let us see to it that he isnot only protected in all his rights of person and of property, butlet us insist that the amplest guarantees shall be given. Let us waituntil the great problem the African is now working out has beenfinished, and we find that he thoroughly comprehends and will notabuse what he has got, before we attempt to confer other privileges, which, when once granted, can never be taken from him. Sir, let it notbe forgotten that 'revolutions never go backward;' and if you everconfer this right on the negro, and find it will not work well, thatyou have been too hasty, that you should have waited awhile longer, you will find it is too late, and that, once having possessed it, theywill not part with it except with their lives. "

On the 17th of January the debate was resumed by Mr. Darling, of NewYork, who remarked:

"What public necessity exists for the passage of this bill at thistime? There are no benefits which the colored people of this Districtcould attain by the exercise of the right of suffrage that Congresscould not bestow. Our right and power to legislate for this Districtare unquestioned, and instead of wasting days and weeks over aquestion which is exciting bitter feeling among our own people, had wenot better give our attention to matters of great national interestwhich so urgently demand speedy action on our part? Let us pass lawsfor the education of the people of this District, and fit themultimately to receive the elective franchise; or, if any thing isrequired to satisfy the intense desire, manifested by some gentlemenof this House, to bestow the franchise on those not now possessed ofit, give it to every soldier who served in the Union Army and washonorably discharged, whether old or young, rich or poor, native orforeign-born, white or black, and show to the world that the Americanpeople, recognizing the services and sufferings of their bravedefenders, give them, as a recognition, the highest and best gift ofAmerican citizenship. 

"If I know myself, I know that no unjust or unmanly prejudice warps myjudgment or controls my action on any matter of legislation affectingthe colored race on this continent. I believe in their equality ofrights before the law with the dominant race. I believe in theirrights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And yet Ibelieve that, before we confer upon them the political right ofsuffrage, as contemplated by the bill now under consideration, weshould seek to elevate their social condition, and lift them up fromthe depths of degradation and ignorance in which many of them are leftby the receding waves of the sea of rebellion. There are many strongobjections to conferring upon the colored men of this District thegift of unqualified suffrage without any qualification based onintelligence. The large preponderance which they possess numericallywill inevitably lead to mischievous results. Neither would I entirelydisregard the views of the people of this District, many of whom Iknow to be sound, loyal Union men. 

"But I do not wish to see the Union party take any step in thisdirection from which they may desire hereafter to recede. Let us firstrather seek to enlighten this people, and educate them to know thevalue of the great gift of liberty which has been bestowed upon them;teach them to know that to labor is for their best interests; teachthem to learn and lead virtuous and industrious lives, in order tomake themselves respected, and encourage them to act as becomesfreemen. Then they will vote intelligently, and not be subject to thecontrol of designing men, who would seek to use them for theattainment of their own selfish ends. 

"Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I desire to say that, as no electionwill take place in this District until next June, there can be noreason for special haste in the passage of this bill, and that thereis a proposition before this House, which seems to be received withvery general favor, to create a commission for the government of thiscity; and, in order to give an opportunity to mature a bill for thatpurpose, and have it presented for the consideration of this House, Imove the postponement of the pending bill until the first Tuesday inApril next. "

At a previous stage of the discussion of this measure, Mr. Hale hadproposed amendments to the bill. These amendments were now the subjectunder discussion. They were in the following words:

 "Amend the motion to recommit by adding to that motion an instruction to the committee to amend the bill so as to extend the right of suffrage in the District of Columbia to all persons coming within either of the following classes, irrespective of caste or color, but subject only to existing provisions and qualifications other than those founded on caste or color, to wit:

 "1. Those who can read the Constitution of the United States. 

 "2. Those who are assessed for and pay taxes on real or personal property within the District. 

 "3. Those who have served in and been honorably discharged from the military or naval service of the United States. 

 "And to restrict such right of suffrage to the classes above named, and to include proper provisions excluding from the right of suffrage those who have borne arms against the United States during the late rebellion, or given aid and comfort to said rebellion. "

At the close of Mr. Darling's remarks, in which he had moved topostpone the whole subject, Mr. Hale, of New York, having argued atconsiderable length in favor of the several clauses of his proposedamendment, remarked: "Of the details of my amendment I am by no meanstenacious. I do not expect to bring every member of the House, or evenevery member on this side of the House, to concur in all my own views. I desire simply to put my measures fairly before the House, and toadvocate them as I best can. I am ready and willing to yield my ownpreferences in matters of detail to their better judgment. More thanthat, I shall not follow the example that has been set by some on thisside of the House who oppose my amendment, and who claim to be thepeculiar friends of negro suffrage, by proclaiming that I will adhereto the doctrine of qualified suffrage, and will join our politicalenemies, the Democrats, in voting down every thing else. No, sir; forone, and I say it with entire frankness, I prefer a restricted andqualified suffrage substantially upon the basis that I have proposed. If the voice of this House be otherwise--if the sentiment of thisCongress be that it is more desirable that universal suffrage shouldbe extended to all within this District, then, for one, I say mostdecidedly I am for it rather than to leave the matter in its presentcondition, or to disfranchise the black race in this District. "

Mr. Thayer, of Pennsylvania, spoke as follows: "The propositioncontained in this bill is a new proposition. It contemplates a changewhich will be a landmark in the history of this country--a landmarkwhich, if it is set up, will be regarded by the present and futuregenerations of men who are to inhabit this continent with pride andsatisfaction, or deplored as one of the gravest errors in the historyof legislation. The bill, if it shall become a law, will be, like thelaw to amend the Constitution by abolishing slavery, the deepfoot-print of an advancing civilization, or the conspicuous monumentof an unwise and pernicious experiment. 

"Much has been said, on the part of those who oppose the bill, on thesubject of its injustice to the white inhabitants of the District ofColumbia. Indeed, the argument on that side of the question is, whendivested of all that is immaterial, meretricious, and extravagant, reduced almost entirely to that single position. Abstract this fromthe excited declamation to which you have listened, and what is leftis but the old revolting argument in favor of slavery, and a selfishappeal to prejudice and ignorance. It is insisted that a majority ofthe white voters of the District are opposed to the contemplated law, that they have recently given a public expression of their opinionagainst it, and that for that reason it would be unjust and oppressivein Congress to pass this law. In my judgment, this is a question notconcerning alone the wishes and prejudices of the seven thousandvoters who dwell in this District, but involving, it may be, thehonor, the justice, the good faith, and the magnanimity of the greatnation which makes this little spot the central seat of its empire andits power. 

"If it concerns the honor of the United States that a certain class ofits people, in a portion of its territory subject to its exclusivejurisdiction and control, shall, in consideration of the change whichhas taken place in its condition, and of the fidelity which it hasexhibited in the midst of great and severe trials, be elevatedsomewhat above the political degradation which has hitherto been itslot, shall the United States be prevented from the accomplishment ofthat great and generous purpose by the handful of voters whotemporarily encamp under the shadow of the Capitol? It may be that thedetermination of a question of so much importance as this belongsrather to the people of the United States, through theirRepresentatives in Congress assembled, than to the present qualifiedvoters of this District. Sir, the field of inquiry is much wider thanthe District of Columbia, and the problem to be solved one in whichnot they alone are interested. When Congress determined that the timehad come when slavery should be abolished in this District, and thecapital of the nation should no longer be disgraced by its presence, did it pause in the great work of justice to which it laid its hand tohear from the mayor of Washington, or to inquire whether the masterswould vote for it? It is not difficult to conjecture what the fate ofthat great measure would have been had its adoption or rejectiondepended upon the voters of this District. 

"Shall we be told, sir, that if the Representatives of the people oftwenty-five States are of the opinion that the laws and institutionswhich exist in the seat of Government of the United States ought to bechanged, that they are not to be changed because a majority of thevoters who reside here do not desire that change? Will any man saythat the voices of these seven thousand voters are to outweigh thevoices of all the constituencies of the United States in the capitalof their country? I dismiss this objection, therefore, as totallydestitute of reason or weight. It is based upon a fallacy so feeblethat it is dissipated by the bare touch of the Constitution to it. 

"Whatever is the duty of the United States to do, that is for theirinterest to do. The two great facts written in history by the ironhand of the late war are, first, that the Union is indissoluble, andsecond, that human slavery is here forever abolished. From these twofacts consequences corresponding in importance with the factsthemselves must result: from the former, a more vigorous and powerfulnationality; from the latter, the elevation and improvement of therace liberated by the war from bondage, as well as a higher and moreadvanced civilization in the region where the change has taken place. It is impossible to say that the African race occupies to-day the sameposition in American affairs and counts no more in weight than it didbefore the rebellion. You can not strike the fetters from the limbs offour million men and leave them such as you found them. As wide as isthe interval between a freeman and a slave, so wide is the differencebetween the African race before the rebellion and after the rebellion. You can not keep to its ancient level a race which has been releasedfrom servitude any more than you can keep back the ocean with yourhand after you have thrown down the sea-wall which restrained itsimpatient tides. Freedom is every-where in history the herald ofprogress. It is written in the annals of all nations. It is a law ofthe human race. Ignorance, idleness, brutality--these belong toslavery; they are her natural offspring and allies, and the gentlemanfrom New York, [Mr. Chanler, ] who consumed so much time indemonstrating the comparative inferiority of the black race, answeredhis own argument when he reminded us that the Constitution recognizedthe negro only as a slave, and gave us the strongest reason why weshould now begin to recognize him as a freeman. Sir, I do not doubtthat the negro race is inferior to our own. That is not the question. You do not advance an inch in the argument after you have proved thatpremise of your case. You must show that they are not only inferior, but that they are so ignorant and degraded that they can not be safelyintrusted with the smallest conceivable part of political power andresponsibility, and that this is the case not on the plantations ofAlabama and Mississippi, but here in the District of Columbia. Nay, you must not only prove that this is the general character of thispopulation here, but that this condition is so universal andunexceptional that you can not allow them to take this first step infreedom, although it may be hedged about with qualifications andconditions; for which of you who have opposed this measure on theground of race has proposed to give the benefit of it to such as maybe found worthy? Not one of you. And this shows that your objection isfounded really on a prejudice, although it assumes the dignity andproportions of an argument. The real question, sir, is, can we affordto be just--nay, if you please, generous--to a race whose shame hasbeen washed out in the consuming fires of war, and which now standserect and equal before the law with our own? Shall we give hope andencouragement to that race beginning, as it does now for the firsttime, its career of freedom, by erecting here in the capital of therepublic a banner inscribed with the sacred legend of the elder days, 'All men are born free and equal?' or shall we unfurl in its steadthat other banner, with a strange device, around which the dissolvingremnants of the Democratic party in this hall are called upon torally, inscribed with no great sentiment of justice or generosity, butbearing upon its folds the miserable appeal of the demagogue, 'This isa white man's Government?' When you inaugurate your newly-discoveredpolitical principle, do not forget to invite the colored troops; beatthe assembly; call out the remnants of the one hundred and eightythousand men who marched with steady step through the flames andcarnage of war, and many of whom bear upon their bodies the honorablescars received in that unparalleled struggle and in your defense, andas you send your banner down the line, say to them, 'This is thereward of a generous country for the wounds you have received and thesufferings you have endured. '

"Shall we follow the great law to which I have referred--the law thatliberty is progress--and conform our policy to the spirit of thatgreat law? or shall we, governed by unreasonable and selfishprejudices, initiate a policy which will make this race our hereditaryenemy, a mine beneath instead of a buttress to the edifice which youare endeavoring to repair? Sir, I do not hesitate to say that, in myopinion, it were better to follow where conscience and justice point, leaving results to a higher Power, than to shrink from an issue whichit is the clear intention of Providence we shall face, or to be drivenfrom our true course by the chimeras which the excited imaginations ofpolitical partisans have conjured up, or by the misty ghosts oflong-buried errors. "

Mr. Van Horn, of New York, while willing to accept the bill asoriginally presented, preferred it as modified by Mr. Hale'samendments. In his speech he charged those who had opposed the bill aslaboring in the interest of slavery. 

"They seem to have forgotten, " he said, "in their advocacy of slavery, that we have passed through a fierce war, begun by slavery, wagedagainst the Government by slavery, and solely in its interest to morethoroughly establish itself upon the Western Continent, and crush outthe best interests of freedom and humanity; and that this war, guidedon our part by the omnipotent arm of the Invisible, made bare in ourbehalf, has resulted in a most complete overthrow of this great wrong;and by the almost omnipotent voice of the republic, as now expressedin its fundamental law, it has no right to live, much less entitled tothe right of burial, and should have no mourners in the land or goingabout the streets. Such speeches as those of the gentlemen from NewJersey, [Mr. Rogers, ] and from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Boyer, ] and mycolleague and friend, [Mr. Chanler, ] who represents, with myself, inpart, the Empire State, carry us back to the days and scenes beforethe war, when slavery ruled supreme, not only throughout the land, byand through its hold upon power, which the people in an evil hour hadgiven it, but here in these halls of legislation, where liberty andits high and noble ends ought to have been secured by just and equallaws, and the great and paramount object of our system of governmentcarried out and fully developed. They seem to forget that liberty andgood government have been on trial during these five years last pastof war and blood, and that they have succeeded in the mighty struggle. They forget that Providence, in a thousand ways, during this fierceconflict, has given us evidence of his favor, and led us out of theland of bondage into a purer and higher state of freedom, whereslavery, as an institution among us, is no more. Why do they labor solong and so ardently to resurrect again into life this foul andloathsome thing? Why can not they forget their former love andattachments in this direction, and no longer cling with such undyinggrasp to this dead carcass, which, by its corruptions and rottenness, has well nigh heretofore poisoned them to the death? Why not awake tothe new order of things, and accept the results which God has workedout in our recent struggle, and not raise the weak arm of flesh torender null and void what has thus been done, and thus attempt to turnback the flow of life which is overspreading all, and penetratingevery part of the body politic with its noble purposes and exaltedhopes?"

Thursday, January 18, was the last day of the discussion of thisimportant measure in the House of Representatives. When the subjectwas in order, Mr. Clarke, of Kansas, "as the only Representative uponthe floor of a State whose whole history had been a continual protestagainst political injustice and wrong, " after having advocated thebill by arguments drawn from the history of the country and the recordof the negro race, remarked as follows: "This cry of poverty andignorance is not new. I remember that those who first followed the Sonof man, the Savior of the world, were not the learned rabbis, not theenlightened scholar, not the rich man or the pious Pharisee. They werethe poor and needy, the peasant and the fisherman. I remember, also, that the more learned the slaveholder, the greater the rebel. Iremember that no black skin covered so false a heart or misdirectedbrain, that when the radiant banner of our nationality was near orbefore him, he did not understand its meaning, and remained loyal toits demands. The man capable of taking care of himself, of wife andchildren, and, in addition to his unrequited toil, to hold up hisoppressor, must have intelligence enough, in the long run, to wieldthe highest means of protection we can give. 

"But, sir, it is for our benefit, as well as for the benefit of theproscribed class, that I vote for and support impartial manhoodsuffrage in this District. We can not afford, as a nation, to keep anyclass ignorant or oppress the weak. We must establish here republicangovernment. That which wrongs one man, in the end recoils on the many. Sir, if we accept, as the Republican party of the Union, our trueposition and our duty, we shall nobly win. If we are false andrecreant, we shall miserably fail. Let us have faith in the people andthe grand logic of a mighty revolution, and dare to do right. Classlegislation will be the inevitable result of class power; and whatwould follow, so far as the colored race are concerned, let the recenttragedy of Jamaica answer. 

[Illustration: Hon. Sidney Clarke. ]

"The principles involved in the arguments put forth on the other sideof the House are not alone destructive to the rights of thedefenseless, intelligent, and patriotic colored men of this District, but they militate with a double effect and stronger purpose againstthe poor whites of the North and of the South, against the German, theIrishman, and the poor and oppressed of every race, who come to ourshores to escape the oppression of despotic governments, and to seekthe protection of a Government the true theory of which reposes inevery citizen a portion of its sovereign power. Against this attemptto deny or abridge in any way the rights of the weak, the poor, andthe defenseless, and to transfer the governing power of the nation tothe favored classes, to the rich and the powerful, and thus change thevery purpose and principles of our republican system, I protest in thename of constitutional freedom, and in behalf of equal rights andequal laws. 

"I protest against this stealthy innovation upon popular rights, inthe name of the toiling millions of the land; and I warn the House andthe country of the untold mischief and disaster which must come todistract and divide the republic in the future, if we follow thepernicious and destructive doctrines founded upon either theprejudices of class, caste, wealth, or power. I protest in the name ofa constituency whose early history was a sublime and persistentstruggle against the prejudices of pampered and arrogant ruffianism athome, and the worse than ruffian spirit of the Administrations ofPierce and Buchanan, and the Democratic traitors who at that timeconstituted a majority of this House, and were engaged in preparingthe nation for its harvest of blood. We must go back to the spirit andpurposes of the founders of our Government. We must accept the grandlogic of the mighty revolution from which we are now emerging. We mustrepudiate, now and forever, these assaults upon the masses of thepeople and upon the fundamental principles of popular rights. I acceptin their full force and effect the principles of the Declaration ofIndependence, and by constitutional amendment and law of Congress Iwould stamp them with irrevocable power upon the political escutcheonof the new and regenerated republic. I would avoid the mistakes of thepast, and I would spurn that cringing timidity by which, through allhistory, liberty has been sacrificed and humanity betrayed. 

"Sir, I hesitate not to say that if we do not gather up, in theprocess of national reconstruction, the enduring safeguards of futurepeace, we shall be false to our history and unmindful of the grandresponsibilities now devolving upon us. The establishment of impartialsuffrage in this District will be a fitting commencement of the work. It will be hailed by the friends of freedom every-where as a return toa policy of national justice too long delayed. In behalf of the StateI have the honor to represent, and upon whose soil this contest for alarger liberty and a nobler nationality was first submitted to thearbitrament of arms, I hail this measure with feelings of satisfactionand pride. It is the legitimate result of the courage and fidelity ofthe hardy pioneers of Kansas in 1856, who dared to face theblandishment of power and the arrogance and brutality of slavery whencompromisers trembled, and Northern sycophants of an oligarchicdespotism, then, as now, scowled and fretted at the progress of freeprinciples. "

Mr. Johnson, of Pennsylvania, after having adduced a variety ofarguments against the bill, finally said: "Sir, we hear a tremendousoutcry in this House in favor of popular government and about theguarantee of the Constitution of the United States to the severalStates that they shall have republican governments. How are the poorpeople of this District to have a republican form of government ifgentlemen who have come to this city, perhaps for the first time intheir lives, undertake to control them as absolutely and arbitrarilyas Louis Napoleon controls France or Maximilian Mexico? Gentlemen ask, What right have they to hold an election and express their sentiments?What right have they to hold such an election? Surely they ought tohave the right to petition, for their rulers are generally arbitraryenough. 

"Mr. Speaker, it seems to me ridiculously inconsistent for gentlemenupon this floor to prate so much about a republican form ofgovernment, and rise here and offer resolution after resolution aboutthe Monroe doctrine and the downtrodden Mexicans, while they forceupon the people of this District a government not of their own choice, because the voter in a popular government is a governor himself. But, sir, this is only part of a grand plan. Gentlemen who dare not gobefore their white constituents and urge that a negro shall have avote in their own States, come here and undertake to thrust negrosuffrage upon the people here. Gentlemen whose States have repudiatedthe idea of giving the elective franchise to negroes, come here andare willing to give the suffrage to negroes here, as if they intendedto make this little District of Columbia a sort of negro Eden; as ifthey intended to say to the negroes of Virginia and Maryland andDelaware, 'You have no right to vote in these States, but if you willgo to Washington you can vote there. ' I imagine I can see themswarming up from different sections of the country to this city andinquiring where the polls are. Agents, men and women, such as thereare at work in this city, will no doubt be at work in these States, telling them to pack their knapsacks and march to Washington, for onsuch a day there is to be an election, and there they will have theglorious privilege of the white man. Sir, all this doctrine isdestructive of the American system of government, which recognizes theright of no man to participate in it unless he is a citizen, whichsecures to the citizen his voice in the control and management of theGovernment, and prevents those not citizens from standing in the wayof the exercise of his just rights. 

"This Government does not belong to any race so that it can bedivested or disposed of. The present age have no right to terminateit. It is ours to enjoy and administer, and to transmit to posterityunimpaired as we received it from the fathers. "

Mr. Boutwell, of Massachusetts, then addressed the House: "When weemancipated the black people, we not only relieved ourselves from theinstitution of slavery, we not only conferred upon them freedom, butwe did more, we recognized their manhood, which, by the oldConstitution and the general policy and usage of the country, hadbeen, from the organization of the Government until the EmancipationProclamation, denied to all of the enslaved colored people. As aconsequence of the recognition of their manhood, certain resultsfollow in accordance with the principles of this Government, and theywho believe in this Government are, by necessity, forced to acceptthose results as a consequence of the policy of emancipation whichthey have inaugurated and for which they are responsible. 

"But to say now, having given freedom to them, that they shall notenjoy the essential rights and privileges of men, is to abandon theprinciple of the proclamation of emancipation, and tacitly to admitthat the whole emancipation policy is erroneous. 

"It has been suggested that it is premature to demand immediate actionupon the question of negro suffrage in the District of Columbia. I amnot personally responsible for the presence of the bill at the presenttime, but I am responsible for the observation that there never hasbeen a day during a session of Congress since the EmancipationProclamation, ay, since the negroes of this District were emancipated, when it was not the duty of the Government, which, by theConstitution, is intrusted with exclusive jurisdiction in thisDistrict, to confer upon the men of this District, without distinctionof race or color, the rights and privileges of men. And, therefore, there can be nothing premature in this measure, and I can not see howany one who supports the Emancipation Proclamation, which is arecognition of the manhood of the whole colored people of thiscountry, can hesitate as to his duty; and while I make no suggestionas to the duty of other men, I have a clear perception of my own. And, first, we are bound to treat the colored people of this District, inregard to the matter of voting, precisely as we treat white people. And I do not hesitate to express the opinion that if the question hereto-day were whether any qualification should be imposed upon whitevoters in this District, if they alone were concerned, this Housewould not, ay, not ten men upon this floor would, consider whether anyqualifications should be imposed or not. 

"Reading and writing, or reading, as a qualification, is demanded, andan appeal is made to the example of Massachusetts. I wish gentlemenwho now appeal to Massachusetts would often appeal to her in othermatters where I can more conscientiously approve her policy. But it isa different proposition in Massachusetts as a practical measure. When, ten years ago, this qualification was imposed upon the people ofMassachusetts, it excluded no person who was then a voter. For twocenturies we have had in Massachusetts a system of public instructionopen to the children of the whole people without money and withoutprice. Therefore all the people there had had opportunities foreducation. Now, why should the example of such a state be quoted tojustify refusing suffrage to men who have been denied the privilege ofeducation, and whom it has been a crime to teach? Is there nodifference?

"We are to answer for our treatment of the colored people of thiscountry, and it will prove in the end impracticable to secure to menof color civil rights unless the persons who claim those rights arefortified by the political right of voting. With the right of voting, every thing that a man ought to have or enjoy of civil rights comes tohim. Without the right to vote, he is secure in nothing. I can notconsent, after all the guards and safeguards which may be prepared forthe defense of the colored men in the enjoyment of their rights--I cannot consent that they shall be deprived of the right to protectthemselves. One hundred and eighty-six thousand of them have been inthe army of the United States. They have stood in the place of oursons and brothers and friends. They have fallen in defense of thecountry. They have earned the right to share in the Government; and ifyou deny them the elective franchise, I know not how they are to beprotected. Otherwise you furnish the protection which is given to thelamb when he is commended to the wolf. 

"There is an ancient history that a sparrow pursued by a hawk tookrefuge in the chief assembly of Athens, in the bosom of a member ofthat illustrious body, and that the senator in anger hurled itviolently from him. It fell to the ground dead, and such was thehorror and indignation of that ancient but not Christianized body--menliving in the light of nature, of reason--that they immediatelyexpelled the brutal Areopagite from his seat, and from the associationof humane legislators. 

"What will be said of us, not by Christian, but by heathen nationseven, if, after accepting the blood and sacrifices of these men, wehurl them from us and allow them to be the victims of those who havetyrannized over them for centuries? I know of no crime that exceedsthis; I know of none that is its parallel; and if this country is trueto itself, it will rise in the majesty of its strength and maintain apolicy, here and every-where, by which the rights of the coloredpeople shall be secured through their own power--in peace, the ballot;in war, the bayonet. 

"It is a maxim of another language, which we may well apply toourselves, that where the voting register ends the military roster ofrebellion begins; and if you leave these four million people to thecare and custody of the men who have inaugurated and carried on thisrebellion, then you treasure up for untold years the elements ofsocial and civil war, which must not only desolate and paralyze theSouth, but shake this Government to its very foundation. "

Soon after the close of Mr. Boutwell's speech, Mr. Darling's motion topostpone and Mr. Hale's motion to amend having been rejected, a votewas taken on the bill as reported by the committee. The bill passed bya vote of one hundred and sixteen in the affirmative--fifty-fourvoting in the negative. 

The friends of the measure having received evidence that it would notmeet with Executive approval, and not supposing that a vote oftwo-thirds could be secured for its passage over the President's veto, determined not to urge it immediately through the Senate. 

There was great reluctance on the part of many Senators and members ofthe House to come to an open rupture with the President. They desiredto defer the day of final and irreconcilable difference betweenCongress and the Executive. If the subject of negro suffrage in theDistrict of Columbia was kept in abeyance for a time, it was hopedthat the President's approval might meanwhile be secured to certaingreat measures for protecting the helpless and maintaining the civilrights of citizens. To accomplish these important ends, the suffragebill was deferred many months. The will of the majority in Congressrelating to this subject did not become a law until after the openingof the second session of the Thirty-ninth Congress. 

CHAPTER V. 

THE FREEDMEN. 

 Necessities of the Freedmen -- Committee in the House -- Early movement by the Senate in behalf of Freedmen -- Senator Wilson's Bill -- Occasion for it -- Mr. Cowan moves its reference -- Mr. Reverdy Johnson advises deliberation -- A question of time with Mr. Sherman -- Mr. Trumbull promises a more efficient bill -- Mr. Sumner presents proof of the bad condition of affairs in the South -- Mr. Cowan and Mr. Stewart produce the President as a witness for the defense -- Mr. Wilson on the testimony -- "Conservatism" -- The bill absorbed in greater measures. 

The necessities of three millions and a half of persons made free as aresult of the rebellion demanded early and efficient legislation atthe hands of the Thirty-ninth Congress. In vain did the Proclamationof Emancipation break their shackles, and the constitutional amendmentdeclare them free, if Congress should not "enforce" these importantacts by "appropriate legislation. "

The House of Representatives signified its view of the importance ofthis subject by constituting an able Committee "on Freedmen, " withThomas D. Eliot, of Massachusetts, as its chairman. The Senate, however, was first to take decided steps toward the protection andrelief of freedmen. We have seen that on the first day of the sessionSenator Wilson, of Massachusetts, introduced a bill "to maintain thefreedom of the inhabitants in the States declared in insurrection andrebellion by the proclamation of the President of the 1st of July, 1862, " of which the following is a copy:

 _Be it enacted, etc. _, That all laws, statutes, acts, ordinances, rules and regulations, of any description whatsoever, heretofore in force or held valid in any of the States which were declared to be in insurrection and rebellion by the proclamation of the President of the 1st of July, 1862, whereby or wherein any inequality of civil rights and immunities among the inhabitants of said States is recognized, authorized, established, or maintained, by reason or in consequence of any distinctions or differences of color, race, or descent, or by reason or in consequence of a previous condition or status of slavery or involuntary servitude of such inhabitants, be, and are hereby, declared null and void; and it shall be unlawful to institute, make, ordain, or establish, in any of the aforesaid States declared to be in insurrection and rebellion, any such law, statute, act, ordinance, rule, or regulation, or to enforce, or to attempt to enforce, the same. 

 SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That any person who shall violate either of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor exceeding $10, 000, and by imprisonment not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and it shall be the duty of the President to enforce the provisions of this act. 

On the 13th of December, Mr. Wilson called up his bill, which theSenate proceeded to consider as in Committee of the Whole. The authorof the bill presented reasons why it should become a law: "A bill ispending before the Legislature of South Carolina making these freedmenservants, providing that the persons for whom they labor shall betheir masters; that the relation between them shall be the relation ofmaster and servant. The bill, as originally reported, provided thatthe freedmen might be educated, but that provision has already beenstricken out, and the bill now lies over waiting for events here. Thatbill makes the colored people of South Carolina serfs, a degradedclass, the slaves of society. It is far better to be the slave of oneman than to be the slave of arbitrary law. There is no doubt of thefact that in a great portion of those States the high hopes, theconfidence, and the joy expressed last spring by the freedmen, havepassed away; that silence and sorrow pervade that section of thecountry, and that they are becoming distrustful and discontented. Godgrant that the high-raised expectations of these loyal and desertedpeople may not be blasted. God forbid that we should violate ourplighted faith. "

Mr. Cowan moved the reference of the bill to the Committee on theJudiciary, but its author was unwilling that it should be so referred, since it was highly important that action should be had upon it beforethe holidays. 

Mr. Johnson said that the bill gave rise to grave questions on whichit was very desirable that the deliberation of the Senate should bevery calmly advised. He objected on the ground of its indefiniteness:"There are no particular laws designated in the bill to be repealed. All laws existing before these States got into a condition ofinsurrection, by which any difference or inequality is created orestablished, are to be repealed. What is to be the effect of thatrepeal upon such laws as they exist? In some of those States, by theconstitution or by the laws, (and the constitution is equally a law, )persons of the African race are excluded from certain politicalprivileges. Are they to be repealed, and at once, by force of thatrepeal, are they to be placed exactly upon the same footing in regardto all political privileges with that which belongs to the other classof citizens? Very many of those laws are laws passed under the policepower, which has always been conceded as a power belonging to theStates--laws supposed to have been necessary in order to protect theStates themselves from insurrection. Are they to be repealedabsolutely?

"No man feels more anxious certainly than I do that the rightsincident to the condition of freedom, which is now as I personally amglad to believe, the condition of the black race, should not beviolated; but I do not know that there is any more pressing need forextraordinary legislation to prevent outrages upon that class, by anything which is occurring in the Southern States, than there is forpreventing outrages in the loyal States. Crimes are being perpetratedevery day in the very justly-esteemed State from which the honorablemember comes. Hardly a paper fails to give us an account of some mostatrocious and horrible crime. Murders shock the sense of thatcommunity and the sense of the United States very often; and it is notpeculiar to Massachusetts. Moral by her education, and loving freedomand hating injustice as much as the people of any other State, she yetis unable to prevent a violation of every principle of human rights, but we are not for that reason to legislate for her. "

Mr. Wilson replied: "The Senator from Maryland says that cruelties andgreat crimes are committed in all sections of the country. I know it;but we have not cruel and inhuman laws to be enforced. Sir, armed menare traversing portions of the rebel States to-day enforcing theseblack laws upon men whom we have made free, and to whom we standpledged before man and God to maintain their freedom. A few months agothese freedmen were joyous, hopeful, confident. To-day they aredistrustful, silent, and sad, and this condition has grown out of thewrongs and cruelties and oppressions that have been perpetrated uponthem. "

Mr. Sherman said: "I believe it is the duty of Congress to give to thefreedmen of the Southern States ample protection in all their naturalrights. With me it is a question simply of time and manner. I submitto the Senator of Massachusetts whether this is the time for theintroduction of this bill. I believe it would be wiser to postpone allaction upon this subject until the proclamation of the Secretary ofState shall announce that the constitutional amendment is a part ofthe supreme law of the land. When that is done, there will then be, inmy judgment, no doubt of the power of Congress to pass this bill, andto make it definite and general in its terms. 

"Then, as I have said, it is a question of manner. When this questioncomes to be legislated upon by Congress, I do not wish it to be leftto the uncertain and ambiguous language of this bill. I think that therights which we desire to secure to the freedmen of the South shouldbe distinctly specified. 

"The language of this bill is not sufficiently definite and distinctto inform the people of the United States of precisely the characterof rights intended to be secured by it to the freedmen of the SouthernStates. The bill in its terms applies only to those States which weredeclared to be in insurrection; and the same criticism would apply tothis part of it that I have already made, that it is not general inits terms. "

Mr. Trumbull made some remarks of great significance, as foreshadowingimportant measures soon to occupy the attention of Congress and thecountry:

"I hold that under that second section Congress will have theauthority, when the constitutional amendment is adopted, not only topass the bill of the Senator from Massachusetts, but a bill that willbe much more efficient to protect the freedman in his rights. We may, if deemed advisable, continue the Freedman's Bureau, clothe it withadditional powers, and, if necessary, back it up with a militaryforce, to see that the rights of the men made free by the first clauseof the constitutional amendment are protected. And, sir, when theconstitutional amendment shall have been adopted, if the informationfrom the South be that the men whose liberties are secured by it aredeprived of the privilege to go and come when they please, to buy andsell when they please, to make contracts and enforce contracts, I givenotice that, if no one else does, I shall introduce a bill, and urgeits passage through Congress, that will secure to those men every oneof these rights; they would not be freemen without them. It is idle tosay that a man is free who can not go and come at pleasure, who cannot buy and sell, who can not enforce his rights. These are rightswhich the first clause of the constitutional amendment meant to secureto all. "

On a subsequent day, December 20, 1865, when this subject was againbefore the Senate, Mr. Sumner spoke in its favor. Referring to themessage of the President on the "Condition of the Southern States, "the Senator said:

"When I think of what occurred yesterday in this chamber; when I callto mind the attempt to whitewash the unhappy condition of the rebelStates, and to throw the mantle of official oblivion over sickeningand heart-rending outrages, where human rights are sacrificed andrebel barbarism receives a new letter of license, I feel that I oughtto speak of nothing else. I stood here years ago, in the days ofKansas, when a small community was surrendered to the machinations ofslave-masters. I now stand here again, when, alas! an immense region, with millions of people, has been surrendered to the machinations ofslave-masters. Sir, it is the duty of Congress to arrest this fatalfury. Congress must dare to be brave; it must dare to be just. "

After having quoted copiously from the great Russian act by which thefreedom given to the serfs by the Emperor's proclamation "wassecured, " and having emphasized them as examples for Americanlegislation, Mr. Sumner said:

"My colleague is clearly right in introducing his bill and pressing itto a vote. The argument for it is irresistible. It is essential tocomplete emancipation. Without it emancipation will be only _halfdone_. It is our duty to see that it is wholly done. Slavery must beabolished not in form only, but in substance, so that there shall beno black code; but all shall be equal before the law. "

He then read extracts from letters and documents, showing the hostilesentiments of the people, and the unhappy condition of the coloredpopulation in nearly all of the rebel States, and closed by saying: "Ibring this plain story to a close. I regret that I have beenconstrained to present it. I wish it were otherwise. But I should havefailed in duty had I failed to speak. Not in anger, not in vengeance, not in harshness have I spoken; but solemnly, carefully, and for thesake of my country and humanity, that peace and reconciliation mayagain prevail. I have spoken especially for the loyal citizens who arenow trodden down by rebel power. You have before you the actualcondition of the rebel States. You have heard the terrible testimony. The blood curdles at the thought of such enormities, and especially atthe thought that the poor freedmen, to whom we owe protection, areleft to the unrestrained will of such a people smarting with defeat, and ready to wreak vengeance upon these representatives of a trueloyalty. In the name of God let us protect them. Insist uponguarantees. Pass the bill now under consideration; pass any bill; butdo not let this crying injustice rage any longer. An avenging God cannot sleep while such things find countenance. If you are not ready tobe the Moses of an oppressed people, do not become its Pharaoh. "

Mr. Cowan rebuked the Senator from Massachusetts for applying the term"whitewash" to the message of the President. He then charged Mr. Sumner with reading from "anonymous letter-writers, from cottonagents, and people of that kind, " and placed against them "thetestimony of the President of the United States, not a summer soldier, or a sunshine patriot, who was a Union man, and who was in favor ofthe Union at a time and in a place when there was some merit in it. "He then proceeded to read extracts from the President's message andGeneral Grant's report. 

On a subsequent day, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, made a speech inopposition to the positions assumed by Mr. Sumner. He declared hisopinion that "if the great mass of the people of the South are capableof the atrocities attributed to them by the anonymous witnessesparaded before this Senate, then a union of these States isimpossible; then hundreds and thousands of the bravest and best of ourland have fallen to no purpose; then every house, from the gulf to thelakes, is draped in mourning without an object; then three thousandmillions of indebtedness hangs like a pall upon the pride andprosperity of the people, only to admonish us that the war was wicked, useless, and cruel. "

After making the remark, "In judging of testimony upon ordinarysubjects, we take into consideration not only the facts stated, butthe character and standing of the witness, his means of information, and last, but not least, his appearance upon the stand, " Mr. Stewartthus spoke in behalf of the principal witness relied upon in thedefense of the South: "In this great cause, the Senate properly calledupon the chief Executive of the nation for information. Was he awitness whose character and standing before the country would entitlehis testimony to consideration? Let the voice of a great people, whohave indorsed his patriotism and administration, answer. Were hismeans of information such as to entitle him to speak advisedly uponthis subject? Let the machinery of the Government, that collects factsfrom every department, civil and military, upon the table of theExecutive, answer. Was not his appearance before the public, incommunicating this testimony to the Senate and the country such as toremove all grounds of suspicion? Let the exalted tone, bold andfearless statement, pure and patriotic spirit of both his messages behis best vindication. "

The Senator's remarks were principally directed in opposition to thepolicy of regarding the rebel States as "conquered territories. " Hefinally remarked: "I wish to be distinctly understood as not opposingthe passage of the bill. I am in favor of legislation on this subject, and such legislation as shall secure the freedom of those who wereformerly slaves, and their equality before the law; and I maintainthat it can be fully secured without holding the Southern States interritorial subjugation. "

Mr. Wilson replied: "The Senator who has just addressed us questionsthe testimony adduced here by my colleague yesterday. He might as wellquestion the massacre at Fort Pillow, and the cruelties perpetrated atAndersonville, where eighty-three per cent, of the men who entered thehospitals died--Andersonville, where more American soldiers lie buriedthan fell throughout the Mexican war; where more American soldiers lieburied than were killed in battle of British soldiers in Wellington'sfour great battles in Spain, and at Waterloo, Alma, Inkermann, andSebastopol. The Senator might as well question the atrocities ofsacked Lawrence and other atrocities committed during the war. If hewill go into the Freedman's Bureau, and examine and study the officialrecords of officers who, for five or six months, have taken testimonyand have large volumes of sworn facts; if he will go into the officeof General Holt, and read the reports there, his heart and soul willbe made sick at the wrongs man does to his fellow-man. "

The Senator, in the course of his remarks, took occasion to expresshis opinion of "conservatism:" "Progress is to be made only byfidelity to the great cause by which we have stood during the pastfour years of bloody war. For twenty-five years we had a conflict ofideas, of words, of thoughts--words and thoughts stronger thancannon-balls. We have had four years of bloody conflict. Slavery, every thing that belongs or pertains to it, lies prostrate before usto-day, and the foot of a regenerated nation is upon it. There let itlie forever. I hope no words or thoughts of a reactionary characterare to be uttered in either house of Congress. I hope nothing is to beuttered here in the name of 'conservatism, ' the worst word in theEnglish language. If there is a word in the English language thatmeans treachery, servility, and cowardice, it is that word'conservative. ' It ought never hereafter to be on the lips of anAmerican statesman. For twenty years it has stood in America thesynonym of meanness and baseness. I have studied somewhat carefullythe political history of the country during the last fifteen or twentyyears, and I have always noticed that when I heard a man prate aboutbeing a conservative and about conservatism, he was about to do somemean thing. [Laughter. ] I never knew it to fail; in fact, it is aboutthe first word a man utters when he begins to retreat. "

Mr. Wilson declared his motives in proposing this bill, and yetcheerfully acquiesced in its probable fate: "Having read hundreds ofpages of records and of testimony, enough to make the heart and soulsick, I proposed this bill as a measure of humanity. I desired, beforewe entered on the great questions of public policy, that we shouldpass a simple bill annulling these cruel laws; that we should do itearly, and then proceed calmly with our legislation. That was mymotive for bringing this bill into the Senate so early in the session. Many of the difficulties occurring in the rebel States, between whitemen and black men, between the old masters and the freedmen, grow outof these laws. They are executed in various parts of the States; themilitary arrest their execution frequently, and the agents of theFreedmen's Bureau set them aside; and this keeps up a continualconflict. If these obnoxious State laws were promptly annulled, itwould contribute much to the restoration of good feeling and harmony, relieve public officers from immense labors, and the freedmen fromsuffering and sorrow; and this is the opinion of the most experiencedmen engaged in the Freedmen's Bureau. I have had an opportunity toconsult with and to communicate with many of the agents of the Bureau, with teachers, officers, and persons who understand the state ofaffairs in those States. 

"But, sir, it is apparent now that the bill is not to pass at present;that it must go over for the holidays at any rate. The constitutionalamendment has been adopted, and I have introduced a bill this morningbased upon that amendment, which has been referred to the committee ofwhich the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull] is chairman. This billwill go over; possibly it will not be acted upon at all. We shallprobably enter on the discussion of the broader question of annullingall the black laws in the country, and putting these people under theprotection of humane, equal, and just laws. "

The presentiment of the author of the bill was realized. The billnever saw the light as a law of the land. Nor was it needful that itshould. It contributed to swell the volume of other and more sweepingmeasures. 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE FREEDMEN'S BUREAU BILL IN THE SENATE. 

 The bill introduced and referred to Judiciary Committee -- Its provisions -- Argument of Mr. Hendricks against it -- Reply of Mr. Trumbull -- Mr. Cowan's amendment -- Mr. Guthrie wishes to relieve Kentucky from the operation of the bill -- Mr. Creswell desires that Maryland may enjoy the benefits of the bill -- Mr. Cowan's gratitude to God and friendship for the negro -- Remarks by Mr. Wilson -- "The short gentleman's long speech" -- Yeas and nays -- Insulting title. 

On the 19th of December Mr. Trumbull gave notice that "on some earlyday" he would "introduce a bill to enlarge the powers of theFreedmen's Bureau so as to secure freedom to all persons within theUnited States, and protect every individual in the full enjoyment ofthe rights of person and property, and furnish him with means fortheir vindication. " Of the introduction of this measure, he said itwould be done "in view of the adoption of the constitutional amendmentabolishing slavery. I have never doubted that, on the adoption of thatamendment, it would be competent for Congress to protect every personin the United States in all the rights of person and propertybelonging to a free citizen; and to secure these rights is the objectof the bill which I propose to introduce. I think it important thataction should be taken on this subject at an early day, for thepurpose of quieting apprehensions in the minds of many friends offreedom, lest by local legislation or a prevailing public sentiment insome of the States, persons of the African race should continue to beoppressed, and, in fact, deprived of their freedom; and for thepurpose, also, of showing to those among whom slavery has heretoforeexisted, that unless by local legislation they provide for the realfreedom of their former slaves, the Federal Government will, by virtueof its own authority, see that they are fully protected. "

On the 5th of January, 1866, the first day of the session of Congressafter the holidays, Mr. Trumbull obtained leave to introduce a bill"to enlarge the powers of the Freedmen's Bureau. " The bill was readtwice by its title, and as it contained provisions relating to theexercise of judicial functions by the officers and agents of theFreedmen's Bureau, under certain circumstances, in the late insurgentStates, it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On the 11th of January Mr. Trumbull reported the bill from theJudiciary Committee, to whom it had been referred, with someamendments of a verbal character. On the following day theseamendments were considered by the Senate, in Committee of the Whole, and adopted. The consideration of the bill as amended was deferred toa subsequent day. 

The bill provided that "the act to establish a Bureau for the reliefof Freedmen and Refugees, approved March 3, 1865, shall continue untilotherwise provided for by law, and shall extend to refugees andfreedmen in all parts of the United States. The President is to beauthorized to divide the section of country containing such refugeesand freedmen into districts, each containing one or more States, notto exceed twelve in number, and by and with the advice and consent ofthe Senate, to appoint an assistant commissioner for each district, who shall give like bond, receive the same compensation, and performthe same duties prescribed by this act and the act to which it is anamendment. The bureau may, in the discretion of the President, beplaced under a commissioner and assistant commissioners, to bedetailed from the army, in which event each officer so assigned toduty is to serve without increase of pay or allowances. 

"The commissioner, with the approval of the President, is to divideeach district into a number of sub-districts, not to exceed the numberof counties or parishes in each State, and to assign to eachsub-district at least one agent, either a citizen, officer of thearmy, or enlisted man, who, if an officer, is to serve withoutadditional compensation or allowance, and if a citizen or enlistedman, is to receive a salary not exceeding $1, 500 per annum. Eachassistant commissioner may employ not exceeding six clerks, one of thethird class and five of the first class, and each agent of asub-district may employ two clerks of the first class. The Presidentof the United States, through the War Department and the commissioner, is to extend military jurisdiction and protection over all employés, agents, and officers of the bureau, and the Secretary of War maydirect such issues of provisions, clothing, fuel, and other supplies, including medical stores and transportation, and afford such aid, medical or otherwise, as he may deem needful for the immediate andtemporary shelter and supply of destitute and suffering refugees andfreedmen, their wives and children, under such rules and regulationsas he may direct. 

"It is also provided that the President may, for settlement in themanner prescribed by section four of the act to which this is anamendment, reserve from sale or settlement, under the homestead orpreemption laws, public lands in Florida, Mississippi, and Arkansas, not to exceed three million acres of good land in all, the rentalnamed in that section to be determined in such manner as thecommissioner shall by regulation prescribe. It proposes to confirm andmake valid the possessory titles granted in pursuance of Major-GeneralSherman's special field order, dated at Savannah, January 16, 1865. The commissioner, under the direction of the President, is to beempowered to purchase or rent such tracts of land in the severaldistricts as may be necessary to provide for the indigent refugees andfreedmen dependent upon the Government for support; also to purchasesites and buildings for schools and asylums, to be held as UnitedStates property until the refugees or freedmen shall purchase thesame, or they shall be otherwise disposed of by the commissioner. 

"Whenever in any State or district in which the ordinary course ofjudicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion, andwherein, in consequence of any State or local law, ordinance, policeor other regulation, custom, or prejudice, any of the civil rights orimmunities belonging to white persons (including the right to make andenforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for thesecurity of person and estate), are refused or denied to negroes, mulattoes, freedmen, refugees, or any other persons, on account ofrace, color, or any previous condition of slavery or involuntaryservitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shallhave been duly convicted, or wherein they or any of them are subjectedto any other or different punishment, pains, or penalties, for thecommission of any act or offense, than are prescribed for whitepersons committing like acts or offenses, it is to be the duty of thePresident of the United States, through the commissioner, to extendmilitary protection and jurisdiction over all cases affecting suchpersons so discriminated against. 

"Any person who, under color of any State or local law, ordinance, police, or other regulation or custom, shall, in any State or districtin which the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has beeninterrupted by the rebellion, subject, or cause to be subjected, anynegro, mulatto, freedman, refugee, or other person, on account of raceor color, or any previous condition of slavery or involuntaryservitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shallhave been duly convicted, or for any other cause, to the deprivationof any civil right secured to white persons, or to any other ordifferent punishment than white persons are subject to for thecommission of like acts or offenses, is to be deemed guilty of amisdemeanor, and be punished by fine not exceeding $1, 000 orimprisonment not exceeding one year, or both. It is to be the duty ofthe officers and agents of this bureau to take jurisdiction of andhear and determine all offenses committed against this provision; andalso of all cases affecting negroes, mulattoes, freedmen, refugees, orother persons who are discriminated against in any of the particularsmentioned in this act, under such rules and regulations as thePresident of the United States, through the War Department, mayprescribe. This jurisdiction is to cease and determine whenever thediscrimination on account of which it is conferred ceases, and is inno event to be exercised in any State in which the ordinary course ofjudicial proceedings has not been interrupted by the rebellion, nor inany such State after it shall have been fully restored in all itsconstitutional relations to the United States, and the courts of theState and of the United States within its limits are not disturbed orstopped in the peaceable course of justice. "

Other business occupying the attention of the Senate, theconsideration of the Freedman's Bureau Bill was not practicallyentered upon until the 18th of January. On that day, Mr. Stewart madea speech ostensibly on this bill, but really on the question ofreconstruction and negro suffrage, in reply to remarks by Mr. Wade onthose subjects. 

Mr. Trumbull moved as an amendment to the bill that occupants on landunder General Sherman's special field order, dated at Savannah, January 16, 1865; should be confirmed in their possessions for theperiod of three years from the date of said order, and no personshould be disturbed in said possession during the said three yearsunless a settlement should be made with said occupant by the ownersatisfactory to the commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau. 

Mr. Trumbull explained the circumstances under which the freedmen hadobtained possessory titles to lands in Georgia, and urged thepropriety of their being confirmed by Congress for three years. Hesaid:

"I should be glad to go further. I would be glad, if we could, tosecure to these people, upon any just principle, the fee of this land;but I do not see with what propriety we could except this particulartract of country out of all the other lands in the South, andappropriate it in fee to these parties. I think, having gone upon theland in good faith under the protection of the Government, we mayprotect them there for a reasonable time; and the opinion of thecommittee was that three years would be a reasonable time. "

On the following day, Mr. Hendricks presented his objections to thebill in a speech of considerable length. He was followed by Mr. Trumbull in reply. As both were members of the Judiciary Committeefrom which the bill was reported, and both had carefully consideredthe reasons for and against the measure, their arguments are given atlength. 

[Illustration: Hon. T. A. Hendricks, Senator from Indiana. ]

Mr. Hendricks said: "At the last session of Congress the original lawcreating that bureau was passed. We were then in the midst of the war;very considerable territory had been brought within the control of theUnion troops and armies, and within the scope of that territory, itwas said, there were many freedmen who must be protected by a bill ofthat sort; and it was mainly upon that argument that the bill wasenacted. The Senate was very reluctant to enact the law creating thebureau as it now exists. There was so much hesitancy on the part ofthe Senate, that by a very large vote it refused to agree to the billreported by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumner, ] from acommittee of conference, and I believe the honorable Senator fromIllinois, [Mr. Trumbull, ] who introduced this bill, himself votedagainst that bill; and why? That bill simply undertook to define thepowers and duties of the Freedmen's Bureau and its agents, and theSenate would not agree to confer the powers that that bill upon itsface seemed to confer, and it was voted down; and then the law as itnow stands was enacted in general terms. There was very little gained, indeed, by the Senate refusing to pass the first bill and enacting thelatter, for under the law as it passed, the Freedmen's Bureau assumedvery nearly all the jurisdiction and to exercise all the powerscontemplated in the bill reported by the Senator from Massachusetts. 

"Now, sir, it is important to note very carefully the enlargement ofthe powers of this bureau proposed by this bill; and in the firstplace, it proposes to make the bureau permanent. The last Congresswould not agree to this. The bill that the Senate voted down did notlimit the duration of the bureau, and it was voted down, and the billthat the Senate agreed to provided that the bureau should continueduring the war and only for one year after its termination. That wasthe judgment of the Senate at the last session. What has occurredsince to change the judgment of the Senate in this important matter?What change in the condition of the country induces the Senate now tosay that this shall be a permanent bureau or department of theGovernment, when at the last session it said it should cease to existwithin one year after the conclusion of the war? Why, sir, it seems tome that the country is now, and especially the Southern States are nowin better condition than the Senate had reason to expect when the lawwas enacted. Civil government has been restored in almost all theSouthern States; the courts are restored in many of them; in manylocalities they are exercising their jurisdiction within theirparticular localities without let or hinderance; and why, I askSenators, shall we make this bureau a perpetual and permanentinstitution of the Government when we refused to do it at the lastsession?

"I ask Senators, in the first place, if they are now, with the mostsatisfactory information that is before the body, willing to do thatwhich they refused to do at the last session of Congress? We refusedto pass the law when it proposed to establish a permanent department. Shall we now, when the war is over, when the States are returning totheir places in the Union, when the citizens are returning to theirallegiance, when peace and quiet, to a very large extent, prevail overthat country, when the courts are reëstablished; is the Senate now, with this information before it, willing to make this a permanentbureau and department of the Government?

"The next proposition of the bill is, that it shall not be confinedany longer to the Southern States, but that it shall have a governmentover the States of the North as well as of the South. The old lawallowed the President to appoint a commissioner for each of the Statesthat had been declared to be in rebellion--one for each of the elevenseceding States, not to exceed ten in all. This bill provides that thejurisdiction of the bureau shall extend wherever, within the limits ofthe United States, refugees or freedmen have gone. Indiana has notbeen a State in insurrection, and yet there are thousands of refugeesand freedmen who have gone into that State within the last threeyears. This bureau is to become a governing power over the State ofIndiana according to the provisions of the bill. Indiana, thatprovides for her own paupers, Indiana, that provides for thegovernment of her own people, may, under the provisions of this bill, be placed under a government that our fathers never contemplated--agovernment that must be most distasteful to freemen. 

"I know it may be said that the bureau will not probably be extendedto the Northern States. If it is not intended to be extended to thoseStates, why amend the old law so as to give this power? When the oldlaw limited the jurisdiction of this bureau to the States that hadbeen declared in insurrection, is it not enough that the bureau shouldhave included one State, the State of Kentucky, over which it had norightful original jurisdiction? And must we now amend it so as toplace all the States of the Union within the power of thisirresponsible sub-government? This is one objection that I have to thebill, and the next is the expense that it must necessarily impose uponthe people. We are asked by the Freedmen's Bureau in its estimates toappropriate $11, 745, 050; nearly twelve million dollars for the supportof this bureau and to carry on its operations during the coming year. I will read what he says:

 "'It is estimated that the amount required for the expenditures of the bureau for the fiscal year commencing January, 1866, will be $11, 745, 050. The sum is requisite for the following purposes:

 Salaries of assistant and sub-assistant commissioners $147, 500 Salaries of clerks 82, 800 Stationery and printing 63, 000 Quarters and fuel 15, 000 Clothing for distribution 1, 750, 000 Commissary stores 4, 106, 250 Medical department 500, 000 Transportation 1, 980, 000 School superintendents 21, 000 Sites for school-houses and asylums 3, 000, 000 Telegraphing 18, 000

Making in all the sum which I have mentioned. The old system underthis law, that was before the commissioner when he made this estimate, requires an expenditure to carry on its operations of nearly twelvemillion dollars, and that to protect, as it is called, and to governfour millions of the people of the United States--within a fewmillions of the entire cost of the Government under Mr. Adams'sadministration, when the population of the States had gone up to manymillions. How is it that a department that has but a partialjurisdiction over the people shall cost almost as much for themanagement of four million people as it cost to manage the wholeGovernment, for its army, its navy, its legislative and judicialdepartments, in former years? My learned friend from Kentucky suggeststhat the expenses under John Quincy Adams's administration were aboutthirteen million dollars. What was the population of the United Statesat that time I am not prepared to state, but it was far above fourmillions. Now, to manage four million people is to cost the people ofthe United States, under the law as it stands, nearly as much as itcost the people to manage the whole affairs of the Government underthe administration of Mr. John Quincy Adams. 

"I hear Senators speak very frequently of the necessity of economy andretrenchment. Is this a specimen, increasing the number of officersalmost without limit, and increasing the expenditures? I think onemight be safe in saying that, if this bill passes, we can not expectto get through a year with less than $20, 000, 000 of an expenditure forthis bureau. But that is a mere opinion; for no man can tell until wehave the number of officers that are to be appointed under the billprescribed in the bill itself, and this section leaves the largestdiscretion to the bureau in the appointment of officers. I appeal toSenators to know whether, at this time, when we ought to adopt asystem of retrenchment and reform, they are willing to pass a billwhich will so largely increase the public expenditures. 

"Then, sir, when this army of officers has been organized, the billprovides: 'And the President of the United States, through the WarDepartment and the commissioner, shall extend military jurisdictionand protection over all employés, agents, and officers of thisbureau. '

"Will some Senator be good enough to tell me what that means? IfIndiana be declared a State within which are found refugees andfreedmen, who have escaped from the Southern States, and if Indianahas a commissioner appointed to her, and if in each county of Indianathere be a sub-commissioner at a salary of $1, 500 a year, with twoclerks with a salary of $1, 200 each, and then the War Departmentthrows over this little army of office-holders in the State of Indianaits protection, what does that mean? The people of Indiana have beenground hard under military authority and power within the last threeor four years, but it was borne because it was hoped that when the warwould be closed the military power would be withdrawn from the State. Under this bill it may be established permanently upon the people by abody of men protected by the military power of the Government. Anofficer is appointed to the State of Indiana to regulate the contractswhich are made between the white people and the colored people of thatState, and because he holds this office, not military in itscharacter, involving no military act whatever, the military throwsover him its iron shield of protection. What does that mean? If thisofficer shall do a great wrong and outrage to one of the people, andthe wronged citizen appeals to the court for his redress and bringshis suit for damages, does the protecting shield of the War Departmentprevent the prosecution of that suit and the recovery of a judgment?What is the protection that is thrown over this army ofoffice-holders? Let it be explained. 

"It may be said that this is a part of the military department. Thatwill depend not so much upon what we call them in the law as what arethe duties imposed upon these sub-agents. It is a little difficult totell. They are to protect the freedmen; they are to protect refugees;they are to buy asylums and school-houses; they are to establishschools; they are to see to the contracts that are made between whitemen and colored men. I want to know of the chairman of the committeethat reported this bill, in what respect these duties are military intheir character? I can understand one thing, that it may be regardedas a war upon the liberties of the people, but I am not able to see inwhat respect the duties of these officers otherwise are military. Butthis protection is to be thrown over them. I will not occupy longertime upon that subject. 

"The third section of the bill changes the letter of the law in tworespects: first, 'That the Secretary of War may direct such issues ofprovisions, clothing, fuel, and other supplies, including medicalstores and transportation, ' etc. Those last words, 'medical stores andtransportation, ' make the change in the law that is proposed in thisbill. But, sir, in point of fact it makes no change in the law; for ifyou will turn to the report of the commissioner of this bureau, itwill be found that the bureau, during the past six months, has beenfurnishing medical supplies and transportation. A very large item inthe expenditures estimated for is transportation. But I wish to ask ofthe Senator who framed this bill why we shall now provide for thetransportation of freedmen and refugees. During the war, a very largenumber of refugees came from the Southern States into the North; butthe Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, in his report, says thatthose refugees have mainly returned, and but few remain now to becarried back from the North to the South, or who desire to be. Thenwhy do we provide in this bill for transportation? Is it simply togive the bureau the power to transport refugees and freedmen from onelocality to another at its pleasure? The necessity of carrying themfrom one section of the country to another has passed away. Is itintended by this bill that the bureau shall expend the people's moneyin carrying the colored people from one locality in a Southern Stateto another locality? I ask the Senator from Illinois, when he comes toexplain his bill, to tell us just what is the force and purpose ofthis provision. 

"The fourth resolution, as amended, provides for the setting apart ofthree million acres of the public lands in the States of Florida, Mississippi, and Arkansas for homes for the colored people. I believethat is the only provision of the bill in which I concur. I concur inwhat was said by some Senator yesterday, that it is desirable, if weever expect to do any thing substantially for the colored people, toencourage them to obtain homes, and I am willing to vote for areasonable appropriation of the public lands for that purpose. I shallnot, therefore, occupy time in discussing that section. 

"The fifth section, as amended by the proposition before the Senate, proposes to confirm the possessory right of the colored people uponthese lands for three years from the date of that order, or about twoyears from this time. I like the amendment better than the originalbill; for the original bill left it entirely uncertain what wasconfirmed, and of course it is better that we should say one year, orthree years, or ten years, than to leave it entirely indefinite forwhat period we do confirm the possession. I have no doubt that GeneralSherman had the power, as a military commander, at the time, to setapart the abandoned lands along the coast as a place in which to leavethe colored people then surrounding his army; but that General Shermanduring the war, or that Congress after the war, except by a proceedingfor confiscation, can take the land permanently from one person andgive it to another, I do not admit; nor did General Sherman undertaketo do that. In express terms, he said that they should have the rightof possession; for what length of time he did not say, for the reasonthat he could not say. It was a military possession that he conferred, and that possession would last only during the continuance of themilitary occupation, and no longer. If General Sherman, by his GeneralOrder No. 15, placed the colored people upon the lands along the coastof South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, for a temporary purpose, whatwas the extent of the possessory right which he could confer? He didnot undertake to give a title for any defined period, but simply theright of possession. It is fair to construe his order as meaning onlywhat he could do, giving the right of possession during militaryoccupancy. Now, sir, the President informs us that the rebellion issuppressed; that the war is over; that military law no longer governsin that country; but that peace is restored, and that civil law shallnow govern. What, then, is the law upon the subject? A right ofpossession is given by the commanding general to certain personswithin that region of country; peace follows, and with peace comesback the right of the real owners to the possession. This possessionthat the General undertook to give, according to law, could not lastlonger than the military occupancy. When peace comes, the right of theowners return with it. Then how is it that Congress can undertake tosay that the property that belongs to A, B, and C, upon the islandsand sea-coast of the South, shall, for two years from this date, notbelong to them, but shall belong to certain colored people? I want toknow upon what principle of law Congress can take the property of oneman and give it to another. 

"I know very well what may be done in the courts by a proceeding forconfiscation. I am not discussing that question. If there has been anyproperty confiscated and disposed of under proceedings ofconfiscation, I do not question the title here. That is purely ajudicial question. But, sir, I deny that Congress can legislate theproperty of one man into the possession of another. If this section isto pass, I prefer that this confirmation shall be for three yearsrather than leave it in the uncertain state in which General Sherman'sorder left it. 

"The sixth section provides, 'That the commissioners shall, under thedirection of the President, procure in the name of the United States, by grant or purchase, such lands within the districts aforesaid as maybe required for refugees and freedmen dependent on the Government forsupport; and he shall provide, or cause to be erected, suitablebuildings for asylums and schools. ' Upon what principle can youauthorize the Government of the United States to buy lands for thepoor people in any State of the Union? They may be very meritorious;their cases may appeal with great force to our sympathies; it mayalmost appear necessary to prevent suffering that we should buy a homefor each poor person in the country; but where is the power of theGeneral Government to do this thing? Is it true that by thisrevolution the persons and property of the people have been broughtwithin the jurisdiction of Congress, and taken from without thecontrol and jurisdiction of the States? I have understood heretoforethat it has never been disputed that the duty to provide for the poor, the insane, the blind, and all who are dependent upon society, restsupon the States, and that the power does not belong to the GeneralGovernment. What has occurred, then, in this war that has changed therelation of the people to the General Government to so great an extentthat Congress may become the purchasers of homes for them? If we cango so far, I know of no limit to the powers of Congress. Here is aproposition to buy a home for each dependent freeman and refugee. Thesection is not quite as strong as it might have been. It would havebeen stronger, I think, in the present state of public sentiment, ifthe word 'refugee' had been left out, and if it had been only for thefreedmen, because it does not seem to be so popular now to buy a homefor a white man as to buy one for a colored man. But this billauthorizes the officers of the Freedmen's Bureau to buy homes forwhite people and for black people only upon the ground that they aredependent. If this be the law now, there has come about a startlingchange in the relation of the States and of the people to the GeneralGovernment. I shall be very happy to hear from the learned head of theJudiciary Committee upon what principle it is that in any one singlecase you may buy a home for any man, whether he be rich or poor. TheGeneral Government may buy land when it is necessary for the exerciseof any of its powers; but outside of that, it seems to me, there is nopower within the Constitution allowing it. 

"The most remarkable sections of the bill, however, are the seventhand eighth, and to those sections I will ask the very carefulattention of Senators; for I think if we can pass those two sections, and make them a law, then indeed this Government can do any thing. Itwill be useless to speak any longer of limitations upon the powers ofthe General Government; it will be idle to speak of the reserved powerof the States; State rights and State power will have passed away ifwe can do what is proposed in the seventh and eighth sections of thisbill. We propose, first, to legislate against the effects of 'locallaw, ordinance, police, or other regulation;' then against 'custom, 'and lastly, against 'prejudice, ' and to provide that 'if any of thecivil rights or immunities belonging to white persons' are denied toany person because of color, then that person shall be taken under themilitary protection of the Government. I do not know whether that willbe understood to extend to Indiana or not. That will be a very nicepoint for the bureau to decide, I presume, after the enactment of thelaw. The section limits its operation to 'any State or district inwhich the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interruptedby the rebellion. ' It will be a little difficult to say whether in theState of Indiana and Ohio the ordinary course of judicial proceedinghas or has not been interrupted. We had some war in Indiana; we had avery great raid through that State and some fighting; and I presumethat in some cases the proceedings of the courts were interrupted andthe courts were unable to go on with their business, so that it mightbe said that even in some of the Northern States this provision of thebill would be applicable. Suppose that it were applicable to the Stateof Indiana, then every man in that State, who attempted to execute theconstitution and laws of the State, would be liable for a violation ofthe law. We do not allow to colored people there many civil rights andimmunities which are enjoyed by the white people. It became the policyof the State in 1852 to prohibit the immigration of colored peopleinto that State. I am not going to discuss the question whether thatwas a wise policy or not. At the time it received the approval of myjudgment. Under that constitutional provision, and the laws enacted inpursuance of it, a colored man coming into the State since 1852 cannot acquire a title to real estate, can not make certain contracts, and no negro man is allowed to intermarry with a white woman. Theseare civil rights that are denied, and yet this bill proposes, if theyare still denied in any State whose courts have been interrupted bythe rebellion, the military protection of the Government shall beextended over the person who is thus denied such civil rights orimmunities. 

"The next section of the bill provides punishments where any of thesethings are done, where any right is denied to a colored man whichunder State law is allowed to a white man. The language is very vague, and it is very difficult to say what this section will mean. If it hasas broad a construction as is attempted to be given to the secondsection of the constitutional amendment, I would not undertake toguess what it means. Any man who shall deny to any colored man anycivil rights secured to white persons, shall be liable to be takenbefore the officers of this bureau and to be punished according to theprovisions of this section. In the first place, now that peace isrestored, now that there is no war, now that men are no longer undermilitary rule, but are under civil rule, I want to know how such acourt can be organized; how it is that the citizen may be arrestedwithout indictment, and may be brought before the officers of thisbureau and tried without a jury, tried without the forms which theConstitution requires. 

"But sir, this section is most objectionable in regard to the offensethat it defines. If any portion of the law ought to be certain, it isthat which defines crime and prescribes the punishment. What is meantby this general expression, 'the deprivation of any civil rightsecured to white persons?' The agent in one State may construe it tomean one thing, and the agent in another State another thing. It isbroad and comprehensive--'the deprivation of any civil right securedto white persons. ' That act of deprivation is the crime that is to bepunished. Take the case that I have just referred to. Suppose aminister, when called upon, should refuse to solemnize a marriagebetween a colored man and a white woman because the law of the Stateforbade it, would he then, refusing to recognize a civil right whichis enjoyed by white persons, be liable to this punishment?

"My judgment is that, under the second section of the constitutionalamendment, we may pass such a law as will secure the freedom declaredin the first section, but that we can not go beyond that limitation. If a man has been, by this provision of the Constitution, made freefrom his master, and that master undertakes to make him a slave again, we may pass such laws as are sufficient in our judgment to preventthat act; but if the Legislature of the State denies to the citizen ashe is now called, the freedman, equal privileges with the white man, Iwant to know if that Legislature, and each member of that Legislature, is responsible to the penalties prescribed in this bill? It is not anact of the old master; it is an act of the State government, whichdefines and regulates the civil rights of the people. 

"I regard it as very dangerous legislation. It proposes to establish agovernment within a government--not a republic within a republic, buta cruel despotism within a republic. In times of peace, in communitiesthat are quiet and orderly, and obedient to law, it is proposed toestablish a government not responsible to the people, the officers ofwhich are not selected by the people, the officers of which need notbe of the people governed--a government more cruel, more despotic, more dangerous to the liberties of the people than that against whichour forefathers fought in the Revolution. There is nothing that thesemen may not do, under this bill, to oppress the people. 

"Sir, if we establish courts in the Southern States, we ought toestablish courts that will be on both sides, or on neither side; butthe doctrine now is, that if a man is appointed, either to anexecutive or a judicial office, in any locality where there arecolored people, he must be on the side of the negro. I have not heard, since Congress met, that any colored man has done a wrong in thiscountry for many years; and I have scarcely heard that any white mancoming in contact with colored people has done right for a number ofyears. Every body is expected to take sides for the colored managainst the white man. If I have to take sides, it will be with themen of my own color and my own race; but I do not wish to do that. Toward these people I hope that the legislation of Congress, withinthe constitutional powers of Congress, will be just and fair--just tothem and just to the white people among whom they live; that it willpromote harmony among the people, and not discord; that it willrestore labor to its channels, and bring about again in those States acondition of prosperity and happiness. Do we not all desire that? Ifwe do, is it well for us to inflame our passions and the passions ofthe people of the North, so that their judgments shall not be equalupon the questions between these races? It is all very well for us tohave sympathy for the poor and the unfortunate, but both sides callfor our sympathy in the South. The master, who, by his wickedness andfolly, has involved himself in the troubles that now beset him, hasreturned, abandoning his rebellion, and has bent down upon his humbleknees and asked the forgiveness of the Government, and to be restoredagain as a citizen. Can a man go further than that? He has been inmany cases pardoned by the Executive. He stands again as a citizen ofthe country. 

"What relation do we desire that the people of the North shall sustaintoward these people of the South--one of harmony and accord, or ofstrife and ill will? Do we want to restore commerce and trade withthem, that we shall prosper thereby as well as they, or do we wishpermanent strife and division? I want this to be a Union in form, under the Constitution of the United States, and, in fact, by theharmony of the people of the North and of the South. I believe, asGeneral Grant says, that this bureau, especially with the enlargedpowers that we propose to confer upon it, will not be an instrument ofconcord and harmony, but will be one of discord and strife in thatsection of the country. It can not do good, but, in my judgment, willdo much harm. "

Following immediately upon the close of the above argument, Mr. Trumbull thus addressed the senate: "Mr. President, I feel itincumbent on me to reply to some of the arguments presented by theSenator from Indiana against this bill. Many of the positions he hasassumed will be found, upon examination, to have no foundation infact. He has argued against provisions not contained in the bill, andhe has argued also as if he were entirely forgetful of the conditionof the country and of the great war through which we have passed. 

"Now, sir, what was the object of the Freedmen's Bureau, and why wasit established? It was established to look after a large class ofpeople who, as the results of the war, had been thrown upon the handsof the Government, and must have perished but for its fostering careand protection. Does the Senator mean to deny the power of thisGovernment to protect people under such circumstances? The Senatormust often have voted for appropriations to protect other classes ofpeople under like circumstances. Whenever, in the history of theGovernment, there has been thrown upon it a helpless population, whichmust starve and die but for its care, the Government has never failedto provide for them. At this very session, within the last thirtydays, both houses of Congress have voted half a million dollars tofeed and clothe people during the present winter. Who were they? Manyof them were Indians who had joined the rebellion, and had slain loyalpeople of the country. Yes, sir, we appropriated money to feed Indianswho had been fighting against us. We did not hear the Senator's voicein opposition to that appropriation. What were the facts? It wasstated by our Indian agents that the Indian tribes west of Arkansas, apart of whom had joined the rebel armies and some the Union armies, had been driven from their country; that their property had beendestroyed; and now, the conflict of arms having ceased, they hadnothing to live upon during the winter; that they would encroach uponthe white settlements; that unless provision was made for them, theywould rob, plunder, and murder the inhabitants nearest them; andCongress was called upon to appropriate money to buy them food andclothing, and we did it. We did it for rebels and traitors. Were wenot bound to do it?

"Now, sir, we have thrown upon us four million people who have toiledall their lives for others; who, unlike the Indians, had no propertyat the beginning of the rebellion; who were never permitted to own anything, never permitted to eat the bread their own hands had earned;many of whom are without support, in the midst of a prejudiced andhostile population who have been struggling to overthrow theGovernment. These four million people, made free by the acts of warand the constitutional amendment, have been, wherever they could, loyal and true to the Union; and the Senator seriously asks, Whatauthority have we to appropriate money to take care of them? Whatwould he do with them? Would he allow them to starve and die? Would heturn them over to the mercy of the men who, through their whole lives, have had their earnings, to be enslaved again? It is not the firsttime that money has been appropriated to take care of the destituteand suffering African. For years it has been the law that wheneverpersons of African descent were brought to our shores with theintention of reducing them to slavery, the Government should, ifpossible, rescue and restore them to their native land; and we haveappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars for this object. Can anybody deny the right to do it? Sir, humanity as well as theconstitutional obligation to suppress the slave trade required it. Sonow the people relieved by our act from the control of masters whosupplied their wants that they might have their services, have a rightto rely upon us for assistance till they can have time to provide forthemselves. 

"This Freedmen's Bureau is not intended as a permanent institution; itis only designed to aid these helpless, ignorant, and unprotectedpeople until they can provide for and take care of themselves. Theauthority to do this, so far as legislative sanction can give it, isto be found in the action of a previous Congress which established thebureau; but, if it were a new question, the authority for establishingsuch a bureau, in my judgment, is given by the Constitution itself;and as the Senator's whole argument goes upon the idea of peace, andthat all the consequences of the war have ceased, I shall be pardoned, I trust, if I refer to those provisions of the Constitution which, inmy judgment, authorize the exercise of this military jurisdiction; forthis bureau is a part of the military establishment not simply duringthe conflict of arms, but until peace shall be firmly established andthe civil tribunals of the country shall be restored with an assurancethat they may peacefully enforce the laws without opposition. 

"The Constitution of the United States declares that Congress shallhave authority 'to declare war and make rules concerning captures onland and water, ' 'to raise and support armies, ' 'to provide andmaintain a navy, ' 'to make rules for the government and regulation ofthe land and naval forces, ' 'to provide for calling forth the militiato execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repelinvasion, ' and 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and properfor carrying into execution the foregoing powers. ' It also declaresthat 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all theprivileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, ' and that'the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union arepublican form of government. ' Under the exercise of these powers, the Government has gone through a four years' conflict. It hassucceeded in putting down armed resistance to its authority. But didthe military power which was exercised to put down this armedresistance cease the moment the rebel armies were dispersed? Has theGovernment no authority to bring to punishment the authors of thisrebellion after the conflict of arms has ceased? no authority to holdas prisoners, if necessary, all who have been captured with arms intheir hands? Can it be that, the moment the rebel armies aredispersed, the military authority ceases, and they are to be turnedloose to arm and organize again for another conflict against theUnion? Why, sir, it would not be more preposterous on the part of thetraveler, after having, at the peril of his life, succeeded indisarming a highwayman by whom he was assailed, to immediately turnround and restore to the robber his weapons with which to make a newassault. 

"And yet this is what some gentlemen would have this nation do withthe worse than robbers who have assailed its life. They propose, therebel armies being overcome, that the rebels themselves shall beinstantly clothed with all the authority they possessed before theconflict, and that the inhabitants of States who for more than fouryears have carried on an organized war against the Government shall atonce be invested with all the powers they had at its commencement toorganize and begin it anew; nay, more, they insist that, without anyaction of the Government, it is the right of the inhabitants of therebellious States, on laying down their arms, to resume their formerpositions in the Union, with all the rights they possessed when theybegan the war. If such are the consequences of this struggle, it isthe first conflict in the history of the world, between eitherindividuals or nations, from which such results have followed. Whatman, after being despoiled of much of his substance, his childrenslain, his own life periled, and his body bleeding from many wounds, ever restored the authors of such calamities, when within his power, to the rights they possessed before the conflict without taking somesecurity for the future. 

"Sir, the war powers of the Government do not cease with thedispersion of the rebel armies; they are to be continued and exerciseduntil the civil authority of the Government can be established firmlyand upon a sure foundation, not again to be disturbed or interferedwith. And such, sir, is the understanding of the Government. None ofthe departments of the Government understand that its militaryauthority has ceased to operate over the rebellious States. It is buta short time since the President of the United States issued aproclamation restoring the privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ inthe loyal States; but did he restore it in the rebellious States?Certainly not. What authority has he to suspend the privilege of thatwrit anywhere, except in pursuance of the constitutional provisionallowing the writ to be suspended 'when in cases of rebellion orinvasion the public safety may require it?' Then the Presidentunderstands that the public safety in the insurrectionary States stillrequires its suspension. 

"The Attorney-General, when asked, a few days ago, why Jefferson Daviswas not put upon trial, told you that, 'though active hostilities haveceased, a state of war still exists over the territory in rebellion, 'so that it could not be properly done. General Grant, in an orderissued within a few days--which I commend to the especialconsideration of the Senator from Indiana, for it contains many of theprovisions of the bill under consideration--an order issued with theapprobation of the Executive, for such an order, I apprehend, couldnot have been issued without his approbation--directs 'militarydivision and department commanders, whose commands embrace or arecomposed of any of the late rebellious States, and who have notalready done so, will at once issue and enforce orders protecting fromprosecution or suits in the State, or municipal courts of such State, all officers and soldiers of the armies of the United States, and allpersons thereto attached, or in anywise thereto belonging; subject tomilitary authority, charged with offenses for acts done in theirmilitary capacity, or pursuant to orders from proper militaryauthority; and to protect from suit or prosecution all loyal citizensor persons charged with offenses done against the rebel forces, directly or indirectly, during the existence of the rebellion; and allpersons, their agents and employés, charged with the occupancy ofabandoned lands or plantations, or the possession or custody of anykind of property whatever, who occupied, used, possessed, orcontrolled the same, pursuant to the order of the President, or any ofthe civil or military departments of the Government, and to protectthem from any penalties or damages that may have been or may bepronounced or adjudged in said courts in any of such cases; and alsoprotecting colored persons from prosecutions, in any of said States, charged with offenses for which white persons are not prosecuted orpunished in the same manner and degree. '"

Mr. Saulsbury having asked whether the Senator believed that GeneralGrant or the President had any constitutional authority to make suchan order as that, Mr. Trumbull replied: "I am very glad the Senatorfrom Delaware has asked the question. I answer, he had most ample andcomplete authority. I indorse the order and every word of it. It wouldbe monstrous if the officers and soldiers of the army and loyalcitizens were to be subjected to suits and prosecutions for acts donein saving the republic, and that, too, at the hands of the very menwho sought its destruction. Why, had not the Lieutenant-Generalauthority to issue the order? Have not the civil tribunals in all theregion of country to which order applies been expelled by armed rebelsand traitors? Has not the power of the Government been overthrownthere? Is it yet reëstablished? Some steps have been taken towardreëstablishing it under the authority of the military, and in no otherway. If any of the State governments recently set up in the rebelliousStates were to undertake to embarrass military operations, I have nodoubt they would at once be set aside by order of the Lieutenant-General, in pursuance of directions from the Executive. These governments whichhave been set up act by permission of the military. They are made useof, to some extent, to preserve peace and order and enforce civilrights between parties; and, so far as they act in harmony with theConstitution and laws of the United States and the orders of themilitary commanders, they are permitted to exercise authority; butuntil those States shall be restored in all their constitutionalrelations to the Union, they ought not to be permitted to exerciseauthority in any other way. 

"I desire the Senator from Indiana to understand that it is under thiswar power that the authority of the Freedmen's Bureau is to beexercised. I do not claim that its officers can try persons foroffenses without juries in States where the civil tribunals have notbeen interrupted by the rebellion. The Senator from Indiana arguesagainst this bill as if it was applicable to that State. Some of itsprovisions are, but most of them are not, unless the State of Indianahas been in rebellion against the Government; and I know too many ofthe brave men who have gone from that State to maintain the integrityof the Union and put down the rebellion to cast any such imputationupon her. She is a loyal and a patriotic State; her civil governmenthas never been usurped or overthrown by traitors, and the provisionsof the seventh and eighth sections of the bill to which the Senatoralludes can not, by their very terms, have any application to theState of Indiana. Let me read the concluding sentence of the eighthsection:

 "'The jurisdiction conferred by this section on the officers and agents of this bureau to cease and determine whenever, the discrimination on account of which it is conferred ceases, and in no event to be exercised in any State in which the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has not been interrupted by the rebellion, nor in any such State after said State shall have been fully restored in all its constitutional relations to the United States, and the courts of the State and of the United States within, the same are not disturbed or stopped in the peaceable course of justice. '

"Will the Senator from Indiana admit for a moment that the courts inhis State are now disturbed or stopped in the peaceable course ofjustice? If they were ever so disturbed, they are not now. Will theSenator admit that the State of Indiana does not have and exercise allits constitutional rights as one of the States of this Union? Thejudicial authority conferred by this bill applies to no State, noteven to South Carolina, after it shall have been restored in all itsconstitutional rights. 

"There is no provision in the bill for the exercise of judicialauthority except in the eighth section. Rights are declared in theseventh, but the mode of protecting them is provided in the eighthsection, and the eighth section then declares explicitly that thejurisdiction that is conferred shall be exercised only in States whichdo not possess full constitutional rights as parts of the Union. Indiana has at all times had all the constitutional rights pertainingto any State, has them now, and therefore the officers and agents ofthis bureau can take no jurisdiction of any case in the State ofIndiana. It will be another question, which I will answer, and may aswell answer now, perhaps, as to what is meant by 'militaryprotection. '

"The second section declares that 'the President of the United States, through the War Department and the commissioner, shall extend militaryjurisdiction and protection over all employés, agents, and officers ofthis bureau. ' He wants to know the effect of that in Indiana. Thisbureau is a part of the military establishment. The effect of that inIndiana is precisely the same as in every other State, and under itthe officers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau will occupy the sameposition as do the officers and soldiers of the United States Army. What is that? While they are subject to the Rules and Articles of War, if they chance to be in Indiana and violate her laws, they are heldamenable the same as any other person. The officer or soldier in theState of Indiana who commits a murder or other offense upon a citizenof Indiana, is liable to be indicted, tried, and punished, just as ifhe were a civilian. When the sheriff goes with the process to arrestthe soldier or officer who has committed the offense, the militaryauthorities surrender him up to be tried and punished according to thelaws of the State. It has always been done, unless in time of war whenthe courts were interrupted. The jurisdiction and 'protection' that isextended over these officers and agents is for the purpose of makingthem subject to the Rules and Articles of War. It is necessary forthis reason: in the rebellious States civil authority is not yet fullyrestored. There would be no other way of punishing them, of holdingthem to accountability, of governing and controlling them, in manyportions of the country; and it is because of the condition of therebellious States, and their still being under military authority, that it is necessary to put these officers and agents of theFreedmen's Bureau under the control of the military power. 

"The Senator says the original law only embraced within its provisionsthe refugees in the rebellious States; and now this bill is extendedto all the States, and he wants to know the reason. I will tell him. When the original bill was passed, slavery existed in Tennessee, Kentucky, Delaware, and in various other States. Since that time, bythe constitutional amendment, it has been every-where abolished. "

Mr. Saulsbury, aroused by the mention of his own State, interruptedthe speaker: "I say, as one of the representatives of Delaware on thisfloor, that she had the proud and noble character of being the firstto enter the Federal Union under a Constitution formed by equals. Shehas been the very last to obey a mandate, legislative or executive, for abolishing slavery. She has been the last slaveholding State, thank God, in America, and I am one of the last slaveholders inAmerica. "

Mr. Trumbull continued: "Well, Mr. President, I do not seeparticularly what the declaration of the Senator from Delaware has todo with the question I am discussing. His State may have been the lastto become free, but I presume that the State of Delaware, old as sheis, being the first to adopt the Constitution, and noble as she is, will submit to the Constitution of the United States, which declaresthat there shall be no slavery within its jurisdiction. " [Applause inthe galleries. ]

"It is necessary, Mr. President, to extend the Freedmen's Bureaubeyond the rebel States in order to take in the State of Delaware, [laughter, ] the loyal State of Delaware, I am happy to say, which didnot engage in this wicked rebellion; and it is necessary to protectthe freedmen in that State as well as elsewhere; and that is thereason for extending the Freedmen's Bureau beyond the limits of therebellious States. 

"Now, the Senator from Indiana says it extends all over the UnitedStates. Well, by its terms it does, though practically it can havelittle if any operation outside of the late slaveholding States. Iffreedmen should congregate in large numbers at Cairo, Illinois, or atEvansville, Indiana, and become a charge upon the people of thoseStates, the Freedmen's Bureau would have a right to extend itsjurisdiction over them, provide for their wants, secure for thememployment, and place them in situations where they could provide forthemselves; and would the State of Illinois or the State of Indianaobject to that? The provisions of the bill which would interfere withthe laws of Indiana can have no operation there. 

"Again, the Senator objects very much to the expense of this bureau. Why, sir, as I have once or twice before said, it is a part of themilitary establishment. I believe nearly all its officers at thepresent time are military officers, and by the provisions of thepending bill they are to receive no additional compensation whenperforming duties in the Freedmen's Bureau. The bill declares that the'bureau may, in the discretion of the President, be placed under acommissioner and assistant commissioners, to be detailed from thearmy, in which event each officer so assigned to duty shall servewithout increase of pay or allowances. '

"I shall necessarily, Mr. President, in following the Senator fromIndiana, speak somewhat in a desultory manner; but I prefer to do sobecause I would rather meet the objections made directly than by anygeneral speech. I will, therefore, take up his next objection, whichis to the fifth section of the bill. That section proposes to confirmfor three years the possessory titles granted by General Sherman. TheSenator from Indiana admits that General Sherman had authority, whenat the head of the army at Savannah, and these people were flockingaround him and dependent upon him for support, to put them upon theabandoned lands; but he says that authority to put them there andmaintain them there ceased with peace. Well, sir, a sufficient answerto that would be that peace has not yet come; the effects of war arenot yet ended; the people of the States of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, where these lands are situated, are yet subject tomilitary control. But I deny that if peace had come the authority ofthe Government to protect these people in their possessions wouldcease the moment it was declared. What are the facts? The owners ofthese plantations had abandoned them and entered the rebel army. Theywere contending against the army which General Sherman then commanded. Numerous colored people had flocked around General Sherman's army. Itwas necessary that he should supply them to save them from starvation. His commissariat was short. Here was this abandoned country, owned bymen arrayed in arms against the Government. He, it is admitted, hadauthority to put these followers of his army upon these lands, andauthorize them to go to work and gain a subsistence if they could. They went on the lands to the number of forty or fifty thousand, commenced work, have made improvements; and now will the Senator fromIndiana tell me that upon any principle of justice, humanity, or law, if peace had come when these laborers had a crop half gathered, theGovernment of the United States, having rightfully placed them inpossession, and pledged its faith to protect them there for anuncertain period, could immediately have turned them off and put inpossession those traitor owners who had abandoned their homes to fightagainst the Government?

"The Government having placed these people rightfully upon theselands, and they having expended their labor upon them, they had aright to be protected in their possessions, for some length of timeafter peace, on the principle of equity. That is all we propose to doby this bill. The committee thought it would not be more than areasonable protection to allow them to remain for three years, theyhaving been put upon these lands destitute, without any implements ofhusbandry, without cattle, horses, or any thing else with which tocultivate the land, and having, up to the present time, been able toraise very little at the expense of great labor. Perhaps the Senatorthinks they ought not to remain so long. I will not dispute whetherthey shall go off at the end of one year or two years. The committeepropose two years more. The order was dated in January, 1865, and wepropose three years from that time, which will expire in January, 1868, or about two years from this time. 

"On account of that provision of the bill, the Senator asks me thequestion whether the Government of the United States has the right, ina time of peace, to take property from one man and give it to another. I say no. Of course the Government of the United States has noauthority, in a time of peace, by a legislative act, to say that thefarm of the Senator from Indiana shall be given to the Senator fromOhio; I contend for no such principle. But following that up, theSenator wants to know by what authority you buy land or provideschool-houses for these refugees. Have we not been providingschool-houses for years? Is there a session of Congress when acts arenot passed giving away public lands for the benefit of schools? Butthat does not come out of the Treasury, the Senator from Indiana willprobably answer. But how did you get the land to give away? Did younot buy it of the Indians? Are you not appropriating, every session ofCongress, money by the million to extinguish the Indian title--moneycollected off his constituents and mine by taxation? We buy the landand then we give the land away for schools. Will the Senator tell mehow that differs from giving the money? Does it make any differencewhether we buy the land from the Indians and give it for the benefitof schools, or whether we buy it from some rebel and give--no, sir, use--it for the benefit of schools, with a view ultimately of sellingit for at least its cost? I believe I would rather buy from theIndian; but still, if the traitor is to be permitted to have a title, we will buy it from him if we can purchase cheaper. 

"Sir, it is a matter of economy to do this. The cheapest way by whichyou can save this race from starvation and destruction is to educatethem. They will then soon become self-sustaining. The report of theFreedmen's Bureau shows that to-day more than seventy thousand blackchildren are being taught in the schools which have been establishedin the South. We shall not long have to support any of these blacksout of the public Treasury if we educate and furnish them land uponwhich they can make a living for themselves. This is a very differentthing from taking the land of A and giving it to B by an act ofCongress. 

"But the Senator is most alarmed at those sections of this bill whichconfer judicial authority upon the officers and agents of theFreedmen's Bureau. He says if this authority can be exercised there isan end to all the reserved rights of the States, and this Governmentmay do any thing. Not at all, sir. The authority, as I have alreadyshown, to be exercised under the seventh and eighth sections, is amilitary authority, to be exerted only in regions of country where thecivil tribunals are overthrown, and not there after they are restored. It is the same authority that we have been exercising all the time inthe rebellious States; it is the same authority by virtue of whichGeneral Grant issued the order which I have just read. Here is aperfect and complete answer to the objection that is made to theseventh and eighth sections. 

"But, says the Senator from Indiana, we have laws in Indianaprohibiting black people from marrying whites, and are you going todisregard these laws? Are our laws enacted for the purpose ofpreventing amalgamation to be disregarded, and is a man to be punishedbecause he undertakes to enforce them? I beg the Senator from Indianato read the bill. One of its objects is to secure the same civilrights and subject to the same punishments persons of all races andcolors. How does this interfere with the law of Indiana preventingmarriages between whites and blacks? Are not both races treated alikeby the law of Indiana? Does not the law make it just as much a crimefor a white man to marry a black woman as for a black woman to marry awhite man, and _vice versa_? I presume there is no discrimination inthis respect, and therefore your law forbidding marriages betweenwhites and blacks operates alike on both races. This bill does notinterfere with it. If the negro is denied the right to marry a whiteperson, the white person is equally denied the right to marry thenegro. I see no discrimination against either in this respect thatdoes not apply to both. Make the penalty the same on all classes ofpeople for the same offense, and then no one can complain. 

"My object in bringing forward these bills was to bring to theattention of Congress something that was practical, something uponwhich I hoped we all could agree. I have said nothing in these billswhich are pending, and which have been recommended by the Committee onthe Judiciary--and I speak of both of them because they have both beenalluded to in this discussion--about the political rights of thenegro. On that subject it is known that there are differences ofopinion, but I trust there are no differences of opinion among thefriends of the constitutional amendment, among those who are for realfreedom to the black man, as to his being entitled to equality incivil rights. If that is not going as far as some gentlemen woulddesire, I say to them it is a step in the right direction. Let us gothat far, and, going that far, we have the coöperation of theExecutive Department; for the President has told us 'Good faithrequires the security of the freedmen in their liberty and theirproperty, their right to labor, and their right to claim the justreturn of their labor. '

"Such, sir, is the language of the President of the United States inhis annual message; and who in this chamber that is in favor of thefreedom of the slave is not in favor of giving him equal and exactjustice before the law? Sir, we can go along hand in hand together tothe consummation of this great object of securing to every human beingwithin the jurisdiction of the republic equal rights before the law, and I preferred to seek for points of agreement between all thedepartments of Government, rather than to hunt for points ofdivergence. I have not said any thing in my remarks aboutreconstruction. I have not attempted to discuss the question whetherthese States are in the Union or out of the Union, and so much hasbeen said upon that subject that I am almost ready to exclaim with oneof old, 'I know not whether they are in the body or out of the body;God knoweth. ' It is enough for me to know that the State organizationsin several States of the Union have been usurped and overthrown, andthat up to the present time no State organization has been inauguratedin either of them which the various departments of Government, or anydepartment of the Government, has recognized as placing the States infull possession of all the constitutional rights pertaining to Statesin full communion with the Union. 

"The Executive has not recognized any one, for he still continues toexercise military jurisdiction and to suspend the privilege of thewrit of _habeas corpus_ in all of them. Congress has not recognizedany of them, as we all know; and until Congress and the Executive dorecognize them, let us make use of the Freedmen's Bureau, alreadyestablished, to protect the colored race in their rights; and whenthese States shall be admitted, and the authority of the Freedmen'sBureau as a court shall cease and determine, as it must when civilauthority is fully restored, let us provide, then, by other laws, forprotecting all people in their equal civil rights before the law. Ifwe can pass such measures, they receive executive sanction, and itshall be understood that it is the policy of the Government that therights of the colored men are to be protected by the States if theywill, but by the Federal Government if they will not; that at allhazards, and under all circumstances, there shall be impartialityamong all classes in civil rights throughout the land. If we can dothis, much of the apprehension and anxiety now existing in the loyalStates will be allayed, and a great obstacle to an early restorationof the insurgent States to their constitutional relations in the Unionwill be removed. 

"If the people in the rebellious States can be made to understand thatit is the fixed and determined policy of the Government that thecolored people shall be protected in their civil rights, theythemselves will adopt the necessary measures to protect them; and thatwill dispense with the Freedmen's Bureau and all other Federallegislation for their protection. The design of these bills is not, asthe Senator from Indiana would have us believe, to consolidate allpower in the Federal Government, or to interfere with the domesticregulations of any of the States, except so far as to carry out aconstitutional provision which is the supreme law of the land. If theStates will not do it, then it is incumbent on Congress to do it. Butif the States will do it, then the Freedmen's Bureau will be removed, and the authority proposed to be given by the other bill will have nooperation. 

"Sir, I trust there may be no occasion long to exercise the authorityconferred by this bill. I hope that the people of the rebelliousStates themselves will conform to the existing condition of things. Ido not expect them to change all their opinions and prejudices. I donot expect them to rejoice that they have been discomfited. But theyacknowledge that the war is over; they agree that they can no longercontend in arms against the Government; they say they are willing tosubmit to its authority; they say in their State conventions thatslavery shall no more exist among them. With the abolition of slaveryshould go all the badges of servitude which have been enacted for itsmaintenance and support. Let them all be abolished. Let the people ofthe rebellious States now be as zealous and as active in the passageof laws and the inauguration of measures to elevate, develop, andimprove the negro as they have hitherto been to enslave and degradehim. Let them do justice and deal fairly with loyal Union men in theirmidst, and henceforth be themselves loyal, and this Congress will nothave adjourned till the States whose inhabitants have been engaged inthe rebellion will be restored, to their former position in the Union, and we shall all be moving on in harmony together. "

On the day following the discussion above given, Mr. Cowan moved toamend the first section of the bill so that its operation would belimited to such States "as have lately been in rebellion. " Insupporting his amendment, Mr. Cowan remarked: "I have no idea ofhaving this system extended over Pennsylvania. I think that as to thefreedmen who make their appearance there, she will be able to takecare of them and provide as well for them as any bureau which can becreated here. I wish to confine the operation of this institution tothe States which have been lately in rebellion. "

To this Mr. Trumbull replied: "The Senator from Pennsylvania will seethat the effect of that would be to exclude from the operation of thebureau the State of Kentucky and the State of Delaware, where theslaves have been emancipated by the constitutional amendment. Theoperation of the bureau will undoubtedly be chiefly confined to theStates where slavery existed; but it is a fact which may not be knownto the Senator from Pennsylvania, that during this war large numbersof slaves have fled to the Northern States bordering on theslaveholding territory. 

"It is not supposed that the bill will have any effect in the State ofPennsylvania or in the State of Illinois, unless it might, perhaps, beat Cairo, where there has been a large number of these refugeescongregated, without any means of support; they followed the armythere at different times. 

"The provision of the bill in regard to holding courts, and some otherprovisions, are confined entirely to the rebellious States, and willhave no operation in any State which was not in insurrection againstthis Government. I make this explanation to the Senator fromPennsylvania, and I think he will see the necessity of the bureaugoing into Kentucky and some of the other States, as much as into anyof the Southern rebellious States. "

Mr. Guthrie was opposed to the extension of the bill to his State. Hesaid: "I should like to know the peculiar reasons why this bill is tobe extended to the State of Kentucky. She has never been in rebellion. Though she has been overrun by rebel armies, and her fields laidwaste, she has always had her full quota in the Union armies, and theblood of her sons has marked the fields whereon they have fought. Kentucky does not want and does not ask this relief. The freedmen inKentucky are a part of our population; and where the old, and lame, and halt, and blind, and infants require care and attention theyobtain it from the counties. Our whole organization for the support ofthe poor, through the agencies of the magistrates in the severalcounties, is complete. "

[Illustration: Hon. Henry Wilson. ]

On the other hand, Mr. Creswell, of Maryland, saw a necessity for theoperation of the bill in his State. He said: "I have received, withinthe last two or three weeks, letters from gentlemen of the highestrespectability in my State, asserting that combinations of returnedrebel soldiers have been formed for the express purpose ofpersecuting, beating most cruelly, and in some cases actuallymurdering the returned colored soldiers of the republic. In certainsections of my State, the civil law affords no remedy at all. It isimpossible there to enforce against these people so violating the lawthe penalties which the law has prescribed for these offenses. It is, therefore, necessary, in my opinion, that this bill shall extend overthe State of Maryland. "

Mr. Cowan, in the course of a speech on the bill, said: "Thank God! weare now rid of slavery; that is now gone. " He also said: "Let thefriends of the negro, and I am one, be satisfied to treat him as he istreated in Pennsylvania; as he is treated in Ohio; as he is treatedevery-where where people have maintained their sanity upon thequestion. "

Mr. Wilson said: "The Senator from Pennsylvania tells us that he isthe friend of the negro. What, sir, he the friend of the negro! Why, sir, there has hardly been a proposition before the Senate of theUnited States for the last five years, looking to the emancipation ofthe negro and the protection of his rights, that the Senator fromPennsylvania has not sturdily opposed. He has hardly ever uttered aword upon this floor the tendency of which was not to degrade and tobelittle a weak and struggling race. He comes here to-day and thanksGod that they are free, when his vote and his voice for five years, with hardly an exception, have been against making them free. Hethanks God, sir, that your work and mine, our work which has saved acountry and emancipated a race, is secured; while from the word 'go, 'to this time, he has made himself the champion of 'how not to do it. 'If there be a man on the floor of the American Senate who has torturedthe Constitution of the country to find powers to arrest the voice ofthis nation which was endeavoring to make a race free, the Senatorfrom Pennsylvania is the man; and now he comes here and thanks Godthat a work which he has done his best to arrest, and which we havecarried, is accomplished. I tell him to-day that we shall carry theseother measures, whether he thanks God for them or not, whether heopposes them or not. " [Laughter and applause in the galleries. ]

After an extended discussion, the Senate refused, by a vote ofthirty-three against eleven, to adopt the amendment proposed by Mr. Cowan. 

The bill was further discussed during three successive days, Messrs. Saulsbury, Hendricks, Johnson, McDougall, and Davis speaking againstthe measure, and Messrs. Fessenden, Creswell, and Trumbull in favor ofit. Mr. Garrett Davis addressed the Senate more than once on thesubject, and on the last day of the discussion made a very longspeech, which was answered by Mr. Trumbull. The Senator from Illinois, at the conclusion of his speech, remarked:

"What I have now said embraces, I believe, all the points of the longgentleman's speech except the sound and fury, and that I will notundertake to reply to. "

"You mean the short gentleman's long speech, " interposed some Senator. 

"Did I say short?" asked Mr. Trumbull. "If so, it was a great mistaketo speak of any thing connected with the Senator from Kentucky asshort. " [Laughter. ]

"It is long enough to reach you, " responded Mr. Davis. 

The vote was soon after taken on the passage of the bill, with thefollowing result:

 YEAS--Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Norton, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Williams, Wilson, and Yates--37. 

 NAYS--Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson, McDougall, Riddle, Saulsbury, Stockton, and Wright--10. 

 ABSENT--Messrs. Cowan, Nesmith, and Willey--3. 

The bill having passed, the question came up as to its title, which itwas proposed to leave as reported by the committee: "A bill to enlargethe powers of the Freedmen's Bureau. "

Mr. Davis moved to amend the title by substituting for it, "A bill toappropriate a portion of the public land in some of the SouthernStates and to authorize the United States Government to purchase landsto supply farms and build houses upon them for the freed negroes; topromote strife and conflict between the white and black races; and toinvest the Freedmen's Bureau with unconstitutional powers to aid andassist the blacks, and to introduce military power to prevent thecommissioner and other officers of said bureau from being restrainedor held responsible in civil courts for their illegal acts inrendering such aid and assistance to the blacks, and for otherpurposes. "

The President _pro tempore_ pronounced the amendment "not in order, inconsistent with the character of the bill, derogatory to the Senate, a reproach to its members. "

Mr. McDougall declared the proposed amendment "an insult to the actionof the Senate. "

The unfortunate proposition was quietly abandoned by its author, andpassed over without further notice by the Senate. By unanimousconsent, the title of the bill remained as first reported. 

CHAPTER VII. 

THE FREEDMEN'S BUREAU BILL IN THE HOUSE. 

 The Bill reported to the House -- Mr. Eliot's Speech -- History -- Mr. Dawson vs. The Negro -- Mr. Garfield -- The Idol Broken -- Mr. Taylor counts the Cost -- Mr. Donnelly's Amendment -- Mr. Kerr -- Mr. Marshall on White Slavery -- Mr. Hubbard -- Mr. Moulton -- Opposition from Kentucky -- Mr. Ritter -- Mr. Rousseau's Threat -- Mr. Shanklin's Gloomy Prospect -- Mr. Trimble's Appeal -- Mr. Mckee an exceptional Kentuckian -- Mr. Grinnell on Kentucky -- the Example of Russia -- Mr. Phelps -- Mr. Shellabarger's Amendment -- Mr. Chanler -- Mr. Stevens' Amendments -- Mr. Eliot closes the Discussion -- Passage of the Bill -- Yeas and Nays. 

On the day succeeding the passage of the bill in the Senate, it wassent to the House of Representatives, and by them referred to theSelect Committee on the Freedmen. 

On the 30th of January, Mr. Eliot, Chairman of this committee, reported the bill to the House with amendments, mainly verbalalterations. 

In a speech, advocating the passage of the bill, Mr. Eliot presentedsomething of the history of legislation for the freedmen. He said: "Onthe 3d day of last March the bill establishing a Freedmen's Bureaubecame a law. It was novel legislation, without precedent in thehistory of any nation, rendered necessary by the rebellion of elevenslave States and the consequent liberation from slavery of fourmillion persons whose unpaid labor had enriched the lands andimpoverished the hearts of their relentless masters. 

"At an early day, when the fortunes of war had shown alternatetriumphs and defeats to loyal arms, and the timid feared and thedisloyal hoped, it was my grateful office to introduce the first billcreating a bureau of emancipation. It was during the Thirty-seventhCongress. But, although the select committee to which the bill wasreferred was induced to agree that it should be reported to the House, it so happened that the distinguished Chairman, Judge White, ofIndiana, did not succeed in reporting it for our action. At thebeginning of the Thirty-eighth Congress it was again presented, andvery soon was reported back to the House under the title of 'A bill toestablish a Bureau of Freedmen's Affairs. ' It was fully debated andpassed by the House. The vote was sixty-nine in favor, and sixty-sevenagainst the bill; but of the sixty-seven who opposed it, fifty-six hadbeen counted against it, because of their political affinities. On the1st of March, 1864, the bill went to the Senate. It came back to theHouse on the 30th of June, four days before the adjournment ofCongress. To my great regret, the Senate had passed an amendment inthe nature of a substitute, attaching this bureau to the TreasuryDepartment; but it was too late to take action upon it then, and thebill was postponed until December. At that time the Housenon-concurred with the Senate, and a committee of conference waschosen. The managers of the two houses could not agree as to whetherthe War Department or the Treasury should manage the affairs of thebureau. They therefore agreed upon a bill creating an independentdepartment neither attached to the War nor Treasury, but communicatingdirectly with the President, and resting for its support upon the armof the War Department. That bill was also passed by the House but wasdefeated in the Senate. Another Conference Committee was chosen, andthat committee, whose chairman in the House was the distinguishedgentleman from Ohio, then and now at the head of the MilitaryCommittee, agreed upon a bill attaching the bureau to the WarDepartment, and embracing refugees as well as freedmen in its terms. That bill is now the law. 

"The law was approved on the 3d of March, 1865. Nine months have notyet elapsed since its organization. The order from the War Departmentunder which the bureau was organized bears date on the 12th of May, 1865. General Howard, who was then in command of the Department ofTennessee, was assigned as commissioner of the bureau. The bill becamea law so late in the session that it was impossible for Congress tolegislate any appropriation for its support. It was necessary, therefore, that the management of it should be placed in the hands ofmilitary officers, and fortunately the provisions of the billpermitted that to be done. General Howard was, as I stated, in commandof the Department of Tennessee, when he was detailed to this duty. Buton the 15th of May, that is to say, within three days after the orderappointing him, was issued, he assumed the duties of his office. 

"In the course of a few days, the commissioner of the bureau announcedmore particularly the policy which he designed to pursue. The wholesupervision of the care of freedmen and of all lands which the lawplaced under the charge of the bureau was to be intrusted to assistantcommissioners. 

"Before a month had expired, head-quarters had been established forassistant commissioners at Richmond, Raleigh, Beaufort, Montgomery, Nashville, St. Louis, Vicksburg, New Orleans, and Jacksonville, andvery shortly afterward assistant commissioners were designated forthose posts of duty. They were required to possess themselves, as soonas practicable, with the duties incident to their offices, to quickenin every way they could and to direct the industry of the freedmen. Notice was given that the relief establishments which had been createdby law under the operations of the War Department should bediscontinued as soon as they could be consistently with the comfortand proper protection of the freedmen, and that every effort should bemade--and I call the attention of gentlemen to the fact that thatpolicy has been pursued throughout--that every effort should be madeto render the freedmen, at an early day, self-supporting. The suppliesthat had been furnished by the Government were only to be continued solong as the actual wants of the freedmen seemed to require it. At thattime there were all over the country refugees who were seeking theirhomes, and they were notified that, under the care of the bureau, theywould be protected from abuse, and directed in their efforts to securetransportation and proper facilities for reaching home. 

"Wherever there had been interruption of civil law, it was foundimpossible that the rights of freedmen could be asserted in thecourts; and where there were no courts before which their rights couldbe brought for adjudication, military tribunals, provost-marshals'courts, were established, for the purpose of determining uponquestions arising between freedmen or between freedmen and otherparties; and that, also, has been continued to this day. 

"The commissioners were instructed to permit the freedmen to selecttheir own employers and to choose their own kind of service. Allagreements were ordered to be free and mutual, and not to becompulsory. The old system that had prevailed of overseer labor wasordered to be repudiated by the commissioners who had charge of thelaborers, and I believe there has been no time since the organizationof the bureau when there have not been reports made to head-quartersat Washington of all labor contracts; and wherever any provisions hadbeen inserted, by inadvertence or otherwise, that seemed unjustly tooperate against the freedmen, they have been stricken out by directionof the commissioner here. 

"In the course of the next month, action was taken by the commissionerrespecting a provision of the law as it was passed in March, authorizing the Secretary of War to make issues of clothing andprovisions, and the assistant commissioners were required carefully toascertain whatever might be needed under that provision of the law, and to make periodical reports as to the demands made upon theGovernment through the bureau. Directions were given by thecommissioner to his assistant commissioners to make repeated reportsto him upon all the various subjects which had come under hischarge--with regard to the number of freedmen, where they were, whether in camps or in colonies, or whether they were employed uponGovernment works, and stating, if they obtained supplies, how theywere furnished, whether by donations or whether procured by purchase. Reports were also required as to all lands which had been put underthe care of the bureau; and statements were called for showingdescriptions of the lands, whether, in the language of the law, 'abandoned' or 'confiscated, ' so that the bureau here could have fulland complete information of all action of its agents throughout theseStates, and upon examination it could be determined where any specificlands which were under the charge of the bureau came from, and howthey were derived. 

"In the course of the summer, it became necessary to issue additionalinstructions. The commissioner found that his way was beset withdifficulties; he was walking upon unknown ground; he was testing hereand there questions involved in doubt. It was hardly possible at onceand by one order to designate all that it would be needful for him todo, and, therefore, different instructions were issued from time totime from his office. The assistant commissioners were called uponthoroughly to examine, either by themselves or their agents, therespective districts allotted to them, to make inquiry as to thecharacter of the freedmen under their charge, their ability to labor, their disposition to labor, and the circumstances under which theywere placed, so that the aid, the care, and the protection which thelaw contemplated might be afforded to them as quickly and aseconomically as possible. 

"The commissioner continually repeated his injunctions to hisassistants to be sure that no compulsory or unpaid labor wastolerated, and that both the moral and intellectual condition of thefreedmen should be improved as systematically and as quickly aspracticable. 

"When the bureau was first organized, indeed when it was first urgedupon the attention of this House, it was stated and it was believedthat the bureau would very shortly be self-sustaining. That was theidea from the beginning. And when it was stated here in debate thatthe bureau would probably be self-sustaining, it was supposed thatfrom the lands abandoned, confiscated, sold, and the lands of theUnited States, which by the provisions of the bill had been placedunder the care of the commissioner, these freedmen would be given anopportunity to earn substantially enough for the conduct of thebureau. And I have no doubt at all that such would have been the casehad the original expectation been carried out. 

"There were large tracts of land in Virginia and the other rebelStates which were clearly applicable to this purpose. There was thesource of supply--the lands and the labor. There were laborers enough, and there was rich land enough. At a very early day the abandonedlands were turned over to the care of the commissioners, and Isupposed, and probably we all supposed, that the lands which in thelanguage of the law were known as 'abandoned lands, ' and those whichwere in the possession of the United States, would be appropriated tothe uses of these freedmen. Within a week after the commissionerassumed the duties of his office, he found it necessary to issue anorder substantially like this: Whereas, large amounts of lands in theState of Virginia and in other States have been abandoned, and are nowin the possession of the freedmen, and are now under cultivation bythem; and, whereas, the owners of those lands are now calling fortheir restoration, so as to deprive the freedmen of the results oftheir industry, it is ordered that the abandoned lands now undercultivation be retained by the freedmen until the growing crops can besecured, unless full and just compensation can be made them for theirlabor and its products. 

"'The above order'--this is the part about which it appeared that somedifference of judgment existed between the Executive and thecommissioner of the bureau--'the above order will not be construed soas to relieve disloyal persons from the consequences of theirdisloyalty; and the application for the restoration of their lands bythis class of persons will in no case be entertained by any militaryauthority. '

"It was found, not a great while afterward, that the views which thePresident entertained as to his duty were somewhat in conflict withthe provisions of this order; for it was held by the President thatpersons who had brought themselves within the range of his pardon andhad secured it, and who had taken or did afterward take the amnestyoath, would be entitled, as one of the results of the pardon and oftheir position after the oath had been taken, to a restoration oftheir lands which had been assigned to freedmen. In consequence ofthis, an order was subsequently issued, well known as circular No. 15. And under the operation of that circular, on its appearingsatisfactorily to any assistant commissioner that any property underhis control is not 'abandoned, ' as defined in the law, and that theUnited States have acquired no perfect right to it, it is to berestored and the fact reported to the commissioner. 'Abandoned' landswere to be restored to the owners pardoned by the President, by theassistant commissioners, to whom applications for such restorationwere to be forwarded; and each application was to be accompanied bythe pardon of the President and by a copy of the oath of amnestyprescribed in the President's proclamation, and also by a proof oftitle to the land. It must be obvious that the effect of this musthave been to transfer from the care of the bureau to the owners verylarge portions of the land which had been relied upon for the supportof the freedmen. Within a few weeks from the date of that order, noless than $800, 000 worth of property in New Orleans was transferred, and about one third of the whole property in North Carolina inpossession of the bureau was given up; and the officer having chargeof the land department reports that before the end of the year, in allprobability, there will be under the charge of the commissionerlittle, if any, of the lands originally designed for the support ofthese freedmen. 

"It is obvious, if these lands are to be taken, that other lands mustbe provided, or the freedmen will become a dead weight upon theTreasury, and the bill under consideration assigns other lands, in theplace of those thus taken, from the unoccupied public lands of theUnited States. "

On the following day, Mr. Dawson, of Pennsylvania, obtained the floorin opposition to the bill. His speech was not devoted to a discussionof the bill in question, but was occupied entirely with generalpolitical and social topics. The following extract indicates the tenorof the speech:

"Negro equality does not exist in nature. The African is without ahistory. He has never shown himself capable of self-government by thecreation of a single independent State possessing the attributes whichchallenge the respect of others. The past is silent of any negropeople who possessed military and civil organization, who cultivatedthe arts at home, or conducted a regular commerce with theirneighbors. No African general has marched south of the desert, fromthe waters of the Nile to the Niger and Senegal, to unite by conquestthe scattered territories of barbarous tribes into one great andhomogeneous kingdom. No Moses, Solon, Lycurgus, or Alfred has leftthem a code of wise and salutary laws. They have had no builder ofcities; they have no representatives in the arts, in science, or inliterature; they have been without even a monument, an alphabet, or ahieroglyphic. "

On the other hand, Mr. Garfield, of Ohio, among the friends of themeasure, delivered a speech "on the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, " in whichthe topic discussed was "Restoration of the Rebel States. " In thecourse of his remarks Mr. Garfield said:

"Let the stars of heaven illustrate our constellation of States. WhenGod launched the planets upon their celestial pathway, he bound themall by the resistless power of attraction to the central sun, aroundwhich they revolved in their appointed orbits. Each may be swept bystorms, may be riven by lightnings, may be rocked by earthquakes, maybe devastated by all the terrestrial forces and overwhelmed in ruin, but far away in the everlasting depths, the sovereign sun holds theturbulent planet in its place. This earth may be overwhelmed until thehigh hills are covered by the sea; it may tremble with earthquakesmiles below the soil, but it must still revolve in its appointedorbit. So Alabama may overwhelm all her municipal institutions inruin, but she can not annul the omnipotent decrees of the sovereignpeople of the Union. She must be held forever in her orbit ofobedience and duty. "

After having quoted Gibbon's narrative of the destruction of thecolossal statue of Serapis by Theophilus, Mr. Garfield said: "Soslavery sat in our national Capitol. Its huge bulk filled the templeof our liberty, touching it from side to side. Mr. Lincoln, on the 1stof January, 1863, struck it on the cheek, and the faithless andunbelieving among us expected to see the fabric of our institutionsdissolve into chaos because their idol had fallen. He struck it again;Congress and the States repeated the blow, and its unsightly carcasslies rotting in our streets. The sun shines in the heavens brighterthan before. Let us remove the carcass and leave not a vestige of themonster. We shall never have done that until we have dared to come upto the spirit of the Pilgrim covenant of 1620, and declare that allmen shall be consulted in regard to the disposition of their lives, liberty, and property. The Pilgrim fathers proceeded on the doctrinethat every man was supposed to know best what he wanted, and had theright to a voice in the disposition of himself. "

Mr. Taylor, of New York, opposed the bill principally on the ground ofthe expense involved in its execution. After having presented manycolumns of figures, Mr. Taylor arrived at this conclusion: "The costor proximate cost of the bureau for one year, confining its operationto the hitherto slave States, will be $25, 251, 600. That it is intendedto put the bureau in full operation in every county and parish of thehitherto slave States, including Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, andMissouri, I have not the least doubt, nor have I any doubt but that itis intended to extend it into parts of some of the border States. "

Mr. Donnelly moved to amend the bill by inserting the provision that"the commissioner may provide a common-school education for allrefugees and freedmen who shall apply therefor. " He advocatededucation as an efficient means of restoration for the South. Hepresented ample tables of statistics, and summed up the results intheir bearing upon his argument as follows:

"The whole United States, with a population of 27, 000, 000, contains834, 106 illiterate persons, and of these 545, 177 are found in theSouthern States with a population of 12, 000, 000. In other words, theentire populous North contains but 288, 923, while the sparsely-settledSouth contains 545, 177. "

As an argument for the passage of the bill, he answered the question, "What has the South done for the black man since the close of therebellion?"

"In South Carolina it is provided that all male negroes between twoand twenty, and all females between two and eighteen, shall be boundout to some 'master. ' The adult negro is compelled to enter intocontract with a master, and the district judge, not the laborer, is tofix the value of the labor. If he thinks the compensation too smalland will not work, he is a vagrant, and can be hired out for a term ofservice at a rate again to be fixed by the judge. If a hired negroleaves his employer he forfeits his wages for the whole year. 

"The black code of Mississippi provides that no negro shall own orhire lands in the State; that he shall not sue nor testify in courtagainst a white man; that he must be employed by a master before thesecond Monday in January, or he will be bound out--in other words, sold into slavery; that if he runs away the master may recover him, and deduct the expenses out of his wages; and that if another manemploys him he will be liable to an action for damages. It is true, the President has directed General Thomas to disregard this code; butthe moment the military force is withdrawn from the State that orderwill be of no effect. 

"The black code of Alabama provides that if a negro who has contractedto labor fails to do so, he shall be punished with damages; and if heruns away he shall be punished as a vagrant, which probably means thathe shall be sold to the highest bidder for a term of years; and thatany person who entices him to leave his master, as by the offer ofbetter wages, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be sent tojail for six months; and further, that these regulations include allpersons of negro blood to the third generation, though one parent ineach generation shall be pure white; that is, down to the man who hasbut one eighth negro blood in his veins. "

After quoting the black codes of other States, the speaker thusepitomized their substance: "All this means simply the reëstablishmentof slavery. 

"1. He shall work at a rate of wages to be fixed by a county judge ora Legislature made up of white masters, or by combinations of whitemasters, and not in any case by himself. 

"2. He shall not leave that master to enter service with another. Ifhe does he is pursued as a fugitive, charged with the expenses of hisrecapture, and made to labor for an additional period, while the whiteman who induced him to leave is sent to jail. 

"3. His children are taken from him and sold into virtual slavery. 

"4. If he refuses to work, he is sold to the highest bidder for a termof months or years, and becomes, in fact, a slave. 

"5. He can not better his condition; there is no future for him; heshall not own property; he shall not superintend the education of hischildren; neither will the State educate them. 

"6. If he is wronged, he has no remedy; for the courts are closedagainst him. "

Mr. Kerr, of Indiana, addressed the House on the subject ofreconstruction, maintaining, by extended arguments and quotations fromlearned authorities, that the rebel States were still in the Union. Heconcluded his speech by opposing the bill under consideration on theground of its expense: "It involves the creation of a small army ofagents and commissioners, whose jurisdiction and control shall pervadethe whole country, shall extend into every State, into everycongressional district, into every county, into every township andcity of this broad Union; provided, only, that they can find somefreedmen or refugees upon whom to exercise their jurisdiction. Isubmit that, before a measure of this kind should be adopted, weshould reflect most carefully upon what we are doing. We shouldremember that this country is now almost crushed into the very earthwith its accumulated burden of public debt, of State debts, of countydebts, of city debts, of township debts, of individual debts. Weshould bear in mind that we may impose upon the people of thiscountry, by this kind of latitudinarian and most dangerouslegislation, a burden that is too heavy to be borne, and against whichthe day may come when the people, as one man, will feel themselvescalled upon to protest in such a manner as forever to overthrow thatkind of legislation, and condemn to merited reproach those who favorit. "

On a subsequent day of the discussion, Mr. Marshall, of Illinois, spoke against the bill. He put much stress upon an objection to whichnearly all the opponents of the bill had referred, namely, thatCongress had no warrant in the Constitution for passing such ameasure. He said: "Instead of this being called a bill for theprotection of freedmen and refugees, it ought to be called a bill forthe purpose of destroying the Constitution of the United States, andsubjecting the people thereof to military power and domination. Thatwould be a much more appropriate title. "

Mr. Marshall was opposed to bestowing any thing in charity. "I deny, "said he, "that this Federal Government has any authority to become thecommon almoner of the charities of the people. I deny that there isany authority in the Federal Constitution to authorize us to put ourhands into their pockets and take therefrom a part of their hardearnings in order to distribute them as charity. I deny that theFederal Government was established for any such purpose, or that thereis any authority or warrant in the Constitution for the measures whichare proposed in this most extraordinary bill. "

He viewed with horror the slavery which the head of the War Departmentcould impose upon the people by virtue of the provisions of this bill. "He is to send his military satraps, " said Mr. Marshall, "into everycounty and district of these States; and they may enslave and put downthe entire white people of the country by virtue of this law. " He sawin the bill power "to rob the people by unjust taxation; to take thehard earnings from the white people of the West, who, unless wisercounsels prevail, will themselves soon be reduced to worse thanEgyptian bondage. I demand to be informed here upon this floor by whatpower you put your hands into their pockets and drag from them theirmoney to carry out the purposes of this measure. "

Mr. Hubbard, of Connecticut, made a short speech in reply to thespeaker last quoted. He said: "The gentleman from Illinois, sometwenty times in the course of his eloquent speech this morning, calledupon some one to tell him where Congress gets the power to enact sucha law as this. In the first place, I commend to him to read the secondsection of the article of the immortal amendment of the Constitution, giving to Congress power to pass all appropriate laws and make allappropriate legislation for the purpose of carrying out itsprovisions. I commend to his careful study the spirit of the secondsection of that immortal amendment, and I think, if he will study itwith a willingness to be convinced, he will see that it has given tothis Congress full power in the premises. Moreover, sir, I read in theConstitution that Congress has been at all times charged with the dutyof providing for the public welfare; and if Congress shall deem thatthe public welfare requires this enactment, it is the sworn duty ofevery member to give the bill his support. 

"Sir, there is an old maxim of law in which I have very considerablefaith, that regard must be had to the public welfare; and this maximis said to be the highest law. It is the law of the Constitution, andin the light of that Constitution as amended I find ample power forthe enactment of this law. It is the duty of Congress to exercise itspower in such a time as this, in a time of public peril; and I hopethat nobody on this side of the House will be so craven as to wantcourage to come up to the question and give his vote for the bill. Itis necessary to provide for the public welfare. "

Mr. Moulton, of Illinois, spoke in favor of the bill. Of theoft-repeated objection that "this bill is in violation of theConstitution of the United States, " he said: "This is the veryargument that we have heard from the other side of this chamber forthe last five years with reference to every single measure that hasbeen proposed to this House for the prosecution of the war for theUnion. No measure has been passed for the benefit of the country, forthe prosecution of this war, for the defense of your rights and mine, but has been assailed by gentlemen on the opposite side of this Housewith the argument that the whole thing was unconstitutional. "

He then proceeded to set forth at length the authority of Congress topass such a bill. 

Very strenuous opposition to the passage of the bill was made by mostof the members from Kentucky. Mr. Ritter, of that State, uttered hisearnest protest at considerable length against the measure. Hepresented his views of the "grand purposes and designs of those whointroduced this bill. " In his opinion they intended "to commence acolony in each one of the five States above named, which is ultimatelyto drive out the entire white population of those States and filltheir places with the negro race. " And whether this is the design ornot, it is certain, in my judgment, to have this effect. And theycould not have devised a more effectual scheme for that purpose. 

"Sir, it is not to be expected that the two races will livecontentedly where there are large numbers of the colored people livingnear to neighborhoods settled with white persons. Experience hasproved to many of us that wherever large numbers of colored peoplelive, that the white people living within five or ten miles of theplace become sufferers to a very large extent. Now, sir, if thisshould be the case (as I have no doubt it will) in the States in whichyou propose to establish these people, the whites and blacks willdisagree to such an extent that, when people find that the coloredpeople are permanently established, they will be compelled, in selfdefense, to seek a home somewhere else. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, butthat those who prepared this bill saw that the difficulties anddisagreements to which I have just alluded would arise, and hence theyrequire that military jurisdiction and protection shall be extended, so as to give safety in their movements; and if the white inhabitantsbecome dissatisfied, the commissioner is prepared with authority bythis bill to buy them out and put the negroes upon the land. "

He thus presented his calculation of the cost of carrying out the billas an argument against it: "In 1822 the ordinary expenses of theGovernment were $9, 827, 643, and in 1823 the expenses amounted to thesum of $9, 784, 154. Now, sir, who could have thought at that day thatin the comparatively short time of forty-three years it would requirethe sum of even $12, 000, 000 to fix up a machinery alone for thebenefit of three or four million negroes, and more especially, sir, when it is understood that in 1820 we had a population, includingwhite and colored, of 9, 633, 545. Mr. Speaker, how long will it be atthis rate--when we take into consideration the fact that ourGovernment proper, besides this little bureau machine, is now costingus hundreds of millions of dollars--how long, sir, will it be beforewe have to call in the services of Mr. Kennedy, of census notoriety, to estimate the amount of the debt we owe?"

Mr. Rousseau, of Kentucky, in defining his position, said: "I am not aRepublican; I was a Whig and a Union man, and belong to the Unionparty, and I am sorry to say that the Union party and the Republicanparty are not always convertible terms. "

Mr. Rousseau urged, against the Freedmen's Bureau Bill the wrongs andoppressions which its abuses heaped upon the people of the South. Inthe course of his speech Mr. Rousseau quoted what he had said on oneoccasion to an official of the Freedmen's Bureau: "I said to him, 'ifyou intend to arrest white people on the _ex parte_ statements ofnegroes, and hold them to suit your convenience for trial, and fineand imprison them, then I say that I oppose you; and if you should soarrest and punish me, I would kill you when you set me at liberty; andI think that you would do the same to a man who would treat you inthat way, if you are the man I think you are, and the man you ought tobe to fill your position here. '"

This extract has considerable importance as being the occasion of anunfortunate personal difficulty between Mr. Rousseau and Mr. Grinnell, of Iowa, narrated in a subsequent chapter. The latter portion of Mr. Rousseau's speech was devoted to the subject of reconstruction. He wasfollowed by Mr. Shanklin, of Kentucky. He characterized the Freedmen'sBureau as a "gigantic monster. " He declared that "the effect of thismeasure upon the negro population will be to paralyze their energy, destroy their industry, and make them paupers and vagabonds. " He saw"revolution and ruin" in prospect. "I affirm, " said he, "that inlegislating for those States, or without allowing them anyrepresentation in these halls, you are violating one of the cardinalprinciples of republican government; you are tearing down the mainpillar upon which our whole fabric of Government rests; you are sowingbroadcast the seeds of revolution and ruin. Mr. Speaker, if the objectof gentlemen here is to restore harmony and peace and prosperitythroughout the Union, why do they adopt measures thus insulting, tyrannical, and oppressive in their character? Is this the way torestore harmony and peace and prosperity? How can you expect to gainthe respect and affection of those people by heaping upon them insultand injustice? If they have the spirit of their ancestors, you maycrush them, you may slay them, but you can never cause them to loveyou or respect you; and they ought not while you force upon themmeasures which are only intended to degrade them. "

Mr. Trimble, of Kentucky, viewed the question in a similar light tothat in which it was regarded by his colleague. "I hold, " said he, "this bill is in open and plain violation of that provision of theConstitution. There exists no power in this Government to deprive acitizen of the United States of his property, to take away the hardearnings of his own industry and bestow them upon this class ofcitizens. The only way you can take property in South Carolina, Georgia, or any other State, is to take that property under theConstitution of the United States and the laws passed in pursuancethereof. "

He closed his speech with the following appeal: "I appeal to myfriends who love this Union, who love it for all the memories of thepast, who love it because it has protected them and theirs; I appealto them to pause and reflect before they press this measure upon thesepeople; for I tell you that, in my judgment, the effects of theprovisions of this bill to us as a nation will not be told in ourlifetimes. If legislation of this character is to be pressed here, Iawfully fear hope will sink within us. Our love for this Union anddesire for its restoration will be greatly weakened and estranged. "

Mr. McKee alone, of all the Representatives from Kentucky, wasfavorable to the bill. The opponents of the measure had spoken of itas a "monstrous usurpation. " "We have heard that talk, " said Mr. McKee, "for more than four years here. What bill has been introducedinto and passed by Congress since this war began that this same partyhas not been accustomed to denounce as a monstrous usurpation ofpower? When the President of the United States issued his call fortroops they cried out, 'A monstrous usurpation of power. ' When he senta requisition to the Governor of my own State, what was the response?'Not a man, not a dollar, to prosecute this wicked war against ourSouthern brethren. ' And the Union party, God help them! in Kentucky, indorsed the sentiment at that day. I did not belong to that part ofthe Union party; I never belonged to that 'neutrality concern. ' Inever put in my oar to help propel that ship which was in favor ofthundering forth with its cannon against the North and the Southalike. I never belonged to that party which said, 'We will stand as awall of fire against either side. ' I thank God I never stood upon butone side, and that was the side of my country, against treason, against oppression, against wrong in all its forms. "

In arguing the necessity for some such legislation as that provided inthis bill, Mr. McKee asked, "Has any Southern State given the freedmen'their full rights and full protection?' Is there a solitary State ofthose that have been in rebellion, (and I include my own State withthe rest, because, although she has never been, by proclamation, declared a State in rebellion, I think she has been one of the mostrebellious of the whole crew, ) is there a single one of these Statesthat has passed laws to give the freedmen full protection? In vain wewait an affirmative response. Until these States have done so, saysthis high authority, the Freedmen's Bureau is a necessity. This is tomy mind a sufficient answer to the arguments of gentlemen on the otherside. In none of those States has the black man a law to protect himin his rights, either of person or property. He can sue in a court ofjustice in my State, but he can command no testimony in hisprosecution or defense unless the witness be a white man. We have onecode for the white man, another for the black. Is this justice? Whereis your court of justice in any Southern State where the black man cansecure protection? Again there is no response. "

Mr. Grinnell, of Iowa, a member of the committee that had reportedthis bill, took the floor in its favor. Much having been said byRepresentatives of Kentucky in reference to that State, Mr. Grinnellremarked: "I can not forget, when I hear these extravagant claims setup here, that her Governor, in the first year of the rebellion, refused to honor the call for troops made by the President of theUnited States in our darkest hour; nor can I forget that when hersoldiers wished to organize regiments they were obliged to cross theOhio River into the State of Indiana, that they might organize themfree from the interference of the power of Kentucky neutrality. Thatis a fact in history, and I can not overlook it, when gentlemen herearraign the President of the United States because he has seen fit tosuspend the privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ in the State ofKentucky. "

"Let us see, " said Mr. Grinnell, in a subsequent part of his speech, "what are the laws of Kentucky which are so just and honorable andequitable. The white man in Kentucky can testify in the courts; theblack man can testify against himself. The white man can vote; theblack man can not. The white man, if he commits an offense, is triedby a jury of his peers; the black man is tried by his enlightened, unprejudiced superiors. The rape of a negro woman by a white man is nooffense; the rape of a white woman by a negro man is punishable bydeath, and the Governor of the State can not commute. 

"A white man may come into Kentucky when he pleases; the free negrowho comes there is a felon, though a discharged soldier, and woundedin our battles. A white man in Kentucky may keep a gun; if a black manbuys a gun he forfeits it, and pays a fine of five dollars ifpresuming to keep in his possession a musket which he has carriedthrough the war. Arson of public buildings, if committed by a whiteman, is punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term offrom seven to twenty-one years; if committed by a black man, thepunishment is death. Arson of a warehouse, etc. , when committed by awhite man, is punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary from one tosix years; when committed by a negro, the penalty is death. 

"If a white man is guilty of insurrection or rebellion, he is punishedby being called 'chivalrous. ' I instance the rebel General Forest, whomurdered white men at Fort Pillow, and is reputed the most popular manSouth. If a negro rebels, or conspires to rebel, he is punished withdeath. These are specimens. "

Referring to the benefits conferred by the Freedmen's Bureau uponKentucky, Mr. Grinnell remarked: "As it is asserted that thisFreedmen's Bureau is a partial, unnecessary, speculating affair, Iwish to call attention to the fact that in the State of Kentucky, during the last five months, more white refugees than freedmen, in theproportion of seven and one-fourth to one, have received rations atthe hands of the Government; that this bureau has kept in schools inthe State of Kentucky fourteen thousand black people. "

In further illustration of the work accomplished by thisinstrumentality, he said: "This bureau is in charge of 800, 000 acresof land and 1, 500 pieces of town property. It has issued more than600, 000 rations to refugees, and 3, 500, 000 to freedmen. It has treated2, 500 refugees in hospitals, and decently buried 227 of them. It hastreated 45, 000 freedmen, and made the graves for 6, 000 of the number. Transportation has been furnished to 1, 700 refugees and 1, 900freedmen. In the schools there are 80, 000 people that have beeninstructed by this bureau. And now it is proposed to leave all thesechildren of misfortune to the tender mercies of a people of whom it istrue by the Spanish maxim, 'Since I have wronged you I have hatedyou. ' I never can. Our authority to take care of them is founded inthe Constitution; else it is not worthy to be our great charter. Itgives authority to feed Indian tribes, though our enemies, and a justinterpretation can not restrain us in clothing and feeding unfortunatefriends. In providing schools, we can turn to the same authority whichled to the gift of millions of acres of the public domain for thepurpose of establishing agricultural colleges in this country. "

He referred to Russia for example of what should be done in such anemergency: "We should be worse than barbarians to leave these peoplewhere they are, landless, poor, unprotected; and I commend togentlemen who still cling to the delusion that all is well, to takelessons of the Czar of the Russias, who, when he enfranchised hispeople, gave them lands and school-houses, and invited school-mastersfrom all the world to come there and instruct them. Let us hush ournational songs; rather gird on sack-cloth, if wanting in moral courageto reap the fruits of our war by being just and considerate to thosewho look up to us for temporary counsel and protection. Care andeducation are cheaper for the nation than neglect, and nothing isplainer in the counsels of heaven or the world's history. "

An allusion made by Mr. Grinnell to the speech of Mr. Rosseau, provoked the personal assault to be described hereafter. 

Mr. Raymond having the floor for a personal explanation, took occasionto make the following remarks in reference to the bill: "I have noapprehensions as to the practical workings of this law. So far as Ihave been able to collect information from all quarters--and I havetaken some pains to do so--I find that this law, like most other lawson our statute books, works well where it is well administered. Thepractical operations of this bureau will depend upon the character ofthe agents into whose hands its management is intrusted. I certainlyhave no apprehension in this respect. I do not for one moment fearthat the agents who will be appointed to carry this law into executionwill not use the powers conferred upon them for the furtherance of thegreat object which we all have in view--the reconciliation, theprotection, the security of all classes of those who are now ourfellow-citizens in the Southern States. "

Mr. Phelps, of Maryland, made a speech indorsing the principle of thebill, but objecting to some of its details. His objections wereremoved by the presentation and acceptance of the following amendmentby Mr. Shellabarger, of Ohio: "No person shall be deemed destitute, suffering, or dependent upon the Government for support, within themeaning of this act, who, being able to find employment, could, byproper industry and exertion, avoid such destitution, suffering anddependence. "

Mr. Chanler made a long speech in opposition to the bill. He gaveparticular attention to the speech of Mr. Donnelly, of Minnesota, whohad advocated education as a necessity for the South. "The malignantparty spirit and sectional hate, " said Mr. Chanler, "that runs throughthis whole statement, needs no illustration. " After presentingvoluminous extracts from speeches, letters, and public documents, Mr. Chanler summed up his objections to the bill in the following words:"Our people are not willing to live under military rule. 

"This bureau is under military rule. It proposes to perpetuate andstrengthen itself by the present bill. 

"It founds an '_imperium in imperio_' to protect black labor againstwhite labor. 

"It excludes the foreign immigrant from the lands given to thenative-born negro. 

"It subjects the white native-born citizen to the ignominy ofsurrendering his patrimony, his self-respect, and his right to laborinto the hands of negroes, idle, ignorant, and misled by fanatic, selfish speculators. "

Mr. Stevens desired to amend the bill by striking out the limitationto three years given the possessory titles conferred by GeneralSherman, and rendering them perpetual. This amendment the House wereunwilling to accept. Mr. Stevens further proposed to strike out theproviso "unless as punishment for crime, whereof the party shall havebeen duly convicted, " giving as a reason for this amendment, "I knowthat men are convicted of assault and battery, and sentenced toslavery down there. I have authentic evidence of that fact in severalletters, and, therefore, I propose to strike out those words. "

This amendment was adopted. Another important amendment proposed bythe committee was the limitation of the operation of the bill toStates in which the writ of _habeas corpus_ was suspended on the 1stof February, 1866. Mr. Eliot closed the debate by answering someobjections to the bill, and presenting some official documents provingthe beneficent results of the bureau, especially in the State ofKentucky. 

On the 6th of February the question was taken, and the bill passed bythe following vote:

 YEAS--Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Brandegee, Bromwell, Broomall, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Hill, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, Latham, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, Marvin, McClurg, McIndoe, McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Phelps, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Price, William H. Randall, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Smith, Spalding, Starr, Stevens, Stilwell, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Whaley, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge. --136. 

 NAYS--Messrs. Boyer, Brooks, Chanler, Dawson, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Grider, Aaron Harding, Harris, Hogan, Edwin N. Hubbell, James M. Humphrey, Kerr, Le Blond, Marshall, McCullough, Niblack, Nicholson, Noell, Samuel J. Randall, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Rosseau, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Strouse, Taber, Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, and Wright--33. 

 NOT VOTING--Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Buckland, Culver, Denison, Goodyear, Hulburd, Johnson, Jones, Radford, Sloan, Voorhees, and Winfield--13. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

THE SENATE AND THE VETO MESSAGE. 

 Mr. Trumbull on the amendments of the House -- Mr. Guthrie exhibits feeling -- Mr. Sherman's deliberate conclusion -- Mr. Henderson's sovereign remedy -- Mr. Trumbull on patent medicines -- Mr. McDougall a white man -- Mr. Reverdy Johnson on the power to pass the bill -- Concurrence of the House -- the Veto Message -- Mr. Lane, of Kansas -- His efforts for delay -- Mr. Garrett Davis -- Mr. Trumbull's reply to the President -- The question taken -- Yeas and Nays -- Failure of passage. 

On the 7th of February the amendments of the House to the Freedmen'sBureau Bill were presented to the Senate, and referred to theCommittee on the Judiciary. 

On the following day Mr. Trumbull, chairman of this committee, reported certain amendments to the amendments made by the House ofRepresentatives. Mr. Trumbull said: "The House of Representatives haveadopted a substitute for the whole bill, but it is the Senate bill_verbatim_, with a few exceptions, which I will endeavor to point out. The title of the bill has been changed, to begin with. It was calledas it passed the Senate 'A bill to enlarge the powers of theFreedmen's Bureau. ' The House has amended the title so as to make itread, 'A bill to amend an act entitled "An act to establish a Bureaufor the Relief of Freedmen and Refugees, " and for other purposes. ' Ofcourse, there is no importance in that. 

"The first amendment which the House has made, and the most importantone, will be found to commence in the eighth line of the firstsection. The House has inserted words limiting the operation of theFreedmen's Bureau to those sections of country within which the writof _habeas corpus_ was suspended on the 1st day of February, 1866. Asthe bill passed the Senate, it will be remembered that it extended torefugees and freedmen in all parts of the United States, and thePresident was authorized to divide the section of country containingsuch refugees and freedmen into districts. The House amend that so asto authorize the President to divide the section of country withinwhich the privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ was suspended onthe 1st day of February, 1866, containing such refugees and freedmen, into districts. The writ of _habeas corpus_ on the 1st day of Februarylast was suspended in the late rebellious States, including Kentucky, and in none other. The writ of _habeas corpus_ was restored by thePresident's proclamation in Maryland, in Delaware, and in Missouri, all of which have been slaveholding States. 

"As the bill passed the Senate, it will be observed it only extendedto refugees and freedmen in the United States, wherever they might be, and the President was authorized to divide the region of countrycontaining such refugees and freedmen, and it had no operation exceptin States where there were refugees and freedmen. The House haslimited it so that it will not have operation in Maryland, orDelaware, or Missouri, or any of the Northern States. "

After Mr. Trumbull had stated the other and less important amendmentsmade by the House, the Senate proceeded to consider the amendmentsproposed by the Judiciary Committee, the first of which was to strikeout the words "within which the privileges of the writ of _habeascorpus_ was suspended on the 1st day of February, 1866. "

Mr. Trumbull said: "I wish to say upon that point that the bill as itpassed the Senate can have no operation except in regions of countrywhere there are refugees and freedmen. It is confined to thosedistricts of country, and it could not have operation in most of theloyal States. But it is desirable, as I am informed, and it was sostated by one of the Senators from Maryland, that the operations ofthis bill should be extended to Maryland. It may be necessary that itshould be extended to Missouri, and possibly to Delaware. I trust not;but the authority to extend it there ought to exist, if there shouldbe occasion for it. The only objection I have to limiting theoperation of the bill to the late slaveholding States is, that I thinkit bad legislation, when we are endeavoring to break downdiscrimination and distinction, to pass a law which is to operate inone State of the Union and not in another. I would rather that the lawshould be general, although I am fully aware that there is nothing forthe law to operate upon in most of the States of the Union. I do notfeel quite willing to vote upon Kentucky, for instance, a law that Iam not willing to have applicable to the State of Illinois, if such astate of facts exists as that the law can operate in Illinois. Iprefer, therefore, to have the bill in the shape in which it passedthe Senate, and such was the opinion of the Committee on theJudiciary. "

Mr. Guthrie, of Kentucky, spoke with much feeling upon the bearings ofthe bureau upon his State: "You will have to acknowledge these Statesor you will have to do worse. The passage of this system of bills is adissolution of the Union, and you can not help it. It will beimpossible for you to carry on this Government under any such system. When the Union is not to be restored, when there is nothing of thatfeeling to make the people endure, do you suppose they will endureforever? Do you suppose this bill will attach the people in theseeleven States more thoroughly to the Union than they felt when theyreörganized their State governments, passed laws manumitting theirslaves, electing their Legislatures, and doing all that was indicatedas necessary to be done? Do you suppose that there will ever come atime, under this bill, that they will desire to become members of thisUnion once more? I see in this bill exactly how Kentucky is toleratedhere; for as to having part in this legislation, when she is chargedopenly with being ruled at home by rebels, our counsels can be of nogood here; but still we are not to be driven from the Union, and fromraising our voice in favor of it, and raising it in favor ofconciliation and confidence from one section to the other. Gentlemendo not get these doctrines of hatred and vengeance from the Gospel. These are not the doctrines taught by the Savior of the world. Whileyou cry for justice to the African, you are not slow to commit wrongand outrage on the white race. 

"Sir, there were rebels in all the States, and will be again if youdrive these people to desperation. The Senator from Massachusetts, ifI understood his language aright, threatened us with war or worse ifwe did not yield to his suggestions, and the Senator from Indianaintimated very strongly the same thing. You have strength enough tocarry these measures, if it is the sentiment of the nation; but we arenot a people to be alarmed by words or threats. "

Mr. Sherman had been, as he said, "during this whole debate, rather aspectator than a participant. " Not desiring to commit himself toohastily, he had reserved his opinion that he might act and voteunderstandingly, without feeling, or prejudice, or passion. It wasafter full reflection that he voted for the bill so harshlycharacterized by the Senator from Kentucky, who had evinced a degreeof feeling entirely uncalled for. Mr. Sherman said further: "I lookupon the Freedman's Bureau Bill as simply a temporary protection tothe freedmen in the Southern States. We are bound by everyconsideration of honor, by every obligation that can rest on anypeople, to protect the freedmen from the rebels of the SouthernStates; ay, sir, and to protect them from the loyal men of theSouthern States. We know that, on account of the prejudices instilledby the system of slavery pervading all parts of the Southern States, the Southern people will not do justice to the freedmen of thoseStates. We know that in the course of the war the freedmen have beenemancipated; that they have aided us in this conflict; and, therefore, we are bound, by every consideration of honor, faith, and of publicmorals, to protect and maintain all the essential incidents of freedomto them. I have no doubt that in doing this we shall encounter theprejudices not only of rebels, but of loyal men; but still theobligation and guarantee is none the less binding on us. We mustmaintain their freedom, and with it all the incidents and all therights of freedom. "

Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, like the Senator from Ohio, had hithertotaken no part in the discussion. He was opposed to the limitationsplaced upon the bill by the House of Representatives. "I would nothave voted for it if it had not been carried to my own State; and ifthis amendment of the House of Representatives is to be adopted, Iwill not vote for the bill. I want the bill to be made general. If itis to be made special, if it is to be applied to Kentucky only, Iappreciate the feeling that drove my friend from Kentucky to make themost unfortunate remark that has been made upon the floor of theSenate since 1861. I sincerely hope, for the good of the country, thatthe distinguished Senator may see fit to take back what he said a fewmoments ago. 

"Sir, we have had enough of disunion. I hope that no Senator in thefuture will rise upon this floor and talk, under any circumstanceswhatever, of another war of rebellion against the constitutedauthorities of this country. My God! are we again to pass through thescenes of blood through which we have passed for the last four years?Are we to have this war repeated? No Freedmen's Bureau Bill, no billfor the protection of the rights of any body, shall ever drive me todream of such a thing. "

Mr. Henderson thought a better protection for the negro than theFreedmen's Bureau would be the ballot. He said: "I live in a Statethat was a slaveholding State until last January a year ago. I havebeen a slaveholder all my life until the day when the ordinance ofemancipation was passed in my State. I advocated it, and haveadvocated emancipation for the last four years, at least since thiswar commenced. Do you want to know how to protect the freedmen of theSouthern States? This bill is useless for that purpose. It is not theintention of the honorable Senators on this floor from NorthernStates, who favor this bill, to send military men to plunder the goodpeople of Kentucky. It is an attempt to enforce this moral andreligious sentiment of the people of the Northern States. Sir, thesefreedmen will be protected. The decree of Almighty God has gone forth, as it went forth in favor of their freedom originally, that they shallbe endowed with all the rights that belong to other men. Will youprotect them? Give them the ballot, Mr. President, and then they areprotected. "

In reference to the remarks by Mr. Henderson, Mr. Trumbull said: "Thezeal of my friend from Missouri seems to have run away with him. Having come from being a slaveholder to the position of advocatinguniversal negro suffrage as the sovereign remedy for every thing, hemanifests a degree of zeal which I have only seen equaled, I confess, by some of the discoverers of patent medicines who have found a grandspecific to cure all diseases! Why, he says this bureau is of noaccount; give the negro the ballot, and that will stop him fromstarving; that will feed him; that will educate him! You have got onyour hands to-day one hundred thousand feeble indigent, infirm coloredpopulation that would starve and die if relief were not afforded; andthe Senator from Missouri tells you, 'This is all nonsense; give themthe right of suffrage, and that is all they want. ' This to feed thehungry and clothe the naked! He has voted for these bills; but if youwill only just give the right of suffrage, you do not want to takecare of any starving man, any orphan child, any destitute and feebleperson that can not take care of himself! It is the most sovereignremedy that I have heard of since the days of Townsend'sSarsaparilla. "

Referring to the feeling manifested by Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Trumbull said:" God forbid that I should put a degradation on the people ofKentucky. I never thought of such a thing. I would sooner cut off myright hand than do such a thing. What is it that so excites andinflames the mind of the Senator from Kentucky that he talks about thedegradation that is to be put upon her, the plunder of her people, theinjustice that is to be done her inhabitants? Why, sir, a bill to helpthe people of Kentucky to take care of the destitute negroes, madefree without any property whatever, without the means of support, leftto starve and to die unless somebody cares for them; and we propose inthe Congress of the United States to help to do it. Is that adegradation? Is that an injustice? Is that the way to rob a people?"

Mr. McDougall having subsequently obtained the floor, made the remark:"I, being a white man, say for the white men and white women that theywill take care of themselves. This bill was not made for white womenor white men, or white men and women's children. "

This brought out the following statistical statement from Mr. Trumbull: "I have before me the official report, which shows theconsolidated number of rations issued in the different districts andStates during the month of June, July, August, September, and October, 1865. In June there were issued to refugees three hundred and thirteenthousand six hundred and twenty-seven rations, and thirty six thousandone hundred and eighty-one to freedmen. In August, in Kentucky andTennessee, there were issued to refugees eighty-seven thousand onehundred and eighty rations, and to freedmen eighty-seven thousand onehundred and ninety-five--almost an equality. "

Mr. Johnson, of Maryland remarked: "The object of the bill is a verycorrect one; these people should be taken care of; and as it isequally applicable to the whites and to the blacks, and the whites inmany of the States requiring as much protection as the blacks, I wouldvery willingly vote for the bill if I thought we had the power to passit; but on the question of power I have no disposition now or perhapsat any time in the present stage of the bill to trouble the Senate. "

The bill soon after passed the Senate as amended in the House, andreämended in the Senate, by a vote of twenty-nine to seven. 

On the following day, the amendments of the Senate were concurred inby the House without debate, and the Freedmen's Bureau Bill was readyto be submitted to the Executive. 

Ten day's after the final passage of the bill, the President sent tothe Senate a message, "with his objection thereto in writing. "

The Senate immediately suspended other business to hear the VETOMESSAGE, which was read by the Secretary, as follows:

 "_To the Senate of the United States:_

 "I have examined with care the bill which originated in the Senate, and has been passed by the two houses of Congress, to amend an act entitled 'An act to establish a Bureau for the relief of Freedmen and Refugees, ' and for other purposes. Having, with much regret, come to the conclusion that it would not be consistent with the public welfare to give my approval to the measure, I return the bill to the Senate with my objections to its becoming a law. 

 "I might call to mind, in advance of these objections, that there is no immediate necessity for the proposed measure. The act to establish a Bureau for the relief of Freedmen and Refugees, which was approved in the month of March last, has not yet expired. It was thought stringent and extensive enough for the purpose in view in time of war. Before it ceases to have effect, further experience may assist to guide us to a wise conclusion as to the policy to be adopted in time of peace. 

 "I share with Congress the strongest desire to secure to the freedmen the full enjoyment of their freedom and property, and their entire independence and equality in making contracts for their labor; but the bill before me contains provisions which, in my opinion, are not warranted by the Constitution, and are not well suited to accomplish the end in view. 

 "The bill proposes to establish by authority of Congress, military jurisdiction over all parts of the United States containing refugees and freedmen. It would, by its very nature, apply with most force to those parts of the United States in which the freedmen most abound; and it expressly extends the existing temporary jurisdiction of the Freedmen's Bureau, with greatly enlarged powers, over those States 'in which the ordinary course of judicial proceeding, has been interrupted by the rebellion. ' The source from which this military jurisdiction is to emanate is none other than the President of the United States, acting through the War Department and the commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau. The agents to carry out this military jurisdiction are to be selected either from the army or from civil life; the country is to be divided into districts and sub-districts; and the number of salaried agents to be employed may be equal to the number of counties or parishes in all the United States where freedmen and refugees are to be found. 

 "The subjects over which this military jurisdiction is to extend in every part of the United States include protection to 'all employés, agents, and officers of this bureau in the exercise of the duties imposed' upon them by the bill. In eleven States it is further to extend over all cases affecting freedmen and refugees discriminated against' by local law, custom, or prejudice. ' In those eleven States the bill subjects any white person who may be charged with depriving a freedman of 'any civil rights or immunities belonging to white persons' to imprisonment or fine, or both, without, however, defining the 'civil rights and immunities' which are thus to be secured to the freedmen by military law. This military jurisdiction also extends to all questions that may arise respecting contracts. The agent who is thus to exercise the office of a military judge may be a stranger, entirely ignorant of the laws of the place, and exposed to the errors of judgment to which all men are liable. The exercise of power, over which there is no legal supervision, by so vast a number of agents as is contemplated by the bill, must, by the very nature of man, be attended by acts of caprice, injustice, and passion. 

 "The trials, having their origin under this bill, are to take place without the intervention of a jury, and without any fixed rules of law or evidence. The rules on which offenses are to be 'heard and determined' by the numerous agents, are such rules and regulations as the President, through the War Department, shall prescribe. No previous presentment is required, nor any indictment charging the commission of a crime against the laws; but the trial must proceed on charges and specifications. The punishment will be, not what the law declares, but such as a court-martial may think proper; and from these arbitrary tribunals there lies no appeal, no writ of error to any of the courts in which the Constitution of the United States vests exclusively the judicial power of the country. 

 "While the territory and the classes of actions and offenses that are made subject to this measure are so extensive, the bill itself, should it become a law, will have no limitation in point of time, but will form a part of the permanent legislation of the country. I can not reconcile a system of military jurisdiction of this kind with the words of the Constitution, which declare that 'no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless upon a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land and naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger;' and that 'in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State or district wherein the crime shall have been committed. ' The safeguards which the experience and wisdom of ages taught our fathers to establish as securities for the protection of the innocent, the punishment of the guilty, and the equal administration of justice, are to be set aside, and for the sake of a more vigorous interposition in behalf of justice, we are to take the risk of the many acts of injustice that would necessarily follow from an almost countless number of agents established in every parish or county in nearly a third of the States of the Union, over whose decisions there is to be no supervision or control by the Federal courts. The power that would be thus placed in the hands of the President is such as in time of peace certainly ought never to be intrusted to any one man. 

 "If it be asked whether the creation of such a tribunal within a State is warranted as a measure of war, the question immediately presents itself whether we are still engaged in war. Let us not unnecessarily disturb the commerce and credit and industry of the country by declaring to the American people and to the world, that the United States are still in a condition of civil war. At present there is no part of our country in which the authority of the United States is disputed. Offenses that may be committed by individuals should not work a forfeiture of the rights of whole communities. The country has returned, or is returning, to a state of peace and industry, and the rebellion is in fact at an end. The measure, therefore, seems to be as inconsistent with the actual condition of the country as it is at variance with the Constitution of the United States. 

 "If, passing from general considerations, we examine the bill in detail, it is open to weighty objections. 

 "In time of war it was eminently proper, that we should provide for those who were passing suddenly from a condition of bondage to a state of freedom. But this bill proposes to make the Freedmen's Bureau, established by the act of 1865 as one of many great and extraordinary military measures to suppress a formidable rebellion, a permanent branch of the public administration, with its powers greatly enlarged. I have no reason to suppose, and I do not understand it to be alleged, that the act of March, 1865, has proved deficient for the purpose for which it was passed, although at that time, and for a considerable period thereafter, the Government of the United States remained unacknowledged in most of the States whose inhabitants had been involved in the rebellion. The institution of slavery, for the military destruction of which the Freedmen's Bureau was called into existence as an auxiliary, has been already effectually and finally abrogated throughout the whole country by an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and practically its eradication has received the assent and concurrence of most of those States in which it at any time had an existence. I am not, therefore, able to discern, in the condition of the country, any thing to justify an apprehension that the powers and agencies of the Freedmen's Bureau, which were effective for the protection of freedmen and refugees during the actual continuance of hostilities and of African servitude, will now, in a time of peace and after the abolition of slavery, prove inadequate to the same proper ends. If I am correct in these views, there can be no necessity for the enlargement of the powers of the bureau, for which provision is made in the bill. 

 "The third section of the bill authorizes a general and unlimited grant of support to the destitute and suffering refugees and freedmen, their wives and children. Succeeding sections make provision for the rent or purchase of landed estates for freedmen, and for the erection for their benefit of suitable buildings for asylums and schools, the expenses to be defrayed from the Treasury of the whole people. The Congress of the United States has never heretofore thought itself empowered to establish asylums beyond the limits of the District of Columbia, except for the benefit of our disabled soldiers and sailors. It has never founded schools for any class of our own people, not even for the orphans of those who have fallen in the defense of the Union; but has left the care of education to the much more competent and efficient control of the States, of communities, of private associations, and of individuals. It has never deemed itself authorized to expend the public money for the rent or purchase of homes for the thousands, not to say millions, of the white race, who are honestly toiling from day to day for their subsistence. A system for the support of indigent persons in the United States was never contemplated by the authors of the Constitution, nor can any good reason be advanced why, as a permanent establishment, it should be founded for one class or color of our people more than another. Pending the war, many refugees and freedmen received support from the Government, but it was never intended that they should thenceforth be fed, clothed, educated, and sheltered by the United States. The idea on which the slaves were assisted to freedom was that, on becoming free, they would be a self-sustaining population. Any legislation that shall imply that they are not expected to attain a self-sustaining condition must have a tendency injurious alike to their character and their prospects. 

 "The appointment of an agent for every county and parish will create an immense patronage; and the expense of the numerous officers and their clerks, to be appointed by the President, will be great in the beginning, with a tendency steadily to increase. The appropriations asked by the Freedmen's Bureau, as now established, for the year 1866, amount to $11, 745, 000. It may be safely estimated that the cost to be incurred under the pending bill will require double that amount--more than the entire sum expended in any one year under the administration of the second Adams. If the presence of agents in every parish and county is to be considered as a war measure, opposition, or even resistance, might be provoked, so that, to give effect to their jurisdiction, troops would have to be stationed within reach of every one of them, and thus a large standing force be rendered necessary. Large appropriations would therefore be re-required to sustain and enforce military jurisdiction in every county or parish from the Potomac to the Rio Grande. The condition of our fiscal affairs is encouraging, but, in order to sustain the present measure of public confidence, it is necessary that we practice not merely customary economy, but, as far as possible, severe retrenchment. 

 "In addition to the objections already stated, the fifth section of the bill proposes to take away land from its former owners without any legal proceedings being first had, contrary to that provision of the Constitution which declares that no person shall 'be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. ' It does not appear that a part of the lands to which this section refers may not be owned by minors or persons of unsound mind, or by those who have been faithful to all their obligations as citizens of the United States. If any portion of the land is held by such persons, it is not competent for any authority to deprive them of it. If, on the other hand, it be found that the property is liable to confiscation, even then it can not be appropriated to public purposes until, by due process of law, it shall have been declared forfeited to the Government. 

 "There is still further objection to the bill on grounds seriously affecting the class of persons to whom it is designed to bring relief; it will tend to keep the mind of the freedman in a state of uncertain expectation and restlessness, while to those among whom he lives it will be a source of constant and vague apprehension. 

 "Undoubtedly the freedman should be protected, but he should be protected by the civil authorities, especially by the exercise of all the constitutional powers of the courts of the United States and of the States. His condition is not so exposed as may at first be imagined. He is in a portion of the country where his labor can not well be spared. Competition for his services from planters, from those who are constructing or repairing railroads, and from capitalists in his vicinage or from other States, will enable him to command almost his own terms. He also possesses a perfect right to change his place of abode; and if, therefore, he does not find in one community or State a mode of life suited to his desires, or proper remuneration for his labor, he can move to another, where that labor is more esteemed and better rewarded. In truth, however, each State, induced by its own wants and interests, will do what is necessary and proper to retain within its borders all the labor that is needed for the development of its resources. The laws that regulate supply and demand will maintain their force, and the wages of the laborer will be regulated thereby. There is no danger that the exceedingly great demand for labor will not operate in favor of the laborer. 

 "Neither is sufficient consideration given to the ability of the freedmen to protect and take care of themselves. It is no more than justice to them to believe that, as they have received their freedom with moderation and forbearance, so they will distinguish themselves by their industry and thrifty and soon show the world that, in a condition of freedom, they are self-sustaining, capable of selecting their own employment and their own places of abode, of insisting for themselves on a proper remuneration, and of establishing and maintaining their own asylums and schools. It is earnestly hoped that, instead of wasting away, they will, by their own efforts, establish for themselves a condition of respect, ability, and prosperity. It is certain that they can attain to that condition only through their own merits and exertions. 

 "In this connection the query presents itself, whether the system proposed by the bill will not, when put into complete operation, practically transfer the entire care, support, and control of four million emancipated slaves to agents, overseers, or taskmasters, who, appointed at Washington, are to be located in every county and parish throughout the United States containing freedmen and refugees? Such a system would inevitably tend to a concentration of power in the Executive which would enable him, if so disposed, to control the action of this numerous class and use them for the attainment of his own political ends. 

 "I can not but add another very grave objection to this bill: The Constitution imperatively declares, in connection with taxation, that each State shall have at least one Representative, and fixes the rule for the number to which, in future times, each State shall be entitled. It also provides that the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, and adds, with peculiar force, 'that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. '. The original act was necessarily passed in the absence of the States chiefly to be affected, because their people were then contumaciously engaged in the rebellion. Now the case is changed, and some, at least, of those States are attending Congress by loyal Representatives, soliciting the allowance of the constitutional right of representation. At the time, however, of the consideration and the passing of this bill, there was no Senator or Representative in Congress from the eleven States which are to be mainly affected by its provisions. The very fact that reports were and are made against the good disposition of the people of that portion of the country is an additional reason why they need, and should have, Representatives of their own in Congress to explain their condition, reply to accusations, and assist, by their local knowledge, in the perfecting of measures immediately affecting themselves. While the liberty of deliberation would then be free, and Congress would have full power to decide according to its judgment, there could be no objection urged that the States most interested had not been permitted to be heard. The principle is firmly fixed in the minds of the American people that there should be no taxation without representation. 

 "Great burdens have now to be borne by all the country, and we may best demand that they shall be borne without murmur when they are voted by a majority of the Representatives of all the people. I would not interfere with the unquestionable right of Congress to judge, each house for itself, 'of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, ' but that authority can not be construed as including the right to shut out, in time of peace, any State from the representation to which it is entitled by the Constitution. At present, all the people of eleven States are excluded--those who were most faithful during the war not less than others. The State of Tennessee, for instance, whose authorities engaged in rebellion, was restored to all her constitutional relations to the Union by the patriotism and energy of her injured and betrayed people. Before the war was brought to a termination, they had placed themselves in relation with the General Government, had established a State government of their own; as they were not included in the Emancipation Proclamation, they, by their own act, had amended their Constitution so as to abolish slavery within the limits of their State. I know no reason why the State of Tennessee, for example, should not fully enjoy 'all her constitutional relations to the United States. '

 "The President of the United States stands toward the country in a somewhat different attitude from that of any member of Congress. Each member of Congress is chosen from a single district or State; the President is chosen by the people of all the States. As eleven are not at this time represented in either branch of Congress, it would seem to be his duty, on all proper occasions, to present their just claims to Congress. There always will be differences of opinion in the community, and individuals may be guilty of transgressions of the law; but these do not constitute valid objections against the right of a State to representation. I would in nowise interfere with the discretion of Congress with regard to the qualifications of members; but I hold it my duty to recommend to you, in the interests of peace and, in the interests of union, the admission of every State to its share in public legislation when, however insubordinate, insurgent, or rebellious its people may have been, it presents itself, not only in an attitude of loyalty and harmony, but in the persons of Representatives whose loyalty can not be questioned under any existing constitutional or legal test. 

 "It is plain that an indefinite or permanent exclusion of any part of the country from representation must be attended by a spirit of disquiet and complaint. It is unwise and dangerous to pursue a course of measures which will unite a very large section of the country against another section of the country, however much the latter may preponderate. The course of emigration, the development of industry and business, and natural causes will raise up at the South men as devoted to the Union as those of any other part of the land. But if they are all excluded from Congress--if, in a permanent statute, they are declared not to be in full constitutional relations to the country--they may think they have cause to become a unit in feeling and sentiment against the Government. Under the political education of the American people, the idea is inherent and ineradicable that the consent of the majority of the whole people is necessary to secure a willing acquiescence in legislation. 

 "The bill under consideration refers to certain of the States as though they had hot 'been fully restored in all their constitutional relations to the United States. ' If they have not, let us at once act together to secure that desirable end at the earliest possible moment It is hardly necessary for me to inform Congress that, in my own judgment, most of these States, so far, at least, as depends upon their own action, have already been fully restored, and»are to be deemed as entitled to enjoy their constitutional rights as members of the Union. Reasoning from the Constitution itself, and from the actual situation of the country, I feel not only entitled but bound to assume that, with the Federal courts restored, and those of the several States in the full exercise of their functions, the rights and interests of all classes of the people will, with the aid of the military in cases of resistance to the laws, be essentially protected against unconstitutional infringement or violation. Should this expectation unhappily fail--which I do not anticipate--then the Executive is already fully armed with the powers conferred by the act of March, 1865, establishing the Freedmen's Bureau, and hereafter, as heretofore, he can employ the land and naval forces of the country to suppress insurrection or to overcome obstructions to the laws. 

 "In accordance with the Constitution, I return the bill to the Senate, in the earnest hope that a measure involving questions and interests so important to the country will not become a law unless, upon deliberate consideration by the people, it shall receive the sanction of an enlightened public judgment. 

 "ANDREW JOHNSON. "

[Illustration: Hon. S. C. Pomeroy. ]

The majority of the Senate was in favor of proceeding immediately tothe consideration of the message, and to have a vote as to whether thebill should be passed, "the objections of the President to thecontrary notwithstanding. " To this Mr. Lane, of Kansas, was opposed. He said: "There are several Senators absent, and I think it but justto them that they should have an opportunity to be present when thevote is taken on this bill. I can not consent, so long as I canpostpone this question by the rules of the Senate, to have a vote uponit to-night. " Mr. Lane accordingly made four successive motions toadjourn, in each of which he called for the yeas and nays. Finally, the motion for adjournment having been made for the fifth time, it wascarried, with the understanding that the bill should be the pendingquestion at one o'clock on the following day. 

On that day, February 20th, the bill and the message came duly beforethe Senate. Mr. Davis obtained the floor, and made a long speech inopposition to the bill and in favor of the Veto Message. He expressedhis aversion to the bill, and the objects sought to be attained underit in very emphatic terms, but added nothing to the arguments whichhad already been adduced. 

Mr. Trumbull replied to the objections urged against the bill in thePresident's Message. The President said, "The bill, should it become alaw will have no limitation in point of time, but will form a part ofthe permanent legislation of the country. "

"The object of the bill, " replied Mr. Trumbull, "was to continue inexistence the Freedmen's Bureau--not as a permanent institution. Anysuch intent was disavowed during the discussion of the bill. It istrue, no time is expressly limited in the bill itself when it shallcease to operate, nor is it customary to insert such a clause in alaw; but it is declared that the bill shall operate until otherwiseprovided by law. It is known that the Congress of the United Statesassembles every year, and no one supposed that this bill was toestablish a bureau to be ingrafted upon the country as a permanentinstitution; far from it. Nor is it a bill that is intended to go intothe States and take control of the domestic affairs of the States. "

"There is no immediate necessity for the proposed measure, " said thePresident; "the act to establish a Bureau for the Relief of Freedmenand Refugees, which was approved in the month of March last, has notyet expired. It was thought stringent and extensive enough for thepurpose in view in time of war. "

Mr. Trumbull replied: "By the terms of the act, it was to continue'during the present war of rebellion and for one year thereafter. 'Now, when did the war of rebellion cease? So far as the conflict ofarms is concerned, we all admit that the war of rebellion ceased whenthe last rebel army laid down its arms, and that was some time in themonth of May, when the rebel army in Texas surrendered to the Unionforces. I do not hold that the consequences of the war are over. I donot understand that peace is restored with all its consequences. Wehave not yet escaped from the evils inflicted by the war. Peace andharmony are not yet restored, but the war of rebellion is over, andthis bureau must expire in May next, according to the terms of the actthat was passed on the 3d of March, 1865, and according to the viewsof the President as expressed in his Veto Message. "

"The bill, " said the President, "proposes to establish by authority ofCongress, military jurisdiction over all parts of the United Statescontaining refugees and freedmen. "

"I would like to know, " said Mr. Trumbull, "where in that bill is anyprovision extending military jurisdiction over all parts of the UnitedStates containing refugees and freedmen? The bill contains no suchclause. It is a misapprehension of the bill. The clause of the billupon that subject is this:

 "'And the President of the United States, through the War Department and the commissioner, shall extend military jurisdiction and protection over all employés, agents, and officers of this bureau in the exercise of the duties imposed or authorized by this act or the act to which this is additional. '

"Is not the difference manifest to every body between a bill thatextends military jurisdiction over the officers and employés of thebureau and a bill which should extend military jurisdiction over allparts of the United States containing refugees and freedmen? This billmakes the Freedmen's Bureau a part of the War Department. It makes itsofficers and agents amenable to the Rules and Articles of War. Butdoes that extend jurisdiction over the whole country where they are?How do they differ from any other portion of the army of the UnitedStates? The army of the United States, as every one knows, is governedby the Rules and Articles of War, wherever it may be, whether inIndiana or in Florida, and all persons in the army and a part of themilitary establishment are subject to these Rules and Articles of War;but did any body ever suppose that the whole country where they werewas under military jurisdiction? If a company of soldiers arestationed at one of the forts in New York harbor, the officers andsoldiers of that company are subject to military jurisdiction; but wasit ever supposed that the people of the State of New York were therebyplaced under military jurisdiction? It is an entire misapprehension ofthe provisions of the bill. It extends military jurisdiction nowhere;it merely places under jurisdiction the persons belonging to theFreedmen's Bureau who, nearly all of them, are now under militaryjurisdiction. "

"The country, " objected the President, "is to be divided intodistricts and sub-districts, and the number of salaried agents to beemployed may be equal to the number of counties or parishes in all theStates where freedmen and refugees are to be found. "

Mr. Trumbull replied: "A single officer need not be employed otherthan those we now have. I have already stated that it is in the powerand discretion of the President to detail from the army officers toperform all the duties of the Freedmen's Bureau, and, in case they aredetailed, the bill provides that they shall serve without anyadditional compensation or allowance. But, sir, is it necessary, orwas it ever contemplated, that there should be an officer or agent ofthe Freedmen's Bureau in every county and every parish where refugeesand freedmen are to be found? By no means. What is the bill upon thatsubject? Does it make it imperative upon the President to appoint anagent in each county and parish? It authorizes him 'when the sameshall be necessary for the operations of the bureau;' not otherwise. He has no authority, under the bill, to appoint a single agent unlessit is necessary for the operations of the bureau, and then he can onlyappoint so many as may be needed. Sir, it never entered the mind, Iventure to say, of a single advocate of this bill, that the Presidentof the United States would so abuse the authority intrusted to him asto station an agent in every county in these States; but it wasapprehended that there might be localities in some of these Stateswhere the prejudice and hostility of the white population and theformer masters were such toward the negroes that it would be necessaryto have an agent in every county in that locality for theirprotection; and, in order to give the President the necessarydiscretion where this should be requisite, the bill authorized, whenit was necessary for the operations of the bureau, the appointment ofan agent in each county or parish. In order to vest the President withsufficient power in some localities, it was necessary, legislating bygeneral law, to give him much larger power than would be necessary inother localities. 

"Sir, the country is not to be divided, I undertake to say, intodistricts and sub-districts unless the President of the United Statesfinds it necessary to do so for the protection of these people; and ifthe law should be abused in that respect, it would be because heabused the discretion vested in him by Congress, and not because thelaw required it. It makes no such requirement. "

"This military jurisdiction, " said the President, "also extends to allquestions that may arise respecting contracts. "

"So far, " replied Mr. Trumbull, "from extending this militaryjurisdiction over all questions arising concerning contracts, and sofar from extending military jurisdiction anywhere, it is expresslyprovided, by the very terms of the bill, that no such jurisdictionshall be exercised except where the President himself has established, and is maintaining military jurisdiction, which he is now doing ineleven States; and the very moment that he ceases to maintain militaryjurisdiction, that very moment the military jurisdiction conferredover freedmen by this act ceases and terminates. 

"Sir, the whole jurisdiction to try and dispose of cases by theofficers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau is expressly limited tothe time when these States shall be restored to their constitutionalrelations, and when the courts of the United States and of the Statesare not interrupted nor interfered with in the peaceable course ofjustice. So far, then, from the bill establishing a militaryjurisdiction, upon which the Senator from Kentucky and other Senatorshave so much harped, it confers no jurisdiction to try cases onemoment after the courts are restored, and are no longer interrupted inthe peaceable administration of justice. Let me ask by what authorityis it that military tribunals are sitting to-day at Alexandria, Virginia? By what authority is it that the writ of _habeas corpus_ issuspended to-day in eleven States, when the Constitution of the UnitedStates says that the writ shall not be suspended except when, in casesof rebellion and invasion, the public safety may require it. By whatauthority does the President of the United States object to theexercise of military jurisdiction by that part of the army chargedwith the execution of the provisions of the Freedmen's Bureau when heexercises that military jurisdiction himself by other portions of thearmy? But a few days since a military commission was sitting inAlexandria, trying persons charged with crimes--and they are held allover the South--and yet that part of the army connected with theFreedmen's Bureau can not exercise any such authority because it isunconstitutional--unconstitutional to do by virtue of a law ofCongress what is done without any law!

"Where does the Executive get the power? The Executive is but theCommander-in-chief of the armies, made so by the Constitution; but hecan not raise an army or a single soldier, he can not appoint a singleofficer, without the consent of Congress. He can not make any rulesand regulations for the government of the army without our permission. The Constitution of the United States declares, in so many words, thatCongress shall have power 'to make rules for the government andregulation of the land and naval forces' of the United States. Can itbe that that department of the Government, vested in express terms bythe Constitution itself with authority to make rules for thegovernment and regulation of the land and naval forces, has noauthority to direct that portion of the land and naval forces employedin the Freedmen's Bureau to exercise this jurisdiction instead ofdepartment commanders? Sir, it is competent for Congress to declarethat no department commanders shall exercise any such authority; it iscompetent for Congress to declare that a court-martial shall neversit, that a military commission shall never be held, and the Presidentis as much bound to obey it as the humblest citizen in the land. "

The President said: "The trials having their origin under this billare to take place without the intervention of a jury, and without anyfixed rules of law or evidence. "

"Do not all military trials take place in that way, " asked Mr. Trumbull. "Did any body ever hear of the presentment of a grand juryin a case where a court-martial set for the trial of a militaryoffense, or the trial of a person charged with any offense cognizablebefore it? This Freedmen's Bureau Bill confers no authority to do thisexcept in those regions of country where military authority prevails, where martial law is established, where persons exercising civilauthority act in subordination to the military power, and where themoment they transcend the proper limits as fixed by military orders, they are liable to be arrested and punished without the interventionof a grand jury, or without the right of appeal to any of the judicialtribunals of the country. I would as soon think of an appeal from thedecision of the military tribunal that sat in the city of Washington, and condemned to death the murderers of our late President, to thejudicial tribunals of the country! Where military authority bearssway, where the courts are overborne, is it not an absurdity to saythat you must have a presentment of a grand jury, and a trial in acourt. "

"I can not reconcile a system of military jurisdiction of this kindwith the words of the Constitution, " said the President. 

"If you can not reconcile a system of military jurisdiction of thiskind with the words of the Constitution, why have you been exercisingit, " asked Mr. Trumbull. "Why have you been organizing courts-martialand military commissions all over the South, trying offenders, andpunishing some of them with death? Why have you authorized the presentFreedmen's Bureau to hold bureau courts all through the South? Thishas all been done by your permission, and is being done to-day. Then, sir, if you are still in the exercise of this power now, if you havebeen exercising it from the day you became President of the UnitedStates, how is it that you can not reconcile a system of jurisdictionof this kind with the words of the Constitution?

"Sir, does it detract from the President's authority to have thesanction of law? I want to give that sanction. I do not object to theexercise of this military authority of the President in the rebelliousStates. I believe it is constitutional and legitimate and necessary;but I believe Congress has authority to regulate it. I believeCongress has authority to direct that this military jurisdiction shallbe exercised by that branch of the army known as the Freedmen'sBureau, as well as by any other branch of the army. "

"The rebellion is at an end, " said the President. "The measure, therefore, seems to be as inconsistent with the actual condition ofthe country as it is at variance with the Constitution of the UnitedStates. "

Mr. Trumbull replied: "If the rebellion is at an end, will anybodytell me by what authority the President of the United States suspendsthe writ of _habeas corpus_ in those States where it existed. The actof Congress of March, 1863, authorized the President of the UnitedStates to suspend the writ of _habeas corpus_ during the presentrebellion. He says it is at an end. By what authority, then, does hesuspend the writ? By his own declaration, let him stand or fall. If itis competent to suspend the writ, if it is competent for militarytribunals to sit all through the South, and entertain militaryjurisdiction, this bill, which does not continue militaryjurisdiction, does not establish military jurisdiction, but onlyauthorizes the officers of this bureau, while military jurisdictionprevails, to take charge of that particular class of cases affectingthe refugee or freedman where he is discriminated against, can not beobnoxious to any constitutional objection. "

"This bill, " said the President, "proposes to make the Freedmen'sBureau, established by the act of 1865, as one of many great andextraordinary military measures to suppress a formidable rebellion, apermanent branch of the public administration, with its powers greatlyenlarged. "

"This is a mistake, " replied Mr. Trumbull; "it is not intended, Iapprehend, by any body, certainly not by me, to make it a permanentbranch of the public administration; and I am quite sure that thepowers of the bureau are not, by the amendatory bill, greatlyenlarged. A careful examination of the amendment will show that it isin some respects a restriction on the powers already exercised. "

"The third section of the bill, " the President objected, "authorizes ageneral and unlimited grant of support to the destitute and sufferingrefugees and freedmen, their wives and children. "

"What is the third section of the bill, " asked Mr. Trumbull, "whichthe President says contains such an unlimited grant of support to thedestitute and suffering refugees, their wives and children? I willread that third section:

 "'That the Secretary of War may direct such issues of provisions, clothing, fuel, including medical stores and transportation, and afford such aid, medical or otherwise, as he may deem needful for the immediate and temporary shelter and supply of destitute and suffering refugees and freedmen, their wives and children, under such rules and regulations as he may direct: _Provided_, That no person shall be deemed "destitute, " "suffering, " or "dependent upon the Government for support, " within the meaning of this act, who, being able to find employment, could, by proper industry and exertion, avoid such destitution, suffering, or dependence. '

"Does the President object to this bill on the ground that itauthorizes medical aid to be furnished the sick? Or does he object toit because of the proviso which limits its operation, and declaresthat nobody shall be deemed destitute and suffering under theprovisions of the act who is able, by proper industry and exertion, toavoid such destitution? Why, sir, it is a limitation on the presentexisting law. Does that look much like taking care of four million ofpeople--a provision that expressly limits the operations of this actto those only who can not find employment? A statement of the fact isall that is necessary to meet this statement in the Veto Message. "

"The Congress of the United States, " said the President, "has neverheretofore thought itself empowered to establish asylums beyond thelimits of the District of Columbia, except for the benefit of ourdisabled soldiers and sailors. It has never founded schools for anyclass of our own people. It has never deemed itself authorized toexpend the public money for the rent or purchase of homes for thethousands, not to say millions of the white race who are honestlytoiling from day to day for their subsistence. "

"The answer to that is this, " said Mr. Trumbull: "We never before werein such a state as now"; never before in the history of thisGovernment did eleven States of the Union combine together tooverthrow and destroy the Union; never before in the history of thisGovernment have we had a four years' civil war; never before in thehistory of this Government have nearly four million people beenemancipated from the most abject and degrading slavery ever imposedupon human beings; never before has the occasion arisen when it wasnecessary to provide for such large numbers of people thrown upon thebounty of the Government unprotected and unprovided for. But, sir, wherever the necessity did exist the Government has acted. We havevoted hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars, and are doing itfrom year to year, to take care of and provide for the destitute andsuffering Indians. We appropriated, years ago, hundreds of thousandsof dollars to take care of and feed the savage African who was landedupon our coast by slavers. We provided by law that whenever savagesfrom Africa should be brought to our shores, or whenever they shouldbe captured on board of slavers, the President of the United Statesshould make provision for their maintenance and support, for fiveyears, on the coast of Africa. He was authorized by law to appointagents to go to Africa to provide means to feed them, and we paid themoney to do it. And yet, sir, can we not provide for these Africanswho have been held in bondage all their lives, who have never beenpermitted to earn one dollar for themselves, who, by the greatConstitutional Amendment declaring freedom throughout the land, havebeen discharged from bondage to their masters, who had hithertoprovided for their necessities in consideration of their services? Canwe not provide for these destitute persons of our own land on the sameprinciple that we provide for the Indians, that we provide for thesavage African?"

"But, " continued Mr. Trumbull, "the President says we have neverrented lands for the white race, we have never purchased lands forthem. What do we propose to do by this bill? This authorizes, if thePresident thinks proper to do it--it is in his discretion--thepurchase or renting of lands on which to place these indigent people;but before any land can be purchased or rented, before any contractcan be made on the subject, there must be an appropriation made byCongress. This bill contains no appropriation. If the President isopposed to the rent or purchase of land, and Congress passes a billappropriating money for that purpose, let him veto it if he thinks itunconstitutional; but there is nothing unconstitutional in this bill. This bill does not purchase any land; but it prevents even a contracton the subject until another law shall be passed appropriating themoney for that purpose. 

"But, sir, what is the objection to it if it did appropriate themoney? I have already undertaken to show, and I think I have shown, that it was the duty of the United States, as an independent nation, as one of the powers of the earth, whenever there came into itspossession an unprotected class of people, who must suffer and perishbut for its care, to provide for and take care of them. When an armyis marching through an enemy's country, and poor and destitute personsare found within its lines who must die by starvation if they are notfed from the supplies of the army, will any body show me theconstitutional provision or the act of Congress that authorizes thegeneral commanding to open his commissariat and feed the starvingmultitude? And has it not been done by every one of your commandersall through the South? Whenever a starving human being, man, woman, orchild, no matter whether black or white, rebel or loyal, came withinthe lines of the army, to perish and die unless fed from our supplies, there has never been an officer in our service, and, thank God! therehas not been, who did not relieve the sufferer. If you want to knowwhere the constitutional power to do this is, and where the law is, Ianswer, it is in that common humanity that belongs to every man fit tobear the name, and it is in that power that belongs to us as aChristian nation, carrying on war upon civilized principles. 

"If we had the right then to feed those people as we did, have we notthe right to take care of them in the cheapest way we can? If, whenGeneral Sherman was passing through Georgia, he found the landsabandoned; if their able-bodied owners had entered the rebel army tofight against us; if the women and children had fled and left the landa waste, and he had, as is the fact, thousands of persons hanging uponhis army dependent upon him for supplies; if it was believed that itwould be cheaper to support these people upon these lands than to buyprovisions to feed them, might we not do so? May we not resort towhatever means is most judicious to protect from starvation thatmultitude which common humanity requires us to feed?

"Nor, sir, is it true that no provision has been made by Congress forthe education of white people. We have given all through the newStates one section of land in every township for the benefit of commonschools. We have donated hundreds of thousands of acres of land to allthe States for the establishment of colleges and seminaries oflearning. How did we get this land? It was purchased by our money, andthen we gave it away for purposes of education. The same right existsnow to provide for these people, and it is not simply for the blackpeople, but for the white refugees as well as the black, that thisbill provides. "

Said the President: "The appropriations asked by the Freedmen'sBureau, as now established, for the year 1866, amounts to $11, 745, 000. It may be safely estimated that the cost to be incurred under thepending bill will require double that amount. "

Mr. Trumbull replied: "A far larger sum, in proportion to the numberthat were thrown upon our hands, was expended before the creation ofthe Freedmen's Bureau, in feeding and taking care of refugees andfreedmen, than since the establishment of the Freedmen's Bureau. Sincethat time, the authority of the Government has been extended over allthe rebellious States, and we have had a larger number of refugees andfreedmen to provide for, but in proportion to the number I have nodoubt that the expense is less now than it was before theestablishment of the bureau. "

"The query again presents itself, " said the President, "whether thesystem proposed by the bill will not, when put into completeoperation, practically transfer the entire care, support, and controlof four million emancipated slaves to agents, overseers, ortaskmasters, who, appointed at Washington, are to be located in everycounty and parish throughout the United States containing freedmen andrefugees. "

"I scarcely know how to reply to that most extravagant statement, "said Mr. Trumbull. "I have already shown that it would be a greatabuse of the power conferred by this bill to station an agent in everycounty. I have already stated that but a small proportion of thefreedmen are aided by the Freedmen's Bureau. In this official documentthe President has sent to Congress the exaggerated statement that itis a question whether this bureau would not bring under its controlthe four million emancipated slaves. The census of 1860 shows thatthere never were four million slaves in all the United States, if youcounted every man, woman, and child, and we know that the number hasnot increased during the war. But, sir, what will be thought when Ishow, as I shall directly show by official figures, that, so far fromproviding for four million emancipated slaves, the Freedmen's Bureaunever yet provided for a hundred thousand, and, as restricted by theproviso to the third section of the present bill, it could never beextended, under it, to a larger number. Is it not most extraordinarythat a bill should be returned with the veto from the President on theground that it provides for four million people, when, restricted inits operations as it is, and having been in operation since Marchlast, it has never had under its control a hundred thousand? I havehere an official statement from the Freedmen's Bureau, which I begleave to read in this connection:

 "'The greatest number of persons to whom rations were issued, including the Commissary Department, the bureau issues to persons without the army, is one hundred and forty-eight thousand one hundred and twenty. '

"Who are they? I said there were not a hundred thousand freedmenprovided for by the bureau. 

 "'Whites, 57, 369; colored, 90, 607; Indians, 133. The greatest number by the bureau was 49, 932, in September. The total number for December was 17, 025. '

"That sounds a little different from four millions. Seventeen thousandand twenty-five were all that were provided for by the Freedmen'sBureau in the month of December last, the number getting less and lessevery month. Why? Because, by the kind and judicious management ofthat bureau, places of employment were found for these refugees andfreedmen. When the freedmen were discharged from their masters'plantations they were assisted to find places of work elsewhere. 

"The President says, " continued Mr. Trumbull, "that Congress neverthought of making these provisions for the white people. Let us seewhat provisions have been made for the white people. Major-GeneralFisk, Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau for the State ofTennessee, in his testimony given before the Reconstruction Committee, said:

 "'During the last year, the rations issued to white people in Tennessee have been much in excess of those issued to freedmen. When I took charge of my district the Government was feeding twenty-five thousand people; in round numbers, about seventeen thousand five hundred white persons and seven thousand blacks. The month preceding the establishment of the Freedmen's Bureau, for rations alone for that class of people the sum of $97, 000 was paid. My first efforts were to reduce the number of those beneficiaries of the Government, to withhold the rations, and make the people self-supporting as far as possible; and in the course of four months I reduced the monthly expenses from $97, 000 to $5, 000. '

"In addition to the objections already stated, " said the President, "the fifth section of this bill proposes to take away land from itsformer owners, without any legal proceedings first had. "

"I regret, " said Mr. Trumbull, "that a statement like that shouldinadvertently (for it must have been inadvertent) have found a placein this Veto Message. The fifth section of the bill does not proposeto take away lands from any body. I will read it, and we shall seewhat it is:

 "'That the occupants of land under Major-General Sherman's special field order, dated at Savannah, January 16, 1865, are hereby confirmed in their possession. '

"Is not this a different thing from taking away land from any body? Doyou take a thing away from another person when you have it in yourpossession already? This fifth section, so far from taking land fromany body, provides simply for protecting the occupants of the land forthree years from the 16th of January, 1865, a little less than twoyears from this time. If the section does any thing, it simplyprevents the restoration of this property to its former owners withinthat period, except upon terms to be entered into, satisfactory to thecommissioner, between the occupant and the former owner. This is allthere is of it. It is a very different thing from taking away landfrom its former owners. "

"Undoubtedly, " said the President, "the freedmen should be protectedby the civil authorities, especially by the exercise of all theconstitutional powers of the courts of the United States and of theStates. "

"Let us see, " replied Mr. Trumbull, "how they are protected by thecivil authority. " After having read from documents setting forth lawsin reference to freedmen in force in Texas and Mississippi, Mr. Trumbull continued: "I have here a number of communications of asimilar character, showing that, by the laws in some of the SouthernStates, a pass system still exists, and that the negro really has noprotection afforded him either by the civil authorities or judicialtribunals of the State. I have letters showing the same thing in theState of Maryland, from persons whose character is vouched for asreliable. Under this state of things, the President tells us that thefreedman should be protected 'by the exercise of all theconstitutional powers of the courts of the United States and of theStates!'"

"He also possesses, " said the President, referring to the freedman, "aperfect right to change his place of abode; and if, therefore, he doesnot find in one community or State a mode of life suited to hisdesires, or proper remuneration for his labor, he can move to anotherwhere that labor is more esteemed and better rewarded. "

"Then, sir, " said Mr. Trumbull, "is there no necessity for somesupervising care of these people? Are they to be coldly told that theyhave a perfect right to change their place of abode, when, if they arecaught in a strange neighborhood without a pass, they are liable to bewhipped? when combinations exist against them that they shall not bepermitted to hire unless to their former master? Are these people, knowing nothing of geography, knowing not where to go, having never intheir lives been ten miles from the place where they were born, theseold women and young children, these feeble persons who are turned offbecause they can no longer work, to be told to go and seek employmentelsewhere? and is the Government of the United States, which has madethem free, to stand by and do nothing to save and protect them? Arethey to be left to the mercy of such legislation as that ofMississippi, to such laws as exist in Texas, to such practices as aretolerated in Maryland and in Kentucky? Sir, I think some protection isnecessary for them, and that was the object of this bureau. It was notintended, and such is not its effect, to interfere with the ordinaryadministration of justice in any State, not even during the rebellion. The moment that any State does justice and abolishes alldiscrimination between whites and blacks in civil rights, the judicialfunctions of the Freedmen's Bureau cease. 

"But, " continued Mr. Trumbull, "the President, most strangely of all, dwells upon the unconstitutionality of this act, without ever havingalluded to that provision of the Constitution which its advocatesclaim gives the authority to pass it. Is it not most extraordinarythat the President of the United States returns a bill which haspassed Congress, with his objections to it, alleging it to beunconstitutional, and makes no allusion whatever in his whole messageto that provision of the Constitution which, in the opinion of itssupporters, clearly gives the authority to pass it? And what is that?The second clause of the constitutional amendment, which declares thatCongress shall have authority by appropriate legislation to enforcethe article, which declares that there shall be neither slavery norinvoluntary servitude throughout the United States. If legislation benecessary to protect the former slaves against State laws, which allowthem to be whipped if found away from home without a pass, has notCongress, under the second clause of the amendment, authority toprovide it? What kind of freedom is that which the Constitution of theUnited States guarantees to a man that does not protect him from thelash if he is caught away from home without a pass? And how can we sithere and discharge the constitutional obligation that is upon us topass the appropriate legislation to protect every man in the land inhis freedom, when we know such laws are being passed in the South, ifwe do nothing to prevent their enforcement? Sir, so far from the billbeing unconstitutional, I should feel that I had failed in myconstitutional duty if I did not propose some measure that wouldprotect these people in their freedom. And yet this clause of theConstitution seems to have escaped entirely the observation of thePresident. 

"The President objects to this bill because it was passed in theabsence of representation from the rebellious States. If thatobjection be valid, all our legislation affecting those States iswrong, and has been wrong from the beginning. When the rebellion brokeout, in the first year of the war, we passed a law for collecting adirect tax, and we assessed that tax upon all the rebellious States. According to the theory of the President, that was all wrong, becausetaxation and representation did not go together. Those States were notrepresented. Then, according to this argument, (I will not read all ofit, ) we were bound to have received their Representatives, or else notlegislate for and tax them. He insists they were States in the Unionall the time, and according to the Constitution, each State isentitled to at least one Representative. 

"If the argument that Congress can not legislate for Statesunrepresented is good now, it was good during the conflict of arms, for none of the States whose governments were usurped are yet relievedfrom military control. If we have no right to legislate for thoseStates now, we had no right to impose the direct tax upon them. We hadno right to pass any of our laws that affected them. We had no rightto raise an army to march into the rebellious States while they werenot represented in the Congress of the United States. We had no rightto pass a law declaring these States in rebellion. Why? The rebelswere not here to be represented in the American Senate. We had noright to pass a law authorizing the President to issue a proclamationdiscontinuing all intercourse with the people of those rebelliousStates; and why? Because they were not represented here. We had noright to blockade their coast. Why? They were not represented here. They are States, says the President, and each State is entitled to twoSenators, and to at least one Representative. Suppose the State ofSouth Carolina had sent to Congress, during the war, a Representative;had Congress nothing to do but to admit him, if found qualified? Musthe be received because he comes from a State, and a State can not goout of the Union? Why, sir, is any thing more necessary than to statethis proposition to show its absolute absurdity?"

The President said: "The President of the United States stands towardthe country in a somewhat different attitude from that of any memberof Congress. Each member of Congress is chosen from a single districtor State; the President is chosen by the people of all the States. Aseleven States are not at this time represented in either branch ofCongress, it would seem to be his duty, on all proper occasions, topresent their just claims to Congress. "

"If it would not be disrespectful, " said Mr. Trumbull, "I should liketo inquire how many votes the President got in those eleven States. Sir, he is no more the representative of those eleven States than Iam, except as he holds a higher position. I came here as aRepresentative chosen by the State of Illinois; but I came here tolegislate, not simply for the State of Illinois, but for the UnitedStates of America, and for South Carolina as well as Illinois. I denythat we are simply the Representatives of the districts and Stateswhich send us here, or that we are governed by such narrow views thatwe can not legislate for the whole country; and we are as much theRepresentatives, and, in this particular instance, receive as much ofthe support of those eleven States as did the President himself. "

Mr. Trumbull finally remarked: "The President believes this billunconstitutional; I believe it constitutional. He believes that itwill involve great expense; I believe it will save expense. Hebelieves that the freedmen will be protected without it; I believe hewill be tyrannized over, abused, and virtually reënslaved, withoutsome legislation by the nation for his protection. He believes itunwise; I believe it to be politic. "

Without further debate, the vote was taken on the question, "Shall thebill pass, the objections of the President of the United Statesnotwithstanding?" The Senators voted as follows:

 YEAS--Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Williams, Wilson, and Yates--30. 

 NAYS--Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson, McDougall, Morgan, Nesmith, Norton, Riddle, Saulsbury, Stewart, Stockton, Van Winkle, and Willey--18. 

 ABSENT--Messrs. Foot and Wright--2. 

The President _pro tempore_ then announced, "On this question the yeasare thirty and the nays are eighteen. Two-thirds of the memberspresent not having voted for the bill, it is not a law. "

CHAPTER IX. 

THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL IN THE SENATE. 

 Duty of Congress consequent upon the Abolition of Slavery -- Civil Rights Bill introduced -- Reference to Judiciary Committee -- Before the Senate -- Speech by Mr. Trumbull -- Mr. Saulsbury -- Mr. Van Winkle -- Mr. Cowan -- Mr. Howard -- Mr. Johnson -- Mr. Davis -- Conversations with Mr. Trumbull and Mr. Clark -- Reply of Mr. Johnson -- Remarks by Mr. Morrill -- Mr. Davis "wound up" -- Mr. Guthrie's Speech -- Mr. Hendricks -- Reply of Mr. Lane -- Mr. Wilson -- Mr. Trumbull's closing remarks -- Yeas and Nays on the passage of the Bill. 

The preceding Congress having proposed an amendment to theConstitution by which slavery should be abolished, and this amendmenthaving been "ratified by three-fourths of the several States, " fourmillions of the inhabitants of the United States were transformed fromslaves into freemen. To leave them with their shackles broken off, unprotected, in a new and undefined position, would have been a sinagainst them only surpassed in enormity by the original crime of theirenslavement. 

As provided in the amendment itself, it devolved upon Congress "toenforce this article by appropriate legislation. " The Thirty-ninthCongress assembled, realizing that it devolved upon them to define theextent of the rights, privileges, and duties of the freedmen. Thatbody was not slow in meeting the full measure of its responsibility. 

Immediately on the reässembling of Congress after the holidays, January 5, 1866, Mr. Trumbull, in pursuance of previous notice, introduced a bill "to protect all persons in the United States intheir civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication. " Thisbill, having been read twice, was referred to the Committee on theJudiciary. 

It was highly appropriate that this bill, involving the relations ofmillions of the inhabitants of the United States to the Government, should be referred to this able committee, selected from among the menof most distinguished legal ability in the Senate. Its members werechosen in consideration of their high professional ability, their longexperience, and exalted standing as jurists. They are the legaladvisers of the Senate, whose report upon constitutional questions isentitled to the highest consideration. 

To such a committee the Senate appropriately referred the Civil RightsBill, and the nation could safely trust in their hands the greatinterests therein involved. 

The bill declares that "there shall be no discrimination in civilrights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territoryof the United States on account of race, color, or previous conditionof slavery; but the inhabitants, of every race and color, withoutregard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have beenduly convicted, shall have the same right to make and enforcecontracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for thesecurity of person and property, and shall be subject to likepunishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. Anyperson who, under cover of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, orcustom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of anyState or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured orprotected by the act, or to different punishment, pains, or penalties, on account of such person having at any time been held in a conditionof slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crimewhereof the party shall have been duly convicted, or by reason of hiscolor or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, is to be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, to bepunished by a fine not exceeding $1, 000, or imprisonment not exceedingone year, or both, in the discretion of the court. "

Other provisions of the bill relate to the courts which shall havejurisdiction of cases which arise under the act, and the means to beemployed in its enforcement. 

That no question might arise as to the constitutionality of the law, all the provisions which relate to the enforcement of the act wereborrowed from the celebrated Fugitive Slave Law, enacted in 1850. Itwas a happy thought to compel the enemies of the negro themselves, asjudges, to pronounce in favor of the constitutionality of thisordinance. It is an admirable illustration of the progress of the age, that the very instruments which were used a few years before to rivettighter the chains of the slave, should be employed to break thosevery chains to fragments. It shall forever stand forth to the honor ofAmerican legislation that it attained to more than poetic justice inusing the very means once employed to repress and crush the negro forhis defense and elevation. 

Within less than a week after the reference of this bill to theJudiciary Committee, it was reported back, with no alteration save afew verbal amendments. On account of pressure of other business, itdid not come up for formal consideration and discussion in the Senateuntil the 29th of January. On that day Mr. Trumbull, having called upthe bill for the consideration of the Senate, said:

"I regard the bill to which the attention of the Senate is now called, as the most important measure that has been under its considerationsince the adoption of the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. That amendment declared that all persons in the United States shouldbe free. This measure is intended to give effect to that declaration, and secure to all persons within the United States practical freedom. There is very little importance in the general declaration of abstracttruths and principles unless they can be carried into effect, unlessthe persons who are to be affected by them have some means of availingthemselves of their benefits. Of what avail was the immortaldeclaration 'that all men are created equal; that they are endowed bytheir Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these arelife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, ' and 'that to securethese rights governments are instituted among men, ' to the millions ofthe African race in this country who were ground down and degraded, and subjected to a slavery more intolerable and cruel than the worldever before knew? Of what avail was it to the citizen ofMassachusetts, who, a few years ago, went to South Carolina to enforcea constitutional right in court, that the Constitution of the UnitedStates declared that the citizens of each State shall be entitled toall the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States?And of what avail will it now be that the Constitution of the UnitedStates has declared that slavery shall not exist, if in the lateslaveholding States laws are to be enacted and enforced deprivingpersons of African descent of privileges which are essential tofreemen?

"It is the intention of this bill to secure those rights. The laws inthe slaveholding States have made a distinction against persons ofAfrican descent on account of their color, whether free or slave. Ihave before me the statutes of Mississippi. They provide that if anycolored person, any free negro or mulatto, shall come into that Statefor the purpose of residing there, he shall be sold into slavery forlife. If any person of African descent residing in that State travelsfrom one county to another without having a pass or a certificate ofhis freedom, he is liable to be committed to jail, and to be dealtwith as a person who is in the State without authority. Otherprovisions of the statute prohibit any negro or mulatto from havingfirearms; and one provision of the statute declares that for'exercising the functions of a minister of the Gospel, free negroesand mulattoes, on conviction, may be punished by any number of lashesnot exceeding thirty-nine, on the bare back, and shall pay the costs. "Other provisions of the statute of Mississippi prohibit a free negroor mulatto from keeping a house of entertainment, and subject him totrial before two justices of the peace and five slaveholders forviolating the provisions of this law. The statutes of South Carolinamake it a highly penal offense for any person, white or colored, toteach slaves; and similar provisions are to be found running throughall the statutes of the late slaveholding States. 

"When the constitutional amendment was adopted and slavery abolished, all these statutes became null and void, because they were all passedin aid of slavery, for the purpose of maintaining and supporting it. Since the abolition of slavery, the Legislatures which have assembledin the insurrectionary States have passed laws relating to thefreedmen, and in nearly all the States they have discriminated againstthem. They deny them certain rights, subject them to severe penalties, and still impose upon them the very restrictions which were imposedupon them in consequence of the existence of slavery, and before itwas abolished. The purpose of the bill under consideration is todestroy all these discriminations, and to carry into effect theconstitutional amendment. "

After having stated somewhat at length the grounds upon which heplaced this bill, Mr. Trumbull closed by saying: "Most of theprovisions of this bill are copied from the late Fugitive Slave Act, adopted in 1850 for the purpose of returning fugitives from slaveryinto slavery again. The act that was passed at that time for thepurpose of punishing persons who should aid negroes to escape tofreedom is now to be applied by the provisions of this bill to thepunishment of those who shall undertake to keep them in slavery. Surely we have the authority to enact a law as efficient in theinterests of freedom, now that freedom prevails throughout thecountry, as we had in the interest of slavery when it prevailed in aportion of the country. "

Mr. Saulsbury took an entirely different view of the subject underconsideration: "I regard this bill, " he said, "as one of the mostdangerous that was ever introduced into the Senate of the UnitedStates, or to which the attention of the American people was everinvited. During the last four or five years, I have sat in thischamber and witnessed the introduction of bills into this body which Ithought obnoxious to many very grave and serious constitutionalobjections; but I have never, since I have been a member of the body, seen a bill so fraught with danger, so full of mischief, as the billnow under consideration. 

"I shall not follow the honorable Senator into a consideration of themanner in which slaves were treated in the Southern States, nor theprivileges that have been denied to them by the laws of the States. Ithink the time for shedding tears over the poor slave has well nighpassed in this country. The tears which the honest white people ofthis country have been made to shed from the oppressive acts of thisGovernment, in its various departments, during the last four years, call more loudly for my sympathies than those tears which have beenshedding and dropping and dropping for the last twenty years inreference to the poor, oppressed slave--dropping from the eyes ofstrong-minded women and weak-minded men, until, becoming a mightyflood, they have swept away, in their resistless force, every trace ofconstitutional liberty in this country. 

"I suppose it is a foregone conclusion that this measure, as one of aseries of measures, is to be passed through this Congress regardlessof all consequences. But the day that the President of the UnitedStates places his approval and signature to that Freedmen's BureauBill, and to this bill, he will have signed two acts more dangerous tothe liberty of his countrymen, more disastrous to the citizens of thiscountry, than all the acts which have been passed from the foundationof the Government to the present hour; and if we on this side of thechamber manifest anxiety and interest in reference to these bills, andthe questions involved in them, it is because, having known thispopulation all our lives, knowing them in one hour of our infancybetter than you gentlemen have known them all your lives, we feelcompelled, by a sense of duty, earnestly and importunately, it may be, to appeal to the judgment of the American Senate, and to reach, ifpossible, the judgment of the great mass of the American people, andinvoke their attention to the awful consequences involved in measuresof this character. Sir, stop, stop! the mangled, bleeding body of theConstitution of your country lies in your path; you are treading uponits bleeding body when you pass these laws. "

After having argued at considerable length that this bill would be amost unconstitutional interference on the part of the FederalGovernment with "the powers of the States under the FederalConstitution, " the Senator from Delaware thus concluded:

"Sir, from early boyhood I was taught to love and revere the FederalUnion and those who made it. In early childhood I read the words ofthe Father of his country, in which he exhorted the people to cling tothe union of these States as the palladium of liberty, and my youngheart bounded with joy in reading the burning words of loftypatriotism. I was taught in infancy to admire, as far as the infantmind could admire, our free system of government, Federal and State;and I heard the old men say that the wit of man never devised a betteror more lovely system of government. When I arrived at that age when Icould study and reflect for myself, the teachings of childhood wereapproved by the judgment of the man. 

"I have seen how under this Union we had become great in the eyes ofall nations; and I see now, notwithstanding the horrible afflictionsof war, if we can have wisdom in council and sincere purpose tosubserve the good of the whole people of the United States, thoughmuch that was dear to us has been blasted as by the pestilence thatwalketh in darkness and the destruction that wasteth at noonday, howwe might, in the providence of God, resume our former position amongthe nations of the earth, and command the respect of the wholecivilized world. But, sir, to-day, in viewing and in considering thisbill, the thought has occurred to me, how happy were the founders ofour Federal system of government, that they had been taken from thecouncil chambers of this nation and from among their fellow-men beforebills of this character were seriously presented for legislativeconsideration. Happily for them, they sleep their last sleep, and--

 "'How sleep the brave who sink to rest, By all their country's wishes blest! When Spring, with dewy fingers cold, Returns to deck their hallowed mold, She there shall dress a sweeter sod Than Fancy's feet have ever trod. 

 "'By fairy hands their knell is rung; By forms unseen their dirge is sung; There Honor comes, a pilgrim gray, To bless the turf that wraps their clay; And Freedom shall henceforth repair And dwell a weeping hermit there. '"

On the following day, Mr. Van Winkle, of West Virginia, addressed theSenate on the merits of the bill. He thought that the objects soughtcould only be attained through an amendment to the Constitution. Hemoreover said:

"We hear a great deal about the sentence from the Declaration ofIndependence, that 'all men are created equal. ' I am willing to admitthat all men are created equal; but how are they equal? Can a citizenof France, for instance, by going into England, be entitled to all therights of a citizen of that country, or by coming into this countryacquire all the rights of an American, unless he is naturalized? Can acitizen of our country, by going into any other, become entitled tothe rights of a citizen there? If not, it may be said that they arenot equal. I believe that the division of men into separatecommunities, and their living in society and association with theirfellows, as they do, are both divine institutions, and that, consequently, the authors of the Declaration of Independence couldhave meant nothing more than that the rights of citizens of anycommunity are equal to the rights of all other citizens of thatcommunity. Whenever all communities are conducted in accordance withthese principles, these very conditions of their prosperous existence, then all mankind will be equal, each enjoying his equality in his owncommunity, and not till then. Therefore, I assert that there is noright that can be exercised by any community of society more perfectthan that of excluding from citizenship or membership those who areobjectionable. If a little society is formed for a benevolent, literary, or any other purpose, the members immediately exercise, andclaim the right to exercise, that right; they determine who shall comeinto their community. We have the right to determine who shall bemembers of our community; and much as has been said here about whatGod has done, and about our obligations to the Almighty in referenceto this matter, I do not see where it comes in that we are bound toreceive into our community those whose minglings with us might bedetrimental to our interests. I do not believe that a superior race isbound to receive among it those of an inferior race, if the minglingof them can only tend to the detriment of the mass. I do not meanstrict miscegenation, but I mean the mingling of two races in society, associating from time to time with each other. "

Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, spoke against the bill. He said: "Theidentical question came up in my State--the question whether the negrowas a citizen, and whether he possessed political power in thatState--and it was there decided that he was not one of the originalcorporators, that he was not one of the freemen who originallypossessed political power, and that they had never, by any enactmentor by any act of theirs, admitted him into a participation of thatpower, except so far as to tax him for the support of Government. And, Mr. President, I think it a most important question, and particularlya most important question for the Pacific coast, and those Stateswhich lie upon it, as to whether this door shall now be thrown open tothe Asiatic population. If it be, there is an end to republicangovernment there, because it is very well ascertained that thosepeople have no appreciation of that form of government; it seems to beobnoxious to their very nature; they seem to be incapable either ofunderstanding it or of carrying it out; and I can not consent to saythat California, or Oregon, or Colorado, or Nevada, or any of thoseStates, shall be given over to an irruption of Chinese. I, for mypart, protest against it. 

"There is a great deal more in this bill that is exceedinglyobjectionable. It is the first time, I think, in the history ofcivilized legislation, that a judicial officer has been held up andsubjected to a criminal punishment for that which may have been aconscientious discharge of his duty. It is, I say, the first case thatI know of, in the legislation of modern and civilized nations, where abill of indictment is to take the place of a writ of error, and wherea mistake is to be tortured into a crime. 

"I may state that I have another objection to this bill at the presenttime; and that is, that the people of several States in the Union arenot represented here, and yet this law is mainly to operate upon thosepeople. I think it would be at least decent, respectful, if we desireto maintain and support this Government on the broad foundation uponwhich it was laid--namely, the consent of the governed--that we shouldwait, at any rate, until the people upon whom it is to operate have avoice in these halls. "

Mr. Cowan then proceeded in a somewhat "devious course, " as it wascharacterized by another Senator, to make remarks upon the subject ofreconstruction. Many questions and remarks were interposed by otherSenators, giving the discussion an exceedingly colloquial style. 

At length, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, having obtained the floor, spokein favor of the bill. He said: "If I understand correctly theinterpretation given by several Senators to the constitutionalamendment abolishing slavery, it is this: that the sole effect of itis to cut and sever the mere legal ligament by which the person andthe service of the slave was attached to his master, and that beyondthis particular office the amendment does not go; that it can have noeffect whatever upon the condition of the emancipated black in anyother respect. In other words, they hold that it relieves him from hisso-called legal obligation to render his personal service to hismaster without compensation, and there leaves him, totally, irretrievably, and without any power on the part of Congress to lookafter his well-being from the moment of this mockery of emancipation. Sir, such was not the intention of the friends of this amendment atthe time of its initiation here, and at the time of its adoption; andI undertake to say that it is not the construction which is given toit by the bar throughout the country, and much less by theliberty-loving people. 

"But let us look more closely at this narrow construction. Where doesit leave us? We are told that the amendment simply relieves the slavefrom the obligation to render service to his master. What is a slavein contemplation of American law, in contemplation of the laws of allthe slave States? We know full well; the history of two hundred yearsteaches us that he had no rights, nor nothing which he could call hisown. He had not the right to become a husband or a father in the eyeof the law; he had no child; he was not at liberty to indulge thenatural affections of the human heart for children, for wife, or evenfor friend. He owned no property, because the law prohibited him. Hecould not take real or personal estate either by sale, by grant, or bydescent or inheritance. He did not own the bread he earned and ate. Hestood upon the face of the earth completely isolated from the societyin which he happened to be. He was nothing but a chattel, subject tothe will of his owner, and unprotected in his rights by the law of theState where he happened to live. His rights, did I say? No, sir, I useinappropriate language. He had no rights; he was an animal; he wasproperty, a chattel. The Almighty, according to the ideas of thetimes, had made him to be property, a Chattel, and not a man. 

"Now, sir, it is not denied that this relation of servitude betweenthe former negro slave and his master was actually severed by thisamendment. But the absurd construction now forced upon it leaves himwithout family, without property, without the implements of husbandry, and even without the right to acquire or use any instrumentalities ofcarrying on the industry of which he may be capable; it leaves himwithout friend or support, and even without the clothes to cover hisnakedness. He is a waif upon the current of time; he has nothing thatbelongs to him on the face of the earth, except solely his nakedperson. And here, in this State, we are called upon to abandon thepoor creature whom we have emancipated. We are coolly told that he hasno right beyond this, and we are told that under this amendment thepower of the State within whose limits he happens to be is not at allrestrained in respect to him, and that the State, through itsLegislature, may at any time declare him to be a vagrant, and as suchcommit him to jail, or assign him to uncompensated service. "

Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, made a speech, in which he expressed himselfas in favor of conferring citizenship upon the negro, and yet unableto vote for this bill from the opinion he entertained on "the questionof power. " He referred to the Dred Scott and other decisions, andshowed their bearing upon the legislation now proposed. He said: "Ihave been exceedingly anxious individually that there should be somedefinition which will rid this class of our people from thatobjection. If the Supreme Court decision is a binding one, and will befollowed in the future, this law which we are now about to pass willbe held, of course, to be of no avail, as far as it professes todefine what citizenship is, because it gives the rights of citizenshipto all persons without distinction of color, and, of course, embracesAfricans or descendants of Africans. "

He referred to a precedent when Congress had conferred the rights ofcitizenship: "The citizens of Texas, who, of course, were aliens, ithas never been doubted became citizens of the United States by theannexation of Texas; and that was not done by treaty, it was done bylegislation. If the power was in Congress by legislation to makecitizens of all the inhabitants of the State of Texas, why is it notin the power of Congress to make citizens by legislation of all whoare inhabitants of the United States, and who are not citizens? Thatis what this bill does, or what it proposes to do. There are withinthe United States millions of people who are not citizens, accordingto the view of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ought they tobe citizens? I think they ought. I think it is an anomaly that saysthere shall not be the rights of citizenship to any of the inhabitantsof any State of the United States. 

"While they were slaves, it was a very different question; but now, when slavery is terminated, and by terminating it you have got rid ofthe only obstacle in the way of citizenship, two questions arise:First, whether that fact itself does not make them citizens? Beforethey were not citizens, because of slavery, and only because ofslavery. Slavery abolished, why are they not just as much citizens asthey would have been if slavery had never existed? My opinion is thatthey become citizens, and I hold that opinion so strongly that Ishould consider it unnecessary to legislate on the subject at all, asfar as that class is concerned, but for the ruling of the SupremeCourt to which I have adverted. "

Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, spoke against the propriety andconstitutionality of making all negroes citizens of the United States. He said: "There never was a colony before the Declaration ofIndependence, and there never was a State after the Declaration ofIndependence, up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution, sofar as I have been able to learn by the slight historical examinationwhich I have given to the subject, that ever made or attempted to makeany other person than a person who belonged to one of thenationalities of Europe a citizen. I invoke the chairman of thecommittee to give me an instance, to point to any history or anymemento, where a negro, although that negro was born in America, wasever made a citizen of either of the States of the United Statesbefore the adoption of this Constitution. The whole material out ofwhich citizens were made previous to the adoption of the presentConstitution was from the European nationalities, from the Caucasianrace, if I may use the term. I deny that a single citizen was evermade by one of the States out of the negro race. I deny that a singlecitizen was ever made by one of the States out of the Mongolian race. I controvert that a single citizen was ever made by one of the Statesout of the Chinese race, out of the Hindoos, or out of any other raceof people but the Caucasian race of Europe. 

"I come, then, to this position: that whenever the States, after theDeclaration of Independence and before the present Constitution wasadopted, legislated in relation to citizenship, or acted in theirgovernments in relation to citizenship, the subject of thatlegislation or that action was the Caucasian race of Europe; that noneof the inferior races of any kind were intended to be embraced or wereembraced by this work of Government in manufacturing citizens. "

Mr. Trumbull inquired, "Will the Senator from Kentucky allow me to askhim if he means to assert that negroes were not citizens of any ofthese colonies before the adoption of the Constitution?"

"I say they were not, " said Mr. Davis. 

"Does the Senator wish any authority to show that they were?" askedMr. Trumbull. 

"When I get through, " said Mr. Davis, "you can answer me. "

Mr. Trumbull replied: "I understood the Senator to challenge me toproduce any proof on that point, and I thought he would like to haveit in his speech. I can assert to him that by a solemn decision of theSupreme Court of North Carolina, they were citizens before theadoption of the Constitution. "

"If the honorable Senator will allow me, " said Mr. Davis, "I will getalong with my remarks. "

"I think you will get along better, " replied Mr. Trumbull, "by notbeing exposed in your statements. "

"The honorable Senator is full of conceit, but I have seen lessconceit with a great deal more brains, " said Mr. Davis, who thenproceeded "to throw up" what he termed "the main buttress for thedefense of the positions" that he took. 

"My main position, " said he, "is, that no native-born person of theUnited States, of any race or color, can be admitted a citizen of theUnited States by Congress under the power conferred in relation tonaturalization by the Constitution upon Congress. "

After reading some authorities, the Senator proceeded to say: "A gravehallucination in this day is to claim all power; and a minor error isthat every thing which passion, or interest, or party power, or anyselfish claims may represent to the judgment or imagination ofgentlemen who belong to strong parties, to be necessary or useful forthe good and the domination of such parties, is seized upon indefiance of a fair construction of language, in outrage of the plainmeaning of the Constitution. That is not the rule by which ourConstitution is to be interpreted. It is not the rule by which it isto be administered. On the contrary, if the able, honorable, andclear-headed Senator from Illinois would do himself and his countrythe justice to place himself in the position of the framers of theConstitution; if he would look all around on the circumstances andconnections of that day, on the purposes of those men not only inrelation to forming a more perfect Union, but also in relation tosecuring the blessings of life, liberty, and property to themselvesand their posterity forever; if the honorable Senator would construethe Constitution according to the light, the sacred and bright lightwhich such surrounding circumstances would throw upon his intellect, it seems to me that he would at once abandon this abominable bill, andwould also ask to withdraw its twin sister from the other House thatboth might be smothered here together upon the altar of theConstitution and of patriotism. "

At the close of Mr. Davis' speech, much debate and conversation ensuedamong various Senators upon a proposed amendment by Mr. Lane, ofKansas, by which Indians "under tribal authority" should be excludedfrom the benefits conferred by this bill. After this question wasdisposed of, Mr. Davis was drawn out in another speech by what seemedto him to be the necessity of defending some positions which he hadassumed. He said:

"I still reiterate the position that the negro is not a citizen hereaccording to the essential fundamental principles of our system; butwhether he be a citizen or not, he is not a foreigner, and no man, white or black, or red or mixed, can be made a citizen bynaturalization unless he is a foreigner. "

Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, interposed: "I wish the Senator fromKentucky would tell us what constitutes a citizen under theConstitution. "

"A foreigner is not a citizen in the fullest sense of the word atall, " said Mr. Davis. 

"The Senator is now telling us, " said Mr. Clark, "who is not acitizen, but my question is, What constitutes a citizen?"

"I leave that to the exercise of your own ingenuity, " replied Mr. Davis. 

"That is it, " said Mr. Clark. "Washington is dead; Marshall is dead;Story is dead; I hoped the Senator from Kentucky would haveenlightened us. He says a negro is not a citizen, and a negro is not aforeigner and can not be made a citizen. He says that a person whomight be and was a citizen before the Constitution, is not a citizensince the Constitution was adopted. What right was taken away from himby the Constitution that disqualifies him from being a citizen? Thefree negroes in my State, before the Constitution was adopted, werecitizens. "

Mr. Davis, having admitted that free negroes were citizens before theConstitution in New Hampshire, Mr. Clark said:

"I desired that the Senator should tell me what, in his opinion, constituted a citizen under the Constitution. "

Mr. Davis replied: "I will answer the honorable Senator. We sometimesanswer a positive question by declaring what a thing is not. Now, thehonorable Senator asks me what a citizen is. It is easier to answerwhat it is not than what it is, and I say that a negro is not acitizen. "

"Well, that is a lucid definition, " said Mr. Clark. 

"Sufficient for the subject, " said Mr. Davis. 

"That is begging the question, " Mr. Clark replied. "I wanted to findwhy a negro was not a citizen, if the gentleman would tell me. If hewould lay down his definition, I wanted to see whether the negro didnot comply with it and conform to it, so as to be a citizen; but heinsists that he is not a citizen. "

"I will answer that question, if the honorable Senator will permitme, " said Mr. Davis. "Government is a political partnership. Nopersons but the partners who formed the partnership are parties to thegovernment. Here is a government formed by the white man alone. Thenegro was excluded from the formation of our political partnership; hehad nothing to do with it; he had nothing to do in its formation. "

"Is it a close corporation, so that new partners can not be added?"asked Mr. Stewart, of Nevada. 

"Yes, sir, " said Mr. Davis; "it is a close white corporation. You maybring all of Europe, but none of Asia and none of Africa into ourpartnership. "

"Let us see, " said Mr. Clark, "how that may be. Take the gentleman'sown ground that government is a partnership, and those who did notenter into it and take an active part in it can not be citizens. Is awoman a citizen under our Constitution?"

"Not to vote, " said Mr. Davis. 

"I did not ask about voting, " said Mr. Clark. "The gentleman saidawhile ago that voting did not constitute citizenship. I want to knowif she is a citizen. Can she not sue and be sued, contract, andexercise the rights of a citizen?"

"So can a free negro, " said Mr. Davis. 

"Then, if a free negro can do all that, " said Mr. Clark; "why is henot a citizen?"

"Because he is no part of the governing power; that is the reason, "Mr. Davis replied. 

"I deny that, " said Mr. Clark, "because in some of the States he is apart of the governing power. The Senator only begs the question; itonly comes back to this, that a nigger is a nigger. " [Laughter. ]

"That is the whole of it, " said Mr. Davis. 

[Illustration: Hon. Reverdy Johnson. ]

"That is the whole of the gentleman's logic, " said Mr. Clark. 

In answer to the statement insisted on by Mr. Davis, "You can not makea citizen of any body that is not a foreigner, " Mr. Johnson said:

"That would be an extraordinary condition for the country to be in. Here are four million negroes. They are not foreigners, because theywere born in the United States. They have no foreign allegiance torenounce, because they owed no foreign allegiance. Their allegiance, whatever it was, was an allegiance to the Government of the UnitedStates alone. They can not come, therefore, under the naturalizingclause; they can not come, of course, under the statutes passed inpursuance of the power conferred upon Congress by that clause; butdoes it follow from that that you can not make them citizens; that theCongress of the United States, vested with the whole legislative powerbelonging to the Government, having within the limits of the UnitedStates four million people anxious to become citizens, and when youare anxious to make them citizens, have no power to make themcitizens? It seems to me that to state the question is to answer it. 

"The honorable member reads the Constitution as if it said that nonebut white men should become citizens of the United States; but it saysno such thing, and never intended, in my judgment, to say any suchthing. If it had designed to exclude from all participation in therights of citizenship certain men on account of color, and to haveconfined, at all times thereafter, citizenship to the white race, itis but fair to presume, looking to the character of the men who framedthe Constitution, that they would have put that object beyond allpossible doubt; they would have said that no man should be a citizenof the United States except a white man, or rather would havenegatived the right of the negro to become a citizen by saying thatCongress might pass uniform rules upon the subject of thenaturalization of white immigrants and nobody else; but that they didnot do. They left it to Congress. Congress, in the exercise of theirdiscretion, have thought proper to insert the term 'white' in thenaturalization act; but they may strike it out, and if it should bestricken out, I do not think any lawyer, except my friend fromKentucky, would deny that a black man could be naturalized, and bynaturalization become a citizen of the United States. 

"But to go back to the point from which the questions of my honorablefriend from Kentucky caused me to digress, we have now within theUnited States four million colored people, the descendants ofAfricans, whose ancestors were brought into the United States aschattels. It was because of that condition that they were consideredas not entitled to the rights of citizenship. We have put an end tothat condition. We have said that at all times hereafter men of anycolor that nature may think proper to impress upon the human frame, shall, if within the United States, be free, and not property. Then, we have four million colored people who are now as free as we are; andthe only question is, whether, being free, they can not be clothedwith the rights of citizenship. The honorable member from Kentuckysays no, because the naturalization clause does not include them. Ihave attempted to answer that. He says no, because the act passed inpursuance of that clause does not include them. I have answered thatby saying that that act in that particular may be changed. "

On the following day, February 1st, the discussion of the bill wasresumed by Mr. Morrill, of Maine. He said of the bill: "It marks anepoch in the history of this country, and from this time forward thelegislation takes a fresh and a new departure. Sir, to-day is the onlyhour since this Government began when it was possible to have enactedit. Such has been the situation of politics in this country, nay, sir, such have been the provisions of the fundamental law of this country, that such legislation hitherto has never been possible. There has beenno time since the foundation of the Government when an AmericanCongress could by possibility have enacted such a law, or withpropriety have made such a declaration. What is this declaration? Allpersons born in this country are citizens. That never was so before. Although I have said that by the fundamental principles of Americanlaw all persons were entitled to be citizens by birth, we all knowthat there was an exceptional condition in the Government of thecountry which provided for an exception to this general rule. Herewere four million slaves in this country that were not citizens, notcitizens by the general policy of the country, not citizens on accountof their condition of servitude; up to this hour they could not havebeen treated by us as citizens; so long as that provision in theConstitution which recognized this exceptional condition remained thefundamental law of the country, such a declaration as this would nothave been legal, could not have been enacted by Congress. I hail it, therefore, as a declaration which typifies a grand fundamental changein the politics of the country, and which change justifies thedeclaration now. 

"The honorable Senator from Kentucky has vexed himself somewhat, Ithink, with the problem of the naturalization of American citizens. Ashe reads it, only foreigners can be naturalized, or, in other words, can become citizens; and upon his assumption, four million men andwomen in this country are outside not only of naturalization, not onlyof citizenship, but outside of the possibility of citizenship. Sir, hehas forgotten the grand principle both of nature and nations, both oflaw and politics, that birth gives citizenship of itself. This is thefundamental principle running through all modern politics both in thiscountry and in Europe. Every-where, where the principles of law havebeen recognized at all, birth by its inherent energy and force givescitizenship. Therefore the founders of this Government made noprovision--of course they made none--for the naturalization ofnatural-born citizens. The Constitution speaks of 'natural-born, ' andspeaks of them as citizens in contradistinction from those who arealien to us. Therefore, sir, this amendment, although it is a grandenunciation, although it is a lofty and sublime declaration, has noforce or efficiency as an enactment. I hail it and accept it simply asa declaration. 

"The honorable Senator from Kentucky, when he criticises the methodsof naturalization, and rules out, for want of power, four millionpeople, forgets this general process of nations and of nature by whichevery man, by his birth, is entitled to citizenship, and that upon thegeneral principle that he owes allegiance to the country of his birth, and that country owes him protection. That is the foundation, as Iunderstand it, of all citizenship, and these are the essentialelements of citizenship: allegiance on the one side, and protection onthe other. "

In reply to statements made by Mr. Davis, Mr. Morrill remarked: "TheSenator from Kentucky denounces as a usurpation this measure, andparticularly this amendment, this declaration. He says it is notwithin the principles of the Constitution. That it is extraordinary Iadmit. That the measure is not ordinary is most clear. There is noparallel, I have already said, for it in the history of this country;there is no parallel for it in the history of any country. No nation, from the foundation of government, has ever undertaken to make alegislative declaration so broad. Why? Because no nation hitherto hasever cherished a liberty so universal. The ancient republics were allexceptional in their liberty; they all had excepted classes, subjectedclasses, which were not the subject of government, and, therefore, they could not so legislate. That it is extraordinary and without aparallel in the history of this Government, or of any other, does notaffect the character of the declaration itself. 

"The Senator from Kentucky tells us that the proposition isrevolutionary, and he thinks that is an objection. I freely concedethat it is revolutionary. I admit that this species of legislation isabsolutely revolutionary. But are we not in the midst of revolution?Is the Senator from Kentucky utterly oblivious to the grand results offour years of war? Are we not in the midst of a civil and politicalrevolution which has changed the fundamental principles of ourGovernment in some respects? Sir, is it no revolution that you havechanged the entire system of servitude in this country? Is it norevolution that now you can no longer talk of two systems ofcivilization in this country? Four short years back, I remember tohave listened to eloquent speeches in this chamber, in which we weretold that there was a grand antagonism in our institutions; that therewere two civilizations; that there was a civilization based onservitude, and that it was antagonistic to the free institutions ofthe country. Where is that? Gone forever. That result is a revolutiongrander and sublimer in its consequences than the world has witnessedhitherto. 

"I accept, then, what the Senator from Kentucky thinks so obnoxious. We are in the midst of revolution. We have revolutionized thisConstitution of ours to that extent; and every substantial change inthe fundamental constitution of a country is a revolution. Why, sir, the Constitution even provides for revolutionizing itself. Nay, more, it contemplates it; contemplates that in the changing phases of life, civil and political, changes in the fundamental law will becomenecessary; and is it needful for me to advert to the facts and eventsof the last four or five years to justify the declaration thatrevolution here is not only radical and thorough, but the result ofthe events of the last four years? Of course, I mean to contend in allI say that the revolution of which I speak should be peaceful, as onthe part of the Government here it has been peaceful. It grows out, tobe sure, of an assault upon our institutions by those whose purpose itwas to overthrow the Government; but, on the part of the Government, it has been peaceful, it has been within the forms of theConstitution; but it is a revolution nevertheless. 

"But the honorable Senator from Kentucky insists that it is ausurpation. Not so, sir. Although it is a revolution radical, as Icontend, it was not a usurpation. It was not a usurpation, because ittook place within the provisions contemplated in the Constitution. More than that, it was a change precisely in harmony with the generalprinciples of the Government. This great change which has been wroughtin our institutions was in harmony with the fundamental principles ofthe Government. The change which has been made has destroyed thatwhich was exceptional in our institutions; and the action of theGovernment in regard to it was provoked by the enemies of theGovernment. The opportunity was afforded, and the change which hasbeen wrought was in harmony with the fundamental principles of theGovernment. "

The Senator from Maine opposed the theory that this is a Governmentexclusively for white men. He remarked: "It is said that thisamendment raises the general question of the antagonism of the races, which, we are told, is a well-established fact. It is said that norational man, no intelligent legislator or statesman, should ever actwithout reference to that grand historical fact; and the Senator fromPennsylvania, [Mr. Cowan, ] on a former occasion, asserted that thisGovernment, that American society, had been established here upon theprinciple of the exclusion, as he termed it, of the inferior and thebarbarian races. Mr. President, I deny that proposition as ahistorical fact. There is nothing more inaccurate. No propositioncould possibly be made here or anywhere else more inaccurate than tosay that American society, either civil or political, was formed inthe interest of any race or class. Sir, the history of the countrydoes not bear out the statement of the honorable Senator fromPennsylvania. Was not America said to be the land of refuge? Has itnot been, since the earliest period, held up as an asylum for theoppressed of all nations? Hither, allow me to ask, have not all thepeoples of the nations of the earth come for an asylum and for refuge?All the nations of the earth, and all the varieties of the races ofthe nations of the earth, have gathered here. In the early settlementsof the country, the Irish, the French, the Swede, the Turk, theItalian, the Moor, and so I might enumerate all the races, and all thevariety of races, came here; and it is a fundamental mistake tosuppose that settlement was begun here in the interests of any class, or condition, or race, or interest. This Western Continent was lookedto as an asylum for the oppressed of all nations and of all races. Hither all nations and all races have come. Here, sir, upon the grandplane of republican democratic liberty, they have undertaken to workout the great problem of man's capacity for self-government withoutstint or limit. "

Mr. Davis then made another speech in opposition to the bill. When thehour for adjournment had arrived, and Mr. Johnson interrupted him witha proposition that "the bill be passed over for to-day, " Mr. Davissaid, "I am wound up, and am obliged to run down. " The Senate, however, adjourned at a late hour, and resumed the hearing of Mr. Davis on the following day. 

In alluding to Mr. Johnson's strictures on his assertion that Congresshad no power to confer the right of citizenship on "the native bornnegro, " Mr. Davis said: "The honorable Senator, [Mr. Johnson, ] as Isaid the other day, is one of the ablest lawyers, and, I believe, theablest living lawyer in the land. I have seen gentlemen sometimes somuch the lawyer that they had to abate some of the statesman[laughter]; and I am not certain, I would not say it was so--I willnot arrogate to myself to say so--but sometimes a suspicion flashesacross my mind that that is precisely the predicament of my honorablefriend. 

"I maintain that a negro can not be made a citizen by Congress; he cannot be made a citizen by any naturalization laws, because thenaturalization laws apply to foreigners alone. No man can shake thelegal truth of that position. They apply to foreigners alone; and anegro, an Indian, or any other person born within the United States, not being a foreigner, can not be naturalized; therefore they can notbe made citizens by the uniform rule established by Congress under theConstitution, and there is no other rule. Congress has no power, as Isaid before, to naturalize a citizen. They could not be made citizensby treaty. If they are made so at all, it is by their birth, and thelocality of their birth, and the general operation and effect of ourConstitution. If they are so made citizens, that question is ajudicial question, not a legislative question. Congress has no powerto enlarge or extend any of the provisions of the Constitution whichbear upon the birth or citizenship of negroes or Indians born in theUnited States. 

"If there was any despot in Europe or in the world that wanted amaster architect in framing and putting together a despotic andoppressive law, I would, if my slight voice could reach him, by allmeans say to him, Seek the laboratory of the Senator from Illinois. Ifhe has not proved himself an adept in this kind of legislation, unconstitutional, unjust, oppressive, iniquitous, unwise, impolitic, calculated to keep forever a severance of the Union, to exclude fromall their constitutional rights, privileges, and powers under theGovernment eleven States of the Union--if he has not devised such ameasure as that, I have not reason enough to comprehend it. "

Mr. Davis closed his speech by saying: "Was it for these fruits andthese laws that we went into this war? Was it for these fruits andthese laws and these oppressions that two million and a quarter of menwere ordered into the field? Was it that the American people mightenjoy these as the fruits of the triumphant close of this war, thathundreds of thousands of them have been mutilated on the battle-fieldand by the diseases of the camp, and that a debt of four or fivethousand million dollars has been left upon the country? If these areto be the results of the war, better that not a single man had beenmarshaled in the field nor a single star worn by one of our officers. These military gentlemen think they have a right to command andcontrol every-where. They do it. They think they have a right to do ithere, and we are sheep in the hands of our shearers. We are dumb. "

Mr. Trumbull said: "I will occupy a few moments of the attention ofthe Senate, after this long harangue of the Senator from Kentucky, which he closed by declaring that we are dumb in the presence ofmilitary power. If he has satisfied the Senate that he is dumb, Ipresume he has satisfied the Senate of all the other positions he hastaken; and the others are about as absurd as that declaration. Hedenounces this bill as 'outrageous, ' 'most monstrous, ' 'abominable, ''oppressive, ' 'iniquitous, ' 'unconstitutional, ' 'void. '

"Now, what is this bill that is obnoxious to such terrible epithets?It is a bill providing that all people shall have equal rights. Is notthat abominable? Is not that iniquitous? Is not that monstrous? Is notthat terrible on white men? [Laughter. ] When was such legislation asthis ever thought of for white men?

"Sir, this bill applies to white men as well as black men. It declaresthat all men in the United States shall be entitled to the same civilrights, the right to the fruit of their own labor, the right to makecontracts, the right to buy and sell, and enjoy liberty and happiness;and that is abominable and iniquitous and unconstitutional! Could anything be more monstrous or more abominable than for a member of theSenate to rise in his place and denounce with such epithets as these abill, the only object of which is to secure equal rights to all thecitizens of the country--a bill that protects a white man just as muchas a black man? With what consistency and with what face can a Senatorin his place here say to the Senate and the country, that this is abill for the benefit of the black men exclusively, when there is nosuch distinction in it, and when the very object of the bill is tobreak down all discrimination between black men and white men?"

Mr. Guthrie, of Kentucky, said: "My doctrine is that slavery exists nolonger in this country; that it is impossible to exist in the face ofthat provision; and with slavery fell the laws of all the Statesproviding for slavery, every one of them. I do not see what benefitcan arise from repealing them by this bill, because, if they are notrepealed by the Constitution as amended, this bill could not repealthem. I hope that all the States in which slavery formerly existedwill accept that constitutional provision in good faith. I myselfaccept it in good faith. Believing that all the laws authorizingslavery have fallen, I have advised the people of Kentucky, and Iwould advise all the States, to put these Africans upon the samefooting that the whites are in relation to civil rights. They have allthe rights that were formerly accorded to the free colored populationin all the States just as fully this day as they will have after thisbill has passed, and they will continue to have them. 

"Now, to the States belong the government of their own population, andthose within their borders, upon all subjects. We, in Kentucky, prescribe punishment for those who violate the laws; we prescribe itfor the white population; we prescribe it for the free Africanpopulation, and we prescribe it for the slave population. All the lawsprescribing punishment for slaves fell with slavery, and they weresubject afterward only to the penalties which were inflicted upon thefree colored population, they then being free. Slaves, for manyoffenses, were punished far less than the free colored people. Noslave was sent to the penitentiary and punished for stealing, or anything of that kind, whereas a free person was. But all these Stateswill now, of course, remodel their laws upon the subject of offenses. I would advise that there should be but one code for all persons, black as well as white; that there shall be one general rule for thepunishment of crime in the different States. But, sir, the States musthave time to act on the subject; and yet we are here preparing lawsand penalties, and proposing to carry them into execution by militaryauthority, before the States have had time to legislate, and evenbefore some of their Legislatures have had time to convene. 

"Kentucky has had her share of talking here, and, sir, she has had hershare of suffering during the war. At one time she was invaded bythree armies of the rebellion; all but seven or eight counties of theState, at one time, were occupied by its armies, and her wholeterritory devastated by guerrillas. We have suffered in this war. Wehave borne it as best we could. We feel it intensely that now, at theend of the war, we should be subjected to a military despotism, ourhouses liable to be entered at any time when our families are at rest, by military men who can arrest and send to prison without warrant, andwe are obliged to go, and we are obliged to pay any fines they mayimpose. I do not believe that you will lose any thing if you pausebefore passing such legislation as this, and establishing thesemilitary despotisms, for we do not know where they are to end. "

Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, had proposed to strike out the last clauseof the bill, which provided that "such part of the land and navalforces of the United States, or of the militia, " as should benecessary, might be employed to prevent the violation, and enforce thedue execution of this act. The Senator from Indiana opposed the billon the ground that it employed the machinery of the Fugitive SlaveLaw, and that it was to be enforced by the military authority of theUnited States. He said:

"This bill is a wasp; its sting is in its tail. Sir, what is thisbill? It provides, in the first place, that the civil rights of allmen, without regard to color, shall be equal; and, in the secondplace, that if any man shall violate that principle by his conduct, heshall be responsible to the court; that he may be prosecutedcriminally and punished for the crime, or he may be sued in a civilaction and damages recovered by the party wronged. Is not that broadenough? Do Senators want to go further than this? To recognize thecivil rights of the colored people as equal to the civil rights of thewhite people, I understand to be as far as Senators desire to go; inthe language of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner], to placeall men upon an equality before the law; and that is proposed inregard to their civil rights. "

In reference to the reënactment of the odious features of the FugitiveSlave Law in this bill, Mr. Hendricks said: "I recollect how the bloodof the people was made to run cold within them when it was said thatthe white man was required to run after the fugitive slave; that thelaw of 1850 made you and me, my brother Senators, slave-catchers; thatthe _posse comitatus_ could be called to execute a writ of the law, for the recovery of a runaway slave, under the provisions of theConstitution of the United States; and the whole country was agitatedbecause of it. Now slavery is gone; the negro is to be establishedupon a platform of civil equality with the white man. That is theproposition. But we do not stop there; we are to reënact a law thatnearly all of you said was wicked and wrong; and for what purpose? Notto pursue the negro any longer; not for the purpose of catching him;not for the purpose of catching the great criminals of the land; butfor the purpose of placing it in the power of any deputy marshal inany county of the country to call upon you and me, and all the body ofthe people, to pursue some white man who is running for his liberty, because some negro has charged him with denying to him equal civilrights with the white man. I thought, sir, that that frame-work wasenough; I thought, when you placed under the command of the marshal, in every county of the land, all the body of the people, and put everyone upon the track of the fleeing white man, that that was enough; butit is not. For the purpose of the enforcement of this law, thePresident is authorized to appoint somebody who is to have the commandof the military and naval forces of the United States--for whatpurpose? To prevent a violation of this law, and to execute it. 

"You clothe the marshals under this bill with all the powers that weregiven to the marshals under the Fugitive Slave Law. That was regardedas too arbitrary in its provisions, and you repealed it. You said itshould not stand upon the statute-book any longer; that no man, whiteor black, should be pursued under the provisions of that law. Now, youreënact it, and you claim it as a merit and an ornament to thelegislation of the country; and you add an army of officers and clothethem with the power to call upon any body and every body to pursue therunning white man. That is not enough, but you must have the militaryto be called in, at the pleasure of whom? Such a person as thePresident may authorize to call out the military forces. Where itshall be, and to whom this power shall be given, we do not know. "

Mr. Lane, of Indiana, replied to the argument of his colleague. Hesaid: "It is true that many of the provisions of this bill, changed intheir purpose and object, are almost identical with the provisions ofthe Fugitive Slave Law, and they are denounced by my colleague intheir present application; but I have not heard any denunciation frommy colleague, or from any of those associated with him, of theprovisions of that Fugitive Slave Law which was enacted in theinterest of slavery, and for purposes of oppression, and which was anunworthy, cowardly, disgraceful concession to Southern opinion byNorthern politicians. I have suffered no suitable opportunity toescape me to denounce the monstrous character of that Fugitive SlaveAct of 1850. All these provisions were odious and disgraceful in myopinion, when applied in the interest of slavery, when the object wasto strike down the rights of man. But here the purpose is changed. These provisions are in the interest of freemen and of freedom, andwhat was odious in the one case becomes highly meritorious in theother. It is an instance of poetic justice and of apt retribution thatGod has caused the wrath of man to praise Him. I stand by everyprovision of this bill, drawn as it is from that most iniquitousfountain, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. 

"Then my colleague asks, Why do you invoke the power of the militaryto enforce these laws? And he says that constables, and sheriffs, andmarshals, when they have process to serve, have a right to call uponthe _posse comitatus_, the body of the whole people, to enforce theirwrits. Here is a justice of the peace in South Carolina or Georgia, ora county court, or a circuit court, that is called upon to executethis law. They appoint their own marshal, their deputy marshal, ortheir constable, and he calls upon the _posse comitatus_. Neither thejudge, nor the jury, nor the officer, as we believe, is willing toexecute the law. He may call upon the people, the body of the wholepeople, a body of rebels steeped in treason and rebellion to theirlips, and they are to execute it; and the gentleman seems wonderfullyastonished that we should call upon the military power. We should notlegislate at all if we believed the State courts could or wouldhonestly carry out the provisions of the constitutional amendment; butbecause we believe they will not do that, we give the Federal officersjurisdiction. 

"But what harm is to result from it? Who is to be oppressed? Whatwhite man fleeing, in the language of my colleague, pursued by theseharpies of the law, is in danger of having his rights stricken down?What does the bill provide? It places all men upon an equality, andunless the white man violates the law, he is in no danger. It takes norights from any white man. It simply places others on the sameplatform upon which he stands; and if he would invoke the power oflocal prejudice to override the laws of the country, this is noGovernment unless the military may be called in to enforce the orderof the civil courts and obedience to the laws of the country. "

Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, said, in answer to some objections tothe bill urged by Mr. Guthrie: "The Senator tells us that theemancipated men ought to have their civil rights, that the black codesfell with slavery; but the Senator forgets that at least six of thereörganized States in their new Legislatures have passed laws whollyincompatible with the freedom of these freedmen; and so atrocious arethe provisions of these laws, and so persistently are they carriedinto effect by the local authorities, that General Thomas, inMississippi, General Swayne, in Alabama, General Sickles, in SouthCarolina, and General Terry, in Virginia, have issued positive orders, forbidding the execution of the black laws that have just been passed. 

"So unjust, so wicked, so incompatible are these new black laws of therebel States, made in defiance of the expressed will of the nation, that Lieutenant-general Grant has been forced to issue that order, which sets aside the black laws of all these rebellious States againstthe freedmen, and allows no law to be enforced against them that isnot enforced equally against white men. This order, issued by GeneralGrant, will be respected, obeyed, and enforced in the rebel Stateswith the military power of the nation. Southern legislators and peoplemust learn, if they are compelled to learn by the bayonets of the Armyof the United States, that the civil rights of the freedmen must beand shall be respected; that these freedmen are as free as their latemasters; that they shall live under the same laws, be tried for theirviolation in the same manner, and if found guilty, punished in thesame manner and degree. 

"This measure is called for, because these reconstructed Legislatures, in defiance of the rights of the freedmen, and the will of the nation, embodied in the amendment to the Constitution, have enacted lawsnearly as iniquitous as the old slave codes that darkened thelegislation of other days. The needs of more than four million coloredmen imperatively call for its enactment. The Constitution authorizesand the national will demands it. By a series of legislative acts, byexecutive proclamations, by military orders, and by the adoption ofthe amendment to the Constitution by the people of the United States, the gigantic system of human slavery that darkened the land, controlled the policy, and swayed the destinies of the republic hasforever perished. Step by step we have marched right on from onevictory to another, with the music of broken fetters ringing in ourears. None of the series of acts in this beneficent legislation ofCongress, none of the proclamations of the Executive, none of thesemilitary orders, protecting rights secured by law, will ever berevoked or amended by the voice of the American people. There is now

 "'No slave beneath that starry flag, The emblem of the free. '

"By the will of the nation freedom and free institutions for all, chains and fetters for none, are forever incorporated in thefundamental law of regenerated and united America. Slave codes andauction blocks, chains and fetters and blood-hounds, are things of thepast, and the chattel stands forth a man, with the rights and thepowers of the freemen. For the better security of these new-born civilrights we are now about to pass the greatest and the grandest act inthis series of acts that have emancipated a race and disinthralled anation. It will pass, it will go upon the statute-book of the republicby the voice of the American people, and there it will remain. Fromthe verdict of Congress in favor of this great measure, no appeal willever be entertained by the people of the United States. "

Mr. Cowan spoke again, and denounced the section of the bill whichprovided for its enforcement by the military. He said: "There it is;words can not make it plainer; reason can not elucidate it; nolanguage can strengthen it or weaken it, one way or the other. Thereis the question whether a military man, educated in a military school, accustomed to supreme command, unaccustomed to the administration ofcivil law among a free people, is to be intrusted with these appellatejurisdiction over the courts of the country; whether he can in anyway, whether he ought in any way, to be intrusted with such a power. I, for my part, will never agree to it; and I should feel myselfrecreant to every duty that I owed to myself, to my country, to mycountry's history, and I may say to the race which has been forhundreds and thousands of years endeavoring to attain to somethinglike constitutional liberty, if I did not resist this and all similarprojects. "

Mr. Trumbull answered some objections to the bill. "The Senator fromIndiana [Mr. Hendricks] objects to the bill because he says that thesame provisions which were enacted in the old Fugitive Slave Law areincorporated into this, and that it has been heralded to the countrythat it was a great achievement to do this; and he insists that ifthose provisions of law were odious and wicked and wrong whichprovided for punishing men for aiding the slave to escape, thereforethey must be wicked and wrong now when they are employed for thepunishing a man who undertakes to put a person into slavery. Sir, thatdoes not follow at all. A law may be iniquitous and unjust and wrongwhich undertakes to punish another for doing an innocent act, whichwould be righteous and just and proper to punish a man for doing awicked act. We have upon our statute-books a law punishing a man whocommits murder, because the commission of murder is a high crime, andthe party who does it forfeits his right to live; but would it be justto apply the law which punishes a person for committing murder to aninnocent person who had killed another accidentally, without malice?That is the difference. It is the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil. True, the features of the Fugitive Slave Lawwere abominable when they were used for the purpose of punishing, notnegroes, as the Senator from Indiana says, but white men. The FugitiveSlave Law was enacted for the purpose of punishing white men who aidedto give the natural gift of liberty to those who were enslaved. Now, sir, we propose to use the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Law forthe purpose of punishing those who deny freedom, not those who seek toaid persons to escape to freedom. The difference was too clearlypointed out by the colleague of the Senator [Mr. Lane] to justify mein taking further time in alluding to it. 

"But the Senator objects to this bill because it authorizes thecalling in of the military; and he asserts that it is the only law inwhich the military is brought in to enforce it. The Senator fromPennsylvania [Mr. Cowan] follows this up with a half hour's speech, denouncing this law as obnoxious to the objection that it is amilitary law, that it is taking the trial of persons for offenses outof the hands of the courts and placing them under the military--amonstrous proposition, he says. Is that so? What is the law?

"It is a court bill; it is to be executed through the courts, and inno other way. But does the Senator mean to say it is a military billbecause the military may be called in, in aid of the execution of thelaw through the courts? Does the Senator from Pennsylvania--I shouldlike his attention, and that of the Senator from Indiana, too--denythe authority to call in the military in aid of the execution of thelaw through the courts?

"Let me read a clause from the Constitution, which seems to have beenforgotten by the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator fromIndiana. The Senator from Pennsylvania, who has denounced this law, has been living under just such a law for thirty years, and it seemsnever found it out. What says the Constitution? 'Congress shall havepower to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws ofthe Union. '

"Then, can not the militia prevent persons from violating the law?They are authorized by the Constitution to be called out for, thepurpose of executing the law, and here we have a law that is to becarried into execution, and when you find persons combined together toprevent its execution, you can not do any thing with them! Supposethat the county authorities in Muscogee County, Georgia, combinetogether to deny civil rights to every colored man in that county. For the purpose of preventing it, before they have done any act, I saythe militia may be called out to prevent them from committing an act. We are not required to wait until the act is committed before anything can be done. That was the doctrine which led to this rebellion, that we had no authority to do any thing till the conflict of armscame. I believed then, in 1860, that we had authority; and if it hadbeen properly exercised, if the men who were threatening rebellion, who were in this chamber defying the authority of the Government, hadbeen arrested for treason--of which, in my judgment, by setting onfoot armed expeditions against the country, they were guilty--and ifthey had been tried and punished and executed for the crime, I doubtwhether this great rebellion would ever have taken place. 

"There is another statute to which I beg leave to call the attentionof the Senator from Pennsylvania, and under which he has lived forthirty years without ever having known it; and his rights have beenfully protected. I wish to call attention to a section from which thetenth section of the bill under consideration, at which the Senatorfrom Indiana is so horrified, is copied word for word, and letter forletter. The act of March 10, 1836, 'supplementary to an act entitled"An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimesagainst the United States, and to repeal the acts therein mentioned, "approved 20th of April, 1818, ' contains the very section that is inthis bill, word for word. It did not horrify the country; it did notdestroy all the liberties of the people; it did not consolidate allthe powers of the Constitution in the Federal Government; it did notoverthrow the courts, and it has existed now for thirty years!"

The question was first taken on the amendment offered by Mr. Hendricks, to strike out the tenth section of the bill. The voteresulted yeas, twelve; nays, thirty-four. 

At this stage of the proceedings, Mr. Saulsbury moved to amend thebill by adding in the first section of the bill after the words "civilrights, " the words, "except the right to vote in the States. " Hedesired that if the Senate did not wish to confer the right ofsuffrage by this bill, they should say so. The question being taken onMr. Saulsbury's amendment, the vote resulted seven in the affirmativeand thirty-nine in the negative. 

The vote was finally taken on the passage of the bill, which resultedthirty-three in the affirmative and twelve in the negative. Thefollowing Senators voted in favor of the bill:

 Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Connor, Cragin, Dixon, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Henry S. Lane, James H. Lane, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates--33. 

The following voted against the bill, namely:

 Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Guthrie, Hendricks, McDougall, Nesmith, Norton, Riddle, Saulsbury, Stockton, and Van Winkle--12. 

Five Senators were absent, to wit:

 Messrs. Creswell, Doolittle, Grimes, Johnson, and Wright--5. 

CHAPTER X. 

THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

 The Bill referred to the Judiciary Committee and reported back -- Speech by the Chairman of the Committee -- Mr. Rogers -- Mr. Cook -- Mr. Thayer -- Mr. Eldridge -- Mr. Thornton -- Mr. Windom -- Mr. Shellabarger -- Mr. Broomall -- Mr. Raymond -- Mr. Delano -- Mr. Kerr -- Amendment by Mr. Bingham -- His Speech -- Reply by his Colleague -- Discussion closed by Mr. Wilson -- Yeas and Nays on the Passage of the Bill -- Mr. Le Blond's proposed title -- Amendments of the House accepted by the Senate. 

On the 5th of February, four days after the passage of the Civil RightsBill in the Senate, it came before the House of Representatives, andhaving been read a first and second time, was referred to theCommittee on the Judiciary. On the 1st of March, the Chairman of theJudiciary Committee, Mr. Wilson, brought the bill again before theHouse, proposing some verbal amendments which were adopted. He thenmade a motion to recommit the bill, pending which, he made a speech onthe merits of the measure. He referred to many definitions, judicialdecisions, opinions, and precedents, under which negroes were entitledto the rights of American citizenship. In reference to the results ofhis researches, he said:

"Precedents, both judicial and legislative, are found in sharpconflict concerning them. The line which divides these precedents isgenerally found to be the same which separates the early from thelater days of the republic. The further the Government drifted fromthe old moorings of equality and human rights, the more numerousbecame judicial and legislative utterances in conflict with some ofthe leading features of this bill. "

He argued that the section of the bill providing for its enforcementby the military arm was necessary, in order "to fortify thedeclaratory portions of this bill with such sanctions as will renderit effective. " In conclusion he said:

"Can not protection be rendered to the citizen in the mode prescribedby the measure we now have under consideration? If not, a perpetualstate of constructive war would be a great blessing to very manyAmerican citizens. If a suspension of martial law and a restoration ofthe ordinary forms of civil law are to result in a subjection of ourpeople to the outrages under the operation of State laws and municipalordinances which these orders now prevent, then it were better tocontinue the present state of affairs forever. But such is not thecase; we may provide by law for the same ample protection through thecivil courts that now depends on the orders of our militarycommanders; and I will never consent to any other construction of ourConstitution, for that would be the elevation of the military abovethe civil power. 

"Before our Constitution was formed, the great fundamental rightswhich I have mentioned belonged to every person who became a member ofour great national family. No one surrendered a jot or tittle of theserights by consenting to the formation of the Government. The entiremachinery of Government, as organized by the Constitution, wasdesigned, among other things, to secure a more perfect enjoyment ofthese rights. A legislative department was created, that lawsnecessary and proper to this end might be enacted; a judicialdepartment was erected to expound and administer the laws; anexecutive department was formed for the purpose of enforcing andseeing to the execution of these laws; and these several departmentsof Government possess the power to enact, administer, and enforce thelaws 'necessary and proper' to secure those rights which existedanterior to the ordination of the Constitution. Any other view of thepowers of this Government dwarfs it, and renders it a failure in itsmost important office. 

"Upon this broad principle I rest my justification of this bill. Iassert that we possess the power to do those things which governmentsare organized to do; that we may protect a citizen of the UnitedStates against a violation of his rights by the law of a single State;that by our laws and our courts we may intervene to maintain the proudcharacter of American citizenship; that this power permeates our wholesystem, is a part of it, without which the States can run riot overevery fundamental right belonging to citizens of the United States;that the right to exercise this power depends upon no expressdelegation, but runs with the rights it is designed to protect; thatwe possess the same latitude in respect to the selection of meansthrough which to exercise this power that belongs to us when a powerrests upon express delegation; and that the decisions which supportthe latter maintain the former. And here, sir, I leave the bill to theconsideration of the House. "

Mr. Rogers, of New Jersey, followed with an argument against the bill, because it interfered with "States' Rights. " Under its provisions, Congress would "enter the domain of a State and interfere with itsinternal police, statutes, and domestic regulations. " He said:

"This act of legislation would destroy the foundations of theGovernment as they were laid and established by our fathers, whoreserved to the States certain privileges and immunities which oughtsacredly to be preserved to them. 

"If you had attempted to do it in the days of those who were living atthe time the Constitution was made, after the birth of that nobleinstrument, the spirit of the heroes of the Revolution and the ghostsof the departed who laid down their lives in defense of the liberty ofthis country and of the rights of the States, would have come forth aswitnesses against the deadly infliction, and the destruction of thefundamental principle of the sovereignty of the States in violation ofthe Constitution, and the breaking down of the ties that bind theStates, and the violation of the rights and liberties of the white menand white women of America. 

"If you pass this bill, you will allow the negroes of this country tocompete for the high office of President of the United States. Becauseif they are citizens at all, they come within the meaning and letterof the Constitution of the United States, which allows allnatural-born citizens to become candidates for the Presidency, and toexercise the duties of that office if elected. 

"I am afraid of degrading this Government; I am afraid of danger toconstitutional liberty; I am alarmed at the stupendous strides whichthis Congress is trying to initiate; and I appeal in behalf of mycountry, in behalf of those that are to come after us, of generationsyet unborn, as well as those now living, that conservative men on theother side should rally to the standard of sovereign and independentStates, and blot out this idea which is inculcating itself here, thatall the powers of the States must be taken away, and the power of theCzar of Russia or the Emperor of France must be lodged in the FederalGovernment. 

"I ask you to stand by the law of the country, and to regulate theseFederal and State systems upon the grand principles upon which theywere intended to be regulated, that we may hand down to those who areto come after us this bright jewel of civil liberty unimpaired; and Isay that the Congress or the men who will strip the people of theserights will be handed down to perdition for allowing this bright andbeautiful heritage of civil liberty embodied in the powers andsovereign jurisdiction of the States to pass away from us. 

"I am willing to trust brave men--men who have shown as much braveryas those who were engaged on battle-fields against the armed legionsof the North; because I believe that even when they were fightingagainst the flag, of their country, the great mass of those peoplewere moved by high and conscientious convictions of duty. And in thespirit of Christianity, in the spirit which Jesus Christ exercisedwhen he gave up his own life as a propitiation for a fallen world, Iwould say to those Southern men, Come here in the Halls of Congress, and participate with us in passing laws which, if constitutionallycarried into effect, will control the interests and destinies of fourmillions people, mostly living within the limits of your States. "

Mr. Cook, of Illinois, replied: "Mr. Speaker, in listening to the veryeloquent remarks of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rogers], I havebeen astonished to find that in his apprehension this bill is designedto deprive somebody, in some State of this Union, of some right whichhe has heretofore enjoyed. I am only sorry that he was not specificenough; that he did not inform us what rights are to be taken away. Hehas denounced this bill as dangerous to liberty, as calculated in itstendency at least to destroy the liberties of this country. I haveexamined this bill with some care, and, so far as I have been able tounderstand it, I have found nothing in any provision of it which tendsin any way to take from any man, white or black, a single right heenjoys under the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

"I would have been glad if he would have told us in what manner thewhite men of this country would have been placed in a worse conditionthan they are now, if this becomes the law. This general denunciationand general assault of the bill, without pointing out one single thingwhich is to deprive one single man of any right he enjoys under theGovernment, seems to me not entitled to much weight. 

"When those rights which are enumerated in this bill are denied to anyclass of men, on account of race or color, when they are subject to asystem of vagrant laws which sells them into slavery or involuntaryservitude, which operates upon them as upon no other part of thecommunity, they are not secured in the rights of freedom. If a man canbe sold, the man is a slave. If he is nominally freed by the amendmentto the Constitution, he has nothing in the world he can call his own;he has simply the labor of his hands on which he can depend. Anycombination of men in his neighborhood can prevent him from having anychance to support himself by his labor. They can pass a law that a mannot supporting himself by labor shall be deemed a vagrant, and that avagrant shall be sold. If this is the freedom we gave the men who havebeen fighting for us and in defense of the Government, if this is allwe have secured them, the President had far better never have issuedthe Proclamation of Emancipation, and the country had far better neverhave adopted the great ordinance of freedom. 

"Does any man in this House believe that these people can be safelyleft in these States without the aid of Federal legislation ormilitary power? Does any one believe that their freedom can bepreserved without this aid? If any man does so believe, he isstrangely blind to the history of the past year; strangely blind tothe enactments passed by Legislatures touching these freedmen. And Ishuddered as I heard the honorable gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rogers] claiming that he was speaking and thinking in the spirit whichanimated the Savior of mankind when he made atonement for our race;that it was in that spirit he was acting when he was striving to havethese people left utterly defenseless in the hands of men who wereproving, day by day, month by month, that they desire to oppress them, for they had been made free against their consent. Every act oflegislation, every expression of opinion on their part, proves thatthese people would be again enslaved if they were not protected by themilitary arm of the Federal Government; without that they would beslaves to-day. And I submit, with all deference, that it is any thingbut the spirit which the gentleman claims to have exercised, whichprompted the argument he has made. 

"For myself, I trust that this bill will be passed, because I considerit the most appropriate means to secure the end desired, and thatthese people will be protected. I trust that we will say to them, Because upon our call you aided us to suppress this rebellion, becausethe honor and faith of the nation were pledged for your protection, wewill maintain your freedom, and redeem that pledge. "

On the following day, the House of Representatives resumed theconsideration of this bill. A speech was made by Mr. Thayer, ofPennsylvania. He said:

"This bill is the just sequel to, and the proper completion of, thatgreat measure of national redress which opened the dungeon-doors offour million human beings. Without this, in my judgment, that greatact of justice will be paralyzed and made useless. With this, it willhave practical effect, life, vigor, and enforcement. It has been thefashion of gentlemen, holding a certain set of opinions, in this Houseto characterize that great measure to which I have referred as arevolutionary measure. 

"Sir, it was a revolutionary measure. It was one of the greatest, oneof the most humane, one of the most beneficial revolutions which evercharacterized the history of a free State; but it was a revolutionwhich, though initiated by the conflict of arms and rendered necessaryas a measure of war against the public enemy, was accomplished withinand under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. Itwas a revolution for the relief of human nature, a revolution whichgave life, liberty, and hope to millions whose condition, until then, appeared to be one of hopeless despair. It was a revolution of whichno freeman need be ashamed, of which every man who assisted in itwill, I am sure, in the future be proud, and which will illumine witha great glory the history of this country. 

"There is nothing in this bill in respect to the employment ofmilitary force that is not already in the Constitution of the UnitedStates. The power here conferred is expressly given by thatinstrument, and has been exercised upon the most stupendous scale inthe suppression of the rebellion. What is this bill? I hope gentlemen, even on the opposite side of the House, will not suffer their minds tobe influenced by any such vague, loose, and groundless denunciationsas these which have proceeded from the gentleman from New Jersey. Thebill, after extending these fundamental immunities of citizenship toall classes of people in the United States, simply provides means forthe enforcement of these rights and immunities. How? Not by militaryforce, not through the instrumentality of military commanders, notthrough any military machinery whatever, but through the quiet, dignified, firm, and constitutional forms of judicial procedure. Thebill seeks to enforce these rights in the same manner and with thesame sanctions under and by which other laws of the United States areenforced. It imposes duties upon the judicial tribunals of the countrywhich require the enforcement of these rights. It provides for theadministration of laws to protect these rights. It provides for theexecution of laws to enforce them. Is there any thing appalling inthat? Is that a military despotism? Sir, it is a strange abuse oflanguage to say that a military despotism is established by wholesomeand equal laws. Yet the gentleman declaimed by the hour, in vague andidle terms, against this bill, which has not a single offensive, oppressive, unjust, unusual, or tyrannical feature in it. These civilrights and immunities which are to be secured, and which no man canconscientiously say ought to be denied, are to be enforced through theordinary instrumentalities of courts of justice. 

"While engaged in this great work of restoration, it concerns ourhonor that we forget not those who are unable to help themselves; who, whatever may have been the misery and wretchedness of their formercondition, were on our side in the great struggle which has closed, and whose rights we can not disregard or neglect without violating themost sacred obligations of duty and of honor. To us they look forprotection against the wrongs with which they are threatened. To usalone can they appeal in their helplessness for succor and defense. Tous they hold out to-day their supplicating hands, asking forprotection for themselves and their posterity. We can not disregardthis appeal, and stand acquitted before the country and the world ofbasely abandoning to a miserable fate those who have a right to demandthe protection of your flag and the immunities guaranteed to everyfreeman by your Constitution. "

Mr. Eldridge, of Wisconsin, opposed the bill, in a speech of which thefollowing are the concluding remarks:

"I had hoped that this subject would be allowed to rest. Gentlemenrefer us to individual cases of wrong perpetrated upon the freedmen ofthe South as an argument why we should extend the Federal authorityinto the different States to control the action of the citizensthereof. But, I ask, has not the South submitted to the altered stateof things there, to the late amendment of the Constitution, to theloss of their slave property, with a cheerfulness and grace that wedid not expect? Have they not acquiesced more willingly than we daredto hope? Then why not trust them? Why not meet them with frankness andkindness? Why not encourage them with trust and confidence?

"I deprecate all these measures because of the implication they carryupon their face, that the people who have heretofore owned slavesintend to do them wrong. I do not believe it. So far as my knowledgegoes, and so far as my information extends, I believe that the peoplewho have held the freedmen slaves will treat them with more kindness, with more leniency, than those of the North who make such loudprofessions of love and affection for them, and are so anxious to passthese bills. They know their nature; they know their wants; they knowtheir habits; they have been brought up together, and have none of theprejudices and unkind feelings which many in the North would have, toward them. 

"I do not credit all these stories about the general feeling ofhostility in the South toward the negro. So far as I have heardopinions expressed upon that subject, and I have conversed with manypersons from that section of the country, they do not blame the negrofor any thing that has happened. As a general thing, he was faithfulto them and their interests until the army reached the place and tookhim from them. He has supported their wives and children in theabsence of the husbands and fathers in the armies of the South. He hasdone for them what no one else could have done. They recognize hisgeneral good feeling toward them, and are inclined to reciprocate thatfeeling toward him. 

"I believe that is the general feeling of the Southern people to-day. The cases of ill-treatment are exceptional cases. They are like thecases which have occurred in the Northern States where the unfortunatehave been thrown upon our charity. Take for instance the stories ofthe cruel treatment of the insane in the State of Massachusetts. Theymay have been barbarously confined in the loathsome dens, as stated inparticular instances, but is that any evidence of the general ill-willof the people of the State of Massachusetts toward the insane? Is thatany reason why the Federal arm should be extended to Massachusetts tocontrol and protect the insane there?

"It has also been said that certain paupers in certain States havebeen badly used--paupers, too, who were whites. Is that any reason whywe should extend the arm of the Federal Government to those States toprotect the poor who are thrown upon the charities of the peoplethere?

"Sir, we must yield to the altered state of things in this country. Wemust trust the people; it is our duty to do so; we can not dootherwise. And the sooner we place ourselves in a position where wecan win the confidence of our late enemies, where our counsels will beheeded, where our advice may be regarded, the sooner will the peopleof the whole country be fully reconciled to each other and theirchanged relationship; the sooner will all the inhabitants of ourcountry be in the possession of all the rights and immunitiesessential to their prosperity and happiness. "

Mr. Thornton, of Illinois, feared there was "something hidden, something more than appears in the language" of the bill. He feared "adesign to confer the right of suffrage upon the negro, " and urged thata proviso should be accepted "restricting the meaning of the words'civil rights and immunities. '" He remarked further: "The most seriousobjection that I have to this bill is, that it is an interference withthe rights of the South. It was remarked by my friend from Wisconsinthat it has often been intimated on this floor, and throughout thecountry, that whenever a man talks about either the Constitution orthe rights of the States, he is either a traitor or a sympathizer withtreason. I do not assume that the States are sovereign. They aresubordinate to the Federal Government. Sovereignty in this country isin the people, but the States have certain rights, and those rightsare absolutely necessary to the maintenance of our system ofgovernment. What are those rights? The right to determine and fix thelegal _status_ of the inhabitants of the respective States; the localpowers of self-government; the power to regulate all the relationsthat exist between husband and wife, parent and child, guardian andward; all the fireside and home rights, which are nearer and dearer tous than all others. 

"Sir, this is but a stepping-stone to a centralization of theGovernment and the overthrow of the local powers of the States. Whenever that is consummated, then farewell to the beauty, strength, and power of this Government. There is nothing left but absolute, despotic, central power. It lives no longer but as a naked despotism. There is nothing left to admire and to cherish. "

Mr. Windom, of Minnesota, next obtained the floor. Referring to thespeech of Mr. Rogers, he said: "I wish to make another extract fromthe speech of the gentleman from New Jersey. He said, 'If you passthis bill, you will allow negroes to compete for the high office ofthe President of the United States. ' You will actually allow them tocompete for the Presidency of the United States! As for this fearwhich haunts the gentleman from New Jersey, if there is a negro in thecountry who is so far above all the white men of the country that onlyfour millions of his own race can elect him President of the UnitedStates over twenty-six millions of white people, I think we ought toencourage such talent in the country. 

"Sir, the gentleman has far less confidence in the white race than Ihave, if he is so timid in regard to negro competition. Does he reallysuppose that black men are so far superior to white men that fourmillions of them can elect a President of their own race against thewishes of thirty millions of ours? Ever since I knew any thing of theparty to which the gentleman belongs, it has entertained this samemorbid fear of negro competition; and sometimes I have thought that ifwe were to contemplate the subject from their stand-point we wouldhave more charity than we do for this timidity and nervous dread whichhaunts them. I beg leave, however, to assure the gentleman that thereis not the slightest danger of electing a black President, and that heneed never vote for one, unless he thinks him better fitted for theoffice than a white man. "

With more direct reference to the merits of the question, Mr. Windomsaid: "Our warrant for the passage of this bill is found in the geniusand spirit of our institutions; but not in these alone. Fortunately, the great amendment which broke the shackles from every slave in theland contains an express provision that 'Congress shall have power toenforce this article by appropriate legislation. '

"When this amendment was acted upon, it was well understood, as it isnow, that although the body of slavery might be destroyed, its spiritwould still live in the hearts of those who have sacrificed so muchfor its preservation, and that if the freedmen were left to the tendermercy of their former masters, to whose heartless selfishness has beensuperadded a malignant desire for vengeance upon the negro for havingaided us in crushing the rebellion, his condition would be moreintolerable than it was before the war. And hence the broad grant ofpower was made to enable Congress to enforce the spirit as well as theletter of the amendment. Now, sir, in what way is it proposed toenforce it? By denying to any one man a single right or privilegewhich he could otherwise constitutionally or properly enjoy? No. Byconferring on any one person or class of persons a single right orimmunity which every other person may not possess? By no means. Doesit give to the loyal negro any preference over the recent would-beassassins of the nation? Not at all. It merely declares that hereafterthere shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities amongthe citizens of any State or territory of the United States on accountof race, color, or previous condition of slavery, and that everyperson, except such as are excluded by reason of crime, shall have thesame right to enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and giveevidence, to inherit, purchase, sell, hold, and convey real andpersonal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws andproceedings for the security of person and property, and shall besubject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other. 

"We know, and the whole world knows, that when in the hour of ourextremity we called upon the black race to did us, we promised themnot liberty only, but all that that word liberty implies. All rememberhow unwilling we were to do any thing which would inure to the benefitof the negro. I recall with shame the fact that when, five years ago, the so-called Democracy--now Egyptians--were here in this capital, inthe White House, in the Senate, and on this floor, plotting thedestruction of the Government, and we were asked to appease them bysacrificing the negro, two-thirds of both houses voted to rivet hischains upon him so long as the republic should endure. A wideningchasm yawned between the free and slave States, and we looked wildlyaround for that wherewith it might be closed. In our extremity weseized upon the negro, bound and helpless, and tried to cast him in. But an overruling Providence heard the cries of the oppressed, andhurled his oppressors into that chasm by hundreds of thousands, untilthe whole land was filled with mourning, yet still the chasm yawned. In our anguish and terror, we felt that the whole nation would bespeedily ingulfed in one common ruin. It was then that the greatemancipator and savior of his country, Abraham Lincoln, saw the dangerand the remedy, and seizing four million bloody shackles, he wrenchedthem from their victims, and standing with these broken manacles inhis hands upraised toward heaven, he invoked the blessing of the Godof the oppressed, and cast them into the fiery chasm. That offeringwas accepted, and the chasm closed. 

"When the reports from Port Hudson and Fort Wagner thrilled all loyalhearts by the recital of the heroic deeds of the black soldier, wewere not reminded that if the negro were permitted to enjoy the samerights under the Government his valor helped to save that arepossessed by the perjured traitors who sought its destruction, itwould 'lead to a war of races. ' O no! Then we were in peril, and feltgrateful even to the negro, who stood between us and our enemies. Thenour only hope of safety was in the brave hearts and strong arms of thesoldier at the front. Now, since by the combined efforts of our bravesoldiers, white and black, the military power of the South has beenoverthrown, and her Representatives are as eager to resume theirplaces on this floor as five years ago they were to quit them for aplace in the rebel army, we are told that, having been victorious, itbecomes a great nation like ours to be magnanimous. I answer, it isfar more becoming to be just. I am willing to carry my magnanimity tothe verge of justice, but not one step beyond. I will go with him whogoes furthest in acts of generosity toward our former enemies, unlessthose acts will be prejudicial to our friends. But when you advise meto sacrifice those who have stood by us during the war, in order toconciliate unrepentant rebels, whose hearts still burn withill-suppressed hatred to the Government, I scorn your counsel. "

Mr. Shellabarger, of Ohio, said: "I agree with the gentleman on theother side of the House, that this bill can not be passed under thatclause of the Constitution which provides that Congress may passuniform rules of naturalization. Under that clause it is my opinionthat the act of naturalization must not only be the act of theGovernment, but also the act of the individual alien, by which herenounces his former allegiance and accepts the new one. And thatproposition and distinction will be found, I think, in all judiciousarguments upon the subject. 

"There is another class of persons well recognized, not only in ourconstitutional history, but also by the laws of nations, who are notforeigners, who occupy an intermediate position, and that intermediateposition is defined by the laws of nations by the word 'subjects. 'Subjects are all persons who, being born in a given country, and undera given government, do not owe an allegiance to any other government. 

"To that class in this country, according to the decisions of ourcourts hitherto, belong American Indians and slaves, and, according tothe Dred Scott decision, persons of African descent whose ancestorswere slaves. All these were subjects by every principle ofinternational as well as of settled constitutional law in thiscountry. 

"Now, then, to that class belong the persons who are naturalized bythis bill. If they were not, indeed, citizens hitherto, they were atleast subjects of this Government, by reason of their birth, and byreason of the fact that they owed no foreign allegiance. 

"That brings me to the next remark, and it is this: that thesesubjects, not owing any foreign allegiance, no individual act oftheirs is required in order to their naturalization, because they oweno foreign allegiance to be renounced by their individual acts, andbecause, moreover, being domiciled in our own country, and continuinghere to reside, it is the individual election of each member of thetribe, or race, or class, to accept our nationality; therefore, noadditional individual act is required in order to his citizenship. 

"That being proved, it is competent for the nationality, or for thegovernment, wherever that subject may reside, to naturalize that classof persons by treaty or by general law, as is proposed by theamendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Raymond]. It is the actof the sovereign alone that is requisite to the naturalization of thatclass of persons, and it may be done either by a single actnaturalizing entire races of men, or by adopting the heads of familiesout of those races, or it may be done to any extent, greater or less, that may please the sovereign. For this proposition, I refer gentlemenwho desire to examine this subject to the authorities that may befound collected in any judicious work on public law, and they willfind them very fully collected, certainly, in the notes to Wheaton. 

"Now, then, what power may do that act of naturalization, and how mayit be exercised? That is also answered by these same authorities. Itmay be done in this country either by an act of Congress, or it may bedone by treaty. It has been done again and again and again in bothways in this country. It was done once in the case of the ChoctawIndians, as you will find in the Statutes-at-Large, where, in case theheads of families desired to remain and not to remove to the West, itwas provided by the treaty of September 27, 1830, that those familiesshould be naturalized as a class. 

"Then, again, it was done in the other way, by an act of Congress, inthe case cited by my learned friend from Iowa [Mr. Wilson], in thecase of the Stockbridge Indians. 

"It was done again, as you may remember, in the case of the Cherokees, in December, 1835. There again a class was naturalized by treaty. "

Some amendments having been proposed, the bill was recommitted to theCommittee on the Judiciary, with the understanding that it should bereturned for consideration on Thursday of the following week. 

Accordingly, on that day, March 8, the consideration of the bill beingresumed, Mr. Broomall, of Pennsylvania, addressed the House, He viewedthe bill as beneficent in its provisions, since it made nodiscriminations against the Southern rebels, but granted them, as wellas the negro, the rights of citizenship. 

"A question might naturally arise whether we ought again to trustthose who have once betrayed us; whether we ought to give them thebenefits of a compact they have once repudiated. Yet the spirit offorgiveness is so inherent in the American bosom, that no party in thecountry proposes to withhold from these people the advantages ofcitizenship; and this is saying much. With a debt that may requirecenturies to pay; with so many living and mutilated witnesses of thehorrors of war; with so many saddened homes, so many of the widowedand fatherless pleading for justice, for retribution, if not revenge, it speaks well for the cause of Christian civilization in America thatno party in the country proposes to deprive the authors of suchimmeasurable calamity of the advantages of citizenship. 

"But the election must be made. Some public legislative act isnecessary to show the world that those who have forfeited all claimsupon the Government are not to be held to the strict rigor of the lawof their own invoking, the decision of the tribunal of their ownchoosing; that they are to be welcomed back as the prodigal son, whenever they are ready to return as the prodigal son. 

"The act under consideration makes that election. Its terms embracethe late rebels, and it gives them the rights, privileges, andimmunities of citizens of the United States, though it does notpropose to exempt them from punishment for their past crimes. 

"I might consent that the glorious deeds of the last five years shouldbe blotted from the country's history; that the trophies won on ahundred battle-fields, the sublime visible evidences of the heroicdevotion of America's citizen soldiery, should be burned on the altarof reconstruction. I might consent that the cemetery at Gettysburgshould be razed to the ground; that its soil should be submitted tothe plow, and that the lamentation of the bereaved should give placeto the lowing of cattle. But there is a point beyond which I willneither be forced nor persuaded. I will never consent that theGovernment shall desert its allies in the South, and surrender theirrights and interests to the enemy, and in this I will make nodistinction of caste or color, either among friends or foes. "

Mr. Raymond, of New York, was impressed with the importance of themeasure. "Whether we consider it by itself, simply as a proposedstatute, or in its bearings upon the general question of therestoration of peace and harmony to the Union, I regard it as one ofthe most important bills ever presented to this House for its action, worthy, in every respect, to enlist the coolest and the calmestjudgment of every member whose vote must be recorded upon it. "

He was in favor of the first part of the bill, which declares "whoshall be citizens of the United States, and declares that all shall becitizens without distinction of race, color, or previous condition ofservitude, who are, have been, or shall be born within the limits andjurisdiction of the United States. 

"Now, sir, assuming, as I do, without any further argument, thatCongress has the power of admitting to citizenship this great class ofpersons just set free by the amendment to the Constitution of theUnited States abolishing slavery, I suppose I need not dwell here onthe great importance to that class of persons of having this boonconferred upon them. 

"We have already conferred upon them the great, inestimable, pricelessboon of personal liberty. I can not for one moment yield to what seemsto be a general disposition to disparage the freedom we have giventhem. I think the fact that we have conferred upon four million peoplethat personal liberty and freedom from servitude from this timeforward for evermore, is one of the highest and most beneficent actsever performed by any Government toward so large a class of itspeople. 

"Having gone thus far, I desire to go on by successive steps stillfurther, and to elevate them in all respects, so far as theirfaculties will allow and our power will permit us to do, to anequality with the other persons and races in this country. I desire, as the next step in the process of elevating that race, to give themthe rights of citizenship, or to declare by solemn statute that theyare citizens of the United States, and thus secure to them whateverrights, immunities, privileges, and powers belong as of right to allcitizens of the United States. I hope no one will be prepared orinclined to say this is a trifling boon. If we do so estimate thisgreat privilege, I fear we are scarcely in the frame of mind to actupon the great questions coming before us from day to day here. I, forone, am not prepared or inclined to disparage American citizenship asa personal qualification belonging to myself, or as conferred upon anyof our fellow-citizens. "

Mr. Raymond expressed doubts as to the constitutionality of that partof the bill "that provides for that class of persons thus madecitizens protection against anticipated inequality of legislation inthe several States. "

In this direction he was desirous of avoiding a veto. He said:"Moreover, on grounds of expediency, upon which I will not dwell, Idesire myself, and I should feel much relieved if I thought the Housefully and heartily shared my anxiety, not to pass here any bill whichshall be intercepted on its way to the statute-book by well-groundedcomplaints of unconstitutionality on the part of any other departmentof the Government. "

Mr. Delano, of Ohio, followed, expressing doubts as to theconstitutionality of the measure. He considered it a seriousinfringement of the rights of the States. He said: "Now, sir, shouldthis bill be passed, that law of the State might be overthrown by thepower of Congress. In my opinion, if we adopt the principle of thisbill, we declare, in effect, that Congress has authority to go intothe States and manage and legislate with regard to all the personalrights of the citizen--rights of life, liberty, and property. Yourender this Government no longer a Government of limited powers; youconcentrate and consolidate here an extent of authority which willswallow up all or nearly all of the rights of the States with respectto the property, the liberties, and the lives of its citizens. "

He added, near the close of his address: "I am not to be understood asdenying the power of this Government, especially that great war powerwhich, when evoked, has no limit except as it is limited by necessityand the laws of civilized warfare. But, sir, in time of peace I wouldnot and I can not stand here and attempt the exercise of powers bythis General Government, which, if carried out with all the logicalconsequences that follow their assumption, will, in my opinion, endanger the liberties of the country. "

Mr. Kerr, of Indiana, maintained the theory that the States shouldsettle questions of citizenship as relating to those within theirborders; that "the privileges and immunities of citizenship in theStates are required to be attained, if at all, _according to the lawsor Constitutions of the States_, and never in _defiance_ of them. " Tosustain this theory, he read from a number of authorities, and finallyremarked:

"This bill rests upon a theory utterly inconsistent with, and indirect hostility to, every one of these authorities. It asserts theright of Congress to regulate the laws which shall govern in theacquisition and ownership of property in the States, and to determinewho may go there and purchase and hold property, and to protect suchpersons in the enjoyment of it. The right of the State to regulate itsown internal and domestic affairs, to select its own local policy, andmake and administer its own laws, for the protection and welfare ofits own citizens, is denied. If Congress can declare what rights andprivileges shall be enjoyed in the States by the people of one class, it can, by the same kind of reasoning, determine what shall be enjoyedby every class. If it can say who may go into and settle in andacquire property in a State, it can also say who shall not. If it candetermine who may testify and sue in the courts of a State, it mayequally determine who shall not. If it can order the transfer of suitsfrom the State to the Federal courts, where citizens of the same Statealone are parties, in such cases as may arise under this bill, it can, by parity of logic, dispense with State courts entirely. Congress, inshort, may erect a great centralized, consolidated despotism in thiscapital. And such is the rapid tendency of such legislation as thisbill proposes. "

On the succeeding day, March 9th, Mr. Wilson having demanded theprevious question, on the motion to recommit, was entitled to thefloor, but yielded portions of his time to Mr. Bingham and Mr. Shellabarger. 

The former had moved to amend the motion to recommit, by addinginstructions "to strike out of the first section the words, 'and thereshall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities amongcitizens of the United States, in any State or Territory of the UnitedStates, on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery, 'and insert in the thirteenth line of the first section, after the word'right, ' the words, 'in every State and Territory of the UnitedStates. ' Also, to strike out all parts of said bill which are penal, and which authorize criminal proceedings, and in lieu thereof to giveto all citizens injured by denial or violation of any of the otherrights secured or protected by said act, an action in the UnitedStates courts with double costs in all cases of recovery, withoutregard to the amount of damages; and also to secure to such personsthe privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_. "

Mr. Bingham said: "And, first, I beg gentlemen to consider that I donot oppose any legislation which is authorized by the Constitution ofmy country to enforce in its letter and its spirit the bill of rightsas embodied in that Constitution. I know that the enforcement of thebill of rights is the want of the republic. I know if it had beenenforced in good faith in every State of the Union, the calamities, and conflicts, and crimes, and sacrifices of the past five years wouldhave been impossible. 

"But I feel that I am justified in saying, in view of the text of theConstitution of my country, in view of all its past interpretations, in view of the manifest and declared intent of the men who framed it, the enforcement of the Bill of Rights, touching the life, liberty, andproperty of every citizen of the republic, within every organizedState of the Union, is of the reserved powers of the States, to beenforced by State tribunals and by State officials, acting under thesolemn obligations of an oath imposed upon them by the Constitution ofthe United States. Who can doubt this conclusion who considers thewords of the Constitution, 'the powers not delegated to the UnitedStates by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, arereserved to the States respectively, or to the people?' TheConstitution does not delegate to the United States the power topunish offenses against the life, liberty, or property of the citizenin the States, nor does it prohibit that power to the States, butleaves it as the reserved power of the States, to be by themexercised. The prohibitions of power by the Constitution to the Statesare express prohibitions, as that no State shall enter into anytreaty, etc. , or emit bills of credit, or pass any bill of attainder, etc. The Constitution does not prohibit States from the enactment oflaws for the general government of the people within their respectivelimits. 

"The law in every State should be just; it should be no respecter ofpersons. It is otherwise now, and it has been otherwise for many yearsin many of the States of the Union. I should remedy that, not byarbitrary assumption of power, but by amending the Constitution of theUnited States, expressly prohibiting the States from any such abuse ofpower in the future. You propose to make it a penal offense for thejudges of the States to obey the Constitution and laws of theirStates, and for their obedience thereto to punish them by fine andimprisonment as felons. I deny your power to do this. You can not makean official act, done under color of law, and without criminal intent, and from a sense of public duty, a crime. "

[Illustration: James F. Wilson. ]

Mr. Shellabarger of Ohio said: "I do not understand that there is nowany serious doubt anywhere as to our power to admit by law to therights of American citizenship entire classes or races who were bornand continue to reside in our territory or in territory we acquire. Istated, the other day, some of the cases in which we naturalizedraces, tribes, and communities in mass, and by single exercises ofnational sovereignty. This we did by the treaty of April 30, 1800, bywhich we acquired Louisiana; also in the treaty of 1819, by which weacquired Florida; also in the treaty of 1848, by which we acquiredpart of Mexico; also by the resolution of March 1, 1845, annexingTexas, and the act of December 29, same year, admitting Texas into theUnion, we made all the people not slaves citizens; also by the treatyof September 27, 1830, we admitted to citizens certain heads offamilies of Choctaws; also by the treaty of December 29, 1855, we didthe same as to the Cherokees; also by the act of March 3, 1843, weadmitted to full citizenship the Stockbridge tribe of Indians. "Referring to the first section which his colleague had proposed toamend, he said: "Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this firstsection. It secures, not to all citizens, but to all races as raceswho are citizens, equality of protection in those enumerated civilrights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any races. Now, sir, can this Government do this? Can it prevent one race of freecitizens from being by State laws deprived as a race of all the civilrights for the securement of which his Government was created, andwhich are the only considerations the Government renders to him forthe Federal allegiance which he renders? It does seem to me that thatGovernment which has the exclusive right to confer citizenship, andwhich is entitled to demand service and allegiance, which is supremeover that due to any State, may--nay, must--protect those citizens inthose rights which are fairly conducive and appropriate and necessaryto the attainment of his 'protection' as a citizen. And I think thoserights to contract, sue, testify, inherit, etc. , which this bill saysthe races shall hold as races in equality, are of that class which arefairly conducive and necessary as means to the constitutional end;to-wit, the protection of the rights of person and property of acitizen. It has been found impossible to settle or define what are allthe indispensable rights of American citizenship. But it is perfectlywell settled what are some of these, and without which there is nocitizenship, either in this or any other Government. Two of these arethe right of petition and the right of protection in such property asit is lawful for that particular citizen to own. "

The debate was closed by Mr. Wilson, Chairman of the JudiciaryCommittee. He said: "This bill, sir, has met with opposition in bothhouses on the same ground that, in times gone by, before this land wasdrenched in blood by the slaveholders' rebellion, was urged by thosewho controlled the destinies of the southern portion of the country, and those who adhered to their fortunes in the North, for the purposeof riveting the chains of slavery and converting this republic into agreat slave nation. The arguments which have been urged against thisbill in both houses are but counterparts of the arguments used inopposition to the authority the Government sought to exercise incontrolling and preventing the spread of slavery. 

"Citizens of the United States, as such, are entitled to certainrights, and, being entitled to those rights, it is the duty of theGovernment to protect citizens in the perfect enjoyment of them. Thecitizen is entitled to life, liberty, and the right to property. Thegentleman from Ohio tells us, in the protection of these rights, thecitizen must depend upon the 'honest purpose of the several States, 'and that the General Government can not interpose its strong right armto defend the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and inpossession of property. In other words, if the States of this Union, in their 'honest purpose, ' like the honesty of purpose manifested bythe Southern States in times past, should deprive the citizen, withoutdue process of law, of life, liberty, and property, the GeneralGovernment, which can draw the citizen by the strong bond ofallegiance to the battle-field, has no power to intervene and setaside a State law, and give the citizen protection under the laws ofCongress in the courts of the United States; that at the mercy of theStates lie all the rights of the citizens of the United States; thatwhile it was deemed necessary to constitute a great Government torender secure the rights of the people, the framers of the Governmentturned over to the States the power to deprive the citizen of thosethings for the security of which the Government was framed. In otherwords, the little State of Delaware has a hand stronger than theUnited States; that revolted South Carolina may put under lock and keythe great fundamental rights belonging to the citizen, and we must bedumb; that our legislative power can not be exercised; that our courtsmust be closed to the appeal of our citizens. That is the doctrinethis House of Representatives, representing a great free people, justemerged from a terrible war for the maintenance of American liberty, is asked to adopt. 

"The gentleman from Ohio tells the House that civil rights involve allthe rights that citizens have under the Government; that in the termare embraced those rights which belong to the citizen of the UnitedStates as such, and those which belong to a citizen of a State assuch; and that this bill is not intended merely to enforce equality ofrights, so far as they relate to citizens of the United States, butinvades the States to enforce equality of rights in respect to thosethings which properly and rightfully depend on State regulations andlaws. My friend is too sound a lawyer, is too well versed in theConstitution of his country, to indorse that proposition on calm anddeliberate consideration. He knows, as every man knows, that this billrefers to those rights which belong to men as citizens of the UnitedStates and none other; and when he talks of setting aside the schoollaws, and jury laws, and franchise laws of the States, by the bill nowunder consideration, he steps beyond what he must know to be the ruleof construction which must apply here, and, as the result of whichthis bill can only relate to matters within the control of Congress. "

Comparing Mr. Bingham's proposed amendment with the original bill, Mr. Wilson said: "What difference in principle is there between sayingthat the citizen shall be protected by the legislative power of theUnited States in his rights by civil remedy and declaring that heshall be protected by penal enactments against those who interferewith his rights? There is no difference in the principle involved. Ifwe may adopt the gentleman's mode, we may also select the modeprovided in this bill. There is a difference in regard to the expenseof protection; there is also a difference as to the effectiveness ofthe two modes. Beyond this, nothing. This bill proposes that thehumblest citizen shall have full and ample protection at the cost ofthe Government, whose duty it is to protect him. The amendment of thegentleman recognizes the principle involved, but it says that thecitizen despoiled of his rights, instead of being properly protectedby the Government, must press his own way through the courts and paythe bills attendant thereon. This may do for the rich, but to thepoor, who need protection, it is mockery. The highest obligation whichthe Government owes to the citizen, in return for the allegianceexacted of him, is to secure him in the protection of his rights. Under the amendment of the gentleman, the citizen can only receivethat protection in the form of a few dollars in the way of damages, ifhe shall be so fortunate as to recover a verdict against a solventwrong-doer. This is called protection. This is what we are asked to doin the way of enforcing the bill of rights. Dollars are weighedagainst the right of life, liberty, and property. The verdict of ajury is to cover all wrongs and discharge the obligations of theGovernment to its citizens. 

"Sir, I can not see the justice of that doctrine. I assert that it isthe duty of the Government of the United States to provide properprotection and to pay the costs attendant on it. We have gone out withthe strong arm of the Government and drawn from their homes, all overthis land, in obedience to the bond of allegiance which the Governmentholds on the citizen, hundreds of thousands of men to thebattle-field; and yet, while we may exercise this extraordinary power, the gentleman claims that we can not extend the protecting hand of theGovernment to these men who have been battling for the life of thenation, but can only send them, at their own cost, to juries forverdicts of a few dollars in compensation for the most flagrant wrongto their most sacred rights. Let those support that doctrine who will, I can not. "

At the conclusion of Mr. Wilson's speech, Mr. Eldridge, of Wisconsin, moved to lay the whole subject on the table. This motion wasrejected--yeas, 32; nays, 118. 

The House then rejected Mr. Bingham's proposed amendment, andrecommitted the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On the 13th of March the bill was reported back from the committeewith some amendments, one of which was to strike out in section onethe following words:

 "Without distinction of color, and there shall be no discrimination in civil rights, or immunities among citizens of the United States in any State or Territory of the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery. "

The words were omitted to satisfy some who feared that it might beheld by the courts that the right of suffrage was conferred thereby. 

Another amendment proposed was the addition of a section to the bill, to-wit:

 "_And be it further enacted_, That upon all questions of law arising in any case under the provisions of this act, a final appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. "

Other amendments proposed and adopted were chiefly of a verbalcharacter. 

The main question was finally taken, and the bill passed by thefollowing vote:

 YEAS--Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Baxter, Beaman, Bidwell, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Delano, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Higby, Hill, Holmes, Hooper, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Hulburd, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, Marvin, McClurg, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham, Pike, Plants, Price, Alexander H. Rice, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sloan, Spalding, Starr, Stevens, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Whaley, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge--111. 

 NAYS--Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Bingham, Boyer, Brooks, Coffroth, Dawson, Denison, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grider, Aaron Harding, Harris, Hogan, Edwin N. Hubbell, Jones, Kerr, Latham, Le Blond, Marshall, McCullough, Nicholson, Phelps, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Rosseau, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Smith, Taber, Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, and Winfield--38. 

 NOT VOTING--Messrs. Delos R. Ashley, Barker, Benjamin, Brandegee, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Culver, Defrees, Eckley, Eggleston, Eldridge, Finck, Griswold, Hale, Henderson, Hotchkiss, James R. Hubbell, James M. Humphrey, Johnson, Kasson, McIndoe, McKee, Niblack, Noell, Patterson, Pomeroy, Raymond, John H. Rice, Rollins, Stilwell, Strouse, Robert T. Van Horn, Henry D. Washburn, and Wright--34. 

It is an illustration of the opinion which the minority entertained ofthe bill to the last, that after it had finally passed, and theprevious question had been moved on the adoption of the title, Mr. LeBlond moved to amend the title of the bill by making it read, "A billto abrogate the rights and break down the judicial system of theStates. "

On the 15th of March the amendments made by the House came before theSenate for adoption in that body. While these were under considerationby the Senate, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, made two motions to amend, which were rejected. He then moved to lay the bill on the table, andwas proceeding to make a speech, when he was informed that his motionwas not debatable. He then withdrew his motion to lay on the table, and moved to postpone the bill until the first Monday of Decemberfollowing. Finding that the last amendment proposed by the House ofRepresentatives was before the Senate, and that his motion could notbe entertained, he proceeded to make a speech on the question beforethe Senate. He asserted that "Congress has no authority orjurisdiction whatever" over the subject of legislation which the billcontains. He closed his remarks with the following words: "Itherefore, on the grounds that I have stated, oppose this bill. I knowthat they weigh nothing with the dominant power here. What care I forthat? What care I for the manner in which my suggestions may bereceived by the majority? Nothing--less than nothing, if possible. Iam performing my duty according to my sense of that duty; and indespite of all opposition, of frowns or scoffs, or of any otheropposition, come in what form it may, I will stand up to the last hourof my service in this chamber, and will, endeavor, as best I can, toperform my duty whatever may betide me. "

The amendments of the House were agreed to, and the CIVIL RIGHTS BILLwanted only Executive approval to become a law of the land. 

CHAPTER XI. 

THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, AND THE VETO. 

 Doubts as to the President's Decision -- Suspense ended -- The Veto Message -- Mr. Trumbull's Answer -- Mr. Reverdy Johnson defends the Message -- Rejoinder -- Remarks of Mr. Yates -- Mr. Cowan appeals to the Country -- Mr. Stewart shows how States may make the Law a Nullity -- Mr. Wade -- Mr. McDougall on Persian Mythology -- Mr. J. H. Lane defends the President -- Mr. Wade -- The President's Collar -- Mr. Brown -- Mr. Doolittle -- Mr. Garrett Davis -- Mr. Saulsbury -- Yeas and Nays in the Senate -- Vote in the House -- The Civil Rights Bill becomes a Law. 

The Civil Rights Bill having finally passed through Congress, on the15th of March, by the concurrence of the Senate in the amendments ofthe House, was submitted to the President for his approval. Muchanxiety was felt throughout the country to know what would be the fateof the bill at the hands of the Executive. Some thought it incrediblethat a President of the United States would veto so plain adeclaration of rights, essential to the very existence of a largeclass of inhabitants. Others were confident that Mr. Johnson'sapproval would not be given to a bill interfering, as they thought, soflagrantly with the rights of the States under the Constitution. 

All doubts were dispelled, on the 27th of March, by the appearance ofthe President's Secretary on the floor of the Senate, who said, informal phrase: "Mr. President, I am directed by the President of theUnited States to return to the Senate, in which house it originated, the bill entitled 'An act to protect all persons in the United Statesin their civil rights, and to furnish the means of their vindication, 'with his objections thereto in writing. "

The Secretary of the Senate then read the message, which was heardwith profound attention by the Senators, and a large assembly whichthronged the galleries, drawn thither in anticipation of thePresident's veto message. 

 "_To the Senate of the United States:_

 "I regret that the bill which has passed both houses of Congress, entitled 'An act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means for their vindication, ' contains provisions which I can not approve, consistently with my sense of duty to the whole people and my obligations to the Constitution of the United States. I am therefore constrained to return it to the Senate, the house in which it originated, with my objections to its becoming a law. 

 "By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, people of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races, born in the United States, is by the bill made a citizen of the United States. It does not purport to declare or confer any other right of citizenship than Federal citizenship. It does not purport to give these classes of persons any _status_ as citizens of States, except that which may result from their _status_ as citizens of the United States. The power to confer the right of State citizenship is just as exclusively with the several States as the power to confer the right of Federal citizenship is with Congress. 

 "The right of Federal citizenship thus to be conferred on the several excepted races before mentioned is now, for the first time, proposed to be given by law. If, as is claimed by many, all persons who are native-born, already are, by virtue of the Constitution, citizens of the United States, the passage of the pending bill can not be necessary to make them such. If, on the other hand, such persons are not citizens, as may be assumed from the proposed legislation to make them such, the grave question presents itself, whether, when eleven of the thirty-six States are unrepresented in Congress, at this time it is sound policy to make our entire colored population and all other excepted classes citizens of the United States? Four millions of them have just emerged from slavery into freedom. Can it be reasonably supposed that they possess the requisite qualifications to entitle them to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States? Have the people of the several States expressed such a conviction? It may also be asked whether it is necessary that they should be declared citizens in order that they may be secured in the enjoyment of civil rights? Those rights proposed to be conferred by the bill are, by Federal as well as by State laws, secured to all domiciled aliens and foreigners even before the completion of the process of naturalization, and it may safely be assumed that the same enactments are sufficient to give like protection and benefits to those for whom this bill provides special legislation. Besides, the policy of the Government, from its origin to the present time, seems to have been that persons who are strangers to and unfamiliar with our institutions and our laws should pass through a certain probation, at the end of which, before attaining the coveted prize, they must give evidence of their fitness to receive and to exercise the rights of citizens as contemplated by the Constitution of the United States. 

 "The bill, in effect, proposes a discrimination against large numbers of intelligent, worthy, and patriotic foreigners, and in favor of the negro, to whom, after long years of bondage, the avenues to freedom and intelligence have now been suddenly opened. He must, of necessity, from his previous unfortunate condition of servitude, be less informed as to the nature and character of our institutions than he who, coming from abroad, has to some extent at least, familiarized himself with the principles of a Government to which he voluntarily intrusts 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ' Yet it is now proposed by a single legislative enactment to confer the rights of citizens upon all persons of African descent, born within the extended limits of the United States, while persons of foreign birth, who make our land their home, must undergo a probation of five years, and can only then become citizens upon proof that they are of 'good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. '

 "The first section of the bill also contains an enumeration of the rights to be enjoyed by these classes, so made citizens, 'in every State and Territory in the United, States. ' These rights are, 'To make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, ' and to have 'full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens. ' So, too, they are made subject to the same punishment, pains, and penalties in common with white citizens, and to none others. Thus a perfect equality of the white and black races is attempted to be fixed by Federal law, in every State of the Union, over the vast field of State jurisdiction covered by these enumerated rights. In no one of these can any State ever exercise any power of discrimination between the different races. 

 "In the exercise of State policy over matters exclusively affecting the people of each State, it has frequently been thought expedient to discriminate between the two races. By the statutes of some of the States, Northern as well as Southern, it is enacted, for instance, that no white person shall intermarry with a negro or mulatto. Chancellor Kent says, speaking of the blacks, that 'marriages between them and whites are forbidden in some of the States where slavery does not exist, and they are prohibited in all the slaveholding States, and when not absolutely contrary to law, they are revolting, and regarded as an offense against public decorum. '

 "I do not say this bill repeals State laws on the subject of marriage between the two races, for as the whites are forbidden to intermarry with the blacks, the blacks can only make such contracts as the whites themselves are allowed to make, and therefore can not, under this bill, enter into the marriage contract with the whites. I cite this discrimination, however, as an instance of the State policy as to discrimination, and to inquire whether, if Congress can abrogate all State laws of discrimination between the two races in the matter of real estate, of suits, and of contracts generally, Congress may not also repeal the State laws as to the contract of marriage between the two races? Hitherto every subject embraced in the enumeration of rights contained in this bill has been considered as exclusively belonging to the States. They all relate to the internal policy and economy of the respective States. They are matters which in each State concern the domestic condition of its people, varying in each according to its own peculiar circumstances, and the safety and well-being of its own citizens. I do not mean to say that upon all these subjects there are not Federal restraints, as, for instance, in the State power of legislation over contracts, there is a Federal limitation that no State shall pass a law impairing the obligations of contracts; and as to crimes, that no State shall pass an _ex post facto_ law; and as to money, that no State shall make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender. But where can we find a Federal prohibition against the power of any State to discriminate, as do most of them, between aliens and citizens, between artificial persons called corporations and natural persons, in the right to hold real estate?

 "If it be granted that Congress can repeal all State laws discriminating between whites and blacks, in the subjects covered by this bill, why, it may be asked, may not Congress repeal in the same way all State laws discriminating between the two races on the subject of suffrage and office? If Congress can declare by law who shall hold lands, who shall testify, who shall have capacity to make a contract in a State, then Congress can by law also declare who, without regard to color or race, shall have the right to sit as a juror or as a judge, to hold any office, and, finally, to vote, 'in every State and Territory of the United States. ' As respects the Territories, they come within the power of Congress, for, as to them, the law-making power is the Federal power; but as to the States, no similar provisions exist, vesting in Congress the power 'to make rules and regulations' for them. 

 "The object of the second section of the bill is to afford discriminating protection to colored persons in the full enjoyment of all the rights secured to them by the preceding section. It declares 'that any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured or protected by this act, or to different punishment, pains, or penalties on account of such person having at one time been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, or by reason of his color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $1, 000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court. ' This section seems to be designed to apply to some existing or future law of a State or Territory which may conflict with the provisions of the bill now under consideration. It provides for counteracting such forbidden legislation by imposing fine and imprisonment upon the legislators who may pass such conflicting laws, or upon the officers or agents who shall put, or attempt to put, them into execution. It means an official offense, not a common crime committed against law upon the persons or property of the black race. Such an act may deprive the black man of his property, but not of the right to hold property. It means a deprivation of the right itself, either by the State Judiciary or the State Legislature. It is therefore assumed that, under this section, members of State Legislatures who should vote for laws conflicting with the provisions of the bill; that judges of the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms; and that marshals and sheriffs, who should, as ministerial officers, execute processes, sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges, in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals, and there subjected to fine and imprisonment for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose. 

 "The legislation thus proposed invades the judicial power of the State. It says to every State court or judge, If you decide that this act is unconstitutional; if you refuse, under the prohibition of a State law, to allow a negro to testify; if you hold that over such a subject-matter the State law is paramount, and 'under color' of a State law refuse the exercise of the right to the negro, your error of judgment, however conscientious, shall subject you to fine and imprisonment. I do not apprehend that the conflicting legislation which the bill seems to contemplate is so likely to occur as to render it necessary at this time to adopt a measure of such doubtful constitutionality. 

 "In the next place, this provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary, as adequate judicial remedies could be adopted to secure the desired end without invading the immunities of legislators, always important to be preserved in the interest of public liberty; without assailing the independence of the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order. The remedy proposed by this section seems to be, in this respect, not only anomalous, but unconstitutional; for the Constitution guarantees nothing with certainty, if it does not insure to the several States the right of making and executing laws in regard to all matters arising within their jurisdiction, subject only to the restriction that, in cases of conflict with the Constitution and constitutional laws of the United States, the latter should be held to be the supreme law of the land. 

 "The third section gives the district courts of the United States exclusive 'cognizance of all crimes and offenses committed against the provisions of this act, ' and concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts of the United States of all civil and criminal cases 'affecting persons who are denied or can not enforce in the courts or judicial tribunals of the State or locality where they may be any of the rights secured to them by the first section. ' The construction which I have given to the second section is strengthened by this third section, for it makes clear what kind of denial or deprivation of the rights secured by the first section was in contemplation. It is a denial or deprivation of such rights 'in the courts or judicial tribunals of the State. ' It stands, therefore, clear of doubt, that the offense and the penalties provided in the second section are intended for the State judge, who, in the clear exercise of his function as a judge, not acting ministerially, but judicially, shall decide contrary to this Federal law. In other words, when a State judge, acting upon a question involving a conflict between a State law and a Federal law, and bound, according to his own judgment and responsibility, to give an impartial decision between the two, comes to the conclusion that the State law is valid and the Federal law is invalid, he must not follow the dictates of his own judgment, at the peril of fine and imprisonment. The legislative department of the Government of the United States thus takes from the judicial department of the States the sacred and exclusive duty of judicial decision, and converts the State judge into a mere ministerial officer, bound to decree according to the will of Congress. 

 "It is clear that, in States which deny to persons whose rights are secured by the first section of the bill any one of those rights, all criminal and civil cases affecting them will, by the provisions of the third section, come under the exclusive cognizance of the Federal tribunals. It follows that if, in any State which denies to a colored person any one of all those rights, that person should commit a crime against the laws of the State--murder, arson, rape, or any other crime--all protection and punishment through the courts of the State are taken away, and he can only be tried and punished in the Federal courts. How is the criminal to be tried? If the offense is provided for and punished by Federal law, that law, and not the State law, is to govern. 

 "It is only when the offense does not happen to be within the purview of the Federal law that the Federal courts are to try and punish him under any other law; then resort is to be had to 'the common law, as modified and changed' by State legislation, 'so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. ' So that over this vast domain of criminal jurisprudence, provided by each State for the protection of its own citizens, and for the punishment of all persons who violate its criminal laws, Federal law, wherever it can be made to apply, displaces State law. 

 "The question here naturally arises, from what source Congress derives the power to transfer to Federal tribunals certain classes of cases embraced in this section. The Constitution expressly declares that the judicial power of the United States 'shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting embassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States, between citizens of the same State claiming land under grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects. '

 "Here the judicial power of the United States is expressly set forth and defined; and the act of September 24, 1789, establishing the judicial courts of the United States, in conferring upon the Federal courts jurisdiction over cases originating in State tribunals, is careful to confine them to the classes enumerated in the above recited clause of the Constitution. This section of the bill undoubtedly comprehends case, and authorizes the exercise of powers that are not, by the Constitution, within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. To transfer them to those courts would be an exercise of authority well calculated to excite distrust and alarm on the part of all the States; for the bill applies alike to all of them--as well to those that have as to those that have not been engaged in rebellion. 

 "It may be assumed that this authority is incident to the power granted to Congress by the Constitution, as recently amended, to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the article declaring that 'neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. ' It can not, however, be justly claimed that, with a view to the enforcement of this article of the Constitution, there is, at present, any necessity for the exercise of all the powers which this bill confers. 

 "Slavery has been abolished, and, at present, nowhere exists within the jurisdiction of the United States; nor has there been, nor is it likely there will be, any attempt to revive it by the people of the States. If, however, any such attempt shall be made, it will then become the duty of the General Government to exercise any and all incidental powers necessary and proper to maintain inviolate this great constitutional law of freedom. 

 "The fourth section of the bill provides that officers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau shall be empowered to make arrests, and also that other officers may be specially commissioned for that purpose by the President of the United States. It also authorizes circuit courts of the United States and the superior courts of the Territories to appoint, without limitation, commissioners, who are to be charged with the performance of _quasi_ judicial duties. The fifth section empowers the commissioners so to be selected by the courts to appoint, in writing, under their hands, one or more suitable persons, from time to time, to execute warrants and other processes described by the bill. These numerous official agents are made to constitute a sort of police, in addition to the military, and are authorized to summon a _posse comitatus_ and even to call to their aid such portion of the land and naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, 'as may be necessary to the performance of the duty with which they are charged. '

 "This extraordinary power is to be conferred upon agents irresponsible to the Government and to the people, to whose number the discretion of the commissioners is the only limit, and in whose hands such authority might be made a terrible engine of wrong, oppression, and fraud. The general statutes regulating the land and naval forces of the United States, the militia, and the execution of the laws, are believed to be adequate for every emergency which can occur in time of peace. If it should prove otherwise, Congress can, at any time, amend those laws in such manner as, while subserving the public welfare, not to jeopard the rights, interests, and liberties of the people. 

 "The seventh section provides that a fee of ten dollars shall be paid to each commissioner in every case brought before him, and a fee of five dollars to his deputy, or deputies, 'for each person he or they may arrest and take before any such commissioner, ' 'with such other fees as may be deemed reasonable by such commissioner, ' 'in general for performing such other duties as may be required in the premises. ' All these fees are to be 'paid out of the Treasury of the United States, ' whether there is a conviction or not; but, in case of conviction, they are to be recoverable from the defendant. It seems to me that, under the influence of such temptations, bad men might convert any law, however beneficent, into an instrument of persecution and fraud. 

 "By the eighth section of the bill, the United States courts, which sit only in one place for white citizens, must migrate, with the marshal and district attorney (and necessarily with the clerk, although he is not mentioned), to any part of the district, upon the order of the President, and there hold a court 'for the purpose of the more speedy arrest and trial of persons charged with a violation of this act;' and there the judge and the officers of the court must remain, upon the order of the President, 'for the time therein designated. '

 "The ninth section authorizes the 'President, or such person as he may empower for that purpose, to employ such part of the land and naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as shall be necessary to prevent the violation and enforce the due execution of this act. ' This language seems to imply a permanent military force, that is to be always at hand, and whose only business is to be the enforcement of this measure over the vast region where it is intended to operate. 

 "I do not propose to consider the policy of this bill. To me the details of the bill seem fraught with evil. The white race and the black race of the South have hitherto lived together under the relation of master and slave--capital owning labor. Now, suddenly, that relation is changed, and, as to the ownership, capital and labor are divorced. They stand, now, each master of itself. In this new relation, one being necessary to the other, there will be a new adjustment, which both are deeply interested in making harmonious. Each has equal power in settling the terms, and, if left to the laws that regulate capital and labor, it is confidently believed that they will satisfactorily work out the problem. Capital, it is true, has more intelligence; but labor is never so ignorant as not to understand its own interests, not to know its own value, and not to see that capital must pay that value. This bill frustrates this adjustment. It intervenes between capital and labor, and attempts to settle questions of political economy through the agency of numerous officials, whose interest it will be to foment discord between the two races; for, as the breach widens, their employment will continue, and when it is closed, their occupation will terminate. 

 "In all our history, in all our experience as a people living under Federal and State law, no such system as that contemplated by the details of this bill has ever before been proposed or adopted. They establish, for the security of the colored race, safeguards which go infinitely beyond any that the General Government has ever provided for the white race. In fact, the distinction of race and color is, by the bill, made to operate in favor of the colored and against the white race. They interfere with the municipal legislation of the States, with the relations existing exclusively between a State and its citizens, or between inhabitants of the same State--an absorption and assumption of power by the General Government which, if acquiesced in, must sap and destroy our federative system of limited powers, and break down the barriers which preserve the rights of the States. It is another step, or rather stride, to centralization and the concentration of all legislative power in the National Government. The tendency of the bill must be to resuscitate the spirit of rebellion, and to arrest the progress of those influences which are more closely drawing around the States the bonds of union and peace. 

 "My lamented predecessor, in his proclamation of the 1st of January, 1863, ordered and declared that all persons held as slaves within certain States and parts of States therein designated, were and thenceforward should be free; and, further, that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, would recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons. This guarantee has been rendered especially obligatory and sacred by the amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States. I, therefore, fully recognize the obligation to protect and defend that class of our people whenever and wherever it shall become necessary, and to the full extent compatible with the Constitution of the United States. 

 "Entertaining these sentiments, it only remains for me to say that I will cheerfully coöperate with Congress in any measure that may be necessary for the protection of the civil rights of the freedmen, as well as those of all other classes of persons throughout the United States, by judicial process under equal and impartial laws, in conformity with the provisions of the Federal Constitution. 

 "I now return the bill to the Senate, and regret that, in considering the bills and joint resolutions--forty-two in number--which have been thus far submitted for my approval, I am compelled to withhold my assent from a second measure that has received the sanction of both houses of Congress. 

 "ANDREW JOHNSON. 

 "WASHINGTON, D. C. , _March_ 27, 1866. "

The death and funeral obsequies of Senator Foot prevented the Senatefrom proceeding to the consideration of the President's veto messagefor more than a week after it was read. On the 4th of April the CivilRights Bill came up to be reconsidered, the question being, "Shall thebill pass, the objections of the President notwithstanding. "

It devolved upon Mr. Trumbull, the author of the bill, to answer theobjections of the President. In answer to the President's positionthat the bill conferred only Federal citizenship, and did not give any_status_ as citizens of States, Mr. Trumbull said: "Is it true thatwhen a person becomes a citizen of the United States he is not also acitizen of every State where he may happen to be? On this point I willrefer to a decision pronounced by the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates, delivered by Chief-Justice Marshall, the most eminent juristwho ever sat upon an American bench. In the case of Gassies _vs. _Ballon, reported in 6 Peters, the Chief-Justice, in delivering theopinion of the court, says:

 "'The defendant in error is alleged in the proceedings to be a citizen of the United Stated States, naturalized in Louisiana, and residing there. This is equivalent to an averment that he is a citizen of that State. _A citizen of the United States residing in any State of the Union is a citizen of that State. _'"

The message declared "that the right of Federal citizenship is now forthe first time proposed to be given by law. " "This, " said Mr. Trumbull, "is not a misapprehension of the law, but a mistake in fact, as will appear by references to which I shall call the attention ofthe Senate. " Mr. Trumbull then referred to the "collectivenaturalization" of citizens of Louisiana, Texas, and Cherokees, Choctaw, and Stockbridge Indians. 

To the remark in the message that "if, as many claim, native-bornpersons are already citizens of the United States, this bill can notbe necessary to make them such, " Mr. Trumbull replied: "An actdeclaring what the law is, is one of the most common of acts known bylegislative bodies. When there is any question as to what the law is, and for greater certainty, it is the most common thing in the world topass a statute declaring it. "

To the objection that eleven States were unrepresented, the Senatorreplied: "This is a standing objection in all the veto messages, yetthe President has signed some forty bills. If there is any thing inthis objection, no bill can pass Congress till the States arerepresented here. Sir, whose fault is it that eleven States are notrepresented? By what fault of theirs is it that twenty-five loyalStates which have stood by this Union and by the Constitution are tobe deprived of their right to legislate? If the reason assigned is agood one now, it has been a good one all the time for the last fiveyears. If the fact that some States have rebelled against theGovernment is to take from the Government the right to legislate, thenthe criminal is to take advantage of his crime; the innocent are to bepunished for the guilty. 

"But the President tells us that 'the bill, in effect, proposes adiscrimination against large numbers of intelligent, worthy, andpatriotic foreigners, and in favor of the negro. ' Is that true? Whatis the bill? It declares that there shall be no distinction in civilrights between any other race or color and the white race. It declaresthat there shall be no different punishment inflicted on a colored manin consequence of his color than that which is inflicted on a whiteman for the same offense. Is that a discrimination in favor of thenegro and against the foreigner--a bill the only effect of which is topreserve equality of rights?

"But perhaps it may be replied to this that the bill proposes to makea citizen of every person born in the United States, and, therefore, it discriminates in that respect against the foreigner. Not so;foreigners are all upon the same footing, whether black or white. Thewhite child who is born in the United States a citizen is not to bepresumed at its birth to be the equal intellectually with the worthy, intelligent, and patriotic foreigner who emigrates to this country. And, as is suggested by a Senator behind me, even the infant child ofa foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States longbefore his father. Is this, therefore, a discrimination againstforeigners?

"The President also has an objection to the making citizens of Chineseand Gypsies. I am told that but few Chinese are born in this country, and where the Gypsies are born, I never knew. [Laughter. ] Like Topsy, it is questionable, whether they were born at all, but 'just come. '[Laughter. ]

"But, sir, perhaps the best answer to this objection that the billproposes to make citizens of Chinese and Gypsies, and this referenceto the foreigners, is to be found in a speech delivered in this bodyby a Senator occupying, I think, the seat now occupied across thechamber by my friend from Oregon, [Mr. Williams, ] less than six yearsago, in reply to a message sent to this body by Mr. Buchanan, the thenPresident of the United States, returning, with his objections, whatwas known as the Homestead Bill. On that occasion the Senator to whomI allude said:

 "'But this idea about "poor foreigners, " somehow or other, bewilders and haunts the imagination of a great many.  * * * * *

 "'I am constrained to say that I look upon this objection to the bill as a mere quibble on the part of the President, and as being hard-pressed for some excuse in withholding his approval of the measure; and his allusion to foreigners in this connection looks to me more like the _ad captandum_ of the mere politician or demagogue, than a grave and sound reason to be offered by the President of the United States in a veto message upon so important a measure as the Homestead Bill. '

"That was the language of Senator Andrew Johnson, now President of theUnited States. [Laughter. ] That is probably the best answer to thisobjection, though I should hardly have ventured to use such harshlanguage in reference to the President as to accuse him of quibblingand of demagoguery, and of playing the mere politician in sending aveto message to the Congress of the United States. "

The President had urged an objection that if Congress could confercivil rights upon persons without regard to color or race, it mightalso confer upon them political rights, and among them that ofsuffrage. In reply to this, Mr. Trumbull referred to the policy of thePresident himself in undertaking to "reörganize State governments inthe disloyal States. " He "claimed and exercised the power to protectcolored persons in their civil rights, " and yet, when "urged to allowloyal blacks to vote, " he held that "he had no power; it wasunconstitutional. "

"But, sir, " continued Mr. Trumbull, "the granting of civil rights doesnot and never did, in this country, carry with it rights, or, moreproperly speaking, political privileges. A man may be a citizen inthis country without a right to vote or without a right to holdoffice. The right to vote and hold office in the States depends uponthe legislation of the various States; the right to hold certainoffices under the Federal Government depends upon the Constitution ofthe United States. The President must be a natural-born citizen, and aSenator or Representative must be a citizen of the United States for acertain number of years before he is eligible to a seat either in thisor the other House of Congress; so that the fact of being a citizendoes not necessarily qualify a person for an office, nor does itnecessarily authorize him to vote. Women are citizens; children arecitizens; but they do not exercise the elective franchise by virtue oftheir citizenship. Foreigners, as is stated by the President in thismessage, before they are naturalized are protected in the rightsenumerated in this bill, but because they possess those rights inmost, if not all, the States, that carries with it no right to vote. 

"But, sir, what rights do citizens of the United States have? To be acitizen of the United States carries with it some rights, and what arethey? They are those inherent, fundamental rights which belong to freecitizens or free men in all countries, such as the rights enumeratedin this bill, and they belong to them in all the States of the Union. The right of American citizenship means something. It does not mean, in the case of a foreigner, that when he is naturalized he is to beleft entirely to the mercy of State legislation. He has a right, whenduly naturalized, to go into any State of the Union, and to residethere, and the United States Government will protect him in thatright. It will protect a citizen of the United States, not only in oneof the States of the Union, but it will protect him in foreign lands. 

"Every person residing in the United States is entitled to theprotection of that law by the Federal Government, because the FederalGovernment has jurisdiction of such questions. American citizenshipwould be little worth if it did not carry protection with it. 

"How is it that every person born in these United States owesallegiance to the Government? Every thing that he is or has, hisproperty and his life, may be taken by the Government of the UnitedStates in its defense, or to maintain the honor of the nation. And canit be that our ancestors struggled through a long war and set up thisGovernment, and that the people of our day have struggled throughanother war, with all its sacrifices and all its desolation, tomaintain it, and at last that we have got a Government which isall-powerful to command the obedience of the citizen, but has no powerto afford him protection? Is that all that this boasted Americancitizenship amounts to? Go tell it, sir, to the father whose son wasstarved at Andersonville; or the widow whose husband was slain atMission Ridge; or the little boy who leads his sightless fatherthrough the streets of your city, made blind by the winds and the sandof the Southern coast; or the thousand other mangled heroes to be seenon every side, that this Government, in defense of which the son andthe husband fell, the father lost his eyes, and the others werecrippled, had the right to call these persons to its defense, but hasno right to protect the survivors or their friends in any rightwhatever in any of the States. Sir, it can not be. Such is not themeaning of our Constitution. Such is not the meaning of Americancitizenship. This Government, which would go to war to protect itsmeanest--I will not say citizen--inhabitant, if you please, in anyforeign land, whose rights were unjustly encroached upon, hascertainly some power to protect its own citizens in their own country. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal rights. "

To the President's objection to the second section of the bill, thatit discriminated in favor of colored persons, Mr. Trumbull replied:"It says, in effect, that no one shall subject a colored person to adifferent punishment than that inflicted on a white person for thesame offense. Does that discriminate in favor of the colored person?Why, sir, the very object and effect of the section is to preventdiscrimination, and language, it seems to me, could not more plainlyexpress that object and effect. It may be said that it is for thebenefit of the black man, because he is now, in some instances, discriminated against by State laws; but that is the case with allremedial statutes. They are for the relief of the persons who need therelief, not for the relief of those who have the right already; andwhen those needing the relief obtain it, they stand upon the precisefooting of those who do not need the benefit of the law. "

The President had further objected to this section, that "it providesfor counteracting such forbidden legislation by imposing fine andimprisonment upon the legislators who may pass such conflicting laws. "

"Let us see, " said Mr. Trumbull, "if that is the language or theproper construction of the section. I will read again the first linesof it. It declares 'that any person who, under color of any law, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to besubjected, etc. ,  * * * shall be punished, ' etc. 

"Who is to be punished? Is the law to be punished? Are the men whomake the law to be punished? Is that the language of the bill? Not atall. If any person, 'under color of any law, ' shall subject another tothe deprivation of a right to which he is entitled, he is to bepunished. Who? The person who, under the color of the law, does theact, not the men who made the law. In some communities in the South acustom prevails by which different punishment is inflicted upon theblacks from that meted out to whites for the same offense. Does thissection propose to punish the community where the custom prevails? oris it to punish the person who, under color of the custom, deprivesthe party of his right? It is a manifest perversion of the meaning ofthe section to assert any thing else. 

"But it is said that under this provision judges of the courts andministerial officers who are engaged in execution of any such statutesmay be punished, and that is made an objection to this bill. I admitthat a ministerial officer or a judge, if he acts corruptly orviciously in the execution or under color of an illegal act, may beand ought to be punished; but if he acted innocently, the judge wouldnot be punished. Sir, what is a crime? It is a violation of somepublic law, to constitute which there must be an act, and a viciouswill in doing the act; or, according to the definition in some of thelaw-books, to constitute a crime there must be a violation of a publiclaw, in the commission of which there must be a union or jointoperation of act and intent, or criminal negligence; and a judge whoacted innocently, and not viciously or oppressively, would never beconvicted under this act. But, sir, if he acted knowingly, viciously, or oppressively, in disregard of a law of the United States, I repeat, he ought to be punished, and it is no anomaly to prescribe apunishment in such a case. Very soon after the organization of thisGovernment, in the first years of its existence, the Congress of theUnited States provided for punishing officers who, under color ofState law, violated the laws of the United States. "

Mr. Trumbull then read from an act of Congress passed in 1790, providing for the punishment of certain offenses against foreignministers, and said: "By this provision all officers executing anyprocess in violation of the laws of the United States are to besubject to a much longer imprisonment than is provided by this bill. 

"But, sir, there is another answer, in my judgment, more conclusive, to all these objections to this second section, which is the vitalpart of the bill. Without it, it would scarcely be worth the paper onwhich the bill is written. A law without a penalty, without asanction, is of little value to any body. What good does it do for theLegislature to say, 'Do this, and forbear to do that, ' if noconsequence is to follow the act of disobedience? This is the vitalityof the bill. What is the objection that is made to it, and which seemseven to have staggered some friends of the measure? It is because itreads in the first section that any person who, 'under color of law, 'shall commit these offenses, shall be subject to the penalties of thelaw. Suppose those words had been left out, and the bill read, 'anyperson who shall subject any inhabitant of a State to differentpunishment by reason of his color shall be punished, ' would there havebeen any objection to the bill then? That is the way most criminallaws read. That is the way the law punishing conspiracies against theGovernment reads. If two or more persons conspire together tooverthrow the Government, or by force to resist its authority, theyare liable to indictment, and, upon conviction, to imprisonment in thepenitentiary and to heavy fine. Would the fact that the personsengaged in the conspiracy were judges or governors or ministerialofficers, acting under color of any statute or custom, screen themfrom punishment? Surely not. 

"The words 'under color of law' were inserted as words of limitation, and not for the purpose of punishing persons who would not have beensubject to punishment under the act if they had been omitted. If anoffense is committed against a colored person simply because he iscolored, in a State where the law affords him the same protection asif he were white, this act neither has nor was intended to have anything to do with his case, because he has adequate remedies in theState courts; but if he is discriminated against, under color of Statelaws, because he is colored, then it becomes necessary to interferefor his protection. 

"The assumption that State judges and other officials are not to beheld responsible for violations of United States laws when done undercolor of State statutes or customs is akin to the maxim of the Englishlaw that the king can do no wrong. It places officials above the law;it is the very doctrine out of which the rebellion was hatched. 

"Every thing that was done by that wicked effort to overturn ourGovernment was done under color of law. The rebels insisted that theyhad a right to secede; they passed ordinances of secession, they setup State governments, and all that they did was under color of law. And if parties committing these high crimes are to go free becausethey acted under color of law, why is not Jeff Davis and every otherrebel chief discharged at once? Why did this country put forth all itsresources of men and money to put down the rebellion against theauthority of the Government except it had a right to do so, even asagainst those who were acting under color of law? Lee, with his rebelhordes, thundering upon the outskirts of this very city, was actingunder color of law; every judge who has held a court in the SouthernStates for the last four years, and has tried and convicted of treasonmen guilty of no other offense than loyalty to the Union, acted undercolor of law. 

"Sir, if we had authority by the use of the army and the war power toput down rebels acting under color of law, I put the question to everylawyer, if we had not authority to do that through the courts and thejudicial tribunals if it had been practicable? Suppose it had beenpracticable, through the marshals, to arrest the Legislature whichconvened at Montgomery, and undertook to take the State of Alabama outof the Union and set up a government in hostility thereto, ought itnot to have been done? Was not that a conspiracy against thisGovernment? When the Legislature assembled at Montgomery in 1861, andresolved that the connection between Alabama and the United States wasdissolved, and when its members took steps to maintain thatdeclaration; when the same thing was done in South Carolina, andcourts were organized to carry out the scheme, will any body tell meit would not have been competent, had it been practicable, for theUnited States courts in those States to have issued process for thearrest of every one of those legislators, governors, judges, and all. And, sir, had this been done, and it had turned out upon trial thatany of the parties arrested had been engaged in armed hostilityagainst the United States, as some of them had been when, with arms intheir hands, they seized the arsenals and other public property of theUnited States, would they not have been found guilty of treason andhung for treason? and would the fact that they had acted under colorof law have afforded them any protection?"

The President, in his Veto Message, had said, "I do not apprehend thatthe conflicting legislation which the bill seems to contemplate is solikely to occur as to render it necessary, at this time, to adopt ameasure of such doubtful constitutionality. "

"That statement, " replied Mr. Trumbull, "makes it necessary that Ishould advert to the facts and show whether there is any likelihood ofsuch conflicting legislation; and my testimony comes from thePresident himself, or those acting under his authority. "

After having referred to legislative enactments of several of theSouthern States very oppressive to the colored people, Mr. Trumbullremarked: "Now, sir, what becomes of this declaration that there is nonecessity for any measure of this kind? Here are the laws of Texas, ofMississippi, of Virginia, to which I have referred; and laws equallyoppressive exist in some of the other States. Is there no necessity toprotect a freedman when he is liable to be whipped if caught away fromhome? no necessity to protect a freedman in his rights when he is notpermitted to hold or lease a piece of ground in a State? no necessityto protect a freedman in his rights, who will be reduced to a slaveryworse than that from which he has been emancipated if a law ispermitted to be carried into effect? Sir, these orders emanate andthis information comes from officers acting by presidential authority, and yet the President tells us there is no danger of conflictinglegislation. "

After having answered other objections of the President, Mr. Trumbullsaid: "I have now gone through this Veto Message, replying with whatpatience I could command to its various objections to the bill. Wouldthat I could stop here, that there was no occasion to go further; butjustice to myself, justice to the State whose representative I am, justice to the people of the whole country, in legislation for whosebehalf I am called to participate, justice to the Constitution I amsworn to support, justice to the rights of American citizenship itsecures, and to human liberty, now imperiled, require me to gofurther. Gladly would I refrain speaking of the spirit of thismessage, of the dangerous doctrines it promulgates, of theinconsistencies and contradictions of its author, of his encroachmentsupon the constitutional rights of Congress, of his assumption ofunwarranted powers, which, if persevered in and not checked by thepeople, must eventually lead to a subversion of the Government and thedestruction of liberty. 

"Congress, in the passage of the bill under consideration, sought nocontroversy with the President. So far from it, the bill was proposedwith a view to carry out what were supposed to be the views of thePresident, and was submitted to him before its introduction in theSenate. I am not about to relate private declarations of thePresident, but it is right that the American people should know thatthe controversy which exists between him and Congress in reference tothis measure is of his own seeking. Soon after Congress met, it becameapparent that there was a difference of opinion between the Presidentand some members of Congress in regard to the condition of therebellious States and the rights to be secured to freedmen. 

"The President, in his annual message, had denied the constitutionalpower of the General Government to extend the elective franchise tonegroes, but he was equally decided in the assertion of the right ofevery man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This was hislanguage:

 "'But while I have no doubt that now, after the close of the war, it is not competent for the General Government to extend the elective franchise in the several States, it is equally clear that good faith requires the security of the freedmen in their liberty and their property. '

"There were some members of Congress who expressed the opinion that inthe reörganization of the rebellious States the right of suffrageshould be extended to the colored man, though this was not theprevailing sentiment of Congress. All were anxious for areörganization of the rebellious States, and their admission to fullparticipation in the Federal Government as soon as these relationscould be restored with safety to all concerned. Feeling the importanceof harmonious action between the different departments of theGovernment, and an anxious desire to sustain the President, for whom Ihad always entertained the highest respect, I had frequent interviewswith him during the early part of the session. Without mentioning anything said by him, I may with propriety state that, acting from theconsiderations I have stated, and believing that the passage of a lawby Congress, securing equality in civil rights to freedmen and allother inhabitants of the United States, when denied by Stateauthorities, would do much to relieve anxiety in the North, to inducethe Southern States to secure these rights by their own action, andthereby remove many of the obstacles to an early reconstruction, Iprepared the bill substantially as it is now returned with thePresident's objections. After the bill was introduced and printed, acopy was furnished him, and at a subsequent period, when it wasreported that he was hesitating about signing the Freedmen's BureauBill, he was informed of the condition of the Civil Rights Bill thenpending in the House, and a hope expressed that if he had objectionsto any of its provisions he would make them known to its friends, thatthey might be remedied, if not destructive of the measure; that therewas believed to be no disposition on the part of Congress, andcertainly none on my part, to have bills presented to him which hecould not approve. He never indicated to me, nor, so far as I know, toany of its friends, the least objection to any of the provisions ofthe bill till after its passage. And how could he, consistently withhimself? The bill was framed, as was supposed, in entire harmony withhis views, and certainly in harmony with what he was then and hassince been doing in protecting freedmen in their civil rights allthrough the rebellious States. It was strictly limited to theprotection of the civil rights belonging to every freeman, thebirthright of every American citizen, and carefully avoided conferringor interfering with political rights or privileges of any kind. 

* * * * "If the bill now before us, and which goes no further than tosecure civil rights to the freedman, can not be passed, then theconstitutional amendment proclaiming freedom to all the inhabitants ofthe land is a cheat and a delusion. 

"I can not better conclude what I have to say than in the language ofMr. Johnson on the occasion of the veto of the Homestead Bill, when, after stating that the fact that the President was inconsistent andchanged his opinion with reference to a great measure and a greatprinciple, is no reason why a Senator or Representative, who has actedunderstandingly, should change his opinion. He said:

 "'I hope the Senate and House of Representatives, who have sanctioned this bill by more than a two-thirds majority, will, according to the Constitution, exercise their privilege and power, and let the bill become a law of the land, according to the high behest of the American people. '"

On the next day, April 5th, Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, made a speechsustaining the Veto Message. He argued that negroes were not citizensof the United States by reason of their birth in the United States, and that Congress had no authority by law to declare them such. Tosustain his position, he made quotations from the opinion of theminority in the Dred Scott case, as rendered by Mr. Justice Curtis. Hethen proceeded to reply to some of Mr. Trumbull's arguments againstthe Veto Message: "The honorable member from Illinois disposes of thePresident's objection to the first section of this bill by saying thatit is merely declaratory. I know it is competent for any legislativebody, on a question where difference of opinions exist in relation toany legal proposition, to remove them by declaratory legislation; butthat is not the purpose of this bill. It professes to be passed in theexercise of a positive and absolute power to change the law--not todeclare what the law was in order to remove doubts, but to make thelaw. It assumes, or otherwise there would be no occasion for it, thatbirth alone does not confer citizenship; and assuming that nocitizenship would exist in consequence of birth alone, it declaresthat birth alone, in spite of State constitution and State laws, shallconfer citizenship. Now, with all deference to the opinion of thehonorable Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, that seems to meto be a proposition as clearly erroneous as any proposition can be inrelation to constitutional law. The States were sovereign before theConstitution was adopted; and the Constitution not only, according toits very terms, does not profess to confer upon the Government of theUnited States all governmental power, but as far as Congress isconcerned, professes to confer upon that department of the Governmentonly the particular delegated powers there enumerated; but so anxiouswere the framers of that instrument and the great men of that day, towhom the subsequent organization of this Government was left, thatalthough they had no doubt as to the principle that only the delegatedpowers were granted, (and the debates in the Convention itself as wellas the debates in the conventions of the several States, when theConstitution was before them for adoption or rejection, all went uponthe theory that no powers were conferred except such as were expresslygranted, or as were reasonably implied to be as necessary to carry outthe powers expressly granted, ) by the tenth amendment adopted recentlyafter the Constitution went into operation, and recommended by themen, many of whom were the framers of the Constitution itself, thatthe powers not delegated by the Constitution, and not denied to theStates by the same instrument, were to be considered reserved to theStates respectively, or to the people. 

"Standing, therefore, as well upon the nature of the Governmentitself, as a Government of enumerated powers specially delegated, asupon the express provision that every thing not granted was to beconsidered as remaining with the States unless the Constitutioncontained some particular prohibition of any power before belonging tothe States, what doubt can there be that if a State possessed thepower to declare who should be her citizens before the Constitutionwas adopted that power remains now as absolute and as conclusive as itwas when the Constitution was adopted? The bill, therefore, changesthe whole theory of the Government. 

"The President, then, I think, is right. I go further than he does. Heexpresses a doubt whether Congress has the power; I affirm, with alldeference to the better judgment of the majority of the Senate whovoted for the bill, and to that of the honorable Chairman of theCommittee on the Judiciary, that it is perfectly clear that no suchpower exists in Congress as the one attempted to be exercised by thefirst section. I hold, with Mr. Justice Curtis--and his opinion tothis day has never been questioned--that citizenship of the UnitedStates consequent upon birth in a State is to depend upon the factwhether the constitution and laws of the State make the party so borna citizen of the State. 

"But that is not all. This first section has another provision. Notsatisfied with making the parties citizens and clothing them with allthe rights belonging to white citizens by the laws of the States, itsays that they 'shall be subject to like punishment, pains, andpenalties, and to none other. ' That invades the jurisdiction of theStates over their criminal code. Congress assumes to define a crime, and defining a crime gives to its own courts exclusive jurisdictionover the crime and the party charged with its perpetration. It strikesat the criminal code of the States. The result, therefore, of thethree provisions in this section is, that contrary to Stateconstitutions and State laws, it converts a man that is not a citizenof a State into a citizen of the State; it gives him all the rightsthat belong to a citizen of the State; and it provides that hispunishment shall only be such as the State laws impose upon whitecitizens. Where is the authority to do that? If it exists, it is stillmore obvious that the result is an entire annihilation of the power ofthe States. It seems to be the fashion of the hour--I do not know thatmy honorable friend from Illinois goes to that extent--to hold to thedoctrine that the sooner every thing is vested in the Government ofthe United States the better for the country. It is a perilousdelusion. If such a proposition had been supposed to be found anywhere in the Constitution of the United States, it never would havebeen adopted by the people; and if it is assumed, or if it isconsidered as constitutionally existing by virtue of some power notbefore known, the Government will not last half a century. I have nottime to read from the writings of Mr. Madison and Mr. Hamilton and thedecisions of the Supreme Court on the question. 

"But you, Mr. President, know very well that consolidation of power inthe Government of the United States was looked upon as certain ruin torepublican institutions. In the first place, it would be sure toresult in anarchy; and in the second place, in order to be saved fromthe horrors of anarchy, we should be compelled to take refuge indespotic power, and the days of constitutional liberty would soon benumbered. The doubt then was, and the doubt now should be more firmlysettled in the public mind, that a country as extensive as that of theUnited States can not exist except by means of divided sovereignties;one sovereignty having charge of all external matters, or mattersbetween the States to which the powers of the States are inadequate;the other sovereignties having power over all internal matters to themanagement of which they are adequate. Despotism would soon be ourfate, preceded by anarchy; the military chieftain instead of beinglooked upon, as he should be by every republican, with alarm andconcern, would be hailed as a savior, in order to save us from thehorrors of disorganization. 

"The honorable member referred to the act of 1790, but it relatesentirely to different subjects, and all the statutes to which headverted are statutes of the same description. What is thetwenty-sixth section of the act of 1790 to which he referred? Thepreceding section provided that no one should sue a foreign minister, and the section to which my friend referred particularly, said that ifa party did sue a foreign minister he should be liable to be punished. Certainly; but why? Because the Government of the United States wasvested with the exclusive authority in all cases depending upon thelaw of nations; and the law of nations saving from responsibilityembassadors accredited to the United States, for civil debts, he whoattempted to interfere offended against the Government, and heoffended in relation to a subject exclusively committed to the GeneralGovernment. The power, therefore, which Congress exerted in theparticular legislation to which the honorable member reverted is justthe power which they exert when they provide for the punishment of anyman who counterfeits the currency of the United States, or forges itspaper, or forges its bonds, or interferes with the administration ofthe Post-office Department. These are all powers incidental to thepossession of the express power, and in the case to which he advertedthe express power was one necessarily belonging to the Government, because it was a power belonging to and regulated by the law ofnations, and not by any municipal regulation. 

"The honorable member from Illinois tells us that the President'sobjection, that there are eleven States not now represented, isentitled to no consideration whatever. The honorable member seems tosuppose that the President adverted to the fact that there were elevenStates not represented as showing that Congress possessed noconstitutional authority to legislate upon the subject, supposing thatthey would have had the authority if those States were represented. That is not the view taken by the President; it is an entiremisapprehension of the doctrine of the President. He says no suchthing, and he intimates no such thing. But assuming, what in anotherpart of the message he denies, that the authority might be consideredas existing, he submits as a question of policy whether it is right tochange the whole domestic economy of those eleven States, in theabsence of any representation upon this floor from them. My honorablefriend asks whose fault it is that they are not represented. Why arethey not here? He says their hands are reeking with the blood of loyalmen; that they are unable to take the oath which a statute that heassumes to be constitutional has provided; and he would have thecountry and the Senate to believe that that is the reason why they arenot here. Is that the fact, Mr. President? These States are organized, and how organized? What have they done? They have abolished slavery byan astonishing unanimity; they have abolished nearly all thedistinctions which antecedently existed between the two races. Theyhave permitted the negroes to sue, they have permitted them totestify; they have not yet permitted them to vote. 

"Why are they not received? Because, in the judgment of the Senate, before the States can be considered as restored, Congressionallegislation on the subject is necessary. Whose fault is it that therehas not been Congressional legislation? Is it the fault of the elevenStates? Certainly not; it is our own fault. And why is it that we arein point of fact delaying their admission, whether it is to beconsidered as a fault or not? Because we want to inquire into thecondition of these States. Why, in the name of Heaven! how long havewe been here? We came here early in December, and this is the month ofApril; and here we may remain until July, or, as rumor has it, untilnext December; and shall we be satisfied within that time thatCongressional legislation may be safely adopted?

"I have a word or two more to say. My honorable friend from Illinois, as it seemed to me--his nature is impulsive, and perhaps he wascarried further than he intended--seemed to intimate that thePresident of the United States had not acted sincerely in this matter;that his usurpation was a clear one, and that he was to be censuredfor that usurpation. What has he done? He has vetoed this bill. He hada constitutional right to do so. Not only that; if he believed thatthe effect of the bill would be that which he states in his VetoMessage, he was not only authorized but bound to veto it. His oath isto 'preserve' as well as to 'protect and defend' the Constitution ofthe United States; and believing, as he does, and in that opinion Iconcur, that this bill assails the Constitution of the United States, he would have been false to his plighted faith if he had not returnedit with his objections. 

"He desires--and who does not?--that the Union shall be restored as itoriginally existed. He has a policy which he thinks is best calculatedto effect it. He may be mistaken, but he is honest. Congress maydiffer with him. I hope they will agree sooner or later, because Ibelieve, as I believe in my existence, that the condition in which thecountry now is can not remain without producing troubles that mayshake our reputation, not only in our own eyes, but in the eyes of thecivilized world. Let the day come when we shall be again together, andthen, forgetting the past, hailing the present, and looking forward tothe future, we shall remember, if we remember the past at all, for theexhibition of valor and gallantry displayed on both sides, and find init, when we become one, a guarantee that in the future no foreignhostilities are to be dreaded, and that no civil discord need beapprehended. "

Mr. Trumbull said: "The opinion of Judge Curtis, from which theSenator read, was the opinion of a dissenting judge, entitled to verygreat credit on account of the learning and ability of that judge, butit was not the opinion of the court, and an examination of the entireopinion, which is very lengthy, would perhaps not sustain the preciseprinciples the Senator from Maryland laid down. But, sir, I haveanother authority which I think of equal weight with that of JudgeCurtis--not pronounced in a judicial tribunal it is true, but by oneof the most eminent members of the bar in this nation; I may say by agentleman who stands at the head of the bar in America at thistime--an opinion pronounced, too, in the exercise of official duties;and I propose to read a few sentences from that opinion, for it is tobe found reported in the Congressional Globe containing theproceedings of this body less than ninety days ago. This is thelanguage:

 "'While they [negroes] were slaves, it was a very different question; but now, when slavery is terminated, and by terminating it you have got rid of the only obstacle in the way of citizenship, two questions arise: first, Whether that fact itself does not make them citizens? Before they were not citizens, because of slavery, and only because of slavery. Slavery abolished, why are they not just as much citizens as they would have been had slavery never existed? My opinion is that they become citizens, and I hold that opinion so strongly that I should consider it unnecessary to legislate on the subject at all, as far as that class is concerned, but for the ruling of the Supreme Court, to which I have adverted. '

"Sir, that opinion was held by the honorable Senator from Maryland whomade this speech to-day. He holds the opinion so strongly now thatslavery is abolished, which was the only obstacle in the way of theirbeing citizens, that he would want no legislation on the subject butfor the Dred Scott decision! What further did the Senator fromMaryland say less than ninety days ago? It is possible, doubtless--itis not only possible but it is certainly true--that the Senator fromMaryland, by reading the conclusive arguments of the Veto Message inregard to Chinese and Gypsies, has discovered that he was in errorninety days ago. I by no means mean to impute any wrong motive to theSenator from Maryland, but simply to ask that he will pardon me if Ihave not been able to see the conclusive reasoning of the VetoMessage. "

After quoting still further from Mr. Johnson's speech, made on aprevious occasion, Mr. Trumbull said: "But as I am up, I will refer toone other point to which the Senator alluded, and that is in regard tothe quotation which I made yesterday from the statute of 1790. Iquoted that statute for the purpose of showing that the provisions inthe bill under consideration, which it was insisted allowed thepunishment of ministerial officers and judges who should act inobedience to State laws and under color of State laws, were notanomalous. I read a statute of 1790 to show that the Congress of theUnited States, at that day, provided for punishing both judges andofficers who acted under color of State law in defiance of a law ofthe United States. How does the Senator answer that? He says that wason a different subject; the law of 1790 provided for punishing judgesand officers who did an act in violation of the international law, jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the nation. Let me ask theSenator from Maryland, if the bill under discussion does not providefor the punishment of persons who violate a right secured by theConstitution of the United States? Is a right which a citizen holds byvirtue of the Constitution of his country less sacred than a rightwhich he holds by virtue of international law?"

Mr. Johnson replied as follows: "It is singular, in my estimation, howa gentleman with a mind as clear as Mr. Trumbull's, with aperspicacity that is a little surprising, could have fallen into theerror of supposing that there is any inconsistency between thedoctrine contained in the speech to which he has adverted and the onewhich I have maintained to-day. What I said then I say now, that asfar as the United States are concerned, all persons born within thelimits of the United States are to be considered as citizens, and thatwithout reference to the color or the race; and after the abolition ofslavery the negro would stand precisely in the condition of the whiteman. But the honorable member can hardly fail, I think--certainly hecan not when I call his attention to it--to perceive that that hasnothing to do with the question now before the Senate. His bill makesthem citizens of the United States because of birth, and gives themcertain rights within the States. "

Mr. Fessenden asked: "Were not your remarks made on this very questionin this bill?"

"No, " replied Mr. Johnson; "on another bill. " He continued: "What Imaintain is this--and I have never doubted it, because I entertainedthe same opinion when I made those remarks that I entertain now--thatcitizenship of the United States, in consequence of birth, does notmake a party a citizen of the State in which he is born unless theConstitution and laws of the State recognize him as a citizen. Now, what does this bill propose? All born within the United States are tobe considered citizens of the United States, and as such shall have inevery State all the rights that belong to any body else in the Stateas far as the particular subjects stated in the bill are concerned. Now, I did suppose, and I shall continue to suppose, it to be clear, unless I am met with the almost paramount authority of the Chairman ofthe Judiciary Committee, that citizenship, by way of birth, conferredon the party as far as he and the United States were concerned, is nota citizenship which entitles him to the privilege of citizenshipwithin the State where he is born; if it be true, and I submit that itis true beyond all doubt, that over the question of State citizenshipthe authority of the State Government is supreme. 

"Now, the honorable member is confounding the _status_ of a citizen ofthe United States and the _status_ of a citizen of the United Stateswho as such is a citizen of the State of his residence. Maintaining, as I do, that there is no authority to make any body a citizen of theUnited States so as to convert him thereby into a citizen of a State, there is no authority in the Constitution for this particular bill, which says that because he is a citizen of the United States he is tobe considered a citizen of any State in which he may be at any timewith reference to the rights conferred by this bill. "

Mr. Trumbull replied: "I desire simply to remark that the speech fromwhich I quoted, made by the Senator from Maryland, was made upon thisvery bill. It was in reference to this bill that he was speaking whenhe laid down the proposition that every person born in the UnitedStates since the abolition of slavery was a citizen of the UnitedStates, and if there was any doubt about it, it was proper for us todeclare them so, and not only proper, but our duty to do so; and tomake the matter specific, the honorable Senator voted for thisproposition, which I will now read, on the yeas and nays:

 "'All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color. '

"Upon the adoption of that proposition as an amendment, it not beingin the bill as originally introduced, the Senator from Maryland, withthirty others, voted in the affirmative. So we have his high authorityfor saying that all persons born in the United States, and not subjectto any foreign Power, are citizens of the United States, exactly as itappears in this bill. "

"Mr. Yates, of Illinois, remarked: "I remember very well that theSenator from Maryland offered an amendment to the Freedmen's BureauBill to this effect: to strike out the words 'without distinction ofcolor. ' The Freedmen's Bureau Bill applied legislation by Congress tothe freedmen in the States and to the condition of the freedmen in theStates. It was legislation that affected the freedmen in therebellious States. If I remember aright the Senator from Marylandmoved to strike out the words 'without distinction of color' in onesection of that bill, and for that motion he gave this reason:because, under the Constitution of the United States, as amended, abolishing slavery in all the States and Territories of the UnitedStates, the freedmen occupied precisely the same position with anyother citizen of the United States in any State or Territory. Iunderstood him as taking the broad position, which I have maintained, and which Republican Senators have maintained, and which I think thecountry maintains, that under the Constitution, as amended, thefreedman occupies precisely the same position as any man born in anyState or Territory of the United States; and that was the object, if Iunderstood the Senator from Maryland, of his moving to amend theFreedmen's Bureau Bill by striking out the words 'without distinctionof color. '

"I recognize the authority of the decisions quoted by the Senator fromMaryland before the adoption of the amendment to the Constitution. TheStates had the power over the question of slavery in the States beforethe amendment to the Constitution; but by the amendment to theConstitution, in which the States have concurred, the freedman becomesa free man, entitled to the same rights and privileges as any othercitizen of the United States. "

Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, spoke in favor of the veto, premising thathis words, "if they are not to convince any body in the Senate, may goto the country and be reflected on there. " Mr. Cowan said he was quitewilling that all the people of this country should enjoy the rightsconferred upon them by this bill. But, supposing the bill had all themerit in the world, it would not be effective to attain the ends hopedfor by its friends; and apart from that, its provisions wereexceedingly dangerous. It gave married women and minors the right tomake and enforce contracts. The grammatical structure of a portion ofthe bill was such as to enable a corrupt, passionate, or prejudicedjudge to take advantage of it in order to widen the jurisdiction ofthe United States courts, and drag into them all the business whichhad heretofore occupied the State courts. This would be enough in thisnineteenth century to make a man tremble for the fate ofconstitutional government. "If, " said Mr. Cowan, "we had undoubtedauthority to pass this bill, under the circumstances I would not votefor it, on account of its objectionable phraseology, its dubiouslanguage, and the mischief which might attend upon a large and liberalconstruction of it in the District and Circuit Courts of the UnitedStates. " The trouble and expense of obtaining justice in the UnitedStates courts, but one, or at most two existing in any of the SouthernStates, would debar the African from applying to them for redress. "Your remedy, " said the Senator, "is delusive; your remedy is noremedy at all; and to hold it up to the world as a remedy is a grossfraud, however pious it may be. It is no remedy to the poor debtorthat you prosecute his judge, and threaten him with fine andimprisonment. It is no remedy to the poor man with a small claim thatyou locate a court one or two hundred miles away from him which is soexpensive in its administration of justice that he can not enterthere. 

[Illustration: WM. M. Stewart, Senator from Nevada. ]

"There is another provision of the bill, which, notwithstanding theact of Congress relied upon by the honorable Senator from Illinois, Ithink is unquestionably anomalous, and to me not only anomalous, butatrocious; and that is, the substitution of an indictment for the writof error. What has been the law of these United States heretofore?When an act of Congress came in contact with a State law, and thejudge of a State court decided that the law of Congress wasunconstitutional, there was an appeal given to the debated party tothe Supreme Court of the United States in order to determine theconstitutionality of the law. But, sir, who, until the last fewmonths, ever heard of making the judge a criminal because he decidedagainst the constitutionality of a law of the United States? One wouldthink we were being transported back to the dark ages of the worldwhen a man is to be accused and perhaps convicted of a crime who hasdone nothing more than honestly and conscientiously discharged hisduty. I know that the persons of embassadors are sacred, and I knowthat it is a very high offense against the law of nations, which nocivil judge of any court could justify, to invade this sacred right ofthe embassador, but every body knows that that is an exceptional case. Every body knows that in all times and at all ages the judge waspunishable who did not respect the person of an embassador. But thatis not this case. That analogy will not help the third section of thisbill. It is openly avowed upon the floor of the Senate of the UnitedStates, in the year of our Lord 1866, in the full blaze and light ofthe nineteenth century, that the indictment is to be a substitute forthe writ of error, and it is justified because a judge ought to beindicted who violates the sacred person of an embassador! What potencythere must be in the recent amendment of the Constitution which hasfoisted the negro and set him upon the same platform as the envoyextraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Great Britain or of allthe Russias to the United States of America, and made him as sacred asan embassador, and the judge who decides against him is to be punishedas a criminal!"

Mr. Stewart showed that States might easily avoid all the annoyingoperations of this bill which were feared by its opponents: "When Ireflect how very easy it is for the States to avoid the operation ofthis bill, how very little they have to do to avoid the operation ofthe bill entirely, I think that it is robbed of its coercive features, and I think no one has any reason to complain because Congress hasexercised a power, which it must be conceded it has, when it hasexercised it in a manner which leaves it so easy for the States toavoid the operation of this bill. If passed to-day, it has nooperation in the State of Georgia; it is impossible to commit a crimeunder this bill in the State of Georgia; and the other States canplace themselves in the same position so easily that I do not believethey ought to complain. "

He then read the second section of an act passed in Georgia, preciselysimilar to the first section of the Civil Eights Bill. Nothing couldbe done in Georgia under "color of law, " which would subject officersto the penalties provided by the Civil Rights Bill. "It being soeasily avoided by being complied with, by doing a simple act ofjustice, by carrying out the spirit of the constitutional amendment, Ican not give my consent to defeat a bill the purpose of which is good, the operation of which is so innocent, and may be so easily avoided. "

The Republican Senators were desirous of bringing the bill to a finalvote on this evening, but on account of the illness of Senator Wright, of New Jersey, it was proposed by Democratic members to appoint somehour on the following day when the vote should be taken in order thatthey might have a full vote. 

Mr. Wade, of Ohio, said: "If this was a question in the ordinarycourse of legislation, I certainly would not object to the propositionwhich the gentlemen on the other side make; but I view it as one ofthe greatest and most fundamental questions that has ever come beforethis body for settlement, and I look upon it as having bearingsaltogether beyond the question on this bill. The bill is, undoubtedly, a very good one. There is no constitutional objection to it; there hasbeen no objection to it raised that creates a doubt in the mind of anymortal man; but, nevertheless, we are at issue with the President ofthe United States upon a question peculiarly our own. The President ofthe United States has no more power under the Constitution tointerpose his authority here, to prescribe the principle upon whichthese States should be admitted to this Union, than any man of thisbody has out of it. The Constitution makes him the executive of thelaws that we make, and there it leaves him; and what is our condition?We who are to judge of the forms of government under which Statesshall exist; we, who are the only power that is charged with thisgreat question, are to be somehow or other wheedled out of it by thePresident by reason of the authority that he sets up. 

"Sir, we can not abandon it unless we yield to a principle that willunhinge and unsettle the balances of the Constitution itself. If thePresident of the United States can interpose his authority upon aquestion of this character, and can compel Congress to succumb to hisdictation, he is an emperor, a despot, and not a President of theUnited States. Because I believe the great question of congressionalpower and authority is at stake here, I yield to no importunities ofthe other side. I feel myself justified in taking every advantagewhich the Almighty has put into my hands to defend the power andauthority of this body, of which I claim to be a part. I will notyield to these appeals of comity on a question like this; but I willtell the President and every body else that, if God Almighty hasstricken one member so that he can not be here to uphold the dictationof a despot, I thank him for his interposition, and I will takeadvantage of it if I can. "

Mr. McDougall, of California, replied to Mr. Wade. This waywardSenator from California has wide notoriety from his unhappy habits ofintemperance. He has been described by a writer unfriendly to hispolitics as "the most brilliant man in the Senate; a man sowonderfully rich, that though he seeks to beggar himself in talentsand opportunities, he has left a patrimony large enough to outdazzlemost of his colleagues. " He frequently would enter the Senate-chamberin a condition of apparent stupor, unable to walk straight; and afterlistening a few moments to what was going on, has arisen and spokenupon the pending question in words of great beauty and force. 

On this occasion Mr. McDougall is described as having been in a worsecondition than usual. His words were muttered rather than spoken, sothat only those immediately about him could hear; and yet his remarkswere termed by one of his auditors as "one of the neatest littlespeeches ever heard in the Senate. " His remarks were as follows: "TheSenator from Ohio is in the habit of appealing to his God invindication of his judgment and conduct; it is a common thing for himto do so; but in view of the present demonstration, it may well beasked who and what is his God. In the old Persian mythology there wasan Ormudz and an Ahriman--a god of light and beauty, and a god ofdarkness and death. The god of light sent the sun to shine, and gentleshowers to fructify the fields; the god of darkness sent the tornado, and the tempest, and the thunder, scathing with pestilence thenations. And in old Chaldean times men came to worship Ahriman, thegod of darkness, the god of pestilence and famine; and his priestsbecame multitudinous; they swarmed the land; and when men prayed thentheir offerings were, 'We will not sow a field of grain, we will notdig a well, we will not plant a tree. ' These were the offerings to thedark spirit of evil, until a prophet came who redeemed that ancientland; but he did it after crucifixion, like our great Master. 

"The followers of Ahriman always appealed to the same spiritmanifested by the Senator from Ohio. Death is to be one of his angelsnow to redeem the Constitution and the laws, and to establish liberty. Sickness, suffering, evil, are to be his angels; and he thanks theAlmighty, his Almighty, that sickness, danger, and evil are about! Itmay be a good god for him in this world; but if there is any truth inwhat we learn about the orders of religion in this Christian world, his faith will not help him when he shall ascend up and ask entranceat the crystal doors. If there can be evil expressed in high placesthat communicates evil thoughts, that communicates evil teachings, that demoralizes the youth, who receive impressions as does the wax, it is by such lessons as the Senator from Ohio now teaches by word ofmouth as Senator in this Senate hall. 

"Sir, the President of the United States is a constitutional officer, clothed with high power, and clothed with the very power which he hasexercised in this instance; and those who conferred upon him thesepowers were men such as Madison, and Jay, and Hamilton, and Morris, and Washington, and a host of worthies; men who, I think, knew as muchabout the laws of government, and how they should be rightly balanced, as any of the wisest who now sit here in council. It is the duty ofthe President of the United States to stand as defender of theConstitution in his place as the conservator of the rights of thepeople, as tribune of the people, as it was in old Rome when thepeople did choose their tribunes to go into the senate-chamber amongthe aristocracy of Rome, and when they passed laws injurious to theRoman people, to stand and say, 'I forbid it. '

"That is the veto power, incorporated wisely by our fathers in theConstitution, conferred upon the President of the United States, andto be treated with consideration; and no appeal of the Senator to hisGod can change the Constitution or the rights of the President of theUnited States, or can prevent a just consideration of the dignity ofthis Senate body by persons who have just consideration, who feel thatthey are Senators. 

"It is a strange thing, an exceedingly strange thing, that when a fewSenators in the city of Washington, ill at their houses, giveassurance that they can be here to act upon a great public question onthe day following this, we should hear a piece of declamation, theSenator appealing to his God, and saying, with an _Io triumphe_ air, 'Well or ill, God has made them ill. ' Sir, the god of desolation, thegod of darkness, the god of evil is his god. I never expected to hearsuch objections raised among honorable men; and men to be Senatorsshould be honorable men. I never expected to hear such things in thishall; and I rose simply to say that such sentiments were to becondemned, and must receive my condemnation, now and here; and if itamounts to a rebuke, I trust it may be a rebuke. "

The Senate adjourned, with the understanding that the vote should betaken on the following day. In the morning hour on that day, as theStates were called for the purpose of giving Senators an opportunityof introducing petitions or resolutions, Mr. Lane, of Kansas, presented a joint resolution providing for admitting Senators andRepresentatives from the States lately in insurrection. This bill, emanating from a Republican Senator, who professed to have framed itas an embodiment of the President's policy, was evidently designed tohave an influence upon the action of the Senate upon the Civil RightsBill. It proposed that Senators and Representatives from the laterebellious States should be admitted into Congress whenever it shouldappear that they had annulled their ordinances of secession, ratifiedthe constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, repudiated all rebeldebts, recognized the debts of the United States, and extended theelective franchise to all male persons of color residing in the State, over twenty-one years of age, who can read and write, and who own realestate valued at not less than two hundred and fifty dollars. 

As a reason for introducing this measure, Mr. Lane, of Kansas, remarked: "I have been laboring for months to harmonize the Presidentof the United States with the majority on the floor of Congress. Ithought yesterday that there was a hope of securing such a result. Itdid seem that some of the members of this body were disposed toharmonize with the President. I proposed to go very far yesterday tosecure that harmony. But while pursuing this course, we were awakenedby one of the most vindictive assaults ever made upon any official, byeither friend or opponent, from the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade]--anassault upon my personal friend, a man who for two years sat side byside with me here, whom I learned to respect and admire for his pluck, his ability, and integrity, and to love for his manly virtues; a manwhom I originally selected as the candidate of the Republican partyfor the second office within the gift of that party; a man whom Iurged on the Republican convention at Baltimore as their candidate; aman whose election I did my utmost to secure against the efforts ofthe Senator from Ohio. In the most critical moment of that politicalcampaign, an assault was made on our presidential candidate in thesame spirit evinced by him yesterday in his attack upon the President. I defended the candidate of the Republican party against that assault, and I defend the President of the Republican party against the assaultof yesterday. 

"'A despot!' 'A dictator!' In what? In seeking to reconstruct therebellious States in violation of the wishes of the Congress of theUnited States? When Mr. Johnson took his seat in the presidentialchair, I ask you, sir, what had Congress done? The people of theUnited States had done this: Mr. Lincoln had marked out the policy ofreconstruction, since adopted by Mr. Johnson, and the people of theUnited States, the party to which the Senator from Ohio and myselfbelong, indorsed by triumphant majorities that very reconstructionpolicy. A despot for proposing, in violation of the wishes of theCongress of the United States, to reconstruct the insurrectionaryStates upon the theory expressed in that joint resolution annullingthe ordinances of secession, ratifying the amendment to theConstitution abolishing slavery, repudiating the Confederate debt, indorsing the national debt, and extending suffrage to all colored menwho can read the Constitution of the United States and sign theirnames, and to all colored men owning and paying taxes upon $250 worthof property!

"Mr. President, I am not as conversant with the constituency of theSenator from Ohio as he is, but I venture the assertion that outsideof New England there is not a single Northern State in this Union butwill by a majority vote to indorse the policy of reconstructionadvised by President Johnson and expressed in that joint resolution. You can not carry before the people of this country suffrage to theunqualified black man. You can not find a State in this Union outsideof New England, in my judgment, that will indorse that policy. Restrict it to a qualification clause, as the President of the UnitedStates recommends, and you can carry the Republican Union partyevery-where, and with unanimity. 

"The President of the United States 'a despot' for exercising aconstitutional right in vetoing a bill passed by Congress! Mr. President, had the Senator from Ohio occupied the position which isoccupied by President Johnson, in my judgment, he would have vetoedthe Civil Rights Bill. 'A despot!' What is the exercise of the vetopower? It amounts merely to a vote to reconsider, with the lightsgiven in his reasons for the veto. When before has the exercise of aconstitutional right justified a political friend of the President ofthe United States in denouncing that President as a despot and adictator? He has been and is now, in my judgment, as anxious toharmonize the difficulties in the Union party as any Senator upon thisfloor. If he was met in the same spirit, that party would be reunitedand this Union would be restored. His advances are met by insult; hisadvances are met by denunciation from the leader of the Republicanparty upon this floor in language without a parallel. Mr. President, so far as I am concerned, I propose to-day and hereafter to take myposition alongside the President of the Republican party, and standthere unflinchingly so long as he remains faithful to the principlesof that party, defending him against the Senator from Ohio as Idefended his predecessor against the same Senator. "

Mr. Lane then expressed his desire that his proposition should lieupon the table and be printed. An order having been entered to thateffect, Mr. Wade addressed the Senate. He remarked: "It is said I madean attack on the President of the United States. As a Senator uponthis floor, I care no more about the opinions of the President of theUnited States than I do about those of any respectable Senator uponthis floor, or any Senator on this floor. Who is your President, thatevery man must bow to his opinion? Why, sir, we all know him; he is nostranger to this body. We have measured him; we know his height, hisdepth, his length, his breadth, his capacity, and all about him. Doyou set him up as a paragon and declare here on the floor of thisSenate that you are going to make us all bow down before him? Is thatthe idea? You [to Mr. Lane, of Kansas, ] are going to be his apologistand defender in whatever he may propose to do! Is that theunderstanding of the Senator from Kansas?

"I do not believe that his constituents will be quite satisfied withso broad a declaration, that he is to wear any man's collar, andfollow him wherever he may go. Did I use harsh language toward thePresident yesterday? All that I said I stand by to-day and forever. What was the question upon which I made those observations, and whathas been the opinion of the President heretofore? what has been hisaction since? Here are three million people, our friends, friends tothe Government, who generously came forward in its difficulty, andhelped us throughout the war, sacrificed their blood and their livesto maintain the issue on our side, and who were faithful beyond allmen that were ever faithful before, to us during the whole of thedifficulty, every-where assisting our brave soldiers in the field, laying down their lives to maintain our principles, and ministering inevery way to the misfortunes of our brave men whenever they fell intothe hands of those worse than savages with whom we were warring; andnow these men are laboring, are under one of the most frightfuldespotisms that ever settled down upon the heads of mankind. Threemillion people are exposed to the outrages, the insolence, the murderof those worse than savages, their former masters, murdered as we hearevery day, oppressed every-where, their rights taken away, theirmanhood trampled under foot; and Congress, under the Constitution ofthe United States, endeavors to extend to them some little protection, and how are we met here? Every attempt of your Moses has been totrample them down worse, and to throw every obstruction in the way ofany relief that could be proposed by Congress. He has from allappearances become their inveterate and relentless foe, making violentwar upon any member of Congress who dares raise his voice or give hisvote in favor of any measure having for its object the amelioration ofthe condition of these poor people. Talk to me about the Presidentbeing their friend! When did it ever happen before that a greatmeasure of relief to suffering humanity on as broad a scale as thiswas met by the stern veto of the President of the United States, andwithout being able when he undertakes to make his obstruction to ourmeasures to designate a single clause of the Constitution that hepretends has been violated. 

"Yesterday what was the issue? I was charged with great cruelty onthis floor, because I was unwilling to wait for recruits to be broughtin here for the purpose of overthrowing the ground we had taken uponthis important question whether these poor people shall have relief ornot. Now, I wish to say that I am willing to extend courtesy to ourold associates on this floor under other circumstances; but when youextend this kind of courtesy to them, the result is death anddestruction to three million people, trampled under the feet of theirformer masters. My courtesy is extended to those poor men, and I wouldnot wait a moment that their enemies may be brought in here in orderto prevent our doing any thing for their relief, joining with thePresident, who is determined, if we may judge by his acts, that nomeasure having for its object any relief shall be extended to them. 

"Did you hear the fact stated here the other day, that bills weredrawn with a view to escape the anathemas of your President, and wereexhibited to him, and he asked 'if he had any objection to them tolook them over well, because if we can, consistent with the objectaimed at, make them clear of any objection you may have, we will doit?'

"I said, sir, that he seemed to have meditated a controversy withCongress from the beginning, and he has. He has treated our majoritiesas hostile to the people; two thirds of both branches of Congress havebeen treated by him as mere factionists, disunionists, enemies to thecountry, bent upon its destruction, bargaining with the enemy todestroy the Government. This is the way the President has treatedCongress, and every bill they have passed, which promised any reliefto the men whom we are bound to protect, has been trampled under theExecutive heel; and even when members of this body did what I say theyought not to have done--for I do not approve of my brother Trumbull'sgoing up to the President, when he has a measure pending here as aSenator, to ask the President, in the first place, whether he willapprove of it or not; even when he was asked if he objected to thismeasure, and made no objection, he still undertakes to veto it. 

"If Congress should recede from the position they have taken to claimjurisdiction over this great question of reädmitting these States, from that hour they surrender all the power that the Constitutionplaces in their hands and that they were sworn to support, and theyare the mere slaves of an accidental Executive; of a man who formerlyassociated with us upon this floor; who was no more infallible thanthe rest of us poor mortals; and yet the moment, by death or accident, he is placed in the executive chair, it would seem as if some Senatorsbelieved him to be endowed with superhuman wisdom, and ought to beinvested with all the powers of this Government; that Congress oughtto get on their knees before him, and take his insults and hisdictation without resentment and without even an attempt to resist. Some States may send such instrumentalities here, but God knows somewill not; and I pity those that do, for they would hold their freedomon a very uncertain tenure. 

"Some gentlemen may be patient under the charge of treason, perhapsthe more so because treason is becoming popular in this day; but, sir, I am a little too old-fashioned to be charged by the executive branchof this Government as a traitor on the floor of Congress, and notresent it. I do not care whether he be King or President thatinsinuates that I am a disunionist or traitor, standing upon the sameinfamous platform with the traitors of the South; I will not take itfrom any mortal man, high or low, without repelling the charge. If anyman here is tame enough to do it, he is too tame to be the Senator ofa proud-spirited people, conscious of their own freedom. I claim to betheir representative, and they will censure me if they do not like mydoctrine. 

"And now, Mr. President, I wish to make an appeal to those great, patriotic statesmen on this floor, who, by their love of principle, bytheir unswerving honesty, unseduced by the blandishments of executivepower, unawed by threats of violence, stand here to defend the rightsof the people upon this floor, and will stand here forever. I say toyou Senators, we, the majority who are stigmatized as traitors, arethe only barrier to-day between this nation and anarchy and despotism. If we give way, the hope of this nation is lost by the recreancy--yea, sir, I will say the treachery--of a man who betrayed our confidence, got into power, and has gone into the camp of the enemy, and joinedthose who never breathed a breath of principle in common with us. "

Mr. Lane replied: "I stated that the party to which I belong nominatedthe present President of the United States and elected him, and thatas long as he fought within our lines and remained in our party, Iwould endeavor to defend him upon this floor against all unjustassaults. After making that statement, the Senator from Ohio, forgetting the position he occupies, has suggested that I have takenupon myself the collar of the President of the United States. I hurlthe suggestion in the teeth of the Senator from Ohio as unworthy aSenator. I wear a collar! The pro-slavery party of the United States, backed by a Democratic Administration, sustained and supported by thearmy of the United States, could not fasten a collar upon the handfulof Kansas squatters of whom I had the honor to be the leader. Thegallant fight made in this Senate-chamber by the Senator from Ohio, aided by the Senators from Massachusetts and other Senators, wouldhave been of but little avail had it not been for that other fightthat was made upon the prairies of Kansas under the lead of yourhumble speaker. I wear a collar! Indicted for treason by a pro-slaverygrand jury, hunted from State to State by a writ founded upon thatindictment for treason, and $100, 000 offered for my head! Jim Lanewear a collar! Wherever he is known, that charge will be denounced asfalse by both friends and enemies. "

Mr. Brown, of Missouri, made a short speech, in which he set forth theposition of Mr. Lane, of Kansas, on questions previously before theSenate, showing their inconsistency with some of his recent remarks. 

Mr. Doolittle next delivered a speech, in the course of which hecalled attention to a bill which he had drawn "to provide appropriatelegislation to enforce article thirteen of the Amendments to theConstitution, abolishing slavery in the United States. " His object inpresenting this bill was to "avoid the objections raised by men notonly in this body, but in the other house, and the objections raisedby the President of the United States, to the bill now pending. "

He endeavored to explain his position and changes of opinion upon theCivil Rights: "While this measure was upon its passage, I took no partin its discussion except upon a single point in relation to the Indiantribes. The bill passed, and the final vote was taken when I was notpresent in the Senate; but it was not under such circumstances that, had I been here, I should not have voted for the bill. I have no doubtthat if I had been present I should have voted for it. My attentionwas not drawn very earnestly to the consideration of all theprovisions of this bill until the bill had passed from Senate and hadgone to the House of Representatives, when the speeches of Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, and of Mr. Delano, of Ohio, both able anddistinguished lawyers of that State, arrested my attention and calledme very carefully to the consideration of the great questions whichare involved in the bill. The bill was passed by the House ofRepresentatives; it went to the President. From the fact that it wasnot signed and returned to this body at once, and from all I heard, Ibecame satisfied that, at least, if the bill was not to be returnedwith objections, it was being withheld for most earnest and seriousconsideration by the Executive. 

"Then, Mr. President, it was, in view of all that had occurred, whathad been said by gentlemen in whom I had the utmost--I may sayunbounded--confidence, that I began to look into this measure and tostudy it for myself. It is not my purpose now to go into a discussionof the provisions of this bill any further than to say that there areprovisions in it upon which the judgments of the best patriots, thebest jurists, the most earnest men disagree. There are men, in whom Ihave entire confidence, who maintain that all its provisions arewithin the purview of the Constitution; there are others in whom Ihave confidence, and equal confidence, who maintain directly thecontrary; and this has brought me seriously to consider whether therebe no common ground upon which friends can stand and stand together. Sir, I may have failed to find it; but if I have, it is not because Ihave not most earnestly sought for it with some days of study and mostearnest reflection. I have endeavored to put upon paper what I believewould carry this constitutional provision into effect and yet would bea common ground on which we could unite without violating theconscientious convictions of any. "

In concluding his remarks, Mr. Doolittle referred to instructionsreceived by him from the Legislature of Wisconsin: "Mr. President, Ihave received, in connection with my colleague, a telegraphic dispatchfrom the Governor of the State of Wisconsin, which I have no doubt iscorrect, although I have not seen the resolution which is said to havebeen passed by the Legislature, in which it is stated that theLegislature has passed a resolution instructing the Senators inCongress from Wisconsin to vote for the passage of the Senate billcommonly known as the Civil Rights Bill, the veto of the President tothe contrary notwithstanding. I have already stated, from mystand-point, the reasons why, in my judgment, I can not do it; I havestated them freely and frankly, and, as a matter of course, I expectto abide the consequences. I know that it has sometimes been said tome, by those, too, in whom I would have confidence, that for me, undercircumstances like these, not to follow the instructions of theLegislature of my State, would be to terminate my political life. Sir, be it so. I never held or aspired to any other office politically thanthe one I now hold; and God knows, if I know my own heart, if I cansee this Union restored after this gigantic war which has put down therebellion, and to which I have lent my support, I shall be satisfied. I do not desire to remain in political life beyond that hour. There isnothing in that which will have the slightest influence whatever uponme. The duty which I owe to myself, the duty which I owe to thecountry, the duty which I owe to the union of these States, and thepreservation of the rights of the States, and the duty which I owe tothe great Republican party, which I would still desire to save, prompts me to pursue the course which I now do. "

Mr. Garrett Davis, of Kentucky, addressed the Senate in a long speech, of which the following is the closing paragraph: "Public justice isoften slow, but generally sure. Think you that the people will look onwith folded arms and stolid indifference and see you subvert theirConstitution and liberties, and on their ruins erect a grindingdespotism. No; erelong they will rise up with earthquake force andfling you from power and place. I commend to your serious meditationthese words: 'Go tell Sylla that you saw Caius Marius sitting upon theruins of Carthage!'"

Mr. Saulsbury thought a revolution would result from the passage ofthis bill: "In my judgment the passage of this bill is theinauguration of revolution--bloodless, as yet, but the attempt toexecute it by the machinery and in the mode provided in the bill willlead to revolution in blood. It is well that the American peopleshould take warning in time and set their house in order, but it isutterly impossible that the people of this country will patientlyentertain and submit to this great wrong. I do not say this because Iwant a revolution; Heaven knows we have had enough of bloodshed; wehave had enough of strife; there has been enough of mourning in everyhousehold; there are too many new-made graves on which the grass hasnot yet grown for any one to wish to see the renewal of strife; but, sir, attempt to execute this act within the limits of the States ofthis Union, and, in my judgment, this country will again be plungedinto all the horrors of civil war. "

Mr. McDougall said: "I agree with the Senator from Delaware that thismeasure is revolutionary in its character. The majority glory in theirgiant power, but they ought to understand that it is tyrannous toexercise that power like a giant. A revolution now is moving onward;it has its center in the North-east. A spirit has been radiating outfrom there for years past as revolutionary as the spirit that went outfrom Charleston, South Carolina, and perhaps its consequences will beequally fatal, for when that revolutionary struggle comes it will notbe a war between the North and its power and the slaveholdingpopulation of the South; it will be among the North men themselves, they who have lived under the shadows of great oaks, and seen the tallpine-trees bend. "

At the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from California, thevote was taken, with the following result;

 YEAS--Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Edmunds, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates--33. 

 NAYS--Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Nesmith, Norton, Riddle, Saulsbury, Van Winkle, and Wright--15. 

 ABSENT--Mr. Dixon. 

The President _pro tempore_ then made formal announcement of theresult: "The yeas being 33 and the nays 15, the bill has passed theSenate by the requisite constitutional majority, notwithstanding theobjection of the President to the contrary. "

On the 9th of April, 1866, three days after the passage of the bill inthe Senate, the House of Representatives proceeded to itsconsideration. The bill and the President's Veto Message having beenread, Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, demanded the previous question on thepassage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrarynotwithstanding, and gave his reasons for so doing: "Mr. Speaker, thedebate which occurred on this bill occupied two weeks of the time ofthis House. Some forty speeches were made, and the debate was notbrought to a close until all had been heard who expressed a desire tospeak upon the bill. At the close of that debate, the bill was passedby more than two-thirds of this House. It has been returned to us withthe objections of the President to its becoming a law. I do notpropose to reöpen the discussion of this measure; I am disposed toleave the close of this debate to the President by the message whichhas just been read. I ask the friends of this great measure to answerthe argument and statements of that message by their votes. "

The vote was finally taken on the question, "Shall this bill pass, notwithstanding the objections of the President?" The following is therecord of the vote:

 YEAS--Messrs. Alley, Allison, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Boutwell, Brandegee, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Colfax, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Eckley, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Hill, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, Marvin, McClurg, McIndoe, McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Spalding, Starr, Stevens, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge--122. 

 NAYS--Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Boyer, Coffroth, Dawson, Dennison, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Aaron Harding, Harris, Hogan, Edwin N. Hubbell, James M. Humphrey, Latham, Le Blond, Marshall, McCullough, Niblack, Nicholson, Noell, Phelps, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Raymond, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Rosseau, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Smith, Strouse, Taber, Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Whaley, Winfield, and Wright--41. 

 NOT VOTING--Messrs. Ames, Anderson, Bingham, Blaine, Blow, Chanler, Culver, Driggs, Dumont, Goodyear, Grider, Demas Hubbard, Johnson, Jones, Julian, Kerr, Kuykendall, Sloan, Stilwell, Warner, and Williams--21. 

The Speaker then made the following announcement: "The yeas are 122, and the nays 41. Two-thirds of the House having, upon thisreconsideration, agreed to the passage of the bill, and it beingcertified officially that a similar majority of the Senate, in whichthe bill originated, also agreed to its passage, I do, therefore, bythe authority of the Constitution of the United States, declare thatthis bill, entitled 'An act to protect all persons in the UnitedStates in their civil rights, and furnish the means of theirvindication, ' has become a law. "

This announcement was followed by prolonged applause on the floor ofthe House and among the throng of spectators in the galleries. 

The following is the form in which the great measure so long pendingbecame a law of the land:

 "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right in every State and Territory in the United States to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. 

 "SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured or protected by this act, or to different punishment, pains, or penalties on account of such person having at any time been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, or by reason of his color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1, 000, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court. 

 "SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That the district courts of the United States, within their respective districts, shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offenses committed against the provisions of this act, and also, concurrently with the circuit courts of the United States, of all causes, civil and criminal, affecting persons who are denied or can not enforce in the courts or judicial tribunals of the State or locality where they may be, any of the rights secured to them by the first section of this act; and if any suit or prosecution, civil or criminal, has been or shall be commenced in any State court against any such person, for any cause whatsoever, or against any officer, civil or military, or other person, for any arrest or imprisonment, trespasses or wrongs, done or committed by virtue or under color of authority derived from this act or the act establishing a Bureau for the Relief of Freedmen and Refugees, and all acts amendatory thereof, or for refusing to do any act upon the ground that it would be inconsistent with this act, such defendant shall have the right to remove such cause for trial to the proper district or circuit court in the manner prescribed by the 'Act relating to _habeas corpus_ and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases, ' approved March 3, 1863, and all acts amendatory thereof. The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters hereby conferred on the district and circuit courts of the United States shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where such laws are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the States wherein the court having jurisdiction of the cause, civil or criminal, is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern said courts in the trial and disposition of such cause, and, if of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty. 

 "SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That the district attorneys, marshals, and deputy-marshals of the United States, the commissioners appointed by the circuit and territorial courts of the United States, with powers of arresting, imprisoning, or bailing offenders against the laws of the United States, the officers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau, and every other officer who may be specially empowered by the President of the United States, shall be, and they are hereby, specially authorized and required, at the expense of the United States, to institute proceedings against all and every person who shall violate the provisions of this act, and cause him or them to be arrested and imprisoned, or bailed, as the case may be, for trial before such court of the United States, or territorial court, as by this act has cognizance of the offense. And with a view to affording reasonable protection to all persons in their constitutional rights of equality before the law, without distinction of race or color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, and to the prompt discharge of the duties of this act, it shall be the duty of the circuit courts of the United States and the superior courts of the Territories of the United States, from time to time, to increase the number of commissioners, so as to afford a speedy and convenient means for the arrest and examination of persons charged with a violation of this act. And such commissioners are hereby authorized and required to exercise and discharge all the powers and duties conferred on them by this act, and the same duties with regard to offenses created by this act, as they are authorized by law to exercise with regard to other offenses against the laws of the United States. 

 "SEC. 5. _And be it further enacted_, That it shall be the duty of all marshals and deputy-marshals to obey and execute all warrants and precepts issued under the provisions of this act, when to them directed; and should any marshal or deputy-marshal refuse to receive such warrant or other process when tendered, or to use all proper means diligently to execute the same, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in the sum of $1, 000, to the use of the person upon whom the accused is alleged to have committed the offense. And the better to enable the said commissioners to execute their duties faithfully and efficiently, in conformity with the Constitution of the United States and the requirements of this act, they are hereby authorized and empowered, within their counties respectively, to appoint, in writing, under their hands, any one or more suitable persons, from time to time, to execute all such warrants and other process as may be issued by them in the lawful performance of their respective duties; and the persons so appointed to execute any warrant or process as aforesaid, shall have authority to summon and call to their aid the bystanders or the _posse comitatus_ of the proper county, or such portion of the land and naval forces of the United States, or the militia, as may be necessary to the performance of the duty with which they are charged, and to insure a faithful observance of the clause of the Constitution which prohibits slavery, in conformity with the provisions of this act; and said warrants shall run and be executed by said officers anywhere in the State or Territory within which they are issued. 

 "SEC. 6. _And be it further enacted_, That any person who shall knowingly and willfully obstruct, hinder, or prevent any officer, or other person, charged with the execution of any warrant or process issued under the provisions of this act, or any person or persons lawfully assisting him or them, from arresting any person for whose apprehension such warrant or process may have been issued, or shall rescue or attempt to rescue such person from the custody of the officer, other person or persons, or those lawfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested pursuant to the authority herein given and declared, or who shall aid, abet, or assist any person so arrested as aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from the custody of the officer or other person legally authorized as aforesaid, or shall harbor or conceal any person for whose arrest a warrant or process shall have been issued as aforesaid, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall, for either of said offenses, be subject to a fine not exceeding $1, 000, and imprisonment not exceeding six months, by indictment and conviction before the district court of the United States for the district in which said offense may have been committed, or before the proper court of criminal jurisdiction, if committed within any one of the organized Territories of the United States. 

 "SEC. 7. _And be it further enacted_, That the district attorneys, the marshals, the deputies, and the clerks of the said district and territorial courts shall be paid for their services the like fees as may be allowed to them for similar services in other cases; and in all cases where the proceedings are before a commissioner, he shall be entitled to a fee of ten dollars in full for his services in each case, inclusive of all services incident to such arrest and examination. The person or persons authorized to execute the process to be issued by such commissioners for the arrest of offenders against the provisions of this act, shall be entitled to a fee of five dollars for each person he or they may arrest and take before any such commissioner as aforesaid, with such other fees as may be deemed reasonable by such commissioner for such other additional services as may be necessarily performed by him or them, such as attending at the examination, keeping the prisoner in custody, and providing him with food and lodging during his detention, and until the final determination of such commissioner, and in general for performing such other duties as may be required in the premises; such fees to be made up in conformity with the fees usually charged by the officers of the courts of justice within the proper district or county, as near as may be practicable, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States on the certificate of the judge of the district within which the arrest is made, and to be recoverable from the defendant as part of the judgment in case of conviction. 

 "SEC. 8. _And be it further enacted_, That whenever the President of the United States shall have reason to believe that offenses have been or are likely to be committed against the provisions of this act within any judicial district, it shall be lawful for him, in his discretion, to direct the judge, marshal, and district attorney of such district to attend at such place within the district, and for such time as he may designate, for the purpose of the more speedy arrest and trial of persons charged with a violation of this act; and it shall be the duty of every judge or other officer, when any such requisition shall be received by him, to attend at the place, and for the time therein designated. 

 "SEC. 9. _And be it further enacted_, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, or such person as he may empower for that purpose, to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as shall be necessary to prevent the violation and enforce the due execution of this act. 

 "SEC. 10. _And be it further enacted_, That upon all questions of law arising in any cause under the provisions of this act a final appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. "

CHAPTER XII. 

THE SECOND FREEDMEN'S BUREAU BILL BECOMES A LAW. 

 The Discovery of the Majority -- The Senate Bill -- The House Bill -- Its Provisions -- Passage of the Bill -- Amendment and Passage in the Senate -- Committee of Conference -- The Amendments as Accepted -- The Bill as Passed -- The Veto -- The Proposition of a Democrat Accepted -- Confusion in Leadership -- Passage of the Bill over the Veto -- It Becomes a Law. 

Congress having succeeded in placing the Civil Rights Bill in thestatute-book in spite of Executive opposition, was not disposed toallow other legislation which was regarded as important to go bydefault. The disposition of the President, now plainly apparent, tooppose all legislation which the party that had elevated him to officemight consider appropriate to the condition of the rebel States, themajority in Congress discovered that, if they would make progress inthe work before them, they must be content to do without Executiveapproval. The defection of the President from the principles of theparty which had elected him, so far from dividing and destroying thatparty, had rather given it consolidation and strength. After the vetoof the Civil Rights Bill, a very few members of the Senate and Houseof Representatives who had been elected as Republicans adhered to thePresident, but the most of those who had wavered stepped forward intothe ranks of the "Radicals, " as they were called, and a firm andinvincible "two-thirds" moved forward to consummate legislation whichthey deemed essential to the interests of the nation. 

So fully convinced were the majority that some effective legislationfor the freedmen should be consummated, that two days after the finalvote in which the former bill failed to pass over the veto, SenatorWilson introduced a bill "to continue in force the Bureau for therelief of Freedmen and Refugees, " which was read twice and referred tothe Committee on Military Affairs. 

The bill, however, which subsequently became a law, originated in theHouse of Representatives. In that branch of Congress was a SpecialCommittee on the Freedmen, who were able to give more immediate andcontinuous attention to that class of people than could committeessuch as those of the Judiciary and Military Affairs, having many othersubjects to consider. 

The Committee on the Freedmen, having given much time and attention tothe perfection of a measure to meet the necessities of the case, onthe 22d of May reported through their chairman, Mr. Eliot, "A bill tocontinue in force and amend an act entitled 'an act to establish aBureau for the relief of Freedmen and Refugees, and for otherpurposes. '"

This bill provided for keeping in force the Freedmen's Bureau then inexistence for two years longer. Some of the features to which thePresident had objected in his veto of the former bill had beenmodified and in part removed. In providing for the education offreedmen, the commissioner was restricted to cooperating so far withthe charitable people of the country as to furnish rooms forschool-houses and protection to teachers. The freedmen's courts wereto be kept in existence till State legislation should conform itselfto the Civil Rights Bill, and the disturbed relations of the States tothe Union were restored. The President was required to reserve fromsale public lands, not exceeding in all one million of acres, inArkansas, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana, to be assignedin parcels of forty acres and less to loyal refugees and freedmen. 

One week after the introduction of the bill, its consideration wasresumed. The question was taken without debate, and the bill passed bya vote of ninety-six in favor and thirty-two against the measure. Fifty-five members failed to vote. 

On the day following, May 30th, the clerk of the House conveyed thebill to the Senate. It was there referred to the Committee on MilitaryAffairs, as that committee already had before them seven billsrelating to the same subject. Nearly a fortnight subsequently, thecommittee reported back to the Senate the House bill with certainamendments. The report of the committee, and the amendments proposedtherein, could not be considered in the Senate until the lapse ofanother fortnight. On the 26th of June, the amendments devised by thecommittee were read in the Senate and adopted. Mr. Davis made a numberof attempts to have the bill laid on the table or deferred to asubsequent day, but without success. Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Buckalewmade ineffectual attempts to amend the bill by proposing to strike outimportant sections. 

The Senate indulged in but little discussion of the bill or theamendments. The bill as amended finally passed the Senate by a vote oftwenty-six for and six against the measure. The bill then went to theHouse for the concurrence of that body in the amendments passed by theSenate. 

The Committee on the Freedmen made a report, which was adopted by theHouse, to non-concur in the amendments of the Senate. A Committee ofConference was appointed on the part of the Senate and the House. They, after consultation, made a report by which the Senateamendments, with some modifications, were adopted. 

Mr. Eliot, Chairman of the Committee on the Freedmen, and of theCommittee of Conference on the part of the House, at the request of amember, thus explained the amendments proposed by the Senate: "Thefirst amendment which the Senate made to the bill, as it was passed bythe House, was simply an enlargement of one of the sections of theHouse bill, which provided that the volunteer medical officers engagedin the medical department of the bureau might be continued, inasmuchas it was expected that the medical force of the regular army would bespeedily reduced to the minimum, and in that case all the regularofficers would be wanted in the service. It was therefore thoughtright that there should be some force connected with the Bureau ofRefugees and Freedmen. The Senate enlarged the provisions of the Housebill by providing that officers of the volunteer service now on dutymight be continued as assistant commissioners and other officers, andthat the Secretary of War might fill vacancies until other officerscould be detailed from the regular army. That is the substance of thefirst material amendment. 

"The next amendment strikes out a portion of one of the sections ofthe House bill, which related to the officers who serve as medicalofficers of the bureau, because it was provided for in the amendmentto which I have just referred. 

"The next amendment strikes out from the House bill the section whichset apart, reserved from sale, a million acres of land in the GulfStates. It may perhaps be recollected that when the bill was reportedfrom the committee, I stated that, in case the bill which the Househad then passed, and which was known as the Homestead Bill, and whichwas then before the Senate, should become a law, this section of thebill would not be wanted. The bill referred to has become a law, andthis section five, providing for that reservation, has, therefore, been stricken from the bill. 

"The next amendment made by the Senate was to strike out a section ofthe House bill which simply provided that upon application forrestoration by the former owners of the land assigned under GeneralSherman's field order, the application should not be complied with. That section is stricken out and another substituted for it, whichprovides that certain lands which are now owned by the United States, having been purchased by the United States under tax commissioners'sales, shall be assigned in lots of twenty acres to freedmen who havehad allotments under General Sherman's field order, at the price forwhich the lands were purchased by the United States; and not only thatthose freedmen should have such allotments, but that other freedmenwho had had lots assigned to them under General Sherman's field order, and who may have become dispossessed of their land, should haveassignments made to them of these lands belonging to the UnitedStates. I think the justice of that provision will strike every one. And it will be perhaps a merit in the eyes of many that it does notcall upon the Treasury for the expenditure of any money. In the billwhich was passed by the House, it will be recollected that there was aprovision under which there should be purchased by the commissioner ofthe bureau enough public lands to be substituted for the lands atfirst assigned to freedmen. Instead of that, provision is made bywhich they can have property belonging to the United States which hascome into its possession under tax sales, and where the titles havebeen made perfect by lapse of time. 

"The next amendment of the Senate provides that certain lands whichwere purchased by the United States at tax sales, and which are nowheld by the United States, should be sold at prices not less than tendollars an acre, and that the proceeds should be invested for thesupport of schools, without distinction of color or race, on theislands in the parishes of St. Helena and St. Luke. That is all theprovision which was made for education. 

"The only other material amendment made by the Senate gives to thecommissioner of the bureau power to take property of the lateConfederate States, held by them or in trust for them, and which isnow in charge of the commissioner of the bureau, to take that propertyand devote it to educational purposes. The amendment further providesthat when the bureau shall cease to by the Senate and House ofRepresentatives of the United States of America in exist, such of thelate so-called Confederate States as shall have made provision foreducation, without regard to color, should have the balance of moneyremaining on hand, to be divided among them in proportion to theirpopulation. "

The vote followed soon after the remarks of Mr. Eliot, and the bill, as amended, passed the House of Representatives. 

The following is the bill as it went to the President for hisapproval:

 "AN ACT to continue in force and to amend 'An Act to establish a Bureau for the relief of Freedmen and Refugees, ' and for other purposes. 

 "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the act to establish a bureau for the relief of freedmen and refugees, approved March third, eighteen hundred and sixty-five, shall continue in force for the term of two years from and after the passage of this act. 

 "SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That the supervision and care of said bureau shall extend to all loyal refugees and freedmen, so far as the same shall be necessary, to enable them, as speedily as practicable, to become self-supporting citizens of the United States, and to aid them in making the freedom conferred by proclamation of the commander-in-chief, by emancipation under the laws of States, and by constitutional amendment, available to them and beneficial to the republic. 

 "SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That the President shall, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint two assistant commissioners, in addition to those authorized by the act to which this is an amendment, who shall give like bonds and receive the same annual salaries provided in said act; and each of the assistant commissioners of the bureau shall have charge of one district containing such refugees or freedmen, to be assigned him by the commissioner, with the approval of the President. And the commissioner shall, under the direction of the President, and so far as the same shall be, in his judgment, necessary for the efficient and economical administration of the affairs of the bureau, appoint such agents, clerks, and assistants as may be required for the proper conduct of the bureau. Military officers or enlisted men may be detailed for service and assigned to duty under this act; and the President may, if, in his judgment, safe and judicious so to do, detail from the army all the officers and agents of this bureau; but no officer so assigned shall have increase of pay or allowances. Each agent or clerk, not heretofore authorized by law, not being a military officer, shall have an annual salary of not less than five hundred dollars, nor more than twelve hundred dollars, according to the service required of him. And it shall be the duty of the commissioner, when it can be done consistently with public interest, to appoint, as assistant commissioners, agents, and clerks, such men as have proved their loyalty by faithful service in the armies of the Union during the rebellion. And all persons appointed to service under this act, and the act to which this is an amendment, shall be so far deemed in the military service of the United States as to be under the military jurisdiction and entitled to the military protection of the Government while in discharge of the duties of their office. 

 "SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That officers of the Veteran Reserve Corps or of the volunteer service, now on duty in the Freedmen's Bureau as assistant commissioners, agents, medical officers, or in other capacities, whose regiments or corps have been or may hereafter be mustered out of service, may be retained upon such duty as officers of said bureau, with the same compensation as is now provided by law for their respective grades; and the Secretary of War shall have power to fill vacancies until other officers can be detailed in their places without detriment to the public service. 

 "SEC. 5. _And he it further enacted_, That the second section of the act to which this is an amendment shall be deemed to authorize the Secretary of War to issue such medical stores or other supplies, and transportation, and afford such medical or other aid as may be needful for the purposes named in said section: _Provided_, That no person shall be deemed 'destitute, ' 'suffering, ' or 'dependent upon the Government for support, ' within the meaning of this act, who is able to find employment, and could, by proper industry or exertion, avoid such destitution, suffering, or dependence. 

 "SEC. 6. Whereas, by the provisions of an act approved February sixth, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, entitled 'An act to amend an act entitled "An act for the collection of direct taxes in insurrectionary districts within the United States, and for other purposes, " approved June seventh, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, ' certain lands in the parishes of Saint Helena and Saint Luke, South Carolina, were bid in by the United States at public tax sales, and, by the limitation of said act, the time of redemption of said lands has expired; and whereas, in accordance with instructions issued by President Lincoln on the sixteenth day of September, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, to the United States direct tax commissioners for South Carolina, certain lands bid in by the United States in the parish of Saint Helena, in said State, were in part sold by the said tax commissioners to 'heads of families of the African race, ' in parcels of not more than twenty acres to each purchaser; and whereas, under the said instructions, the said tax commissioners did also set apart as 'school-farms' certain parcels of land in said parish, numbered in their plats from one to sixty-three inclusive, making an aggregate of six thousand acres, more or less: _Therefore, be it further enacted_, That the sales made to 'heads of families of the African race, ' under the instructions of President Lincoln to the United States direct tax commissioners for South Carolina, of date of September sixteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, are hereby confirmed and established; and all leases which have been made to such 'heads of families' by said direct tax commissioners shall be changed into certificates of sale in all cases wherein the lease provides for such substitution; and all the lands now remaining unsold, which come within the same designation, being eight thousand acres, more or less, shall be disposed of according to said instructions. 

 "SEC. 7. _And be it further enacted_, That all other lands bid in by the United States at tax sales, being thirty-eight thousand acres, more or less, and now in the hands of the said tax commissioners as the property of the United States, in the parishes of Saint Helena and Saint Luke, excepting the 'school-farms, ' as specified in the preceding section, and so much as may be necessary for military and naval purposes at Hilton Head, Bay Point, and Land's End, and excepting also the city of Port Royal, on Saint Helena island, and the town of Beaufort, shall be disposed of in parcels of twenty acres, at one dollar and fifty cents per acre, to such persons, and to such only, as have acquired and are now occupying lands under and agreeably to the provisions of General Sherman's special field order, dated at Savannah, Georgia, January sixteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-five; and the remaining lands, if any, shall be disposed of, in like manner, to such persons as had acquired lands agreeably to the said order of General Sherman, but who have been dispossessed by the restoration of the same to former owners: _Provided_, That the lands sold in compliance with the provisions of this and the preceding section shall not be alienated by their purchasers within six years from and after the passage of this act. 

 "SEC. 8. _And be it further enacted_, That the 'school-farms' in the parish of Saint Helena, South Carolina, shall be sold, subject to any leases of the same, by the said tax commissioners, at public auction, on or before the first day of January, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, at not less than ten dollars per acre; and the lots in the city of Port Royal, as laid down by the said tax commissioners, and the lots and houses in the town of Beaufort, which are still held in like manner, shall be sold at public auction; and the proceeds of said sales, after paying expenses of the surveys and sales, shall be invested in United States bonds, the interest of which shall be appropriated, under the direction of the commissioner, to the support of schools, without distinction of color or race, on the islands in the parishes of Saint Helena and Saint Luke. 

 "SEC. 9. _And be it further enacted_, That the assistant commissioners for South Carolina and Georgia are hereby authorized to examine the claims to lands in their respective States which are claimed under the provisions of General Sherman's special field order, and to give each person having a valid claim a warrant upon the direct tax commissioners for South Carolina for twenty acres of land; and the said direct tax commissioners shall issue to every person, or to his or her heirs, but in no case to any assigns, presenting such warrant, a lease of twenty acres of land, as provided for in section seven, for the term of six years; but, at any time thereafter, upon the payment of a sum not exceeding one dollar and fifty cents per acre, the person holding such lease shall be entitled to a certificate of sale of said tract of twenty acres from the direct tax commissioner or such officer as may be authorized to issue the same; but no warrant shall be held valid longer than two years after the issue of the same. 

 "SEC. 10. _And be it further enacted_, That the direct tax commissioners for South Carolina are hereby authorized and required, at the earliest day practicable, to survey the lands designated in section seven into lots of twenty acres each, with proper metes and bounds distinctly marked, so that the several tracts shall be convenient in form, and, as near as practicable, have an average of fertility and woodland; and the expense of such surveys shall be paid from the proceeds of sales of said lands, or, if sooner required, out of any moneys received for other lands on these islands, sold by the United States for taxes, and now in the hands of the direct tax commissioners. 

 "SEC. 11. _And be it further enacted_, That restoration of the lands now occupied by persons under General Sherman's special field order, dated at Savannah, Georgia, January sixteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-five, shall not be made until after the crops of the present year shall have been gathered by the occupants of said lands, nor until a fair compensation shall have been made to them by the former owners of said lands, or their legal representatives, for all improvements or betterments erected or constructed thereon, and after due notice of the same being done shall have been given by the assistant commissioner. 

 "SEC. 12. _And be it further enacted_, That the commissioner shall have power to seize, hold, use, lease, or sell, all buildings and tenements, and any lands appertaining to the same, or otherwise, held under claim or title by the late so-called Confederate States, and any buildings or lands held in trust for the same by any person or persons, and to use the same or appropriate the proceeds derived therefrom to the education of the freed people; and whenever the bureau shall cease to exist, such of the late so-called Confederate States as shall have made provision for the education of their citizens, without distinction of color, shall receive the sum remaining unexpended of such sales or rentals, which shall be distributed among said States for educational purposes in proportion to their population. 

 "SEC. 13. _And be it further enacted_, That the commissioner of this bureau shall at all times coöperate with private benevolent associations of citizens in aid of freedmen, and with agents and teachers, duly accredited and appointed by them, and shall hire or provide by lease buildings for purposes of education whenever such associations shall, without cost to the Government, provide suitable teachers and means of instruction; and he shall furnish protection as may be required for the safe conduct of such schools. 

 "SEC. 14. _And be it further enacted_, That in every State or district where the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion, and until the same shall be fully restored, and in every State or district whose constitutional relations to the Government have been practically discontinued by the rebellion, and until such State shall have been restored in such relations, and shall be duly represented in the Congress of the United States, the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district, without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery. And whenever in either of said States or districts the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion, and until the same shall be fully restored, and until such State shall have been restored in its constitutional relations to the Government, and shall be duly represented in the Congress of the United States, the President, shall, through the commissioner and the officers of the bureau, and under such rules and regulations as the President, through the Secretary of War, shall prescribe, extend military protection and have military jurisdiction over all cases and questions concerning the free enjoyment of such immunities and rights; and no penalty or punishment for any violation of law shall be imposed or permitted because of race or color, or previous condition of slavery, other or greater than the penalty or punishment to which white persons may be liable by law for the like offense. But the jurisdiction conferred by this section upon the officers of the bureau shall not exist in any State where the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has not been interrupted by the rebellion, and shall cease in every State when the courts of the State and the United States are not disturbed in the peaceable course of justice, and after such State shall be fully restored in its constitutional relations to the Government, and shall be duly represented in the Congress of the United States. 

 "SEC. 15. _And be it further enacted_, That the officers, agents, and employees of this bureau, before entering upon the duties of their office, shall take the oath prescribed in the first section of the act to which this is an amendment; and all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed. 

On the 16th of July the President returned the bill to the House ofRepresentatives, in which it originated, with his "objections thereto"in writing. The following is

 THE VETO MESSAGE. 

 "_To the House of Representatives:_

 "A careful examination of the bill passed by the two houses of Congress, entitled 'An act to continue in force and to amend "An act to establish a bureau for the relief of freedmen and refugees, " and for other purposes, ' has convinced me that the legislation which it proposes would not be consistent with the welfare of the country, and that it falls clearly within the reasons assigned in my message of the 19th of February last, returning without my signature a similar measure which originated in the Senate. It is not my purpose to repeat the objections which I then urged. They are yet fresh in your recollection, and can be readily examined as a part of the records of one branch of the National Legislature. Adhering to the principles set forth in that message, I now reäffirm them, and the line of policy therein indicated. 

 "The only ground upon which this kind of legislation can be justified is that of the war-making power. The act of which this bill was intended as amendatory was passed during the existence of the war. By its own provisions, it is to terminate within one year from the cessation of hostilities and the declaration of peace. It is therefore yet in existence, and it is likely that it will continue in force as long as the freedmen may require the benefit of its provisions. It will certainly remain in operation as a law until some months subsequent to the meeting of the next session of Congress, when, if experience shall make evident the necessity of additional legislation, the two houses will have ample time to mature and pass the requisite measures. In the mean time the questions arise, Why should this war measure be continued beyond the period designated in the original act? and why, in time of peace, should military tribunals be created to continue until each 'State shall be fully restored in its constitutional relations to the Government, and shall be duly represented in the Congress of the United States?' It was manifest with respect to the act approved March 3, 1865, that prudence and wisdom alike required that jurisdiction over all cases concerning the free enjoyment of the immunities and rights of citizenship, as well as the protection of person and property, should be conferred upon some tribunal in every State or district where the ordinary course of judicial proceeding was interrupted by the rebellion, and until the same should be fully restored. At that time, therefore, an urgent necessity existed for the passage of some such law. Now, however, war has substantially ceased; the ordinary course of judicial proceedings is no longer interrupted; the courts, both State and Federal, are in full, complete, and successful operation, and through them every person, regardless of race or color, is entitled to and can be heard. The protection granted to the white citizen is already conferred by law upon the freedman; strong and stringent guards, by way of penalties and punishments, are thrown around his person and property, and it is believed that ample protection will be afforded him by due process of law, without resort to the dangerous expedient of 'military tribunals, ' now that the war has been brought to a close. The necessity no longer existing for such tribunals, which had their origin in the war, grave objections to their continuance must present themselves to the minds of all reflecting and dispassionate men. Independently of the danger in representative republics of conferring upon the military, in time of peace, extraordinary powers--so carefully guarded against by the patriots and statesmen of the earlier days of the republic, so frequently the ruin of governments founded upon the same free principle, and subversive of the rights and liberties of the citizen--the question of practical economy earnestly commends itself to the consideration of the law-making power. With an immense debt already burdening the incomes of the industrial and laboring classes, a due regard for their interests, so inseparably connected with the welfare of the country, should prompt us to rigid economy and retrenchment, and influence us to abstain from all legislation that would unnecessarily increase the public indebtedness. Tested by this rule of sound political wisdom, I can see no reason for the establishment of the 'military jurisdiction' conferred upon the officials of the bureau by the fourteenth section of the bill. 

 "By the laws of the United States, and of the different States, competent courts, Federal and State, have been established, and are now in full practical operation. By means of these civil tribunals ample redress is afforded for all private wrongs, whether to the person or to the property of the citizen, without denial or unnecessary delay. They are open to all, without regard to color or race. I feel well assured that it will be better to trust the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizens to tribunals thus established, and presided over by competent and impartial judges, bound by fixed rules of law and evidence, and where the rights of trial by jury is guaranteed and secured, than to the caprice and judgment of an officer of the bureau, who, it is possible, may be entirely ignorant of the principles that underlie the just administration of the law. There is danger, too, that conflict of jurisdiction will frequently arise between the civil courts and these military tribunals, each having concurrent jurisdiction over the person and the cause of action--the one judicature administered and controlled by civil law, the other by the military. How is the conflict to be settled, and who is to determine between the two tribunals when it arises? In my opinion it is wise to guard against such conflict by leaving to the courts and juries the protection of all civil rights and the redress of all civil grievances. 

 "The fact can not be denied that since the actual cessation of hostilities many acts of violence--such, perhaps, as had never been witnessed in their previous history--have occurred in the States involved in the recent rebellion. I believe, however, that public sentiment will sustain me in the assertion that such deeds of wrong are not confined to any particular State or section, but are manifested over the entire country--demonstrating that the cause that produced them does not depend upon any particular locality, but is the result of the agitation and derangement incident to a long and bloody civil war. While the prevalence of such disorders must be greatly deplored, their occasional and temporary occurrence would seem to furnish no necessity for the extension of the bureau beyond the period fixed in the original act. Besides the objections which I have thus briefly stated, I may urge upon your consideration the additional reason that recent developments in regard to the practical operations of the bureau, in many of the States, show that in numerous instances it is used by its agents as a means of promoting their individual advantage, and that the freedmen are employed for the advancement of the personal ends of the officers instead of their own improvement and welfare--thus confirming the fears originally entertained by many that the continuation of such a bureau for any unnecessary length of time would inevitably result in fraud, corruption, and oppression. 

 "It is proper to state that in cases of this character investigations have been promptly ordered, and the offender punished, whenever his guilt has been satisfactorily established. As another reason against the necessity of the legislation contemplated by this measure, reference may be had to the 'Civil Rights Bill, ' now a law of the land, and which will be faithfully executed as long as it shall remain unrepealed, and may not be declared unconstitutional by courts of competent jurisdiction. By that act, it is enacted 'that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right in every State and Territory of the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, to be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. '

 "By the provisions of the act full protection is afforded, through the district courts of the United States, to all persons injured, and whose privileges, as they are declared, are in any way impaired, and heavy penalties are denounced against the person who willfully violates the law. I need not state that that law did not receive my approval, yet its remedies are far preferable to those proposed in the present bill--the one being civil and the other military. 

 "By the sixth section of the bill herewith returned, certain proceedings by which the lands in the 'parishes of St. Helena and St. Luke, South Carolina, ' were sold and bid in, and afterward disposed of by the tax commissioners, are ratified and confirmed. By the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh sections, provisions by law are made for the disposal of the lands thus acquired to a particular class of citizens. While the quieting of titles is deemed very important and desirable, the discrimination made in the bill seems objectionable, as does also the attempt to confer upon the commissioners judicial powers, by which citizens of the United States are to be deprived of their property in a mode contrary to that provision of the Constitution which declares that no person 'shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. ' As a general principle, such legislation is unsafe, unwise, partial, and unconstitutional. It may deprive persons of their property who are equally deserving objects of the nation's bounty, as those whom, by this legislation, Congress seeks to benefit. The title to the land thus to be proportioned out to a favored class of citizens must depend upon the regularity of the tax sale under the law as it existed at the time of the sale, and no subsequent legislation can give validity to the rights thus acquired against the original claimants. The attention of Congress is therefore invited to a more mature consideration of the measures proposed in these sections of the bill. 

 "In conclusion, I again urge upon Congress the danger of class legislation, so well calculated to keep the public mind in a state of uncertain expectation, disquiet, and restlessness, and to encourage interested hopes and fears that the National Government will continue to furnish to classes of citizens, in the several States, means for support and maintenance, regardless of whether they pursue a life of indolence or labor, and regardless, also, of the constitutional limitations of the national authority in times of peace and tranquillity. 

 "The bill is herewith returned to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, for its final action. 

 "ANDREW JOHNSON. 

 "WASHINGTON, D. C. , _July_ 16, 1866. "

As soon as the reading of this document had been completed, a motionwas passed that it should be laid on the table and printed. Notice wasgiven that it would be called up for the action of the House on thefollowing day. Mr. Le Blond, a Democrat, suggested that it would betoo long to wait until to-morrow to pass it over the veto, and withoutdebate. The sooner action was taken, the more apparent would be thebad _animus_. 

"I have no objection, " said Mr. Eliot, taking him at his word. Otherssaid, "There is no objection, " whereupon the vote was reconsidered bywhich the matter was postponed. 

The motion to reconsider the postponement was carried, and theprevious question called, "Shall this bill become a law, theobjections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?"

"I do not see why we need be in such a hurry, " said Mr. Rogers. 

"One of your own side suggested that the vote better be taken now, "replied Mr. Ashley. 

"Well, he was not in earnest, of course, " said Mr. Rogers, creatingsome mirth by the remark. 

"I hope the gentleman will make no objection, " said Mr. Le Blond, addressing his remark to Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. Ward suggested that "the Democrats should choose their leader, andnot confuse us in this way. "

Without further parley, the vote was one hundred and four in theaffirmative, thirty-three in the negative, and forty-five "notvoting. " The Speaker then announced, "Two-thirds having voted in theaffirmative, the bill has, notwithstanding the objections of thePresident, again passed. "

The Clerk of the House of Representatives immediately announced theaction of that body to the Senate. Other business was at once laidaside, and the Veto Message was read in the Senate. 

Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Saulsbury then addressed the Senate in supportof the position of the President. The question being taken, thirty-three voted for and twelve against the bill. Thereupon thePresident _pro tempore_ announced, "Two-thirds of this body havepassed the bill, and it having been certified that two-thirds of theHouse of Representatives have voted for this bill, I now pronouncethat this bill has become a law. "

[Illustration: Hon. Eben C. Ingersoll, Representative from Illinois. ]

CHAPTER XIII. 

FIRST WORDS ON RECONSTRUCTION. 

 Responsibility of the Republican Party -- Its Power and Position -- Initiatory Step -- Mr. Stevens steaks for Himself -- Condition of the Rebel States -- Constitutional Authority under which Congress should act -- Estoppel -- What constitutes Congress -- The First Duty -- Basis of Representation -- Duty on Exports -- Two important Principles -- Mr. Raymond's Theory -- Rebel States still in the Union -- Consequences of the Radical Theory -- Conditions to be Required -- State Sovereignty -- Rebel Debt -- Prohibition of Slavery -- Two Policies contrasted -- Reply of Mr. Jenckes -- Difference in Terms, not in Substance -- Logic of the Conservatives leads to the Results of the Radicals. 

Having traced the progress through Congress of the great measuresrelating to civil rights and protection of the freedmen, it is nowproper to go back to an earlier period in this legislative history, and trace what was said and done upon a subject which, more than anyother, awakened the interest and solicitude of the Americanpeople--the subject of _Reconstruction_. 

The Republican party had a majority of more than one hundred in theHouse, and after all its losses, retained more than two thirds of theSenate. As a consequence of this great preponderance of power, theparty possessing it was justly held responsible for the manner inwhich the country should pass the important political crisisconsequent upon the termination of the war in the overthrow of therebellion. 

It became an important question for members of the Republican party inCongress to determine among themselves what line of policy they shouldpursue. 

The appointment of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction, was every-where regarded by the constituents of the majority as a mosthappy initiatory step. The whole country listened with eagerness tohear what words would be spoken in Congress to give some clue to thecourse the committee would recommend. Words of no uncertainsignificance and weight were uttered at an early period in thesession. 

On the 18th of December, a fortnight after the opening of the session, Mr. Stevens announced his opinions on reconstruction with greatboldness and distinctness. At the same time, seeing himself much inadvance of many of his party, and fearing lest his opinions mightalarm the less resolute, he declared: "I do not profess to speak theirsentiments, nor must they be held responsible for them. "

Mr. Stevens opened his speech with remarks on the condition of therebel States. He said: "The President assumes, what no one doubts, that the late rebel States have lost their constitutional relations tothe Union, and are incapable of representation in Congress, except bypermission of the Government. It matters but little, with thisadmission, whether you call them States out of the Union, and nowconquered territories, or assert that because the Constitution forbidsthem to do what they did do, that they are, therefore, only dead as toall national and political action, and will remain so until theGovernment shall breathe into them the breath of life anew and permitthem to occupy their former position. In other words, that they arenot out of the Union, but are only dead carcasses lying within theUnion. In either case, it is very plain that it requires the action ofCongress to enable them to form a State government and sendRepresentatives to Congress. Nobody, I believe, pretends that withtheir old constitutions and frames of government they can be permittedto claim their old rights under the Constitution. They have torn theirconstitutional States into atoms, and built on their foundationsfabrics of a totally different character. Dead men can not raisethemselves. Dead States can not restore their own existence 'as itwas. ' Whose especial duty is it to do it? In whom does theConstitution place the power? Not in the judicial branch ofGovernment, for it only adjudicates and does not prescribe laws. Notin the Executive, for he only executes and can not make laws. Not inthe commander-in-chief of the armies, for he can only hold them undermilitary rule until the sovereign legislative power of the conquerorshall give them law. 

"There is fortunately no difficulty in solving the question. There aretwo provisions in the Constitution, under one of which the case mustfall. The fourth article says: 'New States may be admitted by theCongress into this Union. ' In my judgment, this is the controllingprovision in this case. Unless the law of nations is a dead letter, the late war between two acknowledged belligerents severed theiroriginal compacts, and broke all the ties that bound them together. The future condition of the conquered power depends on the will of theconqueror. They must come in as new States or remain as conqueredprovinces. Congress--the Senate and House of Representatives, with theconcurrence of the President--is the only power that can act in thematter. But suppose, as some dreaming theorists imagine, that theseStates have never been out of the Union, but have only destroyed theirState governments so as to be incapable of political action, then thefourth section of the fourth article applies, which says, 'The UnitedStates shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican formof government. ' Who is the United States? Not the judiciary; not thePresident; but the sovereign power of the people, exercised throughtheir Representatives in Congress, with the concurrence of theExecutive. It means the political Government--the concurrent action ofboth branches of Congress and the Executive. The separate action ofeach amounts to nothing either in admitting new States or guaranteeingrepublican governments to lapsed or outlawed States. Whence springsthe preposterous idea that either the President, or the Senate, or theHouse of Representatives, acting separately, can determine the rightof States to send members or Senators to the Congress of the Union?"

Mr. Stevens then cited authorities to prove that "if the so-calledConfederate States of America were an independent belligerent, andwere so acknowledged by the United States and by Europe, or hadassumed and maintained an attitude which entitled them to beconsidered and treated as a belligerent, then, during such time, theywere precisely in the condition of a foreign nation with whom we wereat war; nor need their independence as a nation be acknowledged by usto produce that effect. "

Having read from a number of authorities to support his position, Mr. Stevens continued: "After such clear and repeated decisions, it issomething worse than ridiculous to hear men of respectable standingattempting to nullify the law of nations, and declare the SupremeCourt of the United States in error, because, as the Constitutionforbids it, the States could not go out of the Union in fact. Arespectable gentleman was lately reciting this argument, when hesuddenly stopped and said: 'Did you hear of that atrocious murdercommitted in our town? A rebel deliberately murdered a Governmentofficial. ' The person addressed said, 'I think you are mistaken. ' 'Howso? I saw it myself. ' 'You are wrong; no murder was or could becommitted, for the law forbids it. '

"The theory that the rebel States, for four years a separate power andwithout representation in Congress, were all the time here in theUnion, is a good deal less ingenious and respectable than themetaphysics of Berkeley, which proved that neither the world nor anyhuman being was in existence. If this theory were simply ridiculous itcould be forgiven; but its effect is deeply injurious to the stabilityof the nation. I can not doubt that the late Confederate States areout of the Union to all intents and purposes for which the conquerormay choose so to consider them. "

Mr. Stevens further maintained that the rebel States should beadjudged out of the Union on the ground of estoppel. "They areestopped, " said he, "both by matter of record and matter _in pais_. One of the first resolutions passed by seceded South Carolina inJanuary, 1861, is as follows:

 "_Resolved, unanimously_, That the separation of South Carolina from the Federal Union is final, and she has no further interest in the Constitution of the United States; and that the only appropriate negotiations between her and the Federal Government are as to their mutual relations as foreign States. "

"Similar resolutions appear upon all their State and ConfederateGovernment records. The speeches of their members of Congress, theirgenerals and executive officers, and the answers of their Governmentto our shameful suings for peace, went upon the defiant ground that noterms would be offered or received except upon the prioracknowledgment of the entire and permanent independence of theConfederate States. After this, to deny that we have a right to treatthem as a conquered belligerent, severed from the Union in fact, isnot argument but mockery. Whether it be our interest to do so is theonly question hereafter and more deliberately to be considered. 

"But suppose these powerful but now subdued belligerents, instead ofbeing out of the Union, are merely destroyed, and are now lying about, a dead corpse, or with animation so suspended as to be incapable ofaction, and wholly unable to heal themselves by any unaided movementsof their own. Then they may fall under the provision of theConstitution which says, "the United States shall guarantee to everyState in the Union a republican form of government. " Under that power, can the judiciary, or the President, or the commander-in-chief of thearmy, or the Senate or House of Representatives, acting separately, restore them to life and reädmit them into the Union? I insist that ifeach acted separately, though the action of each was identical withall the others, it would amount to nothing. Nothing but the jointaction of the two houses of Congress and the concurrence of thePresident could do it. If the Senate admitted their Senators, and theHouse their members, it would have no effect on the future action ofCongress. The Fortieth Congress might reject both. Such is the raggedrecord of Congress for the last four years. "

He cited a decision of the Supreme Court to show that "it rests withCongress to decide what government is the established one in a State, "and then remarked: "But Congress does not mean the Senate, or theHouse of Representatives, and President, all acting severally. Theirjoint action constitutes Congress. Hence a law of Congress must bepassed before any new State can be admitted or any dead ones revived. Until then, no member can be lawfully admitted into either house. Hence, it appears with how little knowledge of constitutional law eachbranch is urged to admit members separately from these destroyedStates. The provision that "each house shall be the judge of theelections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, " has notthe most distant bearing on this question. Congress must create Statesand declare when they are entitled to be represented. Then each housemust judge whether the members presenting themselves from a recognizedState possesses the requisite qualifications of age, residence, andcitizenship, and whether the election and returns are according tolaw. The houses separately can judge of nothing else. 

"It is obvious from all this, that the first duty of Congress is topass a law declaring the condition of these outside or defunct States, and providing proper civil government for them. Since the conquest, they have been governed by martial law. Military rule is necessarilydespotic, and ought not to exist longer than is absolutely necessary. As there are no symptoms that the people of these provinces will beprepared to participate in constitutional government for some years, Iknow of no arrangement so proper for them as territorial government. There they can learn the principles of freedom and eat the fruit offoul rebellion. Under such governments, while electing members to theterritorial legislatures, they will necessarily mingle with those towhom Congress shall extend the right of suffrage. In territoriesCongress fixes the qualifications of electors, and I know of no betterplace nor better occasion for the conquered rebels and the conquerorto practice justice to all men and accustom themselves to make andobey equal laws. "

Mr. Stevens proceeded to specify amendments to the Constitution whichshould be made before the late rebel States "would be capable ofacting in the Union. " The first of those amendments would be to changethe basis of representation among the States from federal numbers toactual voters. After explaining the operation of this amendment, hedepicted the consequences of reädmitting the Southern States withoutthis guarantee. "With the basis unchanged, " said he, "the eighty-threeSouthern members, with the Democrats that will in the best of times beelected from the North, will always give them the majority in Congressand in the Electoral College. They will, at the very first election, take possession of the White House and the halls of Congress. I neednot depict the ruin that would follow. Assumption of the rebel debt orrepudiation of the Federal debt would be sure to follow; theoppression of the freedmen, the reämendment of their Stateconstitutions, and the reëstablishment of slavery would be theinevitable result. "

Mr. Stevens thus set forth the importance of a proposed amendment toallow Congress to lay a duty on exports: "Its importance can not wellbe overstated. It is very obvious that for many years the South willnot pay much under our internal revenue laws. The only article onwhich we can raise any considerable amount is cotton. It will be grownlargely at once. With ten cents a pound export duty, it would befurnished cheaper to foreign markets than they could obtain it fromany other part of the world. The late war has shown that. Two millionbales exported, at five hundred pounds to the bale, would yield$100, 000, 000. This seems to be the chief revenue we shall ever derivefrom the South. Besides, it would be a protection to that amount toour domestic manufactures. Other proposed amendments--to make all lawsuniform, to prohibit the assumption of the rebel debt--are of vitalimportance, and the only thing that can prevent the combined forces ofcopper-heads and secessionists from legislating against the interestsof the Union whenever they may obtain an accidental majority. 

"But this is not all that we ought to do before these inveteraterebels are invited to participate in our legislation. We have turned, or are about to turn, loose four million slaves, without a hut toshelter them or a cent in their pockets. The infernal laws of slaveryhave prevented them from acquiring an education, understanding thecommonest laws of contract, or of managing the ordinary business oflife. This Congress is bound to provide for them until they can takecare of themselves. If we do not furnish them with homesteads, andhedge them around with protective laws; if we leave them to thelegislation of their late masters, we had better have left them inbondage. Their condition would be worse than that of our prisoners atAndersonville. If we fail in this great duty now, when we have thepower, we shall deserve and receive the execration of history and ofall future ages. 

"Two things are of vital importance: 1. So to establish a principlethat none of the rebel States shall be counted in any of theamendments of the Constitution until they are duly admitted into thefamily of States by the law-making power of their conqueror. For morethan six months the amendment of the Constitution abolishing slaveryhas been ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the Statesthat acted on its passage by Congress, and which had Legislatures, orwhich were States capable of acting, or required to act, on thequestion. 

"I take no account of the aggregation of whitewashed rebels, who, without any legal authority, have assembled in the capitals of thelate rebel States and simulated legislative bodies. Nor do I regardwith any respect the cunning by-play into which they deluded theSecretary of State by frequent telegraphic announcements that 'SouthCarolina had adopted the amendment, ' 'Alabama has adopted theamendment, being the twenty-seventh State, ' etc. This was intended todelude the people and accustom Congress to hear repeated the names ofthese extinct States as if they were alive, when, in truth, they havenow no more existence than the revolted cities of Latium, two-thirdsof whose people were colonized, and their property confiscated, andtheir rights of citizenship withdrawn by conquering and avengingRome. "

A second thing of vital importance to the stability of this republic, Mr. Stevens asserted to be "that it should now be solemnly decidedwhat power can revive, recreate, and reinstate these provinces intothe family of States, and invest them with the rights of Americancitizens. It is time that Congress should assert its sovereignty, andassume something of the dignity of a Roman senate. It is fortunatethat the President invites Congress to take this manly attitude. Afterstating, with great frankness, in his able message, his theory--which, however, is found to be impracticable, and which, I believe, very fewnow consider tenable--he refers the whole matter to the judgment ofCongress. If Congress should fail firmly and wisely to discharge thathigh duty, it is not the fault of the President. "

Mr. Stevens closed his speech by setting the seal of reprobation upona doctrine which is becoming too fashionable, that "this is a whiteman's Government. " He uttered a severe rebuke to those who thus"mislead and miseducate the public mind. "

There were some Republicans in Congress who disagreed with Mr. Stevensin his theory of the condition of the late rebel States, yet no oneventured immediately, to use a contemporary expression, "to take theRadical bull by the horns. "

At length, three days afterward, Mr. Raymond, as a representative ofthe "Conservatives, " ventured a reply. He thus set forth his theory asin opposition to that of Mr. Stevens: "I can not believe that theseStates have ever been out of the Union, or that they are now out ofthe Union. I can not believe that they ever have been, or are now, inany sense a separate power. If they were, sir, how and when did theybecome so? They were once States of this Union--that every oneconcedes; bound to the Union and made members of the Union by theConstitution of the United States. If they ever went out of the Union, it was at some specific time and by some specific act. Was it by theordinance of secession? I think we all agree that an ordinance ofsecession passed by any State of this Union is simply a nullity, because it encounters in its practical operation the Constitution ofthe United States, which is the supreme law of the land. It could haveno legal, actual force or validity. It could not operate to effect anyactual change in the relations of the States adopting it to theNational Government, still less to accomplish the removal of thatState from the sovereign jurisdiction of the Constitution of theUnited States. 

"Well, sir, did the resolutions of these States, the declarations oftheir officials, the speeches of members of their Legislatures, or theutterances of their press accomplish the result? Certainly not. Theycould not possibly work any change whatever in the relations of theseStates to the General Government. All their ordinances and all theirresolutions were simply declarations of a purpose to secede. Theirsecession, if it ever took place, certainly could not date from thetime when their intention to secede was first announced. Afterdeclaring that intention, they proceeded to carry it into effect. How?By war. By sustaining their purpose by arms against the force whichthe United States brought to bear against it. Did they sustain it?Were their arms victorious? If they were, then their secession was anaccomplished fact; if not, it was nothing more than an abortiveattempt, a purpose unfulfilled. This, then, is simply a question offact, and we all know what the fact is. They did not succeed. Theyfailed to maintain their ground by force of arms; in other words, theyfailed to secede. 

"But the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] insists that theydid secede, and that this fact is not in the least affected by theother fact that the Constitution forbids secession. He says that thelaw forbids murder, but that murders are, nevertheless, committed. Butthere is no analogy between the two cases. If secession had beenaccomplished; if these States had gone out, and overcome the armiesthat tried to prevent their going out, then the prohibition of theConstitution could not have altered the fact. In the case of murderthe man is killed, and murder is thus committed in spite of the law. The fact of killing is essential to the committal of the crime, andthe fact of going out is essential to secession. But in this casethere was no such fact. I think I need not argue any further theposition that the rebel States have never for one moment, by anyordinances of secession, or by any successful war, carried themselvesbeyond the rightful jurisdiction of the Constitution of the UnitedStates. They have interrupted for a time the practical enforcement andexercise of that jurisdiction; they rendered it impossible for a timefor this Government to enforce obedience to its laws; but there hasnever been an hour when this Government, or this Congress, or thisHouse, or the gentleman from Pennsylvania himself, ever conceded thatthose States were beyond the jurisdiction of the Constitution and lawsof the United States. "

Referring to the citation of authorities made by Mr. Stevens, Mr. Raymond maintained that they did not lend the "slightest countenanceto the inference which was drawn from them. "

In reply to the theory maintained by Mr. Stevens, that Statesforfeited their State existence by the fact of rebellion, Mr. Raymondsaid: "I do not see how there can be any such forfeiture involved orimplied. The individual citizens of those States went into therebellion. They thereby incurred certain penalties under the laws andConstitution of the United States. What the States did was to endeavorto interpose their State authority between the individuals inrebellion and the Government of the United States, which assumed, andwhich would carry out the assumption, to declare those individualstraitors for their acts. The individuals in the States who were inrebellion, it seems to me, were the only parties who, under theConstitution and laws of the United States, could incur the penaltiesof treason. I know of no law, I know of nothing in the Constitution ofthe United States, I know of nothing in any recognized or establishedcode of international law, which can punish a State as a State for anyact it may perform. It is certain that our Constitution assumesnothing of the kind. It does not deal with States, except in one ortwo instances, such as elections of members of Congress and theelection of electors of President and Vice-President. 

"Indeed, the main feature which distinguishes the Union under theConstitution from the old Confederation is this: that whereas the oldConfederation did deal with States directly, making requisitions uponthem for supplies and relying upon them for the execution of its laws, the Constitution of the United States, in order to form a more perfectUnion, made its laws binding on the individual citizens of the severalStates, whether living in one State or in another. Congress, as thelegislative branch of this Government, enacts a law which shall beoperative upon every individual within its jurisdiction. It is bindingupon each individual citizen, and if he resists it by force, he isguilty of a crime, and is punished accordingly, any thing in theconstitution or laws of his State to the contrary notwithstanding. Butthe States themselves are not touched by the laws of the United Statesor by the Constitution of the United States. A State can not beindicted; a State can not be tried; a State can not be hung fortreason. The individuals in a State may be so tried and hung, but theState as an organization, as an organic member of the Union, stillexists, whether its individual citizens commit treason or not. "

Mr. Raymond subsequently cited some of the consequences which hethought must follow the acceptance of the position assumed by Mr. Stevens. "If, " said Mr. Raymond, "as he asserts, we have been wagingwar with an independent Power, with a separate nation, I can not seehow we can talk of treason in connection with our recent conflict, ordemand the execution of Davis or any body else as a traitor. Certainlyif we were at war with any other foreign Power, we should not talk ofthe treason of those who were opposed to us in the field. If we wereengaged in a war with France, and should take as prisoner the EmperorNapoleon, certainly we could not talk of him as a traitor or as liableto execution. I think that by adopting any such assumption as that ofthe honorable gentleman, we surrender the whole idea of treason andthe punishment of traitors. I think, moreover, that we accept, virtually and practically, the doctrine of State sovereignty, theright of a State to withdraw from the Union, and to break up the Unionat its own will and pleasure. 

"Another of the consequences of this doctrine, as it seems to me, would be our inability to talk of loyal men in the South. Loyal towhat? Loyal to a foreign, independent Power, as the United Stateswould become under those circumstances? Certainly not. Simply disloyalto their own Government, and deserters, or whatever you may choose tocall them, from that to which they would owe allegiance, to a foreignand independent State. 

"Now, there is another consequence of the doctrine which I shall notdwell upon, but simply suggest. If that confederacy was an independentPower, a separate nation, it had the right to contract debts; and we, having overthrown and conquered that independent Power, according tothe theory of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, would become thesuccessors, the inheritors, of its debts and assets, and we must paythem. "

Mr. Raymond set forth his theory of the conditions and relations ofthe late rebel States in the following language: "I certainly do notthink these States are to be dealt with by us as provinces--as simplyso much territory--held to us by no other ties than those of conquest. I think we are to deal with them as States having State governments, still subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution and laws of theUnited States, still under the constitutional control of the NationalGovernment; and that in our dealings with them we are to be guided andgoverned, not simply by our sovereign will and pleasure as conquerors, but by the restrictions and limitations of the Constitution of theUnited States, precisely as we are restrained and limited in ourdealings with all other States of the American Union. "

In answer to the question how we are to deal with the late rebelStates, Mr. Raymond remarked: "I think we have a full and perfectright to require certain conditions in the nature of guarantees forthe future, and that right rests, primarily and technically, on thesurrender we may and must require at their hands. The rebellion hasbeen defeated. A defeat always implies a surrender, and, in apolitical sense, a surrender implies more than the transfer of thearms used on the field of battle. It implies, in the case of civilwar, a surrender of the principles and doctrines, of all the weaponsand agencies, by which the war has been carried on. The militarysurrender was made on the field of battle, to our generals, as theagents and representatives of the Commander-in-chief of the armies ofthe United States. 

"Now, there must be at the end of the war, a similar surrender on thepolitical field of controversy. That surrender is due as an act ofjustice from the defeated party to the victorious party. It is due, also, and we have a right to exact it, as a guarantee for the future. Why do we demand the surrender of their arms by the vanquished inevery battle? We do it that they may not renew the contest. Why do weseek, in this and all similar cases, a surrender of the principles forwhich they fought? It is that they may never again be made the basisof controversy and rebellion against the Government of the UnitedStates. 

"Now, what are those principles which should be thus surrendered? Theprinciple of State sovereignty is one of them. It was the corner-stoneof the rebellion--at once its animating spirit and its fundamentalbasis. Deeply ingrained as it was in the Southern heart, it must besurrendered. The ordinances in which it was embodied must not only berepealed, the principle itself must be abandoned, and the ordinances, so far as this war is concerned, be declared null and void, and thatdeclaration must be embodied in their fundamental constitutions. "

The speech was here interrupted by Mr. Bingham, who insisted that theadoption of the principle in the State constitutions would not besufficient guarantee. Adoption in the Constitution of the UnitedStates was essential to its permanent effective force. 

Mr. Raymond thought the Constitution of the United States as plain aspossible in its declaration against the doctrine of State sovereignty. If any more explicit denial could be got into the Constitution, hewould favor it. 

"Another thing, " said Mr. Raymond, "to be surrendered by the defeatedrebellion is the obligation to pay the rebel war debt. We have theright to require this repudiation of their debt, because the moneyrepresented by that debt was one of the weapons with which theycarried on the war against the Government of the United States. 

"There is another thing which we have the right to require, and thatis the prohibition of slavery. We have the right to require them to dothis, not only in their State constitutions, but in the Constitutionof the United States. And we have required it, and it has beenconceded. They have also conceded that Congress may make such laws asmay be requisite to carry that prohibition into effect, which includessuch legislation as may be required to secure for them protection oftheir civil and personal rights--their 'right to life, liberty, andthe pursuit of happiness. '"

Mr. Spalding having inquired whether there was any limit to the rightto make these requisitions, except the good judgment of Congress, Mr. Raymond answered:

"My impression is that these requisitions are made as a part of theterms of surrender which we have a right to demand at the hands of thedefeated insurgents, and that it belongs, therefore, to the President, as Commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, tomake them, and to fix the limit, as to what they shall embrace. "

By way of setting forth the opinions of the "Radicals" in as strong alight as possible, Mr. Raymond said: "It may be for the welfare ofthis nation that we shall cherish toward the millions of our peoplelately in rebellion feelings of hatred and distrust; that we shallnurse the bitterness their infamous treason has naturally and justlyengendered, and make that the basis of our future dealings with them. Possibly we may best teach them the lessons of liberty, by visitingupon them the worst excesses of despotism. Possibly they may bestlearn to practice justice toward others, to admire and emulate ourrepublican institutions, by suffering at our hands the absolute rulewe denounce in others. It may be best for us and for them that wediscard, in all our dealings with them, all the obligations andrequirements of the Constitution, and assert as the only law for themthe unrestrained will of conquerors and masters. "

In contrast with this, he placed what he supposed to be a differentpolicy: "I would exact from them, or impose upon them through theconstitutional legislation of Congress, and by enlarging andextending, if necessary, the scope and powers of the Freedmen'sBureau, proper care and protection for the helpless and friendlessfreedmen, so lately their slaves. I would exercise a rigid scrutinyinto the character and loyalty of the men whom they may send toCongress, before I allowed them to participate in the high prerogativeof legislating for the nation. But I would seek to allay rather thanstimulate the animosities and hatred, however just they may be, towhich the war has given rise. But for our own sake as well as fortheirs, I would not visit upon them a policy of confiscation which hasbeen discarded in the policy and practical conduct of every civilizednation on the face of the globe. "

Mr. Raymond having closed his speech, it was moved that the Committeeof the Whole should rise, but the motion was withdrawn to allow Mr. Jenckes, of Rhode Island, five minutes for reply. He said: "Thegentleman states, and properly, that every act or ordinance ofsecession was a nullity. Undoubtedly it was. Upon that question of lawwe do not disagree. But he seems to me to overlook entirely what wasthe state of facts from the time of the passage of the ordinances ofsecession until the time of the surrender of Lee's army. During thatperiod what were the relations which all that territory--I will notuse the term States, but all that territory--between the Potomac andthe Rio Grande sustained to the Government of the United States? Whocould see States there for any purpose for which legislation wasrequired by the Constitution of the United States?

"At the time of the passage of the ordinance of secession, States wereorganized there, in existence, in action, known to the Constitutionand the constitutional authorities under it. But were they loyal? Didthey obey the Constitution of the United States? This is a questionthat needs no answer other than that which is conveyed to every mindby the recollection of the last four years of war, with theirexpenditure of treasure and blood. Those States were not destroyed, inthe technical language of the law--they simply died out. As theirGovernors passed out of office, as the terms of their legislaturesexpired, who knew those facts? None but themselves. And yet, behindthis grand cordon of armies, stretching from here to the Rio Grande, there were States in existence, organized as States, but States inrebellion, occupying the territory belonging to the people of theUnited States. They were not acting in concert with this Government, but against it. That, Mr. Chairman, is a matter of fact. My eyes arenot dimmed or blinded by the parchment upon which constitutions orlaws are written. I, like the men who carried the bayonets and plantedthe cannon, recognize the fact that was before us during all thistime. There was a state of rebellion. There were in that part of ourterritory no States known to our Constitution or the laws that weenact, or the officers whose duty it is to enforce those laws. 

"I recognize, too, the next fact. Bear in mind, I am simply statingnow what I conceive to be the facts. The question as to what may bethe law can be reserved for discussion on another occasion. Irecognize fully the duties of the Executive. And it was the duty ofthe President of the United States, as the head of the civil andmilitary power of this great republic--not 'empire;' God forbid thatthis country should ever be so designated with applause or even withtoleration--to beat down armed opposition to it, whether it came froma foreign power or from domestic insurrection. That was the duty ofthe President, and he recognized it; and it was not the duty of anyone in this Congress to gainsay it. It was written on the face of theConstitution that the President was to see that the laws should befaithfully executed, and the power of this republic maintained, and hedid so. 

"The next fact--the fact which seems to me to be the one mostpertinent for consideration now--is that the military power which wasopposed to this Government has been destroyed. It was the duty of theExecutive to see that this was done, and to report to the Congress ofthe United States that it has been done. But what then? Then therecomes the third question of fact, intimately connected with the last, and hardly separable from it, because it requires the immediate actionof the Executive and of Congress. All the power that existed in theshape of Confederated States behind rebel bayonets and fortificationshas fallen to the earth. The territory which these States in rebellionoccupied was the property of the people of the United States, andnever could be taken from us. I hold it to be a question of publiclaw, worthy of consideration by the representatives of the Americanpeople, by the President and the Administration generally, toascertain what existed in the shape of civil constitutions and lawsbehind the military government that has been overthrown. I hesitatenot to say, here or elsewhere, that the Executive of this Governmenthas done his duty in this matter. All conquering nations, when theyovercome a rebellious people by overthrowing their military power, look, as did the Government of Great Britain when it had overcome themutiny in India, to see what government of a civil kind has existed ormay exist from custom among the people who are conquered. I see noreason in this view to discriminate between the argument of thegentleman from Pennsylvania and the argument of the gentleman from NewYork. It seems to me, that if they will look at the particularquestions which are now before us, and which require our action, thedifferences would be in terms and not in substance. "

The people of the predominant party generally acquiesced in theopinion of Mr. Jenckes, as expressed in the conclusion of his remarksas above presented. They conceived that the difference between thevarious views of the whole question was "one of details and not ofessence. " The question of reconstruction was purely practical. Allshades of opinion in the Republican party blended in this: that theStates in question were not to be restored until satisfactory pledgeswere given to the United States. All speculation or attempt atargument in reference to their abstract condition was consequentlysuperfluous--"a pernicious abstraction, " in the language of Mr. Lincoln. 

If some were not prepared to accept the deductions of Mr. Stevens, yetaccepting the logic of Mr. Raymond, they would be carried almost asfar. The latter held that the citizens of those States were defeatedinsurgents who must submit to any conditions of surrender imposed bythe victorious commander. Certain concessions could be rightfullydemanded as parts of their surrender and conditions of theirrestoration. Their acquiescence had been required in a constitutionalamendment affecting the great social and industrial interests ofSouthern society. After this none could deny the right, whatever mightbe the expediency, of requiring their assent to other amendmentsbearing upon the political structure of the Southern States. 

Some of the predominant party were willing to stop short in theirdemands upon the rebel States with requiring acceptance of theemancipation amendment, repudiation of the rebel debt, legalprotection of freedmen, and revocation of the ordinances of secession. The majority, however, were disposed to go still further, and demandother conditions and guarantees which should become a part of thefundamental law of the land. This was the practical work ofreconstruction for which the Joint Committee of Fifteen was preparingthe way, and upon which Congress was soon to enter. 

CHAPTER XIV. 

THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION--IN THE HOUSE. 

 First work of the Joint Committee -- The joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment -- Mr. Stevens' reasons for speedy action -- Protracted discussion commenced -- Objections to the bill by Mr. Rogers -- Defense by Mr. Conkling -- Two other modes -- How States might evade the Law -- Not a finality -- Wisconsin and South Carolina -- Amendment for Female Suffrage proposed -- Orth on Indiana and Massachusetts -- Obscuration of the sun -- More Radical remedy desired -- A Kentuckian gratified -- Citations from the Census -- Premium for Treason -- White Slaves -- Power to amend well-nigh exhausted -- Objections to the Suffrage Basis -- "Race" and "Color" ambiguous -- Condition of the Question -- Recommitted -- Final passage. 

Although the Joint Committee of Fifteen were assiduous in theirattention to the work assigned them, it was not until the 22d ofJanuary, 1866, that they were ready to make a partial report andrecommend a practical measure for the consideration of Congress. 

On that day Mr. Fessenden, of the Senate, and Mr. Stevens, of theHouse of Representatives, brought before those bodies respectively apartial report from the committee, recommending the passage of thefollowing joint resolution:

 _Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, (two-thirds of both houses concurring, ) That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, shall be valid as part of said Constitution, namely:

 ARTICLE--. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed: _Provided_, That whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color, all persons of such race or color shall be excluded from the basis of representation. 

In the Senate this subject was laid over, and was not reached forseveral days, as the Freedmen's Bureau Bill was then under discussion. 

The subject was pressed upon the attention of the House for immediateaction. Mr. Stevens had no intention to make a speech, since thequestion had been under consideration by every member for the last sixweeks. He remarked, however: "There are twenty-two States whoseLegislatures are now in session, some of which will adjourn within twoor three weeks. It is very desirable, if this amendment is to beadopted, that it should go forth to be acted upon by the Legislaturesnow in session. It proposes to change the present basis ofrepresentation to a representation upon all persons, with the provisothat wherever any State excludes a particular class of persons fromthe elective franchise, that State to that extent shall not beentitled to be represented in Congress. It does not deny to the Statesthe right to regulate the elective franchise as they please; but itdoes say to a State, 'If you exclude from the right of suffrageFrenchmen, Irishmen, or any particular class of people, none of thatclass of persons shall be counted in fixing your representation inthis House. You may allow them to vote or not, as you please; but ifyou do allow them to vote, they will be counted and represented here;while if you do not allow them to vote, no one shall be authorized torepresent them here; they shall be excluded from the basis ofrepresentation. '"

As indicative of the apparent harmony of sentiments prevailing on thequestion, Mr. Wilson said that the Committee on the Judiciary haddetermined to report a proposition substantially identical with thatoffered by Mr. Stevens. 

It was deemed important to have the joint resolution passed as soon aspossible, that it might go before the State Legislatures then insession for their ratification before their adjournment. The memberwho had the measure in charge desired, after one or two speeches oneither side, to have the question put to vote, and have the resolutionpassed before the sun went down. Such action, however, seemed to theHouse too hasty, and a discussion of the measure was entered upon, which ran through many days. 

Mr. Rogers, a member of the committee, offered a minority report, andaddressed the House in opposition to the proposed amendment of theConstitution. He thus presented his view of the object of the measureproposed: "It appears to have in its body, in its soul, and in itslife only one great object and aim; that is, to debase and degrade thewhite race, and to place upon a higher footing than the white men areplaced, under the Constitution, this African race. It is a propositionto change the organic law of the land with regard to one of thefundamental principles which was laid down by our fathers at theformation of the Constitution as an axiom of civil and politicalliberty, that taxation and representation should always go together. If gentlemen will examine this proposed amendment of the Constitution, they will see that it is in violation of that great doctrine which wasproclaimed by the fathers of the republic when they enunciated theDeclaration of Independence, and protested against the tyranny anddespotism of England, because she attempted to tax the people of thecolonies without allowing them representation in the councils of thekingdom. The amendment now under consideration proposes the very sameidentical thing that the Parliament of England proposed when itattempted to inflict upon the American colonies taxation withoutallowing the people of the colonies to have representatives in theParliament of England to represent them upon the question whether theyshould be taxed by the mother country or not. 

"The first objection I have to the passage of this joint resolutionis, that it is violative of the main principle upon which theRevolutionary War was conducted, and which induced our fathers toenter the harbors of Boston and New York and throw the tea into thewater. Because the British people attempted to inflict taxation uponthem with regard to that tea, and refused to allow them representationin the Parliament of England, our fathers rebelled against theirmother country. What has come over the fortunes and happiness of thepeople of this country that the great principle of the Constitutionshould now be violated, that principle for which our fathers spilttheir blood to sustain, the great axiom of American liberty, thattaxation never should be imposed upon a people unless that people havea corresponding representation? If this amendment to the Constitutionshould be carried into effect, it will prevent any State, North orSouth, from allowing qualified suffrage to its colored population, except upon forfeiture of representation; and if qualified suffrageshould be allowed to the colored population of any State in thisUnion, on account of race of color, and but one single negro should bedeprived of his vote by failure to meet the requirements of thequalification imposed, that State would be denied representation forthe whole of that colored population--men, women, and children. 

"More than that: this bill attempts, in an indirect manner, to havepassed upon, by the Legislatures of the different States, a questionwhich the party in power dare not boldly and openly meet before thepeople of this country, because there can be but one object lying atthe foundation of this bill--an object which has been explained andexpatiated upon in this House--and that object, as I have said, is, through the Federal power, to force the States to adopt unqualifiednegro suffrage, by holding over them the penalty of being deprived ofrepresentation according to population. 

"But I object to this joint resolution upon another ground--upon thesame ground that I objected to the passage of the Negro Suffrage Billfor the District of Columbia--without consulting the people. It hasbeen said in this country that all power emanates from the people. AndI say that to submit this grave question to the consideration anddecision of partisan Legislatures in the different States--Legislatureswhich were elected without any regard to this question--is violativeof the great principles which lie at the foundations of the libertiesof this country; that no organic law, affecting the whole people, should be passed before submitting it to the people for theirratification or rejection. Now this joint resolution proposes simplyto submit this amendment for ratification to the Legislatures of thedifferent States. The Legislatures are not the States; theLegislatures are not the people in their sovereign capacity;Legislatures are not the source from which all power emanates. But thepeople, the _sacred people_, in the exercise of their sovereign power, either at the ballot-box or in conventions, are the only true andproper forum to which such grave and serious questions should besubmitted. 

"I maintain that the Constitution of the United States, as it nowexists, is not as liberal toward the Southern States, now that slaveryhas been abolished, as it was before the abolition of slavery. Why, sir, in the days of the past, under our Constitution, the SouthernStates have been allowed a representation for a population that wasnot classed as citizens or people; they were allowed a representationfor people who had no political _status_ in the State; persons whowere not entitled even to exercise the right of coming into a court ofcivil justice as a plaintiff or defendant in the prosecution ordefense of a suit. 

"Now, after the raging fires of war have swept from the domain ofevery State in the South the pernicious institution of slavery; afterthe result has been that every slave has received his freedom; afterthe slaves have gained more by the success of this war than any otherclass of people in the United States, white men, men who are therepresentatives of the white race, come here proposing to compel theStates, on pain of being deprived of a portion of theirrepresentation, to allow all the negroes within their limits to vote, without regard to qualification or any thing else, while under thesame provision the State may, by its organic law, imposequalifications and conditions upon the exercise of the right ofsuffrage by the white population. The proposed amendment to theConstitution undertakes to consolidate the power in the FederalGovernment. It throws out a menace to the States, and the inevitableresult of the passage would be to induce every State in the Union toadopt unqualified negro suffrage, so as not to deprive them of thegreat and inestimable right of representation for that class ofpopulation in the halls of the legislation of the United States. "

Mr. Conkling, also a member of the Reconstruction Committee, made anargument in favor, of the proposed amendment: "Emancipation vitalizesonly natural rights, not political rights. Enfranchisement alonecarries with it political rights, and these emancipated millions areno more enfranchised now than when they were slaves. They never hadpolitical power. Their masters had a fraction of power as masters. Butthere are no masters now. There are no slaves now. The wholerelationship in which the power originated and existed is gone. Doesthis fraction of power still survive? If it does, what shall become ofit? Where is it to go?

"We are told the blacks are unfit to wield even a fraction of power, and must not have it. That answers the whole question. If the answerbe true, it is the end of controversy. There is no place, logically, for this power to go, save to the blacks; if they are unfit to haveit, the power would not exist. It is a power astray, without arightful owner. It should be resumed by the whole nation at once. Itshould not exist; it does not exist. This fractional power isextinct. 

"A moral earthquake has turned fractions into units, and units intociphers. If a black man counts at all now, he counts five-fifths of aman, not three-fifths. Revolutions have no such fractions in theirarithmetic; war and humanity join hands to blot them out. Fourmillions, therefore, and not three-fifths of four millions, are to bereckoned in here now, and all these four millions are, and are to be, we are told, unfit for political existence. 

"Did the framers of the Constitution ever dream of this? Never, veryclearly. Our fathers trusted to gradual and voluntary emancipation, which would go hand in hand with education and enfranchisement. Theynever peered into the bloody epoch when four million fetters would beat once melted off in the fires of war. They never saw such a visionas we see. Four millions, each a Caspar Hauser, long shut up indarkness, and suddenly led out into the full flash of noon, and each, we are told, too blind to walk, politically. No one foresaw such anevent, and so no provision was made for it. The three-fifths rule gavethe slaveholding States, over and above all their just representation, eighteen Representatives beside, by the enumeration of 1860. 

"The new situation will enable those States, when relationships areresumed, to claim twenty-eight Representatives beside their justproportion. Twenty-eight votes to be cast here and in the ElectoralCollege for those held not fit to sit as jurors, not fit to testify incourt, not fit to be plaintiff in a suit, not fit to approach theballot-box! Twenty-eight votes to be more or less controlled by thosewho once betrayed the Government, and for those so destitute, we areassured, of intelligent instinct as not to be fit for free agency!

"Shall all this be? Shall four million beings count four millions, inmanaging the affairs of the nation, who are pronounced by theirfellow-beings unfit to participate in administering government in theStates where they live, or in their counties, towns, or precincts; whoare pronounced unworthy of the least and most paltry part in localpolitical affairs? Shall one hundred and twenty-seven thousand whitepeople in New York cast but one vote in this House, and have none butone voice here, while the same number of white people in Mississippihave three votes and three voices? Shall the death of slavery addtwo-fifths to the entire power which slavery had when slavery wasliving? Shall one white man have as much share in the Government asthree other white men merely because he lives where blacks outnumberwhites two to one? Shall this inequality exist, and exist only infavor of those who without cause drenched the land with blood andcovered it with mourning? Shall such be the reward of those who didthe foulest and guiltiest act which crimsons the annals of recordedtime? No, sir; not if I can help it. "

Two other modes of meeting the case had been considered by thecommittee, namely: _First_, To make the basis of representation inCongress and the Electoral College consist of sufficiently qualifiedvoters alone; _Second_, To deprive the States of the power todisqualify or discriminate politically on account of race or color. 

After presenting some reasons why the committee saw proper torecommend neither of these plans, Mr. Conkling further argued in favorof the proposed amendment: "It contains but one condition, and thatrests upon a principle already imbedded in the Constitution, and asold as free government itself. That principle I affirmed in thebeginning; namely, that representation does not belong to those whohave not political existence, but to those who have. The object of theamendment is to enforce this truth. It therefore provides thatwhenever any State finds within its borders a race of beings unfit forpolitical existence, that race shall not be represented in the FederalGovernment. Every State will be left free to extend or withhold theelective franchise on such terms as it pleases, and this withoutlosing any thing in representation if the terms are impartial as toall. Qualifications of voters may be required of any kind--qualificationsof intelligence, of property, or of any sort whatever, and yet no lossof representation shall thereby be suffered. But whenever in anyState, and so long as a race can be found which is so low, so bad, soignorant, so stupid, that it is deemed necessary to exclude men fromthe right to vote merely because they belong to that race, in thatcase the race shall likewise be excluded from the sum of Federal powerto which the State is entitled. If a race is so vile or worthless thatto belong to it is alone cause of exclusion from political action, therace is not to be counted here in Congress. "

Mr. Conkling maintained that the pending proposition commended itselffor many reasons. "_First. _ It provides for representation coëxtensivewith taxation. I say it provides for this; it does not certainlysecure it, but it enables every State to secure it. It does not, therefore, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rogers] insists, violate the rule that representation should go with taxation. If arace in any State is kept unfit to vote, and fit only to drudge, thewealth created by its work ought to be taxed. Those who profit by sucha system, or such a condition of things, ought to be taxed for it. Letthem build churches and school-houses, and found newspapers, as NewYork and other States have done, and educate their people till theyare fit to vote. 'Fair play, ' 'A fair day's wages for a fair day'swork, ' 'Live and let live'--these mottoes, if blazoned over theinstitutions of a State, will insure it against being cursed for anylength of time with inhabitants so worthless that they are fit onlyfor beasts of burden. I have said that the amendment provides forrepresentation going hand in hand with taxation. That is its firstfeature. 

"_Second. _ It brings into the basis both sexes and all ages, and so itcounteracts and avoids, as far as possible, the casual andgeographical inequalities of population. 

"_Third. _ It puts every State on an equal footing in the requirementprescribed. 

"_Fourth. _ It leaves every State unfettered to enumerate all itspeople for representation or not, just as it pleases. 

"Thus every State has the sole control, free from all interference, ofits own interests and concerns. No other State, nor the GeneralGovernment, can molest the people of any State on the subject, or eveninquire into their acts or their reasons, but all the States haveequal rights. If New York chooses to count her black population aspolitical persons, she can do so. If she does not choose to do so, thematter is her own, and her rights can not be challenged. So of SouthCarolina. But South Carolina shall not say, 'True, we have less thanthree hundred thousand "persons" in this State, politically speaking, yet we will have, in governing the country, the power of seven hundredthousand persons. '

"The amendment is common to all States and equal for all; itsoperation will, of course, be practically only in the South. NoNorthern State will lose by it, whether the Southern States extendsuffrage to blacks or not. Even New York, in her great population, hasso few blacks that she could exclude them all from enumeration and itwould make no difference in her representation. If the amendment isadopted, and suffrage remains confined as it is now, taking the censusof 1860 as the foundation of the calculation, and the number ofRepresentatives as it then stood, the gains and losses would be these:Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maine would gain one Representativeeach, and New York would gain three; Alabama, Kentucky, NorthCarolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee would each lose one; Georgia, Louisiana, and Virginia would each lose two, and Mississippi wouldlose three. "

On the following day, January 23d, the proposed joint resolution cameup in the regular order of business. 

Mr. Jenckes, of Rhode Island, feared that a construction might be putupon the bill which would be fatal to its efficiency for the purposeshad in view by its friends. He said: "It says nothing about thequalification of property. Suppose this amendment is adopted bythree-fourths of the States, and becomes a part of the fundamental lawof the land, and after its adoption the State of South Carolina shouldreinstate the constitution of 1790, striking out the word 'white' andreëstablishing the property qualification of fifty acres of land, ortown lots, or the payment of a tax, there would then be nodiscrimination of color in the State of South Carolina, yet the numberof electors would not be enlarged five hundred, and the basis ofrepresentation would be exactly as it is, with the addition oftwo-fifths of the enfranchised freedmen. A Representative to thisHouse would be reëlected by the same voting constituency as now, perhaps with the addition of five hundred black men in the State. Ifit bears this construction, and I believe it does, I shall voteagainst it. 

"If any of the States should establish property qualification basedupon lands, then the same oligarchy would be enthroned on the wholebasis of representation, entitled to a larger number ofRepresentatives than now in this House, and elected by a slightlyenlarged number of qualified electors, giving power more firmly tothat very aristocracy we have sought to overthrow. "

A number of queries were propounded, several amendments proposed, anda considerable desire for discussion expressed, until Mr. Stevens, much disappointed at the reception the measure met in the House, withdrew the demand for the previous question, and left the subjectopen for unlimited debate. 

Mr. Blaine, of Maine, addressed the House, detailing some objectionsto the measure. He said: "While I shall vote for the proposition, Ishall do so with some reluctance unless it is amended, and I do notregret, therefore, that the previous question was not sustained. I amegotistic enough to believe that the phraseology of the originalresolution, as introduced by me, was better than that employed in thepending amendment. The phrase 'civil or political rights orprivileges, ' which I employed, is broader and more comprehensive thanthe term 'elective franchise, ' for I fear, with the gentleman fromIllinois, [Mr. Farnsworth, ] that under the latter phrase the mostvicious evasions might be practiced. As that gentleman has well said, they might make suffrage depend on ownership of fifty acres of land, and then prohibit any negro holding real estate; but no such mockeryas this could be perpetrated under the provisions of the amendment asI originally submitted it. "

In relation to taxation, Mr. Blaine remarked: "Now, I contend thatordinary fair play--and certainly we can afford fair play where itdoes not cost any thing--calls for this, namely, that if we excludethem from the basis of representation they should be excluded from thebasis of taxation. Ever since this Government was founded, taxationand representation have always gone hand in hand. If we shall excludethe principle in this amendment, we will be accused of a narrow, illiberal, mean-spirited, and money-grasping policy. More than that, we do not gain any thing by it. What kind of taxation, is distributedaccording to representation? Direct taxation. Now, we do not have anydirect taxation. There has been but twenty millions of direct taxationlevied for the last fifty years. That tax was levied in 1861, and wasnot collected, but distributed among the States and held in theTreasury Department as an offset to the war claims of the States; sothat, as a matter of fact, we are putting an offensive discriminationin this proposition and gaining nothing by it except obloquy. "

Mr. Donnelly, of Minnesota, said: "It follows, as a logicalconclusion, that if men have no voice in the National Government, other men should not sit in this hall pretending to represent them. And it is equally clear that an oppressed race should not lend powerto their oppressors, to be used in their name and for theirdestruction. It is a mockery to say that a man's agent shall be hisenemy, and shall be appointed without his consent and against hisdesire, and by other enemies. 

"In fact, I can not see how any Northern man can vote against thismeasure, unless he wishes to perpetuate an injustice to his section, because the effect of it will clearly be to increase therepresentation of the North and decrease that of the South; and this, too, upon a basis of undoubted justice. It means simply that those whodo not take part in the Government shall not be represented in theGovernment. "

Mr. Donnelly did not, however, regard the proposed amendment as "agrand panacea for all the ills that affect the nation. " He would votefor the law, "not as a finality, but as a partial step as one of aseries of necessary laws. " Said he, "When we vote for this measure, itmust be because we think it right and necessary, not that it mayfurnish us with an excuse for failing to do all other right andnecessary things expected of us by the people. We must take direct, not sidelong measures. We must make laws, not arguments. We mustenforce, not induce. 

"To pass this law and then hope that South Carolina, moved by the hopeof future power, would do justice to the negro, is absurd. She has291, 300 whites and 412, 406 negroes. To pass such a law would be forthe governing power to divest itself of the government and hand itover to a subject and despised caste, and that, too, for a faint hopeof some future advantage that might never be realized under the mostfavorable circumstances, and certainly could never be realized by theaspiring class abdicating and relinquishing power. The same is true, more or less, of all the South. In Mississippi there are 353, 901whites, and 436, 631 negroes; and in all the States the negro votewould be large enough to turn the scale against the disloyal party. "

Mr. Sloan, of Wisconsin, thus presented the practical workings of the"Constitution as it is:" "Look at the practical operation of thequestion we are discussing to-day. In the State I represent there areeight hundred thousand free white people loyal to the Constitution, who have done their whole duty in sustaining their Government duringthis terrible war. The bones of our soldiers are moldering in the soilof every rebel State. They have stood around our flag in the deadlyhail of every battle of the war. The State of Wisconsin has sixRepresentatives on this floor. South Carolina has three hundredthousand white inhabitants, disloyal, who have done all in their powerto overthrow and destroy the Government, and yet, sir, under theConstitution as it now stands, the three hundred thousand disloyalwhite inhabitants of South Carolina will exercise as much politicalpower in the Government as the eight hundred thousand loyal people ofthe State of Wisconsin. "

Mr. Sloan called attention to a proposition which he had submitted tothe preceding Congress, providing that the right of representationshould be based upon the right of suffrage--upon the numbers allowedthe right to vote in the respective States. 

In answer to a supposed objection to this plan, that "there might besome inequality in the representation of the respective States, " hesaid: "We all know that the young men of the old States go out inlarge numbers to settle in the new States and Territories, while thewomen and children do not emigrate to so great an extent, and hencethere would be a larger number of voters in the new States inproportion to population than in the old. And yet this is aconsideration which, in my judgment, ought not to weigh a hair withany member on this floor. It would be only a temporary inequality. Inthe rapidly increasing settlement and in the natural increase ofpopulation of our new States, that inequality would very soon beentirely swept away. I believe the difference to-day betweenMassachusetts and Wisconsin would be very slight, if any, so rapid hasbeen the increase of our population and the settlement of our State. We are now proposing to adopt an amendment to the Constitution whichwe expect to stand for all time, and any temporary inequality whichcould continue but for a few years ought not to have any weight. "

Mr. Brooks, of New York, thought that Mr. Stevens would better "at thestart have named what are States of this Union. The opinion of thehonorable gentleman himself, that there are no States in this Unionbut those that are now represented upon this floor, I know full well;but he knows as well that the President of the United Statesrecognizes thirty-six States of this Union, and that it is necessaryto obtain the consent of three-fourths of those thirty-six States, which number it is not possible to obtain. He knows very well that ifhis amendment should be adopted by the Legislatures of States enough, in his judgment, to carry it, before it could pass the tribunal of theExecutive chamber it would be obliged to receive the assent oftwenty-seven States in order to become an amendment to theConstitution. "

Mr. Brooks, in the course of his speech, presented a petition fromcertain ladies of New York, asking an amendment of the Constitution, prohibiting the several States from disfranchising any of theircitizens on the ground of sex. He then proposed to amend the jointresolution by inserting the words "or sex" after the word "color, " sothat it would read, "_Provided_, That whenever the elective franchiseshall be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or coloror sex, all persons of such race or color or sex shall be excludedfrom the basis of representation. "

"Is the gentleman in favor of that amendment?" asked Mr. Stevens. 

"I am, " replied Mr. Brooks, "if negroes are allowed to vote. "

"That does not answer my question, " said Mr. Stevens. 

"I suggested that I would move it at a convenient time, " said Mr. Brooks. 

"Is the gentleman in favor of his own amendment?" Mr. Stevens againasked. 

"I am in favor of my own color in preference to any other color, and Iprefer the white women of my country to the negro, " was the responseof Mr. Brooks, which was followed by applause in the galleries. 

Mr. Orth, of Indiana, obtained the floor for the purpose of offeringan amendment, which he prefaced with the following remarks: "Myposition is that the true principle of representation in Congress isthat voters alone should form the basis, and that each voter shouldhave equal political weight in our Government; that the voter inMassachusetts should have the same but no greater power than the voterin Indiana; and that the voter in Indiana should have the same power, but no greater, than the voter in the State of South Carolina. Thegentleman from Maine, however, states that the census tables will showthat by the amendment which I desire to offer at this time you willcurtail the representative power of the State of Massachusetts. Andwhy? Because he has shown by his figures that although Massachusettshas a male population of 529, 244, her voting population is only175, 487, being a percentage of twenty-nine, while Indiana, with awhite male population of 693, 469, has a voting population of 280, 655, being about forty per cent. Why is this difference? Is it because ourvoting population is so much greater in proportion than the votingpopulation of Massachusetts? Not at all. The difference arises fromthe fact that the State of Massachusetts has seen fit to exclude aportion of her citizens from the ballot-box. Indiana has done the samething. Indiana has excluded one class of citizens; Massachusetts hasexcluded another class. Indiana has seen fit, for reasons best knownto herself, to exclude the colored population from the right ofsuffrage; Massachusetts, on the contrary, has seen fit to exclude fromthe ballot-box those of her citizens who can not read or write. Whilewe in Indiana are governed by a prejudice of color, the people ofMassachusetts, I might say, are governed by a prejudice as regardsignorance. But here is the difference: under the amendment that Ipropose, while Indiana excludes the black man from the right toparticipate in the decisions of the ballot-box, she does not ask thatthe black man shall be represented on this floor. On the contrary, while Massachusetts excludes black and white persons who can not readand write, she yet asks that that population excluded from the ballotshall have representation on this floor. I regard this as wrong intheory, wrong in principle, and injurious to the State which I havethe honor to represent, giving to Massachusetts a power upon thisfloor of which my State is deprived. Why? Because the exclusion whichdrives from the ballot-box in Massachusetts a large portion of hercitizens, yet admits them to representative power on this floor. "

Mr. Orth's amendment proposed that Representatives should "beapportioned among the several States according to the number of malecitizens over twenty-one years of age, having the qualificationsrequisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the StateLegislature. " There being objection to the reception of this amendmentunder the rules of the House, it could not be considered. 

Mr. Chanler, of New York, alluding to Mr. Stevens' desire to have thejoint resolution passed on the day of its introduction, before the sunwent down, said: "Sir, this measure, if passed, will tend to obscurethe sun from which the liberties of this country derive theirnourishment and life, the brilliant orb, the Constitution, whose lighthas spread itself to the farthest ends of the earth. The vitalprinciple of that Constitution, the soul of its being, is that balanceof power between the States which insures individual liberty to everycitizen of each State, and harmony among all the States of the Union. 

"I affirm, sir, that the discussion of this subject in theConstitutional Convention of 1787 was conducted in a spirit worthy ofa great people, and resulted in the noble instrument under whoseauthority we now live. That era furnishes us a sad comparison with thepresent epoch, when it may well be said that our Rome has 'lost thebreed of noble bloods, ' and when, so far as the agitation of thesefanatical and partisan questions is concerned, reason seems to have'fled to brutish beasts. ' How differently and with what wisemoderation did the framers of the Constitution act! No narrow andfanatical partisanship marks their opinions or their acts. "

After reading an extract from Curtis' History of the Constitution, Mr. Chanler, contrasting former legislation with the present on thesubject of suffrage, said: "From the above historical statement, itwill be found that the framers of the Constitution considered thequestion of suffrage of so vital importance in fixing the balance ofpower between the States, that it was, after full discussion inCongress by the whole body, referred to a select committee of one fromeach State, again reported and fully discussed, and then referred to acommittee of five, whose thorough examination of the subject gave riseto new difficulties, and caused the matter to be referred to anothercommittee of one member from each State. All differences werecompromised in a spirit of patriotism and justice. How different isall this from the hasty partisan legislation on this very suffragequestion by the present Congress!

"A caucus met before Congress organized, and chalked out a line ofpolicy and action for the Republican party on the floor of Congress. The whole matter of reconstruction was referred to a grindingcommittee, whose dictation should govern Congress in every measurebrought before it for consideration. Is this wise, just, orreasonable? I hold that this resolution is too narrow to be of use andtoo weak to last. It will totter to an untimely grave, and hobble, afeeble and contemptible instrument, from this Congress to every StateLegislature to which it may be submitted, to be rejected for itsfeebleness in a time like this, amid the overwhelming issues whichagitate this country. "

Mr. Farnsworth, of Illinois, remarked: "It is necessary, it seems tome, that whatever constitutional provision we may make should be madeclear, manifest, certain. If possible, we should make it enforceitself, so that by no cunningly-devised scheme or shift can theynullify it. It seems to me that the resolution reported by the jointCommittee on Reconstruction is not so clear as it ought to be; I amafraid that it will be worthless. A State may enact that a man shallnot exercise the elective franchise except he can read and write, making that law apply equally to the whites and blacks, and then mayalso enact that a black man shall not learn to read and write, excludehim from their schools, and make it a penal offense to instruct or toteach him, and thus prevent his qualifying to exercise the electivefranchise according to the State law. And they may do in regard to theelective franchise just what they are doing now in regard to slavery. They may provide that no man shall exercise the elective franchise whohas been guilty of a crime, and then they may denounce these men asguilty of a crime for every little, imaginary, petty offense. They maydeclare that no man shall exercise the right of voting who has not aregular business or occupation by which he may obtain a livelihood, and then they may declare that the black man has no settled occupationand no business. It seems to me, therefore, necessary that we should, by some provision in this amendment, settle this beyond aperadventure, so that none of these shifts or devices may defeat thepurpose of the enactment. "

Mr. Farnsworth was in favor of more radical remedies: "I protest herethat I will not accept any such constitutional amendment as this as asubstitute for that full measure of justice which it is our duty tomete out. I will not promise that hereafter I will not propose, andvote for, and advocate with whatever power I possess, a measure whichwill give to all the people of the States that which is their due. Byno vote of mine shall there be incorporated in the Constitution aprovision which shall, even by implication, declare that a State maydisfranchise any portion of its citizens on account of race or color. We have no right to give our countenance to any such injustice. Allprovisions in reference to representation which are based upon anyother principle than that of the people of this country, who are thesubjects of government, have the right to vote and to be represented, are false in principle. Such a measure may, perhaps, answer for atemporary expedient, but it will not do as a fundamental rule to beembodied in the Constitution for the people of this country to liveby. I deny that a State has the right to disfranchise a majority oreven a minority of its citizens because of class or race. And I saythat that provision of the Constitution which makes it the duty of theGeneral Government to 'guarantee to every State in this Union arepublican form of government' ought to be taken into consideration bythis Congress and enforced. Does a State that denies the electivefranchise to one-half of its citizens possess a republican form ofgovernment? Where a large portion of the citizens of a State--the menwho are required to pay taxes and perform military duty, to contributetheir money and their strength in support of the Government--aredenied the elective franchise, is that a republican form ofgovernment? I say that it is a libel upon republicanism; it is not arepublican form of government; it is neither republican in form nor insubstance. "

Mr. Baker, of Illinois, although anxious to have an amendment of theConstitution "achieving the general purpose of supplying a more justbasis of representation, " saw points of objection to the propositionbefore the House, some of which had been raised by previous speakers. He said: "I am reluctant to indorse an amendment to the Constitutionframed in this day of growing liberty, framed by the party ofprogress, intended to make representative power in this Governmentcorrespond with the quantum of political justice on which it is based, and yet which leaves any State in the Union perfectly free to narrowher suffrage to any extent she pleases, imposing proprietary and otherdisqualifying tests, and still strengthening her aristocratic power inthe Government by the full count of her disfranchised people, providedonly she steers clear of a test based on race or color. "

Mr. Jenckes was desirous of having a more just and comprehensiveenactment than the one proposed: "In my judgment, " said he, "justicerequires that the qualification of electors for members of this Houseand for electors of President and Vice-President of the UnitedStates--in other words, for the two popular branches of this greatGovernment--should be defined in the fundamental law. Upon this pointlet me quote the words of Madison, written in his mature years to adistinguished son of the republic seeking advice from him. He says:'The right of suffrage, the rule of apportioning representation, andthe mode of appointing to and removing from office, are fundamentalsin a free government, and ought to be fixed by the Constitution. '

"Certainly, sir, it is less difficult, in a Congress composed of lessthan three hundred men, to agree to a proposition which will meet theviews of the whole country on this question of suffrage than to adopta proposition which, when submitted to and adopted by the requisitenumber of States, must be carried into effect by as many Legislaturesas there are States, and in a different manner by each, and which, inbeing carried into effect, must be acted upon by as many thousands ofmen in State conventions and Legislatures as there are hundreds inthis Congress. 

"There is no equality, and there can be no equality, in the proposedamendment. It seems to me, therefore, if we undertake to amend thefundamental law at all in this respect, we ought to agree upon whatshould be the qualification of voters for members of this House, embodying them in the proposed amendments to submit to theLegislatures of the States. Then there would be a definiteproposition; and that, I believe, if it emanated from this House, would have substantial equality and justice--would have the elementsof equality and uniformity, and be enforced without difficulty inevery State of the Union. "

Referring to a mode which might be adopted for evading the legitimateresults of the proposed amendment, Mr. Jenckes remarked: "I wasalluding to another one. Some of the Southern States, up to thebreaking out of the war, had constitutions which prescribed a propertyqualification. Suppose this amendment were adopted, and the State ofSouth Carolina chose to annul the Constitution recently proclaimed andto go back to that of 1790, and that the word 'white' should bestricken out of it, I desire to ask how many freedmen, how manypersons of African descent, can be found who own in fee fifty acres ofland or a town lot, or who have paid a tax of three shillingssterling. As far as I can ascertain from the statistics, there wouldnot be, if that constitution were restored and the word 'white'omitted, over five hundred additional qualified voters in that State. 

"Ever since the adoption of the Constitution of 1790 down to the timeof firing on Fort Sumter, South Carolina was in practical relation tothis Government as a State of this Union. She had been considered ashaving a republican form of government, and that which we hadguaranteed as such for many years we would be bound to guarantee toher hereafter. Stronger than ever this oligarchy would be enthronedupon their old seat of power, not upheld merely by slaves beneath it, but by the power of the General Government above and around it. Shemight make any of the discriminations which I have suggested, of age, of residence, of previous servitude, and of ignorance or poverty. "

Mr. Trimble, of Kentucky, was "exceedingly gratified at thedisposition manifested among the party in opposition here, by reasonof their own differences of opinion, to allow an opportunity to us topresent our objections to the measure now under consideration. Thissubject of amending the Constitution under which we have lived solong, so happily, and so prosperously, is one of great moment; andwhile I have some confidence in the ability and capacity of some ofthe friends on the opposite side to make a constitution, yet I preferthe Constitution as made by our fathers eighty years ago. 

"In my opinion, the amendment proposed is in violation of the reservedrights of the people of the States under that instrument. The objectand purpose of this resolution is to enfranchise a million men in thiscountry whom no political party in this country ever had the boldnessto propose the enfranchisement of prior to the present session ofCongress. I remember that, in 1860 and 1861, the party known in thiscountry as the Union party took the ground, from one end of thecountry to the other, that neither Congress nor the people of theStates had the power, under the Constitution of the United States, tointerfere with slavery in the States where it existed; much less, sir, did they claim the power not only to destroy it, but to strike downthe provisions of the Constitution that protected me and myconstituents in our right to our property. Sir, there was an amendmentsubmitted then for the purpose of peace, for the purpose of restoringpeace and quiet throughout the country. It met, at the time, my heartysupport, and I regret, from the bottom of my heart, that the people, North, South, East, and West, did not agree to that proposition, andmake it part and parcel of the Constitution. I refer to the amendmentproposed in 1861, declaring that Congress should never thereafterinterfere with the question of slavery in the States. 

"Sir, it is a well-established principle that no one should bepermitted to take advantage of his own wrong. If the party in powerhave succeeded in freeing the slaves of the South, ought they not, atleast, to allow the Southern States to enjoy the increasedrepresentation to which, according to the rule established by theConstitution, they are now entitled? Or, if the Northern Statessincerely desire that the negroes of the South shall vote and shall berepresented in Congress, let them transport those negroes to the Northand take them under their guardianship; they are welcome to them. 

"I believe that the people of Kentucky, whom I in part represent, andI have no doubt the people of the whole South, will submit in goodfaith to the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. While theymay believe that the amendment is revolutionary and unjust, inviolation of the rights of Kentucky and the South, still the SouthernStates, having in a way yielded up this question, for representationand peace, they will stand by the Constitution as amended. "

Finally, Mr. Trimble presented the following argument against themeasure: "This proposition is a direct attack upon the President ofthe United States; it is a direct attack upon the doctrines andprinciples taught by that distinguished man now holding thepresidential chair. This amendment is in violation, in my judgment, ofevery principle that that man has held from his boyhood up to thepresent hour. Sir, the President of the United States does not believethat the Congress of the United States has the right, or that thepeople have the right, to strike down the inalienable right of theStates to settle for themselves who shall be clothed with that highprivilege--suffrage. "

The subject being resumed on the following day, January 24th, Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio, addressed the House, premising his remarks by amotion that the resolution and amendments be recommitted to theCommittee on Reconstruction, "with instructions to report an amendmentto the Constitution which shall, first, apportion direct taxes amongthe States according to property in each; and which shall, second, apportion Representatives among the States on the basis of adult malevoters who may be citizens of the United States. "

He argued that "the rule which gave representation to three-fifths ofthe slave population was wrong in principle, and unjust in practicalresults. It was purely arbitrary, the result of compromise, and not offixed political principles, or of any standard of abstract justice. Ifslavery was a just element of political strength, I know of no rulewhich could properly divide it into 'fractional quantities;' if it wasnot a just element of political strength, I know of no rule whichcould properly give it 'fractional power. '

"The basis of representation was unjust in practical results, becauseit gave to chattel slavery political power--a power accorded to noother species of property--thus making what the slave States regardedas wealth an element of political strength. "

After having given a statistical table showing how representation wasapportioned among the several States having free and slave population, Mr. Lawrence deduced the following facts: "New Hampshire, with a whitepopulation of 325, 579, has but three Representatives, while Louisiana, with a white population of 357, 629, had five. California, with a whitepopulation of 323, 177, has but three Representatives, whileMississippi, with a similar population of 353, 901, had five. In SouthCarolina 72, 847 white persons had one Representative, while the ratioof representation is one for 127, 000 persons. 

"Under this mode of apportionment, the late slave States had eighteenRepresentatives, by the census of 1860, more than their just share, ifbased on free population. The whole political power of Ohio wascounterbalanced by slave representation. It was equal to two-thirds ofall the representation from New England. In South Carolina 14, 569votes carried as much political power as 25, 400 in the free States. "

Freedom having been given to the slaves, "the effect will be, so soonas lawful State Governments are created in the rebel States, tolargely increase their representation in Congress and the ElectoralCollege. The slave population, by the census of 1860, was 3, 950, 531. Three-fifths of this, or 2, 370, 318, has heretofore entered into thebasis of representation. Now, the additional 1, 580, 213 is to be addedto that basis. This will give ten additional Representatives to thelate slave States--in all twenty-eight more than their just proportionupon a basis excluding the late slaves. If this injustice can betolerated and perpetuated, and the late rebel States shall soon beadmitted to representation, they will enjoy as the reward of theirperfidy and treason an increased political power. This will rewardtraitors with a liberal premium for treason. "

As to the proper time for amending the Constitution, Mr. Lawrencesaid: "But if ever there could be a time for making fundamental changesin our organic law, and ingrafting on it irreversible guarantees, thattime is now. The events of the past four years demonstrate theirnecessity, and our security for the future imperatively demands themat our hands. The great events which have transpired, and the alteredcircumstances that surround us, admonish us that we will be recreantto our trusts if we fail to inscribe justice on the Constitution, andfortify it against the encroachments of treason, so that it shall beeternal. One of the elements of our past misfortunes, and which gavepower for evil to the enemies who assailed us in this temple, wasunequal and unjust representation--political power wielded by adominant class, augmented by concessions on behalf of a disfranchisedand servile race, insultingly declared almost in the very citadel ofnational justice as having no rights which a white man was bound torespect. By this amendment we strike down the iniquity of one classwielding political power for another, and arrogant because in theexercise of unjust power. "

Maintaining that representation should be based upon suffrage, Mr. Lawrence said: "The reason which conclusively justifies it is, that apeople declared by law, if in fact unprepared for suffrage, should notbe represented as an element of power by those interested in foreverkeeping them unprepared. But children never can be qualified andcompetent depositaries of political power, and, therefore, should notenter into the basis of representation. It never has been deemednecessary for the protection of females that they should be regardedas an element of political power, and hence they should not be anelement of representation. If the necessity shall come, or if oursense of justice should so change as to enfranchise adult females, itwill be time enough then to make them a basis of representation. "

Mr. Shellabarger, of Ohio, though having "fifteen times as muchrespect for the opinions of the Committee on Reconstruction" as forhis own, yet suggested the following as objections to their report:

"1. It contemplates and provides for, and in that way, taken byitself, authorizes the States to wholly disfranchise entire races ofits people, and that, too, whether that race be white or black, Saxon, Celtic, or Caucasian, and without regard to their numbers orproportion to the entire population of the State. 

"2. It is a declaration made in the Constitution of the only great andfree republic in the world, that it is permissible and right to denyto the races of men all their political rights, and that it ispermissible to make them the hewers of wood and drawers of water, themud-sills of society, provided only you do not ask to have thesedisfranchised races represented in that Government, provided youwholly ignore them in the State. The moral teaching of the clauseoffends the free and just spirit of the age, violates the foundationprinciples of our own Government, and is intrinsically wrong. 

"3. The clause, by being inserted into the Constitution, and beingmade the companion of its other clauses, thereby construes and givesnew meanings to those other clauses; and it thus lets down and spoilsthe free spirit and sense of the Constitution. Associated with thatclause relating to the States being 'republican, ' it makes it readthus: 'The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Uniona republican form of government;' provided, however, that a governmentshall be deemed to be republican when whole races of its people arewholly disfranchised, unrepresented, and ignored. 

"4. The report of the committee imposes no adequate restraint uponthis disfranchisement of races and creation of oligarchies in theStates, because after a race is disfranchised in a State it gives toone vote cast in such State by the ruling race just the same power asa vote has in a State where no one is disfranchised. 

"5. These words of the amendment, to-wit, 'denied or abridged onaccount of color, ' admit of dangerous construction, and also of anevasion of the avowed intent of the committee. Thus, for example, theAfrican race may, in fact, be disfranchised in the States, and yetenumerated as part of the basis of representation, by means of aprovision disfranchising all who were slaves, or all whose ancestorswere slaves. 

"6. The pending proposition of the committee is a radical departurefrom the principles of representative republican government, in this, that it does not provide for nor secure the absolute politicalequality of the people, or, relatively, of the States. It does notsecure to each vote throughout the Government absolute equality in itsgoverning force. It, for example, permits twenty-five thousand votesin New York city to elect two members of Congress, provided one-halfof its population should happen to be foreigners unnaturalized, andnot electors of the State, whom the law deems unfit to vote; whereas, twenty-five thousand votes in Ohio would elect but one member ofCongress, provided her citizens were all Americans instead offoreigners. "

Mr. Eliot submitted an amendment to the effect that population shouldbe the basis of representation, and that "the elective franchise shallnot be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color. "He stated the following grounds of objection to the resolution offeredby the committee: "First, the amendment as it is now reported from thecommittee is objectionable, to my mind, because it admits byimplication that a State has the right to disfranchise large masses ofits citizens. No man can show that in that Constitution which thefathers made, and under which we have lived, the right is recognizedin any State to disfranchise large masses of its citizens because ofrace. And I do not want now, at this day, that the Congress of theUnited States, for the purpose of effecting a practical good, shallput into the Constitution of the land any language which would seem torecognize that right. 

"The next objection I have to the amendment is this: that it enables aState, consistently with its provisions, by making the right to votedepend upon a property qualification, to exclude large classes of menof both races. A State may legislate in such a way as to be, in fact, an oligarchy, and not a republican State. South Carolina may legislateso as to provide that no man shall have the right to vote unless hepossesses an annual income of $1, 000, and holds real estate to theamount of five hundred acres. Every one sees that that would excludemultitudes of all classes of citizens, making the State no longerrepublican, but oligarchical. Yet gentlemen say that under theConstitution Congress is bound to see to it that each State shall havea republican form of government. 

"The third objection I have to this amendment is, that it controls byimplication that power; because, while the Constitution now says thatCongress shall guarantee to every State a republican form ofgovernment, this amendment, as reported by the committee, admits byimplication that, although a State may so legislate as to excludethese multitudes of men, not on account of race or color, but onaccount of property, yet, nevertheless, she would have a republicanform of government, and that Congress will not and ought not tointerfere. "

Mr. Pike, of Maine, had, on the assembling of Congress after theholidays, offered a resolution, expressing the idea contained in thereport of the committee, but on reflection had come to the conclusionthat the resolution would not accomplish the purpose desired. Hestated his reasons for changing his opinion. He thought that theprovisions of the proposed amendment might be evaded. "Suppose, " saidhe, "this constitutional amendment in full force, and a State shouldprovide that the right of suffrage should not be exercised by anyperson who had been a slave, or who was the descendant of a slave, whatever his race or color. I submit that it is a serious matter ofdoubt whether or not that simple provision would not be sufficient todefeat this constitutional amendment which we here so laboriouslyenact and submit to the States. "

Mr. Conkling thought that this criticism could have no practicalimportance, from the fact that the proposed amendment was to operatein this country, where one race, and only one, has been held inservitude. 

Mr. Pike replied: "In no State in the South has slavery been confinedto any one race. So far as I am acquainted with their statutes, in noState has slavery been confined to the African race. I know of noslave statute, and I have examined the matter with some care, whichsays that Africans alone shall be slaves. So much for race. As tocolor, it was a common thing throughout the whole South to advertiserunaway slaves as having light hair and blue eyes, and all theindications of the Caucasian race, and 'passing themselves off forwhite men. ' I say further to the honorable gentleman from New York, that well-authenticated instances exist in every slave State where menof Caucasian descent, of Anglo-Saxon blood, have been confined inslavery, and they and their posterity held as slaves; so that not onlyfree blacks were found every-where, but white slaves also abounded. "

Mr. Kelley, who next addressed the House, also brought proof tocontrovert the "hasty assertion" that but one race had been enslaved:"The assertion that white persons have been sold into slavery does notdepend on common report, but is proven by the reports of the superiorcourts of almost every Southern State. One poor German woman, who hadarrived in our country at thirteen years of age, was released fromslavery by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, but not until she hadbecome the mother of three mulatto children, her owner having matedher with one of his darker slaves. Toward the close of the lastcentury, the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided that American Indianscould be reduced to and legally held in slavery. And so long ago as1741 white slave women were so common in North Carolina, that theLegislature passed a law dooming to slavery the child of every 'whiteservant woman' born of an Indian father. "

Mr. Kelley thought that the enforcement of this long-dormant power ofthe Constitution would be for the benefit not merely of the poor, theignorant, and the weak, but also of the wise, "the strong, and thewealthy of our country. " "There is now pending, " said he, "before theLegislature of regenerated and, as gentlemen would have us believe, reconstructed Virginia, a bill to require five years' residence on thepart of citizens of other States who may invest their capital andsettle within the sacred limits of the Old Dominion before they canacquire citizenship. If they may pass a limitation of five years, whymay they not pass a limitation of fifty? Why will not any limitationthat comes within the ordinary duration of human life be admissible?"

Mr. Bromwell, obtaining the floor, inquired whether the question wasin such condition that any amendment or substitute could be offered. The Speaker replied: "Six amendments are pending now. The only onethat could be offered would be to amend the amendment of the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens, ] which was, to add the word 'therein'in the fifteenth line. No other amendment would be in order now, thewhole legislative power to amend being exhausted. "

Mr. Bromwell had desired to offer an amendment which, in his opinion, would obviate many of the objections to pending joint resolution, andthe amendments thereto; but the way not being open for this, headdressed the House in a brief speech. He said: "When this amendmentwas introduced, on last Monday morning, the differences of opinionwhich have been developed in reference to the principles of theamendment were not anticipated. But to-day we see that it has, so far, not an advocate upon this floor. Such may be the result with everyamendment which may be presented. It is difficult to see, among allthe amendments which are now pending, any one of them, or anycombination of them, that will meet the desire of the majority, not tosay two-thirds of this House. I apprehend that the members of thisHouse desire to act so as to secure the support of a proper majorityhere. I apprehend, also, that they desire to make this amendment suchthat it will meet with the sanction of a sufficient number of theStates of the Union to make it effectual. Now, sir, it is in vain forthis Congress to launch an amendment which shall die on the roadthrough the Legislatures. "

Notwithstanding the difficulties in the way of all the plans proposed, Mr. Bromwell was heartily in favor of modifying the basis ofrepresentation. "I think, " said he, "seventy years is long enough forfifteen, twenty, or thirty Representatives to sit here and make lawsto apply to Northern people, with no constituencies behind them. Ithink it has been seen long enough that a large number of personscalled property, made property by the laws of the States, shall giveto the oligarchs of those particular districts of country the right tooutvote the independent men of the North, of the free States, wheresome approximation has been made to securing God-given rights to allinhabitants. I think that it is wrong that the further a State recedesfrom common right and common justice the more power the oligarchywhich controls it shall grasp in their hands; and I desire that thisamendment shall be made so that it shall bear down upon that abusewith the crushing power of three-fourths of the legislatures of theUnion. "

After the House had heard so many objectors to the basis ofrepresentation, as proposed by the committee, Mr. Cook, of Illinois, took the floor in favor of the measure. He said: "We have now, as Ibelieve, the golden opportunity to remedy this evil which will nevercome again to the men of this generation. The system of slavery hasfallen. The States whose representation was increased by it have, withtwo or three exceptions, destroyed their loyal and legal Stategovernments, and now seek reconstruction. The adoption of thisamendment by the States lately in rebellion should be one of theguarantees to be insisted upon as a condition precedent to theirtaking equal authority and rank in the Union with the loyal States. "

To the proposition that the basis of representation should be votersonly, Mr. Cook presented the following objections:

"1. It is difficult to enumerate voters accurately; theirqualifications are fixed by State laws. We can not send Federalofficers into every State to adjudicate, in disputed cases, the rightsof those claiming to be voters under the State laws, as we should haveto do. 

"2. It would not be just; the voters of the country are unequallydistributed. The old States have fewer, the new States more, votersaccording to the white population. In other words, there is a greaterproportion of women and children in the old States. These should beand are represented. They are represented, in the true sense of thatword, by their fathers and brothers. The man who represents them doesso really and practically, and not by legal fiction, like the man whorepresents 'three-fifths of all other persons. '

"3. It takes from the basis of representation all unnaturalizedforeigners. I do not wish to discuss the question whether this wouldbe judicious or not, but I do not want a measure of this almostsupreme importance loaded down with these questions, and its passagejeopardized by the incorporation of provisions which, would render itso liable to attack and misrepresentation. "

Mr. Cook referred as follows to some objections urged against thebasis of representation proposed by the Reconstruction Committee: "Itis said that the Southern States may impose a property qualification, and so exclude the negroes, not on account of race or color, but forwant of a property qualification, or that they might provide for aqualification of intelligence, and so disfranchise the negroes becausethey could not read or write, and still enumerate them. To do thisthey must first repeal all the laws now denying suffrage to negroes;and, second, provide qualifications which will disfranchise half theirwhite voters; two things neither of which will, in any humanprobability, occur. And in the event that it was possible that boththese measures should be adopted, and all the blacks and half thewhites disqualified, it would become a grave question whether theprovision of the Constitution which requires the United States toguarantee to each State a republican form of government would notauthorize the Government to rectify so gross a wrong. There is nomeasure to which fanciful objections may not be urged; but I believethis to be the least objectionable of any measure which has beensuggested to meet this evil. But above all, I am well persuaded thatit is the only measure that can meet the approval of three-fourths ofthe States; consequently, that this is the only practical measurebefore the House. "

Mr. Marshall, of Illinois, declared the proposition, as reported bythe committee, to be "wholly untenable, is monstrous, absurd, damnablein its provisions, a greater wrong and outrage on the black race thanany thing that has ever been advocated by others. "

He thus set forth the measure in the light of injustice to the negro:"The gentlemen who report it profess to be, and doubtless are, thepeculiar advocates of the African race. I wish to ask them upon whatprinciple of justice, upon what principle of free government, theyhave provided that if, after this amendment is adopted, SouthCarolina, Mississippi, or any other State shall adopt a provision thatall white men over twenty-one years of age shall be voters, and allblack men who have two hundred dollars' worth of property, and ifthere shall be ten thousand legal black voters in such State, uponwhat principle will you place in the Constitution of the United Statesa provision which would deprive these ten thousand legal black votersof any representation upon the floor of Congress, or of beingconsidered in the basis of representation? And I wish to ask thehonorable gentleman who reported this amendment if that is not theeffect and result of the amendment reported from the committee. "

In reference to the time and place of inaugurating constitutionalamendments, Mr. Marshall used the following language: "If anyamendments are necessary to the Constitution of our country, this isnot the time, and more especially is this not the place, to inauguratesuch amendments. I believe, notwithstanding the conceded wisdom, ability, and virtue of this House, that the fathers who framed ourglorious Constitution were wiser, better, and nobler than we are; yetevery day we have offered here some dozen or twenty proposedamendments to the Constitution, offered as if we were discussingresolutions in a town meeting. "

[Illustration: Robert C. Schenck. ]

Among the propositions before the House relating to this subject, wasan amendment proposed by Mr. Schenck, of Ohio, providing thatrepresentation should be based upon "the number of male citizens ofthe United States over twenty-one years of age, having thequalifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch ofthe State legislature. "

Mr. Schenck addressed the House, and thus gave a history of his ownconnection with the measure: "At a very early day in this session, Iwas one of those disposed to ask the attention of Congress to thesubject, to propose in proper form the submission of the question tothe Legislatures of the several States. On the first day of thesession, on the 4th of December last, as soon as the House wasorganized, I gave notice that I would on the next, or some succeedingday, introduce a proposition to amend the Constitution. On the ensuingday I did accordingly present a joint resolution. It stands as HouseResolution No. 1 of the session. 

"In that I propose representation hereafter shall be based uponsuffrage. I propose that representation shall be apportioned among theseveral States of the Union according to the number of voters havingqualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch ofthe Legislature of the State where they reside, following in this thelanguage of the Constitution; these voters, however, to be furtherlimited in their descriptions and definitions as being male citizensof the United States over twenty-one years of age. Now, whether theproposition be a good one or not; whether the limitation be such asshould commend itself to the masses of our people, I will not for thepresent inquire. I will only remark they have seemed to me to embraceas many qualifications as we ought to include when we are going to laydown a new organic law on this subject. "

An objection urged by Mr. Schenck against the plan proposed by thecommittee was, that it failed to offer inducements for a gradualenfranchisement of the negro. He said: "Now, sir, I am not one ofthose who entertain Utopian ideas in relation, not merely to theprogress, but to the immediate change of sentiment, opinions, andpractice among the people of those States that have so lately beenslave States, and so recently in rebellion. I believe that, like allother people, their growth toward good and right and free institutionsmust necessarily be gradual; and if we pass the amendment which I haveproposed, or any thing similar to it, and say to them, 'You shall haverepresentation proportioned to the portion of your population to whichyou extend this inestimable franchise, ' my belief is that they willnot, on the next day after it becomes a part of the organic law of theUnited States, at once enfranchise all the negroes in their midst. Iam not sure that they ought to do it; but we are dealing with thematter now as it presents itself as a practical question. What willthey probably do? My belief is, that if you persuade them to do right, if you hold out to them an inducement for letting their negroes vote, and striking out these disqualifications and putting all upon thebasis of manhood, they will probably begin, after the amendmentbecomes part of the organic law, by extending this right to those whohave acquired certain property; perhaps they will also extend it, after awhile, to those who have certain qualifications of education. However they may proceed, whether rapidly or slowly, it will be a workof progress and a work of time. But by this amendment you would say tothem, 'We do not want you to enter upon any such gradual bringing upof these people to the level plain of right to be enjoyed by themequally with others of other races in your midst. ' We say to them, 'You may enfranchise one-third or one-fourth of your people who areblack and deprived of the privilege of voting by introducing thequalification of property, up to which one-third or one-fourth maycome; you may introduce a qualification of education, up to which anumber of them may come; but that will all be of no value; so long asthere is any denial or any abridgement of the right to vote of asingle man on account of his race or color, you shall have no part ofthe population of that race or color counted to measure to you yourshare of representation. '

"Now, I will not go into the abstract question whether they ought toenfranchise the negroes at once or not; I will not go into thequestion of how soon they ought to do it as a matter of expediency; Isay that, in all human probability, when they come to enfranchise, ifthey do it at all, this portion of their population, they will do itgradually; yet, by this amendment, as it comes from the committee, yousay that they shall not be represented for any part of it at all tillthey completely enfranchise them and put them on the same footing withthe white population. "

In conclusion, Mr. Schenck remarked: "New England, if she should evenlose a vote, or two votes, or a fraction of a vote, can not afford, any more than Ohio or Indiana, or any other of those States can, having these particular objections to the scheme, to let theopportunity go by now and not introduce a general amendment which willremedy the one great evil under which we are all laboring together. Ihold that Ohio must give up her objections on account of her negropopulation; that the North-western States must give up theirobjections on account of the fact that they are permitting persons tovote who are not yet citizens of the United States. Those personswould have to wait, 'to tarry at Jericho until their beards aregrown, ' I hold that New England must give up her objections; and, ifwe are to amend the organic law at all, we must do it by uniting upona common principle, a common sympathy, a common feeling, at least onthis side of the House, upon which the entire responsibility isthrown, acting harmoniously, and adopting such an amendment to theorganic law as shall be entirely democratic and fair in all its scopeand action upon all the people of the States of this Union. "

The discussion was continued on the day following, Mr. Eldridge, ofWisconsin, having the floor for the first speech. After havingexpressed his satisfaction that the sun was allowed to go down on thedeliberations upon this resolution, he confessed himself opposed tothe amendment of the Constitution. He said: "I believe that this isnot the time for its amendment, and I believe, further, that there areother States than those represented upon this floor which are entitledto deliberate with us on that question, and to that point I shallmainly address the remarks which I have to make at this time. "

He made a protracted speech on the general subject of reconstruction. At the close of his remarks, he said: "It would much more comport withthe dignity and sense of justice of the American Congress to let thelegally elected members from the Southern States be admitted, andparticipate in the proceedings and debates, especially in matters ofso great importance as a change in our organic law. Let us have arepresentation for our whole country. Wherever the American flagfloats, from the St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico--wherever theStar-spangled Banner waves--that is our country. And let us legislateas Americans, as Representatives of our whole country, in a spirit ofjustice, liberality, and patriotism, and we will again have onecountry. "

Mr. Higby, of California, was opposed to the joint resolution from thefact that the proviso in the proposed amendment is in conflict withthat portion of the Constitution which requires that "the UnitedStates shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican formof government. " "I say it, " said he, "without fear or favor, that thatamendment will allow any State government in its organization toexclude one-half of its population from the right of suffrage; and Isay such State governments will not be republican in form. "

In a conversation which ensued with some members, Mr. Higby maintainedthat no State excluding any class of citizens on account of race orcolor was republican in form. "I do not believe, " said he, "there is asingle State in the Union, except it may be one of the New EnglandStates, which is an exception to that general rule. "

Mr. Hill, of Indiana, asked whether the gentleman would favor theHouse with his opinion as to what would be a republican form ofgovernment. 

Mr. Higby was sorry that the gentleman had lived to his time of life, and obtained a position as the Representative of a large constituency, without finding out what a republican form of government is. "I willask the gentleman, " said he, "if he thinks that those States that haveexcluded and disfranchised more than half of their native populationhave a republican form of government?"

"In my opinion, " said Mr. Hill, "when the framers of the Constitutionplaced in that instrument the declaration or the provision that theGovernment of the United States would guarantee to each State arepublican form of government, they spoke with reference to suchgovernments as then existed, and such as those same framers recognizedfor a long time afterward as republican governments. "

"Well, that is a very good answer, " said Mr. Higby. "It is an answerfrom a stand-point seventy-five years ago. I speak from thestand-point of the present time. "

Mr. Higby desired that the joint resolution should go back to thecommittee. He said: "I do not wish it disposed of here, to be voteddown. I want, if it is possible, that it shall be so framed that itshall receive the full constitutional majority required, and be aproposition that shall operate with full force in all those Statesthat now have a great population excluded from the rights ofcitizenship. "

"If the gentleman proposes, " said Mr. Stevens, "to send it back to thecommittee without instructions, I would ask him what we are to do. There are not quite as many views upon this floor as there aremembers; but the number lacks very little of it. And how are we togather up all those views spread through all this discussion, andaccommodate all, when each view would now probably receive from one tothree votes in its favor?"

"I have only this to say, " replied Mr. Higby: "with my views of theConstitution, I never can vote for this proposition with this provisoin its present language. I say that it gives a power to the States tomake governments that are not republican in form. "

"I say to my friend, " said Mr. Stevens, "that if I thought, that byany fair construction of language, such an interpretation could begiven as he gives, I would vote against it myself; but I do notbelieve there is any thing in that objection. "

Mr. Bingham took the floor in favor of the proposed joint resolution. In "giving this and other amendments to the Constitution my support, "said he, "I do not subject myself to the gratuitous imputation of awant of reverence either for the Constitution or its illustriousfounders. I beg leave, at all events, to say, with all possiblerespect for that gentleman, that I do not recognize the right of anyman upon this floor, who was a representative of that party whichdenied the right to defend the Constitution of his country by armsagainst armed rebellion, to become my accuser. 

"In seeking to amend, not to mar, the Constitution of the UnitedStates, we ought to have regard to every express or implied limitationupon our power imposed by that great instrument. When gentlemen objectto amending the Constitution, when they talk sneeringly abouttinkering with the Constitution, they do not remember that it is oneof the express provisions of that instrument that Congress shall havepower to propose amendments to the Legislatures of the several States. Do gentlemen mean, by the logic to which we have listened for the pastfive days on this subject of our right to amend, that we are not toadd any thing to the Constitution, and that we are to take nothingfrom it? I prefer to follow, in this supreme hour of the nation'strial, the lead of a wiser and nobler spirit, who, by common consent, was called, while he lived, 'the Father of his Country, ' and, now thathe is dead, is still reverenced as 'the Father of his Country, ' and tobe hailed, I trust, by the millions of the future who are to peoplethis land of ours as 'the Father of his Country. ' In his FarewellAddress, his last official utterance, Washington used thesesignificant words, which I repeat to-day for the consideration ofgentlemen: "The basis of our political systems is the right of thepeople to make and to alter their constitutions of government. ' Wepropose, sir, simply to act in accordance with this suggestion ofWashington. We propose, in presenting these amendments, to alter, inso far as the changed condition of the country requires, thefundamental law, in order to secure the safety of the republic andfurnish better guarantees in the future for the rights of each andall. 

"The question that underlies this controversy is this: whether we willstand by the Constitution in its original intent and spirit, or, likecravens, abandon it. I assert it here to-day, without fear ofcontradiction, that the amendment pending before this House is anamendment conforming exactly to the spirit of the Constitution, andaccording to the declared intent of its framers. 

"My friend from California [Mr. Higby] has informed us that there areone hundred thousand more free colored citizens of the United Statesin the State of Mississippi to-day than there are of white citizens;that there are one hundred thousand more free colored citizens of theUnited States in South Carolina than there are of white citizens; andthen we are gravely told that we must not press this amendment, because we are abandoning the Constitution and the intent of ourfathers. That is a new discovery, one for which the Democracy ought totake out letters patent, that it was ever intended that a minority offree citizens should disfranchise the majority of free male citizens, of full age, in any State of the Union! For myself, I will neverconsent to it. "

In answer to the objection that the proviso in the proposed amendmentseemed to acknowledge the right to deny or abridge the electivefranchise on account of race or color, Mr. Bingham said: "I beg thegentleman to consider that a grant of power by implication can not beraised by a law which only imposes a penalty, and nothing but apenalty, for a non-performance of a duty or the violation of a right. Within the last hundred years, in no country where the common lawobtains, I venture to say, has any implication of a grant of powerever been held to be raised by such a law, and especially an impliedpower, to do an act expressly prohibited by the same law. Theguarantee of your Constitution, that the people shall elect theirRepresentatives in the several States, can not be set aside orimpaired by inserting in your Constitution, as a penalty fordisregarding it, the provision that the majority of a State thatdenies the equal rights of the minority shall suffer a loss ofpolitical power. 

"I have endeavored to show that the words of the Constitution, thepeople of 'the States shall choose their Representatives, ' is anexpress guarantee that a majority of the free male citizens of theUnited States in every State of this Union, being of full age, shallhave the political power subject to the equal right of suffrage in theminority of free male citizens of full age. There is a furtherguarantee in the Constitution of a republican form of government toevery State, which I take to mean that the majority of the free malecitizens in every State shall have the political power. I submit to myfriend that this proviso is nothing but a penalty for a violation onthe part of the people of any State of the political right orfranchise guaranteed by the Constitution to their free malefellow-citizens of full age. 

"The guarantee in the first article of the second section of theConstitution, rightly interpreted, is, as I claim, this: that themajority of the male citizens of the United States, of full age, ineach State, shall forever exercise the political power of the Statewith this limitation: that they shall never by caste legislationimpose disabilities upon one class of free male citizens to the denialor abridgement of equal rights. The further provision is, that theUnited States shall guarantee to each State a republican form ofgovernment, which means that the majority of male citizens, of fullage, in each State, shall govern, not, however, in violation of theConstitution of the United States or of the rights of the minority. "

In closing his address, Mr. Bingham said: "I pray gentlemen toconsider long before they reject this proviso. It may not be the bestthat the wisest head in this House can conceive of, but I askgentlemen to consider that the rule of statesmanship is to take thebest attainable essential good which is at our command. The reason whyI support the proposed amendment is, that I believe it essential andattainable. I do not dare to say that it could not be improved. I dodare to say that it is in aid of the existing grants and guarantees ofthe Constitution of my country, that it is simply a penalty to beinflicted upon the States for a specific disregard in the future ofthose wise and just and humane grants 'to the people' to elect theirRepresentatives and maintain a republican government in each State. 

"Mr. Speaker, the republic is great; it is great in its domain, equalin extent to continental Europe, abounding in productions of everyzone, broad enough and fertile enough to furnish bread and homes tothree hundred million freemen. The republic is great in theintelligence, thrift, industry, energy, virtue, and valor of itsunconquered and unconquerable children, and great in its matchless, wise, and beneficent Constitution. I pray the Congress of the UnitedStates to propose to the people all needful amendments to theConstitution, that by their sovereign act they may crown the republicfor all time with the greatness of justice. "

Mr. Broomall, of Pennsylvania, presented an objection to theresolution which had not been alluded to by any gentleman on thefloor. He said: "The resolution provides that whenever the electivefranchise shall be denied or abridged in any State, on account of raceor color, all persons of such race or color shall be excluded from thebasis of representation. Now, there is a great deal of indefinitenessin both those terms, 'race' and 'color. '

"What is a race of men? Writers upon the subject of races differ verymaterially on this point. Some of them would make four or five races;others fifteen; and one, whom I might name, seems inclined not tolimit the number short of a thousand. I myself am inclined to thinkthat the Celtic race is a distinct one from ours. I think that anygentleman who has studied this subject attentively will at least havedoubts whether or not the race that appears to have inhabited Europein the early historic period, and has been partly dispossessed thereby ours, is not a distinct race from ours. 

"Again: the word 'color' is exceedingly indefinite. If we had aconstitutional standard of color, that of sole-leather, for example, by which to test the State laws upon this subject, there might be lessdanger in incorporating this provision in the Constitution. But theterm 'color' is nowhere defined in the Constitution or the law. Weapply the term to persons who are of African descent, whether theircolor is whiter or darker than ours. Every one who is familiar withthe ethnological condition of things here in the United States, andwho sees the general mixing up of colors, particularly in theDemocratic portion of the country--I allude to that portion south ofMason and Dixon's line--must say with me that the word 'color' has novery distinct meaning when applied to the different peoples of theUnited States of America. "

Two Representatives from New York--Mr. Davis and Mr. Ward--expressedopinions favorable to a modification of the basis of representation, and yet were opposed to the details of the proposition before theHouse. 

Mr. Nicholson, of Delaware, in emphatic terms, denounced the acts of amajority of the House in attempting to amend the Constitution. "Ifthey shall finally triumph, " said he, "in the mad schemes in whichthey are engaged, they will succeed in converting that heretoforesacred instrument, reverenced and obeyed till the present dominantparty came into power, from a bond of union to a galling yoke ofoppression--a thing to be loathed and despised. "

The discussion was still much protracted. Many members had anopportunity of presenting their views and opinions without adding muchto the arguments for or against the measure. The power of debate, aswell as "the power of amendment, " seemed to have exhausted itself, andyet gentlemen, continued to swell the volume of both through severaldays. 

On Friday, January 26th, Mr. Harding, of Kentucky, made a violentpolitical speech, ostensibly in opposition to the measure before theHouse. The following is an extract from his remarks:

"The Republican party have manufactured a large amount of capital outof the negro question. First they began with caution, now they draw onit as if they thought it as inexhaustible as were the widow's barrelof meal and cruse of oil. The fact that the negro question hascontinued so long has been owing to the great care with which theRepublican party has managed it. "

Mr. McKee, of Kentucky, followed. Referring to his colleague who hadpreceded him, he said: "I regret extremely that he has pursued thesame line of policy that gentlemen belonging to the same politicalparty have pursued ever since the idea took possession of theGovernment that the negro was to be a freeman. His whole speech hasbeen made up of the negro and nothing else. 

"I would like it if the amendment could go a little beyond what itdoes. I would like so to amend the Constitution that no man who hadraised his hand against the flag should ever be allowed to participatein any of the affairs of this Government. But it is not probable thatwe can go that far. Let us go just as far as we can. 

"Gentlemen say that they are not willing to vote for an amendment thatstrikes off a part of the representation of the States; they are notwilling to vote for an amendment that lessens Kentucky'srepresentation upon this floor. The whole course of my colleague'sremarks on this point is as the course of his party--and I may say ofthe loyal party in Kentucky--has been through a great part of the war, that Kentucky is the nation, and the United States a secondaryappendage to her. "

Mr. Kerr, of Indiana, did not desire to be heard at length upon themain question before the House, but upon some questions incidentallyconnected with it. He then proceeded to discuss the question whetherCongress has "the power so to regulate the suffrage as to give theright of suffrage to every male citizen of the country of twenty-oneyears of age. " "I propose now, " said he, "for a few moments, toexamine this question with a somewhat extensive reference to thehistory of the Constitution in this connection, and if possible toarrive at a conclusion whether the honorable gentleman fromPennsylvania has given greater attention to the history of thisquestion than the President, and whether the conclusion which he hasreached is a safer one for the country, or more in harmony with thehistory and true intent of the Constitution, than that of thePresident. "

Near the close of his remarks, referring to the measure before theHouse, Mr. Kerr remarked: "I can see but one single clear result thatwill follow from this amendment if it is adopted by the people of thiscountry, and that is an effect that will inure not to the advantage ofthe nation, nor of any State in the Union, nor of any class or race ofmen in any State; but it will inure solely to the benefit andadvantage of the Republican party. In my judgment, the only personswho will gain by this provision will be the now dominant party in thiscountry. They will thereby increase their power; they will therebydegrade the South; they will reduce her representation here, andrelatively increase their own representation; they will confirm thesectional supremacy of the North in the legislation and administrationof the Government. They may thus compel the South to become suppliantsat their feet for justice, and it may be for mercy. "

Mr. Kasson, of Iowa, and Mr. Wright, of New Jersey, made extendedremarks, avowedly in opposition to the measure, but dwelling, for thegreater portion of their time, upon subjects remotely connected withthe resolution before the House. 

Discussion was resumed in the House on Monday, January 29th. Thequestion having become much complicated by the numerous propositionsto amend, the Speaker, by request of Mr. Conkling, stated the exactposition of the subject before the House, and the various questionspending. The Speaker said: "The committee having reported this jointresolution, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] moved toamend by inserting the word 'therein' after the words 'all persons, 'in the last clause of the proposed amendment to the Constitution. 

"Pending that motion, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley]moved an entirely new proposition in the nature of a substitute forthe joint resolution reported from the joint committee, proposing anamendment to the Constitution differing from the one reported from thecommittee. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Baker] also submitted forhis colleague [Mr. Ingersoll] a proposition in the nature of asubstitute for the one reported from the committee, as an amendment tothe amendment. 

"Pending those two propositions, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Lawrence] moved to recommit the joint resolution to the jointcommittee with certain instructions. The gentleman from Massachusetts[Mr. Eliot] moved to amend the instructions, and the gentleman fromOhio [Mr. Schenck] moved to amend the amendment. 

"The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Le Blond] also moved to commit the wholesubject to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. Thefirst question will, therefore, be upon the motion to commit to theCommittee of the Whole, as that committee is higher in rank than thejoint Committee on Reconstruction. 

"Next after that will be the various motions to recommit withinstructions. If all those propositions should fail, then the motionof the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens, ] being for thepurpose of perfecting the original proposition, will come up forconsideration. Then propositions in the nature of substitutes willcome up for consideration; first the amendment to the amendment, proposed by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Baker, ] and next thesubstitute amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley]. "

Mr. Raymond, of New York, made a speech three hours in length, inopposition to the proposed amendment to the Constitution. He discussedthe general questions of reconstruction, affirming that the SouthernStates had resumed their functions of self-government in the Union, that they did not change their constitutional relations by making war, and that Congress should admit their Representatives by districts, receiving only loyal men as members. 

The closing words of Mr. Raymond's speech excited great sensation andsurprise. They were as follows: "The gigantic contest is at an end. The courage and devotion on either side which made it so terrible andso long, no longer owe a divided duty, but have become the commonproperty of the American name, the priceless possession of theAmerican Republic through all time to come. The dead of the contendinghosts sleep beneath the soil of a common country, and under one commonflag. Their hostilities are hushed, and they are the dead of thenation forever more. The victor may well exult in the victory he hasachieved. Let it be our task, as it will be our highest glory, to makethe vanquished, and their posterity to the latest generation, rejoicein their defeat. "

Mr. Julian could not accept heartily the proposition reported by thejoint committee. He thus presented what he considered a preferableplan: "Under the constitutional injunction upon the United States toguarantee a republican form of government to every State, I believethe power already exists in the nation to regulate the right ofsuffrage. It can only exercise this power through Congress; andCongress, of course, must decide what is a republican form ofgovernment, and when the national authority shall interpose againstState action for the purpose of executing the constitutionalguarantee. No one will deny the authority of Congress to decide thatif a State should disfranchise one-third, one-half, or two-thirds ofher citizens, such State would cease to be republican, and might berequired to accept a different rule of suffrage. If Congress couldintervene in such a case, it could obviously intervene in any othercase in which it might deem it necessary or proper. It certainly mightdecide that the disfranchisement by a State of a whole race of peoplewithin her borders is inconsistent with a republican form ofgovernment, and in their behalf, and in the execution of its ownauthority and duty, restore them to their equal right with others tothe franchise. It might decide, for example, that in North Carolina, where 631, 000 citizens disfranchise 331, 000, the government is notrepublican, and should be made so by extending the franchise. It mightdo the same in Virginia, where 719, 000 citizens disfranchise 533, 000;in Alabama, where 596, 000 citizens disfranchise 437, 000; in Georgia, where 591, 000 citizens disfranchise 465, 000; in Louisiana, where357, 000 citizens disfranchise 350, 000; in Mississippi, where 353, 000citizens disfranchise 436, 000; and in South Carolina, where only291, 000 citizens disfranchise 411, 000. Can any man who reverences theConstitution deny either the authority or the duty of Congress to doall this in the execution of the guarantee named? Or if the 411, 000negroes in South Carolina were to organize a government, anddisfranchise her 291, 000 white citizens, would any body doubt theauthority of Congress to pronounce such government anti-republican, and secure the ballot equally to white and black citizens as theremedy? Or if a State should prescribe as a qualification for theballot such an ownership of property, real or personal, as woulddisfranchise the great body of her people, could not Congress mostundoubtedly interfere? So of an educational test, which might fix thestandard of knowledge so high as to place the governing power in thehands of a select few. The power in all such cases is a reserved onein Congress, to be exercised according to its own judgment, with noaccountability to any tribunal save the people; and without such powerthe nation would be at the mercy of as many oligarchies as there areStates. It is true that the power of Congress to guarantee republicangovernments in the States through its intervention with the questionof suffrage has not hitherto been exercised, but this certainly doesnot disprove the existence of such power, nor the expediency of itsexercise now, under an additional and independent constitutionalgrant, and when a fit occasion for it has come through the madness oftreason. Why temporize by adopting half-way measures and a policy ofindirection? The shortest distance between two given points is astraight line. Let us follow it in so important a work as amending theConstitution. 

"How do you know that the broad proposition I advocate will fail inCongress or before the people? These are revolutionary days. Wholegenerations of common time are now crowded into the span of a fewyears. Life was never before so grand and blessed an opportunity. Theman mistakes his reckoning who judges either the present or the futureby any political almanac of bygone years. Growth, development, progress are the expressive watchwords of the hour. Who can rememberthe marvelous events of the past four years, necessitated by the latewar, and then predict the failure of further measures, woven into thesame fabric, and born of the same inevitable logic?"

On Monday, January 30th, the proposed constitutional amendment wasrecommitted to the joint Committee on Reconstruction. On the followingday Mr. Stevens reported back the joint resolution, with an amendmentstriking out the words "and direct taxes, " so as to fix simply thebasis of representation in Congress upon population, excluding thoseraces or colors to which the franchise is denied or abridged. 

Mr. Schenck offered a substitute making "male citizens of the UnitedStates over twenty-one years" the basis of representation. Mr. Schenckoccupied a few minutes in advocating his proposition. 

On the other hand, Mr. Benjamin, of Missouri, objected to thesubstitute as greatly to the detriment of Missouri, since it wouldreduce her representation in Congress from nine to four, because shehas endeavored to place the Government in loyal hands bydisfranchising the rebel element of that State. In doing this, she haddisfranchised one-half her voters. 

The previous question having been called, Mr. Stevens made the closingspeech of the protracted discussion. In the opening of his speech, Mr. Stevens said: "It is true we have been informed by high authority, atthe other end of the avenue, introduced through an unusual conduit, that no amendment is necessary to the Constitution as our fathers madeit, and that it is better to let it stand as it is. Now, sir, I thinkvery differently, myself, for one individual. I believe there isintrusted to this Congress a high duty, no less important and no lessfraught with the weal or woe of future ages than was intrusted to theaugust body that made the Declaration of Independence. I believe now, if we omit to exercise that high duty, or abuse it, we shall be heldto account by future generations of America, and by the wholecivilized world that is in favor of freedom, and that our names willgo down to posterity with some applause or with black condemnation ifwe do not treat the subject thoroughly, honestly, and justly inreference to every human being on this continent. "

That the above paragraph may be understood, it will be necessary tostate that the President of the United States himself had taken partin the discussion of the measure pending before Congress. The "unusualconduit" was the telegraph and the press--the means by which hisopinions were given to Congress and the public. The President'sopinions were expressed in the following paper, as read by the Clerkof the House, at the request of several members:

 "The following is the substance of a conversation which took place yesterday between the President and a distinguished Senator, as telegraphed North by the agent of the Associated Press:

 "The President said that he doubted the propriety at this time of making further amendments to the Constitution. One great amendment had already been made, by which slavery had forever been abolished within the limits of the United States, and a national guarantee thus given that the institution should never exist in the land. Propositions to amend the Constitution were becoming as numerous as preambles and resolutions at town meetings called to consider the most ordinary questions connected with the administration of local affairs. All this, in his opinion, had a tendency to diminish the dignity and prestige attached to the Constitution of the country, and to lessen the respect and confidence of the people in their great charter of freedom. If, however, amendments are to be made to the Constitution, changing the basis of representation and taxation, (and he did not deem them at all necessary at the present time, ) he knew of none better than a simple proposition, embraced in a few lines, making in each State the number of qualified voters the basis of representation, and the value of property the basis of direct taxation. Such a proposition could be embraced in the following terms:

 "'Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to the number of qualified voters in each State. 

 "'Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to the value of all taxable property in each State. '

 "An amendment of this kind would, in his opinion, place the basis of representation and direct taxation upon correct principles. The qualified voters were, for the most part, men who were subject to draft and enlistment when it was necessary to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, and quell domestic violence and insurrection. They risk their lives, shed their blood, and peril their all to uphold the Government, and give protection, security, and value to property. It seemed but just that property should compensate for the benefits thus conferred by defraying the expenses incident to its protection and enjoyment. 

 "Such an amendment, the President also suggested, would remove from Congress all issues in reference to the political equality of the races. It would leave the States to determine absolutely the qualifications of their own voters with regard to color; and thus the number of Representatives to which they would be entitled in Congress would depend upon the number upon whom they conferred the right of suffrage. 

 "The President, in this connection, expressed the opinion that the agitation of the negro-franchise question in the District of Columbia, at this time was the mere entering-wedge to the agitation of the question throughout the States, and was ill-timed, uncalled for, and calculated to do great harm. He believed that it would engender enmity, contention, and strife between the two races, and lead to a war between»them which would result in great injury to both, and the certain extermination of the negro population. Precedence, he thought, should be given to more important and urgent matters, legislation upon which was essential for the restoration of the Union, the peace of the country, and the prosperity of the people. "

"This, " said Mr. Stevens, "I take to be an authorized utterance of oneat the other end of the avenue. I have no doubt that this is theproclamation, the command of the President of the United States, madeand put forth by authority in advance, and at a time when thisCongress was legislating on this very question; made, in my judgment, in violation of the privileges of this House; made in such a way thatcenturies ago, had it been made to Parliament by a British king, itwould have cost him his head. But, sir, we pass that by; we aretolerant of usurpation in this tolerant Government of ours. "

In answer to those who contended that Congress should regulate theright of suffrage in the States, Mr. Stevens said: "If you should takeaway the right which now is and always has been exercised by theStates, by fixing the qualifications of their electors, instead ofgetting nineteen States, which is necessary to ratify this amendment, you might possibly get five. I venture to say you could not get fivein this Union. And that is an answer, in the opinion of the committee, to all that has been said on this subject. But it grants no right. Itsays, however, to the State of South Carolina and other slave States, True, we leave where it has been left for eighty years the right tofix the elective franchise, but you must not abuse it; if you do, theConstitution will impose upon you a penalty, and will continue toinflict it until you shall have corrected your actions. 

"Now, any man who knows any thing about the condition of aspirationand ambition for power which exists in the slave States, knows thatone of their chief objects is to rule this country. It was to ruin itif they could not rule it. They have not been able to ruin it, and nowtheir great ambition will be to rule it. If a State abuses theelective franchise, and takes it from those who are the only loyalpeople there, the Constitution says to such a State, You shall losepower in the halls of the nation, and you shall remain where you are, a shriveled and dried-up nonentity instead of being the lords ofcreation, as you have been, so far as America is concerned, for yearspast. 

"Now, sir, I say no more strong inducement could ever beheld out tothem; no more severe punishment could ever be inflicted upon them asStates. If they exclude the colored population, they will lose atleast thirty-five Representatives in this hall; if they adopt it, theywill have eighty-three votes. "

Mr. Stevens urged several objections to the proposition of Mr. Schenck. He said: "If I have been rightly informed as to the number, there are from fifteen to twenty Representatives in the NorthernStates founded upon those who are not citizens of the United States. In New York I think there are three or four Representatives foundedupon the foreign population--three certainly. And so it is inWisconsin, Iowa, and other Northern States. There are fifteen ortwenty Northern Representatives that would be lost by that amendmentand given to the South whenever they grant the elective franchise tothe negro. 

"Now, sir, while I have not any particular regard for any foreignerwho goes against me, yet I do not think it would be wise to put intothe Constitution or send to the people a proposition to amend theConstitution which would take such Representatives from those States, and which, therefore, they will never adopt. 

"But I have another objection to the amendment of my friend from Ohio. His proposition is to apportion representation according to the malecitizens of the States. Why has he put in the word 'male?' It wasnever in the Constitution of the United States before. Why make acrusade against women in the Constitution of the nation? [Laughter. ]Is my friend as much afraid of their rivalry as the gentlemen on theother side of the House are afraid of the rivalry of the negro?[Laughter. ] I do not think we ought to disfigure the Constitution withsuch a provision. I find that every unmarried man is opposed to theproposition. Whether married men have particular reason for dreadinginterference from that quarter I know not. [Laughter. ] I certainlyshall never vote to insert the word 'male' or the word 'white' in thenational Constitution. Let these things be attended to by theStates. "

In answer to the objection that the amendment proposed by thecommittee "might be evaded by saying that no man who had ever been aslave should vote, and that would not be disfranchisement on accountof race or color, " Mr. Stevens said: "Sir, no man in America ever wasor ever could be a slave if he was a white man. I know white men havebeen held in bondage contrary to law. But there never was a court inthe United States, in a slave State or a free State, that has notadmitted that if one held as a slave could prove himself to be white, he was that instant free. And, therefore, such an exclusion, onaccount of previous condition of slavery, must be an exclusion onaccount of race or color. Therefore that objection falls to theground. "

In reply to the closing paragraph of Mr. Raymond's speech, Mr. Stevenssaid: "I could not but admire (an admiration mingled with wonder) theamiability of temper, the tenderness of heart, the generosity offeeling which must have prompted some of the closing sentences of theexcellent and able speech delivered by the gentleman on last Monday. His words were these:

 "'The gigantic contest is at an end. The courage and devotion on either side, which made it so terrible and so long, no longer owe a divided duty, but have become the common property of the American name, the priceless possession of the American Republic, through all time to come. The dead of the contending hosts sleep beneath the soil of a common country, under their common flag. Their hostilities are hushed, and they are the dead of the nation for evermore. '

"Sir, much more than amiable, much more than religious, must be thesentiment that would prompt any man to say that 'the courage anddevotion' which so long withstood our arms, prolonging the terribleconflict of war, and sacrificing the lives of thousands of loyal men, are hereafter to be the common boast of the nation, 'the pricelesspossession of the American Republic through all time to come;' that itis the pride of our country so many infamous rebels were so ferociousin their murders. 

"Sir, we are to consider these dead on both sides as the dead of thenation, the common dead! And so, I suppose, we are to raise monumentsbeside the monuments to Reynolds and others, to be erected in thecemetery on the battle-field of Gettysburg. We must there build highthe monumental marble for men like Barksdale, whom I have seen in thishall draw their bowie-knives on the Representatives of the people; menwho died upon the battle-field of Gettysburg in arms against theGovernment, and where they now lie buried in ditches, 'unwept, unhonored, and unsung!' They are, I suppose, to be raised and put intothe fore-front ranks of the nation, and we are to call them throughall time as the dead of the nation! Sir, was there ever blasphemybefore like this? Who was it burnt the temple of Ephesus? Who was itimitated the thunder of Jove? All that was poor compared with thisblasphemy. I say, if the loyal dead, who are thus associated with thetraitors who murdered them, put by the gentleman on the same footingwith them, are to be treated as the 'common dead of the nation'--Isay, sir, if they could have heard the gentleman, they would havebroken the cerements of the tomb, and stalked forth and haunted himuntil his eye-balls were seared. "

The question was first taken on the substitute offered by Mr. Schenck, which was rejected by a vote of one hundred and thirty-one totwenty-nine. 

The question was then taken on agreeing to the joint resolution asmodified by the committee, and it was decided in the affirmative bythe following vote:

 YEAS--Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, James M. Ashley, Baker, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Brandegee, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Eckley, Eggleston, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell, Griswold, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Hill, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, Marvin, McClurg, McIndoe, McKee, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sloan, Spalding, Starr, Stevens, Stilwell, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge--120. 

 NAYS--Messrs. Baldwin, Bergen, Boyer, Brooks, Chanler, Dawson, Dennison, Eldridge, Eliot, Finck, Grider, Hale, Aaron Harding, Harris, Hogan, Edwin N. Hubbell, James M. Humphrey, Jenckes, Johnson, Kerr, Latham, Le Blond, Marshall, McCullough, Niblack, Nicholson, Noell, Phelps, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Raymond, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Rosseau, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Smith, Strouse, Taber, Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Voorhees, Whaley, and Wright--46. 

 NOT VOTING--Messrs. Ancona, Delos R. Ashley, Culver, Driggs, Dumont, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Henderson, Higby, Jones, Loan, McRuer, Newell, Radford, Trowbridge, and Winfield--16. 

Two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the Speaker declared thejoint resolution adopted. 

The strong vote by which this measure was passed, after so general anexpression of dissent from it, excited some surprise. Many gentlemenevidently surrendered their individual preferences for the sake ofunanimity. They believed that this was the best measure calculated tosecure just representation, which would pass the ordeal of Congressand three-fourths of the States. They accepted the "rule ofstatesmanship, " to "take the best attainable, essential good which isat our command. "

A disposition to rebuke supposed Executive dictation had some effectto produce an unexpected unanimity in favor of the measure. One RhodeIsland and two Massachusetts members insisted on national negrosuffrage, and voted against the amendments. Mr. Raymond and Mr. Hale, of New York, were the only Republicans who voted against the measurein accordance with the President's opinions. Of the border slave Statemembers, ten voted for the amendment and sixteen against it. 

CHAPTER XV. 

THE BASIS OF-REPRESENTATION--IN THE SENATE. 

 The Joint Resolution goes to the Senate -- Counter-proposition by Mr. Sumner -- He Speaks Five Hours -- Mr. Henderson's Amendment -- Mr. Fessenden -- Mr. Henry S. Lane -- Mr. Johnson -- Mr. Henderson -- Mr. Clark's Historical Statements -- Fred. Douglass' Memorial -- Mr. Williams -- Mr. Hendricks -- Mr. Chandler's "Blood-letting Letter" -- Proposition of Mr. Yates -- His Speech -- Mr. Buckalew against New England -- Mr. Pomeroy -- Mr. Sumner's Second Speech -- Mr. Doolittle -- Mr. Morrill -- Mr. Fessenden meets Objections -- Final Vote -- The Amendment Defeated. 

The joint resolution, providing for amending the basis ofrepresentation, having passed the House of Representatives on the lastday of January, 1866, the action of that body was communicated to theSenate. The Civil Rights Bill at that time occupying the attention ofthe Senate, Mr. Fessenden gave notice that unless something shouldoccur to render that course unwise, he would ask that theconsideration of the proposed constitutional amendment should be takenup on the following Monday, February 5th. 

On the second of February, Mr. Sumner gave notice of his intention tomove a joint resolution as a counter-proposition to the proposedconstitutional amendment. Mr. Sumner's resolution was as follows:

 _Whereas_, it is provided in the Constitution that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government; and whereas, by reason of the failure of certain States to maintain Governments which Congress can recognize, it has become the duty of the United States, standing in the place of guarantor, where the principal has made a lapse, to secure to such States, according to the requirement of the guarantee, governments republican in form; and whereas, further, it is provided in a recent constitutional amendment, that Congress may 'enforce' the prohibition of slavery by 'appropriate legislation, ' and it is important to this end that all relics of slavery should be removed, including all distinction of rights on account of color; now, therefore, to carry out the guarantee of a republican form of government, and to enforce the prohibition of slavery. 

 "_Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That in all States lately declared to be in rebellion there shall be no oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, or monopoly invested with peculiar privileges or powers, and there shall be no denial of rights, civil or political, on account of color or race; but all persons shall be equal before the law, whether in the court-room or at the ballot-box; and this statute, made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any such State to the contrary notwithstanding. "

According to notice given by the Chairman of the joint Committee onReconstruction on the part of the Senate, the proposed constitutionalamendment came up for consideration on the fifth of February. 

Mr. Sumner addressed the Senate in opposition to the measure. Hisspeech was five hours in length, and occupied parts of the sessions oftwo days in its delivery. Mr. Sumner argued that the proposedamendment would introduce "discord and defilement into theConstitution, " by admitting that rights could be "denied or abridgedon account of race or color, " and that by its adoption Congress wouldprove derelict to its constitutional duty to guarantee a republicanform of government to each State, and that having already legislatedto protect the colored race in civil rights, it is bound to secure tothem political rights also. 

Concerning the Committee on Reconstruction and their proposition, Mr. Sumner said: "Knowing, as I do, the eminent character of thecommittee, its intelligence, its patriotism, and the moral instinctsby which it is moved, I am at a loss to understand the origin of aproposition which seems to me nothing else than another compromise ofhuman rights, as if the country had not already paid enough in costlytreasure and more costly blood for such compromises in the past. I hadhoped that the day of compromise with wrong had passed forever. Ampleexperience shows that it is the least practical mode of settlingquestions involving moral principles. A moral principle can not becompromised. "

He thought the proposed change in the Constitution could not properlybe called an amendment. "For some time we have been carefullyexpunging from the statute-book the word 'white, ' and now it isproposed to insert in the Constitution itself a distinction of color. An amendment, according to the dictionaries, is 'an improvement'--'achange for the better. ' Surely the present proposition is an amendmentwhich, like the crab, goes backward. "

This measure would not accomplish the results desired by its authors. "If by this, " said he, "you expect to induce the recent slave-masterto confer the right of suffrage without distinction of color, you willfind the proposition a delusion and a snare. He will do no such thing. Even the bribe you offer will not tempt him. If, on the other hand, you expect to accomplish a reduction of his political power, it ismore than doubtful if you will succeed, while the means you employ areunworthy of our country. There are tricks and evasions possible, andthe cunning slave-master will drive his coach and six through youramendment, stuffed with all his Representatives. "

Drawing toward the close of his speech, Mr. Sumner gave the followingreview of his remarks that had preceded: "We have seen the origin ofthe controversy which led to the revolution, when Otis, with such wisehardihood, insisted upon equal rights, and then giving practicaleffect to the lofty demand, sounded the battle-cry that 'Taxationwithout Representation is Tyranny. ' We have followed this controversyin its anxious stages, where these principles were constantly assertedand constantly denied, until it broke forth in battle; we have seenthese principles adopted as the very frontlet of the republic, when itassumed its place in the family of nations, and then again when itordained its Constitution; we have seen them avowed and illustrated inmemorable words by the greatest authorities of the time; lastly, wehave seen them embodied in public acts of the States collectively andindividually; and now, out of this concurring, cumulative, andunimpeachable testimony, constituting a speaking aggregationabsolutely without precedent, I offer you the American definition of arepublican form of government. It is in vain that you citephilosophers or publicists, or the examples of former history. Againstthese I put the early and constant postulates of the fathers, thecorporate declarations of the fathers, the avowed opinions of thefathers, and the public acts of the fathers, all with one voiceproclaiming, first, that all men are equal in rights, and, secondly, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of thegoverned; and here is the American idea of a republic, which must beadopted in the interpretation of the National Constitution. You cannot reject it. As well reject the Decalogue in determining moralduties, or as well reject the multiplication table in determining aquestion of arithmetic. "

Maintaining that "the rebel States are not republican governments, "Mr. Sumner said: "Begin with Tennessee, which disfranchises 283, 079citizens, being more than a quarter of its whole 'people. ' Thusviolating a distinctive principle of republican government, how canthis State be recognized as republican? This question is easier askedthan answered. But Tennessee is the least offensive on the list. Thereis Virginia, which disfranchises 549, 019 citizens, being more than athird of its whole 'people. ' There is Alabama, which disfranchises436, 030 citizens, being nearly one half of its whole 'people. ' Thereis Louisiana, which disfranchises 350, 546 citizens, being one half ofits whole 'people. ' There is Mississippi, which disfranchises 437, 404citizens, being much more than one half of its whole 'people. ' Andthere is South Carolina, which disfranchises 412, 408 citizens, beingnearly two-thirds of its whole 'people. ' A republic is a pyramidstanding on the broad mass of the people as a base; but here is apyramid balanced on its point. To call such a government 'republican'is a mockery of sense and decency. A monarch, 'surrounded byrepublican institutions, ' which at one time was the boast of France, would be less offensive to correct principles, and give more securityto human rights. "

Of the Southern system of government he said: "It is essentially amonopoly, in a country which sets its face against all monopolies asunequal and immoral. If any monopoly deserves unhesitating judgment, it must be that which absorbs the rights of others and engrossespolitical power. How vain it is to condemn the petty monopolies ofcommerce, and then allow this vast, all-embracing monopoly of humanrights. "

Mr. Sumner maintained that the ballot was the great guarantee--"theonly sufficient guarantee--being in itself peacemaker, reconciler, schoolmaster, and protector. " The result of conferring suffrage uponthe negro will be, "The master will recognize the new citizen. Theslave will stand with tranquil self-respect in the presence of themaster. Brute force disappears. Distrust is at an end. The master isno longer a tyrant. The freedman is no longer a dependent. The ballotcomes to him in his depression, and says, 'Use me and be elevated. ' Itcomes to him in his passion, and says, 'Use me and do not fight. ' Itcomes to him in his daily thoughts, filling him with the strength andglory of manhood. "

Most beneficent results, it was thought, would flow from suchlegislation as that advocated by Mr. Sumner. "I see clearly, " said he, "that there is nothing in the compass of mortal power so important tothem in every respect, morally, politically, and economically--thatthere is nothing with such certain promise to them of beneficentresults--that there is nothing so sure to make their land smile withindustry and fertility as the decree of equal rights which I nowinvoke. Let the decree go forth to cover them with blessings, sure todescend upon their children in successive generations. They have givenus war; we give them peace. They have raged against us in the name ofslavery; we send them back the benediction of justice for all. Theymenace hate; we offer in return all the sacred charities of countrytogether with oblivion of the past. This is our 'Measure for Measure. 'This is our retaliation. This is our only revenge. "

The following was the closing paragraph of Mr. Sumner's speech: "TheRoman Cato, after declaring his belief in the immortality of the soul, added, that if this were an error, it was an error which he loved. Andnow, declaring my belief in liberty and equality as the God-givenbirthright of all men, let me say, in the same spirit, if this be anerror, it is an error which I love; if this be a fault, it is a faultwhich I shall be slow to renounce; if this be an illusion, it is anillusion which I pray may wrap the world in its angelic arms. "

On the seventh of February, the subject being again before the Senate, Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, moved to strike out the constitutionalamendment proposed by the committee and insert the following:

 "ARTICLE 14. No State, in prescribing the qualifications requisite for electors therein, shall discriminate against any person on account of color or race. "

Mr. Fessenden made a speech in favor of the report of the committee, and in reply to Mr. Sumner. Referring to the subject of constitutionalamendments, Mr. Fessenden said: "Something has been said, also, ondifferent occasions, with reference to a disposition that is said toprevail now to amend the Constitution, and the forbearance of Congresshas been invoked with regard to that venerable and great instrument. Ibelieve that I have as much veneration for the Constitution as mostmen, and I believe that I have as high an opinion of its wisdom; but, sir, I probably have no better opinion of it than those who made it, and it did not seem to them, as we learn from its very provisions, that it was so perfect that no amendment whatever could be made thatwould be, in the language of the Senator from Massachusetts, animprovement. Why, sir, they provided themselves, as we all know, inthe original instrument, for its amendment. They, in the very earliestdays of our history, amended it themselves. "

The result of retaining the "Constitution as it is" would be this:"The continuance of precisely the same rule, and the fostering of afeeling which the honorable Senator from Massachusetts has well provento be contrary to the very foundation principles of a republicangovernment. There can be no question that such would be the result;and we should have in a portion of the States all the peoplerepresented and all the people acting, and in another portion of theStates all the people represented and but a portion of the people onlyexercising political rights and retaining them in their own hands. Such has been the case, and such, judging of human nature as it is, wehave a right to suppose will continue to be the case. "

The measure proposed by the committee was not entirely satisfactory toMr. Fessenden. "I am free to confess, " said he, "that could Ilegislate upon that subject, although I can see difficulties thatwould arise from it, yet trusting to time to soften them, and beingdesirous, if I can, to put into the Constitution a principle thatcommends itself to the consideration of every enlightened mind atonce, I would prefer something of that sort, a distinct propositionthat all provisions in the constitution or laws of any State makingany distinction in civil or political rights, or privileges, orimmunities whatever, should be held unconstitutional, inoperative, andvoid, or words to that effect. I would like that much better; and Itake it there are not many Senators within the sound of my voice whowould not very much prefer it; but, after all, the committee did notrecommend a provision of that description, and I stand here as theorgan of the committee, approving what they have done, and notdisposed to urge my own peculiar views, if I have any, against theirs, or to rely exclusively on my own judgment so far as to denounce whathonorable and true men, of better judgments than myself, have thoughtbest to recommend, and in which I unite and agree with them. "

After having given objections to limiting the basis of representationto voters, Mr. Fessenden remarked: "And if you extend it to citizens, or narrow it to citizens, you make it worse so far as many of theStates are concerned; for my honorable friends from the Pacific coast, where there is a large number of foreigners, would hardly be willingto have them cut off; and they have no benefit of political power inthe legislation of the country arising from the number of thoseforeigners who make a portion of their population. The difficulty is, that you meet with troubles of this kind every-where the moment youdepart from the principle of basing representation upon population andpopulation alone. You meet with inequalities, with difficulties, withtroubles, either in one section of the country or the other, and youare inevitably thrown back upon the original principle of theConstitution. 

"It will be noticed that the amendment which we have thus presentedhas one good quality: it preserves the original basis ofrepresentation; it leaves that matter precisely where the Constitutionplaced it in the first instance; it makes no changes in that respect;it violates no prejudice; it violates no feeling. Every State isrepresented according to its population with this distinction: that ifa State says that it has a portion, a class, which is not fit to berepresented--and it is for the State to decide--it shall not berepresented; that is all. It has another good point: it is equal inits operation; all persons in every State are to be counted; nobody isto be rejected. With the very trifling exception fixed by the originalConstitution, all races, colors, nations, languages, and denominationsform the basis. 

"But, sir, the great excellence of it--and I think it is anexcellence--is, that it accomplishes indirectly what we may not havethe power to accomplish directly. If we can not put into theConstitution, owing to existing prejudices and existing institutions, an entire exclusion of all class distinctions, the next question is, can we accomplish that work in any other way?"

Concerning the "counter-proposition" of Mr. Sumner, the speaker said:"It is, in one sense, like a very small dipper with a very longhandle; for the preamble is very much more diffuse than the proposedenactment itself. I looked to see what came next. I supposed thatafter that preamble we should have some adequate machinery providedfor the enforcement and security of these rights; that we should havethe matter put to the courts, and if the courts could not accomplishit, that we should have the aid of the military power, thus shockingthe sensibilities of my honorable friend from Indiana [Mr. Hendricks]again. I do not know what good it does to merely provide by law thatthe provisions of the Constitution shall be enforced, without sayinghow, in what manner, by what machinery, in what way, to what extent, or how it is to be accomplished. Why reënact the Constitution of theUnited States and put it in a bill? What do you accomplish by it? Howis that a remedy? It is simply as if it read in this way: Whereas, itis provided in the Constitution that the United States shall guaranteeto every State in the Union a republican form of government, thereforewe declare that there shall be a republican form of government andnothing else. "

Mr. Sumner had said, in his speech in opposition to the proposedamendment, "Above all, do not copy the example of Pontius Pilate, whosurrendered the Savior of the world, in whom he found no fault at all, to be scourged and crucified, while he set at large Barabbas, of whomthe Gospel says, in simple words, 'Now, Barabbas was a robber. '"

To this Mr. Fessenden responded: "Is it a 'mean compromise'--for so itis denominated--that the Committee of Fifteen and the House ofRepresentatives, when they passed it, placed themselves in thesituation of Pontius Pilate, with the negro for the Savior of theworld and the people of the United States for Barabbas, as designatedby the honorable Senator. Why, sir, I expected to hear him in the nextbreath go further than that, and say that with the Constitution of theUnited States and the constitutions of the States the negro had beencrucified, and that now, by the amendment of the Constitution, thestone had been rolled away from the door of the sepulcher, and he hadascended to sit on the throne of the Almighty and judge the world! Onewould have been, permit me to say with all respect, in as good tasteas the other. "

In conclusion, Mr. Fessenden said: "I wish to say, in closing, that Icommend this joint resolution to the careful consideration of theSenate. It is all that we could desire; it is all that ourconstituents could wish. It does not accomplish, as it stands now, all, perhaps, that it might accomplish; but it is an important step inthe right direction. It gives the sanction of Congress, in so manywords, to an important, leading, effective idea. It opens a way bywhich the Southern mind--to speak of it as the Southern mind--may beled to that which is right and just. I have hopes, great hopes, ofthose who were recently Confederates; and I believe that now that theyhave been taught that they can not do evil, to all the extent thatthey might desire, with impunity, and when their attention is turnedof necessity in the right direction, the road will seem so pleasant totheir feet, or, at any rate, will seem so agreeable to their love ofpower, that they will be willing to walk in the direction that we havepointed. If they do, what is accomplished? In process of time, underthis constitutional amendment, if it should be adopted, they are ledto enlarge their franchise. That necessarily will lead them toconsider how much further they can go, what is necessary in order tofit their people for its exercise, thus leading to education, thusleading to a greater degree of civilization, thus bringing up anoppressed and downtrodden race to an equality, if capable of anequality--and I hope it may be--with their white brethren, children ofthe same Father. 

"And, sir, if this is done, some of us may hope to live--I probablymay not, but the honorable Senator from Massachusetts may--to see thetime when, by their own act, and under the effect of an enlightenedstudy of their own interests, all men may be placed upon the samebroad constitutional level, enjoying the same rights, and seekinghappiness in the same way and under the same advantages; and that isall that we could ask. "

On the following day, the discussion was continued by Mr. Lane, ofIndiana, who addressed the Senate in a speech of two hours' duration. Mr. Lane seldom occupied the time of the Senate by speech-making, butwhen he felt it his duty to speak, none upon the floor attracted moremarked attention, both from the importance of his matter and theimpressiveness of his manner. 

Much of Mr. Lane's speech, on this occasion, was devoted to thegeneral subject of reconstruction, since he regarded the pendingmeasure as one of a series looking to the ultimate restoration of thelate rebel States. He was opposed to undue haste in this importantwork. He said: "The danger is of precipitate action. Delay is now whatwe need. The infant in its tiny fingers plays to-day with a handful ofacorns, but two hundred years hence, by the efflux of time, thoseacorns are the mighty material out of which navies are built, themonarch of the forest, defying the shock of the storm and thewhirlwind. Time is a mighty agent in all these affairs, and we shouldappeal to time. We are not ready yet for a restoration upon rebelvotes; we are not ready yet for a restoration upon colored votes; but, thank God! we are willing and able to wait. We have the Government, wehave the Constitution of the United States, we have the army and thenavy, the vast moral and material power of the republic. We canenforce the laws in all the rebel States, and we can keep the peaceuntil such time as they may be restored with safety to them and safetyto us. "

Of the measure proposed by the committee, Mr. Lane remarked: "Thisamendment, as I have already endeavored to show, will do away withmuch of the irregularity now existing, and which would exist under adifferent state of things, the blacks being all free. So far as theamendment goes, I approve of it, and I think I shall vote for it, butwith a distinct understanding that it is not all that we are requiredto do, that it is not the only amendment to the Constitution thatCongress is required to make. "

Mr. Lane expressed his opinion of Mr. Summer's "counter-proposition"in the following language: "It is a noble declaration, but a simpledeclaration, a paper bullet that kills no one, and fixes and maintainsthe rights of no one. "

Of Mr. Henderson's proposition, he said: "It is a simple amendment tothe Constitution of the United States, that no one shall be excludedfrom the exercise of the right of suffrage on account of race orcolor. That begins at the right point. The only objection to it is, that its operation can not be immediate, and in the mean time therebels may be permitted to vote, and its adoption by the various StateLegislatures is exceedingly doubtful. I should not doubt, however, that we might secure its adoption by three-fourths of the loyal Stateswho have never seceded; and I believe that whenever that question ispresented, the Supreme Court of the United States will determine thata ratification by that number of States is a constitutional approvalof an amendment so as to make it the supreme law of the land. I haveno doubt about it. 

"If the rebel States are to be organized immediately, the onlyquestion is whether the right of suffrage shall be given to rebelwhite men or loyal black men. The amendment of the Senator fromMissouri meets that issue squarely in the face. Whatsoever I desire todo I will not do by indirection. I trust I shall always be braveenough to do whatsoever I think my duty requires, directly and not byindirection. "

Mr. Lane, with several other Western Senators, had been counted asopposed to negro suffrage, hence his advocacy of the principle gavemuch strength to those who desired to take a position in advance ofthe proposition of the committee. 

In reply to an oft-reiterated argument that a war of races wouldresult from allowing suffrage to the negro, Mr. Lane remarked: "If youwish to avoid a war of races, how can that be accomplished? By doingright; by fixing your plan of reconstruction upon the indestructiblebasis of truth and justice. What lesson is taught by history? Thegrand lesson is taught there that rebellions and insurrections havegrown out of real or supposed wrong and oppression. A war of races!And you are told to look to the history of Ireland, and to the historyof Hungary. Why is it that revolution and insurrection are alwaysready to break out in Hungary? Because, forsooth, the iron rule ofAustria has stricken down the natural rights of the masses. It is aprotest of humanity against tyranny, oppression, that producesrebellion and revolution. So in the bloody history of the Irishinsurrections. Suppose the English Parliament had given equal rightsto the Irish, had enfranchised the Catholics in Ireland in the reignof Henry VIII, long ere this peace and harmony would have prevailedbetween England and Ireland. But the very fact that a vast portion ofa people are disfranchised sows the seeds of continual andever-recurring revolution and insurrection. It can not be otherwise. These insurrections and revolutions, which are but the protest of ourcommon humanity against wrong, are one of the scourges in the hands ofProvidence to compel men to do justice and to observe the right. It isthe law of Providence, written upon every page of history, that God'svengeance follows man's wrong and oppression, and it will always beso. If you wish to avoid a war of races, if you wish to produceharmony and peace among these people, you must enfranchise them all. "

On the following day, February 9th, Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, occupiedthe time devoted by the Senate to a consideration of this questionwith a speech against the proposed amendment of the Constitution. Mr. Johnson said that when the Constitution was framed there was no suchobjection to compromising as now existed in the minds of someSenators. "The framers of the Constitution came to the conclusion thatthe good of the country demanded that there should be a compromise, and they proposed, as a compromise, the provision as it now stands;and that is, that, for the purposes of representation, a person heldin slavery, or in involuntary servitude, shall be esteemedthree-fifths of a man and two-fifths property; and they establishedthe same rule in relation to taxation. They very wisely concludedthat, as it was all-important that some general rule should beadopted, this was the best rule, because promising more than any otherrule to arrive at a just result of ascertaining the number ofRepresentatives and ascertaining the quota of taxation. "

Mr. Johnson did not think that the North needed such a provision asthis amendment to render her able to cope with Southern statesmanshipin Congress: "Are not the North and the statesmen of the North equalto the South and the statesmen of the South on all subjects that maycome before the councils of the nation? What is there, looking to thehistory of the two sections in the past, which would lead us tobelieve that the North is inferior to the South in any thing ofintellectual improvement or of statesmanship? You have proved--and Ithank God you have proved--that if listening to evil counsels, rendered effective, perhaps, by your own misjudged legislation, and bythe ill-advised course of your own population, exhibited through thepress and the pulpit, a portion of the South involved the country in awar, the magnitude of which no language can describe--you have provedyourselves, adequate to the duty of defeating, them in their mad and, as far as the letter of the Constitution is concerned, theirtraitorous purpose. And now, having proved your physical manhood, doyou doubt your intellectual manhood? Mr. President, in the presence inwhich I speak, I am restrained from speaking comparatively of theSenate as it is and the Senate as it has been; but I can say this, with as much sincerity as man ever spoke, that there is nothing to befound in the free States calculated to disparage them properly in theestimation of the wise and the good. They are able to conduct theGovernment, and they will not be the less able because they have theadvice and the counsels of their Southern brethren. "

In answer to the position that the Southern States were not possessedof a republican form of government, Mr. Johnson remarked: "Did ourfathers consider that any one of the thirteen States who finally cameunder the provisions of that Constitution, and have ever sinceconstituted a part of the nation, were not living under republicanforms of government? The honorable member will pardon me for sayingthat to suppose it is to disparage the memory of those great and goodmen. There was not a State in the Union when the Constitution wasadopted that was republican, if the honorable member's definition of arepublican government is the one now to be relied upon. A propertyqualification was required in all at that time. Negroes were notallowed to vote, although free, in most of the States. In the SouthernStates the mass of the negroes were slaves, and, of course, were notentitled to vote. If the absence of the universal right of suffrageproves that the Government is not republican, then there was not arepublican government within the limits of the United States when theConstitution was adopted; and yet the very object of the clause toguarantee a republican government--and the honorable member'scitations prove it--was to prevent the existing governments from beingchanged by revolution. It was to preserve the existing governments;and yet the honorable member would have the Senate and the countrybelieve that, in the judgment of the men who framed the Constitution, there was not a republican form of government in existence. 

"The definition of the honorable member places his charge ofantirepublicanism as against the present forms of constitution uponthe ground of the right to vote. I suppose the black man has no morenatural right to vote than the white man. It is the exclusion from theright that affects the judgment of the honorable member fromMassachusetts. Voting, according to him, is a right derived from God;it is in every man inalienable; and its denial, therefore, isinconsistent and incompatible with the true object of a freegovernment. If it be such a right, it is not less a right in the whiteman than in the black man; it is not less a right in the Indian thanin the white man or the black man; it is not less a right in thefemale portion of our population than in the male portion. Then thehonorable member from Massachusetts is living in an anti-republicangovernment, and he ought not to stay there a moment if he can find anygovernment which would be a government according to his theory. Nonehas existed since the world commenced, and it is not at all likelythat any will exist in all time to come; but if there is any suchgovernment to be found on the face of the earth, let him leaveMassachusetts, let him hug that angelic delusion which he hopes willencircle the whole world, and go somewhere, where he can indulge itwithout seeing before him every day conclusive evidence that no suchillusion exists at home. Leave Massachusetts, I beg the honorablemember, just as soon as you can, or you will never be supremelyhappy. "

In conclusion, Mr. Johnson remarked, referring to the recent rebels:"Let us take them to our bosom, trust them, and as I believe in myexistence, you will never have occasion to regret it. You will, if theevent occurs, look back to your participation in it in future timewith unmingled delight, because you will be able to date from it aprosperity and a national fame of which the world furnishes noexample; and you will be able to date from, it the absence of allcause of differences which can hereafter exist, which will keep ustogether as one people, looking to one destiny, and anxious to achieveone renown. "

On Tuesday, February 13th, the Senate resumed the consideration of theBasis of Representation. Mr. Summer proposed to amend the provisorecommended by the committee--"all persons therein of such race orcolor shall be excluded from the basis of representation"--by addingthe words "and they shall be exempt from taxation of all kinds. "

Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, occupied the attention of the Senate, during a considerable part of this and the following day, in a speechagainst the proposition of the Committee of Fifteen, which heconsidered a compromise, surrendering the rights of the negro out ofthe hands of the General Government into the hands of States not fitto be intrusted with them. In favor of his own amendment prohibitingthe States from disfranchising citizens on the ground of color, Mr. Henderson said: "I propose to make the State governments republican infact, as they are in theory. The States now have the power and doexclude the negroes for no other reason than that of color. If thenegro is equally competent and equally devoted to the Government asthe Celt, the Saxon, or the Englishman; why should he not vote? If hepays his taxes, works the roads, repels foreign invasion with hismusket, assists in suppressing insurrections, fells the forest, tillsthe soil, builds cities, and erects churches, what more shall he do togive him the simple right of saying he must be only equal in theseburdens, and not oppressed? My proposition is put in the leastoffensive form. It respects the traditionary right of the States toprescribe the qualifications of voters. It does not require that theignorant and unlettered negro shall vote. Its words are simply that'no State, in prescribing the qualifications requisite for electorstherein, shall discriminate against any person on account of color orrace. ' The States may yet prescribe an educational or property test;but any such test shall apply to white and black alike. If the blackman be excluded because he is uneducated, the uneducated white manmust be excluded too. If a property test be adopted for the negro, asin New York, the same test must apply to the white man. It reaches allthe States, and not a few only, in its operation. I confess that, sofar as I am personally concerned, I would go still further and putother limitations on the power of the States in regard to suffrage;but Senators have expressed so much distrust that even thisproposition can not succeed, I have concluded to present it in a formthe least objectionable in which I could frame it. It will be observedthat this amendment, if adopted, will not prevent the StateLegislatures from fixing official qualifications. They may prevent anegro from holding any office whatever under the State organization. It is a singular fact, however, that to-day, under the FederalConstitution, a negro may be elected President, United States Senator, or a member of the lower branch of Congress. In that instrument noqualification for office is prescribed which rejects the negro. Thewhite man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-bornAfrican may be. The States, however, may, in this respect, notwithstanding this amendment, do what the Federal Constitution neverdid. "

Mr. Henderson closed his speech with the following words: "The reasonsin favor of my proposition are inseparably connected with all I havesaid. I need not repeat them. Every consideration of peace demands it. It must be done to remove the relics of the rebellion; it must be doneto pluck out political disease from the body politic, and restore theelementary principles of our Government; it must be done to preservepeace in the States and harmony in our Federal system; it must be doneto assure the happiness and prosperity of the Southern peoplethemselves; it must be done to establish in our institutions theprinciples of universal justice; it must be done to secure thestrongest possible guarantees against future wars; it must be done inobedience to that golden rule which insists upon doing to others whatwe would that others should do unto us; it must be done if we wouldobey the moral law that teaches us to love our neighbors as ourselves;in fine, it must be done to purify, strengthen, and perpetuate aGovernment in which are now fondly centered the best hopes ofmankind. "

Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, addressed the Senate on the pendingmeasure. He made the following interesting historical statements: "Asthe traveler who has passed a difficult road, when he comes to somehigh hill looks back to see the difficulties which he has passed, Iturn back, and I ask the Senator to turn back, to consider whatoccurred, as I say, about six years ago. In the session of 1859-60, inthe old Senate-chamber, a bill was brought into the Senate of theUnited States by the then Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Brown], whowas chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, a placewhich my friend from Maine [Mr. Morrill] now so worthily fills--a billin aid of the education of the children of this District. The billproposed to grant certain fines and forfeitures to the use of theschools, and also proposed to tax the people ten cents on everyhundred dollars of the property in this District for the purpose ofeducating the children. That bill proposed to tax the white man andthe black man alike; and fearing that the property of the black manwould be taxed to educate the child of the white man, I proposed anamendment to the bill, that the tax collected from the black manshould go to educate the black man's child. 

"There was also a further provision of the bill, that if the Districtraised a certain amount of money for the education of the children, the Government of the United States would appropriate a like amountfrom the Treasury. If, for instance, you raised $20, 000 by taxes onthe people in the District, the Government should pay $20, 000 more, tobe added to it for the education of the children of the District. Imoved the amendment that no child whose father paid any portion ofthat tax for the education of the children should be excluded from thebenefit of it, be he white or black; but that there might be noinconvenience felt, I agreed to an amendment that the black childshould not be put into the same school with the white child, but thatthey should be educated in different schools to be provided for them;but if the black man paid for educating the children of the District, his child should be educated. There was at once an outcry, 'Why, thisis social equality of the two races; this is political equality;' andthey would not consent that the black child should be educated, evenwith the money of the black father. That amendment was declared to becarried in the Senate of the United States, and after declaring it wascarried, the Senate adjourned, and after the adjournment, the chairmanof that committee, Mr. Brown, appealed to me personally if I would notwithdraw it. I said to him, 'No, I would never withdraw it; if you taxthe black man, the black man should have a part of the money that youraise from him to educate his child. '

"After some days, the bill came up again in the Senate of the UnitedStates, and the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of theCommittee on the District of Columbia, got up and in open Senateappealed to me, 'Will the Senator from New Hampshire withdraw thatamendment?' 'Never, Mr. President. ' 'Then, ' said the Senator fromMississippi, 'I will lay the bill aside, and will not ask the Senateto pass it;' and so the whole scheme failed, because they would notconsent that the money of the black man should educate his own child, and they could not vote it to educate a white child. 

"Now I turn back to that time six years ago, and I mark the road thatwe have come along. I mark where we struck the chains from the blackman in this same District, whose child you could not educate six yearsago; I mark, in this Senate, at this very session, that we have passeda bill in aid of the Freedmen's Bureau to secure to him his rights inthis District; I mark that all through this nation we have strickenoff the chains of the slave and secured to the slave his rightselsewhere in the Union; and we have now come to the height of thehill, and are considering whether we will not enfranchise those veryblack men through all the country. "

In favor of granting political rights to the negro, Mr. Clark made thefollowing remarks: "Mr. President, the question of the negro hastroubled the nation long. His condition as a slave troubled you; andhis condition as a freedman troubles you. Are you sick, heart-sick ofthis trouble? and do you inquire when will it end? I will tell you. When you have given him equal rights, equal privileges, and equalsecurity with other citizens; when you have opened the way for him tobe a man, then will you have rendered exact justice which can aloneinsure stability and content. 

"Sir, if I ever did hold that this Government was made or belongedexclusively to the white man, I should now be ashamed to avow it, orto claim for it so narrow an application. The black man has made toomany sacrifices to preserve it, and endangered his life too often inits defense to be excluded from it. The common sentiment of gratitudeshould open its doors to him, if not political justice and equality. 

"Mr. President, my house once took fire in the night-time; my twolittle boys were asleep in it, when I and their mother were away. Theneighbors rushed into it, saved the children, and extinguished theflames. When I reached it, breathless and exhausted, the firstexclamation was, 'Your children are safe. ' Can you tell me how mean aman I should have been, and what execration I should have deserved, ifthe next time those neighbors came to my house I had kicked them outof it? Tell me, then, I pray you, why two hundred thousand black men, most of whom volunteered to fight your battles, who rushed in to savethe burning house of your Government, should not be permitted toparticipate in that Government which they helped to preserve? When youenlisted and mustered these men, when your adjutant-general wentSouth, and gathered them to the recruiting-office, and persuaded themto join your ranks, did he, or any one, tell them this was the whiteman's Government? When they came to the rendezvous, did you point tothe sign over the door, 'Black men wanted to defend the white man'sGovernment?' When you put upon them the uniform of the United States, did you say, 'Don't disgrace it; this is the white man's Government?'When they toiled on the march, in the mud, the rain, and the snow, andwhen they fell out of the ranks from sheer weariness, did you cheerthem on with the encouragement that 'this is the white man'sGovernment?'

"When they stood on picket on the cold, stormy night to guard youagainst surprise, did you creep up and warm their congealing bloodwith an infusion of the white man's Government? When, with a wildhurrah, on the 'double-quick, ' they rushed upon the enemy's guns, andbore your flag where men fell fastest and war made its wildest havoc, where explosion after explosion sent their mangled bodies and severedlimbs flying through the air, and they fell on glacis, ditch, andscarp and counterscarp, did you caution them against such bravery, andremind them that 'this was the white man's Government?' And when thestruggle was over, and many had fought 'their last battle, ' and yougathered the dead for burial, did you exclaim, 'Poor fools! howcheated! this is the white man's Government?' No, no, sir; youbeckoned them on by the guerdon of freedom, the blessings of an equaland just Government, and a 'good time coming. '

"'White man's Government, 'do you say? Go to Fort Pillow; stand uponits ramparts and in its trenches, and recall the horrid butchery ofthe black man there because he had joined you against rebellion, andthen say, if you will, 'This is the white man's Government. ' Go toWagner. Follow in the track of the Massachusetts Fifty-fourth, as theywent to the terrible assault, with the guns flashing and roaring inthe darkness. Mark how unflinchingly they received the pelting ironhail into their bosoms, and how they breasted the foe! See how noblythey supported, and how heroically they fell with their devotedleader; count the dead; pick up the severed limbs; number the wounds;measure the blood spilled; and remember why and wherefore and in whosecause the negro thus fought and suffered, and then say, if you can, 'This is the white man's Government. ' Go to Port Hudson, go toRichmond, go to Petersburg, go anywhere and every-where--to everybattle-field where the negro fought, where danger was greatest anddeath surest--and tell me, if you can, that 'this is the white man'sGovernment. ' And then go to Salisbury and Columbia and Andersonville, and as you shudder at the ineffable miseries of those dens, and thinkof those who ran the dead-line, and were not shot, but escaped to thewoods and were concealed and fed and piloted by the black men, andnever once betrayed, but often enabled to escape and return to theirfriends, and then tell me if 'this is a white man's Government. '

"In ancient Rome, when one not a citizen deserved well of therepublic, he was rewarded by the rights of citizenship, but we denythem, and here in America--not in the Confederate States of America, where, attempting to found a government upon slavery and thesubjection of one race to another, it would have been fitting, ifanywhere, but in the United States of America, the cardinal principleof whose Government is the equality of all men. After these black menhave so nobly fought to maintain the one and overthrow the other, whenthey ask us for the necessary right of suffrage to protect themselvesagainst the rebels they have fought, and with whom they are compelledto live, we coolly reply, 'This is the white man's Government. ' Nay, more, and worse, we have refused it to them, and allowed it to theirand our worst enemies, the rebels. Sir, from the dim and shadowyaisles of the past, there comes a cry of 'Shame! shame!' and paganRome rebukes Christian America. 

"But not chiefly, Mr. President, do I advocate this right of the blackman to vote because he has fought the battles of the republic andhelped to preserve the Union, but because he is a citizen and aman--one of the people, one of the governed--upon whose consent, ifthe Declaration of Independence is correct, the just powers of theGovernment rest; an intelligent being, of whom and for whom God willhave an account of us, individually and as a nation; whose blood isone with ours, whose destinies are intermingled and run with ours, whose life takes hold on immortality with ours, and because this rightis necessary to develop his manhood, elevate his race, and secure forit a better civilization and a more enlightened and purerChristianity. "

On the 15th of February, Mr. Sumner presented a memorial from GeorgeT. Downing, Frederick Douglass, and other colored citizens of theUnited States, protesting against the pending constitutional amendmentas introducing, for the first time, into the Constitution a grant todisfranchise men on the ground of race or color. In laying thismemorial before the Senate, Mr. Sumner said: "I do not know that Ihave at any time presented a memorial which was entitled to morerespectful consideration than this, from the character of itsimmediate signers and from the vast multitudes they represent. I hopeI shall not depart from the proper province of presenting it if Iexpress my entire adhesion to all that it says, and if I take thisoccasion to entreat the Senate, if they will not hearken to argumentsagainst the pending proposition, that they will at least hearken tothe voice of these memorialists, representing the colored race of ourcountry. "

Mr. Williams, of Oregon, argued in favor of the resolution reported bythe committee as the best measure before the Senate. He was forproceeding slowly in the work of reconstruction. In his opinion, neither the negro nor his master was now fit to vote. Upon this pointhe said: "It seems to me there can be little doubt that at thisparticular time the negroes of the rebel States are unfit to exercisethe elective franchise. I have recently conversed with two officers ofthe Federal army from Texas, who told me that there, in the interiorand agricultural portions of the State, the negroes do not yet knowthat they are free; and one of the officers told me that he personallycommunicated to several negroes for the first time the fact of theirfreedom. Emancipation may be known in the towns and cities throughoutthe South, but the probabilities are that in the agricultural portionsof that country the negroes have no knowledge that they are free, oronly vague conceptions of their rights and duties as freemen. Sir, give these men a little time; give them a chance to learn that theyare free; give them a chance to acquire some knowledge of their rightsas freemen; give them a chance to learn that they are independent andcan act for themselves; give them a chance to divest themselves ofthat feeling of entire dependence for subsistence and the sustenanceof their families upon the landholders of the South, to which theyhave been so long accustomed; give them a little time to shake themanacles off of their minds that have just been stricken from theirhands, and I will go with the honorable Senator from Massachusetts togive them the right of suffrage. And I will here express the hope thatthe day is not far distant when every man born upon American soil, within the pale of civilization, may defend his manhood and his rightsas a freeman by that most effective ballot which

 "'Executes the freeman's will As lightning does the will of God. '"

Concerning the amendment proposed by Mr. Henderson, Mr. Williams said:"All the impassioned declamation and all the vehement assertions ofthe honorable Senator do not change or affect the evidence before oureyes that the people of these United States are not prepared tosurrender to Congress the absolute right to determine as to thequalifications of voters in the respective States, or to adopt theproposition that all persons, without distinction of race or color, shall enjoy political rights and privileges equal to those nowpossessed by the white people of the country. Sir, some of the Stateshave lately spoken upon that subject. Wisconsin and Connecticut, Northern, loyal, and Republican States, have recently declared thatthey would not allow the negroes within their own borders politicalrights; and is it probable that of the thirty-six States, more thansix, at the most, would at this time adopt the constitutionalamendment proposed by the gentleman?"

Notwithstanding the temporary darkness of the political sky, Mr. Williams saw brilliant prospects before the country. "This nation, "said he, "is to live and not die. God has written it among the shiningdecrees of destiny. Inspired by this hope and animated by this faith, we will take this country through all its present troubles and perilsto the promised land of perfect unity and peace, where freedom, equality, and justice, the triune and tutelar deity of the AmericanRepublic, will rule with righteousness a nation 'whose walls shall besalvation and whose gates praise. '"

At the close of this speech, the Senate being about to proceed to avote upon the pending amendment, it was proposed to defer action andadjourn the question over to the following day, for the purpose ofaffording an opportunity for speeches by Senators who were notprepared to proceed immediately. Mr. Fessenden, who had the measure incharge, protested against the delays of the Senate. "This subject, "said he, "has dragged along now for nearly two weeks. If membersdesire to address the Senate, they must be prepared to go on and do sowithout a postponement from day to day for the purpose of allowingevery gentleman to make his speech in the morning, and then adjourningearly every evening. We shall never get through in that way. I givenotice to gentlemen that I shall begin to be a little morequarrelsome--I do not know that it will do any good--after to-day. "

On the day following, Mr. Hendricks delivered a speech of considerablelength in opposition to the constitutional amendment. After havingmaintained that the proposition did not rest the right ofrepresentation upon population, nor upon property, nor upon voters, Mr. Hendricks inquired: "Upon what principle do Senators propose toadopt this amendment to the Constitution? I can understand it if yousay that the States shall be represented in the House ofRepresentatives upon their population; I can understand it if you saythat they shall be represented upon their voters; but when you saythat one State shall have the benefit of its non-voting population andanother State shall not, I can not understand the principle of equityand justice which governs you in that measure. Sir, if it does notstand upon a principle, upon what does it rest? It rests upon apolitical policy. A committee that had its birth in a party caucusbrings it before this body, and does not conceal the fact that it isfor party purposes. This measure, if you ever allow the SouthernStates to be represented in the House of Representatives, will bringthem back shorn of fifteen or twenty Representatives; it will bringthem back so shorn in their representation that the Republican partycan control this country forever; and if you cut off from fifteen tothirty votes for President of the United States in the States thatwill not vote for a Republican candidate, it may be that you can electa Republican candidate in 1868. "

Mr. Hendricks thought that "this proposition was designed toaccomplish three objects: first, to perpetuate the rule and power of apolitical party; in the second place, it is a proposition the tendencyof which is to place agriculture under the control and power ofmanufactures and commerce forever; and, in the third place, it isintended, I believe, as a punishment upon the Southern States. "

In reference to changing the basis of representation as a punishmentfor the Southern States, Mr. Hendricks said: "Now that the war isover; now that the Southern people have laid down their arms; now thatthey have sought to come again fully and entirely into the Union; nowthat they have pledged their honors and their fortunes to be true tothe Union and to the flag; now that they have done all that can bedone by a conquered people, is it right, after a war has been foughtout, for us to take from them their political equality in this Unionfor the purpose of punishment? The Senator from Maine, the chairman ofthe committee, says that the right to control the suffrage is with theStates, but if the States do not choose to do right in respect to it, we propose to punish them. You do not punish New York for not lettingthe foreigner vote until he resides there a certain period. You do notpunish Indiana because she will not allow a foreigner to vote until hehas been in the country a year. These States are not to be punishedbecause they regulate the elective franchise according to theirsovereign pleasures; but if any other States see fit to deny the rightof voting to a class that is peculiarly guarded and taken care ofhere, then they are to be punished. "

Referring to the speech of the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Hendricks asked: "Had the white men of this country a right toestablish a Government, and thereby a political community? If so, theyhad a right to say who should be members of that political community. They had a right to exclude the colored man if they saw fit. Sir, Isay, in the language of the lamented Douglas, and in the language ofPresident Johnson, this is the white man's Government, made by thewhite man for the white man. I am not ashamed to stand behind suchdistinguished men in maintaining a sentiment like that. Nor was myjudgment on the subject changed the day before yesterday by thelamentations of the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. Clark, ] soundingthrough this body like the wailing of the winds in the dark forest, 'that it is a horrible thing for a man to say that this is a whiteman's Government. '

"Mr. President, there is a great deal said about the part the coloredsoldiers have taken in putting down this rebellion--a great deal morethan there is any occasion for, or there is any support for in fact orhistory. This rebellion was put down by the white soldiers of thiscountry. "

Criticising sentiments toward the South, expressed by Senators, Mr. Hendricks said: "We hear a good deal said about blood now. Yesterdaythe Senator from Oregon [Mr. Williams] criticised the President forhis leniency toward the South. A few days ago, the Senator from Ohio[Mr. Wade] made a severe criticism on the President for his leniency, and my colleague asks for blood. Mr. President, this war commencedwith blood; nay, blood was demanded before the war. When the good menand the patriotic, North and South, representing the yearning heartsof the people at home, came here, in the winter and spring of 1861, ina peace congress, if possible to avoid this dreadful war, right thenthe Senator from Michigan [Mr. Chandler] announced to his Governor andthe country that this Union was scarcely worth preserving without someblood-letting. His cry before the war was for blood. Allow me to saythat when the Senator's name is forgotten because of any thing he saysor does in this body, in future time it will be borne down upon thepages of history as the author of the terrible sentiment that theUnion of the people that our fathers had cemented by the blood of theRevolution and by the love of the people; that that Union, restingupon compromise and concession, resting upon the doctrine of equalityto all sections of the country; that that Union which brought us somuch greatness and power in the three-quarters of a century of ourlife; that that Union that had brought us so much prosperity andgreatness, until we were the mightiest and proudest nation on God'sfootstool; that that grand Union was not worth preserving unless wehad some blood-letting!"

Mr. Chandler, of Michigan, replied: "The Senator from Indiana hasarraigned me upon an old indictment for having written a certainletter in 1861. It is not the first time that I have been arraigned onthat indictment of 'blood-letting. ' I was first arraigned for it uponthis floor by the traitor John C. Breckinridge; and I answered thetraitor John C. Breckinridge; and after I gave him his answer, he wentout into the rebel ranks and fought against our flag. I was arraignedby another Senator from Kentucky and by other traitors upon thisfloor. I expect to be arraigned again. I wrote the letter, and I standby the letter; and what was in it? What was the position of thecountry when that letter was written? The Democratic party, as anorganization, had arrayed itself against this Government--a Democratictraitor in the presidential chair, and a Democratic traitor in everydepartment of this Government; Democratic traitors preaching treasonupon this floor, and preaching treason in the hall of the other house;Democratic traitors in your army and in your navy; Democratic traitorscontrolling every branch of this Government. Your flag was fired upon, and there was no response. The Democratic party had ordained that thisGovernment should be overthrown; and I, a Senator from the State ofMichigan, wrote to the Governor of that State, 'Unless you areprepared to shed blood for the preservation of this great Government, the Government is overthrown. ' That is all there was to that letter. That I said, and that I say again; and I tell that Senator if he isprepared to go down in history with the Democratic traitors who thencoöperated with him, I am prepared to go down on that 'blood-letting'letter, and I stand by the record as then made. " [Applause in thegalleries. ]

On the 19th of February, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, offered an amendmentproviding that the right of suffrage should be enjoyed by all personsof African descent belonging to the following classes: those who havebeen in the military service of the United States, those who can readand write, and those who possess $250 worth of property. 

Mr. Yates, of Illinois, addressed the Senate for three hours on thepending amendment of the Constitution. On the 29th of Januarypreceding, Mr. Yates had proposed a bill providing that no State orTerritory should make any distinction between citizens on account ofrace, or color, or condition; and that all citizens, withoutdistinction of race, color, or condition should be protected in theenjoyment and exercise of all their civil and political rights, including the right of suffrage. 

This bill Mr. Yates made the basis of his argument. His reason forpreferring a bill to a constitutional amendment was presented asfollows: "There is only one way of salvation for the country. Youramendments to the Constitution of the United States can not beadopted. If we have not the power now under the Constitution of theUnited States to secure full freedom, then, sir, we shall not have it, and there is no salvation whatever for the country. Let not freedomdie in the house, and by the hands of her friends. "

[Illustration: Hon. Richard Yates. ]

Mr. Yates maintained that the constitutional amendment abolishingslavery gave to Congress power to legislate to the full extent of themeasure proposed by him. "Let gentlemen come forward, " said he, "andmeet the issue like men. Let them come forward and do what they haveby the Constitution the clear power to do, and that is a _sine quanon_ in order to carry into effect the constitutional prohibition ofslavery. As for me, I would rather face the music and meet theresponsibility like a man, and send to the people of the State ofIllinois the boon of universal suffrage, and of a full and completeemancipation, than meet the taunt of Northern demagogues that I wouldforce suffrage upon North Carolina, and Tennessee, and Delaware, whileI had not the courage to prescribe it for our own free States. Sir, itwill be the crime of the century if now, having the power, as weclearly have, we lack the nerve to do the work that is given us todo. 

"Let me say to my Republican friends, you are too late. You have gonetoo far to recede now. Four million people, one-seventh of your wholepopulation, you have set free. Will you start back appalled at theenchantment your own wand has called up? The sequences of your ownteachings are upon you. As for me, I start not back appalled whenuniversal suffrage confronts me. When the bloody ghost of slaveryrises, I say, 'Shake your gory locks at me; I did it. ' I accept thesituation. I fight not against the logic of events or the decrees ofProvidence. I expected it, sir, and I meet it half way. I am foruniversal suffrage. I bid it 'All hail!' 'All hail!'

"Four million people set free! What will protect them? The ballot. What alone will give us a peaceful and harmonious South? The ballot toall. What will quench the fires of discord, give us back all theStates, a restored Union, and make us one people? The ballot, and thatalone. Is there no other way? None other under the sun. There is noother salvation. 

"The ballot will lead the freedman over the Red Sea of our troubles. It will be the brazen serpent, upon which he can look and live. Itwill be his pillar of cloud by day, and his pillar of fire by night. It will lead him to Pisgah's shining height, and across Jordan'sstormy waves, to Canaan's fair and happy land. Sir, the ballot is thefreedman's Moses. So far as man is concerned, I might say that Mr. Lincoln was the Moses of the freedmen; but whoever shall be the truestfriend of human freedom, whoever shall write his name highest upon thehorizon of public vision as the friend of human liberty, that man--andI hope it may be the present President of the United States--will bethe Joshua to lead the people into the land of deliverance. "

Mr. Yates maintained that for the exercise of the right of suffragethere should be no test of intelligence, wealth, rank or race. Tobring the people up to the proper standard, the ballot itself was "thegreatest educator. " He said: "Let a man have an interest in theGovernment, a voice as to the men and measures by which his taxes, hisproperty, his life, and his reputation shall be determined, and therewill be a stimulus to education for that man. 

"As the elective franchise has been extended in this country, we haveseen education become more universal. Look throughout all our NorthernStates at our schools and colleges, our academies of learning, ourassociations, the pulpit, the press, and the numerous agencies for thepromotion of intelligence, all the inevitable offspring of our freeinstitutions. Here is the high training which inspires the eloquenceof the Senate, the wisdom of the cabinet, the address of thediplomatist, and which has developed and brought to light thatintelligent and energetic mind which has elevated the character andcontributed to the prosperity of the country. It is the ballot whichis the stimulus to improvement, which fires the heart of youthfulambition, which stimulates honorable aspiration, which penetrates thethick shades of the forest, and takes the poor rail-splitter by thehand and points him to the shining height of human achievement, orwhich goes into the log hut of the tailor boy and opens to him theavenue of the presidential mansion. "

Mr. Yates then declared his confidence in the triumph of the principleof universal suffrage: "It is my conscientious conviction that ifevery Senator on this floor, and every Representative in the otherHouse, and the President of the United States, should, with unitedvoices, attempt to oppose this grand consummation of universalequality, they will fail. It is too late for that. You may go to thehead-waters of the Mississippi and turn off the little rivulets, butyou can not go to the mouth, after it has collected its waters from athousand rivers, and with accumulated volume is pouring its foamingwaters into the Gulf, and say, 'Thus far shalt thou go and nofurther. '

"It is too late to change the tide of human progress. The enlightenedconvictions of the masses, wrought by the thorough discussions ofthirty years, and consecrated by the baptism of precious blood, cannot now be changed. The hand of a higher power than man's is in thisrevolution, and it will not move backward. It is of no use to fightagainst destiny. God, not man, created men equal. Deep laid in thesolid foundations of God's eternal throne, the principle of equalityis established, indestructible and immortal. 

"Senators, sixty centuries of the past are looking down upon you. Allthe centuries of the future are calling upon you. Liberty, strugglingamid the rise and wrecks of empires in the past, and yet to strugglefor life in all the nations of the world, conjures you to seize thisgreat opportunity which the providence of Almighty God has placed inyour hands to bless the world and make your names immortal, to carryto full and triumphant consummation the great work begun by yourfathers, and thus lay permanently, solidly, and immovably, thecap-stone upon the pyramid of human liberty. "

On the 21st of February, the proposed amendment being again before theSenate, Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, delivered an elaborate speechin opposition to the measure. He had previously refrained fromspeech-making, supposing that "while the passions of the country wereinflamed by the war, reason could not be heard. " He regretted thatquestions pertaining to the war still occupied the attention ofCongress to the exclusion of those connected with economy, revenue, finance, ordinary legislation, and the administration ofjustice--questions which require intelligence, investigation, labor, and the habits of the student. As an argument against changing thebasis of representation as it existed, Mr. Buckalew gave statisticaldetails, showing the various ratios of representation in the Senate, as possessed respectively by the East, West and South. He maintainedthat New England had too great a preponderance of power in the Senate, both, as to membership and the chairmanships of committees, "While, "said he, "the population of the East is less than one-seventh of thepopulation of the States represented in the Senate, she has thechairmanships of one-third of the committees. The chairmanship of acommittee is a position of much influence and power. The severaldistinguished gentlemen holding that position have virtual controlover the transaction of business, both in committee and in theSenate. "

Mr. Buckalew thus presented the effect of restoration ofrepresentation to the Southern States upon the relative position ofNew England: "Twenty-two Senators from the Southern States and twofrom Colorado--being double the number of those from the East--wouldreduce the importance of the latter in the Senate and remit her backto the condition in which she stood in her relations to the Unionbefore the war. True, she would even then possess much more than herproportion of weight in the Senate, regard being had to herpopulation, but she would no longer dominate or control the Governmentof the United States. "

Mr. Buckalew argued at some length that representation should continueto be based upon population. He thought that the two-fifths added tothe representative population in the South by the abolition of slaverywould be counterbalanced by the mortality of the slave populationsince the outbreak of the war. He then presented the followingobjections to "any propositions of amendments at this time byCongress:"

"1. Eleven States are unrepresented in the Senate and House. They arenot heard in debate which may affect their interests and welfare inall future time. 

"2. Any amendment made at this time will be a partisan amendment. 

"3. The members of this Congress were not chosen with reference to thesubject of constitutional amendment. 

"4. Whatever amendments are now proposed by Congress are to besubmitted to Legislatures, and not to popular conventions in theStates; and most of those Legislatures are to be the ones now insession. 

"5. In submitting amendments at this time, we invite a dispute uponthe question of the degree of legislative assent necessary to theiradoption. If ratified by the Legislatures of less than three-fourthsof all the States, their validity will be denied, and theirenforcement resisted. "

Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, replied to Mr. Buckalew's imputationsagainst New England. "The Senator gave us to understand that he hadnot wasted reason, thought, and culture upon the stormy passionsengendered by the war, but now, when reason had resumed her empire, hehad come forth to instruct his country. 

"The Senators from New England, unlike the Senator from Pennsylvania, remained not silent during the great civil war through which thenation has passed. They have spoken; they have spoken for the unity oftheir country and the freedom of all men. They have spoken for theircountry, their whole country, and for the rights of all its people ofevery race. Their past is secure, and the imputations of the Senatorfrom Pennsylvania will pass harmless by them. 

"When the Constitution was formed, New England had eight of thetwenty-six Senators--nearly one-third of the body; now she has twelveof the seventy-two Senators--one-sixth of the body. Her power isdiminishing in this body and will continue to diminish. When theConstitution was adopted, quite as great inequalities existed amongthe States as now. The illustrious statesmen who framed theConstitution knew and recognized that fact; they based the Senate uponthe States, and upon the equality of the States. They were sodetermined in that policy of equal State representation in the Senatethat they provided that the Constitution should never be amended inthat respect without the consent of every State. 

"The Senator suggests that the Senators from New England are actuatedby local interests and love of power in their action regarding theadmission of the Representatives of the rebel States. Nothing can bemore unjust to those Senators. It is without the shadow of fairness orjustice, or the semblance of truth. I can say before God that I amactuated by no local interests, no love of power, in opposing theimmediate and unconditional admission of the rebel States into thesechambers; and I know my associates from New England too well tobelieve for a moment that they are actuated by interest or the love ofpower. Thousands of millions of money have been expended, and hundredsof thousands of brave men have bled for the unity and liberty of therepublic. I desire--my associates from New England desire--to seethese vacant chairs filled at an early day by the Representatives ofthe States that rebelled and rushed into civil war. We will welcomethem here; but before they come it is of vital importance to thecountry, to the people of all sections, to the interests of all, thatall disturbing questions should be forever adjusted, and so adjustedas never again to disturb the unity and peace of the country. It isnow the time to settle forever all matters that can cause estrangementand sectional agitations and divisions in the future. Nothing shouldbe left to bring dissensions, and, it may be, civil war again upon ourcountry. The blood poured out to suppress the rebellion must not beshed in vain. "

Prominent Republican Senators bringing earnest opposition to bearagainst the proposed constitutional amendment, and a sentimentevidently gaining ground that it did not meet the requirements of thecase, caused its friends to urge it with less zeal than had at firstcharacterized them. Meanwhile, other important propositions coming upfrom the Committee of Fifteen, which occupied the attention of theSenate, as detailed in a subsequent chapter, the subject of changingthe basis of representation was allowed to lie over for nearly afortnight. 

On the 5th of March, the subject being resumed, Mr. Pomeroy addressedthe Senate. He feared that the nation was not ready to adopt aconstitutional amendment such as the necessities of the countryrequired. "This nation, " said he, "although severely disciplined, hasnot yet reached the point of giving to all men their rights by asuffrage amendment; three-fourths of the States are not ready. And anypatchwork, any 'step toward it' (as said the chairman of thecommittee) which does not reach it, I fear to take, because but oneopportunity will ever be afforded us to step at all; and lostopportunities are seldom repeated. "

Mr. Pomeroy did not think the case was without remedy, however, since"the last constitutional amendment embraced all, gave the most amplepowers, even if they did not exist before; for, after having securedthe freedom of all men wherever the old flag floats, it provided thatCongress might 'secure' the same by 'appropriate legislation. '

"What more could it have said? And who are better judges ofappropriate legislation than the very men who first passed theamendment and provided for this very case?

"Sir, what is 'appropriate legislation' on the subject, namely, securing the freedom of all men? It can be nothing less than throwingabout all men the essential safeguards of the Constitution. The 'rightto bear arms' is not plainer taught or more efficient than the rightto carry ballots. And if appropriate legislation will secure the one, so can it also the other. And if both are necessary, and provided forin the Constitution as now amended, why, then, let us close thequestion of congressional legislation. 

"Let us not take counsel of our own fears, but of our hopes; not ofour enemies, but of our friends. By all the memories which clusterabout the pathway in which we have been led; by all the sacrifices, suffering, blood, and tears of the conflict; by all the hopes of afreed country and a disenthralled race; yea, as a legacy for mankind, let us now secure a free representative republic, based upon impartialsuffrage and that human equality made clear in the Declaration ofIndependence. To this entertainment let us invite our countrymen andall nations, committing our work, when done, to the verdict ofposterity and the blessing of Almighty God. "

On the day following, Mr. Saulsbury took the floor. His speech, ostensibly against the pending measure, was a palliation of theconduct of the Southern States, and a plea for their right of beingadmitted to representation in Congress. All that the Senator saiddirectly upon the subject under discussion was contained in thefollowing paragraph:

"Now, suppose your constitutional amendment passes. If it passes, itought to meet with the respect of some body. If this constitutionalamendment shall be presented to the States who are now represented inCongress, and shall be adopted by simply three-fourths of thoseStates, is there any body that will have the least respect for it?Then suppose you could go with the bayonet--which I think now, underthe brighter dawn of a better day which we begin to realize, you arenot going to have the liberty to do--suppose you were to go with thebayonet and present it to the other eleven States, and they, actingunder duress, not as free agents and as free men, could get somepeople in their section so miserable and poor in spirit and craven insoul as to vote to adopt in their Legislatures such an amendment, would it command the respect of any body in this land? Not at all. Open your doors, sir; admit the Representatives of the Southern Statesto seats in this body; require no miserable degrading oath of them;administer to them the very oath that you first took when you enteredthis body, and the only oath that the Constitution of the UnitedStates requires, and the only oath which Congress has any right toexact, an oath to support the Constitution of the United States; andthen, if you think your Constitution is defective, if you think itneeds further amendment, or if you have not sufficiently exhaustedyour bowels of mercy and love and kindness toward your sable friendswhose shadows darken this gallery every day, submit your amendments tothe States represented in the Congress of the United States; and ifthey choose, acting freely as citizens of their States, to agree toyour amendments, it will command the respect of themselves, but stillit will not command mine. I should despise a people who wouldvoluntarily assume so degrading a position. "

On the 7th of March, Mr. Sumner occupied the attention of the Senatefor three hours, with a second speech in opposition to the proposedconstitutional amendment. He used very strong language to express hisabhorrence of the proposition: "It reminds me of that leg of muttonserved for dinner on the road from London to Oxford, which Dr. Johnson, with characteristic energy, described 'as bad as bad couldbe, ill-fed, ill-killed, ill-kept, and ill-dressed. ' So thiscompromise--I adopt the saying of an eminent friend, who insists thatit can not be called an 'amendment, ' but rather a 'detriment' to theConstitution--is as bad as bad can be; and even for its avowed purposeit is uncertain, loose, cracked, and rickety. Regarding it as aproposition from Congress to meet the unparalleled exigencies of thepresent hour, it is no better than the 'muscipular abortion' sent intothe world by the 'parturient mountain. ' But it is only when we look atthe chance of good from it that this proposition is 'muscipular. 'Regarding it in every other aspect it is infinite, inasmuch as itmakes the Constitution a well-spring of insupportable thralldom, andonce more lifts the sluices of blood destined to run until it comes tothe horse's bridle. Adopt it, and you will put millions offellow-citizens under the ban of excommunication; you will hand themover to a new anathema maranatha; you will declare that they have nopolitical rights 'which white men are bound to respect, ' thusrepeating in a new form that abomination which has blackened the nameof Taney. Adopt it, and you will stimulate anew the war of race uponrace. Slavery itself was a war of race upon race, and this is only anew form of this terrible war. The proposition is as hardy as it isgigantic; for it takes no account of the moral sense of mankind, whichis the same as if in rearing a monument we took no account of the lawof gravitation. It is the paragon and masterpiece of ingratitude, showing more than any other act of history what is so often chargedand we so fondly deny, that republics are ungrateful. The freedmen askfor bread, and you send them a stone. With piteous voice they ask forprotection. You thrust them back unprotected into the cruel den oftheir former masters. Such an attempt, thus bad as bad can be, thusabortive for all good, thus perilous, thus pregnant with a war of raceupon race, thus shocking to the moral sense, and thus treacherous tothose whom we are bound to protect, can not be otherwise thanshameful. Adopt it, and you will cover the country with dishonor. Adopt it, and you will fix a stigma upon the very name of republic. Asto the imagination, there are mountains of light, so are theremountains of darkness; and this is one of them. It is the veryKoh-i-noor of blackness. Adopt this proposition, and you will belittle better than the foul Harpies who defiled the feast that wasspread. The Constitution is the feast spread for our country, and youare now hurrying to drop into its text a political obscenity, and tospread on its page a disgusting ordure, "'Defiling all you find, And parting leave a loathsome stench behind. '"

Having presented his objections to the pending proposition, at greatlength, he summed them up as follows: "You have seen, first, how thisproposition carries into the Constitution itself the idea ofInequality of Rights, thus defiling that unspotted text; secondly, howit is an express sanction of the acknowledged tyranny of taxationwithout representation; thirdly, how it is a concession to StateRights at a moment when we are recovering from a terrible war wagedagainst us in the name of State Rights; fourthly, how it is theconstitutional recognition of an oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, andmonopoly founded on color; fifthly, how it petrifies in theConstitution the wretched pretensions of a white man's government;sixthly, how it assumes what is false in constitutional law, thatcolor can be a 'qualification' for an elector; seventhly, how itpositively ties the hands of Congress in fixing the meaning of arepublican government, so that, under the guarantee clause, it will beconstrained to recognize an oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, andmonopoly founded on color, together with the tyranny of taxationwithout representation, as not inconsistent with such a government;eighthly, how it positively ties the hands of Congress in completingand consummating the abolition of slavery according to the secondclause of the constitutional amendment, so that it can not, for thispurpose, interfere with the denial of the elective franchise onaccount of color; ninthly, how it installs recent rebels in permanentpower over loyal citizens; and, tenthly, how it shows forth, inunmistakable character, as a compromise of human rights, the mostimmoral, indecent, and utterly shameful of any in our history. Allthis you have seen, with pain and sorrow, I trust. Who that is movedto sympathy for his fellow-man can listen to the story withoutindignation? Who that has not lost the power of reason can fail to seethe cruel wrong?"

Mr. Doolittle mentioned some facts which he thought would prove theapprehension of an increase of the basis of representation in theSouth to be without foundation. "The destruction of the population, "said he, "both white and black, during the civil war, has been mostenormous. Of the white population, there were in those States in 1860, of white males over twenty years of age, about one million six hundredthousand. Nearly one-third of that white population over twenty yearsof age has perished. The actual destruction of the black populationsince 1860 has been at least twenty-five per cent. Of the wholepopulation. The population of the South has been so destroyed andwasted and enfeebled in consequence of this war, that I do not forone, I confess, feel those apprehensions which some entertain that, ifthey are admitted to representation under the Constitution just as itstands, they will have any increase of Representatives. My opinion is, that after the next census their representation will be diminishedunless emigration from the North or from Europe shall fill up theirpopulation and increase it so as to entitle it to an increasedrepresentation. "

Mr. Doolittle argued that the amendment was capable of being evaded bya State disposed to disfranchise colored men: "I do not see, " said he, "that there is any thing in the resolution which would prevent SouthCarolina or any other State from passing a law that any person who wasborn free, or whose ancestors were free, should exercise the electivefranchise, and none others. That would exclude the whole of thecolored population, and yet would leave the State to have its fullrepresentation. There is nothing which would prevent the State ofSouth Carolina or any other State from saying that only those personswho had served in the military service, and their descendants, shouldexercise the elective franchise. That would exclude the coloredpopulation, and the Union population, too, if they refused to serve inthe army. "

Mr. Doolittle closed his remarks by advocating an amendment basingrepresentation upon actual voters under State laws. 

Mr. Morrill, of Maine, addressed the Senate in support of theproposition to amend the Constitution. He said: "Some amendment isrendered absolutely necessary, unless the American Constitution is togive to the nation the expression of utterly contradictory sentiments, saying involuntary servitude no longer exists, in one portion of it;in another, bearing on its front in marked contrast, that three-fifthsonly of the 'other persons' are to still constitute the basis ofrepresentation. "

He recalled a time not far remote when amendments of the Constitutionwere adopted by those who now oppose any alteration of the fundamentallaw: "I do not forget, " said he, "that within the last five years aclass of statesmen and politicians, who now resist all propositionsfor an amendment of the Constitution, here and elsewhere urged anddemanded amendments of the Constitution of the nation. What were thecircumstances then? Several States threatened to dissolve this Union;several States had taken an attitude hostile to the Government of thecountry. They demanded the extension, the protection, and theperpetuation of slavery; and upon that question the country wasdivided. Then amendments to the Constitution were proposed withoutnumber here, elsewhere, and every-where. Amendments to theConstitution seemed to be the order of the day. To what end, and forwhat purpose? To increase the power in the hands of the few whowielded the political power in those States, and who were demandingit. 

Referring to an argument presented by the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Morrill remarked: "But yesterday we had an additional reason given whythis amendment should not be adopted; and that was that it was whollyunnecessary, because, it was said, by the events which weretranspiring in the country in regard to the recent slave population, there need be no apprehension of excess of representation based on thewhole 'numbers' instead of three-fifths, from the important fact thatthey were passing away. If I gather the force of that argument, it isthis: we are to base no legislation and no action upon the idea thatthis race, recently slave, now free, is part and parcel of theAmerican people, the object of our care, solicitude, and protection. They are passing away--dying; let them be represented as slaves now, and let them never enter into the basis hereafter of therepresentative system. Sir, that is the old argument--an argumentworthy of another period than this. Our people have been an inexorablepeople, in some respects, in regard to the races that have been withintheir power. In the march of our civilization across the continent, the iron heel of that civilization has rested upon the Indian, and heis passing away. We seem to contemplate the probable extinction of theIndians from our limits with composure. He is a nomad; he is a savage;he is a barbarian; he is not within our morals or our code of law; heis not within the pale of the Constitution, but flits upon the vergeof it, outside our protection, the subject of our caprices, andsometimes, I think, of our avarice. And, now, if any consequence is tobe attached to the remark of the honorable Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Doolittle] yesterday, this 'inferior race' is not to be the subject ofour solicitude. They, too, are passing away; it is not worth while tochange your Constitution in regard to them. Let them be represented astwo-fifths slaves on the old basis until they shall have perished, andthen your Constitution will need no amendment. The laws of a fearfulantagonism of superior and inferior races are expected to accomplishwhat, if American statesmanship does not incite, it contemplates withapparent satisfaction. "

Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, profoundly regretted to see indicationsthat the amendment was doomed to defeat. He said: "My heart, myconscience, and my judgment approve of this amendment, and I supportit without qualification or reservation. I approve of the purpose forwhich it is introduced. I approve it because I believe it would sweepthe loyal States by an immense majority; that no public man couldstand before the people of the loyal States in opposition to it, oroppose it with any force whatever. I approve it because I believe ifit were put in the Constitution every black man in America, beforefive years could pass, would be enfranchised and weaponed with theballot for the protection of life, liberty, and property. "

Referring to the opposition brought to bear against the measure by hiscolleague, Mr. Wilson said: "We are also told that it is immoral andindecent, an offense to reason and to conscience. Sir, this measurecame into Congress with the sanction of the Committee onReconstruction, composed as it is of men of individual honor andpersonal character, and as true to the cause of the colored race asany other men here or elsewhere. It comes to the Senate by anoverwhelming vote of the House of Representatives. It is sustained byninety-nine out of every hundred of the public journals that broughtthe present Administration into power, and were it submitted to theAmerican people, it would, I am quite sure, be sustained by men in theloyal States who believe that the soldier who fought the battles ofthe republic is the equal of the traitor who fought against thecountry. I see no compromise in it, no surrender in it, no defilementof the Constitution in it, no implication that can be drawn from itagainst the rights or interests of the colored race. On the contrary, I believe the black men, from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, would gofor it and rejoice to see it adopted. "

Mr. Wilson described the results that would follow the adoption ofthis amendment. "Being incorporated in the Constitution, the practicaleffect would be this, and only this: it would raise up a party inevery one of these States immediately in favor of the enfranchisementof the colored race. That party might be animated and influenced bythe love of power, by pride, and by ambition. These men might beginthe contest, for they would not like to yield the power of theirStates in Congress; they might begin the battle animated by no highand lofty motives; but as soon as the discussion commenced, it wouldaddress itself to the reason, to the heart, and to the conscience ofthe people. The advocates of negro enfranchisement would themselvesspeedily grow up to believe in the justice, equity, and right ofgiving the ballot to the black men. There would be discussion on everysquare mile of the rebel States. Appeals would be made to their pride, to their ambition, to their justice, to their love of fair play, totheir equity; all the interests and passions, and all the loftiermotives that can sway, control, and influence men, would impel them toaction. They would coöperate with the friends of freedom throughoutthe country; would seek their counsel and aid. They would be the leftwing of the great army of freedom, of elevation, and improvement inthe country. We would give them our influence, our voices, and our aidin fighting the battle of enfranchisement. They would have the supportand the prayers of the poor black men of the South; and before fiveyears had passed away, there would not be a rebel State that did notenfranchise the bondman. "

Referring to the policy of "enlightened Christian States, " in refusingthe right of suffrage to the negro, Mr. Wilson said: "After all thefidelity and heroic conduct of these men, prejudice, party spirit, andconservatism, and all that is base and mean on earth, combine to denythe right of suffrage to the brave soldier of the republic. God alonecan forgive such meanness; humanity can not. After what has takenplace, is taking place, I can not hope that the constitutionalamendment proposed by the Senator from Missouri will receive amajority of three-fourths of the votes of the States. I, therefore, can not risk the cause of an emancipated race upon it. In the presentcondition of the nation we must aim at practical results, not toestablish political theories, however beautiful and alluring they maybe. "

It was the understanding of the Senate that the discussion would closeand the vote would be taken on the 9th of March. On that day Mr. Fessenden took the floor in reply to objections urged by those who hadpreviously spoken. In reply to the objection that the advocates ofthis measure were wrong in attempting to accomplish by indirectionthat which they could not accomplish directly, Mr. Fessenden said: "Ifnegro suffrage can be secured by the indirect action of an amendmentof the Constitution which appeals to the interest of those who havehitherto been and who are yet probably the ruling class among whomthis large population is situated, and with whom they live, it will befar better than to run the risk of all the difficulties that mightarise from a forcible imposition, which would create ill-feeling, generate discord, and produce, perhaps undying animosities. "

To the objection urged by Mr. Hendricks, that it was intended for aparty purpose, Mr. Fessenden replied: "Has he any right to attack themotives of those who support it? Must it necessarily be attended withbenefit to a particular party? If so, it is necessarily attended withinjury to another party, of which the honorable Senator is a prominentmember; and it would as well become me to say that his opposition toit is for party purposes and for party objects as it became him to saythat its introduction and its support were intended for partypurposes. It is well known here and out of this Senate that thehonorable Senator from Indiana is a gentleman who never, in any of hisaddresses here, says any thing that is in the slightest degreecalculated to effect a party purpose, and has so little of that partyfeeling which presses itself upon other men as to be hardly suspectedof being a party man at all. " [Laughter. ]

Mr. Fessenden thus replied to the objections of two opponents of themeasure: "The Senator [Mr. Hendricks] objected to this measure uponanother ground, and that was, that in one sense it was intended as apunishment, and that was wrong; and in another sense it was what hecalled a bribe, a reward, and that was wrong. If he considers it apunishment, he differs very much from his leading associate on thisquestion, the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumner, ] forhe does not consider it a punishment at all. The Senator fromMassachusetts says there is nothing punitive in it. On the contrary, it is a reward to these States; it is conferring power upon them; itis strengthening power in the hands of the whites of the South, andonly oppressing the colored race. Behold how doctors disagree! Theyoperate upon the same patient, and are operating at the same time, with different remedies and in different directions. 

"Suppose it is a punishment, and suppose it is a bribe, a reward; itdoes not differ very much from the principle upon which all criminallegislation is founded, to say the least of it. We punish men whenthey do wrong. I never heard that it was an objection to legislationthat it punished those who perpetrate a wrong. I never heard that itwas an objection to legislation that it held out rewards to those whodid right. "

Referring to Mr. Buckalew's argument, Mr. Fessenden remarked: "Eightout of sixteen pages of his speech were devoted to abuse of NewEngland, and to showing that New England had too much power, and thatit ought to be abridged in some way. "He closed those remarks bysaying (for which I was very much obliged to him) that he did notdespise New England. We are happy to know it. I will say to him thatNew England does not despise him that I am aware of. [Laughter. ] I amnot aware that it is really affected in any degree by the elaborateattack of eight pages which he delivered against New England on thatoccasion, and which he thought were views so important that he couldnot be justified if he failed to give them utterance. "

Of Mr. Sumner's part in the debate, Mr. Fessenden said: "On thissubject I think he has occupied about eight or nine hours of the timeof the Senate, and on the last occasion, while saying that principleswere to be considered, he has undertaken to designate the character ofthis proposed amendment. I have already stated who the men were whowere in favor of it. What does the Senator call it? I have chosen afew, and but a few, flowers of rhetoric from the speech of thehonorable Senator: 'Compromise of human rights, ' 'violating thenational faith, ' 'dishonoring the name of there public, ' 'bad mutton, ''new muscipular abortion, ' 'a new anathema maranatha, ' 'abomination, ''paragon and masterpiece of ingratitude, ' 'abortive for all good, ''shocking to the moral sense, ' 'the very Koh-i-noor of blackness, ''essential uncleanliness, ' 'disgusting ordure, ' 'loathsome stench;'and the men who support it, if they pass it, will be 'Harpies, ''Pontius Pilate, with Judas Iscariot on his back. '

"The Senator from Massachusetts makes several points against thisproposition, to which my answer is the same. His first point is, thatit recognizes 'the idea of inequality of rights founded on race orcolor. ' I deny _in toto_ the correctness, or even the plausibility, toa man of sense, any point that he has raised on the subject. There isnot one of them that is tenable; and more than that, there is not oneof them but what is just as tenable against the proposition he is infavor of to found representation on voters as this. What lawyer in theworld ever heard that a denial is an admission? What lawyer ever heardthat a penalty is a permission? By this proposition, we say simplythis: 'If, in the exercise of the power that you have under theConstitution, you make an inequality of rights, then you are to suffersuch and such consequences. ' What sane man could ever pretend thatthat was saying, 'Make an inequality of rights and we will sanctionit?' We do not deny--nobody can deny--that the power may be thusexercised. What we say by this amendment is, 'If you attempt toexercise it in this wrongful way, you create an inequality of rights;and if you do create an inequality of rights'--not we, but you--'ifyou undertake to do it under the power which exists in theConstitution, then the consequence follows that you are punished by aloss of representation. ' That is all that is in it. "

Having replied to the most of Mr. Sumner's objections in order, Mr. Fessenden said: "The last point of the Senator is, that thisproposition is 'a compromise of human rights, the most immoral, indecent, and utterly shameful in our history. '

"Mr. President, I stand rebuked, but I do not feel so bad as I might. The Committee of Fifteen, the friends and associates of the honorableSenator, stand rebuked. More than two-thirds of the House ofRepresentatives and a large majority of this body, all the politicalfriends and associates of the Senator, stand charged with proposing acompromise of human rights the most immoral, indecent, and shameful inour history! All I can say with regard to that is, that neither on itsface, in its effect, nor in its intention is it any compromise. Nonesuch was dreamed of. "

Mr. Fessenden thus described the remarkable combination of Senatorsopposing the amendment: "I can not close, however, without saying howamusing seems to me the character of the opposition to this jointresolution. That opposition is composed of men of all shades ofopinion. The Democrats on the other side of the House oppose itbecause they say it is unjust to the Southern States; my honorablefriends who have been some time with us are opposed to it because--Ido not know why, except that the President is opposed to it, and Ibelieve that is the ground; my honorable friend from Massachusettsobjects because it is unjust to the negro. Why, sir, just imagine allthe gentlemen opposed to this resolution met in caucus together, andlooking around at each other, would there not be a smile on all theirfaces to see what company they had fallen into? I think Senators wouldbe surprised to find themselves there, and, like the countrymanlooking at the reel in the bottle, they would consider how the devilthey did get there. [Laughter. ] It would be a very strange meeting;and yet they are all against this proposition. "

After a running debate between several Senators, the vote was takenupon the substitute proposed by Mr. Henderson as a constitutionalamendment, viz. : "No State, in prescribing the qualificationsrequisite for electors therein, shall discriminate against any personon account of color or race. " The amendment was lost--yeas, 10; nays, 37. The question was then taken on Mr. Sumner's substitute, which wassimply a joint resolution providing 'there shall be no oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, or monopoly invested with peculiar privileges, andno denial of rights, civil or political, on account of color or race, anywhere within the United States. " This resolution was lost--yeas, 8;nays, 39. The vote was then taken on the amendment proposed by Mr. Yates, providing that no State shall make or enforce any distinctionbetween citizens of the United States on account of race or color, andthat all citizens shall hereafter be protected in the exercise of allcivil and political rights, including the right of suffrage. Thisamendment was lost--yeas, 7; nays, 38. The vote was then taken uponthe original amendment as reported by the joint Committee of Fifteen. The following was the result:

 YEAS--Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Trumbull, Wade, Williams, and Wilson--25. 

 NAYS--Messrs. Brown, Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Guthrie, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, Nesmith, Norton, Pomeroy, Riddle, Saulsbury, Stewart, Stockton, Sumner, Van Winkle, Willey, and Yates--22. 

 ABSENT--Messrs. Foot, Howard, and Wright--3. 

Two thirds of the Senators not having voted for the joint resolution, it was lost. The defeat of the proposed constitutional amendment wasaccomplished by the combination of five "Radical" Senators with six"Conservatives, " elected as Republicans, whose vote, added to theregular Democratic strength, prevented its adoption by the requiredconstitutional majority of two-thirds. 

The advocates of constitutional reform, though foiled in this attempt, were not disheartened. Their defeat taught them the important lessonthat pet measures and favorite theories must be abandoned or modifiedin order to secure the adoption of some constitutional amendment toobviate difficulties of which all felt and acknowledged the existence. 

Meanwhile other measures, designed to lead to the great end ofreconstruction, were demanding and receiving the consideration ofCongress. 

CHAPTER XVI. 

REPRESENTATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 

 Concurrent Resolution -- A "Venomous Fight" -- Passage in the House -- The Resolution in the Senate -- "A Political Wrangle" Deprecated -- Importance of the Question -- "A Straw in a Storm" -- Policy of the President -- Conversation between two Senators -- Mr. Nye's Advice to Rebels -- "A Dangerous Power" -- "Was Mr. Wade once a Secessionist?" -- Garrett Davis' Programme for the President -- "Useless yet Mischievous" -- The Great Question Settled. 

It was understood when the Committee of Fifteen introduced the jointresolution proposing a constitutional amendment relating to the basisof representation, that this was only one of a series of measureswhich they thought essential to the work of reconstruction, and whichthey designed to propose at a proper time. 

In pursuance of this plan, on the 20th of February, the day after theveto of the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, and while the amendment of thebasis of reconstruction was pending in the Senate, Mr. Stevens broughtbefore the House, from the Committee of Fifteen, a "ConcurrentResolution concerning the Insurrectionary States, " as follows:

 "_Be it resolved by the House of Representatives_, (the Senate concurring, ) That in order to close agitation upon a question which seems likely to disturb the action of the Government, as well as to quiet the uncertainty which is agitating the minds of the people of the eleven States which have been declared to be in insurrection, no Senator or Representative shall be admitted into either branch of Congress from any of said States until Congress shall have declared such State entitled to such representation. "

After the reading of this resolution, Mr. Grider, of Kentucky, amember of the Committee of Fifteen, offered the following minorityreport:

 "The minority of the Committee on Reconstruction, on the part of the House, beg leave to report that said committee have directed an inquiry to be made as to the condition and loyalty of the State of Tennessee. There has been a large amount of evidence taken, some part of it conducing to show that at some localities occasionally there have been some irregularities and temporary disaffection; yet the main direction and weight of the testimony are ample and conclusive to show that the great body of the people in said State are not only loyal and willing, but anxious, to have and maintain amicable, sincere, and patriotic relations with the General Government. Such being the state of the facts, and inasmuch as under the census of 1860 Congress passed a law which was approved in 1863, fixing the ratio and apportioning to Tennessee and all the other States representation; and inasmuch as Tennessee, disavowing insurrectionary purposes or disloyalty, has, under the laws and organic law of said State, regularly elected her members and Senators to the Congress of the United States, in conformity to the laws and Constitution of the United States, and said members are here asking admission; and inasmuch as the House by the Constitution is the 'judge of the election, returns, and qualification of its members, ' considering these facts and principles, we offer the following resolution, to-wit:

 "_Resolved_, That the State of Tennessee is entitled to representation in the Thirty-ninth Congress, and the Representatives elected from and by said State are hereby admitted to take their seats therein upon being qualified by oath according to law. "

Mr. Stevens then said: "Having heard an ingenious speech upon thatside of the question, and not intending to make any speech upon thisside, as I hope our friends all understand a question which hasagitated not this body only, but other portions of the community, Ipropose to ask for the question. I think I may say withoutimpropriety, that until yesterday there was an earnest investigationinto the condition of Tennessee, to see whether by act of Congress wecould admit that State to a condition of representation here, andadmit its members to seats here; but since yesterday there has arisena state of things which the committee deem puts it out of their powerto proceed further without surrendering a great principle; without theloss of all their dignity; without surrendering the rights of thisbody to the usurpation of another power. I call the previousquestion. "

Strenuous efforts were made by the Democratic minority to defeat theproposed joint resolution by means of "dilatory motions. " Repeatedmotions were made to adjourn, to excuse certain members from voting, and to call the House, on all of which the yeas and nays were called. This "parliamentary tactics" consumed many hours. The minority seemedresolved to make the passage of the resolution a question of physicalendurance. In reply to a proposition of Mr. Eldridge, of the minority, that they would allow business to proceed if debate should be allowed, Mr. Stevens said: "It is simply the return of the rebels of 1861. Isat thirty-eight hours under this kind of a fight once, and I have noobjections to a little of it now. I am ready to sit for forty hours. "

Late in the evening, a member of the minority proposed that the Houseshould take a recess for an hour, that the door-keeper might have thehall fitted up as a dormitory. From indications, he thought suchaccommodations would be necessary. At length, Mr. Eldridge said: "Weknow our weakness and the strength and power of the numbers of themajority. We have not had the assistance which we expected from theother side of the House in our effort to obtain the privilege ofdebating the resolution. We know perfectly well that it has become aquestion of physical endurance. We know perfectly well that we can notstand out against the overpowering majority of this House any greatlength of time. We know if the majority will it, the resolution willpass without debate. We have done all we could. We therefore yield tothat power, and throw the responsibility of this most extraordinary, this most revolutionary measure, upon the majority of the House. "

To this Mr. Stevens answered: "The gentlemen accept their situationjust as Jeff. Davis did his--because they can not help it. [Laughter. ]I confess, sir, for so small a number, they have made a most venomousfight. "

The vote was then taken upon the concurrent resolution, which passedthe House--yeas, 109; nays, 40. 

The hopes which had arisen in the minds of the minority that aconsiderable number of Republicans would permanently separatethemselves from the party that elected them, and adhere to the policyand fortunes of the President, were disappointed. The imprudence ofthe President himself, in making his unfortunate speech of the 22d ofFebruary, tended to unite the Republicans in Congress against hispolicy, and render fruitless the efforts of his new Democratic friendsin his favor. 

On the 23d of February, Mr. Fessenden proposed that the pendingconstitutional amendment should give way, to enable the Senate toconsider the concurrent resolution passed by the House concerning therepresentation of the Southern States. 

Mr. Sherman thought it would be better and wiser to allow this matterto lie over for a few days. He thought it best not to press this"declaration of political opinion" while the public mind and Senatorsthemselves were more or less affected by surrounding circumstances. "Ithink, " said he, "that we ought not to postpone all the importantbusiness now pending in Congress for the purpose of getting into apolitical wrangle with the President. "

Mr. Fessenden replied: "The Senator from Ohio says we are getting up apolitical wrangle with the President of the United States. When thePresident of the United States tells Congress that it is transcendingits proper limits of authority, that it has nothing to do in the wayof judgment upon the great question of reconstructing the rebelStates, and Congress assumes to express its own sense upon thatquestion, I think it is hardly a proper term to apply to such a stateof things. I am not aware that there has been any effort anywhere toget up a political wrangle or engage in a political wrangle with thePresident. Certainly I have not. No man has ever heard me speak of himexcept in terms of respect, in my place here and elsewhere. 

"I am not sensible myself of any excitement that would prevent myspeaking upon this question precisely in the style which I deem itdeserves. I am not carried away by passion. I have reflected, and I amready to express my opinion upon the great question at issue; and theSenator will allow me to say that, in my judgment, the sooner thejudgment of Congress is expressed, the better. 

"He talks about important business to be done by this Congress. Sir, is there any thing more important than to settle the question whetherthe Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States haveor have not something to say in relation to the condition of the lateConfederate States, and whether it is proper to admit Senators andRepresentatives from them? If the President is right in hisassumption--for the assumption is a very clear one--that we havenothing to say, we ought to admit these men at once, if they come herewith proper credentials, and not keep them waiting outside the door. "

Mr. Sherman said: "In my judgment, the events that transpiredyesterday are too fresh in the mind of every Senator not to have hadsome influence upon him, and I think it as well to allow the influenceof those events to pass away. I do not wish now myself, nor do I wishany Senator here, to reply to what was said yesterday by the Presidentof the United States. I would prefer that the Senate of the UnitedStates, the only legislative body which can deliberate fully andfreely without any limitation on the right of debate, shoulddeliberate, reflect, and act calmly after the excitement of the eventsof the last two or three days has passed off. "

Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin, remarked: "If there be passion and excitementin the country at this present time, I do not hold myself as anindividual responsible for any share of it; and I am here to say thatif I know myself--and if I do not know myself nobody about me knowsme--I am as competent to consider this particular question to-day as Iwas the day before yesterday or last week, and, so far as my judgmentinforms me, quite as competent to consider it as I expect to be nextweek or the week after. And when the Senator from Ohio asks me to voteagainst proceeding to the consideration of any measure, either becauseI distrust my own fitness to consider it, or distrust the fitness ofmy associates about me, I must respectfully decline, not because Icare particularly whether we take up this measure to-day or anotherday, but because I ask the Senate to vindicate their own course asindividual men, and to say that they are not to be swept from the seatof judgment by what is said, or can be said, by the first magistrateof the nation, or by the lowest and the last magistrate of thenation. "

The Senate, by a vote of 26 to 19, agreed to proceed to consider theconcurrent resolution proposed by the Committee of Fifteen, which hadalready passed the House of Representatives. 

Mr. Fessenden advocated the resolution in a speech of considerablelength. He presented extracts from the President's speech of the daybefore, in which he had arrayed himself against the right of Congressto decide whether a rebel State is in condition to be represented. 

Mr. Fessenden considered the pending resolution as "transcending inimportance the question of the amendment of the Constitution, whichhad been under discussion for several days. " He deemed the resolutionnecessary now, "in order that Congress may assert distinctly its ownrights and its own powers; in order that there may be no mistakeanywhere, in the mind of the Executive or in the minds of the peopleof this country; that Congress, under the circumstances of this case, with this attempted limitation of its powers with regard to its ownorganization, is prepared to say to the Executive and to the country, respectfully but firmly, over this subject they have, and they mean toexercise, the most full and plenary jurisdiction. We will judge forourselves, not only upon credentials and the character of men and theposition of men, but upon the position of the States which sent thosemen here. In other words, to use the language of the President again, when the question is to be decided, whether they obey theConstitution, whether they have a fitting constitution of their own, whether they are loyal, whether they are prepared to obey the laws asa preliminary, as the President says it is, to their admission, wewill say whether those preliminary requirements have been compliedwith, and not he, and nobody but ourselves. "

Mr. Fessenden made an extended argument on the subject ofreconstruction, affirming that while the people of the rebel Stateshad not passed from under the jurisdiction of the United StatesGovernment, yet having no existence as States with rights in the Unionand rights to representation in Congress. "My judgment is, " said he, "that we hold the power over the whole subject in our hands, that itis our duty to hold it in our hands, and to regard it as a matter ofthe most intense interest to the whole people, involving the good ofthe whole people, calling for our most careful consideration, and tobe adjudged without passion, without temper, without any of thatfeeling which may be supposed to have arisen out of the unexampledstate of things through which we have passed. "

On the 26th of February, Mr. Sherman addressed the Senate on thepending concurrent resolution. He approved the principle but doubtedthe expediency of now reäffirming it. "I regard it, " said he, "as amere straw in a storm, thrown in at an inopportune moment; the mereassertion of a naked right which has never yet been disputed, andnever can be successfully; a mere assertion of a right that we haveover and over again asserted. My idea is that the true way to assertthis power is to exercise it, and that it was only necessary forCongress to exercise that power in order to meet all these complicateddifficulties. "

Mr. Sherman regarded the President's speech as humiliating andunworthy of his high office. A part of the speech he characterized as"the product of resentment, hatched by anger and passion, and hurled, without reflection, at those he believed wished to badger and insulthim. "

Mr. Sherman favored the prompt restoration of Tennessee. "I think ourfirst duty, " said he, "is at once to prepare a mode and manner bywhich she may be admitted into the Union upon such terms andconditions as will make her way back the way of pleasantness andpeace. "

Of the general question of reconstruction he said: "If I had any powerin arranging a plan, I would mark the line as broad and deep betweenthe loyal people who stood at our side and the rebels who foughtagainst us as between heaven and hell. "

"How can you do it?" asked Mr. Howard. 

"Whenever loyal men, " replied Mr. Sherman, "present a Stateorganization, complying with such terms and conditions and tests ofloyalty as you may prescribe, and will send here loyal Representatives, I would admit them; and whenever rebels send or come here, I wouldreject them. "

"I fear the storm, " said Mr. Sherman, near the conclusion of hisspeech. "I fear struggles and contentions in these eleven States, unless there is some mode by which the local power of those States maybe put in loyal hands, and by which their voices may be heard here incouncil and in command, in deliberation and debate, as of old. Theywill come back here shorn of their undue political power, humbled intheir pride, with a consciousness that one man bred under freeinstitutions is as good, at least, as a man bred under slaveinstitutions. I want to see the loyal people in the South, if they arefew, trusted; if they are many, give them power. Prescribe yourconditions, but let them come back into the Union upon such terms asyou may prescribe. Open the door for them. I hope we may see harmonyrestored in this great Union of ours; that all these States and allthese Territories may be here in council for the common good, and thatat as speedy a moment as is consistent with the public safety. "

Mr. Dixon addressed the Senate in opposition to the concurrentresolution, and in favor of the policy of the President. "It is mybelief, " said he, "that what is known as the policy of the Presidentfor the restoration of the late seceded States in this Government isthe correct policy. I believe it is the only safe policy. " Having beenrequested to state that policy, Mr. Dixon said: "It contemplates acareful, cautious, discriminating admission of a loyal representationfrom loyal States and districts in the appropriate House of Congress, by the separate action of each, every case to be considered by itselfand decided on its own merits. It recognizes the right of every loyalState and district to be represented by loyal men in Congress. Itdraws the true line of distinction between traitors and true men. Itfurnishes to the States lately in rebellion the strongest possibleinducement to loyalty and fidelity to the Government. It 'makestreason odious, ' by showing that while the traitor and the rebel areexcluded from Congress, the loyal and the faithful are cordiallyreceived. It recognizes and rewards loyalty wherever it is found, anddistinguishes, as it ought, between a Horace Maynard and a JeffersonDavis. "

Of the purpose expressed in this resolution to "close agitation, " Mr. Dixon said: "The vast business interests of this country are eagerlyintent on this question. The people of this country are mutuallyattracted, the North and the South, and they must sooner or later acttogether. Whatever Congress may do, this question will not cease to beagitated. Adjourn, if you see fit, without settling this question;leave it as it is; admit no member from Tennessee; and when you gothrough the States next fall which hold their elections for Congress, see whether agitation has ceased. Sir, a word of caution may not beunfit on that subject. "

Mr. Dixon maintained that the Senate would surrender its independenceby resolving that Senators should not be admitted from rebel Statesuntil Congress should have declared them entitled to suchrepresentation. "Upon the question of credentials, " said he, "thiswhole question is before the Senate; and it is for us to consider onthat question whether the member presenting himself here for admissionis a traitor or whether he is true to his country. "

"Suppose, " said Mr. Trumbull, "that in a time of peace the Legislatureof Tennessee is disloyal, and swears allegiance to the EmperorMaximilian, does the Senator deny the authority of Congress to inquireinto the character of that Legislature?"

"I do, " replied Mr. Dixon. "It is for the Senate, and not forCongress, to make the inquiry if a Senator from Tennessee in thesupposed case presents himself. "

Mr. Trumbull said: "He denies the authority of Congress to decidewhether the constituency is traitorous or loyal!"

"That is another point, " said Mr. Dixon. 

"That is the very one I put, " said Mr. Trumbull. "If all the membersof the Legislature of Tennessee swear allegiance to the EmperorMaximilian, and send a Senator here, I want to know if Congress has aright to inquire into the character of that Legislature?"

"I will answer that by asking another question, " said Mr. Dixon. "Suppose that was the case, that the Emperor Maximilian had entirecontrol of the State of Tennessee, and a person claiming a right so todo should come here and offer himself as a member of the Senate, andshould be received here; that, in judging of the qualifications, returns, and elections of the member, the Senate decided that he was aSenator, has Congress any thing to do with the question? I ask him ifthe House of Representatives can interfere? Is there an appeal toCongress or any other tribunal? I ask him if that man is not a Senatorin spite of the world?"

"If, " replied Mr. Trumbull, "the Senator means to ask me if the Senatehas not the physical power to admit any body, elected or not, I admitthey have the same right to do it that twelve jurymen would have, against the sworn and uncontradicted testimony of a hundred witnesses, to bring in a verdict directly against the evidence and perjurethemselves. I suppose we have the physical power to commit perjuryhere, when we have sworn to support the Constitution. We might admit aman here from Pennsylvania Avenue, elected by nobody, as a member ofthis Senate; but we would commit perjury in doing it, and have noright to do it. "

Mr. Trumbull made an extended reply, which assumed somewhat the formof a conversation, in which Mr. Dixon and other Senators participated. Mr. Trumbull claimed that it required the concurrent action of bothhouses of Congress to recognize any government in States whererebellion had overthrown it. 

On the 28th of February, the concurrent resolution still pending, Mr. Nye, of Nevada, advocated its passage. He opposed the presentadmission of any member from the seceding States. "We are told, " saidhe, "by the apologists of these men who are being elected on theirmerits as rebels, to the exclusion of Union men, that 'we must notexpect too much of them. ' I fully accede to this idea. A class thatduring its whole political life has aimed at a monopoly of wealth, amonopoly of labor, and a monopoly of political power; that engaged inthe attempt at revolution in order to establish more fully and toperpetuate such monopoly; that, failing in this, has become morebitter by disappointment, should have time; and, sir, I am decidedlyin favor of giving them all the time necessary for the mostsubstantial improvement. I would say to these men, 'Go home! Go backand labor as industriously to disabuse the minds of yourconstituencies as you labored to mislead and impose upon them. Tellthem that the Union Government always was and never can be any thingelse than a just Government. Tell them that the Constitution hasbecome the acknowledged sovereign, and that it presides in both housesof Congress. Inform them, while you are about it, that the rebelsympathizers and apologists in the North can do them no good; thatthey are acting as much out of time and propriety now as they did inthe time of the war, when their encouragement only prolonged theconflict and added to Southern disaster. You may say to yourconstituencies that the majority in Congress is very tenacious on thesubject of the Union war debt; that it is determined to keep faithwith the national creditors; that it is bent on adopting and throwingaround it all the safeguards and precautions possible; and that youradmission just now, and your alliance with Northern sympathizers, would not be propitious in raising the value of our public securities. While you are conferring with your constituents, you may as wellrepeat to them the common political axiom that Representatives areelected to represent their constituents, and that it is not believedat the seat of Government that a disloyal constituency would make sucha mistake as to send loyal Representatives to Congress. In short, youmay as well say to your people that, as Congress represents theloyalty of the nation, South as well as North, and has much importantwork on hand, some of it requiring a two-thirds majority, it is notdeemed wholly prudent to part with that majority out of mere comity tomen from whom no assistance could be expected. Finally, by way ofclosing the suggestive instructions, you may give your constituents tounderstand that, as you went out of Congress rebel end foremost, youwill not probably get into those vacant seats over yonder except thatyou come back Union end foremost. "

Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, held opinions of the pending questiondifferent from those maintained by his colleague. He thought "thepower to suspend the right of a State to representation might imply adangerous power, and might imply a right to suspend it for any reasonthat Congress might see fit. The power to suspend the right of a Stateto be represented might hereafter be a terrible precedent. " "There isno provision in the Constitution, " said Mr. Stewart, "conferring sucha power upon Congress. No authority of the kind is expressed in thatinstrument, nor can I find any place where it is implied. " In anotherportion of his speech, which was very long, and occupied part of thesession of the succeeding day, Mr. Stewart remarked: "In the darkesttime of the rebellion, I deny that the right to represent Tennessee inthis hall by those who were loyal ever was for a moment suspended, buttheir power to obey the law, their power to represent it was preventedby treason. They were overpowered, and they were denied the right ofrepresentation, not by Congress, not by the Government. This war wasto maintain for them that right which rebellion had sought to takeaway from them, and had for a time suspended the harmonious relationsof the State to the General Government; and it will be too much toadmit that this Government has ever been in such a fix that the peoplethereof were really not entitled to the protection of theConstitution, and because they were denied it this war was brought on, this war was prosecuted. "

Mr. Johnson opposed the resolution in a protracted speech in which hereviewed the entire subject of reconstruction. Of the condition andrights of the Southern States he said: "They are as much States asthey were when the insurrection was inaugurated, and their relation totheir sister States, and their consequent relation to the Governmentof the United States, is the same relation in which they stood to bothwhen the insurrection was inaugurated. That would seem to followlogically as a necessary result, and if that is a necessary result, does it not also follow that they are entitled to representation inthis chamber? Whether they can present persons who can take theirseats, because they have individually committed crimes against theUnited States is another question; but I speak now of the rightitself. "

Mr. Johnson argued that holding secession sentiments a few years agowas no evidence of present disloyalty, and cited in proof of thisproposition a newspaper article purporting to give secessionresolutions drawn up by Mr. Wade, and passed at a meeting held atCleveland in 1859, which was presided over by Joshua E. Giddings. 

This called forth an answer from Mr. Wade, who said: "The Senator fromMaryland called me in question for having been present at a meetingwhich he affirmed was held in Cleveland some seven years ago bypersons called 'Sons of Liberty, ' and he alleged that I thereconsented to certain resolutions that were passed which favored thedoctrine of secession, and that I was chairman of the committee whichreported them. Sir, the charge is a total forgery so far as I amconcerned. I never was at any such meeting of the Sons of Liberty orany other sons. I never uttered such a sentiment in my life; I am notone of those who have or have had much association with gentlemenholding to secession principles. My associations have all been theother way. During the war that secession made my counsels were againstit. I was for war to the death against the principle of secession, while many other gentlemen in my eye were either participants in orapologists for that sentiment. I am perfectly aware that a war ismade--and I am willing to meet it anywhere--upon what are calledRadicals of the country, and I am one of them. In olden times I washere in the Senate called an Abolitionist, but they have changed thename since. They have all got to be Abolitionists now, and they havechanged my name to 'Radical. '

"Mr. President, in the history of mankind, so far as I have read orknow it, there never has been a time when parties were so organized onradical principles of justice and right. The party with whom I actappeal to no expediency, to none of your political policies; we digdown to the granite of eternal truth, and there we stand, and they whoassail us have to assail the great principles of the Almighty, for ourprinciples are chained to his throne, and are as indestructible as theAlmighty himself. I want no warfare with any body; but if you willmake war upon such principles as we have adopted, it is the worse foryou. You can not prevail. 

"I have been in these political warfares for a long time; I claim tobe an old soldier in them. I stood in this Senate when there were notfive men with me to support me, and then I rose here and told thosewho were inveighing like demons against the principles that theycalled abolitionism, that I was an Abolitionist. To-day you are allAbolitionists, not voluntarily, but by compulsion. I have wondered agreat deal why men did not learn more about these things than theyseem to do. Our principles are assailed now with just the samevirulence that they used to be when we were in a small minority. I donot hold that they have triumphed thus far because of any superiorcapacity on our part. Certainly not. Why is it, then, that we, fromthe smallest of all beginnings, have conquered the prejudices of thepeople and conquered the predominant party of this country which hadstood completely dominating the whole nation for more than fortyyears? Why is it that we have conquered you, and now are triumphanthere in this Senate and almost by two-thirds in both branches, withthe whole nation at our backs? What miracle has wrought this change?None other than the great consoling fact that justice, liberty, andright are destined among the American people to succeed, and the gatesof hell can not prevail against them, although they are trying at thisparticular time very hard to do it. " [Laughter. ]

On the 2d of March, the last day of the debate, Mr. Cowan firstclaimed the attention of the Senate in a speech two hours in length. He argued "that for any guilty part taken by the people in the latewar, that the sufferings and losses they endured in that war were thenatural and sufficient punishment; that after it they remain purged, and ought to be reädmitted to all their constitutional rights at once. That it is due to the dignity of the United States as a great nation, if she punishes the actual traitors who incited the rebellion, that itbe done solemnly and according to the strictest form of law, in opencourts, where the prisoners may have counsel and witnesses, so thatthey may make their defense, if they have any. That according to theConstitution and laws all the States are still in the Union; thatsecession ordinances could not repeal the one, nor war set aside theother; that they are neither dead by forfeiture or _felo de se_, butare now in full and perfect existence, with all their municipalmachinery in full play. That the proposition of the Committee ofFifteen to amend the Constitution is fundamental and revolutionary, and destructive of the freedom of the States and the liberties of thepeople; that it is a threat to deprive them of their rights bycompelling them either to admit negroes to the right of suffrage or togive up a share of their representation, which is theirs by law andthe last amendment to the Constitution. That the resolution now beforeus from the same committee is also revolutionary and destructive, being an attempt to suspend the Constitution and laws in regard torepresentation in Congress over eleven States of the Union untilCongress shall see fit to restore them. It is a declaration on thepart of the members of the present House and Senate, that having themeans of keeping these States from being represented here, they aregoing to do so as long as they please; that no one of these measurescan be justified as a punishment for the rebellion; that theConstitution forbids them as bills of pains and penalties, and as _expost facto_ in their character. "

Mr. Garret Davis, in the course of a speech in opposition to theresolution, suggested a summary solution of the present difficulties:"There is, " said he, "a provision in the Constitution which requiresthe President to communicate to the two houses of Congress informationas to the state of the Union, and to recommend to them such measures"as he shall deem proper and expedient. What does this necessarilyimpose upon him? He has to ascertain what men compose the two housesof Congress. It is his right, it is his constitutional function, toascertain who constitute the two houses of Congress. The members ofthe Senate who are in favor of the admission of the Southern Senatorscould get into a conclave with those Southern Senators any day, andthey would constitute a majority of the Senate. The President of theUnited States has the constitutional option--it is his function, ithis power, it is his right--and I would advise him to exercise it, toascertain, where there are two different bodies of men both claimingto be the Senate, which is the true Senate. If the Southern membersand those who are for admitting them to their seats constitute amajority of the whole Senate, the President has a right--and, by theEternal! he ought to exercise that right forthwith, to-morrow, or anyday--to recognize the Opposition in this body and the Southernmembers, the majority of the whole body, as the true Senate. And thenwhat would become of you gentlemen? Oh, if the lion of the Hermitage, and that great statesman, the sage of Ashland, were here in the seatof power, how soon would they settle this question! They would say to, and they would inspire those to whom they spoke, 'You Southern men arekept out of your seats by violence, by revolution, against theConstitution, against right; the Union is dissolved, the Government isbrought to an end by keeping the Senators from eleven States out oftheir seats when the Constitution expressly states that every Stateshall have two Senators. '

"There is no plainer principle of constitutional law than that thePresident has the right to ascertain and decide what body of men isthe Senate and what the House of Representatives when there are twobodies of men claiming to be each. It is his right to do so, and thepeople of America will sustain him in the noble and manly andpatriotic performance of his duty in determining the identity of thetrue House. It ought to have been done at the beginning of thissession. When a petty clerk took upon himself to read the list of theRepresentatives of the people of the United States, and to keep theRepresentatives of eleven States out of their seats, the Constitutionguaranteeing to them those seats for the benefit of their constituentsand country, that subordinate never ought to have been tolerated forone day in the perpetration of so great an outrage. Whenever AndrewJohnson chooses to exercise his high function, his constitutionalright of saying to the Southern Senators, 'Get together with theDemocrats and the Conservatives of the Senate, and if you constitute amajority, I will recognize you as the Senate of the United States, 'what then will become of you gentlemen? You will quietly come in andform a part of that Senate. "

Mr. Doolittle opposed the passage of the resolution. Referring to theplan proposed by Mr. Davis, he said: "If such a thing shouldhappen--which God in his mercy, I hope, will always prevent--that theSenate should be divided, and one portion should go into one room, andanother into another, each claiming to be the Senate, I suppose theHouse of Representatives could direct its clerk to go to one body andnot go to the other, and I do not know but the President of the UnitedStates would have the power, in case of such a division, to send hisprivate secretary with messages to one body and not send them to theother. Perhaps that might occur; but it is one of those cases that arenot to be supposed or to be tolerated. "

Mr. Wilson advocated the resolution: "The nation, " said he, "isdivided into two classes; that the one class imperiously demands theimmediate and unconditional admission into these halls of legislationof the rebellious States, _rebel end foremost_; that the other classseeks their admission into Congress, at an early day, _loyal endforemost_. He would hear, too, the blended voices of unrepentantrebels and rebel sympathizers and apologists mingling in full chorus, not for the restoration of a broken Union, for the unity andindivisibility of the republic has been assured on bloody fields ofvictory, but for the restoration to these vacant chairs of the'natural leaders' of the South. "

Referring to Mr. Davis' programme for the President's interferencewith the Senate, Mr. Wilson said: "Sir, there was a time when aSenator who should have said what we have recently heard on this floorwould have sunk into his seat under the withering rebuke of hisassociates. No Senator or Representative has a right to tell us whatthe Executive will do. The President acts upon his own responsibility. We are Senators, this is the Senate of the United States, and itbecomes us to maintain the rights and the dignity of the Senate of theUnited States. The people demand that their Senators andRepresentatives shall enact the needed measures to restore, at theearliest possible day, the complete practical relations of the secededStates to the National Government, and protect the rights andliberties of all the people, without regard to color, race, ordescent. "

Mr. Fessenden, having the resolution in charge, made a second speech, in which he answered objections which had been urged, and defended theCommittee of Fifteen against imputations of a disposition to delay thework of reconstruction. 

Mr. McDougal took occasion to say a few words against the resolution. He said: "I would not dare to vote for this proposition, because Ihave some regard for the great Judge who lives above. The questionpending now, as practically useless as it will be as rule, is yetmischievous. It is in the way of teaching bad precedents, false law, unsound loyalty. These things are like the worms that eat into themajestic oaks which are used to build vessels to ride the sea, anddecay their strength, so that they fall down and make wrecks ofnavies. "

Mr. Hendricks had moved to amend the resolution by inserting the words"inhabitants of" after the word "States. " This amendment was rejected. The Senate then proceeded to take the vote on the concurrentresolution, which was passed--yeas, 29; nays, 18. 

Thus the opinion of Congress was established, by a large majority, that the two houses should act conjointly upon the whole question ofthe representation of States, and that this question was entirelyindependent, of the Executive. 

CHAPTER XVII. 

THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENT--IN THE HOUSE. 

 A Constitutional Amendment Proposed and Postponed -- Proposition by Mr. Stewart -- The Reconstruction Amendment -- Death of its Predecessor Lamented -- Opposition to the Disfranchisement of Rebels -- "The Unrepentent Thirty-three" -- Nine-tenths Reduced to One-twelfth -- Advice to Congress -- The Committee Denounced -- Democratic and Republican Policy Compared -- Authority without Power -- A Variety of Opinions -- An Earthquake Predicted -- The Joint Resolution Passes the House. 

While the joint resolution proposing a modification of the basis ofrepresentation was the subject of consideration in the Senate, aconstitutional amendment relating to the rights of citizens was madethe topic of brief discussion in the House. It had been previouslyintroduced and referred to the Committee of Fifteen. From thiscommittee it was reported back by Mr. Bingham. It was proposed in thefollowing form:

 "ARTICLE--. That Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each State all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and to all persons in the several States equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property. "

This proposition was introduced on the 26th of February, and wasdebated during the sessions of three successive days. 

Many members of the legal profession saw in the final clause adangerous centralization of power. It was considered objectionable asseeming to authorize the General Government to interfere with locallaws on the subject of property, the legal rights of women, and othermatters hitherto considered wholly within the domain of Statelegislation; hence the Republican majority unanimously voted topostpone the amendment until April. 

After this postponement, and the failure of the amendment relating tothe basis of representation to pass the Senate, the subject ofreconstruction was in the hands of the Committee of Fifteen until the30th of April. 

Individuals had, from time to time, introduced propositions on thesubject, which were referred to the appropriate committee. The onewhich attracted most attention and excited greatest interest was aproposition in the Senate, by Mr. Stewart, of Nevada. This was infavor of a joint resolution providing that each of the States latelyin rebellion shall be recognized as having resumed its relations withthe Government, and its Representatives shall be admitted to Congresswhenever it shall have amended its Constitution so as to provide--

 "1. There shall be no distinction in civil rights among its citizens by reason of race or color or previous condition of servitude; 2. That all debts incurred in aid of the rebellion shall be repudiated; 3. That all claim for compensation for liberated slaves shall be relinquished; and 4. That the elective franchise be extended to all persons on the same terms, irrespective of race, color, or previous condition, provided that none be disfranchised who were qualified voters in 1860; and that upon these conditions being ratified by a majority of the present voting population of each State, (including all qualified to vote in 1860, ) a general amnesty shall be proclaimed as to all who engaged in the rebellion. "

This proposition had peculiar significance, since it emanated from agentleman who, though elected as a Republican, had ever since the vetoof the Freedmen's Bureau acted with the Conservatives. Mr. Sumner, "with open arms, " welcomed the Senator from Nevada as "a new convertto the necessity of negro suffrage. " Mr. Wilson was thankful to theauthor of this proposition for placing the whole question "on thebasis of universal liberty, universal justice, universal suffrage, anduniversal amnesty. " The resolution was referred to the Committee ofFifteen, with whom Mr. Wilson had no doubt it would receive "seriousconsideration. "

On the 30th of April, Mr. Stevens reported from the Committee ofFifteen a joint resolution providing for the passage of the followingamendment to the Constitution:

 "ARTICLE--. 

 "SEC. 1. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life; liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

 "SEC. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But whenever in any State the elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation in such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of male citizens shall bear to the whole number of such male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age. 

 "SEC. 3. Until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States. 

 "SEC. 4. Neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation already incurred, or which may hereafter be incurred, in aid of insurrection or of war against the United States, or any claim for compensation for loss of involuntary service or labor. 

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

This proposed amendment to the Constitution was accompanied by twobills, one of which provided that when any State lately ininsurrection should have ratified the amendment, its Senators andRepresentatives, if found duly elected and qualified, should beadmitted as members of Congress. The other bill declared the highex-officials of the late Confederacy ineligible to any office underthe Government of the United States. 

The proposed constitutional amendment was by a vote of the House madethe special order for Tuesday, the 8th of May. On that day Mr. Stevensoccupied the attention of the House with a brief argument in favor ofthe amendment. Referring to the death in the Senate of the amendmentpreviously proposed, Mr. Stevens said: "But it is dead, and unlessthis (less efficient, I admit) shall pass, its death has postponed theprotection of the colored race perhaps for ages. I confess mymortification at its defeat. I grieved especially because it almostclosed the door of hope for the amelioration of the condition of thefreedmen. But men in pursuit of justice must never despair. Let usagain try and see whether we can not devise some way to overcome theunited forces of self-righteous Republicans and unrighteousCopper-heads. It will not do for those who for thirty years havefought the beasts at Ephesus to be frightened by the fangs of moderncatamounts. "

Of the present proposition, Mr. Stevens said: "It is not all that thecommittee desired. It falls far short of my wishes, but it fulfills myhopes. I believe it is all that can be obtained in the present stateof public opinion. Not only Congress, but the several States are to beconsulted. Upon a careful survey of the whole ground, we did notbelieve that nineteen of the loyal States could be induced to ratifyany proposition more stringent than this. "

Referring to the section prohibiting rebels from voting until 1870, Mr. Stevens said: "My only objection to it is that it is too lenient. Here is the mildest of all punishments ever inflicted on traitors. Imight not consent to the extreme severity denounced upon them by aprovisional governor of Tennessee--I mean the late lamented AndrewJohnson of blessed memory--but I would have increased the severity ofthis section. "

Mr. Blaine called attention to the fact that most of the persons whomthe third section of the amendment was designed to disfranchise, hadtheir political rights restored to them by the Amnesty Proclamation, or had been pardoned by the President. 

Mr. Finck opposed the proposition in a speech of which the followingare extracts: "Stripped of all disguises, this measure is a merescheme to deny representation to eleven States; to preventindefinitely a complete restoration of the Union, and perpetuate thepower of a sectional and dangerous party. 

"Sir, the whole scheme is revolutionary, and a most shallow pretextfor an excuse to exclude the vote of eleven States in the nextPresidential election. You can not exact conditions in this way fromany State in the Union; no more from Georgia than from Massachusetts. They are each equal States in the Union, held together by the sameConstitution, neither being the superior of the other in theirrelation to the Federal Government as States. "

Commenting on the first section, designed to insert a recognition ofcivil rights in the Constitution, Mr. Finck said: "If it is necessaryto adopt it in order to confer upon Congress power over the matterscontained in it, then the Civil Rights Bill, which the Presidentvetoed, was passed without authority, and is clearly unconstitutional. "

To this inference, Mr. Garfield replied: "I am glad to see this firstsection here, which proposes to hold over every American citizenwithout regard to color, the protecting shield of law. The gentlemanwho has just taken his seat undertakes to show that because we proposeto vote for this section, we therefore acknowledge that the CivilRights Bill was unconstitutional. The Civil Rights Bill is now a partof the law of the land. But every gentleman knows it will cease to bea part of the law whenever the sad moment arrives when thatgentleman's party comes into power. It is precisely for that reasonthat we propose to lift that great and good law above the reach ofpolitical strife, beyond the reach of the plots and machinations ofany party, and fix it in the serene sky, in the eternal firmament ofthe Constitution, where no storm of passion can shake it, and no cloudcan obscure it. For this reason, and not because I believe the CivilRights Bill unconstitutional, I am glad to see that first sectionhere. "

Mr. Garfield opposed the section disfranchising rebels as "the onlyproposition in this resolution that is not bottomed clearly andplainly upon principle--principle that will stand the test ofcenturies, and be as true a thousand years hence as it is to-day. "

Mr. Thayer, while favoring the proposed amendment in all otherparticulars, was opposed to the third section. "I think, " said he, "that it imperils the whole measure under consideration. What willcontinue to be the condition of the country if you adopt this featureof the proposed plan? Continual distraction, continued agitation, continued bickerings, continued opposition to the law, and it will bewell for the country if a new insurrection shall not spring from itsbosom. "

Mr. Boyer denounced the proposition as "an ingenious scheme to keepout the Southern States, and to prevent the restoration of the Unionuntil after the next Presidential election. "

Mr. Kelley, if he "could have controlled the report of the Committeeof Fifteen, would have proposed to give the right of suffrage to everyloyal man in the country. " He advocated the amendment, however, in allits provisions. He especially defended the third section. "Thismeasure, " said he, "does not propose to punish them; on the contrary, it is an act of amnesty, and proposes, after four years, to reinvestthem with all their rights, which they do not possess at this timebecause of their crime. "

The passage of the resolution was next advocated by Mr. Schenck. Referring to the third section, he denied the principle advanced byMr. Garfield that there was any thing inconsistent or wrong in makingit an exclusion for a term of years instead of exclusion altogether. "If there be any thing in that argument, " said he, "in case of crime, you must either not sentence a man to the penitentiary at all, or elseincarcerate him for the term of his natural life. Or, to compare it toanother thing, which perhaps better illustrates the principleinvolved, when a foreigner arrives upon our shores we should not sayto him, 'At the end of five years, when you have familiarized yourselfwith our institutions, and become attached to them, we will allow youto become a citizen, and admit you to all the franchises we enjoy, 'but we should require that he be naturalized the moment he touches oursoil, or else excluded from the rights of citizenship forever. "

Mr. Schenck thought the loyal and true people throughout the land were"full ready to declare that those who have proved traitors, and haveraised their parricidal hands against the life of the country, whohave attempted to strike down our Government and destroy itsinstitutions, should be the very last to be trusted to take any sharein preserving, conducting, and carrying on that Government andmaintaining those institutions. "

Mr. Smith opposed the resolution in a speech which, if it addednothing to the arguments, contributed, by its good humoredpersonalities and its harmless extravagancies, to the amusement of theauditors. 

On the following day, May 9th, the consideration of the subject wasresumed, and Mr. Broomall addressed the House in favor of theresolution. He began by counting the votes that would probably be castagainst the amendment. "It would meet the opposition, " said he, "ofthe unrepentant thirty-three of this body. It was also to be expectedthat the six Johnsonian new converts to Democracy would oppose andvote against this measure, commencing with the gentleman from NewYork, [Mr. Raymond, ] who, I believe, has the disease in the mostvirulent form, thence down to the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Smith, ] who preceded me on this question, and who has the mildest andmost amiable type of the infection. Upon them, too, arguments areuseless. There must, then, be thirty-nine votes against the measure, and I want there to be no more. "

To the objection urged against the third section of the proposedamendment, that it would disfranchise nine-tenths of all the voters ofthe South, Mr. Broomall replied: "This is a grand mistake. There werein 1860 one million one hundred and twenty thousand voters in thoseeleven States. We may take seven hundred and fifty thousand as thenumber of individuals in the South who rendered aid and comfort to theenemy, not counting the comparatively few though powerful leaders whorendered aid and comfort outside of the army. But, sir, we do notpropose to disfranchise even these seven hundred and fifty thousand. Supposing two hundred and fifty thousand of the rebel army were lost, we have five hundred thousand actual voters in the South to bedisfranchised by this measure, if they come within the meaning of it. But do they come within the meaning of this provision? Why, sir, itdoes not embrace the unwilling conscripts; it does not embrace the menwho were compelled to serve in the army. It would be fair to say threehundred thousand of these people belonged to the unwilling class, whowere forced into the army by rigid conscription laws and the variouscontrivances of the leading rebels. This will leave two hundredthousand; and I say now it is utterly impossible, in my opinion, thatthe number of people in the South who can be operated upon by thisprovision should exceed two hundred thousand, if, indeed, it shouldreach the one half of that number. Is this nine-tenths of the votersof the South? Why, it is about one in every twelve. "

Mr. Shanklin opposed the amendment as intended "to disfranchise thepeople of the Southern States who have gone into this rebellion, untilthe party in power could fasten and rivet the chains of oppression forall time to come, and hedge themselves in power, that they may ruleand control those people at will. "

Mr. Shanklin closed his speech with the following advice to Congress:"Discharge your joint Committee on Reconstruction; abolish yourFreedmen's Bureau; repeal your Civil Rights Bill, and admit all thedelegates from the seceded States to their seats in Congress, who havebeen elected according to the laws of the country and possess theconstitutional qualification, and all will be well. "

Mr. Raymond spoke in favor of the amendment, except thedisfranchisement clause. He had opposed the Civil Rights Bill on theground of want of constitutional power in Congress to pass it. Hefavored the first section of this amendment, since it gave theprevious acts of Congress a constitutional basis. 

In answer to Mr. Broomall's "ingenious argument, " Mr. Raymond said:"It seems to me idle to enter into such calculations, which depend ona series of estimates, each one of which can not be any thing morethan a wild and random guess. I take it that we all know perfectlywell that the great masses of the Southern people 'voluntarily adheredto the insurrection;' not at the outset not as being originally infavor of it, but during its progress, sooner or later, theyvoluntarily gave in their adhesion to it, and gave it aid and comfort. They did not all join the army. They did not go into the field, butthey did, at different times, from various motives and in variousways, give it aid and comfort. That would exclude the great body ofthe people of those States under this amendment from exercising theright of suffrage. "

Mr. Raymond asserted that all that was offered to the rebellegislatures of the Southern States, in return for the concessionsrequired of them, was "the right to be represented on this floor, provided they will also consent not to vote for the men who are torepresent them! The very price by which we seek to induce their assentto these amendments we snatch away from their hands the moment thatassent is secured. Is there any man here who can so far delude himselfas to suppose for a moment that the people of the Southern States willaccede to any such scheme as this? There is not one chance in tenthousand of their doing it. "

Mr. McKee advocated the amendment. He thought that opposition to itsthird section was a rebuke to those States which had passed lawsdisfranchising rebels. To obviate all objections to this section, however, he proposed a substitute forever excluding "all persons whovoluntarily adhered to the late insurrection" from holding "any officeunder the Government of the United States. "

Mr. Eldridge did not intend "to make an argument on the merits of thejoint resolution. " His remarks were mostly in derogation of thecommittee by whom the measure was recommended. "The committee, " saidhe, "report no facts whatever, and give us no conclusion. They simplyreport amendments to the Constitution. Was that the purpose for whichthe committee was organized? Was it to change the fundamental law ofthe land under which we of the loyal States assembled here? Was thatthe duty with which the committee was charged? Were they to inquireand report an entire change of the fundamental law of the nation whichwould destroy the States and create an empire? I say they were chargedwith no such duty. The resolution can not fairly be construed asgiving to the committee any such power, any such jurisdiction. Thecommittee stands resisting the restoration of this Union, and I hopethat no further business will be referred to it. It has rendereditself unworthy of the high duty with which it was charged. "

Mr. Eldridge asserted: "The whole scheme is in the interest of partyalone, to preserve and perpetuate the party idea of this Republicandisunion party. "

The debate thus entering "the domain of partisan controversy, " Mr. Boutwell, in a speech which followed, undertook to show how theproposition before the House "traverses the policy of the Democraticparty with reference to the reconstruction of the Government. " Mr. Boutwell described the policy of the Democratic party, "which, " saidhe, "they laid down as early as 1856 in the platform made atCincinnati, wherein they declared substantially that it was the rightof a Territory to be admitted into this Union with such institutionsas it chose to establish, not even by implication admitting that therepresentatives of the existing Government had any right to canvassthose institutions, or to consider the right of the Territory to berecognized as a State. 

"Now, sir, from that doctrine, which probably had its origin in theresolutions of 1798, the whole of their policy to this day haslegitimately followed. First, we saw its results in the doctrine ofMr. Buchanan, announced in 1860, that, while the Constitution did notprovide for or authorize the secession of a State from this Union, there was no power in the existing Government to compel a State toremain in the Union against its own judgment. Following that doctrine, they come legitimately to the conclusion of to-day, in which they aresupported, as I understand, by the President of the United States uponthe one side, and, as I know, by the testimony of Alexander H. Stephens, late Vice-President of the so-called Confederacy, upon theother. That doctrine, is that these eleven States have to-day, eachfor itself, an existing and unquestionable right of representation inthe Government of this country, and that it is a continuous rightwhich has not been interrupted by any of the events of the war. "

On the other hand, Mr. Boutwell thus defined the position of "theUnion party, " which, he said, "stands unitedly upon two propositions. The first is equality of representation, about which there is nodifference of opinion. The second is, that there shall be a loyalpeople in each applicant State before any Representative from thatState is admitted in Congress. And there is a third: a vast majorityof the Republican party, soon to be the controlling and entire forceof that party, demand suffrage for our friends, for those who havestood by us in our days of tribulation. And for myself, with theright, of course, to change my opinion, I believe in theConstitutional power of the Government to-day to extend the electivefranchise to every loyal male citizen of the republic. "

Mr. Spalding favored the amendment, including the third section, towhich exception had been taken by some of his friends. He asked, "Isit exceptionable? Is it objectionable? If it be so, it is, in myjudgment, for the reason that the duration of the period of incapacityis not extended more widely. I take my stand here, that it isnecessary to ingraft into that enduring instrument called theConstitution of the United States something which shall admonish thisrebellious people, and all who shall come after them, that treasonagainst the Government is odious; that it carries with it somepenalty, some disqualification; and the only one which we seek toattach by this amendment is a disqualification in voting--not fortheir State and county and town officers, but for members of Congress, who are to be the law-makers, and for the Executive of the UnitedStates, this disqualification to operate for the short period of fouryears. "

Mr. Miller advocated all the sections of the proposed amendment exceptthe third. Of this he said: "Though it seems just on its face, I doubtthe propriety of embodying it with the other amendments, as it mayretard, if not endanger, the ratification of the amendment in regardto representation, and we can not afford to endanger in any manner amatter of such vital importance to the country. "

Mr. Eliot had voted against the former amendment, which was passed bythe House and rejected by the Senate. The present proposed amendment, while it was not all he could ask, was not open to the objectionswhich then controlled his vote. In advocating the third section, hesaid: "It is clear, upon adjudged law, that the States lately inrebellion, and the inhabitants of those States, by force of the civilwar, and of the Union triumph in that war, so far have lost theirrights to take part in the Government of the Union that some action onthe part of Congress is required to restore those rights. Pardon andamnesty given by the President can not restore them. Those men can notvote for President or for Representatives in Congress until, in someway, Congress has so acted as to restore their power. The question, then, is very simple: Shall national power be at once conferred onthose who have striven, by all means open to them, to destroy thenation's life? Shall our enemies and the enemies of the Government, assoon as they have been defeated in war, help to direct and to controlthe public policy of the Government--and that, too, while those men, hostile themselves, keep from all exercise of political power the onlytrue and loyal friends whom we have had, during these four years ofwar, within these Southern States?"

It had been argued against the third section that it could not beenforced, that it would be inoperative. To this objection Mr. Shellabarger replied: "It will not require standing armies. You canhave registry laws. Upon this registry list you may place the names ofmen who are to be disqualified, and you may also have the names of allwho are qualified to vote under the law. There they will stand, therethey will be, to be referred to by your Government in the execution ofits laws. And when it comes to this House or to the Senate todetermine whether a man is duly elected, you can resort to theordinary process applicable to a trial in a contested election case ineither body, as to whether he has been elected by the men who wereentitled to elect him. "

Thursday, May 10th, was the last day of this discussion in the House. Mr. Randall first took the floor and spoke in opposition to the jointresolution. To the friends of the measure he said: "It is intended tosecure what you most wish: an entire disagreement to the whole schemeby the eleven Southern States, and a continued omission ofrepresentation on this floor. "

Mr. Strouse, in opposing the amendment, occupied most of his time inreading an editorial from the New York Times, which he characterizedas "sound, patriotic, statesmanlike, and just. "

Mr. Strouse expressed, as his own opinion, "that the States are, andnever ceased to be, in law and in fact, constituent parts of ourUnion. If I am correct in this opinion, what necessity exists forthese amendments of the Constitution? Let the States be represented inthe Senate and House by men who can conscientiously qualify asmembers; and after that, when we have a full Congress, with the wholecountry represented, let any amendment that may be required beproposed, and let those most interested have an opportunity toparticipate in the debates and deliberations of matters of so muchmoment to every citizen. "

Mr. Banks regarded the pending amendment as the most importantquestion which could be presented to the House or to the country. "Itis my belief, " said he, "that reörganization of governments in theinsurgent States can be secured only by measures which will work achange in the basis of political society. Any thing that leaves thebasis of political society in the Southern States untouched, leavesthe enemy in condition to renew the war at his pleasure, and gives himabsolute power to destroy the Government whenever he chooses. 

"There are two methods by which the change I propose can be made: oneby extending the elective franchise to the negro, the other byrestrictions upon the political power of those heretofore investedwith the elective franchise--a part of whom are loyal and a part ofwhom are disloyal, a part of whom are friends and a part of whom areenemies. 

"I have no doubt that the Government of the United States hasauthority to extend the elective franchise to the colored populationof the insurgent States, but I do not think it has the power. Thedistinction I make between authority and power is this: We have, inthe nature of our Government, the right to do it; but the publicopinion of the country is such at this precise moment as to make itimpossible we should do it. The situation of opinion in these Statescompels us to look to other means to protect the Government againstthe enemy. 

"I approve of the proposition which disfranchises the enemies of thecountry. I think it right in principle. I think it necessary at thistime. If I had any opinion to express, I should say to the gentlemenof the House that it is impossible to organize a government in theinsurgent States, and have the enemies of the country in possession ofpolitical power, in whole or in part, in local governments or inrepresentation here. 

"An enemy to the Government, a man who avows himself an enemy of itspolicy and measures, who has made war against the Government, wouldnot seem to have any absolute right to share political power equallywith other men who have never been otherwise than friends of theGovernment. 

"A pardon does not confer or restore political power. A general act ofamnesty differs from an individual pardon only in the fact that itapplies to a class of offenders who can not be individually described. It secures immunity from punishment or prosecution by obliterating allremembrance of the offense; but it confers or restores no one topolitical power. 

"There is no justification for the opinion so strongly expressed, thatthis measure will fail because the rebel States will not consent tothe disfranchisement of any portion of their own people. Theproposition is for the loyal States to determine upon what terms theywill restore to the Union the insurgent States. It is not necessarythat they should participate in our deliberations upon this subject, and wholly without reason that they should have the power to defeatit. It is a matter of congratulation that they have not this power. Wehave the requisite number of States without them. 

"I do not believe that there is a State in this Union where at least aclear majority of the people were not from the beginning opposed tothe war; and could you remove from the control of public opinion oneor two thousand in each of these States, so as to let up from thefoundations of political society the mass of common people, you wouldhave a population in all these States as loyal and true to theGovernment as the people of any portion of the East or West. 

"The people knew that it was the rich man's war and the poor man'sfight. The legislation of the insurgent States exempted, to a greatdegree, the rich men and their sons, on account of the possession ofproperty, while it forced, at the point of the bayonet, and oftentimesat the cost of life, the masses of the people to maintain their cause. There is nothing in the whole war more atrocious than the cruelmeasures taken by the rebel leaders to force the people who had nointerest in it, and were averse to sharing its dishonor and peril. "

Mr. Banks remarked of the amendment: "It will produce the exact resultwhich we desire: the immediate restoration of the governments of theStates to the Union, the recognition of the loyal people, and thedisfranchisement of the implacable and unchangeable public enemies ofthe Union, and the creation of State governments upon the sound andenduring basis of common interest and common affection. "

Mr. Eckley advocated the joint resolution, citing a number ofhistorical and political precedents in favor of its provisions. Of thedisfranchising clause, he said: "The only objection I have to theproposition is, that it does not go far enough. I would disfranchisethem forever. They have no right, founded in justice, to participatein the administration of the Government or exercise political power. If they receive protection in their persons and property, arepermitted to share in the nation's bounties, and live in securityunder the broad ægis of the nation's flag, it is far more than thenation owes them. "

Mr. Longyear favored the amendment, but disliked the third section, ofwhich he said: "Let us then reject this dead weight, and not load downgood provisions, absolutely essential provisions, by this, which, however good in and of itself, can not be enforced. I regard thisprovision, if adopted, both worthless and harmless, and, therefore, Ishall vote for the proposed amendment as a whole, whether this berejected or retained. "

Mr. Beaman held a similar opinion. He said: "We very well know thatsuch a provision would be entirely inoperative, because electors forPresident and Vice-President can be appointed by the Legislatures, according to a practice that has always obtained in South Carolina. The provision does not extend to the election of Senators, and, consequently, it can operate only to affect the election of members ofthis House, and that only for a period of four years. "

Mr. Rogers denounced the proposed amendment in emphatic terms. Hesaid: "The first section of this programme of disunion is the mostdangerous to liberty. It saps the foundation of the Government; itdestroys the elementary principles of the States; it consolidatesevery thing into one imperial despotism; it annihilates all the rightswhich lie at the foundation of the union of the States, and which havecharacterized this Government and made it prosperous and great duringthe long period of its existence. It will result in a revolution worsethan that through which we have just passed; it will rock the earthlike the throes of an earthquake, until its tragedy will summon theinhabitants of the world to witness its dreadful shock. 

"In the third section, you undertake, " said Mr. Rogers, "to enunciatea doctrine that will, if carried out, disfranchise seven or eightmillion people, and that will put them in a worse condition than theserfs of Russia or the downtrodden people of Poland and Hungary, untilthe year 1870. "

Mr. Farnsworth advocated the amendment, but did not regard the thirdsection as of any practical value. It did not provide punishmentadequate to the guilt of the various offenders. "There is a largeclass of men, " said he, "both in the North and South, equally--yea, and more--guilty than thousands of the misguided men who will bedisfranchised by this provision, who will not be affected by it. Iallude to those politicians and others at the South, who, keepingthemselves out of danger, set on the ignorant and brave to fight forwhat they were told by these rascals were 'their rights;' and to otherpoliticians, editors, 'copper-heads' in the North, some of whom wereand are members of Congress, who encouraged them and discouraged oursoldiers. "

Mr. Bingham spoke in favor of the amendment. He preferred that thedisfranchising clause should be embodied in an act of Congress. "Itrust, " said he, "that this amendment, with or without the thirdsection, will pass this House, that the day may soon come whenTennessee--loyal Tennessee--loyal in the very heart of the rebellion, her mountains and plains blasted by the ravages of war and stainedwith the blood of her faithful children fallen in the great strugglefor the maintenance of the Union, having already conformed herconstitution and laws to every provision of this amendment, will atonce, upon its submission by Congress, irrevocably ratify it, and be, without further delay, represented in Congress by her loyalRepresentatives and Senators. 

"Let that great example be set by Tennessee, and it will be worth ahundred thousand votes to the loyal people in the free North. Let thisbe done, and it will be hailed as the harbinger of that day for whichall good men pray, when the fallen pillars of the republic shall berestored without violence or the noise of words or the sound of thehammer, each to its original place in the sacred temple of ournational liberties, thereby giving assurance to all the world that, for the defense of the republic, it was not in vain that a million anda half of men, the very elect of the earth, rushed to arms; that therepublic still lives, and will live for evermore, the sanctuary of aninviolable justice, the refuge of liberty, and the imperishablemonument of the nation's dead, from the humblest soldier who perishedon the march, or went down amid the thunder and tempest of the dreadconflict, up through all the shining roll of heroes and patriots andmartyrs to the incorruptible and immortal Commander-in-chief, who fellby an assassin's hand in the capital, and thus died that his countrymight live. "

The hour having arrived when, by understanding of the House, thediscussion should close, Mr. Stevens closed the debate with a shortspeech. "I am glad, " said he, "to see great unanimity among the Unionfriends in this House on all the provisions of this joint resolutionexcept the third one. I am not very much gratified to see any divisionamong our friends on that which I consider the vital proposition ofthem all. Without that, it amounts to nothing. I do not care the snapof my finger whether it be passed or not if that be stricken out. Ishould be sorry to find that that provision was stricken out, because, before any portion of this can be put into operation, there will be, if not a Herod, a worse than Herod elsewhere to obstruct our actions. That side of the house will be filled with yelling secessionists andhissing copper-heads. Give us the third section or give us nothing. Donot balk us with the pretense of an amendment which throws the Unioninto the hands of the enemy before it becomes consolidated. Do not, Ipray you, admit those who have slaughtered half a million of ourcountrymen until their clothes are dried, and until they are reclad. Ido not wish to sit side by side with men whose garments smell of theblood of my kindred. Gentlemen seem to forget the scenes that wereenacted here years ago. Many of you were not here. But my friend fromOhio [Mr. Garfield] ought to have kept up his reading enough to havebeen familiar with the history of those days, when the men that youpropose to admit occupied the other side of the House; when the mightyToombs, with his shaggy locks, headed a gang who, with shouts ofdefiance on this floor, rendered this a hell of legislation. 

"Ah, sir, it was but six years ago when they were here, just beforethey went out to join the armies of Catiline, just before they leftthis hall. Those of you who were here then will remember the scene inwhich every Southern member, encouraged by their allies, came forth inone yelling body because a speech for freedom was being made here;when weapons were drawn, and Barksdale's bowie-knife gleamed beforeour eyes. Would you have these men back again so soon to reënact thosescenes? Wait until I am gone, I pray you. I want not to go through, itagain. It will be but a short time for my colleague to wait. I hope hewill not put us to that test. "

At the close of his remarks, Mr. Stevens moved the previous question. 

Mr. Garfield hoped that it would be voted down, that he might have anopportunity to offer a substitute for the third section, foreverexcluding the persons therein specified "from holding any office oftrust or profit under the Government of the United States. "

Nevertheless, the previous question was sustained, and a vote wastaken on the joint resolution proposing the constitutional amendmentas it came from the committee. The following are the yeas and nays:

 YEAS--Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Perry, Garfield, Grinnell, Griswold, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, McClurg, McIndoe, McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Plants, Price, William H. Randall, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Spalding, Stevens, Stilwell, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge, and the Speaker--128. 

 NAYS--Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Boyer, Chanler, Coffroth, Dawson, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grider, Aaron Harding, Harris, Kerr, Latham, Le Blond, Marshall, McCullough, Niblack, Phelps, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Rosseau, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Smith, Strouse, Taber, Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Whaley, Winfield, and Wright--37. 

Applause on the floor and in the galleries greeted the announcementthat two-thirds of the House having voted in the affirmative the jointresolution was passed. 

The heavy majority by which this measure passed the House indicated aneffect of the President's steady opposition, the opposite of what wasanticipated. The amendment secured two votes which were cast againstthe Civil Rights Bill, while it lost no vote which that measurereceived. 

It is remarkable that the joint resolution should have been carriedwith such unanimity when so many Republicans had expresseddissatisfaction with the third section. This is accounted for, however, by the pressure of the previous question, in which fifteenDemocrats joined forces with the radical Republicans to force theundivided issue upon the House. A large minority of the Republicanmembers were thus prevented from voting against the clausedisfranchising the late rebels until 1870. 

In the Senate, as will be seen, the amendment assumed a shape more inaccordance with their wishes. 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENT--IN THE SENATE. 

 Difference between Discussions in the House and in the Senate -- Mr. Sumner proposes to postpone -- Mr. Howard takes Charge of the Amendment -- Substitutes proposed -- The Republicans in Council -- The Disfranchising Clause stricken out -- Humorous Account by Mr. Hendricks -- The Pain and Penalties of not holding Office -- A Senator's Piety appealed to -- Howe vs. Doolittle -- Marketable Principles -- Praise of the President -- Mr. Mcdougall's Charity -- Vote of the Senate -- Concurrence in the House. 

The joint resolution providing for amendments to the Constitution inrelation to the rights of citizens, the basis of representation, thedisfranchisement of rebels, and the rejection of the rebel debt, having passed the House of Representatives on the 10th of May, awaitedonly similar action of the Senate to prepare it to go before theseveral State Legislatures for final consideration. A fortnight hadelapsed before it was taken up by the Senate. That body was muchbehind the House of Representatives in the business of the session. Notwithstanding the great size of the latter, it was accustomed todispatch business with much greater rapidity than the Senate. The hourrule, limiting the length of speeches, and the previous questionputting a boundary upon debate, being part of the machinery of theHouse, caused legislation to go on to final completion, which wouldotherwise have been swallowed up and lost in interminable talk. 

The Senate, consisting of a smaller number, did not realize the needof such restrictions. Senators sometimes indulged themselves inspeeches of such length as, if permitted in the House, would haveproved an insurmountable obstacle to legislation. 

[Illustration: Hon. E. O. Morgan, Senator from New York. ]

The contrast between the discussions in the two houses of Congress wasnever more marked than in connection with the amendment relating toreconstruction. In this case the members of the House by special rulelimited themselves to half an hour in the delivery of their speeches, which were consequently marked by great pertinency and condensation. In the Senate the speeches were in some instances limited only by thephysical ability of the speakers to proceed. In one instance--the caseof Garrett Davis--a speech was prolonged four hours, occupying allthat part of the day devoted to the discussion. The limits of a volumewould be inadequate for giving more than a mere outline of adiscussion conducted upon such principles, and protracted through aperiod of more than two weeks. 

The joint resolution was taken up by the Senate on the 23d of May. Mr. Sumner preferred that the consideration of the question should bedeferred until the first of July. "We were able, " said he, "to have abetter proposition at the end of April than we had at the end ofMarch, and I believe we shall be able to accept a better propositionjust as the weeks proceed. It is one of the greatest questions thathas ever been presented in the history of our country or of anycountry. It should be approached carefully and solemnly, and with theassurance we have before us all the testimony, all the facts, everything that by any possibility can shed any light upon it. "

The Senate proceeded, however, to the consideration of the jointresolution. Owing to the ill-health of Mr. Fessenden, who, as Chairmanof the joint Committee on Reconstruction, would probably have takencharge of the measure, Mr. Howard opened the discussion and conductedthe resolution in its passage through the Senate. He addressed theSenate in favor of all the sections of the proposed amendment exceptthe third. "It is due to myself, " said he, "to say that I did notfavor this section of the amendment in the committee. I do notbelieve, if adopted, it will be of any practical benefit to thecountry. "

Mr. Clark offered a substitute for the third section--thedisfranchising clause--the following amendment, which, with slightmodifications, was ultimately adopted:

 "That no person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or permitted to hold any office under the Government of the United States, who, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution thereof, shall have voluntarily engaged in any insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort thereto. "

Mr. Wade offered a substitute for the whole bill, providing that noState shall abridge the rights of any person born within the UnitedStates, and that no class of persons, as to whose right to suffragediscrimination shall be made by any State except on the ground ofintelligence, property, or rebellion, shall be included in the basisof representation. "I do not suppose, " said Mr. Wade, "that if I hadbeen on the committee I could have drawn up a proposition so good asthis is that they have brought forward; and yet it seems to me, havingthe benefit of what they have done, that looking it over, reflectingupon it, seeing all its weak points, if it have any, I could, withouthaving the ability of that committee, suggest amendments that would bebeneficial. "

Referring to the third section of the joint resolution, Mr. Waderemarked: "I am for excluding those who took any leading part in therebellion from exercising any political power here or elsewhere nowand forever; but as that clause does not seem to effect that purpose, and will probably effect nothing at all, I do not think it is of anyconsequence that it should have a place in the measure. "

On the 24th of May, Mr. Stewart spoke three hours on theconstitutional amendment. He advocated the extension to the Stateslately engaged in rebellion of all civil and political rights oncondition of their extending impartial suffrage to all their people. He announced his policy as that of "protection for the Union and thefriends of the Union, and mercy to a fallen foe. Mercy pleadedgenerous amnesty; justice demanded impartial suffrage. I proposedpardon for the rebels and the ballot for the blacks. " Of the Committeeon Reconstruction, Mr. Stewart said: "I realize the difficulties whichthey have been called upon to encounter. They have acted a noble partin their efforts to harmonize conflicting opinions. I rejoice in themanner in which the report is presented, and the liberal spiritmanifested by the committee toward those who are anxious to aid in theperfection of their plan. "

Mr. Johnson moved to strike out the third section, without offering asubstitute. 

Mr. Sherman offered a substitute for the second and third sections, apportioning representation according to the number of male citizensqualified to vote by State laws, and apportioning direct taxesaccording to the value of real and personal property. 

The constitutional amendment was not again brought up forconsideration in the Senate until Tuesday, May 29th. The several daysduring which the discussion was suspended in the Senate were notfruitless in their effect upon the pending measure. The amendment wascarefully considered by the majority in special meetings, when suchamendations and improvements were agreed upon as would harmonize theaction of the Republicans in the Senate. 

The first action of the Senate, when the subject was resumed, was tovote upon Mr. Johnson's motion to strike out the third section, whichwas passed unanimously--yeas, 43; nays, 0. 

Mr. Howard, acting for the committee, then offered a series ofamendments to the joint resolution under consideration. The first ofthese provided for the insertion as a part of section one, thefollowing clause:

 "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. "

Another modification moved by Mr. Howard was the insertion, in placeof the third section already stricken out, a clause disabling certainclasses of rebels from holding federal offices. This amendment wassubstantially the same as that previously proposed by Mr. Clark. 

It was proposed to amend section four, which, as passed by the House, simply repudiated the rebel debt, by inserting the following clause:

 "The obligations of the United States incurred in suppressing insurrection, or in defense of the Union, or for payment of bounties or pensions incident thereto, shall remain inviolate. "

Such were the amendments to the pending measure which the majority sawproper to propose. 

At a subsequent period of the debate, Mr. Hendricks, in a speechagainst the joint resolution, gave his view of the manner in whichthese amendments were devised. Being spoken, in good humor, by onewhom a fellow-Senator once declared to be "the best-natured man in theSenate, " and having, withal, a certain appropriateness to this point, his remarks are here presented:

"For three days the Senate-chamber was silent, but the discussionswere transferred to another room of the Capitol, with closed doors anddarkened windows, where party leaders might safely contend for apolitical and party policy. When Senators returned to their seats, Iwas curious to observe who had won and who lost in the party lottery. The dark brow of the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Clark] waslighted with a gleam of pleasure. His proposed substitute for thethird section was the marked feature of the measure. But upon thelofty brow of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Stewart] there rested acloud of disappointment and grief. His bantling, which he had nameduniversal amnesty and universal suffrage, which he had so oftendressed and undressed in the presence of the Senate, the darlingoffspring of his brain, was dead; it had died in the caucus; and itwas left to the sad Senator only to hope that it might not be hislast. Upon the serene countenance of the Senator from Maine, theChairman of the Fifteen, there rested the composure of the highestsatisfaction; a plausible political platform had been devised, andthere was yet hope for his party. "

On the 30th of May, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded in the consideration of the constitutional amendment. Theseveral clauses were taken up separately and in order. 

Mr. Doolittle was desirous of amending the first section, relating tothe rights of citizens, by inserting a clause excepting from itsoperation "Indians not taxed. " His proposition was rejected. 

"The Committee of Fifteen, " said Mr. Doolittle, referring to the CivilRights Bill, "fearing that this declaration by Congress was withoutvalidity unless a constitutional amendment should be brought forwardto enforce it, have thought proper to report this amendment. "

"I want to say to the honorable Senator, " Mr. Fessenden replied, "thathe is drawing entirely upon his imagination. There is not one word ofcorrectness in all that he is saying; not a particle; not a scintilla;not the beginning of truth. "

The first and second sections of the amendment were accepted inCommittee of the Whole, with little further attempt at alteration. 

The third section, cutting off late Confederate officials fromeligibility to Federal offices, provoked repeated attempts to modifyand emasculate it. Among them was a motion by Mr. Saulsbury to amendthe final clause by adding that the President, by the exercise of thepardoning power, may remove the disability. 

It augured the final success of the entire amendment in the Senate, that the numerous propositions to amend, made by those unfavorable tothe measure, were voted down by majorities of more than three-fourths. 

Mr. Doolittle, speaking in opposition to the third section, said thatit was putting a new punishment upon all persons embraced within itsprovisions. "If, " said he, "by a constitutional amendment, you imposea new punishment upon offenders who are guilty of crime already, youwipe out the old punishment as to them. Now, I do not propose to wipeout the penalties that these men have incurred by their treasonagainst the Government. I would punish a sufficient number of them tomake treason odious. "

"How many would you like to hang?" asked Mr. Nye. 

"You stated the other day that five or six would be enough to hang, "replied Mr. Doolittle. 

"Do you acquiesce in that?" asked Mr. Nye. 

"I think I ought to be satisfied, " replied Mr. Doolittle, "if you aresatisfied with five or six. 

"The insertion of this section, " said Mr. Doolittle, continuing hisremarks, "tends to prevent the adoption of the amendment by asufficient number of States to ratify it. What States to be affectedby this amendment will ratify it?"

"Four will accept that part of it, " said Mr. James H. Lane. 

"What four?" asked Mr. Doolittle. 

"Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana, " replied Mr. Lane. "Isaw some gentlemen on Monday from Tennessee, who told me that thisparticular clause would be the most popular thing that could betendered. And the very men that you want to hang ought to accept itjoyfully in lieu of their hanging. " [Laughter. ]

"I do not know who those particular gentlemen were, " said Mr. Doolittle. "Were they the gentlemen that deserved hanging or not?"

"They were Conservatives from Tennessee, " replied Mr. Lane. 

"I deem this section as the adoption of a new punishment as to thepersons who are embraced within its provisions, " said Mr. Doolittle. 

"They seem to have peculiar notions in Wisconsin in regard toofficers, " said Mr. Trumbull; "and the Senator who has just taken hisseat regards it as a punishment that a man can not hold an office. Why, sir, how many suffering people there must be in this land! Hesays this is a bill of pains and penalties because certain persons cannot hold office; and he even seems to think it would be preferable, insome instances, to be hanged. He wants to know of the Senator fromOhio if such persons are to be excepted. This clause, I suppose, willnot embrace those who are to be hanged. When hung, they will cease tosuffer the pains and penalties of being kept out of office. 

"Who ever heard of such a proposition as that laid down by the Senatorfrom Wisconsin, that a bill excluding men from office is a bill ofpains, and penalties, and punishment? The Constitution of the UnitedStates declares that no one but a native born citizen of the UnitedStates shall be President of the United States. Does, then, everyperson living in this land who does not happen to have been bornwithin its jurisdiction undergo pains, and penalties, and punishmentall his life because by the Constitution he is ineligible to thePresidency? This is the Senator's position. "

Mr. Willey spoke in favor of the pending clause of the jointresolution. "I hope, " said he, "that we shall hear no more outcryabout the injustice, the inhumanity, and the want of Christian spiritin thus incorporating into our Constitution precautionary measuresthat will forever prohibit these unfaithful men from again having anypart in the Government. "

"The honorable Senator, " remarked Mr. Davis in reply, "is a professorof the Christian religion, a follower of the lowly and humbleRedeemer; but it seems to me that he forgot all the spirit of hisChristian charity and faith in the tenor of the remarks which hemade. "

"This cry for blood and vengeance, " exclaimed Mr. Saulsbury, "can notlast forever. The eternal God who sits above, whose essence is love, and whose chief attribute is mercy, says to all his creatures, whetherin the open daylight or in the silent hours of the night, 'Becharitable; be merciful. '"

Mr. Doolittle proposed two amendments to section three: the first tolimit its application to those who "_voluntarily_ engaged inrebellion, " and the second to except those "who have duly receivedamnesty and pardon. "

These propositions were both rejected by large majorities, only tenSenators voting for them. The third section, as proposed by Mr. Howard, was then adopted by a vote of thirty against ten. 

The death of General Scott having been the occasion of an adjournmentof Congress, the consideration of the constitutional amendment was notresumed until the 4th of June. Mr. Hendricks moved to amend byincluding in the basis of representation in the Southern Statesthree-fifths of the freedmen. Mr. Van Winkle offered an amendmentproviding that no person not excluded from office by the terms of thethird section shall be liable to any disability or penalty for treasonafter a term of years. Both of these propositions were rejected by theSenate. 

On the 5th of June, Mr. Poland, Mr. Stewart, and Mr. Howe addressedthe Senate in favor of the constitutional amendment. Mr. Poland didnot expect to be able to say any thing after six months' discussion ofthis subject. He took more hopeful views of the President'stractability than many others. "Although these propositions, " said he, "may not, in all respects, correspond with the views of the President, I believe he will feel it to be his patriotic duty to acquiesce in theplan proposed, and give his powerful influence and support to procuretheir adoption. "

"While it is not the plan that I would have adopted, " said Mr. Stewart, "still it is the best that I can get, and contains manyexcellent provisions. "

"I shall vote for the Constitutional amendment, " said Mr. Howe, "regretfully, but not reluctantly. I shall vote for it regretfully, because it does not meet the emergency as I hoped the emergency wouldbe met; but I shall not vote for it reluctantly, because it seems tome just now to be the only way in which the emergency can be met atall. "

An issue of some personal interest arose between Mr. Howe and hiscolleague, Mr. Doolittle, which led them somewhat aside from theregular channel of discussion. 

"He has been a most fortunate politician, " said Mr. Howe, "always tohappen to have just those convictions which bore the highest price inthe market. "

"That I ever intended in the slightest degree, " replied Mr. Doolittle, "to swerve in my political action for the sake of offices or the priceof offices in the market, is a statement wholly without foundation. "

Mr. Howe had said in substance that in 1848 Mr. Doolittle was actingwith the Free Democratic party in New York, which was stronger thanthe Democratic party in that State. In 1852, when he left the FreeDemocratic party, and acted with the Democratic party in Wisconsin, the Democratic party was in the majority in that State. He did notleave the Democratic party and join the Republican party in 1854, butonly in 1856, and then Wisconsin was no longer a Democratic State. 

Mr. Doolittle, after having given a detailed account of his previouspolitical career, remarked: "During the last six months, in the Stateof Wisconsin, no man has struggled harder than I have struggled tosave the Union party, to save it to its platform, to save it to itsprinciples, to save it to its supremacy. For six months, from one endof Wisconsin to the other--ay, from Boston to St. Paul--by every oneof a certain class of newspapers I have been denounced as a traitor tothe Union party because I saved it from defeat. Sir, it is not thefirst time in the history of the world that men have turned in tocrucify their savior. "

On the same day, June 6th, Messrs. Hendricks, Sherman, Cowan, andothers having participated in the discussion, the Senate voted onanother amendment offered by Mr. Doolittle, apportioningRepresentatives, after the census of 1870, according to the number oflegal voters in each State by the laws thereof. This proposition wasrejected--yeas, 7; nays, 31. 

On the 7th of June, Mr. Garrett Davis occupied the entire time devotedto the constitutional amendment in opposing that measure, denouncingCongress, and praising the President. "There is a very great state ofbackwardness, " said he, "in both houses of Congress in relation to thetransaction of the legitimate, proper, and useful portion of thepublic business; but as to the business that is of an illegitimate andmischievous character, and that is calculated to produce resultsdeleterious to the present and the future of the whole country, therehas been a good deal, much too much, of progress made. "

Of President Johnson Mr. Davis said: "He seems to be the man for theoccasion; and his ability, resources, courage, and patriotism havedeveloped to meet its great demands. If this ark which holds therights and liberties of the American people is to be rescued andsaved, he will be one of the chief instruments in the great work, andhis glory and fame will be deathless. "

On the 8th of June, the last day of the discussion, the constitutionalamendment was opposed by Messrs. Johnson, McDougall, and Hendricks, and defended by Messrs. Henderson, Yates, and Howard. 

"Let us bring back the South, " said Mr. Johnson, in closing hisremarks, "so as to enable her to remove the desolation which has gonethrough her borders, restore her industry, attend to her products, instead of keeping her in a state of subjection without the slightestnecessity. Peace once existing throughout the land, the restoration ofall rights brought about, the Union will be at once in more prosperousexistence than it ever was; and throughout the tide of time, as Ibelieve, nothing in the future will ever cause us to dream ofdissolution, or of subjecting any part, through the powerfulinstrumentality of any other part, to any dishonoring humiliation. "

"I went down once on the Mississippi, " remarked Mr. McDougall, "at theopening of the war. I met a general of the Confederate army, and Itook him by the hand and took him to my state-room, on board of mygun-boat. Said he, 'General, ' throwing his arms around me, 'how hardit is that you and I have to fight. ' That was the generosity of acombatant. I repeated to him, 'It is hard, ' and he and I drank abottle of wine or two--just as like as not. [Laughter. ] This thing ofbearing malice is one of the wickedest sins that men can bear undertheir clothes. "

Speaking of the third section, which had encountered great opposition, as inflicting undue punishment upon prominent rebels, Mr. Hendersonsaid: "If this provision be all, it will be an act of the moststupendous mercy that ever mantled the crimes of rebellion. "

"Let us suppose a case, " said Mr. Yates. "Here is a man--Winder, orDick Turner, or some other notorious character. He has been the causeof the death of that boy of yours. He has shot at him from behind anambuscade, or he has starved him to death in the Andersonville prison, or he has made him lie at Belle Isle, subject to disease and deathfrom the miasma by which he was surrounded. When he is upon trial andthe question is, 'Sir, are you guilty, or are you not guilty?' and heraises his blood-stained hands, deep-dyed in innocent and patrioticblood, the Senator from Pennsylvania rises and says, 'For God's sake!do not deprive him of the right to go to the legislature. ' The idea isthat if a man has forfeited his life, it is too great a punishment todeprive him of the privilege of holding office. "

Speaking of radicalism, Mr. Yates remarked: "My fear is not that thisCongress will be too radical; I am not afraid of this Congress beingshipwrecked upon any proposition of radicalism; but I fear from timidand cowardly conservatism which will not risk a great people to taketheir destiny in their own hands, and to settle this great questionupon the principles of equality, justice, and liberality. That is myfear. "

Mr. Doolittle moved that the several sections of the amendment besubmitted to the States as separate articles. This motion wasrejected--yeas, 11; nays, 33. 

The vote was finally taken upon the adoption of the constitutionalamendment as a whole. It passed the Senate by a majority of more thantwo-thirds, as follows:

 YEAS--Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Edmunds, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates--33. 

 NAYS--Messrs. Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson, McDougall, Norton, Riddle, Saulsbury, and Van Winkle--11. 

On the 13th of June, the joint resolution, having been modified in theSenate, reäppeared in the House for the concurrence of that branch ofCongress. There was a short discussion of the measure as amended inthe Senate. Messrs. Rogers, Finck, and Harding spoke against theresolution, and Messrs. Spalding, Henderson, and Stevens in its favor. 

"The first proposition, " said Mr. Rogers, "was tame in iniquity, injustice, and violation of fundamental liberty to the one before us. "

"I say, " said Mr. Finck, "it is an outrage upon the people of thoseStates who were compelled to give their aid and assistance in therebellion. You propose to inflict upon these people a punishment notknown to the law in existence at the time any offense may have beencommitted, but after the offense has been committed. "

"Let me tell you, " said Mr. Harding, "you are preparing forrevolutions after revolutions. I warn you there will be no peace inthis country until each State be allowed to control its own citizens. If you take that from them, what care I for the splendid machinery ofa national government?"

Mr. Stevens briefly addressed the House before the final vote wastaken. He had just risen from a sick-bed, and ridden to the Capitol atthe peril of his life. During the quarter of an hour which he occupiedin speaking, the solemnity was such as is seldom seen in thatassembly. Members left their seats, and gathered closely around thevenerable man to hear his brave and solemn words. From his youth hehad hoped to see our institutions freed from every vestige of humanoppression, of inequality of rights, of the recognized degradation ofthe poor and the superior caste of the rich. But that bright dream hadvanished. "I find, " said he, "that we shall be obliged to be contentwith patching up the worst portions of the ancient edifice, andleaving it in many of its parts to be swept through by the tempests, the frosts, and the storms of despotism. "

It might be inquired why, with his opinions, he accepted so imperfecta proposition. "Because, " said he, "I live among men, and not amongangels; among men as intelligent, as determined, and as independent asmyself, who, not agreeing with me, do not choose to yield theiropinions to mine. " With an enfeebled voice, yet with a courageous air, he charged the responsibility for that day's patchwork upon theExecutive. "With his cordial assistance, " said Mr. Stevens, "the rebelStates might have been made model republics, and this nation an empireof universal freedom; but he preferred 'restoration' to'reconstruction. '"

The question was taken, and the joint resolution passed the House by avote of over three-fourths--120 yeas to 32 nays. From the necessaryabsence of many members, the vote was not full, yet the relativemajority in favor of this measure was greater than in the former vote. 

The following is the Constitutional Amendment as it passed both Housesof Congress:

 "ARTICLE--. 

 "SEC. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

 "SEC. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of such male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. 

 "SEC. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 

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

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

The President was requested to send the Amendment to the severalStates for ratification. 

On the 22d of June, President Johnson sent a message to Congressinforming them that the Secretary of State had transmitted to theGovernors of the several States certified copies of the proposedamendment. "These steps, " said the President, "are to be considered aspurely ministerial, and in no sense whatever committing the Executiveto an approval of the recommendation of the amendment. " It seemed tothe President a serious objection to the proposition "that the jointresolution was not submitted by the two houses for the approval of thePresident, and that of the thirty-six States which constitute theUnion, eleven are excluded from representation. "

The President having no power under the Constitution to veto a jointresolution submitting a constitutional amendment to the people, thisvoluntary expression of opinion could not have been designed to havean influence upon the action of Congress. The document could have beendesigned by its author only as an argument with the State Legislaturesagainst the ratification of the Constitutional Amendment, and as anotice to the Southern people that they were badly treated. 

The President's message was received by Congress without comment, andreferred to the Committee on Reconstruction. 

CHAPTER XIX. 

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION. 

 An important State Paper -- Work of the Committee -- Difficulty of obtaining information -- Theory of the President -- Taxation and Representation -- Disposition and doings of the Southern People -- Conclusion of the Committee -- Practical Recommendations. 

On the 8th of June, the day on which the constitutional amendmentpassed the Senate, the report of the joint Committee on Reconstructionwas presented to Congress. This important State paper had been lookedfor with great interest and no little anxiety by the people in allparts of the country. It was drawn up with marked ability, and wasdestined to have a most important bearing upon public opinion inreference to the great subject which, in all its bearings, it broughtto the view of Congress and the country. 

The committee having had unrivalled opportunities for obtaininginformation, their conclusions commanded the respect of those whodiffered from them, and obtained the almost unanimous approval of theparty which carried the war to a successful close. 

Referring to the nature of the work which was required of them, thecommittee said:

 "Such an investigation, covering so large an extent of territory, and involving so many important considerations, must necessarily require no trifling labor, and consume a very considerable amount of time. It must embrace the condition in which those States were left at the close of the war; the measures which have been taken toward the reörganization of civil government, and the disposition of the people toward the United States--in a word, their fitness to take an active part in the administration of national affairs. "

The first step to be taken by the committee, that of obtainingrequired information, and the difficulties attending it, were thus setforth:

 "A call was made on the President for the information in his possession as to what had been done, in order that Congress might judge for itself as to the grounds of belief expressed by him in the fitness of States recently in rebellion to participate fully in the conduct of national affairs. This information was not immediately communicated. When the response was finally made, some six weeks after your committee had been in actual session, it was found that the evidence upon which the President seemed to have based his suggestions was incomplete and unsatisfactory. Authenticated copies of the constitutions and ordinances adopted by the conventions in three of the States had been submitted; extracts from newspapers furnished scanty information as to the action of one other State, and nothing appears to have been communicated as to the remainder. There was no evidence of the loyalty of those who participated in these conventions, and in one State alone was any proposition made to submit the action of the convention to the final judgment of the people. 

 "Failing to obtain the desired information, and left to grope for light wherever it might be found, your committee did not deem it either advisable or safe to adopt, without further examination, the suggestions of the President, more especially as he had not deemed it expedient to remove the military force, to suspend martial law, or to restore the writ of habeas corpus, but still thought it necessary to exercise over the people of the rebellious States his military power and jurisdiction. This conclusion derived greater force from the fact, undisputed, that in all those States, except Tennessee, and, perhaps, Arkansas, the elections which were held for State officers and members of Congress had resulted almost universally in the defeat of candidates who had been true to the Union, and in the election of notorious and unpardoned rebels--men who could not take the prescribed oath of office, and who made no secret of their hostility to the Government and the people of the United States. 

 "Under these circumstances, any thing like hasty action would have been as dangerous as it was obviously unwise. It appeared to your committee that but one course remained, viz. : to investigate carefully and thoroughly the state of feeling and opinion existing among the people of these States; to ascertain how far their pretended loyalty could be relied upon, and thence to infer whether it would be safe to admit them at once to a full participation in the Government they had fought for four years to destroy. It was an equally important inquiry whether their restoration to their former relations with the United States should only be granted upon certain conditions and guarantees, which would effectually secure the nation against a recurrence of evils so disastrous as those from which it had escaped at so enormous a sacrifice. "

The theory of the President, and those who demanded the immediateadmission of Southern Senators and Representatives, was stated in thereport to amount to this:

 "That, inasmuch as the lately insurgent States had no legal right to separate themselves from the Union, they still retain their positions as States, and, consequently, the people thereof have a right to immediate representation in Congress, without the imposition of any conditions whatever; and, further, that until such admission, Congress has no right to tax them for the support of the Government. It has even been contended that, until such admission, all legislation affecting their interests is, if not unconstitutional, at least unjustifiable and oppressive. 

 "It is moreover contended that, from the moment when rebellion lays down its arms, and actual hostilities cease, all political rights of rebellious communities are at once restored; that because the people of a State of the Union were once an organized community within the Union, they necessarily so remain, and their right to be represented in Congress at any and all times, and to participate in the government of the country under all circumstances, admits of neither question nor dispute. If this is indeed true, then is the Government of the United States powerless for its own protection, and flagrant rebellion, carried to the extreme of civil war, is a pastime which any State may play at, not only certain that it can lose nothing, in any event, but may be the gainer by defeat. If rebellion succeeds, it accomplishes its purpose and destroys the Government. If it fails, the war has been barren of results, and the battle may be fought out in the legislative halls of the country. Treason defeated in the field has only to take possession of Congress and the Cabinet. "

The committee in this report asserted:

 "It is more than idle, it is a mockery to contend that a people who have thrown off their allegiance, destroyed the local government which bound their States to the Union as members thereof, defied its authority, refused to execute its laws, and abrogated every provision which gave them political rights within the Union, still retain through all the perfect and entire right to resume at their own will and pleasure all their privileges within the Union, and especially to participate in its government and control the conduct of its affairs. To admit such a principle for one moment would be to declare that treason is always master and loyalty a blunder. "

To a favorite argument of the advocates of immediate restoration ofthe rebel States, the report presented the following reply:

 "That taxation should be only with the consent of the people, through their own representatives, is a cardinal principle of all free governments; but it is not true that taxation and representation must go together under all circumstances and at every moment of time. The people of the District of Columbia and of the Territories are taxed, although not represented in Congress. If it be true that the people of the so-called Confederate States have no right to throw off the authority of the United States, it is equally true that they are bound at all times to share the burdens of Government. They can not, either legally or equitably, refuse to bear their just proportion of these burdens by voluntarily abdicating their rights and privileges as States of the Union, and refusing to be represented in the councils of the nation, much less by rebellion against national authority and levying war. To hold that by so doing they could escape taxation, would be to offer a premium for insurrection--to reward instead of punishing treason. "

Upon the important subject of representation, which had occupied muchof the attention of the committee and much of the time of Congress, the report held the following words:

 "The increase of representation, necessarily resulting from the abolition of slavery, was considered the most important element in the questions arising out of the changed condition of affairs, and the necessity for some fundamental action in this regard seemed imperative. It appeared to your committee that the rights of these persons, by whom the basis of representation had been thus increased, should be recognized by the General Government. While slaves they were not considered as having any rights, civil or political. It did not seem just or proper that all the political advantages derived from their becoming free should be confined to their former masters, who had fought against the Union, and withheld from themselves, who had always been loyal. Slavery, by building up a ruling and dominant class, had produced a spirit of oligarchy adverse to republican institutions, which finally inaugurated civil war. The tendency of continuing the domination of such a class, by leaving it in the exclusive possession of political power, would be to encourage the same spirit and lead to a similar result. Doubts were entertained whether Congress had power, even under the amended Constitution, to prescribe the qualifications of voters in a State, or could act directly on the subject. It was doubtful in the opinion of your committee whether the States would consent to surrender a power they had always exercised, and to which they were attached. As the best, not the only method of surmounting all difficulty, and as eminently just and proper in itself, your committee comes to the conclusion that political power should be possessed in all the States exactly in proportion as the right of suffrage should be granted without distinction of color or race. This, it was thought, would leave the whole question with the people of each State, holding out to all the advantages of increased political power as an inducement to allow all to participate in its exercise. Such a proposition would be in its nature gentle and persuasive, and would tend, it was hoped, at no distant day, to an equal participation of all, without distinction, in all the rights and privileges of citizenship, thus affording a full and adequate protection to all classes of citizens, since we would have, through the ballot-box, the power of self-protection. 

 "Holding these views, your committee prepared an amendment to the Constitution to carry out this idea, and submitted the same to Congress. Unfortunately, as we think, it did not receive the necessary constitutional support in the Senate, and, therefore, could not be proposed for adoption by the States. The principle involved in that amendment is, however, believed to be sound, and your committee have again proposed it in another form, hoping that it may receive the approbation of Congress. "

The action of the people of the insurrectionary States, and theirresponses to the President's appeals, as showing their degree ofpreparation for immediate admission into Congress, was thus set forthin the report:

 "So far as the disposition of the people of the insurrectionary States and the probability of their adopting measures conforming to the changed condition of affairs can be inferred, from the papers submitted by the President as the basis of his action, the prospects are far from encouraging. It appears quite clear that the anti-slavery amendments, both to the State and Federal Constitutions, were adopted with reluctance by the bodies which did adopt them; and in some States they have been either passed by in silence or rejected. The language of all the provisions and ordinances of the States on the subject amounts to nothing more than an unwilling admission of an unwelcome truth. As to the ordinance of secession, it is in some cases declared 'null and void, ' and in others simply 'repealed, ' and in no case is a refutation of this deadly heresy considered worthy of a place in the new constitutions. 

 "If, as the President assumes, these insurrectionary States were, at the close of the war, wholly without State governments, it would seem that before being admitted to participate in the direction of public affairs, such governments should be regularly organized. Long usage has established, and numerous statutes have pointed out, the mode in which this should be done. A convention to frame a form of government should be assembled under competent authority. Ordinarily this authority emanates from Congress; but under the peculiar circumstances, your committee is not disposed to criticise the President's action in assuming the power exercised by him in this regard. 

 "The convention, when assembled, should frame a constitution of government, which should be submitted to the people for adoption. If adopted, a Legislature should be convened to pass the laws necessary to carry it into effect. When a State thus organized claims representation in Congress, the election of Representatives should be provided for by law, in accordance with the laws of Congress regulating representation, and the proof, that the action taken has been in conformity to law, should be submitted to Congress. 

 "In no case have these essential preliminary steps been taken. The conventions assembled seem to have assumed that the Constitution which had been repudiated and overthrown, was still in existence, and operative to constitute the States members of the Union, and to have contented themselves with such amendments as they were informed were requisite in order to insure their return to an immediate participation in the Government of the United States. And without waiting to ascertain whether the people they represented would adopt even the proposed amendments, they at once called elections of Representatives to Congress in nearly all instances before an Executive had been chosen to issue certificates of election under the State laws, and such elections as were held were ordered by the conventions. In one instance, at least, the writs of election were signed by the provisional governor. Glaring irregularities and unwarranted assumptions of power are manifest in several cases, particularly in South Carolina, where the convention, although disbanded by the provisional governor on the ground that it was a revolutionary body, assumed to district the State. "

The report thus sets forth the conduct naturally expected of theSouthern people, as contrasted with their actual doings:

 "They should exhibit in their acts something more than unwilling submission to an unavoidable necessity--a feeling, if not cheerful, certainly not offensive and defiant, and should evince an entire repudiation of all hostility to the General Government by an acceptance of such just and favorable conditions as that Government should think the public safety demands. Has this been done? Let us look at the facts shown by the evidence taken by the committee. Hardly had the war closed before the people of these insurrectionary States come forward and hastily claim as a right the privilege of participating at once in that Government which they had for four years been fighting to overthrow. 

 "Allowed and encouraged by the Executive to organize State governments, they at once place in power leading rebels, unrepentant and unpardoned, excluding with contempt those who had manifested an attachment to the Union, and preferring, in many instances, those who had rendered themselves the most obnoxious. In the face of the law requiring an oath which would necessarily exclude all such men from Federal office, they elect, with very few exceptions, as Senators and Representatives in Congress, men who had actively participated in the rebellion, insultingly denouncing the law as unconstitutional. 

 "It is only necessary to instance the election to the Senate of the late Vice President of the Confederacy--a man who, against his own declared convictions, had lent all the weight of his acknowledged ability and of his influence as a most prominent public man to the cause of the rebellion, and who, unpardoned rebel as he is, with that oath staring him in the face, had the assurance to lay his credentials on the table of the Senate. Other rebels of scarcely less note or notoriety were selected from other quarters. Professing no repentance, glorying apparently in the crime they had committed, avowing still, as the uncontradicted testimony of Mr. Stephens and many others proves, an adherence to the pernicious doctrines of secession, and declaring that they yielded only to necessity, they insist with unanimous voice upon their rights as States, and proclaim they will submit to no conditions whatever preliminary to their resumption of power under that Constitution which they still claim the right to repudiate. "

Finally the report thus presented the "conclusion of the committee:"

 "That the so-called Confederate States are not at present entitled to representation in the Congress of the United States; that before allowing such representation, adequate security for future peace and safety should be required; that this can only be found in such changes of the organic law as shall determine the civil rights and privileges of all citizens in all parts of the republic, shall place representation on an equitable basis, shall fix a stigma upon treason, and protect the loyal people against future claims for the expenses incurred in support of rebellion and for manumitted slaves, together with an express grant of power in Congress to enforce these provisions. To this end they have offered a joint resolution for amending the Constitution of the United States, and two several bills designed to carry the same into effect. "

The passage of the Constitutional Amendment by more than the necessarymajority has been related. One of the bills to which reference is madein the above report--declaring certain officials of the so-calledConfederate States ineligible to any office under the Government ofthe United States--was placed in the amendment in lieu of thedisfranchising clause. The other bill provided for "the restoration ofthe States lately in insurrection to their full rights" so soon asthey should have ratified the proposed amendment. This bill wasdefeated in the House by a vote of 75 to 48. Congress thus refused topledge itself in advance to make the amendment the sole test of thereädmission of rebel States. Congress, however, clearly indicated adisposition to restore those States "at the earliest day consistentwith the future peace and safety of the Union. " The report and doingsof the Committee of Fifteen, although by many impatiently criticisedas dilatory, resulted, before the end of the first session of theThirty-ninth Congress, in the reconstruction of one of the Stateslately in rebellion. 

CHAPTER XX. 

RESTORATION OF TENNESSEE. 

 Assembling of the Tennessee Legislature -- Ratification of the Constitutional Amendment -- Restoration of Tennessee proposed in Congress -- The Government of Tennessee not Republican -- Protest against the Preamble -- Passage in the House -- New Preamble proposed -- The President's Opinion deprecated and disregarded -- Passage in the Senate -- The President's Approval and Protest -- Admission of Tennessee Members -- Mr. Patterson's Case. 

The most important practical step in the work of reconstruction takenby the Thirty-ninth Congress was the restoration of Tennessee to herrelations to the Union. Of all the recently rebellious States, Tennessee was the first to give a favorable response to the overturesof Congress by ratifying the Constitutional Amendment. 

Immediately on the reception of the circular of the Secretary of Statecontaining the proposed amendment, Governor Brownlow issued aproclamation summoning the Legislature of Tennessee to assemble atNashville on the 4th of July. 

There are eighty-four seats in the lower branch of the Legislature ofTennessee. By the State Constitution, two-thirds of the seats arerequired to be full to constitute a quorum. The presence of fifty-sixmembers seemed essential for the legal transaction of business. Everyeffort was made to prevent the assembling of the required number. Thepowerful influence of the President himself was thrown in oppositionto ratification. 

On the day of the assembling of the Legislature but fifty-two membersvoluntarily appeared. Two additional members were secured by arrest, so that the number nominally in attendance was fifty-four, and thus itremained for several days. It was ascertained that deaths andresignations had reduced the number of actual members to seventy-two, and a Union caucus determined to declare that fifty-four membersshould constitute a quorum. Two more Union members opportunelyarrived, swelling the number present in the Capitol to fifty-six. Neither persuasion nor compulsion availed to induce the two"Conservative members" to occupy their seats, and the house was drivento the expedient of considering the members who were under arrest andconfined in a committee room, as present in their places. This havingbeen decided, the constitutional amendment was immediately ratified. Governor Brownlow immediately sent the following telegraphic dispatchto Washington:

 "NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, _Thursday_, July 19--12 M. 

 "_To Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War, Washington, D. C. _

 My compliments to the President. We have carried the Constitutional Amendment in the House. Vote, 43 to 18; two of his tools refusing to vote. 

 W. G. BROWNLOW. "

On the 19th of July, the very day on which Tennessee voted to ratifythe amendment, and immediately after the news was received inWashington, Mr. Bingham, in the House of Representatives, moved toreconsider a motion by which a joint resolution relating to therestoration of Tennessee had been referred to the Committee onReconstruction. 

This joint resolution having been drawn up in the early part of thesession, was not adapted to the altered condition of affairs resultingfrom the passage of the constitutional amendment in Congress. Themotion to reconsider having passed, Mr. Bingham proposed the followingsubstitute:

 "Joint resolution declaring Tennessee again entitled to Senators and Representatives in Congress. 

 _Whereas_, The State of Tennessee has in good faith ratified the article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress to the Legislatures of the several States, and has also shown, to the satisfaction of Congress, by a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people, her return to her due allegiance to the Government, laws, and authority of the United States: Therefore, _Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the State of Tennessee is hereby restored to her former, proper, practical relation to the Union, and again entitled to be represented by Senators and Representatives in Congress, duly elected and qualified, upon their taking the oaths of office required by existing laws. "

On the following day, this joint resolution was the regular order, andgave rise to a brief discussion. 

Mr. Boutwell desired to offer an amendment providing that Tennesseeshould have representation in Congress whenever, in addition to havingratified the constitutional amendment, it should establish an "equaland just system of suffrage. " Mr. Boutwell, although opposed to thejoint resolution before the House, had no "technical" objections tothe immediate restoration of Tennessee. "I am not troubled, " said he, "by the informalities apparent in the proceedings of the TennesseeLegislature upon the question of ratifying the constitutionalamendment. It received the votes of a majority of the members of afull house, and when the proper officers shall have made the customarycertificate, and filed it in the Department of State, it is not easyto see how any legal objection can be raised, even if two-thirds ofthe members were not present, although that proportion is a quorumaccording to the constitution of the State. "

Mr. Boutwell declared that his objections to the pending measure werevital and fundamental. The government of Tennessee was not republicanin form, since under its constitution more than eighty thousand malecitizens were deprived of the right of suffrage. The enfranchisementof the freedmen of Tennessee should be the beginning of the great workof reconstruction upon a republican basis. "We surrender the rights offour million people, " said Mr. Boutwell in concluding his remarks; "wesurrender the cause of justice; we imperil the peace and endanger theprosperity of the country; we degrade ourselves as a great party whichhas controlled the government in the most trying times in the historyof the world. "

Mr. Higby thought that Tennessee should not be admitted without arestriction that she should not be allowed any more representationthan that to which she would be entitled were the constitutionalamendment in full operation and effect. 

Mr. Bingham advocated at considerable length the immediate restorationof Tennessee. "Inasmuch, " said he, "as Tennessee has conformed to allour requirements; inasmuch as she has, by a majority of her wholelegislature in each house, ratified the amendment in good faith;inasmuch as she has of her own voluntary will conformed herconstitution and laws to the Constitution and laws of the UnitedStates; inasmuch as she has by her fundamental law forever prohibitedthe assumption or payment of the rebel debt, or the enslavement ofmen; inasmuch as she has by her own constitution declared that rebelsshall not exercise any of the political power of the State or vote atelections; and thereby given the American people assurance of herdetermination to stand by this great measure of security for thefuture of the Republic, Tennessee is as much entitled to berepresented here as any State in the Union. "

Mr. Finck, Mr. Eldridge, and other Democrats favored the resolution, while they protested against and "spit on" the preamble. 

The question having been taken, the joint resolution passed the House, one hundred and twenty-five voting in the affirmative, and twelve inthe negative. These last were the following: Messrs. Alley, Benjamin, Boutwell, Eliot, Higby, Jenckes, Julian, Kelley, Loan, McClurg, Paine, and Williams. 

The announcement of the passage of the joint resolution was greetedwith demonstrations of applause on the floor and in the galleries. 

On the day succeeding this action in the House, the joint resolutioncame up for consideration in the Senate. After a considerablediscussion, the resolution as it passed the House was adopted by theSenate. 

In place of the preamble which was passed by the House, Mr. Trumbullproposed the following substitute:

 "_Whereas_, In the year 1861, the government of the State of Tennessee was seized upon and taken possession of by persons in hostility to the United States, and the inhabitants of said State, in pursuance of an act of Congress were declared to be in a state of insurrection against the United States; and whereas said State government can only be restored to its former political relations in the Union by the consent of the law-making power of the United States; and whereas the people of said State did on the 22d of February, 1865, by a large popular vote adopt and ratify a constitution of government whereby slavery was abolished, and all ordinances and laws of secession and debts contracted under the same were declared void; and whereas a State government has been organized under said constitution which has ratified the amendment to the Constitution of the United States abolishing slavery, also the amendment proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and has done other acts proclaiming and denoting loyalty: Therefore. "

Mr. Sherman opposed the substitution of this preamble. "Thesepolitical dogmas, " said he, "can not receive the sanction of thePresident; and to insert them will only create delay, and postpone theadmission of Tennessee. "

"I pay no regard, " said Mr. Wade, "to all that has been said here inrelation to the President probably vetoing your bill, for any thing hemay do, in my judgment, is entirely out of order on this floor. Sir, in olden times it was totally inadmissible in the British Parliamentfor any member to allude to any opinion that the king might entertainon any thing before the body; and much more, sir, ought an AmericanCongress never to permit any member to allude to the opinion that theExecutive may have upon any subject under consideration. He has hisduty to perform, and we ours; and we have no right whatever under theConstitution to be biased by any opinion that he may entertain on anysubject. Therefore, sir, I believe that it is, or ought to be, out oforder to allude to any such thing here. Let the President do what heconceives to be his duty, and let us do ours, without being biased inany way whatever by what it may be supposed he will do. "

Mr. Brown entered his disclaimer. "Republicanism, " said he, "meansnothing if it means not impartial, universal suffrage. Republicanismis a mockery and a lie if it can assume to administer this governmentin the name of freedom, and yet sanction, as this act will, thedisfranchisement of a large, if not the largest, part of the loyalpopulation of the rebel States on the pretext of color and race. "

The question being taken on the passage of the preamble as substitutedby the Senate, together with the resolution of the House, resulted intwenty-eight Senators voting in the affirmative, and four in thenegative. The latter were Messrs. Brown, Buckalew, McDougal, andSumner. 

The House concurred in the amendment of the Senate, withoutdiscussion, and the joint resolution went to the President for hisapproval. 

On the 24th of July, the President, not thinking it expedient to riska veto, signed the joint resolution, and at the same time sent to theHouse his protest against the opinions presented in the preamble. After having given his objections to the preamble and resolution atconsiderable length, the President said: "I have, notwithstanding theanomalous character of this proceeding, affixed my signature to theresolution. [General applause and laughter. ] My approval, however, isnot to be construed as an acknowledgment of the right of Congress topass laws preliminary to the admission of duly-qualifiedrepresentatives from any of the States. [Great laughter. ] Neither isit to be considered as committing me to all the statements made in thepreamble, [renewed laughter, ] some of which are, in my opinion, without foundation in fact, especially the assertion that the State ofTennessee has ratified the amendment to the Constitution of the UnitedStates proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress. " [Laughter. ]

After the reading of the President's Message, Mr. Stevens said:"Inasmuch as the joint resolution has become a law by the entire andcordial approval of the President, [laughter, ] I am joint committee onreconstruction to ask that that committee be discharged from thefurther consideration of the credentials of the members elect from theState of Tennessee, and to move that the same be referred to theCommittee of Elections of this House. "

This motion was passed. At a later hour of the same day's session, Mr. Dawes, of the Committee on Elections, having permission to report, said that the credentials of the eight Representatives elect fromTennessee had been examined, and were found in conformity with law. Hemoved, therefore, that the gentlemen be sworn in as members of theHouse from the State of Tennessee. 

Horace Maynard and other gentlemen from Tennessee then went forwardamid applause, and took the oath of office. 

On the day following, Joseph S. Fowler was sworn in, and took his seatas a Senator from Tennessee. 

The next day Mr. Fowler presented the credentials of David T. Patterson as a Senator elect from Tennessee. A motion was made thatthese credentials be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, withinstructions to inquire into the qualifications of Mr. Patterson. 

The circumstances in this case were peculiar. Mr. Patterson had beenelected circuit judge by the people of East Tennessee in 1854. Histerm of office expired in 1862, after Tennessee had passed theordinance of secession and became a member of the SouthernConfederacy. He was a firm, avowed, and influential Union man, and inthe exercise of the duties of his office did much to protect theinterests of loyal men. Persons who were opposed to secession, whichwith lawless violence was sweeping over the State, felt the importanceof having the offices filled by Union men. Mr. Patterson was urged toagain become a candidate for judge. He reluctantly consented, and waselected by a large majority over a rebel candidate. Governor Harrissent his commission, with peremptory orders that he should immediatelytake the oath to support the Southern Confederacy. Judge Pattersondelayed and hesitated, and consulted other Union men as to the propercourse to be pursued. They advised and urged him to take the oath. Byso doing he could afford protection, to some extent, to Union men, against acts of lawless violence on the part of rebels. He was advisedthat, if he did not accept the office, it would be filled by a rebel, and the people would be oppressed by the civil as well as the militarypower of the rebels. He yielded to these arguments and this advice, and took the oath prescribed by the Legislature, which in substancewas that he would support the Constitution of Tennessee and theConstitution of the Confederate States. He declared at the time thathe owed no allegiance to the Confederate Government, and did notconsider that part of the oath as binding him at all. 

Judge Patterson held a few terms of court in counties when he couldorganize grand juries of Union men, and did something towardpreserving peace and order in the community. He aided the Union peopleand the Union cause in every possible way, and thus became amenable tothe hostility of the secessionists, who subjected him to greatdifficulty and danger. He was several times arrested, and held forsome time in custody. At times he was obliged to conceal himself forsafety. He spent many nights in out-buildings and in the woods toavoid the vengeance of the rebels. 

In September, 1863, the United States forces under General Burnsidehaving taken possession of Knoxville, Mr. Patterson succeeded, withhis family, in making his escape to Knoxville, and did not return tohis home until after the close of the rebellion. 

The Committee on the Judiciary having taken into consideration theabove and other palliating circumstances, proposed a resolution thatMr. Patterson "is duly qualified and entitled to hold a seat in theSenate. " On motion of Mr. Clark this resolution was amended to read, "that, upon taking the oaths required by the Constitution and thelaws, he be admitted to a seat in the Senate. "

It was, however, thought better by the Senate to pass a jointresolution that in the case of Mr. Patterson there should be omittedfrom the test oath the following words: "That I have neither sought, nor accepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions of any officewhatever under any authority, or pretended authority, in hostility tothe United States. " This joint resolution having passed the Senate, was immediately sent to the House of Representatives, then in session, and at once came up before that body for consideration. The resolutionwas eloquently advocated by Messrs. Maynard and Taylor, and opposed byMr. Stokes, all of Tennessee. 

"On the night of the 22d of February last, " said Mr. Stokes, "Idelivered a speech in Nashville, and there and then declared, ifadmitted as a member of this House, I would freeze to my seat before Iwould vote to repeal the test oath. [Long-continued applause on thefloor and in the galleries. ] I have made the same declaration in manyspeeches since then. 

"Sir, I regard the test oath passed by the United States Congress asthe salvation of the Union men of the South as well as of the North. Iregard it as sacred as the flaming sword which the Creator placed inthe tree of life to guard it, forbidding any one from partaking of thefruit thereof who was not pure in heart. Sir, this is no lightquestion. Repeal the test oath and you permit men to come intoCongress and take seats who have taken an oath to the ConfederateGovernment, and who have aided and assisted in carrying out itsadministration and laws. That is what we are now asked to do. Lookback to the 14th of August, 1861, the memorable day of theproclamation issued by Jefferson Davis, ordering every man within thelines of the confederacy who still held allegiance to the FederalGovernment to leave within forty-eight hours. That order compelledmany to seek for hiding-places who could not take the oath ofallegiance to the Confederate Government. When the rebel authoritiessaid to our noble Governor of Tennessee, 'We will throw wide open theprison doors and let you out, if you will swear allegiance to ourgovernment, ' what was his reply? 'You may sever my head from my body, but I will never take the oath to the Confederate Government. '"

[Illustration: W. B. Stokes, Representative from Tennessee. ]

Mr. Conkling said: "I should be recreant to candor were I to attemptto conceal my amazement at the scene now passing before us. Only eightshort days ago and eleven States were silent and absent here, becausethey had participated in guilty rebellion, and because they were notin fit condition to share in the government and control of thiscountry. Seven short days ago we found one of these States withloyalty so far retrieved, one State so far void of present offenses, that the ban was withdrawn from her, and she again was placed on anequal footing with the most favored States in the Union. The doorswere instantly thrown open to her Senators and Representatives, thewhole case was disposed of, and the nation approved the act. Here thematter should have rested; here it should have been left foreverundisturbed. But no; before one week has made its round, we are calledupon to stultify ourselves, to wound the interests of the nation, tosurrender the position held by the loyal people of the country almostunanimously, and the exigency is that a particular citizen ofTennessee seeks to effect his entrance to the Senate of the UnitedStates without being qualified like every other man who is permittedto enter there. 

"We are asked to drive a ploughshare over the very foundation of ourposition; to break down and destroy the bulwark by which we may securethe results of a great war and a great history, by which we maypreserve from defilement this place, where alone in our organism thepeople never lose their supremacy, except by the recreancy of theirRepresentatives; a bulwark without which we may not save ourGovernment from disintegration and disgrace. If we do this act, itwill be a precedent which will carry fatality in its train. FromJefferson Davis to the meanest tool of despotism and treason, everyrebel may come here, and we shall have no reason to assign against hisadmission, except the arbitrary reason of numbers. "

Mr. Conkling closed by moving that the joint resolution be laid on thetable, which was carried by a vote of eighty-eight to thirty-one. 

During the same day's session--which was protracted until seveno'clock of Saturday morning, July 28th--the same subject came up againin the Senate, on the passage of the resolution to admit Mr. Pattersonto a seat in the Senate upon his taking the oaths required by theConstitution and laws. After some discussion, the resolution passed, twenty-one voting in the affirmative and eleven in the negative. 

Mr. Patterson went forward to the desk, and the prescribed oathshaving been administered, he took his seat in the Senate. Thus, on thelast day of the first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, Tennesseewas fully reconstructed in her representation. 

CHAPTER XXI. 

NEGRO SUFFRAGE. 

 Review of the Preceding Action -- Efforts of Mr. Yates for Unrestricted Suffrage -- Davis's Amendment to Cuvier -- The "Propitious Hour" -- The Mayor's Remonstrance -- Mr. Willey's Amendment -- Mr. Cowan's Amendment for Female Suffrage -- Attempt to Out-radical the Radicals -- Opinions for and against Female Suffrage -- Reading and Writing as a Qualification -- Passage of the Bill -- Objections of the President -- Two Senators on the Opinions of the People -- The Suffrage Bill becomes a Law. 

On the reässembling of the Thirty-ninth Congress for the secondsession, December 3d, 1866, immediately after the preliminaries ofopening had transpired, Mr. Sumner called up business which had beenintroduced on the first day of the preceding session--a yearbefore--which still remained unfinished--the subject of suffrage inthe District of Columbia. In so doing, the Senator from Massachusettssaid: "It will be remembered that it was introduced on the first dayof the last session; that it was the subject of repeated discussionsin this chamber; that it was more than once referred to the Committeeon the District of Columbia, by whose chairman it was reported back tothe Senate. At several different stages of the discussion it wassupposed that we were about to reach a final vote. The countryexpected that vote. It was not had. It ought to have been had. Andnow, sir, I think that the best way is for the Senate in this veryfirst hour of its coming together to put that bill on its passage. Ithas been thoroughly debated. Every Senator here has made up his mindon the question. There is nothing more to be said on either side. Sofar as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing that the vote shall betaken without one further word of discussion; but I do think that theSenate ought not to allow the bill to be postponed. We ought to seizethis first occasion to put the bill on its passage. The countryexpects it; the country will rejoice and be grateful if you willsignalize this first day of your coming together by this beautiful andgenerous act. "

Objection being raised to the immediate consideration of the subject, it was decided that it must be deferred under a rule of the Senateuntil after the expiration of six days from the commencement of thesession. 

It is proper here to present a brief record of the proceedings uponthe subject during the preceding session. The passage of a bill in theHouse of Representatives, and the discussion upon the subject in thatbody are given in a preceding chapter. This bill, as Mr. Morrillsubsequently said in the Senate, was not an election bill, andconferred no right of voting upon any person beyond what he hadbefore. It was a mere declaration of a right to vote. As such, thebill was favorably received by the Senate Committee to whom it wasreferred, and was by them reported back with favor, but was never putupon its passage. 

Meanwhile the Senate Committee had under consideration a bill of theirown, which they reported on the 10th of January. This bill providedfor restricted suffrage, requiring the qualification to read andwrite. Mr. Yates, an original and uncompromising advocate of universalsuffrage was opposed to this restriction. He was a member of theCommittee on the District of Columbia, but had been prevented frombeing present in its deliberations when it was resolved to report thebill as then before the Senate. Fearing that the bill might pass theSenate with the objectionable restrictions, Mr. Yates moved that it berecommitted, which was done. 

At a meeting of the committee called to reconsider the bill, Mr. Yatesargued at length and with earnestness against disfranchisement on theground of inability to read and write. The committee reversed theirformer decision, and reported the bill substantially in the form inwhich it subsequently became a law. The bill being before the Senateon the 16th of January, 1866, Mr. Garrett Davis opposed it in a speechof great length. He made use of every argument and referred to everyauthority within his reach to prove the inferiority of the negro race. After giving Cuvier's definition of the "negro, " the Senator remarked:"The great naturalist might have added as other distinctivecharacteristics of the negro; first, that his skin exhales perpetuallya peculiar pungent and disagreeable odor; second, that 'the hollow ofhis foot makes a hole in the ground. '" The Senator drew a fearfulpicture of the schemes of Massachusetts to use the negro voters, whomit was her policy to create in the South. 

This subject did not again come up in the Senate until after the lapseof several months. On the 27th of June it was "disentombed" from whatmany supposed was its final resting place. Mr. Morrill proposed as anamendment that the elective franchise should be restricted to personswho could read and write. This was rejected; fifteen voting in theaffirmative, and nineteen in the negative. 

Mr. Willey opposed the bill before the Senate in a speech ofconsiderable length. He advocated the bestowal of a qualified andrestricted suffrage upon the colored people of the District. His chiefobjection to the measure before the Senate was that it was untimely. "Any thing not essential in itself, " said he, "or very material to thewelfare of the nation, or a considerable part of the nation, if it iscalculated to complicate our difficulties, or inflame party passionsor sectional animosities, had better be left, it appears to me, to amore propitious hour. "

The "propitious hour" hoped for by the Senator, did not come arounduntil after the opening of the second session. The subject did notagain seriously occupy the attention of the Senate, with the exceptionof Mr. Sumner's effort to have it taken up on the first day of thesession, until the 10th day of December, 1866. 

On that day, Mr. Morrill, who, as Chairman of the Committee on theDistrict of Columbia, had the bill in charge, introduced the subjectwith a speech of considerable length. "This measure, " said he, "notonly regulates the elective franchise in this District, but it extendsand enlarges it. The principal feature of the bill is that it embracesthe colored citizens of the District of Columbia. In this particularit is novel, and in this particular it is important. In thisparticular it may be said to be inaugurating a policy not onlystrictly for the District of Columbia, but in some sense for thecountry at large. In this respect it is, I suppose, that this bill hasreceived so large a share of the public attention during the lastsession and the recess of the Congress of the United States. "

Mr. Morrill called attention to the remonstrance of the Mayor ofWashington, who had informed the Senate that in an election held forthe purpose of ascertaining the sentiments of the voters of the cityupon the subject, some six thousand five hundred were opposed to theextension of the elective franchise, while only thirty or forty werein favor of it. 

"These six or seven thousand voters, " said Mr. Morrill, "are only onein thirty at most of the people of this District, and it is verydifficult to understand how there could be more significance orprobative force attached to these six or seven thousand votes than toan equal number of voices independent of the ballot, under thecircumstances. This is a matter affecting the capital of the nation, one in which the American people have an interest, as indirectly, atleast, touching the country at large. What the National Congresspronounce here as a matter of right or expediency, or both, touching aquestion of popular rights, may have an influence elsewhere for goodor for evil. We can not well justify the denial of the right ofsuffrage to colored citizens on the protest of the voters of thecorporation of Washington. We may not think fit to grant it simply onthe prayer of the petitioners. Our action should rest on somerecognized general principle, which, applied to the capital of thenation, would be equally just applied to any of the politicalcommunities of which the nation is composed. "

In closing his speech, Mr. Morrill remarked: "In a nation of professedfreemen, whose political axioms are those of universal liberty andhuman rights, no public tranquillity is possible while these rightsare denied to portions of the American people. We have taken into thebosom of the Republic the diverse elements of the nationalities ofEurope, and are attempting to mold them into national harmony andunity, and are still inviting other millions to come to us. Let us notdespair that the same mighty energies and regenerating forces will beable to assign a docile and not untractable race its appropriate placein our system. "

Mr. Willey's amendment, proposed when the subject was last consideredin the previous session, six months before, being now the pendingquestion, its author addressed the Senate in favor of somerestrictions upon the exercise of the elective franchise. "There oughtto be some obligation, " said he, "either in our fundamental laws inthe States, or somewhere, by some means requiring the people toeducate themselves; and if this can be accomplished by disqualifyingthose who are not educated for the exercise of the right of suffrage, thus stimulating them to acquire a reasonable degree of education, that of itself, it seems to me, would be a public blessing. "

"I am against this qualification of reading and writing, " said Mr. Wilson; "I never did believe in it. I do not believe in it now. Ivoted against it in my own State, and I intend to vote against ithere. There was a time when I would have taken it, because I did notknow that we could get any thing more in this contest; but I think thegreat victory of manhood suffrage is about achieved in this country. "

"Reading and writing, as a qualification for voting, " said Mr. Pomeroy, "might be entertained in a State where all the people wereallowed to go to school and learn to read and write; but it seems tome monstrous to apply it to a class of persons in this community whowere legislated away from school, to whom every avenue of learning wasshut up by law. "

Some discussion was elicited by a proposition made by Mr. Anthony toattach to Mr. Willey's amendment a provision excluding from the rightto vote all "who in any way voluntarily gave aid and comfort to therebels during the late rebellion. "

This was opposed by Mr. Wilson. "We better not meddle with that matterof disfranchisement, " said he. "There are but few of these personshere, so the prohibition will practically not amount to any thing. Aswe are to accomplish a great object, to establish universal suffrage, we should let alone all propositions excluding a few men here. Disfranchisement will create more feeling and more bitterness thanenfranchisement. "

Mr. Willey's amendment was finally so much "amended" that he could notsupport it himself, and it received but one affirmative vote, that ofMr. Kirkwood. 

Mr. Cowan proposed to amend the bill by striking out the word "male"before the word "person, " that females might enjoy the electivefranchise. "I propose to extend this privilege, " said he, "not only tomales, but to females as well; and I should like to hear even the mostastute and learned Senator upon this floor give any better, reason forthe exclusion of females from the right of suffrage than there is forthe exclusion of negroes. 

"If you want to widen the franchise so as to purify your ballot-box, throw the virtue of the country into it; throw the temperance of thecountry into it; throw the purity of the country into it; throw theangel element--if I may so express myself--into it. [Laughter. ] Letthere be as little diabolism as possible, but as much of the divinityas you can get. "

The discussion being resumed on the following day, Mr. Anthonyadvocated Mr. Cowan's amendment. "I suppose, " said he, "that theSenator from Pennsylvania introduced this amendment rather as a satireupon the bill itself, or if he had any serious intention, it was onlya mischievous one to injure the bill. But it will not probably havethat effect, for I suppose nobody will vote for it except the Senatorhimself, who can hardly avoid it, and I, who shall vote for it becauseit accords with a conclusion to which I have been brought byconsiderable study upon the subject of suffrage. "

After having answered objections against female suffrage, Mr. Anthonyremarked in conclusion: "I should not have introduced this question;but as it has been introduced, and I intend to vote for the amendment, I desire to declare here that I shall vote for it in all seriousness, because I think it is right. The discussion of this subject is notconfined to visionary enthusiasts. It is now attracting the attentionof some of the best thinkers in the world, both in this country and inEurope; and one of the very best of them all, John Stuart Mill, in amost elaborate and able paper, has declared his conviction of theright and justice of female suffrage. The time has not come for it, but the time is coming. It is coming with the progress of civilizationand the general amelioration of the race, and the triumph of truth, and justice, and equal rights. "

Mr. Williams opposed the pending amendment. "To extend the right ofsuffrage to the negroes in this country, " said he, "I think isnecessary for their protection; but to extend the right of suffrage towomen, in my judgment, is not necessary for their protection. Wide asthe poles apart are the conditions of these two classes of persons. The sons defend and protect the reputation and rights of theirmothers; husbands defend and protect the reputation and rights oftheir wives; brothers defend and protect the reputation and rights oftheir sisters; and to honor, cherish, and love the women of thiscountry is the pride and the glory of its sons. 

"When the women of this country come to be sailors and soldiers; whenthey come to navigate the ocean and to follow the plow; when they loveto be jostled and crowded by all sorts of men in the thoroughfares oftrade and business; when they love the treachery and the turmoil ofpolitics; when they love the dissoluteness of the camp, and the smokeof the thunder, and the blood of battle better than they love theaffections and enjoyments of home and family, then it will be time totalk about making the women voters; but until that time, the questionis not fairly before the country. "

Mr. Cowan defended his amendment and his position. "When the timecomes, " said he, "I am a Radical, too, along with my fellow Senatorshere. By what warrant do they suppose that I am not interested in theprogress of the race? If the thing is to be bettered, I want to betterit. "

Mr. Morrill replied to the speech of Mr. Cowan. "Does any suppose, "said Mr. Morrill, "that he is at all in earnest or sincere in a singlesentiment he has uttered on this subject? I do not imagine he believesthat any one here is idle enough for a moment to suppose so. If it istrue, as he intimates, that he is desirous of becoming a Radical, I amnot clear that I should not be willing to accept his service, althoughthere is a good deal to be repented of before he can be taken intofull confidence. [Laughter. ]

"When a man has seen the error of his ways and confesses it, what moreis there to be done except to receive him seventy and seven times?Now, if this is an indication that the honorable Senator means toout-radical the Radicals, 'Come on, Macduff, ' nobody will object, provided you can show us you are sincere. That is the point. If it ismischief you are at, you will have a hard time to get ahead. While weare radical we mean to be rational. While we intend to give every malecitizen of the United States the rights common to all, we do notintend to be forced by our enemies into a position so ridiculous andabsurd as to be broken down utterly on that question, and who evercomes here in the guise of a Radical and undertakes to practice thatprobably will not make much by the motion. I am not surprised thatthose of our friends who went out from us and have been feeding on thehusks desire to get in ahead; but I am surprised at the indiscretionand the want of common sense exercised in making so profound a plungeat once! If these gentlemen desire to be taken into companionship andrestored to good standing, I am the first man to reach out the handand say, 'Welcome back again, so that you are repentant andregenerated;' but, sir, I am the last man to allow that you shallindorse what you call Radicalism for the purpose of breaking downmeasures which we propose!"

"He alleges, " replied Mr. Cowan, "that I am not serious in theamendment I have moved; that I am not in earnest about it. How does heknow? By what warrant does he undertake to say that a brother Senatorhere is not serious, not in earnest? I should like to know by whatwarrant he undertakes to do that. He says I do not look serious. Ihave not perhaps been trained in the same vinegar and persimmonschool, [laughter;] I have not been doctrinated into the same solemnnasal twang which may characterize the gentleman, and which may beconsidered to be the evidence of seriousness and earnestness. Igenerally speak as a man, and as a good-natured man, I think. I hope Ientertain no malice toward any body. But the honorable Senator thinksthat I want to become a Radical. Why, sir, common charity ought tohave taught the honorable Senator better than that. I think no suchimputation, even on the part of the most virulent opponent that Ihave, can with any justice be laid to my door. I have never yielded tohis radicalism; I have never truckled to it. Whether it be right orwrong, I have never bowed the knee to it. From the very word 'go' Ihave been a Conservative; I have endeavored to save all in ourinstitutions that I thought worth saving. "

Mr. Wade had introduced the original bill, and had put it upon themost liberal principle of franchise. "The question of femalesuffrage, " said he, "had not then been much agitated, and I knew thecommunity had not thought sufficiently upon it to be ready tointroduce it as an element in our political system. While I am awareof that fact, I think it will puzzle any gentleman to draw a line ofdemarcation between the right of the male and the female on thissubject. Both are liable to all the laws you pass; their property, their persons, and their lives are affected by the laws. Why, then, should not the females have a right to participate in theirconstruction as well as the male part of the community? There is noargument that I can conceive or that I have yet heard that makes anydiscrimination between the two on the question of right. 

"I shall give a vote on this amendment that will be deemed anunpopular vote, but I am not frightened by that. I have beenaccustomed to give such votes all my life almost, but I believe theyhave been given in the cause of human liberty and right and in the wayof the advancing intelligence of our age; and whenever the landmarkhas been set up the community have marched up to it. I think I amadvocating now the same kind of a principle, and I have no doubt thatsooner or later it will become a fixed fact, and the community willthink it just as absurd to exclude females from the ballot-box asmales. "

Mr. Yates opposed the pending amendment, deeming it a mere attempt onthe part of the Senator from Pennsylvania to embarrass this question. "Logically, " said he, "there are no reasons in my mind which would notpermit women to vote as well as men, according to the theory of ourgovernment. But that question, as to whether ladies shall vote or not, is not at issue now. I confess that I am for universal suffrage, andwhen the time comes, I am for suffrage by females as well as males. "

"While I will vote now, " said Mr. Wilson, "or at any time, for womansuffrage as a distinct, separate measure, I am unalterably opposed toconnecting that question with the pending question of negro suffrage. The question of negro suffrage is now an imperative necessity; anecessity that the negro should possess it for his own protection; anecessity that he should possess it that the nation may preserve itspower, its strength, and its unity. "

"Why was the consideration of this measure discontinued at the lastsession, and the bill not allowed to pass the Senate?" asked Mr. Hendricks. 

"The bill passed the House of Representatives early in the session, "replied Mr. Wilson. "It came to the Senate early in December. ThatSenator, I think, knows very well that we had not the power to pass itfor the first five or six months of the session; that is, we had notthe power to make it a law. We could not have carried it against theopposition of the President of the United States, and we hadassurances of gentlemen who were in intimate relations with him thathis signature would not be obtained. It would not have been wise forus to pass the bill if it was to encounter a veto, unless we were ableto pass it over that veto. The wise course was to bide our time untilwe had that power, and that power came before the close of thesession, but it came in the time of great pressure, when otherquestions were crowding upon us, and it was thought best by those whowere advocating it, especially as the chairman of the committee, theSenator from Maine, [Mr. Morrill, ] was out of the Senate for many dayson account of illness, to let the bill go over until this December. "

Mr. Johnson opposed the pending amendment. "I think if it wassubmitted to the ladies, " said he--"I mean the ladies in the trueacceptation of the term--of the United States, the privilege would notonly not be asked for, but would be rejected. I do not think theladies of the United States would agree to enter into a canvass andundergo what is often the degradation of seeking to vote, particularlyin the cities, getting up to the polls, crowded out and crowded in. Irather think they would feel it, instead of a privilege, a dishonor. "

Mr. Johnson was unwilling to vote for the amendment with a view todefeat the bill. "I have lived to be too old, " said he, "and havebecome too well satisfied of what I think is my duty to the country togive any vote which I do not believe, if it should be supported by thevotes of a sufficient number to carry the measure into operation, would redound to the interests and safety and honor of the country. "

"The women of America, " said Mr. Frelinghuysen, "vote by faithful andtrue representatives, their husbands, their brothers, their sons; andno true man will go to the polls and deposit his ballot withoutremembering the true and loving constituency that he has at home. Morethan that, sir, ninety-nine out of a hundred, I believe nine hundredand ninety-nine out of a thousand, of the women in America do not wantthe privilege of voting in any other manner than that which I havestated. In both these regards there is a vast difference between thesituation of the colored citizens and the women of America. 

"The learned and eloquent Senator from Pennsylvania said yesterdaywith great beauty that he wanted to cast the angel element into thesuffrage system of America. Sir, it seems to me, that it would beruthlessly tearing the angel element from the homes of America; andthe homes of the people of America are infinitely more valuable thanany suffrage system. It will be a sorry day for this country whenthose vestal fires of piety and love are put out. "

On the next day, December 12th, the discussion being resumed, Mr. Brown advocated the amendment. "I stand, " said he, "for universalsuffrage, and as a matter of fundamental principle do not recognizethe right of society to limit it on any ground of race, color, or sex. I will go further and say that I recognize the right of franchise asbeing intrinsically a natural right; and I do not believe that societyis authorized to impose any limitation upon it that does not springout of the necessities of the social state itself. "

Believing "that the metaphysical always controls the practical in allthe affairs of life, " Mr. Brown gave the "abstract grounds" upon whichhe deemed the right of woman to the elective franchise rested. Comingfinally to the more practical bearings of the subject, he answered theobjection, that "if women are entitled to the rights of franchise, they would correspondingly come under the obligation to bear arms. ""Are there not large classes, " he asked, "even among men in thiscountry, who are exempt from service in our armies for physicalincapacity and for other reasons? And if exemptions which appertain tomales may be recognized as valid, why not similar exemptions for likereasons when applied to females? Does it not prove that there isnothing in the argument so far as it involves the question of right?There are Quakers and other religious sects; there are ministers ofthe Gospel; persons having conscientious scruples; indeed, all menover a certain age who under the laws of many of the States arereleased from service of that character. Indeed, it is the boast ofthis republic that ours is a volunteer military establishment. Hence Isay there is nothing in the position that because she may not bephysically qualified for service in your army, therefore you have theright to deny her the franchise on the score of sex. "

In closing an extended speech, Mr. Brown remarked: "Even though Irecognize the impolicy of coupling these two measures in this mannerand at this time, I shall yet record my vote in the affirmative as anearnest indication of my belief in the principle, and my faith in thefuture. "

Mr. Davis made another protracted speech against both the amendmentand the original bill. "The great God, " said he, "who created all theraces, and in every race gave to man woman, never intended that womanshould take part in national government among any people, or that thenegro, the lowest, should ever have coördinate and equal power withthe highest, the white race, in any government, national ordomestic. "

In conclusion, Mr. Davis advised the late rebels to "resist thisgreat, this most foul, cruel, and dishonoring enslavement. Men of theSouth, exhaust every peaceful means of redress, and when youroppressions become unendurable, and it is demonstrated that there isno other hope, then strike for your liberty, and strike as did yourfathers in 1776, and as did the Hollanders and Zealanders, led byWilliam the Silent, to break their chains, forged by the tyrants ofSpain. "

"When it is necessary, " said Mr. Sprague, "that woman shall vote forthe support of liberty and equality, I shall be ready to cast my votein their favor. The black man's vote is necessary to this at thistime. Do not prostrate all the industrial interests of the North by apolicy of conciliation and of inaction. Delays are dangerous, criminal. When you shall have established, firmly and fearlessly, governments at the South friendly to the republic; when you shall haveceased from receiving terms and propositions from the leaders of therebellion as to their reconstruction; when you shall have promptlyacted in the interest of liberty, prosperity will light upon theindustries of your people, and panics, commercial and mercantilerevolutions, will be placed afar off; and never, sir, until that timeshall have arrived. And as an humble advocate of all industrialinterests of the free people of the North, white and black, and as anhumble representative of these interests, I urge prompt action to-day, to-morrow, and every day until the work has been completed. Let noobstacle stand in the way now, no matter what it may be. You will saveyour people from poverty and free principles from a more desperatecombat than they have yet witnessed. Ridicule may be used in thischamber, calumny may prevail through the country, and murder may be acommon occurrence South to those who stand firmly thus and whoadvocate such measures. Let it be so; for greater will be the crowningglory of those who are not found wanting in the day of victory. Letus, then, press to the vote; one glorious step taken, then we may takeothers in the same direction. "

"The objection, " said Mr. Buckalew, "which I have to a large extensionof suffrage in this country, whether by Federal or State power, isthis: that thereby you will corrupt and degrade elections, andprobably lead to their complete abrogation hereafter. By pouring intothe ballot-boxes of the country a large mass of ignorant votes, andvotes subjected to pecuniary or social influence, you will corrupt anddegrade your elections and lay the foundation for their ultimatedestruction. "

"After giving some considerable reflection to the subject ofsuffrage, " said Mr. Doolittle, "I have arrived at the conclusion thatthe true base or foundation upon which to rest suffrage in anyrepublican community is upon the family, the head of the family;because in civilized society the family is the unit, not theindividual. "

Mr. Pomeroy was in favor of the bill without the proposed amendment. "I do not want to weigh it down, " said he, "with any thing else. Thereare other measures that I would be glad to support in their properplace and time; but this is a great measure of itself. Since I havebeen a member of the Senate, there was a law in this Districtauthorizing the selling of these people. To have traveled in six yearsfrom the auction-block to the ballot with these people is an immensestride, and if we can carry this measure alone, of itself, we shouldbe contented for the present. "

The vote being taken on Mr. Cowan's amendment conferring the electivefranchise upon women, the result was yeas, nine; nays, thirty-seven. The following are the names of those who voted in the affirmative:

 Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Buckalew, Cowan, Foster, Nesmith, Patterson, Riddle, and Wade. 

Mr. Dixon then moved to amend the bill by adding a proviso:

 "That no person who has not heretofore voted in this District shall be permitted to vote unless he shall be able, at the time of offering to vote, to read and also write his own name. "

"I would deny to no man, " said Mr. Dixon, "the right of voting solelyon account of his color; but I doubt the propriety of permitting anyman to vote, whatever his race or color, who has not at least thatproof of intelligence which the ability to read and write furnishes. "

"What is the test?" asked Mr. Saulsbury. "A person who can read andwrite. Is it his name, or only read and write?"

"His name, " said one. 

"Read and write his name!" continued Mr. Saulsbury. "A wonderfulamount of education to qualify a man for the discharge of the highoffice and trust of voting! Great knowledge of the system ofgovernment under which we live does this impart to the voter!"

"If this were really an intelligence qualification, " said Mr. Cowan, "I do not know what I might say; but of the fact that the ability of aman merely to write his own name and read it, is intelligence, I amnot informed. To write a man's name is simply a mechanical operation. It may be taught to any body, even people of the most limitedcapacity, in twenty minutes; and to read it afterward certainly wouldnot be very difficult. "

"I understand the amendment to include, " said Mr. Willey, "thequalification of reading generally, and also of writing his name; twotests, one the reading generally, and the other the writing his ownname. "

"Where is its precision?" asked Mr. Cowan; "where is it to end, andwho shall determine its limits? I will put the case of a boardbelonging to the dominant party, and suppose they have the statuteamended by my honorable friend from Connecticut before them, and acolored man comes forward and proposes to vote. They put to him thequestion, 'Can you write your name and read?' 'Oh, yes. ' 'Well, let ussee you try it. ' He then writes his name and he reads it; and he isadmitted if he is understood to belong to that party. But suppose, ashas recently happened, that this dark man should come to theconclusion to vote on the other side, and it were known that he meantto vote on the other side, what kind of a chance would he have? Thenthe man of the dominant party, who desires to carry the election, says, 'You shall not only write your name and read it, but you mustread generally. I have read the senatorial debates upon this question, and the honorable Senator from West Virginia, who originated thisamendment, was of opinion that a man should read generally. Now, sir, read generally, if you please. ' 'Well, ' says he, 'what shall I read?'Read a section of the _Novum Organum_, or some other most difficultand abstruse thing, or a few sections from Okie's Physiology. "

On the 13th of December, the last day of the discussion, Mr. Anthonyoccupied the chair during a portion of the session, and Mr. Fostertook the floor in favor of the amendment proposed by his colleague. "The honorable Senator from Pennsylvania, " said he, "from the mannerin which he treats this subject, I should think, was now fresh fromhis reading of 'Much A-do about Nothing, ' and was quoting Mr. JusticeDogberry, who said, 'To be a well-favored man is the gift of fortune, but to read and write comes by nature. ' The Senator from Pennsylvaniaand others seem inclined to say, 'Away with writing and reading tillthere is need of such vanity. ' I believe that the idea of admittingmen to the elective franchise who can neither read nor write is goingbackward and downward. 

"Who are the men who come forward to deposit their ballots in theballot-boxes? They are the people of this country, to whom allquestions must ultimately go for examination and correction. Theycorrect the mistakes which we make, and which Congress makes, andwhich the Supreme Court makes. The electors at the ballot-boxes arethe grand court of errors for the country. Now, sir, these Senatorspropose to allow men who can not read and write to correct ourmistakes, to become members of this high court of errors. 

"The honorable Senator from Massachusetts says he wants to put theballot into the hands of the black man for his protection. If he cannot read the ballot, what kind of protection is it to him? A Writtenor printed slip of paper is put into the hands of a man, black orwhite, and if he can not read it, what is it to him? What does he knowabout it? What can he do with it? How can he protect himself by it? Aswell might the honorable Senator from Massachusetts put in the handsof a child who knew nothing of firearms a loaded pistol, with which toprotect himself against his enemies. The child would be much morelikely to endanger himself and his friends by the pistol than toprotect himself. A perfectly ignorant man who can not read his ballotis much more likely to use it to his own detriment, and to thedetriment of the country, than he is to use it for the benefit ofeither. "

"The argument in favor of making the right to vote universal, " saidMr. Frelinghuysen, in making a second speech upon the question, "isthat the ballot itself is a great education; that by its encouragingthe citizen, by its inspiring him, it adds dignity to his character, and makes him strive to acquire learning. Secondly, that if the votingdepended on learning, no inducement is extended to communitiesunfavorable to the right of voting in the colored man to give him theopportunity to learn; they would rather embarrass him, to prevent hismaking the acquisition, unless they were in favor of his voting; whileif voting is universal, communities, for their own security, for theirown protection, will be driven to establish common schools, so thatthe voter shall become intelligent. "

Pursuing a similar line of thought, Mr. Wilson said: "Allow the blackmen to vote without this qualification and they will demand education, the school-houses will rise, school-teachers will be employed, thesepeople will attend the schools, and the cause of education will becarried forward in this District with more rapidity than at any otherperiod in its history. Give the negro the right of suffrage, andbefore a year passes round, you will see these men, who voted thatthey should not have the right to vote, running after them, andinquiring after the health of their wives and children. I do not thinkthe Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Davis] will be examining their pelvisor shins, or making speeches about the formation of their lips, or theangle of their foreheads on the floor of the Senate. You will then seethe Democracy, with the keen scent that always distinguishes thatparty, on the hunt after the votes of these black men, [laughter;] andif they treat them better than the Republicans do, they will probablyget their votes, and I hope they will. 

"And it will be just so down in these rebel States. Give the negroesof Virginia the right to vote, and you will find Wise and Letcher andthe whole tribe of the secessionists undertaking to prove that fromthe landing at Jamestown in 1620 the first families of the OldDominion have always been the champions and the special friends of thenegroes of Old Virginia, and that there is a great deal of kindredbetween them, [laughter;] that they are relations, brethren; that thesame red blood courses in the veins of many of them. They willestablish all these things, perhaps by affidavits. [Laughter. ] And Isay to you, sir, they will have a good opportunity to get a good manyof their votes, for in these respects they have the advantage of uspoor Republicans. "

Of the pending amendment, Mr. Hendricks said: "I propose to vote forit, not because I am in favor, as a general proposition, of anintelligence qualification for the right to vote, but because in thisparticular instance, I think it to be proper to prescribe it. "

"I shall vote, " said Mr. Lane, "to enfranchise the colored residentsof this District because I believe it is right, just, and proper;because I believe it is in accordance with those two grand centraltruths around which cluster every hope for redeemed humanity, thecommon fatherhood of God above us and the brotherhood of universalmankind. "

"The bill for Impartial Suffrage in the District of Columbia, " saidMr. Sumner, "concerns directly some twenty thousand colored persons, whom it will lift to the adamantine platform of equal rights. If itwere regarded simply in its bearings on the District it would bedifficult to exaggerate its value; but when it is regarded as anexample to the whole country under the sanction of Congress, its valueis infinite. It is in the latter character that it becomes a pillar offire to illumine the footsteps of millions. What we do here will bedone in the disorganized States. Therefore, we must be careful thatwhat we do here is best for the disorganized States. 

"When I am asked to open the suffrage to women, or when I am asked toestablish an educational standard, I can not on the present billsimply because the controlling necessity under which we act will notallow it. By a singular Providence we are now constrained to thismeasure of enfranchisement for the sake of peace, security, andreconciliation, so that loyal persons, white or black, may beprotected and that the Republic may live. Here in the District ofColumbia we begin the real work of reconstruction by which the Unionwill be consolidated forever. "

The question was taken upon Mr. Dixon's amendment, which was lost;eleven voting for, and thirty-four against the proposition. The votewas then taken upon the bill to regulate the elective franchise in theDistrict of Columbia. It passed the Senate, thirty-two voting in theaffirmative, and thirteen in the negative. 

On the following day, December 14th, the bill came before the House ofRepresentatives and passed without discussion; one hundred andeighteen voting in the affirmative, and forty-six in the negative. 

On the 7th of January, the President returned the bill to the Senatewith his objections. The Veto Message was immediately read by theSecretary of the Senate. 

The President's first objection to the bill was that it was not inaccordance with the wishes of the people to whom it was to apply, theyhaving "solemnly and with such unanimity" protested against it. 

It seemed to the President that Congress sustained a relation to theinhabitants of the District of Columbia analogous to that of alegislature to the people of a State, and "should have a like respectfor the will and interests of its inhabitants. "

Without actually bringing the charge of unconstitutionality againstthis measure, the President declared "that Congress is bound toobserve the letter and spirit of the Constitution, as well in theenactment of local laws for the Seat of Government, as in legislationcommon to the entire Union. "

The Civil Rights Bill having become a law, it was, in the opinion ofthe President, a sufficient protection for the negro. "It can not beurged, " said he, "that the proposed extension of suffrage in theDistrict of Columbia is necessary to enable persons of color toprotect either their interests or their rights. "

The President argued that the negroes were unfitted for the exerciseof the elective franchise, and "can not be expected correctly tocomprehend the duties and responsibilities which pertain to suffrage. It follows, therefore, that in admitting to the ballot-box a new classof voters not qualified for the exercise of the elective franchise, weweaken our system of government instead of adding to its strength anddurability. It may be safely assumed that no political truth is betterestablished than that such indiscriminate and all-embracing extensionof popular suffrage must end at last in its destruction. "

The President occupied a considerable portion of his Message with awarning to the people against the dangers of the abuse of legislativepower. He quoted from Judge Story that the legislative branch mayabsorb all the powers of the government. He quoted also the languageof Mr. Jefferson that one hundred and seventy tyrants are moredangerous than one tyrant. 

The statements of the President in opposition to the bill werecharacterized by Mr. Sherman as "but a _resume_ of the argumentsalready adduced in the Senate, " hence but little effort was made bythe friends of the measure to reply. 

Mr. Sherman, in noticing the President's statements in regard to thedanger of invasions by Congress of the just powers of the executiveand judicial departments, said, "I do not think that there is anyoccasion for such a warning, because I am not aware that in this billCongress has ever assumed any doubtful power. The power of Congressover this District is without limit, and, therefore, in prescribingwho shall vote for mayor and city council of this city it can not beclaimed that we usurp power or exercise a doubtful power. 

"There can be but little danger from Congress; for our acts are butthe reflection of the will of the people. The recent acts of Congressat the last session, those acts upon which the President and Congressseparated, were submitted to the people, and they decided in favor ofCongress. Unless, therefore, there is an inherent danger from arepublican government, resting solely upon the will of the people, there is no occasion for the warning of the President. Unless thejudgment of one man is better than the combined judgment of a greatmajority, he should have respected their decision, and not continue acontroversy in which our common constituency have decided that he waswrong. "

The last speech, before taking the vote, was made by Mr. Doolittle. "Men speak, " said he, "of universal negro suffrage as having beenspoken in favor of in the late election. There is not a State in thisUnion, outside of New England, which would vote in favor of universalnegro suffrage. When gentlemen tell me that the people of the wholeNorth, by any thing that transpired in the late election, have decidedin favor of universal, unqualified negro suffrage, they assume thatfor which there is no foundation whatever. "

The question being taken whether the bill should pass over thePresident's veto, the Senate decided in the affirmative by a vote oftwenty-nine yeas to ten nays. 

The next day, January 8th, the bill was passed over the veto by theHouse of Representatives, without debate, by a vote of one hundred andthirteen yeas to thirty-eight nays. The Speaker then declared thatnotwithstanding the objections of the President of the United States, the act to regulate the elective franchise in the District of Columbiahad become a law. 

CHAPTER XXII. 

THE MILITARY RECONSTRUCTION ACT. 

 Proposition by Mr. Stevens -- "Piratical Governments" not to be Recognized -- The Military Feature Introduced -- Mr. Schofield's Dog -- The Only Hope of Mr. Hise -- Conversation Concerning the Reconstruction Committee -- Censure of a Member -- A Military Bill Reported -- War Predicted -- The "Blaine Amendment" -- Bill Passes the House -- In the Senate -- Proposition to Amend -- Mr. Mcdougall Desires Liberty of Speech -- Mr. Doolittle Pleads for the Life of the Republic -- Mr. Sherman's Amendment -- Passage in the Senate -- Discussion and Non-concurrence in the House -- The Senate Unyielding -- Qualified Concurrence of the House -- The Veto -- "The Funeral of the Nation" -- The Act -- Supplementary Legislation. 

Soon after the passage of the bill extending the elective franchise inthe District of Columbia, Congress was occupied in devising anddiscussing a practical and efficient measure for the reconstruction ofthe rebel States. The germ of the great "Act for the more efficientgovernment of the rebel States" is to be found in the previous sessionof Congress in a proposition made by Mr. Stevens on the 28th of May"to enable the States lately in rebellion to regain their privilegesin the Union. "

The Constitutional Amendment had been eliminated in the Senate offeatures which Mr. Stevens regarded as of great importance. There wasan indisposition on the part of the House to declaring by an act ofCongress that the rebel States should be restored on the solecondition of their accepting and ratifying the ConstitutionalAmendment. The bill proposed by Mr. Stevens was designed by its authoras a plan of restoration to take the place of the proposition whichaccompanied the Constitutional Amendment. This bill recognized the _defacto_ State governments at the South as valid "for municipalpurposes. " It required the President to issue a proclamation withinsix months calling conventions to form legitimate State constitutions, which should be ratified by the people. All male citizens abovetwenty-one years of age should be voters, and should be eligible tomembership in these constitutional conventions. All persons who heldoffice under the "government called the Confederate States ofAmerica, " or swore allegiance thereto, were declared to have forfeitedtheir citizenship, and were required to be naturalized as foreignersbefore being allowed to vote. All citizens should be placed upon anequal footing in the reörganized States. 

On the 28th of July, the last day of the session, Mr. Stevens broughtthis bill to the notice of the House, without demanding any actionupon it. He made a solemn and affecting appeal to the House, andinsisted upon it as the great duty of Congress to give all loyal men, white and black, the means of self-protection. "In this, perhaps myfinal action, " said he, "on this great question, upon careful review, I can see nothing in my political course, especially in regard tohuman freedom, which I could wish to have expurged or changed. "

On the 19th of December, 1866, a few days after the reässembling ofCongress for the second session, Mr. Stevens called up his bill forthe purpose of amending it and putting it in proper shape for theconsideration of Congress after the holidays. 

On the 3d of January, 1867, Mr. Stevens addressed the House in favorof his plan of reconstruction. "This bill, " said he, "is designed toenable loyal men, so far as I could discriminate them in these States, to form governments which shall be in loyal hands, and may protectthem from outrages. "

As an amendment to this bill, Mr. Ashley, chairman of the Committee onTerritories, offered a substitute which was intended to establishprovisional governments in the rebel States. 

Mr. Pike brought in review before the House three modes of dealingwith the rebel States which had been proposed for the considerationand decision of Congress. The first was the immediate admission of theStates into a full participation in the Government, treating them asif they had never been in rebellion. The second was "the let-alonepolicy, which would merely refuse them representation until they hadadopted the constitutional amendments. " The third mode was "theimmediate action by Congress in superseding the governments of thoseStates set up by the President in 1865, and establishing in theirplace governments founded upon loyalty and universal suffrage. " Thepolicy last mentioned was advocated by Mr. Pike. "It has got to betime for action, " said he, "if we are to fulfill the reasonableexpectations of the country during the life of this Congress. "

On the 7th of January Mr. Stevens proposed to amend his bill byinserting a provision that no person should be disfranchised as apunishment for any crime other than insurrection or treason. He gaveas a reason for proposing this amendment that in North Carolina, andother States where punishment at the whipping-post deprives the personof the right to vote, they were every day whipping negroes for trivialoffenses. He had heard of one county where the authorities had whippedevery adult negro they knew of. 

On the 8th of January a speech was made by Mr. Broomall advocating thepassage of the bill before the House. "Can the negro in the Southpreserve his civil rights without political ones?" he asked. "Let theconvention riot of New Orleans answer; let the terrible three days inMemphis answer. In the latter city three hundred negroes, who hadperiled their lives in the service of their country, and still woreits uniform, were compelled to look on while the officers of the law, elected by white men, set their dwellings in flames and fired upontheir wives and children as they escaped from the doors and windows. Their churches and school-houses were burned because they were theirchurches and school-houses. Yet no arrest, no conviction, nopunishment awaits the perpetrators of these deeds, who walk in openday and boast of their enormities, because, forsooth, this is a whiteman's Government. "

On the 16th of January the discussion was resumed. Mr. Paine firstaddressed the House. He opposed the second section of the bill, whichrecognized the _de facto_ governments of the rebel States as valid formunicipal purposes. "I am surprised, " said he, "that the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania should be ready, voluntarily, to assume this burdenof responsibility for the anarchy of murder, robbery, and arson whichreigns in these so-called _de facto_ governments. He may be able toget this fearful burden upon his back; but if he does, I warn him ofthe danger that the sands of his life will all run out before he willbe able to shake it off. He will have these piratical governments onhis hands voluntarily recognized as valid for municipal purposes untilduly altered. He will have gratuitously become a copartner in theguilt which hitherto has rested upon the souls of Andrew Johnson andhis Northern and Southern satellites, but which thenceforth will reston his soul also until he can contrive duly to alter thesegovernments. And so it will happen that the great Union party to whichhe belongs, and to which I belong, will become implicated, for howlong a time God only knows, in this unspeakable iniquity which dailyand hourly cries to Heaven from every rood of rebel soil for vengeanceon these monsters. "

Mr. Bingham moved to refer the two bills--that of Mr. Stevens and thatof Mr. Ashley--to the Committee on Reconstruction. He opposed thesebills as "a substantial denial of the right of the great people whosaved this republic by arms to save it by fundamental law. " Headvocated the propriety of making the proposed ConstitutionalAmendment the basis of reconstruction. It had already received theratification of the Legislatures representing not less than twelvemillions of the people of this nation. The fact that all the rebelStates which had considered the amendment in their Legislatures hadrejected it did not invalidate this mode of reconstruction. "Thoseinsurrectionary States, " said he, "have no power whatever as States ofthis Union, and can not lawfully restrain, for a single moment, thatgreat body of freemen who cover this continent from ocean to ocean, now organized States of the Union and represented here, in their fixedpurpose and undoubted legal right to incorporate the amendment intothe Constitution of the United States. "

Mr. Bingham maintained that Congress has the power, withoutrestriction by the Executive or the Supreme Court, to "proposeamendments to the Constitutions, and to decide finally the question ofthe ratification thereof, as well as to legislate for the nation. " "Ilook upon both these bills, " said Mr. Bingham, "as a manifestdeparture from the spirit and intent of our Constitutional Amendment. I look upon it as an attempt to take away from the people of theStates lately in rebellion that protection which you have attempted tosecure to them by your Constitutional Amendment. "

Mr. Dawson, in a speech of an hour's duration, maintained thedoctrine, which he announced as that which had given shape topresidential policy, "that the attempt at secession having beensuppressed by the physical power of the Government, the States, whoseauthority was usurped by the parties to the movement, have never, atany time, been out of the Union; and that having once expressed theiracquiescence in the result of the contest and renewed their allegianceto the Union, they are, at the same time, restored to all the rightsand duties of the adhering States. "

On the other hand, the policy of Congress, in the opinion of Mr. Dawson, was "a shameless outrage upon justice and every conservativeprinciple, "--a "usurpation of Federal powers and a violation of Staterights. "

Mr. Maynard gave expression to his opinions by asking the significantquestion, "Whether the men who went into the rebellion did not byconnecting themselves with a foreign government, by every act of whichthey were capable, denude themselves of their citizenship--whetherthey are not to be held and taken by this Government now as mendenuded of their citizenship, having no rights as citizens except suchas the legislative power of this Government may choose to confer uponthem? In other words, is not the question on our part one ofenfranchisement, not of disfranchisement?"

On the 17th of January, Mr. Baker addressed the House in favor ofreferring the pending bill to the Committee on Reconstruction. He wasopposed to the use of the term "Government, " without qualification orrestriction, as applied to the lately revolted States. He opposed thesecond section, as causing the _de facto_ governments to become validfor municipal purposes long before the scheme of reconstructioncontemplated by the bill is effectuated. "To recognize them inadvance, " said he, "would be to incur the danger of furtherembarrassing the whole subject by the illogical consequences of ourown illogical procedure. "

At this stage Mr. Stevens arose and modified his substitute bywithdrawing the second section, which contained the provision objectedto by Mr. Baker as well as by his "ardent friend" Mr. Paine. Mr. Bakerobjected to that feature of the bill which provided that none shouldbe deprived of the right to vote as a punishment for any crime saveinsurrection or treason. "The penitentiaries of these States, " saidhe, "might disgorge their inmates upon the polls under the operationof this bill. "

Mr. Grinnell was opposed to sending the question to the Committee onReconstruction. He did not think it the most modest proposition in theworld for Mr. Bingham to urge the reference to his committee of agreat question which, the House generally desired to consider. "Let ushave no delay, " said he, "no recommitment, rather the earliest actionupon this bill, as the requirement of the people who have saved thecountry, what the suffering implore, what justice demands, and what Ibelieve God will approve. "

"It is to my mind most clear, " said Mr. Donnelly, in a speech upon thepending question, "that slavery having ceased to exist, the slavesbecame citizens; being citizens they are a part of the people, andbeing a part of the people no organization deserves a moment'sconsideration at our hands which attempts to ignore them. "

Of the Southern States as under rebel rule, Mr. Donnelly remarked:"The whites are to make the laws, execute the laws, interpret thelaws, and write the history of their own deeds; but below them; underthem, there is to be a vast population--a majority of the wholepeople--seething and writhing in a condition of suffering, darkness, and wretchedness unparalleled in the world. And this is to be anAmerican State! This is to be a component part of the great, humane, Christian republic of the world. "

"It is hard, " said Mr. Eldridge, in a speech against the bill, "sad tostand silently by and see the republic overthrown. It is indeedappalling to those accustomed from early childhood to revere and lovethe Constitution, to feel that it is in the keeping of those havingthe power and determination to destroy it. With the passage of thisbill must die every hope and vestige of the government of theConstitution. It is indeed the final breaking up and dissolution ofthe union of the States by the usurpation and revolutionary act ofCongress. "

"Your work of restoration, " said Mr. Warner, "will never commenceuntil the Congress of the United States assumes to be one of thedepartments of the General Government. It will never commence untilyou have declared, in the language of the Supreme Court, that theExecutive, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, 'can notexercise a civil function. '"

"In less than two brief years of office, " said Mr. Warner, speaking ofthe President, "he has exercised more questionable powers, assumedmore doubtful constitutional functions, obliterated moreconstitutional barriers, and interposed more corrupt schemes to theexpression of the popular sentiment or will of the people than allother Executives since the existence of the Government. "

Mr. Spalding feared that the bill, should it become a law, would befound defective in not affording any protection to that loyal class ofthe inhabitants of those communities upon whom the elective franchisewas conferred. "These colored men, " said he, "who are now recognizedby the Government as possessing the rights of freemen, are to be injeopardy of being shot down like so many dogs when they attempt tovisit the polls. " He then offered an amendment, which was accepted byMr. Stevens, by which a section was added to the bill suspending thewrit of _habeas corpus_ in the ten rebel States, and placing themunder martial law until they should be admitted to representation inCongress under the provisions of the bill. In this section thusintroduced may be seen the origin of that feature which, in anenlarged and extended form, gave character to the important measureultimately adopted by Congress, which is popularly known as the"Military Reconstruction Bill. "

The discussion was continued by Mr. Koontz. "It is a solemn, imperative duty, " said he, "that this nation owes to its coloredpeople to protect them against their own and the nation's foes. Itwould be a burning, lasting disgrace to the nation were it to handthem over to their enemies. I know of no way in which this protectioncan be better given than by extending to them the elective franchise. Place the ballot in the hands of the black man and you give him thatwhich insures him respect as well as protection. "

Mr. Scofield maintained that the ratification of the ConstitutionalAmendment by three-fourths of the loyal States was all that wasnecessary. "Twenty-three of the twenty-six States elected Legislaturesinstructed to adopt it. Very soon these twenty-three States, having apopulation in 1860 of twenty-one million five hundred thousand, andnot less than twenty-seven millions now, will send to a perfidiousSecretary the official evidence of the people's will. Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky alone give a negative answer. Who, then, standsin the way? One old man who is charged by law with the duty ofproclaiming the adoption of the amendment, but who has determined toincorporate into the Union the _debris_ of the late Confederacy--hestands in the way. "

"The Secretary is clever in work of this kind. An English nobleman wasat one time exhibiting his kennel to an American friend, and passingby many of his showiest bloods, they came upon one that seemed nearlyused up. 'This, ' said the nobleman, 'is the most valuable animal inthe pack, although he is old, lame, blind, and deaf. ' 'How is that?'inquired the visitor. The nobleman explained: 'His education was good, to begin with, and his wonderful sense of smell is still unimpaired. We only take him out to catch the scent, and put the puppies on thetrack, and then return him to the kennel. ' Do not suppose that Iintend any comparison between the Secretary of State and that veteranhunter. Such a comparison would be neither dignified nor truthful, because the Englishman went on to say, 'I have owned that dog forthirteen years, and, hard as he looks, he never bit the hand that fedhim nor barked on a false trail. '"

The laughter and applause which followed, were checked by theSpeaker's gavel, which Mr. Schofield mistook for a notice to quit. "Has my time expired?" asked he. "It has not, " replied the Speaker. "The Chair called you to order, " said Mr. Stevens, in his seat, "fordoing injustice to the dog. "

Mr. Ward, who next addressed the House, presented a novel theory ofthe rebel war. "The people of the South, " said he, "did not make warupon our republican form of government, nor seek to destroy it; theyonly sought to make two republics out of one. They are now, and havebeen all the time, as much attached to our system of free republicangovernment as those who abuse them for disloyalty. "

Mr. Ward presented his view of the state of things which would resultfrom the passage of the pending bill. "These negro judges, " said he, "will sit and hold this election backed by the United States army. That is rather an elevated position for the new-made freedman; the_habeas corpus_ suspended, martial law proclaimed, the army at theback of the negro conducting an election to reconstruct States. "

Mr. Plants addressed the House in favor of the pending bill. Of thereception given by the rebels to the proposed constitutionalamendment, he said: "They have not only refused to accept the morethan generous terms proposed, but have rejected them with contumely, and with the haughty and insulting bravado of assumed superioritydemand that the nation shall submit to such terms as they shalldictate. "

Mr. Miller, while advocating the pending measure, favored itsreference to the Committee on Reconstruction. He gave a detailedaccount of the Constitutional Amendment, and its progress towardratification among the Legislatures. He showed that the progress ofreconstruction was delayed through fault of the rebels themselves. "Itis not the desire of the great Republican party, " said he, "to retardthe restoration of those ten States to full political rights, but onthe contrary they are anxious for a speedy adjustment, in order tosecure adequate protection to all classes and conditions of menresiding therein, and at the same time afford ample security to theUnited States Government against any future refractory course thatmight be pursued on the part of those States. "

On the 21st of January the discussion was resumed by Mr. Kerr in aspeech against the bill. He quoted extensively from judicial decisionsand opinions to show that the rebel States were still entitled totheir original rights in the Union. "The undisguised and mostunrighteous purpose of all this kind of legislation, " said he, "is tousurp powers over those States that can find no warrant except in thefierce will of the dominant party in this Congress. It is alike at warwith every principle of good and free government, and with the highestdictates of humanity and national fraternity. "

Mr. Higby was in favor of the pending bill, and opposed its referenceto the Committee on Reconstruction. He preferred that it should beretained in the House, where it could be changed, matured, and finallypassed. He contended that the rebel States should not come into theUnion under any milder conditions than those imposed upon Territoriesrecently passed upon in Congress. "Impartial suffrage, " said he, "isrequired of each of those Territories as a condition precedent totheir becoming States; and shall South Carolina, upon this basis ofreconstruction, become a part of this Union upon different terms andprinciples entirely from those implied by the votes we have justgiven?"

Mr. Trimble denounced the pending legislation in violent terms. "Bythis act, " said he, "you dissolve their connection with the Governmentof the United States, blot them out of existence as freemen, anddegrade them to the condition of negro commonwealths. We have thismonstrous proposition: to declare martial law in ten States of thisUnion; and in making this declaration, we, in my judgment, step uponthe mangled ruins of the Constitution; for the Constitution plainlygives this power neither to the executive nor the legislativedepartment of the Government. "

Mr. Dodge, although a Republican, and in favor of "protecting the bestinterests of the colored man, " could not vote for either of thepropositions before the House. "The result of the passage of thisbill, " said he, "if it shall become operative, will be to disfranchisenearly the entire white population of the Southern States, and at thesame time enfranchise the colored people and give them the virtualcontrol in the proposed organization of the new State governments. "

Mr. Dodge was particularly opposed to the military feature proposed byMr. Spalding. "This is not likely, " said he, "in the nature of things, to bring about an early reörganization of the South. The commercial, the manufacturing, and the agricultural interests of this country, asthey look at this matter, will see in it a continuance of taxationnecessary to support this military array sent to these ten States. "

"This bill, if executed, " said Mr. Hise, in the course of a speechagainst the measure, "will in effect establish corrupt and despoticlocal governments for all those States, and place in all the officesthe most ignorant, degraded, and corrupt portion of their population, who would rule and ruin without honesty or skill the actualproperty-holders and native inhabitants, making insecure life, liberty, and property, and still holding those States in their Federalrelations subject to the most rapacious, fierce, and unrelentingdespotism that ever existed, that of a vindictive and hostile partymajority of a Congress in which they have no voice or representation, and by which irresponsible majority they would be mercilesslyoppressed for that very reason; and this will be continued, I fear, until the country shall again be precipitated into civil war. "

Since the "beneficent conservative power" of the President wasovercome by two-thirds of Congress, Mr. Hise could see safety for thenation in but one direction. "Our only hope, " said he, "of thepreservation of a free government is in the judicial department of thegovernment, and in the decisions of the Supreme Court pronouncing youracts unconstitutional and void. "

Mr. Raymond preferred the Constitutional Amendment as the basis ofreconstruction, and blamed the party in power for abandoning thatpolicy. "Last year, " said he, "that man was untrue to his partyobligations who did not stand by it; this year the man is declared tobe faithless to his party who does. "

Having spoken at considerable length against the pending measure, Mr. Raymond said: "For these reasons, sir, reasons of policy and ofauthority, I do not think we ought to pass this bill. I do not believeit would be at all effective in securing the objects at which we aim, or that it would conduce in the slightest degree to promote peace andsecure equal rights among the people upon whom it is to take effect. And I can not help believing that it contains provisions directly atwar with specific and peremptory prohibitions of the Constitution. "

Mr. Raymond defended the Secretary of State against the accusations ofMr. Schofield. Mr. Seward was not "a perfidious old man, " but one"venerable, not more for age than for the signal services to hiscountry and the cause of freedom every-where, by which his long andlaborious life, devoted wholly, from early manhood, to the publicservice, has been made illustrious. " The Secretary of State actedunder law. If Congress expected him to act under the theory thatthree-fourths of the loyal States were sufficient for the ratificationof the Constitutional Amendment, they should pass a law to thateffect. 

"The man, " said Mr. Shellabarger, "who is now the acting President ofthe United States, once said to me, in speaking of a bill like the onenow before the House, that it was a measure to dissolve the Union. That proposition has been so often repeated by members upon the otherside of this hall, that I have thought the House would probably pardonme if I should attempt to condense into a few sentences a suggestionor two in regard to that declaration, repeated so often and worn outso thoroughly as it is. "

Mr. Shellabarger maintained the right of governments to withhold fromthose who discard all the obligations pertaining to their citizenshipthe powers and rights which come alone from performing theseobligations. "This identical principle, " said he, "was asserted at theorigin of your Government in the legislation of every one of theStates of the Confederation; was repeated and reënacted by three, atleast, of the first Congresses under the Constitution, and has beenvirtually reënacted by being kept in force by every subsequentCongress which ever met under the Constitution. "

"I see such diversity of opinion on this side of the House, " said Mr. Stevens, "upon any question of reconstruction, that, if I do notchange my mind, I shall to-morrow relieve the House from any questionupon the merits of this bill by moving to lay it on the table. "

On the 26th of January the discussion was renewed. Mr. Ross, considering the argument on the constitutionality of the measureexhausted, endeavored to show that the bill was "in clear conflictwith the action of the party in power during the entire progress ofthe war, and in conflict with the clearly-expressed opinions of theExecutive of the nation, the Supreme Court, and the Congress of theUnited States. "

Mr. Ashley withdrew his amendment to Mr. Stevens' bill that the Housemight, in Committee of the Whole, have an opportunity to perfect thebill so as to send it to the Senate within two or three days. 

"I ask the gentleman, " said Mr. Conkling, "to state his objection tohaving a subject like this committed to a committee which has now nowork upon its hands, and which has a right to report at any time. "

"The Committee on Reconstruction, " replied Mr. Ashley, "have held nomeetings during this entire session up to this hour. Several billsproposed by gentlemen have been referred to that committee during thissession, upon which they have taken no action. If the committee evergets together again--which I doubt, as it is a large committee, composed of both branches of Congress--I have but little hope of theirbeing able to agree. The chairman of the committee on the part of theSenate, as is well known, is absorbed in his efforts to perfect thefinancial measures of the country, and I fear that if this bill goesto that committee it will go to its grave, and that it will not, during the life of the Thirty-ninth Congress, see the light. If I wereopposed to these bills, I would vote to send them to that committee assending them to their tomb. "

"There is no difficulty, " responded Mr. Conkling, "in having promptconsideration of any thing which may be sent to the committee. It wascreated originally solely to deal with this subject. It was, at first, broken into four sub-committees, that the work of gathering evidencemight be more advantageously and speedily carried on. It became onecommittee, usually working together, only during a few weeksimmediately preceding the bringing forward of its ultimatepropositions. It would not be decorous for me to praise the committeeor the work it did, but I may say with propriety that if it ever was agood committee, if it ever should have been created and composed as itwas, it is a good committee now--better than it ever was before;better, because more familiar with this subject, because its members, having now become acquainted with each other's views, and havingbecome accustomed to act with each other, and having studied the wholesubject committed to them, can proceed with much more hope of goodresults than ever before. Having a right to report at any time, andbeing led, on the part of this House, by the distinguished gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens], I see no reason why it can notconsider and digest wisely and promptly whatever may be referred to itand make report. "

"We are now considering a report from that very committee, " said Mr. Stevens. "That committee made a report, and I have offered asubstitute for the bill which they reported. If the gentleman thinksthe report of that committee is best, then let him vote against mysubstitute. But why send this subject back again to the committee? Thegentleman knows as well as I do how many different opinions there arein that committee; some of us believe in one thing, and some of us inanother; some of us are very critical, and some of us are not. Theidea that we can consider any thing in that committee, constituted asit is, in less than a fortnight, it seems to me is wholly out of thequestion; and as we have only about some twenty working days in whichto mature this bill in both branches of Congress, if we send thissubject to that committee and let it take its time to consider it, andthen have it reported here and considered again, I certainly need notsay to gentlemen that that would be an end of the matter, at least forthis session. "

"The gentleman from Pennsylvania concurred in that report, " repliedMr. Conkling. "He had his full share in molding it and making itprecisely what it was. He supported it then; now he offers asubstitute for it. Why? Because the time which has elapsed since then, and the events which have transpired, have modified, he thinks, theexigencies of the case. Is not that as applicable to the judgment ofthe committee as to his own? Is it not proper that it should have theopportunity of acting for once in the light of all the facts andcircumstances as they are to day?"

"Two or three bills on this subject, " said Mr. Stevens, "have beenreferred during this session to that committee. Why has not thecommittee acted on them?"

"If I were the chairman of the committee on the part of this House, "replied Mr. Conkling, "I should be able to answer that question, because then I could tell why I had not called the committee together. But as I am only a subordinate member of the committee, whose businessit is to come when I am called, and never to call others, I amentirely unable to give the information for which the gentlemaninquires. "

"If I could have any assurance, " said Mr. Ashley, "that this committeewould be able to report promptly a bill upon which this House couldprobably agree, I would not hesitate a single moment to vote for thereference of this measure to that committee; but, believing that theywill be unable to agree, I shall vote against a recommitment. "

In describing the character of the opposition arrayed against theCongressional plan of reconstruction, Mr. Ashley used the followingemphatic language: "Why, sir, the assumption, the brazen-facedassumption of men who during the entire war were in open or secretalliance with the rebels, coming here now and joining hands with theapostate at the other end of the avenue, who is the leader, therecognized leader of a counter-revolution--a negative rebellion, as Isaid awhile ago--passes comprehension. "

"If intended to apply to us, " said Mr. Winfield, speaking for theDemocratic members, "it is a base and unfounded slander. "

"So far as I am concerned, it is a base lie, " said Mr. Hunter. Forusing these words, "condemned by gentlemen every-where, as well as byparliamentary law, " the House passed a vote of censure on Mr. Hunter, and he was required to go forward and receive a public reprimand fromthe Speaker. 

On the 28th of January, the House having resumed the consideration ofthe bill to restore to the rebel States their full political rights, Mr. Julian expressed his belief that the time had come for action, andthat having the great subject before them, they should proceedearnestly, and with little delay, to mature some measure which wouldmeet the demand of the people. "Let us tolerate no furtherprocrastination, " said he; "and while we justly hold the Presidentresponsible for the trouble and mal-administration which now curse theSouth and disturb the peace of the country, let us remember that thenational odium already perpetually linked with the name of AndrewJohnson will be shared by us if we fail in the great duty which is nowbrought to our doors. "

Mr. Julian differed with many others in his opinion of the real wantsof the rebel States. "What these regions need, " said he, "above allthings, is not an easy and quick return to their forfeited rights inthe Union, but _government_, the strong arm of power, outstretchedfrom the central authority here in Washington, making it safe for thefreedmen of the South, safe for her loyal white men, safe foremigrants from the Old World and from the Northern States to go anddwell there; safe for Northern capital and labor, Northern energy andenterprise, and Northern ideas to set up their habitation in peace, and thus found a Christian civilization and a living democracy amidthe ruins of the past. "

"It would seem, " said Mr. Cullom, "that the men who have beenstruggling so hard to destroy this country were and still are theinstruments, however wicked, by which we are driven to give the blackman justice, whether we will or no. 

"By the unholy persistence of rebels slavery was at last overthrown. Their contempt of the Constitutional Amendment, now before thecountry, will place in the hands of every colored man of the South theballot. "

The bill before the House was referred to the Committee onReconstruction by a vote of eighty-eight to sixty-five. 

On the 4th of February, Mr. Williams, of Oregon, introduced into theSenate "A bill to provide for the more efficient government of theinsurrectionary States, " which was referred to the Committee onReconstruction. 

[Illustration: Geo. H. Williams, Senator from Oregon. ]

This bill, having been considered by the Committee, was adopted bythem, and was reported by their chairman to the House, on the 6th ofFebruary, in the following form:

 "_Whereas_, the pretended State Governments of the late so-called Confederate States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas were set up without the authority of Congress and without the sanction of the people; and _whereas_ said pretended governments afford no adequate protection for life or property, but countenance and encourage lawlessness and crime; and _whereas_ it is necessary that peace and good order should be enforced in said so-called States until loyal and Republican State Governments can be legally established: Therefore, "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That said so-called States shall be divided into military districts and made subject to the military authority of the United States, as hereinafter prescribed; and for that purpose Virgina shall constitute the first district, North Carolina and South Carolina the second district, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida the third district, Mississippi and Arkansas the fourth district, and Louisiana and Texas the fifth district. 

 "SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That it shall be the duty of the General of the army to assign to the command of each of said districts an officer of the regular army not below the rank of brigadier general, and to detail a sufficient force to enable such officer to perform his duties and enforce his authority within the district to which he is assigned. 

 "SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That it shall be the duty of each officer assigned, as aforesaid, to protect all persons in their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of the public peace and criminals; and to this end he may allow civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and to try offenders, or when in his judgment it may be necessary for the trial of offenders he shall have power to organize military commissions or tribunals for that purpose, any thing in the constitution and laws of the so-called States to the contrary notwithstanding; and all legislative or judicial proceedings or processes to prevent the trial or proceedings of such tribunals, and all interference by said pretended State governments with the exercise of military authority under this act shall be void and of no effect. 

 "SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That courts and judicial officers of the United States shall not issue writs of _habeas corpus_ in behalf of persons in military custody unless some commissioned officer on duty in the district wherein the person is detained shall indorse upon said petition a statement certifying upon honor that he has knowledge or information as to the cause and circumstances of the alleged detention, and that he believes the same to be rightful; and further, that he believes that the indorsed petition is preferred in good faith and in furtherance of justice, and not to hinder or delay the punishment of crime. All persons put under military arrest, by virtue of this act, shall be tried without unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted. 

 "SEC. 5. _And be it further enacted_, That no sentence of any military commission or tribunal hereby authorized, affecting the life or liberty of any person, shall be executed until it is approved by the officer in command of the district; and the laws and regulations for the government of the army shall not be affected by this act, except in so far as they conflict with its provisions. "

Mr. Stevens, having been remonstrated with by a Democratic member forexpressing a wish to bring the question to vote without a prolongeddebate, replied: "I am very willing that the debate which has beengoing on here for three weeks shall all be read over by the gentlemanwhenever he can take time to read it. " "On behalf of the Americanpeople, " said the same member, "I ask more time for debate. " "I willsee what the American people think of it in the morning. If they aregenerally for a prolongation of the debate, of course I will go withthem. But I will wait until then, in order to ascertain what thepeople want. "

On the following day, February 7th, Mr. Stevens introduced thediscussion with a brief speech. "This bill provides, " said he, that"the ten disorganized States shall be divided into five militarydistricts, and that the commander of the army shall take charge ofthem through his lieutenants as governors, or you may call themcommandants if you choose, not below the grade of brigadiers, whoshall have the general supervision of the peace, quiet, and theprotection of the people, loyal and disloyal, who reside within thoseprecincts; and that to do so he may use, as the law of nations wouldauthorize him to do, the legal tribunals where-ever he may deem themcompetent; but they are to be considered of no validity _per se_, ofno intrinsic force, no force in consequence of their origin, thequestion being wholly within the power of the conqueror, and to remainuntil that conqueror shall permanently supply their place withsomething else. I will say, in brief, that is the whole bill. It doesnot need much examination. One night's rest after its reading isenough to digest it. "

"Of all the various plans, " said Mr. Brandegee, "which have beendiscussed in this hall for the past two years, to my mind it seems theplainest, the most appropriate, the freest from constitutionalobjection, and the best calculated to accomplish the master aims ofreconstruction. 

"It begins the work of reconstruction at the right end, and employsthe right tools for its accomplishment. It begins at the point whereGrant left off the work, at Appomattox Court-house, and it holds thoserevolted communities in the grasp of war until the rebellion shallhave laid down its spirit, as two years ago it formally laid down itsarms. "

Mr. Le Blond characterized the Committee on Reconstruction as "themaelstrom committee, which swallows up every thing that is good andgives out every thing that is evil. "

"There is nothing left, " said he, in the conclusion of his speech, "but quiet submission to your tyranny, or a resort to arms on the partof the American people to defend themselves. 

"I do not desire war; but as one American citizen, I do prefer war tocowardly submission and total destruction of the fundamentalprinciples of our Government. In my honest conviction, nothing but thestrong arm of the American people, wielded upon the bloodybattle-field, will ever restore civil liberty to the American peopleagain. "

"Is it possible, " said Mr. Finck, "that in this Congress we can findmen bold enough and bad enough to conspire against the right of trialby jury, the great privilege of _habeas corpus_; men who are willingto reverse the axiom that the military should be subordinate to thecivil power, and to establish the abhorred doctrine resisted by thebrave and free men of every age, that the military should be superiorto the civil authority?"

"It does not seem to me, " said Mr. Pike, "that the change proposed tobe made by this bill in the management of the Southern States is soviolent as gentlemen on the other side would have us suppose. Theyseem to believe that now the people of those States govern themselves;but the truth is, since the suppression of the rebellion, that is, since the surrender of the rebel armies in 1865, the government ofthose States have been virtually in the hands of the President of theUnited States. 

"This bill does not transfer the government of those States from thepeople to the officers of the army, but only from the President tothose officers. "

Mr. Farnsworth, who next addressed the House, gave numerousauthenticated instances of outrages and murders perpetrated by rebelsupon Union soldiers and citizens. "It is no longer a question ofdoubt, " said he, "it can not be denied that the loyal men, the Unionsoldiers and the freedmen in these disorganized and disloyal Statesare not protected. They are murdered with impunity; they are despoiledof their goods and their property; they are banished, scattered, driven from the country. "

Mr. Rogers denounced the pending bill in most emphatic language. "Youwill carry this conflict on, " said he, "until you bring about a warthat will shake this country as with the throes of an earthquake; awar that will cause the whole civilized world to witness our dreadfulshock and fill nature with agony in all her parts, with which the onewe have passed through is not at all to be compared. "

He eulogized President Johnson in the highest terms. "Freegovernment, " said he, "brought him from a poor boy to as great a manas ever lived, and he deserves as much credit as Washington and willyet receive it. He will not submit to have the citadel of libertyinvaded and destroyed without using the civil and military powers toprevent it. He will maintain the Constitution, sir, even to thespilling of blood. "

Mr. Bingham proposed to amend the bill to make it accord with histheory by substituting the phrase "the said States" for the words"so-called States. " He also proposed some limitation of the extent towhich the _habeas corpus_ should be suspended. "When these men, " saidhe, "shall have fulfilled their obligations" and when the great peoplethemselves shall have put, by their own rightful authority, into thefundamental law the sublime decree, the nation's will, that no Stateshall deny to any mortal man the equal protection of the laws--not ofthe laws of South Carolina alone, but of the laws national and State, and above all, sir, of the great law, the Constitution of our owncountry, which is the supreme law of the land, from Georgia to Oregon, and from Maine to Florida--then, sir, by assenting thereto thoseStates may be restored at once. To that end, sir, I labor and for thatI strive. "

"Unless the population of these States, " said Mr. Lawrence, "is to beleft to the merciless rule of the rebels, who employ the color ofauthority they exercise under illegal but _de facto_ State governmentsto oppress all who are loyal without furnishing them any protectionagainst murder and all the wrongs that rebels can inflict on loyalmen, we can not, dare not refuse to pass this bill. "

Since, however, the bill did not propose any "plan of reörganizingState governments in the late rebel States, " Mr. Lawrence readamendments which he desired to introduce at the proper time, providingthat the laws of the District of Columbia, "not locally inapplicable, "should be in force in the rebel territory and that the United Statescourts should have jurisdiction. 

Mr. Hise declared this a "stupid, cruel, unwise, and unconstitutionalmeasure. " "If I had not been prepared, " said he, "by other measureshitherto adopted and others hitherto introduced into this House, Ishould not have been less startled at the introduction of this than ifI had received the sudden intelligence that the ten States enumeratedin this bill had been sunk by some great convulsion of nature andsubmerged under an oceanic deluge. "

"This is not, strictly speaking, a measure of reconstruction, " saidMr. Ingersoll, "but a measure looking simply to the enforcement oforder. It seems to me clear, then, that, not only under the laws ofwar and under the laws of nations, but under the express authority ofthe Constitution itself, Congress possesses the rightful authority toestablish military governments, as proposed by the bill underconsideration. "

Referring to Mr. Le Blond's anticipated war, Mr. Ingersoll said: "Idesire to ask the gentleman where he is going to get his soldiers tomake war upon the Government and the Congress of the United States?You will hardly find them in the rebel States. They have had enough ofwar; they have been thoroughly whipped, and do not desire to bewhipped again. You will not get them from the loyal people of theNorthern or Southern States. If you get any at all, you may drum up afew recruits from the Democratic ranks, but in the present weak andshattered condition of that party you would hardly be able to raise avery formidable army, and I tell the gentleman if the party decreasesin the same ratio in the coming year as it has in the last, the wholeparty together would not form a respectable _corps d'armée_. "

"How about the bread and butter brigade?" interposed a member. 

"I did not think of that heroic and patriotic band, " replied Mr. Ingersoll, "but I do not apprehend much danger from that source; itwould be a bloodless conflict; we would have no use either for thesword or musket; all that would be necessary to make a conquest overthem would be found in the commissary department. Order out the breadand butter and peace would be restored. "

Mr. Shanklin warned the House of the danger of establishing militarygovernments in the South. "You may be in the plenitude of powerto-day, " he said, in conclusion, "and you may be ousted to-morrow. AndI hope, if you do not cease these outrages upon the people of thecountry, such as you propose here, such as are attempting to beinflicted by your Freedmen's Bureau and your Civil Rights Bills, thatthe time will not be long before that army which the gentleman fromIllinois [Mr. Ingersoll] seemed to think could not be raised--an armyarmed with ballots, and not with bayonet--will march to the polls andhurl the advocates of this and its kindred measures out of theirplaces, and fill them with men who appreciate more highly and justlythe rights of citizens and of freemen, with statesmen whose minds cangrasp our whole country and its rights and its wants, and whose heartsare in sympathy with the noble, the brave, and the just, whether theylive in the sunny South or the ice-bound regions of the North. "

"I hail this measure, " said Mr. Thayer, "as interrupting this balefulcalm, which, if not disturbed by a proper exercise of legislativepower upon this subject, may be succeeded by disaster and collision. It furnishes at least an initial point from which we can start in theconsideration and adjustment of the great question of reconstruction. I regard this as a measure which lays the grasp of Congress upon thisgreat question--a grasp which is to hold on to it until it shall befinally settled. I regard it as a measure which is to take that greatquestion out of that sea of embarrassment and sluggish inactivity inwhich, through the course which the President has thought proper topursue, it now rests. "

"For our neglect, " said Mr. Harding, of Illinois, "to exert themilitary power of the Government, we are responsible for the blood andsuffering which disgrace this republic. Let us go back, then, orrather let us come up to where we were before, and exercisejurisdiction over the territory conquered from the rebels, whichjurisdiction the President has given up to those rebels, to the greatsuffering and injury of the Government and of loyal people. "

"Let it be remembered all the time, " said Mr. Shellabarger, "that yourcountry has a right to its life, and that the powers of yourGovernment are given for its preservation. Let it be remembered thatone portion of your republic has fallen into a state of rebellion, andis still in a state of war against your Government, and that thepowers of the Government are to be exercised for the purposes of theprotection and the defense of the loyal, and the disloyal too, in thatpart of the republic; and that, for the purpose of that defense, youare authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of _habeascorpus_, and to exercise such extraordinary powers as are necessary tothe preservation of the great life of the nation. Let these things beremembered; and then let it also be remembered that the law-makingpower of the Government not only controls the President, but controlsthe purposes and the ends and the objects of war, and, of course, themovements of the armies that are to be employed in war. Let thesethings be remembered, and it seems to me that all the difficultieswith which it is sought to surround this measure will at oncedisappear. "

"What carried our elections overwhelmingly?" asked Mr. Hotchkiss. "Itwas the story of the Southern refugees told to the people of the Northand the West. They told us they demanded protection. They enlisted thesympathy of Northern soldiers by telling that the very guerrillas whohung upon the skirts of our army during the war were now murderingSouthern soldiers who fought on the Union side, and murdering peacefulcitizens, murdering black men who were our allies. We promised thepeople if we were indorsed we would come back here and protect them, and yet not a step has been taken. "

Mr. Griswold regretted to vote against a measure proposed by thosewhom he believed to "have at heart the best interest of the wholecountry. " "It seems to me, " said he, "that the provisions of this billwill lead us into greater danger than is justified by the evils weseek to correct. It is, Mr. Speaker, a tremendous stride that wepropose to make by this bill to subject to military control tenmillion people who have once been partners of this common country, andwho are to be united with us in its future trials and fortunes. Thisbill proposes to place all the rights of life, liberty, and happinessexclusively in the control of a mere military captain. This billcontains no provisions for the establishment in the future of civilgovernments there; it simply provides that for an indefinite period inthe future a purely military power shall have exclusive control andjurisdiction there. That is, therefore, to me, another and a veryserious objection to this bill. "

"There is a necessity, " said Mr. Raymond, "for some measure ofprotection to the people of the Southern States. I think it is clearthat life, liberty, and property are not properly guarded by law, arenot safe throughout those Southern States. They are not properlyprotected by the courts and judicial tribunals of those States; theyare not properly protected by the civil authorities that are inpossession of political power in those States. "

Of the pending bill, he said: "It is a simple abnegation of allattempts for the time to protect the people in the Southern States bythe ordinary exercise of civil authority. It hands over all authorityin those States to officers of the army of the United States, andclothes them as officers of the army with complete, absolute, unrestricted power to administer the affairs of those States accordingto their sovereign will and pleasure. In my opinion there has notoccurred an emergency which justifies a resort to this extreme remedy. The military force ought to follow the civil authority, and not leadit, not take its place, not supersede it. "

"We must compel obedience to the Union, " said Mr. Garfield, "anddemand protection for its humblest citizen wherever the flag floats. We must so exert the power of the nation that it shall be deemed bothsafe and honorable to have been loyal in the midst of treason. We mustsee to it that the frightful carnival of blood now raging in theSouth, shall continue no longer. The time has come when we must laythe heavy hand of military authority upon these rebel communities andhold them in its grasp till their madness is past. "

Mr. Stevens having expressed a wish to have an immediate vote, Mr. Banks remarked: "I believe that a day or two devoted to a discussionof this subject of the reconstruction of the Government will bring usto a solution in which the two houses of Congress will agree, in whichthe people of this country will sustain us, and in which the Presidentof the United States will give us his support. "

"I have not the advantage, " replied Mr. Stevens, "of the secretnegotiations which the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Banks] has, and from which he seems to expect such perfect harmonybetween the President and the Congress of the United States--within afew days. If I had that advantage, I do not know what effect it mighthave upon me. Not having it, I can not, of course, act upon it. "

"In the remarks which I made, " said Mr. Banks, "I made no allusion toany negotiations with the President. I have had no negotiations withthe President of the United States, nor do I know his opinions, and inthe vote which I shall give upon this question, neither the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] nor any other man has the right toassume that I accept the policy of the Executive in the smallestparticular. I hope for a change of his position; I think that it isnot impossible. At all events, I think it is something which is worthour while to try for. "

The previous question was moved by Mr. Stevens; but a majorityrefusing to second the motion, the discussion was continued. 

Mr. Kasson denied the existence of a right in Congress "to establish amilitary government over people who have been in insurrection. " Heproposed as a substitute for the pending measure "A bill to establishan additional article of war for the more complete suppression of theinsurrection against the United States. " This provided for a divisionof the rebel territory into military districts, as did the originalbill, and authorized commanders to declare martial law wherever itshould be necessary for the "complete suppression of violence anddisorder. "

Mr. Ashley moved an amendment providing for the restoration to loyalowners of property confiscated by the rebel government, and providingthat military government should cease so soon as the people of therebel States should adopt State constitutions securing to all citizensequal protection of the laws, including the right of the electivefranchise, and should ratify the proposed amendment to theConstitution. 

Mr. Raymond thought that, on account of the great diversity ofopinion, the whole subject should be referred to a select committee, who should be instructed to report within three or four days a billwhich should "provide temporarily for the protection of rights and thepreservation of the peace in the States lately in rebellion, and alsofor the speedy admission of those States to their relations in theUnion upon the basis of the Constitutional Amendment. " Thus he hoped aresult could be reached which "would command the support of Congressand of the country, and the approval, or at least the assent, of theExecutive. "

Mr. Boutwell remarked that previous propositions having been referredto the Committee on Reconstruction, they had agreed upon the billbefore the House with a unanimity which no other report had everobtained, nor had any bill submitted by that committee ever been socarefully considered as this. "To-day, " said he, "there are eightmillions and more of people, occupying six hundred and thirty thousandsquare miles of the territory of this country, who are writhing undercruelties nameless in their character--injustice such as has not beenpermitted to exist in any other country in modern times; and all thisbecause in this capital there sits enthroned a man who, so far as theexecutive department is concerned, guides the destinies of therepublic in the interest of rebels; and because, also, in those tenformer States rebellion itself, inspired by the executive departmentof this Government, wields all authority, and is the embodiment of lawand power every-where. Until in the South this obstacle toreconstruction is removed, there can be no effectual step taken towardthe reörganization of the Government. "

"A well man needs no remedies, " said Mr. Niblack, in a speech againstthe bill; "it is only when he is sick that you can require him tosubmit to medicinal applications. A country at peace does not need andought not to allow martial law and other summary remedies incident toa state of war. The highest and dearest interests of this country aremade subordinate to party exigencies and to special and particularinterests. No wonder, then, that trade languishes and commercedeclines. "

On the 12th of February, Mr. Bingham proposed an amendment making therestoration of the rebel States conditional upon their adoption of theConstitutional Amendment, and imposing upon them, meanwhile, themilitary government provided by the pending bill. 

Mr. Kelley advocated the bill as reported from the committee. "This, "said he, "is little more than a mere police bill. The necessity for itarises from the perfidy of the President of the United States. Had hebeen true to the duties of his high office and his public and repeatedpledges, there would have been no necessity for considering such abill. "

"Throughout the region of the unreconstructed States, " said Mr. Maynard, "the animating, life-giving principle of the rebellion is asthoroughly in possession of the country and of all the political powerthere to-day as it ever has been since the first gun was fired uponFort Sumter. The rebellion is alive. It is strong--strong in thenumber of its votaries, strong in its social influences, strong in itspolitical power, strong in the belief that the executive department ofthis Government is in sympathy and community of purpose with them, strong in the belief that the controlling majority of the supremejudiciary of the land is with them in legal opinion, strong in thebelief that the controversy in this body between impracticable zealand incorrigible timidity will prevent any thing of importance beingaccomplished or any legislation matured. "

"It is, " said Mr. Allison, "because of the interference of thePresident of the United States with the military law which exists inthose States that this bill is rendered necessary. In my judgment, ifwe had to-day an Executive who was desirous of enforcing the laws ofthe United States to protect loyal men in those States, instead ofdefending the rebel element, this bill would not be needed. "

Mr. Blaine submitted an amendment providing that any one of the "lateso-called Confederate States" might be restored to representation andrelieved of military rule when, in addition to having accepted theConstitutional Amendment, it should have conferred the electivefranchise impartially upon all male citizens over twenty-one years ofage. 

Mr. Blaine maintained that the people in the elections of 1866 haddeclared in favor of "universal, or, at least, impartial suffrage asthe basis of restoration. "

On the 13th of February the discussion was continued. "That the spiritof rebellion still lives, " said Mr. Van Horn, of New York, "and nowthrives in the South no sane man can deny; that the determinationexists to make their rebellion honorable and the loyalty of the Southa lasting disgrace and a permanent badge of dishonor is equally trueand can not be denied. The leaders of the rebellion, being in power inall the ten States unreconstructed, still defy the authority of theUnited States to a great extent, and deny the-power of the loyalmillions of the country, who have saved our nation's life againsttheir treason and rebellion, to prescribe terms of settlement of thisgreat controversy, and deny also that they have lost any rights theyhad before the war or committed any treason against the Government. "

The measure before the House, as it came from the Committee onReconstruction, "was not intended as a reconstruction bill, " accordingto the interpretation of Mr. Stevens. "It was intended simply as apolice bill to protect the loyal men from anarchy and murder, untilthis Congress, taking a little more time, can suit gentlemen in a billfor the admission of all those rebel States upon the basis of civilgovernment. "

The various amendments proposed were designed by their authors to adda plan of reconstruction to the pending bill. Of these Mr. Boutwellremarked: "Without examining into the details of the amendments, Ihave this to say, that any general proposition for the restoration ofthese States to the Union upon any basis not set forth in an act ofCongress is fraught with the greatest danger to future peace andprosperity of the republic. "

The amendments of Mr. Bingham and Mr. Blaine were finally combined bytheir authors. The combination made an amendment providing that the"States lately in insurrection" should be restored and relieved ofmilitary rule upon their ratification of the Constitutional Amendmentand adoption of impartial suffrage. In order to "disentangle whatseemed so much entangled, " it was moved that the bill be recommittedto the Judiciary Committee, with instructions to report backimmediately the amendment of Messrs. Blaine and Bingham. 

Mr. Stevens then addressed the House, premising that in his state ofhealth a few words must suffice. He felt a moral depression in viewingthe condition of the party responsible for the doings of Congress. "For the last few months, " said he, "Congress has been sitting here, and while the South has been bleeding at every pore, Congress has donenothing to protect the loyal people there, white or black, either intheir persons, in their liberty, or in their property. "

Of his previous bill, which had been consigned to its tomb in beingreferred to the Committee on Reconstruction, Mr. Stevens said: "Ithought it was a good bill; I had labored upon it in conjunction withseveral committees of loyal men from the South for four months; I hadaltered and realtered it, written and rewritten it four several times, and found that it met the approbation of numerous societies andmeetings in all the Southern States. It was, therefore, not altogethermy fault if it was not so good a bill as might be found; but I didthink that, after all, it was uncivil, unjust, indecent not to attemptto amend it and make it better, to see whether we could do somethingto enable our friends in the Southern States to establish institutionsaccording to the principles of republican government. "

Mr. Stevens deprecated a disposition among his friends to behypercritical in relation to mere verbal details. "If I might presumeupon my age, " said he, "without claiming any of the wisdom of Nestor, I would suggest to the young gentlemen around me that the deeds ofthis burning crisis, of this solemn day, of this thrilling moment, will cast their shadows far into the future and will make theirimpress upon the annals of our history, and that we shall appear uponthe bright pages of that history just in so far as we cordially, without guile, without bickering, without small criticisms, lend ouraid to promote the great cause of humanity and universal liberty. "

The question being taken on the motion to refer to the Committee onthe Judiciary, it was decided in the negative--yeas, 69; nays, 94. Thequestion was then taken on the passage of the bill. It passed theHouse--one hundred and nine voting in the affirmative, and fifty-fivein the negative. 

"I wish to inquire, Mr. Speaker, " said Mr. Stevens, "if it is in orderfor me now to say that we indorse the language of good old Laertes, that Heaven rules as yet, and there are gods above. "

At the evening session of the Senate on the same day, the bill "toprovide for the more efficient government of the insurrectionaryStates" was announced as having passed the House, and at once receivedits first reading. Mr. Williams gave notice of his intention topropose an amendment, but on the following day, when the Senateproceeded to consider the subject, he said that being impressed withthe necessity of the passage of the bill, and fearing that anyamendment might endanger if not defeat it, he had concluded not topresent his amendment. 

Mr. Johnson said that the adoption of the amendment would make thebill much less objectionable to him, although he could not vote for iteven if amended. He then offered the amendment, which wassubstantially the same as that proposed by Messrs. Bingham and Blainein the House of Representatives. 

Mr. Stewart regretted that the Senator from Oregon had changed hismind in regard to this amendment. "The military bill without that, "said he, "is an acknowledgment that, after two years of discussion andearnest thought, we are unable to reconstruct, and are compelled toturn the matter over to the military. It seems to me that the peopleof the United States want and demand something more than a militarygovernment for the South. "

Several Senators thought Mr. Stewart was unnecessarily troubled aboutmilitary governments in the South. "Are we, " asked Mr. Morrill, "whohave stood here for five long, bloody years, and witnessed theexercise of military power over these rebel States, to be frightenednow by a declaration of that sort? That is not the temper in which Ifind myself to-day. I have got so accustomed, if you please, to theexercise of this authority----"

"That is the trouble, " said Mr. Stewart. 

"That has not been our trouble that we have exercised power, " said Mr. Morrill; "that has been the salvation of the nation. The trouble hasbeen from the hesitation to exercise authority when authority wasrequired. "

Mr. Wilson thought that the wisest course would be to pass the billjust as it came from the House. If it was to be amended at all, hewould propose an amendment that all citizens should "equally possessthe right to pursue all lawful avocations and receive the equalbenefits of the public schools. "

"I think the amendments, " said Mr. Howard, "entirely incompatible withthe scheme and provisions of the bill itself, and that gentlemen willdiscover that incompatibility on looking into it. "

Mr. Henderson thought that the remedy proposed by him long beforewould be found the only cure for the ills of the nation. "I offered, "said he, "twelve months ago, a proposition, as a constitutionalamendment, that was to give political rights to the negroes. SomeSenators said it was a humbug, that it was Jacob Townsend'sSarsaparilla, or some thing to that effect, that it would amount tonothing. Now, I will ask what other protection can you give to a Unionman in the Southern States than the ballot?"

Since the bill must be passed both Houses and go to the President bythe following Tuesday, in order to give Congress time to pass it overhis veto, Mr. Williams, who had the bill in charge, was desirous ofhaving it passed upon in the Senate on the evening of the day of thisdiscussion, February 15th. Several Senators protested against this asunreasonable haste. "It is extraordinary, " said Mr. Doolittle, "that abill of this kind, that proposes to establish a military despotismover eight million people and a country larger than England, France, and Spain combined, is to be pressed to a vote in this Senate thefirst day it is taken up for consideration. "

"If the measure will not bear argument, " said Mr. Hendricks, "then letit be passed in the dark hours of the night. I think it is becoming, when despotism is established in this free land, that the best bloodthat ever ran in mortal veins was shed to make free, that thatdespotism shall be established when the sun does not shed its brightlight upon the earth. It is a work for darkness and not for light. "

"He talks about establishing a despotism, " said Mr. Henderson, "andgets into a perfect fret about it. Why, sir, the Southern States havepresented nothing but a despotism for the last six years. During therebel rule it was a despotism, the veriest despotism ever establishedupon earth; and since the rebel rule ceased, the President of theUnited States certainly has governed the Southern States without everconsulting Congress on the subject. "

The Senate held an evening session for the consideration of this bill. Mr. Hendricks proposed to modify the pending amendment so as toprovide for impartial rather than universal suffrage. He thought thatStates should be allowed to limit suffrage. Mr. Saulsbury would notvote for this amendment because he was unwilling to "touch, taste, orhandle the unclean thing. " On the other hand, Mr. Davis could vote forit because he preferred a "little unclean thing" to "a big one. " Mr. Hendricks finally withdrew his amendment. 

Mr. Doolittle hoped that the majority would seriously weigh thisquestion because on it might depend whether the people of the Southwould accept the Constitutional Amendment, and accept the propositionnecessary to get rid of military despotism. 

"Make them, " said Mr. Wilson. 

"I ask, " said Mr. Doolittle, "if that is the true language of astatesman, to say to a people who have been educated in the largestliberty, a people in whose veins the Anglo-Saxon blood is flowing, which for a thousand years has been fighting against despotism ofevery form, 'You must accept this position at the point of thebayonet, or forever live with the bayonet at your throats?' Is thatthe way to make peace?"

"I think it is statesmanship, " replied Mr. Wilson, "to settle thisquestion of reconstruction upon the solid basis of the perfectequality of rights and privileges among citizens of the United States. Colored men are citizens, and they have just as much right as thisrace whose blood has been fighting against oppression for a thousandyears, as he says, and any settlement of this civil war upon any otherbasis than perfect equality of rights and privileges among citizens ofthe United States is not statesmanship; it is mere trifling; onlykeeping open questions for future controversy. Nothing is settledunless it is settled upon the basis of justice. "

"I shall vote for this amendment, " said Mr. Lane, "believing that itis necessary to make a perfect system for the restoration of thelately rebellious States. "

"The amendment, " said Mr. Johnson, "is objectionable to me only uponthe ground that it denies to those States the right of coming into theUnion entitled to representation until they extend the suffrage, because I believe the right of suffrage is a matter with which theCongress of the United States has no concern. "

"I know perfectly well, " said Mr. Buckalew, "that a vote for thisamendment, although given under circumstances which do not commit meto the proposition as a final one, will be misunderstood andperverted. It will be said throughout the country of each of those whostand in the position in which I stand, that we have departed, to someextent at least, from that position which we have hitherto maintained, and maintained against all the influences of the time, against thepressure of circumstances which have swept many from our side andcarried them into the large and swollen camp of the majority. Sir, Ifor one am ambitious of being known as one among that number of menwho have kept their faith, who have followed their convictions, whohave obeyed the dictation of duty in the worst of times, who did notbend when the storm beat hardest and strongest against them, but kepttheir honor unsullied, their faith intact, their self-respect unbrokenand entire. "

"My object is, " said Mr. Henderson, when proposing to modify thepending amendment, "to secure the franchise, and after that issecured, to go forward and establish civil governments in the SouthernStates. "

Extended arguments against the measure were made by Mr. Johnson andMr. Hendricks. At twelve o'clock the minority desired to adjourn, andthe friends of the measure would have been willing to do so could anunderstanding have been had as to an hour on the following day whenthe vote would be taken. 

Mr. McDougall would submit to no such-limitation upon free speech. "Ido not expect myself, " said he, "to speak at any great length, but yetif upon careful consideration I should choose to do so, or ifpossessing the recollections of past times and memories and reasonsand considerations that yet lay in my hidden memories I shall chooseto talk for a longer period, I shall claim the right to do so. "

"I am anxious to give my views on this subject, " said Mr. Davis. "I donot feel able to give them at this late hour of the night; still, Ibelieve I could hang on for three or four hours if I was disposed todo so, [laughter, ] but I believe that to-morrow I should not occupymore than at the farthest two hours of the time of the Senate. "

Numerous amendments were proposed, much discursive talk was indulgedin, and many motions to adjourn were voted down. At length, threeo'clock of Saturday morning, February 16th, having arrived, anadjournment was brought about by means of a very long amendmentproposed by Mr. Henderson as a substitute for the entire bill. Thisopening up a new discussion, the friends of the pending bill saw theimpossibility of coming to a speedy vote, and consented to anadjournment. 

On the reässembling of the Senate on Saturday, February 16th, Mr. Doolittle delivered a very long speech in opposition to the bill, andin vindication of his political course which had been called inquestion by the "Radicals of Wisconsin. " "I rise, " said he, "to pleadfor what I believe to be the life of the republic, and for that spiritwhich gives it life. I stand here, also, to answer for myself;because, foreseeing and resisting from the beginning what I knew mustfollow as the logical consequences of the adoption of certainfundamental heresies originating in Massachusetts, and of which thehonorable Senator upon my right [Mr. Sumner] is the advocate andchampion, I have been for more than eighteen months denounced in myState by many of my former political associates and friends. "

At the evening session of the Senate, Mr. Saulsbury and Mr. Davisdelivered extended speeches against the measure. "I appeal to you, sir, " said Mr. Saulsbury; "I appeal to those who exercise politicalpower in this country now, by all the memories that cluster around theglorious past; by the recollection of the noble deeds and heroicsufferings of our ancestors, for you and for me, for your posterityand for my posterity; by all the bright realizations which might beours in this present hour; by all the bright future and all theglories which are in that immediate future, stop your aggressions uponthe Constitution of your country. "

The vote having been taken on the amendment proposed by Mr. Johnsonand the substitute of Mr. Henderson, they were both rejected. 

Mr. Sherman then offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the preamble of which declared that "No legal State governments oradequate protection for life or property now exist in the rebelStates. " It retained the military feature of the original bill, withthe modification that the President, instead of the General of thearmy, should appoint district commanders. The most important part ofthe amendment was a plan of reconstruction, which added a new sectionto the bill in the following form:

 "SEC. 5. _And be it further enacted_, That when the people of any one of said rebel States shall have formed a Constitution of government in conformity with the Constitution of the United States in all respects, framed by a convention of delegates elected by the male citizens of said State twenty-one years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or previous condition of servitude, who have been resident in said State for one year previous to the day of such election, except such as may be disfranchised for participation in the rebellion, or for felony at common law, and when such Constitution shall provide that the elective franchise shall be enjoyed by all such persons as have the qualifications herein stated for electors of delegates, and when such Constitution shall be ratified by a majority of the persons voting on the question of ratification who are qualified as electors of delegates, and when such Constitution shall have been submitted to Congress for examination and approval, and Congress shall have appointed the same, and when said State, by a vote of its Legislature elected under said Constitution, shall have adopted the amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen, and when said article shall have become a part of the Constitution of the United States, said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and Senators and Representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their taking the oath prescribed by law, and then and thereafter the preceding sections of this act shall be inoperative in said State. "

Mr. Sherman made a brief speech in explanation of the bill. "All thereis material in the bill, " said he, "is in the first two lines of thepreamble and the fifth section, in my judgment. The first two linesmay lay the foundation, by adopting the proclamation issued first toNorth Carolina, that the rebellion had swept away all the civilgovernments in the Southern States; and the fifth section points outthe mode by which the people of those States, in their own manner, without any limitations or restrictions by Congress, may get back tofull representation in Congress. "

After numerous propositions to amend, and speeches against the bill byMessrs. Hendricks, Cowan, Buckalew and McDougall, the Senate reached avote upon the bill at six o'clock on Sunday morning. Twenty-nine votedin the affirmative, namely:

 Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Fogg, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane, Morgan, Morrill, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates. 

Ten voted in the negative, to-wit:

 Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Hendricks, McDougall, Nesmith, Norton, Patterson, and Saulsbury. 

The Senate amended the title of the bill by substituting the word"rebel" for "insurrectionary. " Thus passed in the Senate the greatmeasure entitled "A bill to provide for the more efficient governmentof the rebel States. "

On Monday, February 18th, the bill, as amended, came before the House. Mr. Stevens moved that the amendments of the Senate be non-concurredin, and that the House ask a Committee of Conference. 

Mr. Boutwell opposed the amendment. "If I did not believe, " said he, "that this bill, in the form in which it now comes to us from theSenate, was fraught with great and permanent danger to the country, Iwould not attempt to resist further its passage. "

He objected to the bill on the ground that it proposed to reconstructthe rebel State governments at once, through the agency of disloyalmen, and that it gave additional power to the President when he hadfailed to use the vast power which he already possessed in behalf ofloyalty and justice. 

Mr. Stokes saw in the bill the principle of universal amnesty anduniversal suffrage. "I would rather have nothing, " said he, "if thesegovernments are reconstructed in a way that will place the rebels overUnion men. "

"Now, what has the Senate done?" Mr. Stevens asked. "Sent back to usan amendment which contains every thing else but protection. It hassent us back a bill which raises the whole question in dispute as tothe best mode of reconstructing these States by distant and futurepledges which this Congress has no authority to make and no power toexecute. What power has this Congress to say to a future Congress, When the Southern States have done certain things, you shall admitthem, and receive their members into this House?"

"Our friends, " said he, in another part of his remarks, "who love thisbill, love it now because the President is to execute it, as he hasexecuted every law for the last two years, by the murder of Union men, and by despising Congress and flinging into our teeth all that we seekto have done. "

Mr. Stevens thought that in two hours a Committee of Conference couldframe a bill and report it to the House free from all thesedifficulties--free from all this extraneous matter--which wouldprotect every loyal man in the Southern States, and do no injustice tothe disloyal. 

Mr. Blaine supported the bill as it came from the Senate. "Congress, "said he, "no more guarantees, under this bill, the right of any rebelin any State to vote than did Congress guarantee to the rebels inTennessee the right to vote. "

"Although this bill, " said Mr. Wilson of Iowa, "does not attain all Idesire to accomplish, it does embrace much upon which I have insisted. It reaches far beyond any thing which the most sanguine of us hopedfor a year ago. It secures equal suffrage to all loyal men; it setsaside the pretended governments which now abuse power in the rebelStates; it insists on the ratification of the ConstitutionalAmendment, under the operation of which all the rebels who now occupyofficial position in the States affected by this bill will be renderedineligible to office, State or national; it presents an affirmativepolicy, on the part of Congress, hostile to that of the President; itdemonstrates the ability of Congress to agree upon a given line offuture action; and, finally, it reserves to Congress jurisdiction overthe whole case when the people of any Southern disorganized State maypresent a Constitution and ask for admission to this body as a part ofthe governing power of the nation. There is too much of good in thisto be rejected. I will vote to concur in the amendment of the Senate. "

Mr. Bingham maintained that in the bill, as it passed the House, theyhad voted as extensive powers to the President as were conferred uponhim by the bill as amended by the Senate. The former bill providedthat the General in command of the army should detail army officers;but all officers of the army are under command of the Commander-in-chiefas constituted by the supreme law of the land. "For myself, " said he, "I had rather that my right hand should forget its cunning, and thatmy tongue should cleave to the roof of my mouth, than to find myselfhere so false to my own convictions, and so false to the high trustcommitted to me by that people who sent me here as to vote againstthis bill. "

"This bill, " said Mr. Farnsworth, "provides a platform ten steps inadvance of the platform upon which we went to the people last fall. Wethen only expected the ratification of the amendment to theConstitution proposed by Congress at its last session, and theformation of Constitutions, republican in form, which should give thepeople there the right to send loyal men here as Senators andRepresentatives. But by this bill we extend impartial suffrage to theblack man--universal suffrage. "

"I am one of those who believe we ought to do something, " said Mr. Schenck. "I believe we ought to declare to these rebel States, as wedo by this bill, that they shall be put under martial law, and held bythe strong hand to keep the peace until they have complied withwhatever conditions are imposed upon them. But while we do this, Ithink it equally important to announce to them, to announce to thecountry, to announce to our constituents as the completion of thewhole platform upon which we go before the nation, the terms which werequire of them. "

Mr. Garfield favored the Senate amendment. "There are some gentlemen, "said he, "who live among the eagles on the high mountain peaks, beyondthe limit of perpetual frost, and they see the lineaments in the faceof freedom so much clearer than I do, whenever any measure comes herethat seems almost to grasp our purpose, they rise and tell us it isall poor and mean and a surrender of liberty. "

"These terms embrace, in my judgment, " said Mr. Thayer, "everyguarantee, every safeguard, and every check which it is proper for usto demand or apply. Upon these foundations we can safely build, for bythem we retain the final control of the question in our own hands. "

Mr. Hotchkiss opposed the bill as amended. "If you allow this bill togo into operation as it now stands, " said he, "without making anyamendment of its provisions, and permit these elections to be held, asthey must necessarily be held under this bill, under the authority, control, and regulation of the rebel governments in those States, there will be no security whatever, and you will have the elections inNew Orleans held under the control of Mayor Monroe and the mob whichhe used to such fell purpose last summer. That is the entertainment towhich this bill invites us. 

"I regard this as a flank movement, " said Mr. Bromwell, "by which isto be brought about that darling scheme of certain politicians--universalamnesty and universal suffrage. Whether it end in universal suffrageor not, one thing is certain, it is universal amnesty. "

"It would be emphatically, " said Mr. Donnelly, "a government ofrebels. I say a government of rebels, because although the amendmentwhich has reached us from the Senate contains the words, 'Except suchas may be disfranchised for participation in the rebellion, ' thatdisfranchisement has to come from the rebels themselves, and surelythere is no man upon this floor weak enough to suppose that they willso disfranchise themselves. "

Mr. Le Blond opposed both bills. Of the one before the House, he said:"This bill is quite as infamous, quite as absurd, as the bill that thedistinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens, ] who isChairman of the Committee on Reconstruction, contends for and hangs sotenaciously to. It confers all the powers that that bill gives; itconfers all the powers that the most radical could claimconsistently. "

"I shall content myself, " said Mr. Eldridge, "with denouncing thismeasure as most wicked and abominable. It contains all that isvicious, all that is mischievous in any and all of the propositionswhich have come either from the Committee on Reconstruction or fromany gentleman upon the other side of the House. "

"If you do not take this bill, " said Mr. Delano, "although in all itsparts it does not suit you, what are you likely to give the Americanpeople? Nothing. I will not return to my constituents admitting that Ihave failed to try to do something in this great trial of the nation. It is not for rebels that I legislate; it is not for the right ofthose who have sought to destroy this Government that I extend mercy;but it is for the liberties, rights, and welfare of my country, forall parts of it. "

"If this bill be passed, " said Mr. Banks, "in my belief there will beno loyal party known and no loyal voice heard in any of these States, from Virginia to Texas. "

Many members subsequently presented arguments and opinions for andagainst the bill, in speeches limited to fifteen minutes in length. This occupied a session protracted until near midnight. 

On the following morning, February 19th, a vote was taken, and theHouse refused to concur in the amendments of the Senate, and asked aCommittee of Conference. 

The action of the House having been announced in the Senate, that bodyimmediately proceeded to consider a motion made by Mr. Williams, thatthey insist on their amendment and agree to the conference. Theproposition to give the subject into the hands of a Committee ofConference was opposed by many Senators, who thought a question of somuch importance should be deliberated upon in a full Senate. If such acommittee were appointed, their report could only be adopted orrejected without modification or amendment. They would only have thepower which they possess over a nomination by the President--power toreject a nominee without naming another. 

"The result arrived at by the Senate in reference to this bill, " saidMr. Conness, "was after the most mature consideration that was evergiven to any proposition that came before this body, resulting in anunanimity, at least on this side of the chamber, unparalleled inlegislative proceedings--a result hailed by the country at large, demanded by the most intelligent and powerful of the American press, alike acceptable to the industrial and commercial interests of thecountry, which suffer from a continual disorganization of the countryaffecting its vital industries. "

"The fact that it is a very important bill, " said Mr. Williams, "onlymakes it the more necessary, as it seems to me, to adopt the usualpractice in such cases"--that of appointing a Committee of Conference. 

Mr. Sumner favored the appointment of such a committee. The Senate hadmade its best endeavor, the House had refused to concur, and now toask that body to vote upon the question again without a Committee ofConference would kill the bill. In such a case there could be no hopeduring the session for any just and beneficent measure either ofprotection or reconstruction. 

Mr. Fessenden had taken no part in the debate upon the bill when itwas on its passage. A majority of his political friends havingdetermined that the measure which passed the Senate was the best thatcould be accomplished, he had deemed it his duty not to present hisindividual objections to the bill. "I would have very much preferred, "said he, "the Military Bill, as it was called, pure and simple, without having any thing else upon it, and leaving to otherlegislation, if it was judged expedient, what else might be done. "

Mr. Trumbull had not before said a word in reference to this bill. Henever regarded the Military Bill as it came from the House ofRepresentatives as of the slightest importance. Section fourteenth, ofthe Freedmen's Bureau Bill conferred all the powers given in theMilitary Bill. If these had not been used for the protection of theloyal people of the South, would the reiteration of the statute be toany purpose? Yet Mr. Trumbull thought the amendment put upon the billby the Senate contained every guarantee that had ever been asked forby any one. He was unwilling that a great question like this, open inall its parts, should be submitted to a Committee of Conference. 

[Illustration: Hon. John Conness, Senator from California. ]

The vote was finally taken, after a prolonged discussion. The Senateinsisted on its amendment, and refused to appoint a Committee ofConference. 

The bill having gone back to the House of Representatives, theyresolved by a vote of one hundred and twenty-six to forty-six torecede from their disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and toconcur in the same with amendments, providing that no person excludedfrom holding office by the recently proposed Constitutional Amendmentshould be eligible for membership in the convention to frame aconstitution for any of the rebel States, nor should any such personbe allowed to vote for members of such convention. Another amendmentproposed by the House was the addition of a section (sixth) to thebill providing that until the rebel States should be admitted torepresentation in Congress, any civil governments existing thereinshould be deemed provisional only, and subject to the paramountauthority of the United States, who may at any time abolish, modify, control, or supersede them. 

This qualified concurrence on the part of the House having beenannounced in the Senate, that body proceeded immediately to considerthe question of acquiescence. 

Mr. Sherman said that his only objection to the amendment of the Housewas, that it disfranchised ten or fifteen thousand leading rebels fromvoting at the elections, yet he was willing to agree to the amendment. 

Mr. Sumner congratulated Mr. Sherman on the advanced step he hadtaken. "To-morrow, " said Mr. Sumner, "I hope to welcome the Senator tosome other height. "

Mr. Sherman was unwilling to admit that he had come to Mr. Sumner'sstand-point. He was willing to accept the bill, although it excluded afew thousand rebels from voting, yet "I would rather have them allvote, " said he, "white and black, under the stringent restrictions ofthis bill, and let the governments of the Southern States that areabout now to rise upon the permanent foundation of universal libertyand universal equality, stand upon the consent of the governed, whiteand black, former slaves and former masters. "

Then followed an extended discussion of the question as to whether theSenate should agree to the amendments proposed by the House. Mr. Doolittle proposed and advocated an amendment providing that nothingin the bill should be construed to disfranchise persons who havereceived pardon and amnesty. This amendment was rejected--yeas, 8;nays, 33. 

The vote was then taken upon the final passage of the bill as amendedby the House; it passed the Senate--yeas, 35; nays, 7. 

The Bill "to provide for the more efficient government of the rebelStates, " having thus passed both houses of Congress on the 20th ofFebruary, it was immediately submitted to the President for hisapproval. 

On the second of March the President returned the bill to the House, in which it originated, with his objections, which were so grave thathe hoped a statement of them might "have some influence on the mindsof the patriotic and enlightened men with whom the decision mustultimately rest. "

The Veto Message was immediately read by the clerk of the House ofRepresentatives. The following extracts present the President'sprincipal objections to the measure:

 "The bill places all the people of the ten States therein named under the absolute domination of military rulers.  * * *

 "It is not denied that the States in question have each of them an actual government, with all the powers, executive, judicial, and legislative which properly belong to a free State. They are organized like the other States of the Union, and like them they make, administer, and execute the laws which concern their domestic affairs. An existing _de facto_ government, exercising such functions as these, is itself the law of the State upon all matters within its jurisdiction. To pronounce the supreme law-making power of an established State illegal is to say that law itself is unlawful.  * * *

 "The military rule which it establishes is plainly to be used, not for any purpose of order or for the prevention of crime, but solely as a means of coercing the people into the adoption of principles and measures to which it is known that they are opposed, and upon which they have an undeniable right to exercise their own judgment. 

 "I submit to Congress whether this measure is not, in its whole character, scope, and object, without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive to those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure. 

 * * * * *

 "The power thus given to the commanding officer over all the people of each district is that of an absolute monarch. His mere will is to take the place of all law. The law of the States is now the only rule applicable to the subjects placed under his control, and that is completely displaced by the clause which declares all interference of State authority to be null and void. He alone is permitted to determine what are rights of person or property, and he may protect them in such way as in his discretion may seem proper. It places at his free disposal all the lands and goods in his district, and he may distribute them without let or hinderance to whom he pleases. Being bound by no State law, and there being no other law to regulate the subject, he may make a criminal code of his own; and he can make it as bloody as any recorded in history, or he can reserve the privilege of acting upon the impulse of his private passions in each case that arises. He is bound by no rules of evidence; there is indeed no provision by which he is authorized or required to take any evidence at all. Every thing is a crime which he chooses to call so, and all persons are condemned whom he pronounces to be guilty. He is not bound to keep any record or make any report of his proceedings. He may arrest his victims wherever he finds them, without warrant, accusation, or proof of probable cause. If he gives them a trial before he inflicts the punishment, he gives it of his grace and mercy, not because he is commanded so to do. 

 * * * * *

 "Cruel or unusual punishment is not to be inflicted, but who is to decide what is cruel and what is unusual? * * * Each officer may define cruelty according to his own temper, and if it is not usual, he will make it usual. Corporal punishment, imprisonment, the gag, the ball and chain, and the almost insupportable forms of torture invented for military punishment lie within the range of choice. The sentence of a commission is not to be executed without being approved by the commander, if it affects life or liberty, and a sentence of death must be approved by the President. This applies to cases in which there has been a trial and sentence. I take it to be clear, under this bill, that the military commander may condemn to death without even the form of a trial by a military commission, so that the life of the condemned may depend upon the will of two men instead of one. 

 "It is plain that the authority here given to the military officer amounts to absolute despotism. 

 * * * * *

 "I come now to a question which is, if possible, still more important. Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this? I answer certainly not, if we derive our authority from the Constitution, and if we are bound by the limitations which it imposes. This proposition is perfectly clear; that no branch of the Federal Government, executive, legislative, or judicial, can have any just powers except those which it derives through and exercises under the organic law of the Union. Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our function and applies to all subjects. It protects not only the citizens of States which are within the Union, but it shields every human being who comes or is brought under our jurisdiction. "We have no right to do in one place more than in another that which the Constitution says we shall not do at all. If, therefore, the Southern States were in truth out of the Union, we could not treat their people in a way which the fundamental law forbids.  * * *

 "If an insurrection should take place in one of our States against the authority of the State government, and end in the overthrowing of those who planned it, would they take away the rights of all the people of the counties where it was favored by a part or a majority of the population? Could they for such a reason be wholly outlawed and deprived of their representation in the Legislature? I have always contended that the Government of the United States was sovereign within its constitutional sphere; that it executed its laws like the States themselves, by applying its coercive power directly to individuals; and that it could put down insurrection with the same effect as a State and no other. The opposite doctrine is the worst heresy of those who advocated secession, and can not be agreed to without admitting that heresy to be right. 

 * * * * *

 "This is a bill passed by Congress in time of peace. There is not in any one of the States brought under its operation either war or insurrection. The laws of the States and of the Federal Government are all in undisturbed and harmonious operation. The courts, State and Federal, are open and in the full exercise of their proper authority. Over every State comprised in these five military districts life, liberty, and property are secured by State laws and Federal laws, and the national Constitution is every-where enforced and every-were obeyed. 

 * * * * *

 "Actual war, foreign invasion, domestic insurrection--none of these appear, and none of these in fact exist. It is not even recited that any sort of war or insurrection is threatened. "

"Upon this question of constitutional law and the power of Congress, "the President gave quotations from "a recent decision of the SupremeCourt _ex parte_ Milligan. " Having commented upon this opinion, thePresident proceeded with his objections:

 "I need not say to the Representatives of the American people that their Constitution forbids the exercise of judicial power in any way but one; that is, by the ordained and established courts. It is equally well known that, in all criminal cases, a trial by jury is made indispensable by the express words of that instrument. I will not enlarge on the inestimable value of the right thus secured to every freeman, or speak of the danger to public liberty, in all parts of the country, which must ensue from a denial of it anywhere, or upon any pretense.  * * *

 "The United States are bound to guaranty to each State a republican form of government Can it be pretended that this obligation is not palpably broken if we carry out a measure like this, which wipes away every vestige of republican government in ten States, and put the life, property, liberty and honor of all the people in each of them under the domination of a single person clothed with unlimited authority. 

 * * * * *

 "The purpose and object of the bill--the general intent which pervades it from beginning to end--is to change the entire structure and character of the State governments, and to compel them by force to the adoption of organic laws and regulations which they are unwilling to accept if left to themselves. The negroes have not asked for the privilege of voting; the vast majority of them have no idea what it means. This bill not only thrusts it into their hands, but compels them, as well as the whites, to use it in a particular way. If they do not form a Constitution with prescribed articles in it, and afterward elect a Legislature which will act upon certain measures in a prescribed way, neither blacks nor whites can be relieved from the slavery which the bill imposes upon them. Without pausing here to consider the policy or impolicy of Africanizing the Southern part of our territory, I would simply ask the attention of Congress to that manifest, well-known, and universally-acknowledged rule of constitutional law which declares that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction, authority, or power to regulate such subjects for any State. To force the right of suffrage out of the hands of the white people and into the hands of the negroes is an arbitrary violation of this principle. 

 "This bill imposes martial law at once, and its operations will begin so soon as the General and his troops can be put in place. The dread alternative between its harsh rule and compliance with the terms of this measure is not suspended, nor are the people afforded any time for free deliberation. The bill says to them, Take martial law first, then deliberate. 

 * * * * *

 "The bill also denies the legality of the governments of ten of the States which participated in the ratification of the amendment to the Federal Constitution abolishing slavery forever within the jurisdiction of the United States, and practically excludes them from the Union.  * * *

 "That the measure proposed by this bill does violate the Constitution in the particulars mentioned, and in many other ways which I forbear to enumerate is too clear to admit of the least doubt. 

 * * * * *

 "I am thoroughly convinced that any settlement, or compromise, or plan of action which is inconsistent with the principles of the Constitution, will not only be unavailing, but mischievous; that it will but multiply the present evils instead of removing them. The Constitution, in its whole integrity and vigor, throughout the length and breadth of the land, is the best of all compromises. Besides, our duty does not, in my judgment, leave us a choice between that and any other. I believe that it contains the remedy that is so much needed, and that if the coördinate branches of the Government would unite upon its provisions, they would be found broad enough and strong enough to sustain, in time of peace, the nation which they bore safely through the ordeal of a protracted civil war. Among the most sacred guarantees of that instrument are those which declare that 'each State shall have at least one Representative, ' and that 'no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. ' Each house is made the 'judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, ' and may, 'with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member. '"

 * * * * *

 "And is it not far better that the work of restoration should be accomplished by simple compliance with the plain requirements of the Constitution, than by a recourse to measures which, in effect, destroy the States, and threaten the subversion of the General Government? All that is necessary to settle this simple but important question, without further agitation or delay, is a willingness, on the part of all, to sustain the Constitution, and carry its provisions into practical operation. If to-morrow either branch of Congress would declare that, upon the presentation of their credentials, members constitutionally elected, and loyal to the General Government, would be admitted to seats in Congress, while all others would be excluded, and their places remain vacant until the selection by the people of loyal and qualified persons; and if, at the same time, assurance were given that this policy would be continued until all the States were represented in Congress, it would send a thrill of joy throughout the entire land, as indicating the inauguration of a system which must speedily bring tranquillity to the public mind. 

 "While we are legislating upon subjects which are of great importance to the whole people, and which must affect all parts of the country, not only during the life of the present generation, but for ages to come, we should remember that all men are entitled at least to a hearing in the councils which decide upon the destiny of themselves and their children. At present ten States are denied representation, and when the Fortieth Congress assembles, on the fourth day of the present month, sixteen States will be without a voice in the House of Representatives. This grave fact, with the important questions before us, should induce us to pause in a course of legislation, which, looking solely to the attainment of political ends, fails to consider the rights it transgresses, the law which it violates, or the institutions which it imperils. 

 "ANDREW JOHNSON. "

After the reading of the message, the question came up, "Shall thebill pass, the objections of the President to the contrarynotwithstanding?"

Mr. Eldridge declared that it would be the duty of the minority, if itwere within their physical power, to defeat the bill. "But we areconscious, " said he, "that no effort of ours can prevent its passage, and the consequent accomplishment of a dissolution of the Union, andthe overthrow and abandonment of our constitution of government. Wecan only, in the name of the Constitution, in the name of therepublic, in the name of all we hold dear on earth, earnestly, solemnly protest against this action of this Congress. "

Mr. Le Blond said that "the passage of this bill would be thedeath-knell of republican liberty upon this continent. " He declaredhis willingness, if a sufficient number on his side of the House wouldstand by him, to resist to the utmost extremity of physical exhaustionthe passage of this bill, which would "strike a death-blow to thisGovernment. "

Mr. Stevens would not be discourteous to those who were opposed tothis bill: "I am aware, " said he, "of the melancholy feelings withwhich they are approaching this funeral of the nation. " He wasunwilling, however, to lose the opportunity to pass the bill at once, and send it to the Senate, that the House might proceed to othermatters. 

The vote was taken, and the House passed the bill over the President'sveto--yeas, 135; nays, 48. The announcement of this result wasfollowed by great applause on the floor and in the galleries. 

The immense numbers that had assembled in the galleries of the Houseto witness these proceedings went immediately to the other end of theCapitol to see the reception which the Veto Message would receive inthe Senate. The consideration of the subject, however, was deferreduntil the evening session. 

The Veto Message having been read in the Senate by the Secretary, thepending question at once became whether the bill should passnotwithstanding the objections of the President?

Mr. Johnson advocated the passage of the bill over the veto. "Itcontains, " said he, speaking of the President's message, "some legalpropositions which are unsound, and many errors of reasoning. I lamentthe course he has thought it his duty to pursue, because I see that itmay result in continued turmoil and peril, not only to the South, butto the entire country. I see before me a distressed, a desolatedcountry, and in the measure before you I think I see the means throughwhich it may be rescued and restored erelong to prosperity and ahealthful condition, and the free institutions of our countrypreserved. "

In reply to a charge of inconsistency brought against him by Mr. Buckalew, Mr. Johnson said: "Consistency in a public man can neverproperly be esteemed a virtue when he becomes satisfied that it willoperate to the prejudice of his country. The pride of opinion, whichmore or less belongs to us all, becomes, in my judgment, in a publicman, a crime when it is indulged at the sacrifice or hazard of thepublic safety. " He urged upon the people of the South their acceptanceof the terms proposed by Congress. In view of the probability theseovertures should be rejected, harsher measures would be resorted to. 

Mr. Saulsbury expressed his admiration for the wisdom of the Presidentin "vetoing the most iniquitous bill that ever was presented to theFederal Congress. " "I hope, " said he, "that there may be no man withinthe limits of these ten States who will participate in his owndisgrace, degradation, and ruin: let them maintain their honor. Ifthere be wrath in the vials of the Almighty, if there be arrows ofvengeance in his quiver, such iniquity and injustice can not finallyprove successful. "

Mr. Hendricks disagreed with the Senator from Delaware that the peopleof the South, at once and without consideration, must turn their backsupon the proposition now made them in order to maintain their honor. He hoped they would bring to the consideration of the subject thecoolest judgment and the highest patriotism. He was still opposed tothe bill; he approved of the President's veto. His judgment againstthe measure had been "fortified and strengthened by that abledocument. "

The discussion of the question was continued by Messrs. Buckalew, Dixon, and Davis, who spoke against the bill. The friends of themeasure were content to let the subject go without a further word fromthem, save the solemn and final declaration of their votes. 

The question being taken, the bill was passed over the veto by a voteof almost four-fifths. Thirty-eight Senators voted for the bill in itsfinal passage, and but ten were found willing to stand by thePresident and his veto. 

The bill whose progress through Congress has thus been traced became alaw of the land in the following form:

 "AN ACT to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States

 "_Whereas_, no legal State governments or adequate protection for life or property now exists in the rebel States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas; and _whereas_ it is necessary that peace and good order should be enforced in said States until loyal and republican State governments can be legally established: therefore, "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That said rebel States shall be divided into military districts and made subject to the military authority of the United States, as hereinafter prescribed; and for that purpose Virginia shall constitute the first district, North Carolina and South Carolina the second district, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida the third district, Mississippi and Arkansas the fourth district, and Louisiana and Texas the fifth district. 

 "SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That it shall be the duty of the President to assign to the command of each of said districts an officer of the army not below the rank of brigadier general, and to detail a sufficient military force to enable such officer to perform his duties and enforce his authority within the district to which he is assigned. 

 "SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That it shall be the duty of each officer assigned, as aforesaid, to protect all persons in their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of the public peace and criminals; and to this end he may allow local civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and to try offenders, or when in his judgment it may be necessary for the trial of offenders he shall have power to organize military commissions or tribunals for that purpose, and all interference, under color of State authority, with the exercise of military authority under this act shall be null and void. 

 "SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That all persons put under military arrest by virtue of this act shall be tried without unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted, and no sentence of any military commission or tribunal hereby authorized, affecting the life or liberty of any person, shall be executed until it is approved by the officer in command of the district; and the laws and regulations for the government of the army shall not be affected by this act, except in so far as they conflict with its provisions: _Provided_, That no sentence of death under the provisions of this act shall be carried into effect without the approval of the President. 

 "SEC. 5. _And be it further enacted_, That when the people of any one of said rebel States shall have formed a constitution of government in conformity with the Constitution of the United States in all respects, framed by a convention of delegates elected by the male citizens of said State twenty-one years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or previous condition, who have been resident in said State for one year previous to the day of such election, except such as may be disfranchised for participation in the rebellion or for felony at common law, and when such constitution shall provide that the elective franchise shall be enjoyed by all such persons as have the qualifications herein stated for electors of delegates, and when such Constitution shall be ratified by a majority of the persons voting on the question of ratification who are qualified as electors for delegates, and when such constitution shall have been submitted to Congress for examination and approval, and Congress shall have approved the same, and when said State, by a vote of its Legislature elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen, and when said article shall have become a part of the Constitution of the United States, said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and Senators and Representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their taking the oath prescribed by law, and then and thereafter the preceding sections of this act shall be inoperative in said State: _Provided_, That no person excluded from the privilege of holding office by said proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, shall be eligible to election as a member of the convention to frame a constitution for any of said rebel States, nor shall any such person vote for members of such convention. 

 "SEC. 6. _And be it further enacted_, That, until the people of said rebel States shall be by law admitted to representation in the Congress of the United States, any civil government which may exist therein shall be deemed provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same; and in all elections to any office under such provisional governments all persons shall be entitled to vote, and none others, who are entitled to vote under the provisions of the fifth section of this act; and no person shall be eligible to any office under such provisional governments who would be disqualified from holding office under the provisions of the third article of said Constitutional Amendment. "

The friends of this measure were dissatisfied with it on the ground ofits incompleteness in not containing provisions for carrying it intoeffect in accordance with the purpose of its framers. This recordwould be incomplete without a statement of what was done to perfectthe measure in the succeeding Congress. The Fortieth Congress, meetingon the 4th of March, immediately upon the close of its predecessor, proceeded without delay to perfect and pass over the President's vetoa bill supplementary to the act to provide for the more efficientgovernment of the rebel States. By this act it was provided that thecommanding general of each district should cause a registration to bemade of the male citizens twenty-one years of age in his district, qualified to vote under the former act. In order to be registered as avoter under this act, a person is required to swear that he has notbeen disfranchised for participation in any rebellion or civil waragainst the United States, nor for felony; that he has never been amember of any State Legislature, nor held any executive or judicialoffice in any State and afterward engaged in insurrection or rebellionagainst the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemiesthereof; that he has never taken an oath as a member of Congress ofthe United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as anexecutive or judicial officer of any State, to support theConstitution of the United States, and afterward engaged ininsurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid orcomfort to the enemies thereof, and that he will faithfully supportthe Constitution and obey the laws of the United States, and encourageothers to do so. 

Persons thus qualified shall vote at elections held for the purpose ofselecting delegates to the conventions for framing constitutions forthe States. 

A majority of voters so qualified shall determine whetherconstitutional conventions shall be held in the several States, andshall vote for delegates who shall be as numerous as the members ofthe most numerous branch of the Legislature of such State in the year1860. This convention having framed a constitution, it shall besubmitted to the people, and if ratified by a majority of thequalified voters, it shall be forthwith transmitted to Congress. Ifthis constitution is satisfactory to Congress, and found to be inaccordance with the provisions of the act of which this issupplementary, the State shall be declared entitled to representation. All elections are required to be by ballot, and all officers actingunder the provisions of this act are required to take the test oath. 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

OTHER IMPORTANT ACTS. 

 Equalizing Bounties -- The Army -- The Department of Education -- Southern Homesteads -- The Bankrupt Law -- The Tariff -- Reduction of Taxes -- Contracting the Currency -- Issue of Three Per Cents. -- Nebraska and Colorado -- Tenure of Office. 

The great national measures, whose progress through Congress has beengiven in detail, occupied the attention of that body continuously, from the first days of its existence to the closing hours of its lastsession. No day passed which was not rendered important by somethingsaid or done upon questions which concern not only the nation, buthumanity, and which are of interest not only for the present, but forall time to come. While these great measures were passing throughCongress, making it memorable, and absorbing the public attention, there was a constant undercurrent of patient, laborious legislationupon subjects of less interest to the public, but of real importanceto the country. 

One of the first duties devolving upon the Thirty-ninth Congress wasthe great work of disbanding the vast volunteer army which hadsuppressed the rebellion, saved the country, and earned the undyinggratitude of the nation. The soldiers of the republic were to be paidfor their distinguished services, their reasonable demands forequalization of bounty were to be met, and a suitable number retainedin the service for the necessities of the nation on a "peace footing. "Near the close of the first session, a bill to equalize soldiers'bounties, introduced by Mr. Schenck of Ohio, passed the House by anearly unanimous vote, but was lost in the Senate. Subsequently, theSenate attached to the Civil Appropriation Bill a provision for payingadditional bounty, differing materially from the bill which passed theHouse. This being in such shape that it could not be easily detached, became a law. 

During the first session, Congress passed the "Act to increase and fixthe military peace establishment of the United States. " By this lawthe regular army consists of five regiments of artillery, tenregiments of cavalry, and forty-five regiments of infantry. Itacknowledged the services and claims of the volunteer officers and menwho served in the recent war by providing that a large proportion ofthe commissions in the new service should be conferred upon them. Atthe same time the standard of attainment and talent was not lowered, since the law provided for such an examination as must exclude theunqualified and relieve the army from some who unworthily heldcommissions. 

The important fact that general intelligence is one of the greatestsafeguards of the nation was fully recognized by the Thirty-ninthCongress. Of this they gave permanent proof in establishing a Bureauof Education. Early in the first session, Mr. Donnelly, of Minnesota, introduced a resolution instructing the joint Committee onReconstruction to inquire into the expediency of establishing aNational Bureau of Education "to enforce education, without regard tocolor. " The necessity for such a measure was set forth in the preambleto arise from the fact that "republican institutions can findpermanent safety only upon the basis of the universal intelligence ofthe people, " and that "the great disasters which have afflicted thenation and desolated one-half its territory are traceable in a greatdegree to the absence of common schools and general education amongthe people of lately rebellious States. " This resolution passed theHouse by a large majority. 

This subject was subsequently referred to an able select committee, ofwhich Mr. Garfield was chairman. On the 5th of June he reported a billto establish a Department of Education. The measure was supported byMessrs. Donnelly, Garfield, Banks, and Boutwell, and opposed byMessrs. Pike, Rogers, and Randall. The bill passed the House on the19th of June and went to the Senate, where it was referred to theCommittee on the Judiciary. The bill went over, in the press ofbusiness, to the second session, and passed the Senate on the 28th ofFebruary, 1867. 

A measure indirectly connected with the subject of reconstruction, destined to have an important influence upon the future of Southernsociety, was introduced by Mr. Julian on the 7th of February, 1866. This was a bill for the disposal of the public lands for homesteads toactual settlers, without distinction of color, in the States ofAlabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida, providing thatthe quantity of land selected by any one person should be eightyacres, and not one hundred and sixty acres, as provided in theHomestead Bill of 1862. The necessity of this measure, as shown by Mr. Julian, arose from the abolition of slavery and the demands of freelabor. It was designed to cut off land speculation in the Southerncountry. "Without some provision of this kind, " said Mr. Julian, "rebel speculators now hovering over the whole of that region, andhunting up the best portion of it, and the holders of AgriculturalCollege scrip can come down upon it at one fell swoop and cheat theactual settler, whether white or black, out of his rights, or even thepossibility of a home in that region, driving the whole of them tosome of our Western Territories or to starvation itself. "

The bill was finally passed in the House on the 28th of February, 1867, with an amendment excluding from the benefit of the act personswho have borne arms against the United States, or given aid andcomfort to its enemies. 

A work of legislation of much importance, destined to have beneficenteffect upon the business interests of the country, was the passage ofthe Bankrupt Law, which was finally enacted near the close of theThirty-ninth Congress. The Bankrupt Bill passed the House ofRepresentatives as early as May, 1866, but the Senate objecting to theentire principle of the bill, it was postponed till December. On thereässembling of Congress for the second session, the consideration ofthe Bankrupt Bill was resumed, and after much opposition in theSenate, it finally received the support of a decisive majority in thatbody of all shades of politics. The perfection and final passage ofthis measure were among the last acts of the Thirty-ninth Congress. 

The Bankrupt Law of 1800 was enacted in the interest of creditors, andthat of 1841 for the benefit of debtors. The law of 1867 was framedwith a view to protect the interests of both parties. The passage ofthis important law is due mainly to the energy and perseverance ofThomas A. Jenckes, of Rhode Island. 

The subject of the tariff occupied, first and last, a considerableshare of the time and attention of the Thirty-ninth Congress. In theearly part of the first session numerous petitions poured in uponCongress in favor of a protective tariff. In June and July the subjectwas discussed, and a Tariff Bill passed the House by a vote ofninety-four to fifty-three. The friends of protection said of thisbill that though not perfect, it was "a decided improvement on thetariff in existence. " The bill, on its introduction to the Senate waspostponed till December. 

There was soon after introduced into the House a revised Tariff Bill, entitled a bill "to protect the revenue. " Gradually many of thefeatures which the advocates of protection regarded as most important, were eliminated from the bill. This was passed in the Senate on the24th of July, with amendments in which the House was unwilling toconcur. A Committee of Conference was appointed, who made a reportwhich was accepted by both Houses of Congress. The bill greatlymodified and "enfeebled" as its original friends regarded it, finallypassed on the day before the close of the first session. 

The subject of diminishing taxation, as far as consistent with theobligations of the nation to its creditors, early enlisted andoccupied the attention of the Thirty-ninth Congress. The principleupon which Congress acted was announced by the distinguished chairmanof the Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Morrill, to be "_The abolitionor speedy reduction of all taxes which tend to check development, andthe retention of all those which like the income tax fall chiefly onrealized wealth. _"

In the midst of many conflicting interests, and in the face ofremonstrances, protests, and prayers from every trade and profession, Congress proceeded to work out the difficult question. As a result ofmost patient and careful investigation, Congress found itself able toreduce to the extent of one hundred millions of dollars per annum, thetaxation resting upon the shoulders of the American people. 

On the subject of finance and the national currency great diversity ofopinion existed among leading members of the Thirty-ninth Congress. Unanimity prevailed upon the opinion that the currency should sooneror later be subjected to suitable contraction, but there was diversityof sentiment as to the ways and means by which this result should beachieved without involving the country in commercial and financialdisaster. 

"I am for specie payments, " remarked Mr. Stevens, on one occasion, "when we can arrive at them without crushing the community to death. Iam for arriving at specie payments, and still allowing the business ofthe country to go on and thrive, and the people engaged in business topay the taxes which you impose on them. I say that there is not a manin the community who would not as soon have one dollar in greenbacksas one dollar in gold. No one expects to be paid in gold until ageneral resumption by the banks of specie payment; nobody now knowsany other currency than greenbacks, and, therefore, I am in favor ofkeeping that currency. In my judgment, we have not more circulationnow than the expanded business of the country requires. 

"This war has given an immense impulse to every thing. Whence thisprecipitation? We have barely got out of the war against the rebelsbefore we have a war made upon the business community, upon themanufacturing interests, and upon all others. "

"When this great Republican party was made up, " said Mr. Wentworth, "we, who were originally Democrats, took up a cross, and it was agreat cross. [Laughter. ] We were told that if we went into that thing, we should have to lay down at the feet of the irresponsiblepaper-money men. Now, I want to know of the gentleman distinctly, whether, if he could, he would resume specie payments to-morrow?"

"If, " replied Mr. Stevens, "I could have specie payment to-morrow, without deranging the business of the country, I would. If it wouldderange the business of the country to return to specie payment atonce, I would postpone it a little. I voted for the Legal-tender Bill;and I am glad I did so, for the country would not have survivedwithout it. "

"Would you compromise on a year?" asked Mr. Wentworth. 

"No, sir; nor on two years, " replied Mr. Stevens. "England did notresume specie payment the year after the wars with France. The Bank ofEngland issued paper money, but the Government had £14, 000, 000 in thestock of that bank to give it security, and the Government preventedit from resuming specie payment until it thought it best. Now, whenthat great war of twenty-five years was over, did England attempt, in1814 and 1815, to return to specie payment? They had afloat but£20, 000, 000, or $100, 000, 000, and they began with their one-poundnotes. In a few years they took their two-pound notes; afterward theytook their five-pound notes. But they never resumed full speciepayment until the latter part of the year 1822. Does my friend fromIllinois expect me to be wiser than the great men of England?"

"Does my friend from Pennsylvania deny, " asked Mr. Garfield, "that in1819 the law for resuming specie payment was passed, to go into effectgradually at first, and completely in 1823, and that the fullresumption of specie payment actually took place early in the Springof 1821--only about a year and three-quarters from the passage of thelaw?"

"Yes, " answered Mr. Stevens, "except in very large sums. The lawauthorized them to go on until the first of January, 1823. "

"But they resumed in 1821, about a year and three-quarters earlier, "said Mr. Garfield. 

"About a year earlier, " said Mr. Stevens. "But the law did not passuntil four years after the war. Do gentlemen here expect, whenEngland, with almost all the commerce of the world at her command, wasunable to resume specie payments for eight years after the conclusionof her wars, and then did it by such gradual legislation that thereshould be no shock to the business of the country--do gentlemen expectthat we are to put it into the power of one man to compel theresumption of specie payments in a single year?"

"I want to know, " said Mr. Wentworth, "if the power, and thepatronage, and the influence of the great Republican party, so called, is to be used to deprive us of our natural standard of value. Now, Iwish, while we go together, to be perfectly honest. Nobody respectsthe talents of my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] more than Ido. He knows more than all of us put together. [Laughter. ] I want himto state to the House, fairly and candidly, whether, if we follow him, he will lead us to specie payment; or whether, if he could, he would. "

"I will say to my friend, " replied Mr. Stevens, "that in this case Ido not act as a member of the Republican party. "

"I have followed the gentlemen, " said Mr. Wentworth, "because Isupposed him to be a Republican leader. "

"If I believed, " said Mr. Stevens, "that we could resume speciepayments in a month without crushing the interests of the country, without injuring the laborer, without breaking down the manufacturer, without oppressing the people, without decreasing the revenues of theGovernment; if I had the power, I would order every bank in thecountry, State and national, and the Government also, to resume speciepayment. "

"Suppose McCulloch could do that, " said Mr. Wentworth, "and give allour boys their money at par. "

"If he could do it, I would give him great credit, " said Mr. Stevens. 

"I believe he can, " said Mr. Wentworth. 

"My friend is large, " said Mr. Stevens, "and has faith like two grainsof mustard-seed. "

Plans were devised, and ultimately carried through Congress, by whichthe great volume of paper currency should be gradually reduced at acertain fixed rate, so that the people might know how to calculate thefuture, and be enabled to provide against a commercial crash. 

The first measure designed to accomplish this result was popularlycalled the Loan Bill, which was amendatory of an act "to provide waysand means to support the Government. " When first considered, in March, 1866, it was defeated in the House. It was soon after brought up againin a modified form, and passed both the House and Senate by largemajorities. The act provided that the Secretary of the Treasury mightreceive treasury notes, or "other obligations issued under any act ofCongress, " in exchange for bonds. The contraction of the currency wasrestricted and limited by the provision that not more than tenmillions of dollars might be retired and canceled within six monthsfrom the passage of the act, and thereafter not more than fourmillions of dollars in any one month. 

A financial problem of great importance presented itself for solutionin the second session of the Thirty-ninth Congress. A large amount ofcompound-interest notes, weighed down with accrued interest, hadceased to float as currency, and lay in the vaults of the banks andthe coffers of capitalists, awaiting redemption. The question arose asto how they should be redeemed, and the nation saved the payment ofthe immense amounts of interest which must accumulate in course oftime. The House of Representatives proposed to pass an act authorizingand directing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue legal-tendernotes, without interest, not exceeding $100, 000, 000, in place of thecompound-interest bearing notes. 

To this proposition the Senate would not accede, and passed asubstitute which the House would not accept. A Committee of Conferencereported a modification of the Senate's substitute, which finallybecame a law, providing that, for the purpose of redeeming andretiring compound-interest notes, the Secretary of the Treasury shouldissue temporary loan certificates, to the amount of $50, 000, 000, at arate of interest not exceeding three per cent. Per annum. 

While the greater share of the attention of the Thirty-ninth Congresswas occupied with efforts to reconstruct the eleven States which hadforfeited their rights by rebellion, the Territories of Colorado andNebraska applied for admission to the Union. Congress voted to admitboth, but the President obstructed their entrance with his vetoes. Congress, on reconsideration, admitted Nebraska, the objections of thePresident to the contrary notwithstanding. Colorado was not sofortunate, since her people had been so unwise as to prejudice theircause by restricting the enjoyment of political rights by ingraftingthe word "white" into their fundamental law. By this mistake theyforfeited the favor of the "Radicals, " who refused to champion theircause against the President. Incidental to this, Congress ordainedthat political rights should not be restricted in the Territories onaccount of race or color. 

The manifest evils of unrestricted Executive patronage--the bane ofAmerican politics--early enlisted the efforts of the Thirty-ninthCongress to provide a remedy. A bill to regulate appointments to andremovals from office was introduced by Mr. Henderson into the Senatenear the close of the first session, and referred to the Committee onthe Judiciary, but never saw the light as an act of Congress. 

The President's power of removal and appointment having beenunsparingly used during the recess of Congress, the country becameconvinced that a remedy should be applied which would be effectual fortime to come. On the first day of the second session, Mr. Williamsbrought before the Senate a bill to "regulate the tenure of offices, "which was subsequently referred to the joint Committee onRetrenchment. On the 10th of December Mr. Edmunds, chairman of thiscommittee, reported the bill to the Senate, with amendments. Inbringing forward the measure, Mr. Edmunds asserted that they wereacting in no spirit of hostility to any party or administrationwhatever, but for "the true republican interest of the country underall administrations, and under the domination of all parties in thegrowth before the nation in the future. " After grave consideration andprotracted discussion in both houses of Congress, the bill was passednear the close of the session. On the 2d of March the bill encounteredthe veto of the President, who saw in the measure serious interferencewith the ability of the Executive to keep his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. The billwas immediately passed over the veto without debate. 

The act thus passed provides that officers appointed by and with theadvice and consent of the Senate shall hold their offices until theirsuccessors are in like manner appointed and qualified. Members of theCabinet hold their offices during the term of the President by whomthey are appointed, and for one month thereafter, subject to removalby consent of the Senate. 

CHAPTER XXIV. 

THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS. 

 The President's treatment of the South -- First Annual Message -- Mr. Sumner's Criticism -- The President triumphant -- He damages his Cause -- Humor of Mr. Stevens -- Vetoes overridden -- The Question submitted to the People -- Their Verdict -- Summary of Vetoes -- Impeachment -- Charges by Mr. Ashley -- Report of the Committee. 

The Thirty-ninth Congress is remarkable for having run its entirecareer with the constant opposition of the Executive obstructing itsprogress. In all representative governments, a contest between theexecutive and the legislative branches of the government has sooner orlater arisen, which has invariably ended in the defeat of the former. The hopelessness of the contest on the part of the executive, and thepertinacity with which it has been waged, have given it a mock-heroiccharacter. 

During the months which intervened between the death of AbrahamLincoln and the assembling of Congress, Andrew Johnson had ample timeto preöccupy the field and intrench himself against what he termed acoördinate branch "hanging on the verge of the Government. "

In June, 1865, delegates from the South were first admitted to privateinterviews with the President. On the 17th of June he issued hisproclamation providing for the restoration of civil government inGeorgia and Alabama, in which he excludes negroes from the category ofloyal citizens entitled to vote. The President soon after proceeded toappoint provisional governors for the Southern States--a step whichwas viewed with joy by the late rebels, and sorrow by the Union men ofthe North. The character of these appointments may be seen in asentiment uttered by Governor Perry soon after his elevation tooffice: "There is not now in the Southern States, " said he, "any onewho feels more bitterly the humiliation and degradation of going backinto the Union than I do. " Governor Perry saved himself from dismissalby assuring the people that the death of Mr. Lincoln was no loss tothe South, while he had every hope that Mr. Johnson, an oldslaveholding Democrat, would be an advantage. 

In Alabama, under the provisional government established by Mr. Johnson, the convention prohibited negroes from testifying in thecourts. Rebels throughout the South at once began to make theirarrangements for taking part in the government. In November, GovernorPerry made a public demand that when Congress met the Clerk of theHouse should place on the roll the names of Representatives from therebel States. 

When South Carolina hesitated to adopt the Constitutional Amendmentabolishing slavery, President Johnson assured the Governor that theclause giving Congress the power to enforce it by appropriatelegislation really limited congressional control over the negroquestion. After this assurance, South Carolina accepted theConstitutional Amendment. 

In August and September, 1865, Democratic conventions indorsed thePresident's policy, and Democratic papers began to praise him. Republicans were unwilling to believe that they had been deserted, andhoped that after the assembling of Congress all differences woulddisappear. 

The message of the President, read at the opening of the Thirty-ninthCongress, placed him in direct opposition to the leaders of theRepublican party, and at variance with his own policy. "A concessionof the elective franchise, " said he, "to the freedmen, by act of thePresident of the United States, must have been extended to all coloredmen, wherever found, and must have established a change of suffrage inthe Northern, Middle, and Western States, not less than in theSouthern and Southwestern. "

Every one could see that the President possessed as much power toadmit the black man to the right of suffrage in the rebel States as toappoint provisional governors over them. 

While Congress was in session, and actually employed in legislatingfor the restoration of the rebel States, Mr. Johnson substantiallydeclared that Congress had no control over the subject, by removingthe provisional governor of Alabama, and handing the State Governmentover to the officers elected by the people. 

The Senate having requested information from the President as to thecondition of the rebel States, the President, on the 20th of December, sent in a message which Mr. Sumner characterized as an attempt to"whitewash" the unhappy condition of the rebel States. The message ofthe President was accompanied by reports from General Grant andGeneral Schurz, in which Congress found evidence that the late rebelshad little sense of national obligation, and were chiefly anxious toregain political power, and compensate themselves for the loss ofslavery by keeping the negroes in abject servitude. 

The passage of the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, by a large majority inCongress, and its veto by the President, presents the next phase inthe contest. To Republicans the most alarming feature in the VetoMessage was the evidence it gave that the President was ready at onceto give to traitors who had fought fiercely for four years to destroythe Union an equal voice with loyal men in determining the terms ofits reconstruction. 

In this instance the President prevailed. The bill failed to pass overthe veto, from the fact that six Senators--Dixon, Doolittle, Morgan, Norton, Stewart, and Van Winkle--who had voted for the bill, now sidedwith the President. This was the first and last triumph of thePresident. 

Two days after, on the 22d of February, the President greatly damagedhis cause by denouncing a Senator and a Representative, and using theslang of the stump against the Secretary of the Senate in the midst ofan uproarious Washington mob. The people were mortified that theExecutive of the nation should have committed so serious anindiscretion. 

The incident received notice in Congress in a humorous speech ofThaddeus Stevens, who declared that the alleged speech could neverhave been delivered; that it was "a part of the cunning contrivance ofthe copperhead party, who have been persecuting our President;" thatit was "one of the grandest hoaxes ever perpetrated. "

Congress, now aware that it must achieve its greatest works oflegislation over the obstructing veto of the President, moved forwardwith caution and deliberation. Every measure was well weighed andcarefully matured, since, in order to win its way to the favor of atriumphant majority in Congress and the country, it must be as free aspossible from all objectionable features. 

Impartial suffrage, as provided in the District of Columbia SuffrageBill, being a subject upon which the people had not yet spoken, theSenate determined that it would be better not to risk the uncertaintyof passing the measure over the inevitable veto until the peopleshould have an opportunity of speaking at the ballot-box. 

The President applied his veto to the Civil Rights Bill and the secondFreedmen's Bureau Bill, but a majority of more than the requisitetwo-thirds placed these measures among the laws of the land. In theHouse of Representatives, Mr. Raymond was the only Republican memberwho voted to sustain the veto of the Civil Rights Bill. The temptationto be friends of the President, in order to aid him in thedistribution of patronage, was very great with members of Congress, and the wonder is that so many were able to reject it all, and adhereto principles against which the Executive brought to bear all hispower of opposition. 

On the adjournment of Congress in July, at the close of the firstsession, the contest was still continued, though in another arena. Members of Congress went to their several districts, submitted theirdoings to their constituents, and took counsel of the people. ThePresident also traversed the States from the Atlantic to theMississippi. He made numerous speeches, and endeavored to popularizehis policy. 

The people gave their verdict at the ballot-box in favor of Congress. The reëlection of Congress was the rejection of the President. Theruin of the President's fortunes was shared by his followers. Nogentleman ever entered the House of Representatives with more _eclat_than that with which Mr. Raymond took his seat as a member of theThirty-ninth Congress, but his constituents did not see proper toelect him for a second term. Delano and Stillwell, of the West, wereleft at home. Cowan, in the Senate, elected six years before as aRepublican, was superseded, and Doolittle was instructed by hisLegislature to resign. 

The message of the President at the opening of the second sessiondisplayed no disposition to yield to the people or to Congress. Hedeclared to a State delegation that waited on him that he was too oldto learn. 

One of the first acts of Congress after reässembling was to accept thesanction of the people for impartial suffrage, and pass the DistrictSuffrage Bill over the President's veto. The President deemed it dueto his consistency to return bills, with his "objections thereto inwriting, " to the very last. Among the last doings of the Thirty-ninthCongress was the passage of the Tenure-of-office Bill and the MilitaryReconstruction Bill over vetoes. In humiliating contrast with thecircumstances one year before, when the veto of the Freedmen's BureauBill prevailed, the veto of the Military Reconstruction Bill had butten supporters in the Senate. 

The following is a complete list of the bills vetoed by the Presidentduring the Thirty-ninth Congress, and of the bills which were passedover the veto, and those which became laws without the President'ssignature:

 FIRST SESSION. --To enlarge the powers of the Freedmen's Bureau; vetoed February 19, 1866. 

 To protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication; vetoed; and passed, April 9, 1866, over veto. 

 For the admission of the State of Colorado into the Union; vetoed May, 1866. 

 To enable the Montana and New York Iron Mining and Manufacturing Company to purchase a certain amount of the public lands not now in market; vetoed June, 1866. 

 To continue in force and to amend an act entitled "an act to establish a bureau for the relief of freedmen and refugees, and for other purposes;" vetoed; passed, July 16, 1866, over veto. 

 For the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union; not signed; failed through the adjournment of Congress. 

 * * * * *

 SECOND SESSION. --To regulate the elective franchise in the District of Columbia; vetoed; passed, January 8, 1867, over veto. 

 To admit the State of Colorado into the Union; vetoed January 18, 1867. 

 For the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union; vetoed; passed, February 9, 1867, over veto. 

 To provide for the more efficient government of the insurrectionary States; vetoed; passed, March 2, 1867, over veto. 

 To regulate the tenure of office; vetoed; passed, March 2, 1867, over veto. 

 * * * * *

 _Bills which became laws without the President's signature, the constitutional limit of ten days having expired without their return:_

 To repeal section 13 of "an act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes, " approved July 17, 1862; became a law January 22, 1867. 

 To regulate the franchise in the Territories of the United States; became a law January 31, 1867. 

 To regulate the duties of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in preparing for the organization of the House, and for other purposes; became a law February 20, 1867. 

 To declare the sense of an act entitled "an act to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and to provide for the payment of certain demands for quartermasters' stores and subsistence supplies furnished to the army of the United States;" became a law February 22; 1867. 

 * * * * *

 RECAPITULATION. --Vetoes, 10; pocket vetoes, 1; laws passed over vetoes, 6; vetoes sustained, 4; became laws without signature, 4. 

As President Johnson proceeded in his career of opposition to thelegislative branch of the Government, the conviction fastened upon theminds of some that he was guilty of crimes rendering him liable toimpeachment. On the 7th of January, 1867, Hon. James M. Ashley, ofOhio, brought before the House of Representatives articles ofimpeachment, as follows:

 "I do impeach Andrew Johnson, Vice-President and acting President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. 

 "I charge him with a usurpation of power and violation of law:

 "In that he has corruptly used the appointing power;

 "In that he has corruptly used the pardoning power;

 "In that he has corruptly used the veto power;

 "In that he has corruptly disposed of public property of the United States;

 "In that he has corruptly interfered in elections, and committed acts which, in contemplation of the Constitution, are high crimes and misdemeanors; Therefore, "_Be it resolved_, That the Committee on the Judiciary be, and they are hereby, authorized to inquire into the official conduct of Andrew Johnson, Vice-President of the United States, discharging the powers and duties of the office of President of the United States, and to report to this House whether, in their opinion, the said Andrew Johnson, while in said office, has been guilty of acts which are designed or calculated to overthrow, subvert, or corrupt the Government of the United States, or any department or office thereof; and whether the said Andrew Johnson has been guilty of any act, or has conspired with others to do acts, which, in contemplation of the Constitution, are high crimes and misdemeanors, requiring the interposition of the constitutional power of this House; and that said committee have power to send for persons and papers, and to administer the customary oath to witnesses. "

This resolution was adopted by a vote of one hundred and eight tothirty-eight. 

[Illustration: Hon. James M. Ashley. ]

Near the close of the session, the Committee on the Judiciary, havingin charge the question of impeachment, made a report. The condition inwhich the subject was left by the Thirty-ninth Congress will be seenfrom the following extract:

 "The duty imposed upon the committee by this action of the House was of the highest and gravest character. No committee, during the entire history of the Government, has ever been charged with a more important trust. The responsibility which it imposed was of oppressive weight and of most unpleasant nature. Gladly would the committee have escaped from the arduous labor imposed upon it by the resolution of the House; but once imposed, prompt, deliberate, and faithful action, with a view to correct results, became its duty, and to this end it has directed its efforts. 

 "Soon after the adoption of the resolution by the House, the Hon. James M. Ashley communicated to the committee, in support of his charges against the President of the United States, such facts as were in his possession, and the investigation was proceeded with, and has been continued almost without a day's interruption. A large number of witnesses have been examined, many documents collected, and every thing done which could be done to reach a conclusion of the case. But the investigation covers a broad field, embraces many novel, interesting, and important questions, and involves a multitude of facts, while most of the witnesses are distant from the capital, owing to which, the committee, in view of the magnitude of the interests involved in its action, has not been able to conclude its labors, and is not, therefore, prepared to submit a definite and final report. If the investigation had even approached completeness, the committee would not feel authorized to present the result to the House at this late period of the session, unless the charge had been so entirely negatived as to admit of no discussion, which, in the opinion of the committee, is not the case. Certainly, no affirmative report could be properly considered in the expiring hours of this Congress. 

 "The committee, not having fully investigated all the charges preferred against the President of the United States, it is deemed inexpedient to submit any conclusion beyond the statement that sufficient testimony has been brought to its notice to justify and demand a further prosecution of the investigation. 

 "The testimony which the committee has taken will pass into the custody of the Clerk of the House, and can go into the hands of such committee as may be charged with the duty of bringing this investigation to a close, so that the labor expended upon it may not have been in vain. 

 "The committee regrets its inability definitely to dispose of the important subject committed to its charge, and presents this report for its own justification, and for the additional purpose of notifying the succeeding Congress of the incompleteness of its labors, and that they should be completed. "

With the acceptance of this report, the impeachment was at an end sofar as the action of the Thirty-ninth Congress was concerned. Thesubject was handed over to the consideration of the Fortieth Congress. 

CHAPTER XXV. 

PERSONAL. 

 Contested Seats -- Mr. Stockton votes for Himself -- New Jersey's loss of two Senators -- Losses of Vermont -- Suicide of James H. Lane -- Death in the House -- General Scott -- Lincoln's Eulogy and Statue -- Mr. Sumner on Fine Arts in the Capitol -- Censure of Mr. Chanler -- Petition for the expulsion of Garret Davis -- Grinnell assaulted by Rousseau -- The Action of the House -- Leader of the House. 

Matters of interest relating to the members of the Thirty-ninthCongress remain to be noticed. Some names of members appear in theopening scenes of Congress which were substituted by others before theclose. This was occasioned partly through successful contests forseats by persons who, after an investigation of their claims, weredeclared to have been legally elected, but failed, through fraud ormistake, to receive their credentials. The right of Mr. Voorhees, ofIndiana, to a seat in the Thirty-ninth Congress was contested by HenryD. Washburn. The testimony in this case was laid before the Committeeon Elections early in the session, and after patient hearing of theparties and careful consideration of the subject, the committeereported in favor of Mr. Washburn and unseated Mr. Voorhees. 

The seat in Congress taken at the opening of the session by JamesBrooks, of New York, was decided by the committee, after considerationof the claims of the contestant, to belong to William E. Dodge, amerchant of New York city. 

The right of John P. Stockton, of New Jersey, to a seat in the Senatehaving been disputed on account of irregularity in his election, theSenate came to a vote on the question, after considerable discussion, on the 23d of March, 1866. Mr. Stockton was declared entitled to hisplace by the close vote of 22 to 21, he giving the decisive vote infavor of himself. There arose a very exciting debate as to the rightof a Senator to vote for himself under such circumstances. Mr. Stockton finally yielded to the arguments against his right to sit injudgment on his own case, and he was unseated March 27th by a vote of22 to 21. For a time the seat thus vacated, to which New Jersey wasentitled in the Senate, remained unoccupied on account of the refusalof the Republican Speaker of the New Jersey Senate to give his vote infavor of the nominee of the Union caucus, Mr. Cattell. On account ofthe nearly equal balance of the parties, the choice was long deferred, but eventually made in favor of Mr. Cattell. The other seat held byNew Jersey in the Senate was practically vacant for a considerabletime on account of the illness of its incumbent, Mr. William Wright, who consequently resigned and eventually died before the expiration ofthe Thirty-ninth Congress. 

Other seats in Congress were vacated by death. Of all the States, Vermont suffered most severely in this respect. A part of theproceedings of the Thirty-ninth Congress consists of funeral addressesand eulogies upon Judge Collamer, a distinguished Senator fromVermont, whose term of service, had he lived, would have expired withthe close of this Congress. He died, lamented by the nation, on the8th of November, 1865. One who took a prominent part in the funeralobsequies of Mr. Collamer was Solomon Foot, the surviving Senator fromVermont. A man termed, from his length of service, "the father of theSenate, " long its presiding officer, of purest morals, incorruptibleintegrity, and faithful industry, he died universally lamented on the28th of March, 1866. Mr. Foot's death created a profound impression, since it exhibited, in a most remarkable manner, the effect ofChristianity in affording its possessor a happy close of life. 

The death of another Senator stands forth in striking contrast withthat of Mr. Foot. On the first of July, 1866, Senator James H. Laneshot himself at Leavenworth, Kansas. While on his way home fromWashington, when at St. Louis, he had intimated a determination tocommit suicide. His friends watched him closely, and obtainedpossession of his pocket-knife lest he might use it for the fatalpurpose. Mr. Lane having reached Leavenworth, two of his friendsinvited him to ride with them on Sabbath afternoon. After getting intothe carriage, he expressed a desire to return to his room for hiscane, refusing to allow any one to go for him. Mr. Lane havingreturned with his cane, they drove to the heights overlooking thecity. He entered cheerfully into the conversation, remarking upon thebeauty of the city and landscape. On returning, they had to passthrough a gate that separated two fields. One of the gentlemenalighted to open the gate. At the same time Mr. Lane stepped down fromthe carriage, and, passing around behind it, said, "Good-by, gentlemen, " and instantly discharged a pistol with its muzzle in hismouth. The ball passed out at the top of his head, near the center ofthe skull, producing a fatal wound. The unhappy man lingered for a fewdays in a state of unconsciousness and died. Thus ended the stirring, troubled life of one who as a politician had occupied noinconsiderable space in the public eye. 

A number of seats in the House of Representatives were vacated bydeath. James Humphrey, an able and honored member from New York, diedin Brooklyn on the 16th of June, 1866. During the second session ofthe Thirty-ninth Congress, two members of the House of Representativeswere removed by death--Philip Johnson, of Pennsylvania, in his thirdterm of Congressional service, and Henry Grider, of Kentucky, aveteran member, who, having served in Congress from 1843 to 1847, wasmore recently a member of the Thirty-seventh, Thirty-eighth, andThirty-ninth Congresses. 

Congress was called upon to pay funeral honors to others than itsmembers. The death of General Scott, so long the illustrious chief ofthe military establishment of the nation, was regarded with duesolemnity and honor by Congress, who deputized a large committee toattend the funeral obsequies at West Point. An equestrian statue ofthe distinguished General was voted by Congress to adorn the publicgrounds of the national capital. 

The name of Abraham Lincoln, the nation's martyred President, wasalways pronounced with profoundest respect and sincerest gratitude inthe halls of Congress. His birthday, February 12th, was celebrated bythe adjournment of Congress, and such an assembly as the hall ofRepresentatives has rarely witnessed, to hear a eulogy pronounced byMr. Bancroft, the American historian. An appropriation of ten thousanddollars was made to pay a young artist, Miss Minnie Ream, to model astatue of Abraham Lincoln. This proposition elicited an animateddiscussion, and was the occasion of a most interesting address by Mr. Sumner on Art in the Capitol. "Surely this edifice, " said he, "sobeautiful and interesting, should not be opened to the experiments ofuntried talent. Only the finished artists should be invited to itsornamentation. 

"Sir, I doubt if you consider enough the character of this edifice inwhich we are now assembled. Possessing the advantage of anincomparable situation, it is one of the first-class structures in theworld. Surrounded by an amphitheater of hills, with the Potomac at itsfeet, it resembles the capitol in Rome, surrounded by the Alban hills, with the Tiber at its feet. But the situation is grander than that ofthe Roman capitol. The edifice itself is worthy of the situation. Ithas beauty of form and sublimity in proportions, even if it lacksoriginality in conception. In itself it is a work of art. It ought notto receive in the way of ornamentation any thing which is not a workof art. Unhappily this rule has not always prevailed, or there wouldnot be so few pictures and marbles about us worthy of the place theyoccupy. But bad pictures and ordinary marbles should warn us againstadding to their number. "

Perhaps no Congress in the history of the country presents fewerdisagreeable incidents of a personal nature than this. The Democratsin Congress being in such a small minority as to be unable to _do_ anything effectual either to impede or advance legislation, could onlypresent their vain protests in words. Chafing under the difficultiesthey encountered, it is not surprising that at times they usedlanguage so ill-timed and unparliamentary as to call forth the censureof the House. 

On one occasion, Mr. Chanler, of New York, submitted a resolution"that the independent, patriotic, and constitutional course of thePresident of the United States, in seeking to protect, by the vetopower, the rights of the people of this Union against the wicked andrevolutionary acts of a few malignant and mischievous men meets withthe approval of this House, and deserves the cordial support of allloyal citizens of the United States. "

For introducing this resolution, the House voted to censure Mr. Chanler as having "attempted a gross insult to the House. "

Before the vote was taken, Mr. Chanler said: "If by my defiance Icould drive your party from this hall, I would do so; if by my vote Icould crush you, I would do so, and put the whole party, with yourleader, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens], into thatpolitical hell surrounded by bayonets referred to by him in hisargument on Thursday last. "

In the Senate a petition was presented from citizens of New Yorkpraying that Garret Davis be expelled from the Senate, and, "withother traitors, held to answer to the law for his crime, since hestood in the attitude of an avowed enemy of the Government"--since hehad made the declaration in reference to the Civil Rights Bill "thatif the bill should become a law, he should feel compelled to regardhimself as an enemy of the Government, and to work for its overthrow. "

"It is true, " replied Mr. Davis, "that I used in substance the wordsthat are imputed to me in that petition; but, as a part of theircontext, I used a great many more. As an example of garbling, thepetition reminds me of a specimen that I heard when I was a young man. It was to this effect: 'The Bible teaches "that there is no God. "'When those words were read in connection with the context, the passageread in about these terms: 'The fool hath said in his heart that thereis no God. ' That specimen of the Bible was about as fair as thisgarbled statement is of what I said upon the matter to which itrefers. "

The most serious subject coming up for the censure of the House was anassault made by Mr. Rousseau, of Kentucky, upon Mr. Grinnell, of Iowa. In many of its features this incident resembles the "affairs" of apersonal character which were of frequent occurrence when Southernmembers were in Congress before the war. In February, 1866, Mr. Rousseau, in the course of a speech on the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, made the remark, "If you intend to arrest white people on the _exparte_ statement of negroes, and hold them to suit your conveniencefor trial, and fine and imprison them, then I say that I oppose you;and if you should so arrest and punish me, I would kill you when youset me at liberty. "

To this Mr. Grinnell replied, "I care not whether the gentleman wasfour years in the war on the Union side or four years on the otherside, but I say that he degraded his State and uttered a sentiment Ithought unworthy of an American officer when he said that he would dosuch an act on the complaint of a negro against him. "

To this Mr. Rousseau, on the following day, replied: "I pronounce theassertion that I have degraded my State and uttered a sentimentunworthy an American officer to be false, a vile slander, and unworthyto be uttered by any gentleman upon this floor. "

Some months after this, Mr. Rousseau, in a public speech delivered inNew York city, denounced Mr. Grinnell as a "pitiable politician fromIowa. " In a speech made in the House on the 11th of June, Mr. Rousseausaid of Mr. Grinnell: "I do not suppose that any member of this Housebelieved a word he said. When a member can so far depart from whatevery body believes he ought to know and does know is the truth, it isa degradation, not to his State, but to himself. "

"When any man, " replied Mr. Grinnell--"I care not whether he standssix feet high, whether he wears buff and carries the air of a certainbird that has a more than usual extremity of tail, wanting in theother extremity--says that he would not believe what I utter, I willsay that I was never born to stand under an imputation of that sort. 

"The gentleman begins courting sympathy by sustaining the President ofthe United States preparatory to his assault upon me. Now, sir, if heis a defender of the President of the United States, all I have to sayis, God save the President from such an incoherent, brainlessdefender, equal in valor in civil and in military life. His militaryrecord--who has read it? In what volume of history is it found?"

Mr. Rousseau determined to resent the insult which he conceived to beoffered him in this speech by inflicting a bodily chastisement uponMr. Grinnell. On the morning of June 14th, Mr. Rousseau informed amilitary friend of his purpose of flogging Mr. Grinnell. The person soinformed procured a pistol and waited in the capitol until the closeof the day's session, in order to be present at the flogging and see"fair play. " Two other friends of Mr. Rousseau, also armed withpistols, happened to be present when the scene transpired. While Mr. Grinnell was passing from the House through the east portico of thecapitol, he was met by Mr. Rousseau, who, in an excited manner, said, "I have waited four days for an apology for words spoken here uponthis floor. "

"What of that?" asked Mr. Grinnell. 

"I will teach you what of that, " said Mr. Rousseau, who then proceededto strike Mr. Grinnell about the head and shoulders with a rattan, stopping occasionally to lecture him, and saying, "Now, you d----dpuppy and poltroon, look at yourself. "

After receiving half a dozen blows, Mr. Grinnell exclaimed, "I don'twant to hurt you. "

"I don't expect you to hurt me, you d----d scoundrel, " said Mr. Rousseau, "but you tried to injure me upon the floor of the House. Andnow look at yourself; whipped here; whipped like a dog, disgraced anddegraded! Where are your one hundred and twenty-seven thousandconstituents now?"

A committee was appointed to investigate this disgraceful affair. Injust one month after the transaction, a report was presented, signedby Messrs. Spalding, Banks, and Thayer, stating the facts in the case, and recommending the expulsion of Mr. Rousseau. They also proposed aresolution to express disapproval of the reflections made by Mr. Grinnell upon the character of Mr. Rousseau. The "views of theminority" were also presented by Messrs. Raymond and Hogan. Theyrecommended that the punishment of Mr. Rousseau should be a publicreprimand by the Speaker. After protracted discussion, the House cameto a final decision. The motion to expel, requiring two-thirds, failedby a few votes. The motion by which the Speaker was directed topublicly reprimand Mr. Rousseau was carried by a vote of 89 to 30. There were not enough in favor of the motion to disapprove of Mr. Grinnell's remarks to call the ayes and noes. Mr. Rousseau endeavoredto evade the execution of the sentence by sending his resignation tothe Governor of Kentucky. The House declared that a member could notdissolve his connection with the body under such circumstances, without its consent. On the 21st of July, the execution of the orderwas of the House having been demanded, Mr. Rousseau appeared at thebar, when the Speaker said, "General Rousseau, the House ofRepresentatives have declared you guilty of a violation of its rightsand privileges in a premeditated personal assault upon a member forwords spoken in debate. This condemnation they have placed on theirjournal, and have ordered that you shall be publicly reprimanded bythe Speaker at the bar of the House. No words of mine can add to theforce of this order, in obedience to which I now pronounce upon youits reprimand. "

Early in the second session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, aninteresting case came up relating to the privileges and immunities ofa member of Congress. Charles V. Culver, Representative of theTwentieth District of Pennsylvania, having been engaged veryextensively in banking, made a failure in business. In June, 1866, during the session of Congress, one of his creditors caused his arrestupon a contract for the return of certain bonds and notes alleged tohave been lent to him, charging that the debt incurred thereby wasfraudulently contracted by Culver. In default of required security, Mr. Culver was committed to jail, where he remained until the 18th ofDecember. Mr. Culver claimed his immunity as a member of Congress, under the clause of the Constitution which provides that Senators andRepresentatives "shall in all cases, except treason, felony, andbreach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendanceat the sessions of their respective houses, and in going to andreturning from the same. " The judge decided that the offense fellunder the constitutional exception, and was to be regarded as a"breach of the peace. " From this remarkable decision an appeal wasmade to the House of Representatives itself, as "the highest court ofthe nation, and depository of its supreme authority. " The case wasreferred to the Judiciary Committee, who reported a resolution, unanimously adopted by the House, directing the Speaker to issue hiswarrant to the Sergeant-at-Arms, commanding him to deliver forthwithCharles V. Culver from the custody of the sheriff and jailor ofVenango County, and make return to the House of the warrant, and themanner in which he may have executed the same. The Sergeant-at-Armsproceeded immediately to execute the order of the House, and in ashort time the Speaker announced that Mr. Culver was unrestrained inhis seat as a member of the Thirty-ninth Congress. 

Among the numerous distinguished men who constituted the Thirty-ninthCongress, no one towered so conspicuously above the rest as to beuniversally recognized and followed as the "leader. " This title hasbeen frequently applied to Thaddeus Stevens. He was in many respectsthe most prominent figure in the Thirty-ninth Congress. His age, hislong fidelity to the principles of the Republican party, hisuncompromising spirit, and his force of character made him aconspicuous and influential member of the House, but did not cause himto be generally recognized or implicitly followed as a leader. 

In so large a legislative body, composed of so many men of independentthought and action, acknowledging no parliamentary leader, it isremarkable that the wheels of legislation should run so smoothly, andthat after all the disagreement in discussion, great results should beat last so harmoniously wrought out. This is partly due to thepatriotic spirit which pervaded the minds of its members, inducingthem to lay aside minor differences of opinion for the good of thatcommon country for which their constituents had lately made suchtremendous sacrifice. The result is also owing to the parliamentaryability and tact of him who sat patiently and faithfully as Speaker ofthe House. Deprived by his position of opportunity of taking part inthe discussions, which his genius and experience fitted him toillustrate, he nevertheless did much to direct the current oflegislation which flowed smoothly or turbidly before him. Theresolution of thanks to the Speaker, moved by a member of theminority, and passed unanimously by the House, was no unmeaningcompliment, but was an honor fairly earned and justly paid. 

The labor of presiding over the Senate--a much lighter task, owing tothe smaller number which composed the body--was faithfully performedby Mr. Foster. His remarks to the Senate on retiring from the chair asPresident _pro tempore_, and closing a career of twelve years as amember of the body, were most beautiful and impressive. 

Benjamin F. Wade, "a Senator from Ohio, " having been duly electedPresident _pro tempore_ of the Senate, took the "iron-clad oath" andassumed his seat as acting Vice-President of the United States withoutostentation or remark. 

At twelve o'clock noon of March 4, 1867, the Thirty-ninth Congressclosed its existence, handing over its great enactments to thecountry, and its unfinished business to its successor, whichimmediately came into life. 

BIOGRAPHICAL INDEX OF THE THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS. 

(The numbers appended to the following sketches refer to precedingpages of the book. )

[The names of Republicans are printed in ROMAN; of Democrats in_ITALICS_. ]

JOHN B. ALLEY was born in Lynn, Massachusetts, January 7, 1817. Havinglearned the art of shoemaking, he devoted himself to the shoe andleather trade. After having served several years in the City Councilof Lynn, he was chosen a member of the Governor's Council in 1851. Hewas a member of the Massachusetts Senate in 1852, and of the StateConstitutional Convention held in the following year. In 1858 he waselected a Representative in Congress from Massachusetts. He enteredupon his fourth Congressional term in 1865 as a member of theThirty-Ninth Congress; and was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress byGeneral Butler. 

WILLIAM B. ALLISON was born in Wayne County, Ohio, March 2, 1829. Hewas educated at Alleghany College, Pennsylvania, and at WesternReserve College, Ohio. From 1851 to 1857 he practiced law in Ohio, andsubsequently settled in Dubuque, Iowa. He was a member of the ChicagoConvention of 1860. As a member of the Governor's staff; in 1861, herendered efficient service in raising troops for the war. In 1862 hewas elected a Representative in the Thirty-Eighth Congress, from Ohio. He was re-elected in 1864, and again in 1866. --527. 

OAKES AMES was born in Easton, Massachusetts, January 10, 1804. He hasdevoted most of his life to the business of manufacturing, taking butlittle public part in politics. Having served for two years as amember of the Executive Council of his State, he was, in 1862, 1864, and 1866, elected a Representative in Congress, from Massachusetts. --31. 

_SYDENHAM E. ANCONA_ was born in Warwick, Pennsylvania, November 20, 1824. Removing to Berks County, he was, for a number of years, connected with the Reading Railroad Company. In 1860 he was elected aRepresentative to the Thirty-Seventh Congress from Pennsylvania, andwas subsequently returned to the Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-NinthCongresses. He was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by _J. LawrenceGetz_. 

GEORGE W. ANDERSON was born in Tennessee, May 22, 1832. Havingreceived a liberal education, he adopted the profession of law. In1853 he settled in Missouri, where he soon after became editor of the"North-East Missourian. " In 1858 he was elected to the StateLegislature. In 1862 he was chosen a State Senator, and served as suchuntil he was elected a Representative from Missouri to theThirty-Ninth Congress. He was re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. 

HENRY B. ANTHONY was born of Quaker ancestry, at Coventry, RhodeIsland, April 1, 1815. He graduated at Brown University in 1833. Hebecame editor of the "Providence Journal" in 1838. He was chosenGovernor of Rhode Island in 1849, and served two terms. In 1859 he waselected a Senator in Congress from Rhode Island, and was subsequentlyre-elected for a second term, which ends in 1871. --36, 37, 487, 488, 497. 

SAMUEL M. ARNELL was born in Maury County, Tennessee, May 3, 1834. Hestudied at Amherst College, Massachusetts, and adopted the professionof law, which he practiced in Columbia, Tennessee. In April, 1865, hewas elected a member of the Legislature of Tennessee, and in thefollowing August was elected a Representative in Congress. TheTennessee delegation not being admitted at the opening of theThirty-Ninth Congress, he continued to hold his seat in theLegislature. He was the author of the Franchise Law, which became apart of the Constitution of Tennessee, and of the Civil Rights Bill ofTennessee. He took his seat as a member of the Thirty-Ninth Congressat the opening of its second session, and was re-elected to theFortieth Congress. 

DELOS R. ASHLEY studied and practiced the profession of law in Monroe, Michigan. In 1849 he removed to California, where he was electedDistrict Attorney in 1851. He was elected to the Assembly in 1854, andto the State Senate in 1856. He subsequently held the office ofTreasurer of State. Having removed to Nevada in 1864, he was electedthe Representative from that State to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, andwas re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. 

JAMES M. ASHLEY was born in Pennsylvania, November 14, 1824. He spentseveral years of his early life in a printing-office, and was sometime a clerk on Ohio and Mississippi steamboats. He studied law, andwas admitted to the bar in 1849, but immediately engaged in thebusiness of boat-building. He subsequently went into the wholesaledrug business in Toledo. In 1858 he was elected a Representative fromOhio to the Thirty-Sixth Congress, and has been a member of everysucceeding Congress, including the Fortieth. --306, 503, 513, 515, 525, 566. 

JEHU BAKER was born in Fayette County, Kentucky, November 4, 1822. Hereceived a good education, and entered the profession of law. Havingsettled in Illinois, he was, in 1864, elected a Representative fromthat State to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected in1866. --340, 560. 

JOHN D. BALDWIN was born in North Stonington, Connecticut, September28, 1810. He graduated at Yale College. Having studied law, and gonethrough a course of theological studies, he published a volume ofpoems, and became connected with the press, first in Hartford, andthen in Boston, where he was editor of the "Daily Commonwealth. " Hesubsequently became proprietor of the "Worcester Spy. " In 1860 he wasa delegate to the Chicago Convention. In 1862 he was elected aRepresentative in Congress from Massachusetts, and was re-elected in1864 and 1866. 

NATHANIEL P. BANKS was born in Waltham, Massachusetts, January 30, 1816. His parents, being poor, could afford him no advantages ofeducation save those of the common school. He was editor of anewspaper first in Waltham and then in Lowell. He studied law, but didnot practice. In 1848 he was elected to the Legislature. He served inboth Houses, and officiated part of the time as Speaker. He wasPresident of the Convention, held in 1853, for revising theConstitution of Massachusetts. From 1853 to 1857 he was aRepresentative in Congress. During his second term in Congress he heldthe office of Speaker of the House, with unsurpassed acceptability andsuccess. In 1857 he was elected Governor of Massachusetts, and heldthe office for three successive terms. During the late rebellion heserved as a Major-General of Volunteers. In 1865 he was elected amember of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected in 1866. --25, 31, 445, 524, 525, 539, 553. 

ABRAHAM A. BARKER was born in Lovell, Maine, March 30, 1816. Hereceived a common-school education, and engaged in agriculturalpursuits. He was an early and earnest advocate of temperance andanti-slavery. In 1854 he removed to Pennsylvania, and entered upon thelumber business and mercantile pursuits. In 1860 he was a delegate tothe Chicago Convention. In 1864 he was elected to represent theSeventeenth District of Pennsylvania in the Thirty-Ninth Congress. Hewas succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by Daniel J. Morrell. 

PORTUS BAXTER was born in Brownington, Vermont. He received a liberaleducation, and engaged in mercantile and agricultural pursuits. In1852 and 1856 he was a Presidential Elector. In 1860 he was elected aRepresentative from Vermont to the Thirty-Seventh Congress, and wasre-elected to the Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-Ninth Congresses. He wassucceeded in the Fortieth Congress by Worthington C. Smith. 

FERNANDO C. BEAMAN was born in Chester, Vermont, June 28, 1814, andwas removed in boyhood to New York. He received an English educationat the Franklin County Academy, and studied law in Rochester. In 1838he removed to Michigan, and engaged in the practice of his profession. He served six years as Prosecuting Attorney for the county of Lenawee, and four years as Judge of Probate. In 1856 he was a PresidentialElector. In 1860 he was elected a Representative from Michigan to theThirty-Seventh Congress, and was successively re-elected to theThirty-Eighth, Thirty-Ninth, and Fortieth Congresses. --447. 

JOHN F. BENJAMIN was born in Cicero, New York, January 23, 1817. Afterhaving spent three years in Texas, he settled in Missouri, in 1848, and engaged in the practice of law. He was a member of the MissouriLegislature in 1851 and 1852, and was a Presidential Elector in 1856. He entered the Missouri Cavalry as a private, in 1861, and by a seriesof promotions reached the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. He resigned toaccept the appointment of Provost-Marshal for the Eighth District ofMissouri. He was a delegate to the Baltimore Convention of 1864, andwas the same year elected a Representative from Missouri to theThirty-Ninth Congress, and in 1866 was re-elected. --366. 

_TEUNIS G. BERGEN_ was born in Brooklyn, New York, October 6. 1806, Hereceived an academical education at Flatbush, and engaged in surveyingand horticulture. He served the town of New Utrecht as supervisor fortwenty-three years. He was a member of the State ConstitutionalConvention of 1846. In 1860 he was a member of the DemocraticConventions of Charleston and Baltimore. In 1864 he was elected aRepresentative from New York to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. At theclose of his Congressional term he was elected a member of the NewYork Constitutional Convention of 1867. He was succeeded in theFortieth Congress by _Demas Barnes_. 

JOHN BIDWELL was born in Chautauqua county, N. Y. , August 5, 1819. In1829 he removed with his father to Erie, Pennsylvania, and two yearsafter to Ashtabula county, Ohio, where, through his own exertions heobtained an academical education. In 1838 he taught school in DarkeCounty, Ohio, and subsequently taught two years in Missouri. In 1841he emigrated to California, one of the first adventurers on the wildoverland route. At the breaking out of the war with Mexico, he enteredthe service of the United States as a private, and reached the rank ofMajor. He was among the first who discovered gold on Feather River in1848. In 1849 he was elected to the State Constitutional Convention, and to the Senate of the first Legislature of California. In 1860 hewas a delegate to the Charleston Convention, and refused to sanctionthe secession movement there made. In 1863 he was appointed BrigadierGeneral of California militia, when it was necessary to organize inorder to preserve the peace of the State. In 1864 he was a member ofthe Baltimore Convention, which renominated Lincoln. The same year hewas elected a Representative from California to the Thirty-NinthCongress. He was not a candidate for re-election to Congress, sincenearly all the papers in the State had hoisted his name as candidatefor Governor. He failed, however, to receive the nomination for thatoffice by the Republican Convention. He was succeeded in the FortiethCongress by _James A. Johnson_. --31. 

JOHN A. BINGHAM was born in Pennsylvania in 1815. Having received anacademical education, and spending two years in a printing-office, heentered Franklin College, in Ohio, but owing to ill-health, did notprosecute his studies to graduation. He was admitted to the bar in1840, and from 1845 to 1849 he was Prosecuting Attorney for the countyof Tuscarawas. In 1854 he was elected a Representative from Ohio tothe Thirty-Fourth Congress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Fifth, Thirty-Sixth, and Thirty-Seventh Congresses. In 1864 he was appointeda Judge-Advocate in the Army, and Solicitor of the Court of Claims. Hewas Assistant Judge-Advocate in the trial of the AssassinationConspirators, in May, 1865. In 1865 he took his seat for his fifthterm of service in Congress and was re-elected to the FortiethCongress--25, 67, 237, 285, 319, 357, 434, 448, 474, 475, 505, 520, 526, 537. 

JAMES G. BLAINE was born in Washington County, Pennsylvania, in 1830. After graduating at Washington College, 1847, he removed to Maine andbecame editor of the "Kennebec Journal, " and "Portland Advertiser". Hewas four years a member of the Maine Legislature, and served two yearsas Speaker of the House. In 1862 he was elected a Representative fromMaine to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was successively re-electedto the Thirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. --333, 437, 527, 528, 536. 

HENRY T. BLOW was born in Southampton county, Virginia, July 15, 1817. In 1830 he removed to Missouri, and goon after graduated at the St. Louis University. He engaged extensively in the drug and leadbusiness. He served four years in the Senate of Missouri. In 1861 hewas appointed by President Lincoln Minister to Venezuela, but resignedthe position before the expiration of a year. In 1862 he was elected aRepresentative from Missouri to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and wasre-elected to the Thirty-Ninth. He was succeeded in the FortiethCongress by Carman A. Newcomb. 

GEORGE S. BOUTWELL was born in Brookline, Massachusetts, January 28, 1818, and removed to Groton in 1835. He was engaged in mercantilebusiness as clerk and proprietor for several years, and subsequentlyentered the profession of the law. From 1842 to 1850 he was a memberof the Massachusetts House of Representatives. In 1849 and 1850 he wasBank Commissioner. In 1851 he was elected Governor of Massachusetts, and served two terms. He was a member of the MassachusettsConstitutional Convention of 1853. He was eleven years a member andSecretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, and ten years amember of the Board of Overseers of Harvard College. He was appointedCommissioner of the Internal Revenue, in July, 1862, and organized theRevenue system. In 1863 he took his seat as a Representative inCongress from Massachusetts, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninthand Fortieth Congresses. He is the author of a "Manual of the SchoolSystem, and School Laws of Massachusetts, " "Educational Topics andInstitutions, " "A Manual of the Revenue System, " and a volume justpublished, entitled "Speeches on Reconstruction. "--31, 91, 442, 475, 526, 528, 536, 553. 

_BENJAMIN M. BOYER_ was born in Montgomery county, Pennsylvania, January 22, 1823. He graduated at the University of Pennsylvania, andadopted the profession of law. In 1848 he was elected DistrictAttorney for the county of Montgomery. In 1864 he was elected aRepresentative from Pennsylvania to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and wasre-elected to the Fortieth Congress. --54, 438. 

ALLEN A. BRADFORD was born in Friendship, Maine, July 23, 1815. In1841 he emigrated to Missouri, where he was admitted to the bar in1843. He held the office of Clerk of the Circuit Court of AtchinsonCounty, and subsequently removed to Iowa, where he was appointed Judgeof the Sixth Judicial Circuit. Resigning this office in 1855, he wentto Nebraska, and became a member of the Legislative Council. Having, in 1860, settled in Colorado, he was appointed Judge of the SupremeCourt for that territory, and held this office until he was elected adelegate to the Thirty-Ninth Congress from Colorado. He was succeededin the Fortieth Congress by George M. Chilcott. 

AUGUSTUS BRANDEGEE was born in New London, Conn. , July 15, 1828. Hegraduated at Yale College in 1849, and at the Yale Law School in 1851. From 1854 to 1861 he served in the Connecticut Legislature, of whichhe was Speaker in the latter year. He was a Presidential Elector in1861, and was elected a Representative to the Thirty-Eighth Congressfrom Connecticut in 1863, and was re-elected in 1865. He was succeededin the Fortieth Congress by Henry H. Starkweather. 

HENRY H. P. BROMWELL was born in Baltimore, Maryland, August 26, 1823. Having spent seven years of his boyhood in Ohio, he went to Illinoisin 1836, and came to the bar in 1853. He was subsequently an editor, Judge of a County Court, and Presidential Elector. In 1864 he waselected a Representative from Illinois to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and in 1866 was re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. --349, 538. 

_JAMES BROOKS_ was born in Portland, Maine, November 10, 1810. Wheneleven years old he became a clerk in a store. At sixteen he was aschool-teacher, and at twenty-one graduated at Waterville College. After several years spent in traveling and writing letters for thepress, he was, in 1835, elected to the Legislature of Maine. In 1836he established the "New York Daily Express, " of which he has sincebeen chief editor. In 1847 he was elected to the General Assembly ofNew York. In 1849 and again in 1851 he was elected a Representative inCongress. In 1863 he was returned to Congress. In December, 1865, hetook his place as a member of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, but held itonly until the 6th of April following, his seat having beensuccessfully contested by William E. Dodge. In 1866 he was elected aRepresentative from New York to the Fortieth Congress. --17, 20, 25, 335, 336, 568. 

JOHN M. BROOMALL was born in Upper Chichester, Pennsylvania, in 1816. Having received a common-school education, he devoted himself to legalstudies and pursuits. In 1861 he was a Presidential Elector. In 1862he was elected to represent the Seventh Pennsylvania District inCongress. Two years later was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. --223, 360, 439, 504. 

B. GRATZ BROWN is grandson of John Brown, who was United StatesSenator from Kentucky in 1805. He was born in Lexington, Kentucky, May28, 1826. Having graduated at Yale College and studied law, he settledat St. Louis, Mo. , where he edited the "Missouri Democrat, " from 1854to 1859, and was a member of the State Legislature. He raised aregiment at the breaking out of the war, which he commanded during itsterm of service. He was among the foremost champions of freedom inMissouri, and was elected a Senator in Congress from that State forthe term commencing in 1863 and ending in 1867. He was succeeded byCharles D. Drake. --285, 477, 493. 

_CHARLES R. BUCKALEW_ was born in Columbia County, Pennsylvania, December 28, 1821. He was admitted to practice law in 1843, and waselected Prosecuting Attorney for his native county in 1845. In 1850 hewas elected a Senator in the State Legislature, which office he heldfor a series of years. In 1854 he was a Commissioner to exchange theratifications of a treaty with Paraguay. He was a Presidential Electorin 1856, and Chairman of the State Democratic Committee in 1857. Hewas appointed by President Buchanan Minister to Equador in 1858, andheld the position until 1861. He was, in 1863, elected United StatesSenator from Pennsylvania for the term ending 1869. --296, 401, 413, 494, 532, 535, 547, 548. 

RALPH P. BUCKLAND was born in Leyden, Massachusetts, January 20, 1812, and was removed by his parents to Ohio in the same year. From 1831 to1834 he was clerk in a large cotton commission house in New Orleans. Returning to Ohio, he took an academical course of study at KenyonCollege. Having studied law, he was admitted to the bar in 1837. Hewas a member of the Philadelphia Whig Convention of 1848. In 1855 and1857 was elected to the Senate of Ohio. In 1861 he was appointedColonel of the Seventy-Second Ohio Infantry, and commanded a brigadein the battle of Shiloh. He was promoted to the rank of BrigadierGeneral, and participated in the siege of Vicksburg. He wassubsequently assigned to the command of the District of Memphis, anddefeated Forrest in his attack on that city. At the close of the warhe was brevetted a Major General of Volunteers. In 1864, while absentin the field, he was elected a Representative from Ohio to theThirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected in 1866. 

HEZEKIAH S. BUNDY was born in Marietta County, Ohio, August 15, 1817. Having been left an orphan when a mere boy, and the support of thefamily devolving upon him, his opportunities for attaining aneducation were limited. From 1835 to 1846 he was engaged in mercantilepursuits, and subsequently turned his attention to farming and thefurnace business. Meanwhile he studied law, and was admitted to thebar in 1850. He served two terms in the House of Representatives ofOhio, and was, in 1855, elected State Senator. In 1860 he was aPresidential Elector, and in 1864 he was elected a Representative fromOhio to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. He was succeeded in the FortiethCongress by John T. Wilson. 

_WALTER A. BURLEIGH_ was the Delegate from Dakota Territory in theThirty-Ninth Congress. He received a common-school education, studiedmedicine, and practiced his profession for a number of years. He wassubsequently appointed an Indian Agent, and removed to the West. Soonafter the organization of the Territory of Dakota he was elected torepresent its interests in Congress, and was re-elected to theFortieth Congress. 

WILLIAM B. CAMPBELL was born in Tennessee, and served as Captain ofmounted Volunteers in the Florida War. He served for some time in theState Legislature, and was a Representative in Congress from 1837 to1843. He commanded the first regiment of Tennessee Volunteers in theMexican War, and at its close he was elected a Circuit Judge. From1851 to 1853 he was Governor of Tennessee. In 1865 he was elected aRepresentative from Tennessee to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, but wasnot admitted until July, 1866. He died of disease of the heart at hisresidence in Lebanon, Tennessee, August 19, 1867. 

ALEXANDER G. CATTELL was born in Salem, New Jersey, in 1816. Hereceived a commercial education, and began his business-life, as aclerk, at the age of thirteen. Before reaching his majority he hadadvanced to the head of a large and flourishing business. In 1840 hewas elected to the General Assembly of New Jersey, and in 1844 he wasa member of the Convention called to frame a new Constitution for thatState. He subsequently became the head of the extensive mercantilehouse of A. G. Cattell & Co. , of Philadelphia. During a residence ofnine years in that city he was several times elected to the CityCouncil, and was President of the Corn Exchange Association, which, largely through his exertions, recruited and equipped two and a halfregiments for service in the late war. Having resumed his residence inNew Jersey, he was, in 1866, elected a Senator in Congress from thatState. --569. 

ZACHARIAH CHANDLER was born in Bedford, New Hampshire, December 10, 1813. He received an academical education, and removed to Michigan, where he engaged extensively in mercantile pursuits and in banking. In1851 he held the office of Mayor of Detroit. In 1852 he was anunsuccessful candidate for Governor of Michigan. He entered the UnitedStates Senate, during the Thirty-Fifth Congress, as the successor ofGeneral Cass. In 1863 he was re-elected to the Senate for the termending in 1869. --27, 397. 

_JOHN W. CHANLER_ was born in the City of New York in 1826. In 1859and 1860 he was a member of the General Assembly of New York. In 1862he was elected a Representative from New York to the Thirty-EighthCongress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth and FortiethCongresses. --64, 156, 337, 338, 571. 

J. FRANCISCO CHAVES was born in New Mexico in 1833. He studiedmedicine in New York, and subsequently devoted several years tomercantile pursuits and cattle-raising. In 1861 he entered themilitary service as Major of the First New Mexico Infantry, and afterseeing much active service was mustered out as Lieutenant-Colonel. In1865 he was elected a Delegate from New Mexico to the Thirty-NinthCongress. 

DANIEL CLARK was born in Stratham, New Hampshire, October 24, 1809. Hegraduated at Dartmouth College in 1834, and was admitted to the bar in1837. From 1842 to 1857 he was repeatedly a member of the NewHampshire Legislature. In 1857 he was elected a Senator in Congressfrom New Hampshire, and in 1861 he was re-elected for the term endingin 1867. At the close of the first session of the Thirty-NinthCongress he resigned his seat in the Senate, having been appointed U. S. District Judge for New Hampshire. --28, 201, 202, 388, 453, 455, 456, 479. 

READER W. CLARKE was born in Bethel, Clermont County, Ohio, May 18, 1812. He learned the art of printing, but subsequently studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1836. In 1840 and 1841 he was a memberof the Ohio Legislature. He was a delegate to the Baltimore Conventionof 1844, and was a Presidential Elector in the same year. For sixyears succeeding 1846 he held the office of Clerk of the Courts ofClermont County. He was a delegate to the Chicago Convention of 1860. In 1864 he was elected a Representative from Ohio to the Thirty-NinthCongress, and was re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. 

SIDNEY CLARKE was born in Southbridge, Massachusetts, October 16, 1831. He adopted the profession of an editor, and published the"Southbridge Press. " He emigrated to Kansas in 1858, and settled inLawrence. In 1862 he was a member of the Kansas Legislature. He servedduring the rebellion as Captain of Volunteers, and Assistant ProvostMarshal General for Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, and Dakota. In 1864 hewas elected the Representative from Kansas to the Thirty-NinthCongress, and was re-elected to the Fortieth. --88. 

AMASA COBB was born in Crawford County, Illinois, September 27, 1823. He emigrated to Wisconsin Territory in 1842, and engaged in thelead-mining business. He served as a private in the Mexican War, andat the close of this service he commenced the practice of law. Heserved as District Attorney, State Senator, and Adjutant-General ofWisconsin. He was subsequently a member of the State Legislature, andwas chosen Speaker. He was Colonel of the Fifth Wisconsin Regiment inthe war, and was elected a Representative from Wisconsin to theThirty-Eighth, Thirty-Ninth, and Fortieth Congresses. 

_ALEXANDER H. COFFROTH_ was born in Somerset, Pennsylvania, May 18, 1828. He commenced the practice of law in 1851. He was a delegate tothe Charleston Convention in 1860, and was elected a Representative tothe Thirty-Eighth Congress. He appeared as a member of theThirty-Ninth Congress, but his seat was successfully contested byWilliam H. Koontz. 

SCHUYLER COLFAX was born in New York City, March 23, 1823. He became aprinter, and settled in Indiana, 1836. He was for many years editorand publisher of the "South Bend Register. " In 1850 he was a member ofthe Indiana Constitutional Convention. He was a delegate and secretaryof the Whig National Conventions of 1848 and 1852. He was elected aRepresentative from Indiana to the Thirty-Fourth Congress, and hasbeen a member by re-election of each succeeding Congress. He waselected Speaker of the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected tothe same office in the Thirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. --12, 20, 289, 306, 363, 501, 574, 576. 

ROSCOE CONKLING, son of Alfred Conkling, a member of the SeventeenthCongress, was born at Albany, in 1828. Having entered the professionof law, he successively held the offices of District Attorney forOneida County and Mayor of Utica. In 1859 he took his seat as a memberof the Thirty-Sixth Congress from New York, and remained aRepresentative in Congress by successive re-elections until the 4th ofMarch, 1867, when he entered the United States Senate as the successorof Ira Harris. --328, 330, 348, 363, 481, 513, 514. 

JOHN CONNESS was born in Ireland in 1822, and came to America whenthirteen years of age. He was an early emigrant to California, wherehe engaged in mercantile and mining pursuits. In 1852 he was electedto the State Legislature, and served in that capacity for a series ofyears. In 1863 he was elected United States Senator from Californiafor the term ending in 1869. --540. 

BURTON C. COOK was born in Monroe County, New York, May 11, 1819. Hereceived a collegiate education, and entered upon the profession oflaw in Illinois. After serving as State Attorney for six years, he waselected to the State Senate in 1852, and was a member of that bodyuntil 1860. In 1864 he was elected a Representative from Illinois tothe Thirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected to the FortiethCongress. --223, 350, 351. 

_EDMUND COOPER_ was born in Maury County, Tennessee. He graduated atthe Harvard Law School, and entered upon the practice of law atColumbia, and afterwards at Shelbyville, Tennessee. He has served inthe Tennessee Legislature, and was a member of the ConstitutionalConvention of 1865. In August, 1865, he was elected a Representativefrom Tennessee to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, but was not admitteduntil near the close of the first session. While waiting at Washingtonto be admitted to Congress, he acted as Private Secretary to PresidentJohnson. In November, 1867, he was appointed by the President to actas Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. 

EDGAR COWAN was born in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, September19, 1815. He graduated at Franklin College, Ohio, in 1839. Having beenat different times clerk, boat-builder, schoolmaster, and student ofmedicine, he studied law and practiced the profession until 1861, whenhe was elected United States Senator from Pennsylvania for the termending 1867. He was succeeded by Simon Cameron. --96, 100, 133, 135, 195, 216, 273, 429, 460, 487, 489, 496, 535, 564. 

AARON H. CRAGIN was born in Weston, Vermont, February 3, 1821. Hestudied law in Albany, New York, and in 1847 removed to Lebanon, NewHampshire, where he practiced his profession. From 1852 to 1855 he wasa member of the New Hampshire Legislature. He was a Representativefrom New Hampshire in the Thirty-Fifth and Thirty-Sixth Congresses. In1865 he entered the Senate of the United States for the term ending in1871. 

JOHN A. J. CRESWELL was born in Port Deposit, Maryland, November 18, 1828. He graduated at Dickinson College in 1848, and was admitted tothe bar in 1850. He was successively a member of the Maryland House ofDelegates, Assistant Adjutant-General for the State and aRepresentative in the Thirty-Eighth Congress. In 1865 he was chosen aUnited States Senator for the unexpired term of T. H. Hicks, deceased. --134, 136. 

SHELBY M. CULLOM was born in Wayne County, Kentucky, November 27, 1829, and was removed to Illinois, when scarcely a year old, by hisparents, who settled in Tazewell County. He spent two years as astudent at the Mount Morris Seminary. Having studied law, he enteredupon the practice of his profession in Springfield, and wasimmediately elected City Attorney. In 1856 he was elected to the StateLegislature, and was re-elected in 1860, and chosen Speaker of theHouse. In 1856 was a Fillmore Elector for the State at large. In 1864he was elected a Representative from Illinois to the Thirty-NinthCongress. In 1866 he was re-elected by more than double his formermajority. --516. 

CHARLES V. CULVER was born in Logan, Ohio, September 6, 1830. Havingsettled in Western Pennsylvania, he engaged in business pursuits, andespecially in banking. He was largely concerned in railroads and otherpublic enterprises. In 1864 he was elected a Representative from theTwentieth District of Pennsylvania to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. Hewas succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by Darwin A. Finney. --575. 

WILLIAM A. DARLING was born in Newark, New Jersey, December 17, 1817. He shortly after settled in New York City, where he received acommercial education, and devoted himself to the wholesale business. He became a Director of the Mercantile Library Association, and servedeleven years as officer and private of the Seventh Regiment, NationalGuard. From 1847 to 1854 he was Deputy Receiver of Taxes for New YorkCity. In 1860 he was a Presidential Elector, and in 1863 and 1864 wasPresident of the Union and Republican Organization of New York City. In 1864 he was elected a Representative from New York to theThirty-Ninth Congress. He was nominated for the Fortieth Congress, andwas defeated by _Fernando Wood_ by 1600 majority, in a District givingHoffman (Dem. ) for Governor nearly 6000 majority. --81. 

_GARRETT DAVIS_ was born at Mt. Sterling, Kentucky, September 10, 1801. Having received an English and classical education, he studiedlaw, and was admitted to the bar in 1823. With his professional laborshe joined a considerable attention to agricultural pursuits. In 1833he was elected to the Legislature, and was twice re-elected. He was amember of the State Constitutional Convention in 1839. From the latteryear to 1847 he was in Congress, representing the District in whichHenry Clay resided, of whom he was a warm personal and politicalfriend. In 1861 he was elected a Senator in Congress from Kentucky, and was re-elected in 1867. --24, 136, 171, 199, 208, 243, 287, 296, 430, 458, 460, 484, 493, 498, 531, 533, 534, 548, 572. 

THOMAS T. DAVIS was born in Middlebury, Vermont, August 22, 1810. Having removed to the State of New York, he graduated at HamiltonCollege in 1831, and was admitted to the bar in Syracuse in 1833. Hehas devoted much attention to business relating to railroads, manufactures, and mining. In 1862 he was elected a Representative fromNew York to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to theThirty-Ninth. He was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by DennisMcCarthy. --63, 361. 

HENRY L. DAWES was born in Cummington, Massachusetts, October 30, 1816. Having graduated at Yale College in 1839, he engagedsuccessively in school-teaching, editing a newspaper, and practicinglaw. From 1848 to 1853 he was a member of the Legislature ofMassachusetts. In 1853 he was chosen District Attorney for the WesternDistrict of the State, and held the office until 1856, when he waselected a Representative from Massachusetts to the Thirty-FifthCongress. He has been a member of every subsequent Congress, includingthe Fortieth. --30, 478. 

_JOHN L. DAWSON_ was born in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, February 7, 1813. He was educated at Washington College, adopted the profession oflaw, and was, in 1845, appointed by President Polk United StatesAttorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Since 1844 he hasbeen a member of most of the Democratic National Conventions. In 1850he was elected a Representative to the Thirty-Second Congress, and wasre-elected to the Thirty-Third, in which he served as Chairman of theCommittee on Agriculture, and was the author of the Homestead Billwhich passed in 1854. In 1855 he was appointed by President PierceGovernor of Kansas, but declined the office. In 1862 he was elected aRepresentative from Pennsylvania to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, andwas re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth. He was succeeded in the FortiethCongress by John Covode. --144, 505. 

JOSEPH H. DEFREES was born in White County, Tennessee, May 13, 1812. When eight years old he removed to Piqua, Ohio, and a few years after, he entered a printing-office, in which he obtained the most of hisearly education. In 1831 he established a newspaper in South Bend, Indiana, and two years after removed to Goshen, where he engaged inmercantile pursuits. In 1836 he was elected Sheriff of Elkhart County. In 1849 he was elected to the House of Representatives of Indiana, andin 1850 to the State Senate. In 1864 he was elected a Representativefrom Indiana to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. His successor in theFortieth Congress is William Williams. 

COLUMBUS DELANO was born in Shoreham, Vermont, in 1809. When eightyears old he removed to Mount Vernon, Ohio, where he studied law andwas admitted to the bar in 1831. In 1844 he was elected aRepresentative from Ohio to the Twenty-Ninth Congress. In 1860 he wasa delegate to the Chicago Convention. In 1861 he was appointedCommissary General of Ohio. Two years after he was a member of theOhio Legislature. In 1864 he was a delegate to the BaltimoreRepublican Convention, and was in the same year elected aRepresentative from Ohio to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. His successorin the Fortieth Congress is _George W. Morgan_. --236, 285 539, 564. 

HENRY C. DEMING was born in Connecticut. He graduated at Yale Collegein 1836, and at the Harvard Law School in 1838. He had been a memberof the Lower House and Senate of Connecticut, and for six years Mayorof Hartford, when in 1861 he went into the war as Colonel of theTwelfth Connecticut Regiment. He participated in the capture of NewOrleans, and was Mayor of that city until 1868, when he returned tohis native State, and was soon after elected a Representative in theThirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected in 1865, He was succeededin the Fortieth Congress by _Richard D. Hubbard_. --31. 

CHARLES DENISON was born in Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania, January 23, 1818. He graduated at Dickinson College in 1839, and entered theprofession of law. In 1862 he was elected a Representative fromPennsylvania to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected in1864. He was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by _George W. Woodward_. 

ARTHUR A. DENNY was born in Indiana, in 1822, and removed in boyhoodto Illinois. In 1851 he removed to Washington Territory, and was amember of the Territorial Legislature from 1853 to 1861. He was fouryears Register of the Land Office at Olympia, and was subsequentlyelected a Delegate from Washington Territory to the Thirty-NinthCongress. He was succeeded by Alvan Flanders in the Fortieth Congress. 

JAMES DIXON was born in Enfield, Connecticut, in 1814. He graduated atWilliams College in 1834, and soon after entered upon the practice oflaw. In 1837 he was elected to the Legislature of Connecticut, and wastwice reëlected. He was a Representative in Congress from Connecticutfrom 1845 to 1849. In the latter year he was elected to the StateSenate. He was elected United States Senator from Connecticut in 1857, and was re-elected in 1863. --423, 425, 495, 548. 

NATHAN F. DIXON, son of a Senator of the same name, was born inWesterly, Rhode Island, May 1, 1812, and graduated at Brown Universityin 1833. After attending the Law Schools at New Haven and Cambridge, he was admitted to the bar in 1837. From 1840 to 1849 he was a memberof the General Assembly of Rhode Island, and after having served inthe Thirty-First Congress, was again elected to the Legislature. In1863 he was elected a Representative from Rhode Island to theThirty-Eighth Congress, and entered upon his second Congressional termin 1865. He was in 1866 re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. 

WILLIAM E. DODGE was born in Hartford, Connecticut, September 4, 1805. Early in life he went to New York City, where he engaged actively, inbusiness. He has been forty years at the head of one of the mostextensive manufacturing and importing establishments in the country. He was many years President of the National Temperance Society, andhas long been a prominent promoter of benevolent enterprises in NewYork City. Having established his right to the seat held by _JamesBrooks_, he was admitted a member of the Thirty-Ninth Congress in thespring of 1866. He was succeeded by _James Brooks_ in the FortiethCongress. --511, 568. 

IGNATIUS DONNELLY was born in Philadelphia, November 3, 1831, and waseducated at the Central High School of his native city. He studied lawand was admitted to the bar in 1853. He emigrated to Minnesota in1857, and two years after was elected Lieutenant Governor of thatState, and held the office two terms. In 1862 he was elected aRepresentative from Minnesota to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and wasre-elected to the Thirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. --145, 156, 333, 507, 238, 553. 

JAMES R. DOOLITTLE was born in Hampton, New York, January 3, 1815. Hegraduated at Geneva College in 1834, became a lawyer, and for severalyears held the office of District Attorney for Wyoming County. In 1851he removed to Wisconsin, and two years after was elected Judge of theFirst Judicial Circuit of that State. In 1857 he was elected a UnitedStates Senator from Wisconsin, and in 1863 was re-elected for the termending in 1869. --28, 38, 285, 408, 431, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 462, 495, 501, 531, 532, 533, 541, 564. 

JOHN F. DRIGGS was born in Kinderhook, New York, March 8, 1813. Heserved an apprenticeship in the sash and door-making business, andsoon after set up as a master mechanic in New York City. He took nopart in politics until 1844, when he assisted in the reform movementby which James Harper was elected Mayor of New York. He was soon afterappointed Superintendent of Blackwell's Island Penitentiary. In 1856he removed to East Saginaw, Michigan, and was two years after electedPresident of that town. In 1859 he was elected to the MichiganLegislature. Two years after he was appointed Register at the LandOffice for the Saginaw District, and held the office until hiselection as a Representative from Michigan to the Thirty-EighthCongress in 1862. He was returned by increased majorities to theThirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. 

EBENEZER DUMONT was born in Vevay, Indiana, November 23, 1814. He waseducated at the Indiana University, and adopted the profession of law. In 1838 he was elected a member of the Indiana Legislature, and from1839 to 1845 held the office of County Treasurer. He served in theMexican War as a Lieutenant Colonel, and was subsequently a member ofthe State Legislature, a Presidential Elector, and President of theState Bank. At the breaking out of the rebellion, he was appointedColonel of the Seventh Regiment of Indiana Volunteers, and fought inthe battle of Philippi, in West Virginia. Having been promoted to therank of Brigadier General, he commanded a brigade at the battle ofMurfreesboro. He was subsequently assigned to the military command ofNashville, and from that place led an expedition against John Morgan, capturing nearly all of his command. In 1862, while yet in the army, he was elected a Representative from Indiana to the Thirty-EighthCongress, and was re-elected in 1864. His successor in the FortiethCongress is John Coburn. 

EPHRAIM R. ECKLEY was born in Jefferson County, Ohio, December 9, 1812, and was admitted to the bar in 1837. From 1843 to 1853 he servedin the House of Representatives and in the Senate of Ohio. In theCivil War he was Colonel of the Twenty-Sixth and Eightieth Regimentsof Ohio Volunteers. He fought in several battles, and at Corinthcommanded a brigade. In 1862 he was elected a Representative from Ohioto the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninthand Fortieth. --447. 

GEORGE F. EDMUNDS was born in Richmond, Vermont, February 1, 1828, andwas admitted to the bar in 1849. In 1854 he entered the VermontLegislature, and served three years as Speaker. In 1861 and 1862 heserved in the State Senate, and was the Presiding Officer of thatbody. He was appointed to the vacancy in the United States Senateoccasioned by the death of Solomon Foot, and entered upon the dutiesof that position in April, 1866. --559, 560. 

BENJAMIN EGGLESTON was born in Corinth, New York, January 3, 1816. Heremoved to Ohio in 1831, and gave his attention to commercialpursuits. He has been identified with many important publicenterprises. He was for many years Chairman of the Board of PublicWorks of Cincinnati, and President of the City Council. He was forsome years a member of the State Legislature. In 1860 he was adelegate to the Chicago Convention, and was a Presidential Elector inthe election of that year. In 1864 he was elected a Representativefrom Ohio to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected in 1866. 

_CHARLES A. ELDRIDGE_ was born at Bridport, Vermont, February 27, 1821. He removed to the State of New York, where he was admitted tothe bar in 1846. In 1848 he removed to Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, andserved in the Senate of that State in 1854 and 1855. In 1862 he waselected a Representative from Wisconsin to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was returned to the Thirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. --226, 242, 355, 419, 441, 476, 507, 539, 546. 

THOMAS D. ELIOT was born in Boston, March 20, 1808. Having graduatedat Columbia College, Washington, in 1825, he settled as a lawyer inNew Bedford. Having served in both branches of the MassachusettsLegislature, he first entered Congress in 1855 for an unexpired term. In 1858 he was elected a Representative from Massachusetts to theThirty-Sixth Congress, and has been returned to every succeedingCongress, including the Fortieth. --31, 95, 138, 157 295, 296, 306, 347, 443. 

JOHN F. FARNSWORTH was born of New England parentage, in Eaton, LowerCanada, March 27, 1820, but was early removed to the Territory ofMichigan. In 1843 he settled in St. Charles, Illinois, and enteredupon the practice of law. In 1846 he left the Democratic Party withwhich he had acted, and joined the "Liberty Party. " In 1856 and againin 1858 he was elected to Congress, from what was then known as theChicago District. In 1861 he raised the Eighth Illinois CavalryRegiment, of which he was Colonel until his promotion to the rank ofBrigadier General. The severe service in which he was engaged in thePeninsular Campaign brought on a disability which necessitated hisresignation. In the fall of 1862 he was elected a Representative fromIllinois to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected in 1864 and1866, on both occasions receiving the largest majorities given by anydistrict in the United States. --61, 333, 339, 448, 519, 537. 

JOHN H. FARQUHAR was born in Frederick County, Maryland, December 20, 1818. With his widowed mother he removed to Indiana in 1833, and wasemployed as civil engineer upon some of the earliest publicimprovements of the State. In 1841 he was elected Secretary of theIndiana Senate. In 1843 he was Chief Clerk of the Indiana House ofRepresentatives, and was the same year admitted to the bar inBrookfield. In 1844 he was a delegate to the National Convention whichnominated Henry Clay. In 1852 he was candidate for PresidentialElector on the Scott ticket, and in 1860 on the Lincoln ticket. In1861 he was commissioned a Captain in the Nineteenth United StatesInfantry, and was detailed as mustering and disbursing officer forIndiana. In 1864 he was elected a Representative from Indiana to theThirty-Ninth Congress, and was succeeded by _William S. Holman_ in theFortieth Congress. 

THOMAS W. FERRY was born in Mackinac, Michigan, June 1, 1827. He hasbeen occupied extensively in the lumber trade and in banking. In 1850he was elected to the House of Representatives of Michigan, and in1856 to the State Senate. For eight years he was an efficient memberof the Republican State Committee, and was a delegate and aVice-President of the Chicago Convention of 1860. In 1864 he waselected a Representative from Michigan to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected in 1866. 

WILLIAM PITT FESSENDEN was born at Boscawen, New Hampshire, October16, 1806. He graduated at Bowdoin College in 1823, and in 1827 enteredupon the practice of law in Portland, Maine. In 1832 he was a delegateto the Convention which nominated Henry Clay. In the same year he waselected to the Maine Legislature, and again in 1840. In 1841 he waselected a Representative in Congress, and declined a re-election. In1845, 1846, and 1853 he served his fellow citizens in the StateLegislature. In 1853 he was elected a United States Senator fromMaine, and was re-elected in 1859. Upon the resignation of Mr. Chaseas Secretary of the Treasury, in July, 1864, he was appointed to thatoffice. On the 4th of March following he resigned his seat in theCabinet, and re-entered the United States Senate, to which he had beenelected for the term ending in 1871. In the Senate he has held theimportant positions of Chairman of the Finance Committee and of theJoint Committee on Reconstruction. He has received the degree of LL. D. From Bowdoin College and Harvard University--27, 42, 136, 271, 224, 373, 377, 380, 394, 412, 419, 431, 432, 453, 456, 540. 

_WILLIAM E. FINCH_ was born in Ohio in 1822, and at the age oftwenty-one was admitted to the bar. In 1851 he was elected to theState Senate. In the following year he was a delegate to theConvention which nominated General Scott for President. In 1861 he wasagain elected a State Senator. In 1862 he was elected a Representativefrom Ohio to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to theThirty-Ninth. He was succeeded by _Philadelph Van Trump_ in theFortieth Congress. --437, 462, 476, 519. 

GEORGE G. FOGG was a newspaper editor, of New Hampshire, until hisappointment by President Lincoln as United States Minister Residentfor Switzerland. He made a considerable fortune while there byinvesting his salary in United States Securities when they were verylow in Europe. At the opening of the second session of theThirty-Ninth Congress he took his seat in the Senate, having beenappointed to fill the unexpired term of Daniel Clark, which closed onthe 4th of March, 1867. He was succeeded by James W. Patterson. 

SOLOMON FOOT was born in Cornwall, Vermont, November 19, 1802, andgraduated at Middlebury College in 1826. Having occupied some years inteaching, he studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1831. He wasfor many years a member of the State Legislature of Vermont, and StateAttorney. From 1843 to 1847 he was a Representative in Congress. In1851 he was elected a Senator in Congress from Vermont, was re-electedin 1857, and again in 1863. For several years he held the office ofPresident _pro tem. _ of the Senate. He died in Washington, March 28, 1866. --253, 269. 

LAFAYETTE S. FOSTER, a lineal descendant of Miles Standish, was bornin Franklin, Connecticut, November 22, 1806. In 1828 he graduated atBrown University, which honored him with the degree of LL. D. In 1850. He was admitted to the bar in 1831. He was six times a member of theConnecticut Legislature, and two years Mayor of the city of Norwich. In 1855 he was elected a United States Senator for Connecticut, andwas re-elected in 1862. He was chosen President _pro tem. _ of theSenate at the extra session in 1865, and by the elevation of AndrewJohnson to the Presidency became Acting Vice-President of the UnitedState. His service of twelve years in the Senate closed March 4, 1887, when he was succeeded by Orris S. Ferry. --23, 137, 187, 288, 306, 497, 576. 

JOSEPH S. FOWLER was born near Steubenville, Ohio. He was leftdependent on his own resources when very young, but by energy andperseverance succeeded in attaining a thorough collegiate education. Having adopted the profession of teaching, he was elected to a collegeProfessorship of Mathematics in Tennessee. He was subsequently forsome years at the head of a flourishing seminary of learning nearNashville. He was conspicuous for his staunch loyalty, and when theState Government passed out of the hands of the rebels he was electedto the important office of Comptroller of Tennessee. In 1865 he waselected a Senator in Congress from Tennessee, but with his colleagueswas not admitted to a seat until near the close of the first sessionof the Thirty-Ninth Congress. --478. 

FREDERICK T. FRELINGHUYSEN was born at Millstone, New Jersey, August4, 1817. His grandfather, of the same name, was a member of theContinental Congress, and was a United States Senator from 1793 to1796. Young Frederick having been left an orphan at an early age wasadopted and reared by his uncle, Hon. Theodore Frelinghuysen. Hegraduated at Rutgers College, and studied law. He was appointedAttorney General of New Jersey in 1861, and was re-appointed in 1866. On the 24th of January, 1867, he took his seat as a United StatesSenator from New Jersey having been elected for the unexpired term of_William Wright_, deceased, which will end March 4, 1869. --492, 497. 

JAMES A. GARFIELD was born in Orange, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, November19, 1831. He graduated at Williams College, Massachusetts, in 1856, and was for some years principal of a flourishing Seminary of learningat Hiram, Ohio. In 1859 and 1860 he was a member of the Ohio Senate. In 1861 he entered the army as Colonel of the Forty-Second Regiment ofOhio Volunteers, and in the following year was commissioned aBrigadier General. He served as Chief of Staff to General Rosecrans. He fought at the battles of Shiloh, Corinth, and Chicamauga. Forgallant service in the last named battle he was promoted to the rankof Major General. In 1862 he was elected a Representative from Ohio tothe Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth andFortieth Congresses. --144, 438, 450, 524, 540, 538, 553, 557. 

_ADAM J. GLOSSBRENNER_ was born in Hagerstown, Maryland, August 31, 1810. He was apprenticed at an early age to the printing-business. When seventeen years of age he journeyed westward, and became foremanin the office of the "Ohio Monitor, " and afterwards of the "WesternTelegraph. " In 1829 he returned to Pennsylvania and settled in York, and there published the "York Gazette. " In 1849 he was electedSergeant-at-arms of the House of Representatives for the Thirty-FirstCongress, and held the same office through the four followingCongressional terms. In 1861 he was private secretary to PresidentBuchanan. In 1864 he was elected a Representative from Pennsylvania tothe Thirty-Ninth Congress. 

_CHARLES GOODYEAR_ was born in Schoharie County, New York, April 26, 1805. He graduated at Union College in 1824, and entered upon thepractice of law in 1827. In 1839 he was elected to the New YorkLegislature, and in 1841 was appointed First Judge of SchoharieCounty. In 1845 he was elected a Representative to the Twenty-NinthCongress, and twenty years after was elected to the Thirty-NinthCongress. During the interval he devoted his attention to the businessof banking. His successor in the Fortieth Congress is _John V. L. Pruyn_. 

_HENRY GRIDER_ was born in Kentucky, July 16, 1796. He was a privatein the last war with England. He subsequently divided his attentionbetween agriculture and law. In 1827 and 1831 he was elected to theLegislature of Kentucky, and in 1833 to the State Senate. As early as1843 he was elected a Representative to Congress from Kentucky andheld the position until 1847. He was re-elected to the Thirty-Seventh, Thirty-Eighth, and Thirty-Ninth Congresses. He died before theexpiration of the last term for which he was elected. --417, 570. 

JAMES W. GRIMES was born in Deering, New Hampshire, October 16, 1816. He graduated at Dartmouth College in 1836, and soon after removed toIowa, where he was, in 1838, elected to the first TerritorialLegislature. From 1854 to 1858 he was Governor of Iowa. In 1859 he waselected a Senator in Congress, and was in 1865 elected for a secondterm, which will end in 1871. In 1865 he received the degree of LL. D. From Iowa College. He was a delegate to the Peace Congress of 1861. For a number of years he has been Chairman of the Committee on NavalAffairs. 

JOSIAH B. GRINNELL was born in New Haven, Vermont, December 22, 1821. He received a collegiate and theological education. In 1855, he wentto Iowa, where he turned his attention to farming, and became the mostextensive wool-grower in the State. He was four years a member of theIowa Senate, and two years a special agent for the General PostOffice. In 1862 he was elected a Representative from Iowa to theThirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth. He wassucceeded by William Loughridge in the Fortieth Congress. --70, 153, 507, 572, 573, 574. 

JOHN A. GRISWOLD was born in Rensselaer County, New York, in 1822. Hehas been engaged in the iron trade and business of banking. He wasonce Mayor of the City of Troy. In 1862 he was elected aRepresentative from New York to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, wasre-elected in 1864, and again in 1866. --523. 

_JAMES GUTHRIE_ was born near Bardstown, Kentucky, in 1795. Havingspent some years in trading with New Orleans as the owner offlatboats, he settled in Louisville as a lawyer, at the age oftwenty-five. He was at one time shot by a political opponent, and wasin consequence laid up for three years. He served nine years in theState Legislature and six years in the Kentucky Senate. Hesubsequently took an active part in the banking business, and wasPresident of the Nashville and Louisville Railroad. He was Presidentof the Kentucky Constitutional Convention of 1851. In 1853 he becameSecretary of the Treasury under President Pierce. He was a delegate tothe Chicago Convention of 1864. In 1865 he was elected United StatesSenator from Kentucky for the term ending in 1871. --46, 134, 160, 210, 214. 

ROBERT S. HALE was born, in Chelsea, Vermont, September 24, 1822, andgraduated at the University of Vermont in 1842. He settled for thepractice of law at Elizabethtown, New York. He subsequently held theposition of Judge of Essex County, Regent of the University of NewYork, and Presidential Elector. In 1864 he was elected aRepresentative from New York to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and wassucceeded in the Fortieth Congress by Orange Ferris. --82, 372. 

_AARON HARDING_ was born in Greene County, Kentucky. He was admittedto the bar in 1833. He was elected to the Kentucky Legislature in1840. In 1861 he was elected a Representative from Kentucky to theThirty-Seventh Congress and was re-elected to the Thirty-Eighth andThirty-Ninth Congresses. His successor in the Fortieth Congress is _J. Proctor Knott_. --361, 462. 

ABNER C. HARDING was born in East Hampton, Connecticut, February 10, 1807. He practiced law in the State of New York, and subsequently inIllinois. He was for many years engaged extensively in farming andrailroad management. In 1848 he was a member of the IllinoisConstitutional Convention, and subsequently of the Legislature. In1862 he enlisted as a private in the Eighty-Third Illinois Infantry, and became its Colonel. He was promoted to the rank of BrigadierGeneral. In 1864 he was elected a Representative from Illinois to theThirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected in 1866. --522. 

_BENJAMIN G. HARRIS_ was born in Maryland, December 13, 1806. He wasfor a time a student of Yale College, and afterwards studied at theCambridge Law School. He returned to his native State and engaged inthe practice of law and agriculture. He served for several years inthe Maryland House of Delegates. In 1863, and again in 1865, he waselected a Representative to Congress from Maryland. In May, 1865, hewas arrested and tried by court-martial for violating the Fifty-SixthArticle of War, and was declared guilty; but the President ordered thesentence of the court to be remitted in full. He was succeeded in theFortieth Congress by _Frederick Stone_. 

IRA HARRIS was born in Charleston, New York, May 31, 1802. Hegraduated at Union College in 1824, and soon after entered upon thepractice of law in Albany, and for many years devoted attentionexclusively to his profession. In 1844 he was elected to the New YorkLegislature, and served two terms. In 1846 he was a delegate to theState Constitutional Convention, and was the same year elected to theState Senate. In 1847 he was elected Judge of the Supreme Court, andheld the office twelve years. In 1861 he was elected a Senator inCongress from New York for the term ending in 1867, when he wassucceeded by Roscoe Conkling. 

ROSWELL HART was born in Rochester, New York, in 1821. He graduated atYale College in 1843, and was admitted to the bar in 1847, but enteredimmediately upon mercantile pursuits. In 1864 he was elected aRepresentative from New York to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. Hissuccessor in the Fortieth Congress is Lewis Selye. 

ISAAC R. HAWKINS was born in Maury County, Tennessee, May 16, 1818. Hewas engaged in agricultural pursuits until twenty-two years of age, when he commenced the study of law. In 1843 he settled, for thepractice of law, in Huntington, Tennessee, where he now resides. Heserved as a Lieutenant in the Mexican War. In 1860 he was elected tothe Legislature of Tennessee. He was a delegate to the Peace Congressof 1861, and in the spring and summer of that year was activelyengaged in making speeches throughout his State against secession. InSeptember, 1862, he entered the army as Lieutenant-Colonel of theSeventh Tennessee Cavalry. In 1864 he was captured by the enemy atUnion City, Tennessee, and was imprisoned at Mobile and Macon. He wasone of the fifty officers placed by the rebels under fire of theFederal force off Charleston. Having been exchanged, he commanded thecavalry force in Western Kentucky until the close of the war. InAugust, 1865, he was elected a Representative from Tennessee to theThirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. 

RUTHERFORD B. HAYES was born in Delaware, Ohio, October 4, 1822. Hegraduated at Kenyon College, and subsequently at the Cambridge LawSchool. He was City Solicitor for Cincinnati from 1858 to 1861. Hewent into the army at the opening of the war as Major of theTwenty-Third Ohio Volunteers, and reached the rank of BrigadierGeneral. In 1864 he was elected a Representative from Ohio to theThirty-Ninth Congress. He was, in 1866, re-elected to the FortiethCongress, but having been elected Governor of Ohio in 1867, heresigned his seat in Congress, and was succeeded by Samuel F. Carey. 

JAMES H. D. HENDERSON was born in Livingston County, Kentucky, July23, 1810. In 1817 he removed with his parents to Missouri, and learnedthe printing business in Jefferson City. He subsequently published aweekly newspaper at Bowling Green, Missouri. At the age of twenty-fivehe entered the ministry of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, andafter preaching for a time in Missouri, he accepted the pastoralcharge of a congregation in Pennsylvania. Having held this positioneight years, he resigned in 1851, and soon after emigrated to Oregon. There he engaged in agricultural pursuits, but was active in preachingand lecturing against slavery, intemperance, gambling, and otherpopular vices. He was elected to the office of Superintendent ofCommon Schools for Oregon. In 1864 he was elected the Representativefrom Oregon to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. He was succeeded by RufusMallory. 

JOHN B. HENDERSON was born in Virginia, November 16, 1826, and at tenyears of age removed with his parents to Missouri. He taught school asa means of support while attaining an academical education. He studiedlaw, and was admitted to the bar in 1848. He was subsequently twiceelected to the Missouri Legislature. In 1856 he was a DemocraticPresidential Elector, and was a delegate to the Charleston Conventionof 1860. On the expulsion of Trusten Polk from the United StatesSenate, he was appointed to fill the vacancy. In 1863 he was electedfor the full term, ending in 1869. --161, 377, 382, 386, 388, 461, 530, 531, 533, 534, 559. 

_THOMAS A. HENDRICKS_ was born in Muskingum County, Ohio, September 7, 1819. He was educated at South Hanover College. He studied law atChambersburg, Pennsylvania, and settled in Indiana for the practice ofhis profession. In 1848 he served in the State Legislature, and was aprominent member of the Indiana Constitutional Convention of 1850. In1851 he was elected a Representative in Congress from Indiana, andserved two terms. In 1855 he was appointed Commissioner of the GeneralLand Office, and held that office until his resignation in 1859. In1860 he was the Democratic candidate for Governor of Indiana, and wasdefeated by Henry S. Lane. In 1863 he was elected United StatesSenator from Indiana, for the term ending in 1869. --28, 108, 136, 211, 218, 296, 306, 395, 432, 455, 459, 460, 491, 498, 531, 532, 533, 535, 548. 

WILLIAM HIGBY was born in Essex County, New York, August 18, 1813. Hegraduated at the University of Vermont in 1840, and practiced law inNew York until 1850, when he removed to California. Three years afterhe was elected District Attorney of Cavaleras County, and held theoffice until 1859. He was subsequently a member of the State Senate. In 1863 he was elected a Representative from California to theThirty-Eighth Congress, and was successively re-elected to theThirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. --356, 357, 358, 510, 575. 

RALPH HILL was born in Trumbull County, Ohio, October 12, 1827, andwas left in early life entirely dependent upon his own exertions. After taking an academical course of study, he attended the New YorkState and National Law School at Ballston Spa, where he graduated tothe degree of LL. B. , in 1851. In the following year he settled in thepractice of his profession at Columbus, Indiana. In 1864 he waselected a Representative from Indiana to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. His successor in the Fortieth Congress is Morton C. Hunter. --356. 

_ELIJAH HISE_ was born in Pennsylvania, and removed in early life toLexington, Kentucky. Having studied law, he established himself inRussellville, Kentucky, for the practice of his profession. He servedas member of the State Legislature and a Judge of the Superior Courtof Kentucky. He was long regarded as one of the moat eloquent andeffective political speakers of Kentucky. In 1865 he was elected aRepresentative from Kentucky to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. In May, 1867, he was re-elected to the Fortieth Congress, and a few days aftercommitted suicide, alleging the gloomy political prospects of thecountry as a reason for the act. His successor in the FortiethCongress is Jacob S. Galladay. --511, 521. 

PHINEAS W. HITCHCOCK was born in New Lebanon, New York, November 30, 1831. Having graduated at Williams College, Massachusetts, in 1855, hestudied law, and emigrated to Nebraska Territory in 1857. In 1861 hewas appointed by President Lincoln Marshal of the Territory, and heldthis office until his election as a Delegate from Nebraska to theThirty-Ninth Congress. 

_JOHN HOGAN_ was born in Ireland, January 2, 1805, and came with hisfather to Baltimore, Maryland, in 1817. He was apprenticed to ashoemaker, and obtained the rudiments of education in the AsburySunday School. In 1826 he removed to Illinois, where he engaged inmercantile pursuits. In 1836 he was a member of the State Legislature, in 1838 Commissioner of the Board of Public Works, and in 1841Register of the Land Office by appointment of President Harrison. Heremoved to St. Louis, and engaged in mercantile pursuits and banking. In 1857 he was appointed by President Buchanan Postmaster at St. Louis. In 1864 he was elected a Representative to Congress fromMissouri, and was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by William A. Pile. 

_E. D. HOLBROOK_ was born in Elyria, Ohio, in 1836. Having received acommon-school education, he studied law, and emigrated to Idaho. In1864 he was elected the Delegate from that Territory to theThirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected in 1866. 

SIDNEY T. HOLMES was born in Schaghticoke, Rensselaer County, NewYork, in 1815. He received an academical education, and after havingspent five years in civil engineering, studied law, and entered uponthe practice of his profession in 1841. In 1851 he was elected Judgeand Surrogate for Madison County, and held the office until 1864, whenhe was elected a Representative from New York to the Thirty-NinthCongress. His successor in the Fortieth Congress is John C. Churchill. 

SAMUEL HOOPER was born in Marblehead, Massachusetts, February 3, 1808. Having received a commercial education, he established himself asmerchant in Boston. He has long been a partner in the commercial houseof William Appleton & Co. In 1851 he was elected to the MassachusettsHouse of Representatives, and in 1857 to the State Senate. In 1861 hewas elected a Representative from Massachusetts to the Thirty-SeventhCongress, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of WilliamAppleton. He has been re-elected to the Thirty-Eighth, Thirty-Ninth, and Fortieth Congresses. --30. 

GILES W. HOTCHKISS is a member of the bar in Binghamton, New York. In1862 he was elected a Representative from New York to theThirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected in 1864. He was succeededin the Fortieth Congress by William S. Lincoln. --523, 538. 

JACOB M. HOWARD was born in Shaftsbury, Vermont, July 10, 1805, andgraduated at Williams College in 1830. Having taught in an academy andstudied law in Massachusetts, he removed to Michigan in 1832. In 1838he was a member of the State Legislature, and in 1841 was elected aRepresentative in Congress from Michigan. He subsequently served forsix years as Attorney General of the State. In 1862 he was elected toa vacancy in the United States Senate, and in 1865 he was re-electedfor the term ending in 1871. --36, 196, 398, 423, 453, 455, 530. 

TIMOTHY O. HOWE was born in Livermore, Maine, February 7, 1816. Havingreceived an academical education at the Readfield Seminary, he studiedlaw, and was admitted to the bar in 1839. He was elected to theLegislature of Maine in 1845, and in the same year removed to GreenBay, Wisconsin. Five years after he was elected a Circuit Judge, andheld the office until his resignation in 1855. In 1861 he was electeda Senator in Congress from Wisconsin, and was re-elected in1867. --421, 459. 

ASAHEL W. HUBBARD was born in Haddam, Connecticut, January 18, 1819. In 1838 he removed to Indiana, and engaged in school-teaching. Heentered upon the profession of law in 1841, and was in 1847 elected tothe Indiana Legislature, in which he served three terms. He removed toIowa in 1857, and was soon after elected Judge of the Fourth JudicialDistrict of that State. In 1862 he was elected a Representative fromIowa to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to theThirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. 

CHESTER D. HUBBARD was born in Hamden, Connecticut, November 25, 1814. In the following year he was removed to Pennsylvania, and thence toWheeling, Virginia, in 1819. Having graduated at Wesleyan University, Connecticut, in 1840, he returned to Wheeling, and engaged actively inbusiness pursuits. In 1852 he was elected to the lower House of theVirginia Legislature. He was a delegate to the Richmond Conventionwhich passed the ordinance of secession, and opposed that movementwith so much ardor that he was expelled from the Convention. He was amember of the Wheeling Convention which organized the restoredgovernment of Virginia, and after the formation of the new State ofWest Virginia, was elected to the State Senate. He was elected aRepresentative from West Virginia to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, andwas re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. 

DEMAS HUBBARD was born in Winfield, New York, January 17, 1806. Havingreceived an academic education he gave his attention to farming andthe practice of law. He was for many years a member and Chairman ofthe Board of Supervisors of Chenango County, and from 1838 to 1840 wasa member of the New York Legislature. In 1864 he was elected aRepresentative from New York to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. Hissuccessor in the Fortieth Congress is William C. Fields. 

JOHN H. HUBBARD was born in Salisbury, Connecticut, in 1805. He wasbrought up a farmer and received a common-school education. He wasadmitted to the bar in 1826. He was five years Prosecuting Attorneyfor Litchfield County, and two terms a member of the State Senate. Inthe spring of 1863 he was elected a Representative from Connecticut tothe Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected in 1865. He wassucceeded in the Fortieth Congress by _William H. Barnum_. --148. 

_EDWIN N. HUBBELL_ was born in Coxsackie, New York, August 13, 1813. Having received an academical education, he gave his attention tomanufacturing and farming, and held for some time the office of CountySupervisor. In 1864 he was elected a Representative from New York tothe Thirty-Ninth Congress. He was succeeded in the Fortieth Congressby Thomas Cornell. 

JAMES R. HUBBELL was born in Delaware County, Ohio, in 1824. Havingreceived a common-school education, he studied and practiced theprofession of law. He served four terms in the House ofRepresentatives of Ohio, of which he was twice the Speaker. In 1856 hewas a Presidential Elector. In 1864 he was elected a Representativefrom Ohio to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. He was succeeded in theFortieth Congress, by Cornelius S. Hamilton, deceased. 

CALVIN T. HULBURD was born in Stockholm, New York, June 5, 1809. Afterhaving graduated at Middlebury College, Vermont, and studied law atYale College, he engaged in agricultural pursuits. In 1842 he waselected to the Legislature of New York, and was twice re-elected. In1862 he was elected a Representative from New York to theThirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth andFortieth Congresses. 

JAMES HUMPHREY was born in Fairfield, Connecticut, October 9, 1811, and in 1831 graduated at Amherst College, of which his father, Rev. Heman Humphrey, was President. After having been principal of anacademy in Connecticut, he studied law, and commenced the practice ofhis profession in Louisville, Kentucky, where he remained only oneyear. In 1838 he removed to the City of New York for the practice ofthe law. In 1859 he was elected a member of Congress, and served oneterm. After remaining in private life a few years, he was elected amember of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, but died before its close, on the16th June, 1866. --570. 

_JAMES M. HUMPHREY_ was born in Erie County, New York, September 21, 1819. He received a common-school education and studied law. From 1857to 1859 he was District Attorney at Buffalo. He was a member of theState Senate from 1862 to 1865, when he was elected a Representativefrom New York to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. He was re-elected to theFortieth. 

_JOHN W. HUNTER_, a banker of Brooklyn, New York, was elected aRepresentative from New York to the Thirty-Ninth Congress to fill thevacancy occasioned by the death of James Humphrey. He took his seatDecember 4, 1866. His successor in the Fortieth Congress is _WilliamE. Robinson_. --515. 

EBEN C. INGERSOLL was born in Oneida County, New York, December 12, 1831. He removed with his father to Illinois in 1843. Having receivedan academical education at Paducah, Kentucky, he studied law, andlocated in Peoria, Illinois, for the practice of his profession. In1856 he was elected to the Illinois Legislature. He served as Colonelof Illinois Volunteers in the Civil War. On the death of Owen Lovejoy, March 25, 1864, he was elected a Representative from Illinois for theremainder of the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to theThirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. --521. 

THOMAS A. JENCKES was born in Providence, Rhode Island, in 1818. Having graduated at Brown University in 1838, he entered upon theprofession of law. In 1863 he was elected a Representative from RhodeIsland to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to theThirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. --31, 320, 332, 340, 554. 

_PHILIP JOHNSON_ was born in Warren County, New Jersey January 17, 1818, and removed to Pennsylvania in 1839. He was educated atLafayette College, and having studied law, he was admitted to the barin 1848. He was two years a member of the State Legislature, and wasChairman of the Democratic State Convention in 1857. In 1860 he waselected a Representative from Pennsylvania to the Thirty-SeventhCongress, and was subsequently twice re-elected. He died before theexpiration of the term for which he was elected as a member of theThirty-Ninth Congress. --90, 570. 

_REVERDY JOHNSON_ was born in Annapolis, Maryland, May 21, 1796. Hewas educated at St. John's College, in his native town, and studiedlaw with his father. The first office which he held was that of StateAttorney. In 1817 he removed to Baltimore for the practice of hisprofession, and was three years after appointed Chief Commissioner ofInsolvent Debtors. In 1821 he was elected to the Senate of Maryland, and was re-elected for a second term. In 1845 he was elected a Senatorin Congress from Maryland, but resigned in 1849 to accept the positionof Attorney General, to which he had been appointed by PresidentTaylor. Subsequently he devoted many years to the uninterruptedpractice of his profession. He was a delegate to the Peace Congress of1861, and was in the following year elected a United States Senatorfrom Maryland for the term ending in 1869. --24, 36, 96, 136, 163, 198, 203, 264, 270, 271, 384, 427, 454, 455, 461, 492, 528, 532, 533, 534, 547. 

_MORGAN JONES_ was born in New York City, February 26, 1832, and waseducated at the school of St. James' Church. He adopted the businessof a plumber, which he conducted in the City of New York. He served asa City Councilman for several years, and was subsequently elected amember of the Board of Aldermen, of which he was made President. In1864 he was elected a member of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and wassucceeded in the Fortieth Congress by _John Fox_. 

GEORGE W. JULIAN was born in Wayne County, Indiana, May 5, 1817. Afterspending three years as school-teacher, he studied law, and commencedthe practice of the profession in 1840. In 1845 he was a member of theState Legislature. Having become an earnest advocate of anti-slaveryprinciples, he attended the Buffalo Convention of 1848, whichnominated Van Buren and Adams, and subsequently, as a candidate forPresidential Elector on their ticket made a laborious canvass of hisdistrict. In 1849 he was Representative in Congress from Indiana. In1852 he was a candidate for Vice-President of the United States on theticket with John P. Hale. In 1860 he was re-elected Representative inCongress, and has since been a member of the Thirty-Eighth, Thirty-Ninth, and Fortieth Congresses. --31, 74, 364, 516, 553, 554. 

JOHN A. KASSON was born near Burlington, Vermont, January 11, 1822. Having graduated at the University of Vermont, he studied law inMassachusetts, and practiced the profession for a time in St. Louis, Missouri. In 1857 he removed to Iowa, and was appointed a Commissionerto report upon the condition of the Executive Departments of Iowa. In1861 he was appointed Assistant Postmaster-General, but resigned theposition in the following year, when he was elected a Representativeto Congress from Iowa. He was re-elected in 1864 to the Thirty-NinthCongress. His successor in the Fortieth Congress is Grenville M. Dodge. --72, 363, 525. 

WILLIAM D. KELLEY was born in Philadelphia in the spring of 1814. Hewas left an orphan when very young, dependent for support andeducation wholly upon his own resources. Having been errand-boy in abook-store, and copy-reader in a printing-office, in his fourteenthyear he apprenticed himself in a jewelry establishment. Having learnedhis trade, he removed to Boston, where he remained four years workingat his trade, and giving, meanwhile, considerable time to reading andstudy. Returning to Philadelphia, he studied law, and was admitted tothe bar in 1841. From 1846 for a period of ten years he held theoffice of Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. In 1856, on the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, he left the Democraticparty, and became the Republican candidate for Congress, but wasdefeated. In 1860 he was a delegate to the Chicago RepublicanConvention, and was, in the fall of the same year, elected aRepresentative from Pennsylvania to the Thirty-Seventh Congress, andwas re-elected to the Thirty-Eighth, Thirty-Ninth, and FortiethCongresses. --51, 58, 79, 348, 349, 438, 526. 

JOHN R. KELSO was born in Franklin County, Ohio, March 23, 1831. Atthe age of nine years he removed with his parents to North-westernMissouri, then a wilderness. After surmounting great obstacles hesucceeded in obtaining an education, and graduated at Pleasant RidgeCollege in 1858. He soon after became principal of an academy atBuffalo, Missouri. On the breaking out of the rebellion he was thefirst in his county to volunteer in defense of the Union, andimmediately took the field as captain of a company of daring andenterprising men. With his company he was detailed to hunt thebushwhackers, who, from their hiding-places, were committing the mostatrocious outrages upon the loyal people. His name became a terror tothe rebels and guerrillas of the Southwest. He took part in over sixtyfierce conflicts, and in personal encounter killed twenty-six armedrebels with his own hand. At the close of his service in the war hewas elected a Representative from Missouri to the Thirty-NinthCongress. He declined renomination, and resumed his profession ofteaching in Springfield, Missouri. His successor in the FortiethCongress is Joseph J. Gravelly. 

_MICHAEL C. KERR_ was born in Titusville, Pennsylvania, March 15, 1827. He was left an orphan at the age of twelve years, and throughhis own exertions obtained an academical education. He taught schoolfor a time, and, in 1851, graduated in the Law Department of theUniversity of Louisville, and soon after located in New Albany, Indiana. In 1856 he was elected to the Legislature of Indiana, andserved two terms. In 1862 he was elected reporter of the decisions ofthe Supreme Court, and held the office two years, publishing fivevolumes of reports. In 1864 he was elected a Representative fromIndiana to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected to theFortieth Congress. --147, 236, 362, 510. 

JOHN H. KETCHAM was born in Dover, New York, December 21, 1831. Havingreceived an academical education, he devoted his attention toagricultural pursuits. In 1856 and 1857 he was a member of the NewYork House of Representatives, and of the State Senate in 1860 and1861. He entered the military service in 1862 as Colonel of the OneHundred and Fiftieth New York Regiment, and became a Brigadier Generalby brevet. He resigned his position in the army in March, 1865, havingbeen elected a Representative from New York to the Thirty-NinthCongress. He was re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. --31. 

SAMUEL J. KIRKWOOD was born in Hartford County, Maryland, December 20, 1813, and received an academical education in Washington. Havingremoved to Ohio he studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1843. He was four years Prosecuting Attorney for Richland County, and was amember of the Ohio Constitutional Convention in 1850. Having removedto Iowa, he was elected to the State Senate in 1856. He was Governorof Iowa from 1860 to 1864, and, in January, 1866, he was elected aUnited States Senator from Iowa for the unexpired term of JamesHarlan, ending in 1867, at which date he was succeeded by hispredecessor, who was re-elected. --487. 

WILLIAM H. KOONTZ, a lawyer by profession, was elected aRepresentative from Pennsylvania to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. Hesuccessfully contested the seat taken by Alexander H. Coffroth, andwas admitted near the close of the first session. He was, in 1866, re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. --508. 

ANDREW J. KUYKENDALL was born in Gallatin County, Illinois, March 3, 1815, and became a lawyer. From 1842 to 1846 he was a member of theIllinois House of Representatives, and was, from 1850 to 1852, amember of the State Senate. He was Major of the Thirty-First IllinoisInfantry, but resigned on account of ill health in the early part ofthe war. In 1864 he was elected a Representative to Congress fromIllinois, and was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by Green B. Raum. 

ADDISON H. LAFLIN was born in Lee, Massachusetts, October 24, 1823. Hegraduated at Williams College in 1843. He afterward settled inHerkimer County, New York, and became engaged extensively in themanufacture of paper. In 1857 he was elected State Senator. In 1864 hewas elected a Representative to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and wasre-elected in 1866. 

HENRY S. LANE was born in Montgomery County, Kentucky, February 24, 1811. After having obtained an academical education, he studied law, and removed to Indiana, where he engaged in the practice of hisprofession. In 1837 he was elected to the Indiana Legislature. In 1840he was elected a Representative in Congress from Indiana. He servedunder General Taylor in the Mexican War as Lieutenant-Colonel ofVolunteers. He was President of the first Republican NationalConvention which met in Philadelphia, July 4, 1856. In 1861 he waselected Governor of Indiana, but resigned the office two days afterhis inauguration to accept the position of Senator in Congress, towhich he was elected for the term ending in 1867. He was succeeded byOliver P. Morton. --213, 381, 383, 499, 532. 

JAMES H. LANE was born in Lawrenceburg, Indiana, June 22, 1814. Heserved as a soldier through the Mexican War, and soon after his returnin 1849 was elected Lieutenant-Governor of Indiana. He was an activeDemocratic politician, and as such was elected a Representative inCongress from Indiana in 1853. Soon after the close of hisCongressional term, he went to Kansas, where he actively aided in thework of erecting a Free-State Government. He was President of theTopeka and the Leavenworth Constitutional Conventions, and was electedby the people Major General of the Free-State Troops. On the admissionof Kansas into the Union, he was elected a Senator in Congress fromthat State. Soon after the breaking out of the Rebellion, he wasappointed by President Lincoln a Brigadier General of Volunteers. Hewas a member of the Baltimore Convention of 1864. In 1865 he wasre-elected by the Legislature of Kansas a Senator in Congress. On the1st of July, 1866, while at Fort Leavenworth on leave of absence fromthe Senate on account of ill-health, he committed suicide. --171, 201, 279, 284, 285, 457, 569. 

GEORGE R. LATHAM was born in Prince William County, Virginia, March 9, 1832. He engaged in teaching school, and while in that employmentstudied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1859. During thePresidential Campaign of 1860, he edited a paper in Grafton, Virginia. At the breaking out of the Rebellion, he entered the army as Captain, and became Colonel of the Second Virginia Volunteers. In 1864 he waselected a Representative from West Virginia to the Thirty-NinthCongress, and was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by Bethuel M. Kitchen. 

GEORGE V. LAWRENCE, whose father, Joseph Lawrence, was a member ofCongress, was born in Washington County, Pennsylvania, in 1818. Hereceived a liberal education at Washington College, and engaged inagricultural pursuits. He was in 1844 elected a member of thePennsylvania House of Representatives, and was three times re-elected. He served five terms in the State Senate, of which, during his lastterm of service, he was the Presiding Officer. In 1864 he was electeda Representative from Pennsylvania to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, andwas re-elected in 1866. 

WILLIAM LAWRENCE was born in Mount Pleasant, Ohio, June 26, 1819. Hegraduated at Franklin College, Ohio, in 1838, and subsequently taughtschool in McConnellsville. In 1840 he graduated in the Law Departmentof Cincinnati College. In 1841 he located in Bellefontaine, Ohio, forthe practice of law. In 1842 he was appointed Commissioner ofBankrupts for Logan County. In 1845 he was elected ProsecutingAttorney, and in the same year became proprietor of the "LoganGazette, " of which he was two years the editor. In 1846 he was electeda Representative in the Legislature, and was re-elected in thefollowing year. In 1849 and 1850 he was a member of the Ohio Senate, and again in 1854, having in the interval held the office of Reporterfor the Supreme Court. He was the originator of many legislative actsof great importance to the State, among the rest one relating to landtitles, known as "Lawrence's Law, " and the _Ohio Free Banking Law_, similar in some respects to the existing National Banking Law. In 1854he was one of the signers to a call for a State Convention inopposition to the "Kansas-Nebraska Bill. " In 1856 he was elected aJudge of the Court of Common Pleas, and in 1861 was re-elected for aterm of five years. In 1862 he had command as Colonel of theEighty-Fourth Regiment of Ohio Volunteers for three months. InSeptember, 1863, President Lincoln gave him the commission of Judge ofthe U. S. District Court of Florida, which he declined. In 1864 he waselected a Representative from Ohio to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, andin 1866 he was re-elected. --343, 345, 520. 

_FRANCIS C. Le BLOND_ was born in Ohio, and became a lawyer. In 1851and in 1853 he was elected to the State Legislature and served asSpeaker. In 1862 he was elected a Representative from Ohio to theThirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected in 1864. His successor inthe Fortieth Congress is _William Mungen_. --243, 306, 519, 538, 547. 

JOHN W. LEFTWICH was born in Bedford County, Virginia, September 7, 1826. He removed with his parents to Tennessee in 1834, and wasoccupied in farm work in summer, and attending school in winter, untiltwenty years of age. He served as a private in the Mexican War, and onhis return attended the Jefferson Medical College of Philadelphia, where he graduated in 1850. He practiced medicine in Middle Tennesseetwo years, and then removed to Memphis, where he was occupied withmercantile pursuits until the breaking out of the war. Being loyal tothe Union, he found it necessary after the battle of Fort Donaldson tocross the Federal lines. After the occupation of Memphis by theFederal forces in June, 1862, he returned to find that his personalproperty had been confiscated by the rebels. He resumed business, however, and was elected President of the Memphis Chamber of Commerceon its reörganization. He was elected a Representative from Tennesseeto the Thirty-Ninth Congress, to which, with his colleagues, he wasadmitted in July, 1866. He was nominated for re-election by the"Conservative Party, " and was defeated by David A. Nunn. 

BENJAMIN F. LOAN was born in Hardinsburg, Kentucky, in 1819. In 1838he removed to Missouri and engaged in the practice of law. At thebreaking out of the rebellion he entered the army, and was appointedBrigadier General. In 1862 he was elected a Representative fromMissouri to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to theThirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. 

JOHN W. LONGYEAR was born in Shandaken, Ulster County, New York, October 22, 1820. Having acquired an academical education, he removedto Michigan in 1844. He studied law, and was admitted to the bar in1846. In 1862 he was elected a Representative from Michigan to theThirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected in 1864. His successor inthe Fortieth Congress is Austin Blair. --447. 

JOHN LYNCH was born in Portland, Maine, February 15, 1825. Afterreceiving an academical education he entered upon mercantile pursuitsin his native city. After serving two years in the State Legislaturehe was, in 1864, elected a Representative from Maine to theThirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected in 1866. 

_SAMUEL S. MARSHALL_ was born in Illinois, and was educated atCumberland College, Kentucky. He devoted himself to the practice oflaw in Illinois, and was elected to the State Legislature in 1846. Heserved two years as State Attorney, and, in 1851, was elected a Judgeof the Circuit Court, and held the office until 1854, when he waselected a Representative from Illinois to the Thirty-Fourth Congressand was re-elected in 1856. He was a delegate to the ChicagoDemocratic Convention of 1864, and was the same year elected, aRepresentative to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. He was re-elected in1866. --148, 352. 

GILMAN MARSTON was born in Orford, New Hampshire. In 1837 he graduatedat Dartmouth College, and in 1840 at the Dane Law School. He commencedthe practice of law in the following year, in 1845 he was elected tothe New Hampshire Legislature, and served four years. In 1859 he waselected a Representative from New Hampshire to the Thirty-SixthCongress, and was re-elected in 1861. In June, 1861, he was appointedColonel of the Second Regiment of New Hampshire Volunteers, and in1863 was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General. He participated inmany battles, and on the fall of Richmond retired from the army. Earlyin 1865 he was re-elected a Representative in Congress from NewHampshire. His successor in the Fortieth Congress is Jacob H. Ela. --31. 

JAMES M. MARVIN was born in Ballston, New York, February 27, 1809. Hespent his boyhood on a farm, and received an academical education. When not in public life he has been occupied in managing a largeestate. In 1846 he was elected to the Legislature of New York, andsubsequently held, for three terms, the office of County Supervisor. In 1862 he was elected a Representative from New York to theThirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth andFortieth Congresses. 

HORACE MAYNARD was born in Westborough, Massachusetts, August 30, 1814. He graduated at Amherst College in 1838. Soon after, he removedto Tennessee, and was appointed Professor of Mathematics in theUniversity of East Tennessee. While holding this position he studiedlaw, and was admitted to the bar in 1844. He was a PresidentialElector in 1852, and in 1856 was elected a Representative fromTennessee to the Thirty-Fifth Congress, and was twice re-elected. Hewas in Washington as a member of the Thirty-Seventh Congress when therebels took possession of Tennessee. His property was confiscated, andhis family was driven from their home in East Tennessee. He was adelegate to the Baltimore Republican Convention of 1864, and was thesame year re-elected a Representative from Tennessee to theThirty-Ninth Congress, and was admitted to his seat in July, 1866. Hewas re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. --17, 434, 478, 480, 506, 527. 

JOSEPH W. McCLURG was born in St. Louis County, Missouri, February 22, 1818, and was educated at Miami University, Ohio. He subsequentlyspent two years as a teacher in Louisiana and Mississippi. In 1841 hewent to Texas, where he was admitted to the bar, and became Clerk of aCircuit Court. In 1844 he settled in Missouri as a merchant. At theoutbreak of the civil war he suffered severe losses at the hands ofrebels, and abandoning his business he served for a time as Colonel ofCavalry. He was a member of the Missouri State Convention of 1862, andwas in that year elected a Representative from Missouri to theThirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected in 1864 and 1866. 

_HIRAM McCULLOUGH_ was born in Cecil County, Maryland, September 20, 1813. He was educated at the Elkton Academy, studied law, and wasadmitted to the bar in 1838. From 1845 to 1851 he was a member of theMaryland Senate. In 1852 he was appointed by the Legislature one ofthe codifiers of the laws of Maryland, and aided in making the presentcode of that State. In 1864 he was elected a Representative fromMaryland to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected in 1866. 

JAMES A. McDOUGALL was born at Bethlehem, New York, November 19, 1817, and was educated at the Albany Grammar School. He assisted in thesurvey of the first railroad ever built in this country. In 1837 heremoved to Illinois and engaged in the practice of law. In 1842 he waschosen Attorney General of Illinois, and two years after wasre-elected. In 1849 he originated and accompanied an exploringexpedition to the far West. He soon after emigrated to California, andin 1850 was elected Attorney General of that State. From 1853 to 1855he served as a Representative in Congress from California. In 1861 hewas elected United States Senator for California for the term endingwith the expiration of the Thirty-Ninth Congress. He died in Albany, New York, in the summer of 1867. --136, 137, 163, 277, 287, 432, 461, 533, 535. 

WALTER D. McINDOE was born in Scotland, March 30, 1819. He emigratedto New York City in his fifteenth year, and was a clerk in that city, and afterwards in Charleston and St. Louis. He subsequently settled inWis-' cousin, and engaged in the lumber trade. In 1850 he was a memberof the Wisconsin Legislature, and was twice re-elected. In 1856, andin 1860, he was a Presidential Elector. In 1862 he was elected aRepresentative from Wisconsin to fill a vacancy in the Thirty-SeventhCongress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-NinthCongresses. His successor in the Fortieth Congress is Cadwalader C. Washburn. 

SAMUEL McKEE was born in Montgomery County, Kentucky, November 4, 1833. In 1858 he graduated at the Miami University, Ohio, andafterwards at the Cincinnati Law School in 1858. He subsequentlypracticed law until 1862, when he entered the Union army as Captain ofthe Fourteenth Kentucky Cavalry. He was thirteen months a prisoner inLibby Prison. In 1865 he was elected a Representative from Kentucky tothe Thirty-Ninth Congress. --152, 361, 441. 

DONALD McRUER was born in Maine in 1826. He received an academicaleducation, and engaged in mercantile pursuits. Removing to California, he settled in San Francisco. He held for some time the office ofHarbor Commissioner for that State. In 1864 he was elected aRepresentative from California to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. He wassucceeded by _Samuel B. Axtell_ in the Fortieth Congress. 

ULYSSES MERCUR was born in Towanda, Pennsylvania, August 12, 1818. Hegraduated at Jefferson College, in 1842, and was admitted to the barin the following year. In 1861 he was elected President Judge of theThirteenth Judicial District of Pennsylvania, for a term of ten years, but resigned in 1864 when he was elected a Representative fromPennsylvania to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. In 1866 he was re-electedto the Fortieth Congress. 

GEORGE F. MILLER was born in Chilisquaque, Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, September 5, 1809. Having obtained an academicaleducation, he studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1833. He wasfor several years Secretary of the Lewisburg University. He took anactive interest in local politics, but frequently declined nominationsfor County and State offices. In 1864 he was elected a Representativefrom Pennsylvania to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected in1866. --443, 510. 

JAMES K. MOORHEAD was born in Pennsylvania, in 1806. He spent hisyouth on a farm and as an apprentice to a tanner. He was a contractorfor building the Susquehanna branch of the Pennsylvania Canal, onwhich he originated a passenger packet line. In 1836 he removed toPittsburg, where he became President of a company for the improvementof the navigation of the Monongahela, and subsequently was Presidentof several telegraph companies. In 1859 he was re-elected aRepresentative to the Thirty-Sixth Congress from Pennsylvania, and hasbeen re-elected to every succeeding Congress, including theFortieth. --31. 

EDWIN D. MORGAN was born in Washington, Massachusetts, February 8, 1811. At the age of seventeen he became a clerk, and three years latera partner in a wholesale grocery house in Hartford, Connecticut. In1836 he settled in New York City, and embarked extensively inmercantile pursuits. In 1849 he was chosen an Alderman of the city, and soon after was elected a member of the State Senate, in which heserved two terms. Since 1856 he has been Chairman of the NationalRepublican Committee. In 1858 he was elected Governor of New York, andre-elected in 1860. During his administration, 223, 000 troops weresent into the field from New York. Governor Morgan was appointed byPresident Lincoln a Major General of Volunteers. In 1863 he waselected United States Senator from New York for the term ending in1869. 

JUSTIN S. MORRILL was born in Strafford, Vermont, April 14, 1810. Hereceived an academical education, and subsequently gave his attentionto mercantile and agricultural pursuits. In 1854 he was elected aRepresentative from Vermont to the Thirty-Fourth Congress, and wasre-elected to the Thirty-Fifth, Thirty-Sixth, Thirty-Seventh, Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-Ninth Congresses. In 1867 he became a UnitedStates Senator from Vermont for the term ending in 1873, succeedingLuke P. Poland, who became the successor of Mr. Morrill as aRepresentative in the Fortieth Congress. --17, 19, 29, 555. 

LOT M. MORRILL was born at Belgrade, Maine, in 1815. He studied atWaterville College, and was admitted to the bar in 1839. In 1854 hewas a member of the Maine Legislature, and in 1856 he was President ofthe State Senate. In 1858 he was elected Governor of Maine, and wastwice re-elected. In 1861 he was elected United States Senator fromMaine for the unexpired term of Vice-President Hamlin. In 1863 he wasre-elected to the Senate for the term ending in 1869. --28, 204, 205, 207, 408, 484, 485, 489, 530. 

DANIEL MORRIS was born in Seneca County, New York, January 4, 1812. Hewas bred a farmer, taught school for a time, and finally became alawyer. Having been District Attorney for Yates County, and member ofthe State Legislature, he was in 1862 elected a Representative fromNew York to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and in 1864 was re-elected. His successor in the Fortieth Congress is William H. Kelsey. 

SAMUEL W. MOULTON was born in Wareham, Massachusetts, January 20, 1822. Having acquired a common-school education, at the age of twentyhe emigrated to the West, and spent a year at Covington, Kentucky, where he commenced the study of law. He subsequently went toMississippi, where he taught school, and continued the study of law. In 1845 he settled in Illinois, and soon after commenced the practiceof law. In 1852 he was elected to the Legislature of Illinois, and wascontinuously re-elected until 1859. He was the author of theFree-School System of Illinois. He held the position of Chairman ofthe Board of Education for a number of years. He was a candidate forPresidential Elector on the Democratic ticket in 1856. On the breakingout of the Rebellion he joined the Republican party, and was in 1863elected President of the Union League of Illinois. In 1864 he waselected Representative from the State at large to the Thirty-NinthCongress, and was succeeded by John A. Logan in the FortiethCongress. --149. 

LEONARD MYERS was born in Attleborough, Pennsylvania, November 13, 1827. Having entered the profession of law, and settled inPhiladelphia, he became Solicitor for two municipal districts in thatcity. He digested the ordinances for the consolidation of the city, and has translated several works from the French. In 1862 he waselected a member of the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected tothe Thirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. 

_JAMES W. NESMITH_ was born in Washington County, Maine, July 23, 1820. When quite young, he removed to New Hampshire, emigrated to Ohioin 1838, subsequently spent some time in Missouri, and finally settledin Oregon in 1843. In 1853 he was appointed United States Marshal forOregon. In 1857 he was appointed Superintendent of Indian Affairs forOregon and Washington Territories. In 1861 he became United StatesSenator from Oregon for the term ending in 1867, when he was succeededby Henry W. Corbett. 

WILLIAM A. NEWELL is a native of Ohio, and a graduate of Rutger'sCollege. He studied medicine, and took up his residence in Allentown, New Jersey. He was a member of Congress from that State from 1847 to1851. In 1856 he was elected Governor of New Jersey, and held theoffice till 1860. He was again elected a Representative to Congress in1864, and was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by _Charles Haight_. 

_WILLIAM E. NIBLACK_ was born in Dubois County, Indiana, May 19, 1822, and spent his early life on a farm. He attended the Indiana Universityat intervals during three years, and afterwards devoted some time tosurveying and civil engineering. In 1845 he commenced the practice oflaw, and in 1849 he was elected a Representative in the StateLegislature. In the following year he was elected to the State Senate. In January, 1854, he was appointed Judge of the Third JudicialCircuit, to fill a vacancy, and was, in the following fall, elected tothe office for the term of six years. In 1857 he was elected aRepresentative from Indiana to the Thirty-Fifth Congress, and wasre-elected in 1859. After the close of the Thirty-Sixth Congress heserved one term in the State Legislature. In 1864 he was again electeda Representative in Congress from Indiana, and was re-elected to theFortieth Congress. --526. 

_JOHN A. NICHOLSON_ was born in Laurel, Delaware, November 17, 1827. Having graduated at Dickinson College, Pennsylvania, he studied law, and settled in Dover, Delaware, where he was admitted to the bar in1850. In 1865 he entered Congress as a Representative from Delaware, and was re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. --361. 

THOMAS E. NOELL was born in Perryville, Missouri, April 3, 1839. Hewas admitted to the bar at nineteen years of age, and practiced until1861, when he was appointed a Military Commissioner for the arrest ofdisloyal persons. He subsequently went into the ranks of the Statemilitia, and reached the rank of Major. In 1862 he was appointed aCaptain in the Nineteenth Regiment of Regular United States Infantry. In 1864 he was elected a Representative from Missouri to theThirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected in 1866. 

DANIEL S. NORTON was born in Mount Vernon, Ohio, April 12, 1829. Afterbeing educated at Kenyon College, he served in the Mexican War. Hesubsequently went to California, and thence to Nicaragua, where hespent a year. Returning to Ohio, he studied law, and was admitted tothe bar in 1852. He emigrated to Minnesota in 1855, and was, two yearsafter, elected to the State Senate, to which he was three timesre-elected. In 1865 he was elected a Senator in Congress fromMinnesota for the term ending in 1871. 

JAMES W. NYE was born in Madison County, New York, June 10, 1815, andentered the profession of law. In 1861 he was appointed by PresidentLincoln Governor of Nevada Territory. He held this office until theadmission of Nevada into the Union, when he was elected a Senator fromthe new State for the term ending in 1871. --425, 457. 

CHARLES O'NEILL was born in Philadelphia, March 21, 1821. Havinggraduated at Dickinson College, and studied law, he was admitted tothe bar in 1843. He served five years in the House of Representativesand Senate of Pennsylvania. In 1862 he was elected a Representative tothe Thirty-Eighth Congress. In 1865 he entered upon his second term inCongress, and was re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. 

GODLOVE S. ORTH was born near Lebanon, Pennsylvania, April 22, 1817. He was educated at the Pennsylvania College, Gettysburg. In 1839 hewas admitted to the bar, and removed to Indiana, locating inLafayette. In 1843 he was elected to the Indiana Senate, and servedsix years. A part of the time he was President of that body. In 1848he was a Whig candidate for Presidential Elector. In 1861 he was amember of the "Peace Congress. " In 1862, Indiana being threatened witha sudden invasion, the Governor made a call for volunteers to meet theemergency. Mr. Orth immediately responded with two hundred men, whoelected him their Captain. He was placed in command of the U. S. Ram"Horner, " which cruised the Ohio river, and did much to restore andmaintain quiet along its shores. In 1862 he was elected aRepresentative from Indiana to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and wasre-elected to the Thirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. --336. 

HALBERT E. PAINE was born at Chardon, Ohio, February 4, 1826. Havinggraduated at the Western Reserve College in 1845, he studied law, andlocated in Cleveland. In 1857 he removed to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Heentered the army in 1861 as Colonel of the Fourth Wisconsin Regiment, and soon rose to the rank of Brigadier General. He lost a leg in June, 1863, at the last assault on Port Hudson. Resigning his commission in1865, he was elected a Representative to the Thirty-Ninth Congressfrom Wisconsin, and was re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. --504, 506. 

_DAVID T. PATTERSON_ was born at Cedar Creek, Green County, Tennessee, February 28, 1819. He was educated at Meadow Creek Academy andGreenville College. He followed for some time the business of apaper-maker, but gave attention to the study of law, and was admittedto the bar in 1841, and practiced in Greenville. Here he married adaughter of Andrew Johnson. In 1854 he was elected Judge of the FirstJudicial Circuit of Tennessee. In May, 1865, he was elected a UnitedStates Senator from Tennessee for the term ending in 1869. After aprotracted consideration and discussion of his case, he was sworn innear the close of the first session of the Thirty-NinthCongress. --478, 482. 

JAMES W. PATTERSON was born in Hanniker, New Hampshire, July 2, 1823. He graduated at Dartmouth College in 1848. He was Professor ofMathematics in Dartmouth College from 1854 to 1859, and was thentransferred to the chair of Astronomy and Meteorology. He was fouryears Secretary of the Board of Education of New Hampshire, and in1862 he was a member of the State Legislature. He was elected aRepresentative from New Hampshire to the Thirty-Eighth andThirty-Ninth Congresses. At the expiration of the latter Congress hebecame United States Senator from Vermont for the term ending in 1873. 

SIDNEY PERHAM was born in Woodstock, Maine, March 27, 1819. Until histhirty-fourth year he was a farmer and a teacher. In 1852 he waselected a member of the State Board of Agriculture, and served twoyears. In 1855 he was a member of the Maine Legislature, andofficiated as Speaker. In 1856 he was a Presidential Elector. In 1858he was elected Clerk of a County Court, which position he held until1862, when he was elected a Representative from Maine to theThirty-Eighth Congress. He was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth andFortieth Congresses. 

CHARLES E. PHELPS was born in Guilford, Vermont, May 1, 1833. Havinggraduated at Princeton College in 1853, he came to the Maryland bar in1855. In 1862 he was made Lieutenant-Colonel of the Seventh MarylandVolunteers, and was discharged, on account of wounds, in 1864. He waselected a Representative from Maryland to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected in 1866. --156. 

FREDERICK A. PIKE was born in Calais, Maine, where he now resides. Headopted the profession of law, and served some time as Attorney forthe County. He was several years a member, and during one termSpeaker, of the Maine House of Representatives. In 1862 he was electeda Representative from Maine to the Thirty-Seventh Congress, and wasre-elected to the Thirty-Eighth, Thirty-Ninth, and FortiethCongresses. --348, 503, 504, 519, 553. 

TOBIAS A. PLANTS was born in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, March 17, 1811. After teaching school for several years, he studied law, and wasadmitted to the bar in 1841. Having settled in Ohio, he served in theState Legislature from 1858 to 1861. In 1864 he was elected aRepresentative from Ohio to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and wasre-elected in 1866. --509. 

LUKE P. POLAND was born in Westford, Vermont, November 1, 1815. Havingreceived an academical education he studied law, and was admitted tothe bar in 1836. In 1839 and 1840 he was Register of Probate forLamoille County. In 1843 he was a member of the State ConstitutionalConvention, and in the following year was elected Prosecuting Attorneyfor his County. In 1848 he was elected by the Legislature one of theJudges of the Supreme Court of Vermont. This position he continued tohold by annual elections until November, 1865, when he was appointedto fill the vacancy in the United States Senate occasioned by thedeath of Judge Collamer. His term of service in the Senate closingMarch 4, 1867, he took his seat as a Representative from Vermont inthe Fortieth Congress. --28, 459. 

SAMUEL C. POMEROY was born in Southampton, Massachusetts, January 3, 1816. He entered Amherst College in 1836, and in 1838 went to MonroeCounty, New York, where he resided four years. He returned to hisnative town in 1842, and having espoused the Anti-Slavery cause, helabored zealously to advance its principles. Annually for eight yearshe ran on the Anti-Slavery ticket for the Massachusetts Legislature, without success, until 1852, when he was elected over both Whigs andDemocrats. In 1854 he aided in organizing the New England Emigrant AidSociety, and was its financial agent, and the same year he conducted acolony to Kansas. He was a member of the Territorial DefenseCommittee, and was active in his efforts to protect the settlers fromthe border ruffians. During the famine in Kansas, he was Chairman ofthe Relief Committee. He was a delegate to the Republican NationalConventions of 1856 and 1860. In 1861 he was elected a Senator inCongress from Kansas, and was re-elected in 1867 for the term endingin 1873. --404, 487, 495. 

THEODORE M. POMEROY was born in Cayuga, New York, December 31, 1824. He graduated at Hamilton College, and adopted the profession of law. From 1850 to 1856 he was District Attorney for his native county, andin 1857 was a member of the New York Legislature. In 1860 he waselected a Representative from New York to the Thirty-Seventh Congress, and has been re-elected to the Thirty-Eighth, Thirty-Ninth, andFortieth Congresses. --30. 

HIRAM PRICE was born in Washington County, Pennsylvania, January 10, 1814. Removing to Iowa, he settled in the City of Davenport, and wasmade President of the State Bank of Iowa. In 1862 he was elected aRepresentative from Iowa to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and wasre-elected to the Thirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. --30. 

_WILLIAM RADFORD_ was born in Poughkeepsie, New York, June 24, 1814. He settled in New York City in 1829, and engaged in mercantilepursuits. In 1862 he was elected a Representative from New York to theThirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected in 1864. He was succeededin the Fortieth Congress by William H. Robertson. 

ALEXANDER RAMSAY was born near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, September 8, 1815. In 1841 he was elected Clerk of the Pennsylvania House ofRepresentatives. From 1843 to 1847 he was a Representative in Congressfrom Pennsylvania. In 1849 he was appointed, by President Taylor, thefirst Territorial Governor of Minnesota, and held the office until1853. During his term of office, he negotiated some important Indiantreaties. From 1858 to 1862 he held the office of Governor of theState of Minnesota. In 1863 he was elected a United States Senatorfrom Minnesota for the term ending in 1869. 

_SAMUEL J. RANDALL_ was born in Philadelphia, in 1828. He was for manyyears engaged in mercantile pursuits. He served four years in thePhiladelphia City Council and one term in the State Senate. In 1862 hewas elected a Representative to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and wasre-elected to the Thirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. --79, 444. 

WILLIAM H. RANDALL was born in Kentucky. He studied law, and wasadmitted to the bar in 1835. Having held the office of Clerk of theCircuit Court for a number of years, he was, in 1862, elected aRepresentative to Congress from Kentucky, and was re-elected in 1864. His successor in the Fortieth Congress is _George M. Adams_. 

HENRY J. RAYMOND was born in Lima, New York, January 24, 1820. He wasbrought up on a farm, and became teacher in a district school whensixteen years of age. In 1840 he graduated at the University ofVermont, and soon after went to New York City, where, in 1841, hebecame managing editor of the "New York Tribune. " He subsequentlybecame the leading editor of the "New York Courier and Enquirer. " In1849 he was elected to the New York Legislature, and having beenre-elected, was made Speaker of the House. In 1851 he established the"New York Times. " He was subsequently elected Lieutenant-Governor ofNew York, and was again a member of the General Assembly. In 1864 hewas elected a Representative from New York to the Thirty-NinthCongress, and was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by Thomas E. Stewart. --31, 155, 234, 314, 317, 328, 364, 370, 372, 439, 440, 512, 524, 525, 564. 

ALEXANDER H. RICE was born in Newton, Massachusetts, in August, 1818. He graduated at Union College in 1844, and subsequently engaged in themanufacture of paper. In 1853 he was elected a member and President ofthe City Council of Boston. In 1856 and 1857 he was Mayor of Boston. In 1858 he was elected a Representative from Massachusetts to theThirty-Sixth Congress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Seventh, Thirty-Eighth, and Thirty-Ninth Congresses. He was succeeded in theFortieth Congress by Ginery Twitchell. 

JOHN H. RICE was born in Mount Vernon, Maine, February 5, 1816. Havingbeen successively sheriff, lumberman, and lawyer, he was, in 1852, elected State Attorney of Maine. He held this office until 1860, whenhe was elected a Representative from Maine to the Thirty-SeventhCongress. He was re-elected to the Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-NinthCongresses. He was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by John A. Peters. 

_GEORGE REED RIDDLE_ was born in New Castle, Delaware, in 1817. He waseducated at Delaware College. Devoting himself to civil engineering, he was occupied for some years in locating and constructing canals andrailroads. He afterwards studied law, and was admitted to the Delawarebar in 1848. In 1850 he was chosen a Representative in Congress fromDelaware, and was re-elected in 1852. In 1864 he was elected a UnitedStates Senator for the term ending in 1869, and died in Washington, March, 1867. 

_BURWELL C. RITTER_ was born in Kentucky, January 10, 1810. He hasdevoted his life to agricultural pursuits. In 1843, and again in 1850, he was a member of the State Legislature. In 1865 he was elected aRepresentative from Kentucky to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. _John YoungBrown_ was elected as his successor in the Fortieth Congress. --149. 

_ANDREW J. ROGERS_ was born in Hamburg, New Jersey, July 1, 1828. Hespent his youth as an assistant in a hotel and in a country store. Hestudied law while engaged in school-teaching, and was admitted to thebar in 1852. In 1862 he was elected a Representative from New Jerseyto the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and in 1864 was re-elected. He wassucceeded in the Fortieth Congress by John Hill. --59, 222, 306, 325, 447, 462, 520, 553. 

EDWARD H. ROLLINS was born in Rollingford, New Hampshire, October 3, 1824. Having received an academical education, he taught school forsome time, and subsequently engaged in mercantile pursuits. From 1855to 1857 he was a member of the New Hampshire Legislature, and duringtwo years was Speaker of the House. In 1856 he was Chairman of theState Republican Committee. In 1860 he was elected a Representativefrom New Hampshire to the Thirty-Seventh Congress, and was re-electedto the Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-Ninth Congresses. His successor in theFortieth Congress is Aaron F. Stevens. 

EDMUND G. ROSS was born in Wisconsin. He learned the art of printing, and became an editor. In 1856 he removed to Kansas, and took an activepart in the affairs of the territory. He was a member of the KansasConstitutional Convention of 1858. From that time until 1861 he was amember of the State Legislature. He served in a Kansas regiment duringthe rebellion, and reached the rank of Major. He subsequently becameeditor of the "Lawrence Tribune. " In July, 1866, he was appointed aSenator in Congress from Kansas for the unexpired term of James H. Lane, deceased. 

_LEWIS W. ROSS_ was born in Seneca County, New York, December 8, 1812. He was removed in boyhood to Illinois. He was educated at IllinoisCollege, and adopted the profession of law. He was elected to theState Legislature in 1840 and 1844. He was a Democratic PresidentialElector in 1848, and a delegate to the Charleston and BaltimoreConventions of 1860. In 1861 he was a member of the StateConstitutional Convention, and in the following year was elected aRepresentative from Illinois to the Thirty-Eighth Congress. He wasre-elected to the Thirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. --513. 

_LOVELL H. ROUSSEAU_ was born in Stanford, Kentucky, August 4, 1818. He studied law, and removed to Indiana in 1841. He was three years amember of the Indiana House of Representatives, and three years amember of the State Senate. He served as a Captain in the Mexican War, and on his return settled in Louisville, Kentucky. In 1860 he waselected to the Senate of Kentucky, and after serving through thestormy session of 1861 he resigned, to raise a regiment for the war. In June, 1861, he was commissioned a Colonel, and in October of thesame year was made a Brigadier General. In October of the followingyear he was promoted to the rank of Major General for his gallantry inthe battles of Shiloh and Stone River. In 1865 he was elected aRepresentative from Kentucky to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. At theclose of his Congressional term he was commissioned a BrigadierGeneral in the Regular Army, and assigned to the command of the newlyacquired possessions of the United States in the North-west. --31, 151, 572, 573, 574. 

_WILLARD SAULSBURY_ was born in Kent County, Delaware, June 2, 1820. He was educated at Delaware College and Dickinson College. Havingstudied law, he was admitted to the bar in 1845. In 1850 he wasappointed Attorney General of Delaware, and held the office fiveyears. In 1859 he was elected a United States Senator from Delaware, and was re-elected in 1865 for the term ending in 1871. --24, 44, 124, 127, 136, 192, 219, 287, 306, 405, 456, 458, 496, 531, 534, 548. 

PHILETUS SAWYER was born in Whiting, Addison County, Vermont. Afterreceiving a common-school and business education, he removed toWisconsin and engaged in the lumber trade. In 1857 and 1861 he waselected to the Wisconsin Legislature. He served as Mayor of Oshkosh in1863 and 1864. In the latter year he was elected a Representative fromWisconsin to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected in 1866. 

ROBERT C. SCHENCK was born in Franklin, Ohio, October 4, 1809. Hegraduated at Miami University in 1827. He studied law under ThomasCorwin, and was admitted to the bar in 1831. He was elected to theOhio Legislature in 1841, and served two terms. In 1842 he was electeda Representative from Ohio to the Twenty-Eighth Congress, and servedfour successive terms. At the close of Thirty-First Congress, in 1851, he was appointed by President Fillmore Minister to Brazil, andnegotiated several important treaties with South American Governments. After his return in 1853, he became largely interested in railroadenterprises, and was President of a line from Fort Wayne, Indiana, tothe Mississippi. At the breaking out of the rebellion he offered hisservices to the Government, and was commissioned a Brigadier General, May 17, 1861. He was in numerous engagements, including both the BullRun battles, where he displayed much skill and bravery. He waspromoted to the rank of Major General in August, 1862, and wasassigned to the command of the Middle Department, including Baltimore, Maryland, in which he rendered efficient service to the country. Having, been re-elected to Congress, he resigned his commission inDecember, 1863, and took his seat in the Thirty-Eighth Congress. Hewas re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. --31, 352, 353, 354, 366, 439, 537, 552. 

GLENNI W. SCOFIELD was born in Chautauque County, March 11, 1817. Hegraduated at Hamilton College in 1840, and removed to Warren, Pennsylvania, where he was admitted to the bar in 1843. In 1850 and1851 he was a Representative in the Pennsylvania Legislature, and from1857 to 1859 was a State Senator. In 1861 he was appointed PresidentJudge of the Eighteenth Judicial District of the State. In 1865 he waselected a Representative from Pennsylvania to the Thirty-EighthCongress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth and FortiethCongresses. --56, 508. 

_GEORGE S. SHANKLIN_ was born in Jessamine County, Kentucky. Heengaged in the practice of law, and in agricultural affairs. He wasseveral years a member of the Kentucky Legislature, and wasCommonwealth's Attorney of a Judicial District. He was a member of thePhiladelphia Convention of 1856 which nominated Fillmore. In 1865 hewas elected a Representative from Kentucky to the Thirty-NinthCongress. He was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by _James B. Beck_. --151, 440, 552. 

SAMUEL SHELLABARGER was born in Clark County, Ohio, December 10, 1817. He graduated at the Miami University in 1841. He studied law, andhaving been admitted to the bar practiced in the city of Springfield, Ohio. In 1852 and 1853 he was a member of the Ohio Legislature. In1860 he was elected a Representative from Ohio to the Thirty-SeventhCongress. He was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth and FortiethCongresses. --156, 231, 238, 345, 444, 512, 522. 

JOHN SHERMAN was born in Lancaster, Ohio, May 10, 1823. He studiedlaw, and was admitted to the bar in 1844. He was a delegate to theWhig Conventions of 1848 and 1852. In 1854 he was elected aRepresentative from Ohio to the Thirty-Fourth Congress, and wasre-elected to the Thirty-Fifth, Thirty-Sixth, and Thirty-SeventhCongresses. In the memorable contest for the Speakership of the Housewhich occurred in 1859 he was the Republican candidate, and through along series of ballotings lacked but one or two votes of an election. On the resignation of Senator Chase in 1861, he was elected a Senatorin Congress from Ohio, and in 1866 he was re-elected for the termending in 1873. --27, 98, 161, 420, 422, 454, 460, 476, 500, 501, 534, 535, 541. 

_CHARLES SITGREAVES_ was born in Easton, Pennsylvania, April 22, 1803. He adopted the profession of law and settled in New Jersey. In 1831and 1833 he was a member of the New Jersey Assembly. In 1834 and 1835he was member and President of the Legislative Council. From 1852 to1854 he served in the State Senate. He subsequently held the positionsof Mayor of Phillipsburg, President of the Belvidere and DelawareRailroad Company, and Trustee of the State Normal School. In 1864 hewas elected a Representative from New Jersey to the Thirty-NinthCongress, and was re-elected in 1866. 

ITHAMAR C. SLOAN was born in Madison County, New York. He adopted theprofession of law, and removed to Wisconsin in 1854. In 1858 and 1860he was elected District Attorney of Rock County. In 1862 he waselected a Representative from Wisconsin to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. He was succeeded inthe Fortieth Congress by Benjamin F. Hopkins. --334, 335. 

GREEN CLAY SMITH was born in Richmond, Kentucky, July 2, 1830. Hegraduated at Transylvania College in 1849, and in the Law Departmentof the same institution in 1852. He served in the Mexican War asSecond Lieutenant, and at the breaking out of the rebellion wascommissioned to command the Fourth Kentucky Cavalry. In 1862 he wasappointed a Brigadier General, and subsequently reached the rank ofMajor General. After participating in numerous battles, he resignedhis military commission in December, 1863, to take his seat as aRepresentative from Kentucky in the Thirty-Eighth Congress. He wasre-elected a member of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, but before theexpiration of his term he was appointed by the President Governor ofthe Territory of Montana. --439. 

RUFUS P. SPALDING was born at West Tisbury, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, May 3, 1798. He entered Yale College in 1813, andgraduated in 1817. After studying law he emigrated to Cincinnati, Ohio, where he remained one year, and then went to Arkansas. Havingspent a year and a half in that State he returned to Ohio, andpracticed his profession successively in Warren, Ravenna, and Akron, and finally at Cleveland, where he now resides. In 1839 he was electedto the Ohio Legislature. He was re-elected in 1841, and made Speakerof the House. In 1849 he was elected Judge of the Supreme Court ofOhio. In 1862 he was elected a Representative from Ohio to theThirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth andFortieth Congresses. --319, 443, 508. 

WILLIAM SPRAGUE was born in Cranston, Rhode Island, September 11, 1830. He was educated chiefly at the Irving Institute, Tarrytown, NewYork. He subsequently spent several years in the counting-room of hisuncle, upon whose death he came into possession of one of the largestmanufacturing interests in the country. In 1861 he was electedGovernor of Rhode Island. He entered with zeal into the national causeat the breaking out of the rebellion, and was with the Rhode IslandVolunteers at the first battle of Bull Run. In 1862 he was elected aSenator in Congress from Rhode Island for the term ending in1869. --27, 494. 

JOHN F. STARR was born in Philadelphia in 1818. He removed to NewJersey in 1844, and engaged in business pursuits. In 1863 he waselected a Representative from New Jersey to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. He was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by William Moore. 

THADDEUS STEVENS was born in Caledonia County, Vermont, April 4, 1793. He graduated at Dartmouth College in 1814, and in the same yearremoved to Pennsylvania. While teaching in an academy he studied law, and in 1816 was admitted to the bar in the County of Adams. In 1833 hewas elected to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, and served four terms, rendering signal service to the State by originating the school-systemof Pennsylvania. He early espoused the cause of anti-slavery, andbecame an earnest advocate of equal rights. In 1836 he was elected amember of the Convention to revise the State Constitution, and refusedto append his name to the amended instrument, because it restrictedsuffrage on account of color. In 1838 he was appointed a CanalCommissioner. In 1842 he removed to Lancaster, where he now resides. In 1848 he was elected a Representative from Pennsylvania to theThirty-First Congress. He was re-elected to the Thirty-Second, Thirty-Sixth, Thirty-Seventh, Thirty-Eighth, Thirty-Ninth, andFortieth Congresses. --18, 24, 29, 34, 48, 156, 308, 325, 333, 336, 357, 366, 417, 418, 435, 436, 449, 463, 478, 502, 503, 504, 513, 514, 518, 524, 528, 535, 536, 547, 555, 557, 563, 575. 

WILLIAM M. STEWART was born in Wayne County, New York, August 9, 1827, and removed with his father to Ohio in 1835. He entered Yale Collegein 1848, where he remained eighteen months. He then went to Californiaand spent two years in the mining business. In 1852 he commencedstudying law, and was soon after elected District Attorney for theCounty of Nevada. In 1854 he was appointed to perform the duties ofAttorney General of California, and subsequently practiced law inNevada City and Downieville. In 1860 he removed to that part of Utahterritory which is now Nevada, and served in the TerritorialLegislature of the following year. He was a member of theConstitutional Convention of 1863. He was soon after elected a UnitedStates Senator from the new State of Nevada for the term ending in1869. --28, 100, 107, 202, 275, 427, 435, 454, 456, 459, 530. 

THOMAS N. STILWELL was born in Butler County, Ohio, August 29, 1830. He was educated at Miami University and Farmer's College. He studiedlaw, and, removing to Indiana in 1852, he was admitted to the bar, andpracticed until 1855, when he engaged in banking. In 1856 he was aRepresentative in the Indiana Legislature. He raised a regiment ofvolunteers for the war, and served some time as Quartermaster. In 1864he was elected a Representative from Indiana to the Thirty-NinthCongress, and was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by John P. C. Shanks. He was appointed by President Johnson United States Ministerto Venezuela. --564. 

_JOHN P. STOCKTON_ was born in Princeton, New Jersey, August 2, 1825. His father and grandfather were United States Senators, and hisgreat-grandfather was one of the signers of the Declaration ofIndependence. He graduated at Princeton College in 1843, and, havingstudied law, was admitted to the bar in 1849. He was appointed by theLegislature of New Jersey to revise the laws of the State. As reporterin chancery, he published three volumes of Reports, which bear hisname. In 1858 he was appointed by President Buchanan Minister Residentto Rome. In 1865 he appeared in Congress as a Senator from New Jersey. The question of his right to the seat underwent long discussion, andat length was decided against him on the 27th of March, 1866. --568. 

WILLIAM B. STOKES was born in Chatham County, North Carolina, September 9, 1814. His father was killed by an accident whileemigrating to Tennessee in 1818. He enjoyed but few advantages ofearly education, and devoted himself to agricultural pursuits. In 1849he was elected a Representative in the Tennessee Legislature, and wasre-elected in 1851. He was elected to the State Senate in 1855. In1859 he was elected a Representative from Tennessee to theThirty-Sixth Congress. At the close of his Congressional term he tooka bold stand and made numerous speeches against secession inTennessee. In 1862 he recruited and commanded a regiment of cavalry, which saw much hard fighting and did valuable service. At the close ofthe war he was brevetted Brigadier General. In 1865 he was elected aRepresentative from Tennessee to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and wasadmitted in July, 1866. He was re-elected to the FortiethCongress. --480, 536. 

_MYER STROUSE_ was born in Germany, December 16, 1825. He came withhis father to America in 1832, and settled in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. Having received an academical education, he studied law. From 1848 to 1852 he edited the "North American Farmer, " inPhiladelphia, and subsequently devoted himself to the practice of law. In 1862 he was elected a Representative to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected in 1864. His successor in the Fortieth Congress isHenry L. Cake. --444. 

CHARLES SUMNER was born in Boston, January 6, 1811. He graduated atHarvard College in 1830, spent three years in the Cambridge LawSchool, and was admitted to the bar in 1834. For three years he editedthe "American Jurist, " and was subsequently Reporter of the UnitedStates Circuit Court. He published several volumes of Reports, and hasdevoted much attention to literary pursuits. He published in 1850 twovolumes of "Orations;" in 1853 a work on "White Slavery in the BarbaryStates;" and in 1856 a volume of "Speeches and Addresses. " In 1851 hewas elected a United States Senator from Massachusetts. In 1856 he wasassaulted in the Senate Chamber by Preston S. Brooks, of SouthCarolina, and so seriously injured that he sought restoration by atemporary absence in Europe. Just before his departure he was electedto the Senate for a second term, and in 1863 was re-elected for athird term ending in 1869. --15, 26, 28, 99, 108, 373, 374, 380, 386, 392, 406, 413, 435, 453, 483, 499, 540, 541, 563, 571. 

_STEPHEN TABER_, whose father, Thomas Taber, was a Member of Congress, was born in Dover, Dutchess County, New York. Having received anacademical education, he devoted himself to agriculture in QueensCounty, on Long Island. In 1860 and 1861 he was elected to the StateLegislature. In 1863 he was elected a Representative to theThirty-Ninth Congress and was re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. 

NATHANIEL G. TAYLOR was born in Carter County, Tennessee, December 29, 1819, and graduated at Princeton College in 1840. He studied law andwas admitted to the bar in 1843, but subsequently became a minister inthe Methodist Episcopal Church South. In 1852 he was a PresidentialElector, and in 1854 was elected a Representative in Congress fromTennessee. In 1865 he was re-elected a Representative in theThirty-Ninth Congress, and was admitted to his seat in July, 1866. R. R. Butler was elected as his successor in the Fortieth Congress. --480. 

_NELSON TAYLOR_ was born in South Norwalk, Connecticut, June 8, 1821. He served through the Mexican War as Captain in the First Regiment ofNew York Volunteers. He subsequently went to California, and waselected a member of the State Senate in 1849. In 1853 he was electedSheriff of San Joaquin County, California. In 1861 he entered themilitary service as Colonel of the Seventy-Second Regiment of New YorkVolunteers, and became a Brigadier General. In 1864 he was elected aRepresentative from New York to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. Hissuccessor in the Fortieth Congress is _John Morrissey_. 

M. RUSSELL THAYER was born in Petersburg, Virginia, January 27, 1819, and graduated at the University of Pennsylvania in 1840. He studiedlaw, and having been admitted to the bar in 1842, he located inPhiladelphia. In 1862 he was elected a Representative in theThirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth. Hissuccessor in the Fortieth Congress is Caleb N. Taylor--83, 225, 438, 522, 538. 

FRANCIS THOMAS was born in Frederick County, Maryland, February 3, 1799. He was educated at St. John's College, Annapolis. He studiedlaw, and was admitted to practice at Frederick in 1820. He was electedto the Maryland Legislature in 1822, 1827, and 1829, when he waschosen Speaker. In 1831 he was elected a Representative in Congress, and served for ten consecutive years. In 1841 he declined arenomination for Congress. In the fall of that year he was electedGovernor of Maryland, and served until January, 1845. In 1848 hesupported Van Buren and Adams on the Buffalo Anti-Slavery platform. In1850 he was a member of the Maryland Constitutional Convention. At thebreaking out of the Rebellion he raised a brigade of 3, 000 volunteersfor the military service. In March, 1863, he originated and assistedin securing popular approval of a measure which resulted in theemancipation of all the slaves of Maryland. He was re-elected aRepresentative from Maryland to the Thirty-Sixth, Thirty-Seventh, Thirty-Eighth, Thirty-Ninth, and Fortieth Congresses. 

JOHN L. THOMAS, Jr. , was born in Baltimore, May 20, 1835, and waseducated at the Alleghany County Academy. He studied law, and wasadmitted to the bar in 1856. He was appointed Solicitor for the Cityof Baltimore in 1861, and held the office two years. In 1863 he waselected State Attorney for Maryland, and in 1864 he served as adelegate to the State Constitutional Convention. In 1865 he waselected a Representative to the Thirty-Ninth Congress to fill avacancy occasioned by the resignation of E. H. Webster. He wassucceeded in the Fortieth Congress by _Stephenson Archer_. 

_ANTHONY THORNTON_ was born in Bourbon County, Kentucky, November 19, 1814. He graduated at the Miami University, and having studied law, hesettled in Illinois. He was a member of the Illinois ConstitutionalConventions of 1847 and 1862. In 1850 he was a member of the StateLegislature. In 1864 he was elected a Representative from Illinois tothe Thirty-Ninth Congress. His successor in the Fortieth Congress is_Albert G. Burr_. --228. 

_LAWRENCE S. TRIMBLE_ was born in Fleming, Kentucky, August 26, 1825. He received an academical education, and entered the profession oflaw. In 1851 and 1852 he was a member of the Kentucky Legislature. From 1856 to 1860 he was Judge of the Equity and Criminal Court of theFirst Judicial District of the State. He was subsequently for fiveyears President of the New Orleans and Ohio Railroad Company. In 1865he was elected a Representative from Kentucky to the Thirty-NinthCongress, and was re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. --152, 342, 511. 

ROWLAND E. TROWBRIDGE was born in Elmira, New York, June 18, 1821, andwhen a child removed to Michigan with his parents, who were among thefirst settlers that penetrated the wilderness back of the old Frenchsettlements. He graduated at Kenyon College, and engaged in thebusiness of farming. In 1856 and 1858 he was elected a member of theMichigan Senate. In 1860 he was elected a Representative from Michiganto the Thirty-Seventh Congress. He was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninthand Fortieth Congresses. 

LYMAN TRUMBULL was born in Colchester, Connecticut, in 1813. Heentered the profession of law, and removed to Illinois. He was amember of the State Legislature in 1840, and was Secretary of State in1841 and 1842. He was a Justice of the Supreme Court of Illinois from1848 to 1853. In 1854 he was elected a Representative for Illinois tothe Thirty-Fourth Congress, and was soon after elected a Senator inCongress for the term commencing in 1855. He was re-elected in 1861, and again in 1867. --22, 28, 45, 98, 104, 105, 108, 120, 136, 158, 162, 171, 188, 190, 199, 209, 216, 253, 269, 424, 457, 476, 540. 

CHARLES UPSON was born in Southington, Hartford County, Connecticut, March 19, 1821. He received an academical education, and at the age ofsixteen he commenced teaching school, in which he was employed duringthe winters of seven years. He attended the law school of Yale Collegefor some time, and in 1845 removed to Michigan. In 1848 he was electedCounty Clerk, and in 1852 Prosecuting Attorney for St. Joseph County. In 1854 he was elected to the State Senate. In 1860 he was electedAttorney General of Michigan, and declined a renomination. In 1862 hewas elected a Representative from Michigan to the Thirty-EighthCongress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth and FortiethCongresses. 

HENRY VAN AERNAM was born in Marcellus, New York, March 11, 1819. After receiving an academical education and graduating at a medicalcollege, he settled as a physician and surgeon in Franklinville, NewYork. In 1858 he was a member of the State Legislature. In 1862 heentered the army as surgeon of the One Hundred and Fifty-Fourth NewYork Regiment. He resigned this position in 1864, and was elected aRepresentative from New York to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and wasre-elected to the Fortieth Congress. 

BURT VAN HORN was born in Newfane, Niagara County, New York, October28, 1823, and was educated at the Madison University. He was electedto the New York Legislature in 1858, and served three terms. In 1860he was elected a Representative from New York to the Thirty-SeventhCongress. He was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth and FortiethCongresses. --87, 527. 

ROBERT T. VAN HORN was born in Indiana County, Pennsylvania, May 19, 1824. After serving an apprenticeship in a printing-office, he studiedlaw, and was admitted to the bar in 1849. He subsequently published anewspaper two years in Pomeroy, Ohio. In 1855 he emigrated to KansasCity, Missouri, where he established a newspaper which is now the"Daily Journal of Commerce. " In 1861 he was elected Mayor of KansasCity. He was in the military service as Major and Lieutenant-Colonelfrom 1861 to 1864. He was wounded and taken prisoner at Lexington, Missouri, and after his exchange saw much active service in Tennessee. While still in the army, he was elected a member of the MissouriSenate, and in 1864 he was elected a Representative from Missouri tothe Thirty-Ninth Congress, and was re-elected in 1866. 

PETER G. VAN WINKLE was born in the City of New York, September 7, 1808, and removed to Parkersburg, West Virginia, in 1835. He was amember of the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1850, and of theWheeling Convention of 1861. He aided in forming the Constitution ofWest Virginia in 1862. He became a member of the Legislature of thatState at its organization, and in November, 1863, he was elected aUnited States Senator from West Virginia for the term ending in1869. --194, 459. 

_DANIEL W. VOORHEES_ was born in Fountain County, Indiana, September26, 1828. He graduated at the Indiana Asbury University in 1849, andcommenced the practice of law in 1851. He held the office of UnitedStates District Attorney for three years, by appointment of PresidentBuchanan. In 1860 he was elected a Representative to Congress fromIndiana, and re-elected in 1862. He appeared in December, 1865, as amember of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, but remained only a short time, his seat having been successfully contested by Henry D. Washburn. --568. 

BENJAMIN F. WADE was born in Feeding Hills Parish, Massachusetts, October 27, 1800. He received a common-school education, and wasemployed for some time in teaching. At the age of twenty-one heremoved to Ohio and engaged in agriculture. He subsequently studiedlaw, and was admitted to the bar in 1828. Thereafter he successivelyheld the offices of Justice of the Peace, Prosecuting Attorney forAshtabula County, State Senator, and Judge of the Circuit Court. In1851 he was elected a United States Senator from Ohio, and has beentwice re-elected, his third term ending in 1869. In March, 1867, hewas elected President, _pro tempore_, of the Senate, and thus becameacting Vice-President of the United States--15, 28, 50, 276, 279, 283, 428, 454, 477, 490, 576. 

_ANDREW H. WARD_ is a lawyer by profession, and a resident ofCynthiana, Kentucky. He was a Representative from the Sixth Districtof Kentucky to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. His successor in theFortieth Congress is _Thomas L. Jones_. --509. 

HAMILTON WARD was born in Salisbury, New York, July 3, 1829. He workedon a farm until nineteen years of age, and was favored with but fewfacilities for acquiring education. In 1848 he began the study of law, and was admitted to the bar in 1851. In 1856 he was elected DistrictAttorney for Alleghany County, and was re-elected in 1862. At an earlyperiod of the war he was appointed by the Governor a member of theSenatorial Military Committee, and in that capacity aided in raisingseveral regiments of volunteers for the army. In 1864 he was elected aRepresentative from New York to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and wasre-elected in 1866. --306, 361. 

SAMUEL L. WARNER was born in Wethersfield, Connecticut, in 1829. Hereceived an academical education, and having studied law at the Yaleand Harvard Law Schools, was admitted to the bar in 1853. He was soonafter appointed Executive Secretary of State. In 1857 he was a memberof the Connecticut Legislature. In 1860 he was a delegate and aSecretary of the Baltimore Convention. In 1861 he was elected Mayor ofMiddletown, and served two terms. In 1865 he was elected aRepresentative from Connecticut to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. Hissuccessor in the Fortieth Congress is _Julius Hotchkiss_. --507. 

ELLIHU B. WASHBURN was born in Livermore, Maine, September 23 1816. After serving an apprenticeship in the printing-office of the"Kennebec Journal, " he studied law at Harvard University. Hesubsequently removed to Illinois, and settled in Galena. In 1852 hewas elected a Representative from Illinois to the Thirty-ThirdCongress. He has been elected to every succeeding Congress includingthe Fortieth, and has been longer in continuous service than any othermember of the House. --30. 

HENRY D. WASHBURN was born in Windsor, Vermont, March 28, 1832. In hisyouth he served one year as an apprentice to the tanner's trade, andsubsequently was employed as a school-teacher. In 1853 he graduated atthe New York State and National Law School, and settled in Newport, Indiana. In 1854 he was appointed Auditor of Vermillion County, and in1856 was elected to the same position. In 1861 he raised a company ofvolunteers, of which he was elected Captain. He was soon after madeLieutenant-Colonel of the Eighteenth Indiana Infantry, and wascommissioned Colonel June, 1862. He saw much active service, and wasbreveted a Major General July 26, 1865. He contested the seat held byD. W. Voorhees as a Representative from Indiana, and was declared bythe Committee on Elections to be entitled to the place. He wasre-elected to the Fortieth Congress. --568. 

WILLIAM B. WASHBURN was born in Winchendon, Massachusetts, January 31, 1820. He graduated at Yale College in 1844, and subsequently engagedin the business of manufacturing. In 1850 he was a Senator, and in1854 a Representative, in the Legislature of Massachusetts. He wassubsequently President of Greenfield Bank. In 1862 he was elected aRepresentative to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected tothe Thirty-Ninth and Fortieth Congresses. 

MARTIN WELKER was born in Knox County, Ohio, April 25, 1819. When afarmer's boy and a clerk in a store, he applied himself diligently tostudy, and without the aid of schools obtained a liberal education. Atthe age of eighteen he commenced the study of law, and was admitted tothe bar in 1840. In 1851 he was elected Judge of the Court of CommonPleas for the Sixth District of Ohio, and served five years. In 1857he was elected Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, and served one term, declining a renomination. At the beginning of the war he served threemonths as a staff officer with the rank of Major, and was thenappointed Judge Advocate General of the State. In 1862 he wasAssistant Adjutant General of Ohio, and Superintendent of the draft. In 1864 he was elected a Representative from Ohio to the Thirty-NinthCongress and was re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. 

JOHN WENTWORTH, grandson of a member of the Continental Congress of1778, was born in Sandwich, New Hampshire, March 5, 1815. He graduatedat Dartmouth College, and completed a course of legal study in HarvardUniversity. In 1836 he removed to Illinois, and settled in Chicago. Heconducted the "Chicago Democrat, " as editor and proprietor, fortwenty-five years. In 1837 he became a member of the Board ofEducation, and occupied that position many years. In 1842 he waselected a Representative from Illinois to the Twenty-Eighth Congress, and subsequently served in the Twenty-Ninth, Thirtieth, Thirty-First, and Thirty-Second Congresses. In 1857 and 1860 he was Mayor ofChicago, and was a member of the State Constitutional Convention of1861. In 1864 a Representative in Congress for his sixth term. Hissuccessor in the Fortieth Congress is Norman B. Judd. In 1867 thedegree of LL. D. Was conferred upon him by Dartmouth College. --18, 556, 557. 

KELLIAN V. WHALEY was born in Onondaga County, New York, May 6, 1821. When quite young he removed with his father to Ohio, where he wasfavored with few educational advantages. At the age of twenty-one hesettled in Western Virginia, and engaged in the lumber and mercantilebusiness. He was an active opponent of secession in 1860, and as suchwas elected a Representative in the Thirty-Seventh Congress. He actedas an Aid to Governor Pierpont in organizing regiments, and was incommand in the battle of Guandotte, when he was taken prisoner, inNovember, 1861. He made his escape from his captors, however, and wassoon able to take his seat in Congress. He was reëlected to theThirty-Eighth and Thirty-Ninth Congresses. His successor in theFortieth Congress is Daniel Polsley. 

WAITMAN T. WILLEY was born on Buffalo Creek, Monongalia County, Virginia, October 18, 1811. He graduated at Madison College in 1831, and was admitted to the bar. From 1841 to 1855 he was Clerk of theCourts of Monongalia County and the Judicial Circuit. He was a memberof the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1850. He was a delegateto the Richmond Convention held in the winter of 1860-61. In 1861 hewas a member of the Wheeling Constitutional Convention. In 1863 he waselected a Senator in Congress from West Virginia, and has since beenre-elected for the term commencing in 1865 and ending in 1871. In 1863he received the degree of LL. D. From Alleghany College ofPennsylvania. --458, 485, 486, 496. 

GEORGE H. WILLIAMS was born in Columbia County, New York, March 23, 1823. He received an academical education, and studied law. Immediately after being admitted to the bar in 1844 he removed toIowa. In 1847 he was elected Judge of the First Judicial District ofIowa. In 1852 he was a Presidential Elector. In 1853 he was appointedby President Pierce Chief Justice of the Territory of Oregon, and wasre-appointed by President Buchanan in 1857. He was a member of theConvention which framed the Constitution of Oregon. In 1864 he waselected a United States Senator from Oregon for the term ending in1871. --393, 488, 516, 517, 529, 531, 539, 540, 559. 

THOMAS WILLIAMS was born in Greensburg, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, August 28, 1806. He graduated at Dickinson College in1825, and studied law. He was admitted to the bar in 1828, and settledin Pittsburg. From 1838 to 1841 he was member of the State Senate. In1860 he was a Representative in the State Legislature. In 1862 he waselected a Representative from Pennsylvania to the Thirty-EighthCongress. He was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth and FortiethCongresses. 

HENRY WILSON was born in Farmington, New Hampshire, February 16, 1812. His parents were in very humble circumstances, and at ten years of agehe was apprenticed to a farmer till he was twenty-one. On attaininghis majority, he went to Natick, Massachusetts, where he learned thetrade of shoemaking, and worked at the business nearly three years. Hethen secured an academical education, and, after teaching school ashort time, engaged in shoe-manufacturing, which he continued forseveral years. In 1841 and 1842 he was a Senator, and in 1844, 1845, 1856, and 1850, a Representative, in the Legislature of Massachusetts. In 1851 and 1852 he was re-elected a member of the State Senate, ofwhich he was President. In 1855 he was elected a United States Senatorfrom Massachusetts to succeed Edward Everett, and in 1859 wasre-elected for the full term. In the recess of Congress in the summerof 1861, he raised the Twenty-Second Regiment of MassachusettsVolunteers, of which he was commissioned Colonel. He subsequentlyserved on General McClellan's staff, until the meeting of Congress inDecember. During the war he occupied the arduous and responsibleposition in the Senate of Chairman of the Committee of MilitaryAffairs. At the opening of the Thirty-Ninth Congress he entered uponhis third Senatorial term, which will end in 1871. --15, 95, 97, 101, 135, 214, 402, 410, 431, 435, 437, 487, 491, 498, 530, 531, 532. 

JAMES F. WILSON was born in Newark, Ohio, October 19, 1828. He enteredupon the profession of law, and removed to Iowa in 1853. In 1856 hewas elected a member of the Iowa Constitutional Convention. In 1857 hewas elected a Representative, and in 1859 a Senator, in the StateLegislature. In 1861 he was President of the Iowa Senate. In that yearhe was elected a Representative from Iowa to fill a vacancy in theThirty-Seventh Congress. He was re-elected to the Thirty-Eighth, Thirty-Ninth, and Fortieth Congresses. --31, 51, 230, 237, 239, 288, 294, 325, 536. 

STEPHEN F. WILSON was born at Columbia, Pennsylvania, September 4, 1821. He received his education at Wellsboro' Academy, where hesubsequently engaged for a short time in teaching. He finally became alawyer, and was, in 1863, elected a State Senator. In 1864 he waschosen a Representative from Pennsylvania to the Thirty-NinthCongress, and was re-elected to the Fortieth Congress. 

WILLIAM WINDOM was born in Belmont County, Ohio, May 10, 1827. Hereceived an academical education, and studied law. He was admitted tothe bar in 1850, and was soon after elected Prosecuting Attorney forKnox County, Ohio. In 1853 he removed to Minnesota, and settled inWinona. In 1858 he was elected a Representative from Minnesota to theThirty-Sixth Congress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Seventh, Thirty-Eighth, Thirty-Ninth, and Fortieth Congresses. --229. 

_CHARLES H. WINFIELD_ was born in Orange County, New York, April 22, 1822. He studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1846. From 1850to 1856 he was District Attorney for Orange County. He was elected aRepresentative to the Thirty-Eighth Congress from New York, and was in1864 re-elected for a second term. He was succeeded in the FortiethCongress by Charles H. Van Wyck. --20, 515. 

FREDERICK E. WOODBRIDGE was born in Vergennes, Vermont, August 29, 1818. He graduated at the University of Vermont in 1840, and wasadmitted to the bar in 1842. He served three years as aRepresentative, and two years as a Senator, in the VermontLegislature. He subsequently served three years as Auditor of State. In 1863 he was elected a Representative from Vermont to theThirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth andFortieth Congresses. 

_EDWIN R. V. WRIGHT_ was born in Hoboken, New Jersey, January 2, 1812. He learned the trade of a printer, and in 1835 edited and publishedthe "Jersey Blue. " He studied law, and was admitted to the bar in1839. He was elected to the State Senate in 1843. He subsequently heldfor five years the office of District Attorney for Hudson County. In1859 he was the Democratic Candidate for Governor of New Jersey, andwas defeated by a small majority. He was elected a Representative fromNew Jersey to the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and was succeeded in theFortieth Congress by George A. Halsey. --363. 

_WILLIAM WRIGHT_ was born in Clarkstown, Rockland County, New York, in1791. In 1823 he removed to Newark, New Jersey, and held the office ofMayor of that city for a number of years. He was a Representative inCongress four years, commencing in 1843. In 1853 he was elected UnitedStates Senator for the term ending in 1859. In 1863 he was againelected to the Senate for the term ending in 1869. He died before theexpiration of the term for which he was elected. --276, 569. 

RICHARD YATES was born in Warsaw, Kentucky, in 1818. Having studiedone year at the Miami University, Ohio, he removed to Illinois, andgraduated at Illinois College in 1838. He studied at the Law School ofLexington, Kentucky, and having been admitted to the bar, he settledin Jacksonville, Illinois. In 1842 he was elected to the StateLegislature, and served until 1850. In 1851 he was elected aRepresentative in Congress from Illinois, and served two terms. He wassubsequently President of a railroad for several years. In 1861 he waselected Governor of Illinois for the term of four years. During hisadministration, 258, 000 troops were raised in Illinois and sent to thefield. He was not only active in his State in promoting the success ofthe national cause, but he frequently encouraged the regiments ofIllinois by his presence with them in the camp and on the field. In1865 he was elected a Senator in Congress from Illinois for the termending in 1871. --28, 272, 398, 400, 461, 462, 484, 491. 

ANALYTICAL INDEX

 ABANDONED Lands, restored to rebel owners, 143. 

 ADAMS, J. Q. , Expenses of his Administration, 111. 

 ADMISSION of Southern Representatives proposed, 279. 

 AGRICULTURE, Senate Committee on, 27, 31. 

 ALABAMA, Black Code of, 146. 

 ALHAMBRA, the betrayal of, 65. 

 ALLEGIANCE and Protection reciprocal, 257. 

 AMALGAMATION, not an effect of Negro Suffrage, 75. 

 AMENDMENT, Constitutional, effect of, 196; confers Civil Rights, 210; the Civil Rights Bill, a sequel to, 225; a warrant for the Civil Rights Bill, 229; confers citizenship, 273. 

 AMENDMENT, Constitutional, of Basis of Representation, 324; explained by Mr. Stevens, 325; failure in passage, 416. 

 AMENDMENT, Constitutional, for Negro Suffrage proposed, 377; advocated, 387; voted down, 415. 

 AMENDMENT, Constitutional, for Reconstruction, proposed, 435; final passage, 463; ratified by numerous legislatures, 505; then and now, 512. 

 AMENDMENTS, Constitutional, needed, 312. 

 AMENDMENT to Freedmen's Bureau Bill, proposed by Mr. Cowan, 136; rejected, 136; to title of the bill, 136; proposed in the Senate, 296. 

 AMENDMENT to Civil Rights Bill by Mr. Hendricks, 218; by Mr. Saulsbury, 219. 

 AMENDMENT, the power of, exhausted, 349. 

 AMENDMENTS, a complicity of, 363. 

 AMENDMENT, a crablike, 375. 

 AMERICAN Citizenship, what it amounts to, 257. 

 ANCIENT Governments, exceptional in their liberty, 206. 

 ANDERSONVILLE, rebel atrocities at, 101. 

 ANTHRACITE not suitable material for a Corinthian column, 56. 

 APPEAL of Mr. Saulsbury, 534. 

 APPEAL to the people against Freedmen's Bureau Bill, 152. 

 APPROPRIATION, the Committee on, 29. 

 ARMY, bill to fix the peace footing of, 553. 

 ART, in the capital, 571. 

 ASSAULT upon Mr. Grinnell by Mr. Rousseau, 573. 

 ATTORNEY General on the trial of Jefferson Davis, 123. 

 "AUTHORITY and Power" of the Government, distinction between, 445. 

 BALLOT-BOX to be purified by the angel element, 487, 492; a high court of errors, 497. 

 BALLOT, the negro's best protection, 162; the great guarantee, 376; the source of safety for the freedman--eloquent extract, 399; dangerous in the hands of the ignorant, 497. 

 BANCROFT, his eulogy on President Lincoln, 570. 

 BANKING and Currency, Committee on, 30. 

 BANKRUPTCY, Committee on, 31. 

 BANKRUPT LAW, its difference from former acts, 554. 

 BANNER of Freedom, and the banner of the Democracy, 80. 

 BARABBAS and the Saviour, 380. 

 BASIS of Representation, necessity of changing the, 312; proposed amendment of, 324; explained, 325; involves taxation without representation, 326; effects Negro Suffrage, 327; reasons which commend it, 331; bearing on the various States, 332; would allow property qualification, 332; amendment proposed by Mr. Orth, 337; how settled in 1787, 338; its rejection predicted, 338; how its provisions may be avoided, 339; construed as an attack on the President, 343; facts and figures concerning, 344; objections, 346, 347; great opposition to the proposition, 350; its injustice to the African, 352; benefit to the Republican party only, 362; multiplicity of amendments, 363; passage in the House, 371; before the Senate, 374; "not an improvement, " 375; what it will accomplish, 381; colored men against it, 392; a party measure, 395; summary of objections, 402; an "abortion, " 406; ten objections, 407; good effects of, 411; failure to pass the Senate, 416; regret of Mr. Stevens at its death, 436. 

 BENEVOLENT features of the Freedmen's Bureau, 179. 

 BERKELEY'S Metaphysics, 310. 

 BIRTH confers citizenship, 305. 

 BLAINE'S Amendment, 527; combined with Bingham's, 528; proposed in the Senate, 529. 

 BLACK-LAWS of Southern States, substance of, 147; Mississippi and South Carolina, 191; recently passed, 214. 

 BLACK skin a badge of loyalty, 53. 

 BLOOD asked for, 396; Chandler's explanation, 397. 

 BOUNTY, additional, bill to grant, 552. 

 BOYHOOD of Mr. Saulsbury, 193. 

 "BREAD and Butter Brigade, " 521. 

 BROWNLOW, Governor, his proclamation, 473; his despatch to the Secretary of War, 475; his loyalty and firmness, 480. 

 BROWN, Senator, of Mississippi, his opposition to the education of the blacks, 388. 

 BUCHANAN, President, his veto of the Homestead bill, 255; his views of secession, 442. 

 "BY-PLAY" of the Rebel States with Secretary Seward, 313. 

 CAPITOL, the, character and situation of, 571. 

 CASPAR HAUSERS, four millions of, 329. 

 CATO on the Immortality of the Soul, 377. 

 CAUCASIANS, none save, have become citizens, 199. 

 CELTIC race distinct from ours, 360. 

 CENSURE of Mr. Hunter, 515; of Mr. Chanler, 571. 

 CENTRALIZATION deprecated, 229, 237, 266. 

 CHAIRMANSHIP of Committees, New England's preponderance in, 401. 

 CHARITIES not to be given by Congress, 148. 

 CHEROKEES naturalized, 233. 

 CHICAGO Convention of 1860, its doctrine, 60. 

 CHILDREN rescued from the burning house, 390. 

 CHINESE, Civil Rights Bill makes, citizens, 246, 255. 

 CHOCTAW Indians naturalized, 233. 

 CHURCHES, colored, in the District of Columbia, 59. 

 CITIZENSHIP conferred upon the people of Texas, 199. 

 CITIZENSHIP conferred by U. S. Government, 239; includes State citizenship, 253; does not confer State citizenship, 271. 

 CITIZEN, what constitutes a, 201. 

 CIVIL Rights denied to negroes in Indiana, 117, 131; all departments of the Government designed to secure, 221; denial of makes men slaves, 224. 

 CIVIL Rights Bill foreshadowed, 98; introduced, 188; its provisions, 189; necessity for it, 190; a dangerous measure, 192; object of it, 210; odious military features, 211; opposed, 216; explained and defended, 217; have been in the law thirty years, 218; bill passes in the Senate, 219; before the House, 220; recommitted, 233; its beneficence towards Southern rebels, 233; interferes with State rights, 222, 236; amendment proposed by Mr. Bingham, 237; rejected, 242; argued as unconstitutional, 237, reply, 239; passes the House, 243; odious title proposed, 243; as amended, passes the Senate, 244; vetoed by the President, 246; veto answered, 253; passes over the veto, 288, 289; the form in which it became a law, 290; propriety of placing it in the Constitution, 438. 

 COLFAX, Schuyler, elected Speaker of the House, 20; vote of thanks to, 576. 

 COLLOQUY between Chanler and Bingham, 67; Davis and Trumbull, 136, 199; Clark and Davis, 201; Brooks and Stevens, 336; Higby and Hill, 356; Dixon and Trumbull, 424; Doolittle, Nye, and Lane, 457; Ashley, Conkling, and Stevens, 513; Doolittle and Wilson, 531; on specie payments, Stevens, Wentworth, and Garfield, 556. 

 COLLAR the President's, charge of wearing repelled, 284. 

 COLOR of a citizen not inquired into in our early history, 51; should not be regarded in our laws, 53; indefiniteness of the term, 360. 

 COLORADO, reason of the non-admission of, 559. 

 COMMERCE, Committee on, 27, 30. 

 COMMISSIONER of Freedmen's Bureau, 140. 

 COMMITTEES, the importance of, in legislation, 25; difficulty of selecting, 26. 

 COMMITTEE on Reconstruction, 49; report of, 466; difficulty of obtaining information by, 467; conclusion of, 471. 

 COMPOUND Interest Notes, attempt to redeem, 558. 

 COMPROMISE of Moral Principles opposed, 374. 

 CONCERT of action desired, 37. 

 CONFEDERATION, the old, and the Constitution, 316. 

 CONFISCATION discarded by civilized nations, 320. 

 CONGRESS, no danger to be feared from usurpation by, 501; as described by President Johnson, 561; salutary effect of vetoes upon, 563. 

 CONNECTICUT, the voice of on negro suffrage, 394. 

 CONSERVATISM the worst word in the language, 101. 

 CONSERVATIVES represented by Mr. Raymond, 314. 

 CONSTITUTIONAL Amendment, what laws may be passed under, 118. 

 CONSTITUTIONAL Amendments, how they should be made; advice of Mr. Saulsbury, 405. 

 CONSTITUTIONAL Amendments in the interests of slavery once popular, 405. 

 CONSTITUTIONAL Authority of the President and General Grant, 124. 

 CONSTITUTIONAL Convention of 1787, 338. 

 CONSTITUTION, the, powers it confers, 122; violation of, an oft-repeated argument, 149; to be destroyed by the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, 148; unreconcilable with military rule, 176; caused to bleed, 193; does not exclude negroes from citizenship, 203; against State Sovereignty, 319; more liberal before the Rebellion, 327; may be legally amended, 357; as estimated by its makers, 278; not necessary to re-enact it, 380. 

 CONTRAST between whites and blacks under Kentucky law, 154. 

 COTTON, export duty on proposed, 312. 

 "COUNTER PROPOSITION" by Mr. Sumner, 373, 379, 382; rejected, 415. 

 COURTESY of Senator Wade, as described by Mr. McDougall, 282. 

 COWAN, Edgar, his radicalism, 489; his seriousness, 490. 

 DAVIS, Garrett, his programme for the President, 430, 432; struck "dumb, " 209; his ability to "hang on, " 533. 

 DAVIS, Jefferson, why not tried, 123; acted "under color of law, " 260; not a traitor if rebel States are treated as foreign powers, 317; his proclamation, 480. 

 DEAD STATES described, 308; impossible, 316. 

 DEATH-KNELL of Liberty: passage of Reconstruction Bill, 547. 

 DEATHS of Senators, 569; of Representatives, 570. 

 DEBATES of the Senate and House, difference, 452. 

 DEBATE, right of in the Senate, 38. 

 DEBT, accumulated burden of the public, 147; rebel, how inherited by the United States, 317; must be repudiated, 319. 

 DEFEAT, the lesson of, 416. 

 DEFIANCE of the majority by Garrett Davis, 244. 

 DEFILEMENT of the Constitution, 407; answer to the charge, 410. 

 DELAWARE, the last slaveholding State, 127. 

 DELAY needful, 382. 

 DELAYS of the Senate, protest against, 394; benefits of, 453. 

 DESPOTISM, establishment of, in the South, 531. 

 DEMOCRACY, leader of the, confusion concerning, 306. 

 DEMOCRATIC ascendency, dangers attending, 312. 

 DEMOCRATIC party against the Government, 399; policy of, traversed, 442. 

 DEMOCRATS, their new discovery, 358; how they caused the passage of the Reconstruction Amendment, 451; hunting up negro voters, 498. 

 DEVELOPMENT always slow, 64. 

 DISFRANCHISEMENT of negroes by whites, 365, 376; opposed, 387; of rebels advocated, 443. 

 DISSOLUTION of the Union in the passage of the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, 160. 

 DISUNION, threat of, 161. 

 DISTRICT of Columbia, Committee on, 28; under the special care of Congress, 50; number and character of rebels in, 77. 

 DISTRICT of Columbia, bill to extend suffrage in, introduced, 51; motion to postpone, 82; amendments proposed, 82; and rejected, 93; passage in the House, 93; called up in the Senate, 483; reason for its occupying so much attention, 485; why it was not passed before, 491; its passage, 499; veto, 500; passage over the veto, 501; why it was so long deferred, 564, 565. 

 DOG, injustice to a, 509. 

 DOOLITTLE, his position on the Civil Rights Bill, 285; "a fortunate politician, " 459; the savior of his party, 469. 

 DREAM of Thaddeus Stevens vanished, 463. 

 DRED Scott Decision against civil rights, 198, 264. 

 DU PONT, Admiral, his mention of the negro pilot, 71. 

 EARTHQUAKE predicted, 447. 

 EDUCATION, the Committee on, 30. 

 EDUCATION of Freedmen, provision for, 145

 EDUCATION, an uncertain test, 62; should be made a test, 63; of colored children, a scene in the old Senate, 389; Bureau of, 553. 

 EDUCATOR, the best, the ballot is, 399. 

 ELECTIVE franchise, a means of elevation, 57; the only proper test for its exercise, 61; its abridgment not authorized by the Amendment of Representation, 358; the President's view of his power over, 562. 

 EMANCIPATION, its effect upon rights, 328. 

 ENFRANCHISEMENT to be a gradual work, 354; how to bring about, 411; not disfranchisement, the question in reconstruction, 506. 

 ENGLAND, her paper money and specie payments, 556. 

 EPOCH in the history of the country, 204. 

 EQUALITY, political, a "fiendish doctrine, " 61. 

 EQUALITY does not exist, 195. 

 EQUAL Rights, the blessings of, 377. 

 EXCITEMENT, the Senate not unfitted for business by, 421. 

 EXCLUSION from citizenship, a right, 195. 

 EXECUTIVE obstruction, of Congress, 560. 

 EXECUTIVE patronage, evils of, 559. 

 EXPENSE of Freedmen's Bureau, 110; objections to answered, 128; for one year, 145, 147, 100; as presented by the President, 180. 

 EXPULSION of Garrett Davis prayed for, 572. 

 FEMALE Suffrage advocated, 487. 

 FEMALES not a political element, 345. 

 FINANCE, the Committee on, 27; the subject of, 555. 

 FISKE, General, his statement, 182. 

 FLAG, the American, 40. 

 FLOWERS of rhetoric, from a Senator's speech, 413. 

 FOOT, Solomon his death, 569. 

 FOREIGN MINISTERS, penalty for proceeding against, 259, 267, 270. 

 FOREIGN population, their representatives in Congress, 369, 379. 

 FOREIGN Relations, Chairman of Committee on, 26. 

 FOREIGNERS not discriminated against in the Civil Rights Bill, 254. 

 FOSTER, L. S. , as President of the Senate, 23; retirement from the office, 576. 

 FREEDMEN, their necessities and numbers, 95; Committee on, 31, 95; Senator Wilson's bill to protect, 95; objections to, 98; laid over, 103. 

 FREEDMEN'S BUREAU, a bill to enlarge introduced in the Senate, 105; its provisions, 105; its expense, 111; its military feature, 112; for the negro, against the white man, 119; not designed to be permanent, 121; establishment of schools, 130; passes the Senate, 136; brought up in the House, 138; passage, 157; "a dissolution of the Union, " 160; its bounty to the whites, 163; veto of, 164. 

 FREEDMEN'S BUREAU BILL, the second reported, its provisions, 295; passage in the House, 295; in the Senate, 296; form as it became a law, 298; veto of, 302; passage over the veto, 306; the bill and the veto, 563. 

 FREEDOM elevates the colored race, 85. 

 FRIENDSHIP for the negro, Mr. Cowan's, 135. 

 FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW, its provisions employed in the Civil Rights Bill, 190, 192; its re-enactment in the Civil Rights Bill opposed, 212; and advocated, 213; used for a good end, 216. 

 GARBLING, an example of, 572. 

 GENERAL Government supreme to confer citizenship, 239. 

 GENEROSITY towards rebels, McDougall's illustrated, 461. 

 GEORGIA, her avoidance of the Civil Rights Bill, 275; possessory titles of freedmen to lands in, 108. 

 GERMAN woman, a slave, 349. 

 GOVERNMENT, all departments of the, designed to secure civil rights, 221. 

 GOVERNMENT, the need of the South, 516. 

 GRANT, General, on the Freedmen's Bureau, 119; his order to protect officers from civil prosecution, 123; his order setting aside black laws, 215; his report, 563. 

 GREATNESS of America, 360. 

 GROUND-SWELL, danger of, after the war, 62. 

 GYPSIES, their birth and citizenship, 246, 255. 

 HABEAS Corpus, restored to loyal States, 123; its suspension an evidence that the war had not closed, 177. 

 HAPPINESS of statesmen who died before recent legislation, 194. 

 HAYTI, her blow for liberty, 69. 

 HIGHWAYMAN, his weapons restored, 122. 

 HOMES for Freedmen, the purchase of, 115. 

 HOMESTEAD Bill, Southern, 553. 

 HOUSE of Representatives, scene at the opening of, 16. 

 HOWARD, General, placed at the head of the Freedmen's Bureau, 139; his operations, 142. 

 HUNGARY, why revolutionary, 383. 

 IGNORANCE among colored people rapidly disappearing, 54; the nation chargeable with, 62; in the South, 146. 

 IMPEACHMENT proposed, 566; report of Committee on, 567. 

 INDIANA, negro suffrage not necessary in as in the South, 77; liable to be placed under the jurisdiction of Freedmen's Bureau, 110; military rule in, 112; civil-rights denied to negroes in, 117; marriage in, 131; not in rebellion, 125. 

 INDIANA and Massachusetts, prejudice against color and against ignorance, 337. 

 INDIANS, appropriations voted to feed and clothe, 120; excluded from civil rights, 201; becoming extinct, 410. 

 INDICTMENT substituted for Writ of Error, 274. 

 INDIVIDUALS, not States, commit treason, and are punished, 316. 

 INDUSTRIAL interests promoted by negro suffrage, 494. 

 INTELLIGENCE should be required of the negro voter, 73, 81. 

 IOWA, zeal and patriotism of her colored people, 73; vote on negro suffrage in, 74. 

 IRELAND, cause of her troubles, 383. 

 JAMAICA, insurrection in, cause of, 75. 

 JEFFERSON as quoted by President Johnson, 500. 

 JESUS CHRIST, the spirit of, 223, 224. 

 JOHNSON, Andrew, becomes President, 13; his amnesty proclamation, 14; how the odium against would be shared by Congress, 519; "the late lamented Governor, " 437. 

 JOHNSON, Senator, Andrew, his reply to Buchanan's veto, 255, 264. 

 JOHNSON, Doctor, and the leg of mutton, 406. 

 "JOHNSONIAN, new converts, " 439. 

 JUDICIAL authority under Freedmen's Bureau, 130. 

 JUDICIAL Department, the only hope, 512. 

 JUDICIARY Committee of the Senate described, 28; of the House, 31; subjects properly referred to it, 38; report on impeachment, 567. 

 JURY Trial not given under martial law, 175. 

 JUSTICE should be done to white and black, 119. 

 KANSAS, her protest against the denial of rights, 89; in 1856, 90; surrendered to the machinations of slave masters, 99. 

 KENTUCKY, Union party in, 152; necessity for Freedmen's Bureau in, advocated and opposed, 134; members from, their opposition to the Freedmen's Bureau, 149; her opposition to the Government, 153; laws of, relating to whites and blacks, 154; during the war, 211; will submit, 343; the United States, an appendage to, 362. 

 KILLING an official, opinion as to when it should be done, 151. 

 "KING can do no wrong, " a bad maxim, 260. 

 KOH-I-NOOR of blackness, 407. 

 LADIES, their supposed opinions on female suffrage, 492. 

 LAERTES, his language endorsed, 529. 

 LANDS not taken from owners by Freedmen's Bureau, 182. 

 LANE, James H. , his suicide, 569. 

 LAW, "under color of, " explained, 258, 260. 

 LAWS in Kentucky for whites and blacks, 211. 

 LAWYER "abating the statesman, " 208. 

 LEADER, of the democracy, confusion concerning, 306; of the House, 575. 

 LEE acted "under color of law, " 260. 

 LEGISLATURE of Tennessee, Constitutional Amendment in, 473. 

 LEGISLATURES do not constitute States, 327. 

 LEGISLATIVE power, danger of its abuse, 500. 

 LIGHT from the House not needed in the Senate, 44. 

 LINCOLN, Abraham, his assassination, 13; how he closed a chasm, 230; his language, 323; his death "no loss to the South, " 562; celebration of his birthday, 570. 

 LION, the prostrate, 71. 

 LOAN Bill, the, 558. 

 LOYALISTS, Southern, never lost their right of representation, 427. 

 LOYALTY impossible if States are foreign powers, 317. 

 "MALE, " the word should not be placed in the Constitution, 370. 

 MANHOOD of the negro race recognized, 91. 

 MANUFACTURERS, Senate Committee on, 27; House, 31. 

 MARIUS upon the ruins of Carthage, 287. 

 MARSHALL, Chief Justice, decision pronounced by, 253. 

 MARYLAND, necessity for Freedmen's Bureau in, 135. 

 MASSACHUSETTS, her law of suffrage, 63; her character, 74; her example not to be quoted, 92; crimes are perpetrated in, 97; prejudice against ignorance in, 336; Senator Sumner advised to leave, 336. 

 MAYOR of Washington, his remonstrance against negro suffrage, 486. 

 MCCLELLAN'S proclamation against the slaves, 67. 

 MCCULLOCH, circumstances under which he should receive great credit, 558. 

 MCDOUGALL, his habits and talents, 277. 

 MCPHERSON, Edward, Clerk of the House, 16; his conduct in the organization, 17; strictures on, 431. 

 MEMORIAL from colored men, 393. 

 METAPHYSICAL argument for female suffrage, 493. 

 MILITARY affairs, Committee on, 31. 

 MILITARY feature of the Civil Rights Bill opposed, 216; explained and defended, 217; has been the law 30 years, 218; nothing unusual, 225. 

 MILITARY governments in the South, colloquy concerning, 530. 

 MILITARY protection of Freedmen's Bureau opposed, 112; explained and advocated, 126, 172. 

 MILITARY Reconstruction Bill, discussion of a previous proposition, 502; the measure proposed, 516; its form, 517; explained, 518; danger in not providing for civil governments, 523; a police bill only, 528; Blaine's amendment of, 527; passes the House, 529; Sherman's amendment, 534; passes the Senate, 535; amended in the House, 541; final passage, 524; vetoed; passes over the veto, 547, 548; final form, 548. 

 MILITARY should not supersede civil authority, 524. 

 MILL, John Stuart, in favor of female suffrage, 488. 

 MISSISSIPPI, black code of, 146; distinctions in against blacks, 191; numbers of whites and negroes in, 334. 

 MISSOURI injured by making voters the basis of representation, 366. 

 MONOPOLY, Southern, of human rights, 376. 

 MONTGOMERY Convention committed treason "under color of law, " 261. 

 MURDER, being unlawful, can not be committed, 310; answer, 315. 

 NAME, ability to read and write the, as a qualification for voting, 496. 

 NAPOLEON not liable to execution if taken in war, 317. 

 NATIVE-BORN persons not subjects for naturalization, 200, 201; the position opposed, 203; advocated, 208. 

 NATURALIZATION Act as constituted by Congress, 203; may be changed, 204; its nature, 232. 

 NATURALIZATION of races, authorities, instances, 233, 238, 254. 

 NEBRASKA admitted into the Union, 559. 

 NEGRO brigade, charge of at Port Hudson, 71. 

 NEGRO, Cuvier's definition of, enlarged, 484. 

 NEGRO competition not to be feared, 229. 

 NEGRO equality does not exist in nature, 144. 

 NEGRO race, a mine or a buttress, 86; dying out, 408; answer, 409. 

 NEGROES have no history of civilization, 55; content with their situation, 55; their wealth in Washington, 58; should have citizenship, but not suffrage, 63; their inferiority, 67; became soldiers under discouraging circumstances, 70; their property and patriotism, 71; of Iowa, their patriotism, 73; danger in the influence of politicians over, 79; elevated by freedom, 85; their manhood recognized, 91; laws against them in the South, 147; prejudice against in the South, 161; citizens before the Constitution in North Carolina, 200; in New Hampshire, 201; allowed to compete for the Presidency, 222, 229; our allies, should not be deserted, 234; their services in the war, and subsequent wrongs, 282; competent to vote, 387; eligible to the highest offices, 387; their heroic deeds, 391; their enfranchisement should be gradual, 393; enormities practiced against, 504. 

 NEGRO suffrage, evil effects of, 60; would humble the white laborer, 65; chronology of in several States, 73; a necessity for the South, 76; retributive justice to rebels, 77; best obtained by indirect means, 412; history of the legislation for, 483; course of Mr. Yates on, 484; passage over the veto, 501. 

 NEUTRALITY in Kentucky, 152. 

 NEW ENGLAND, undue preponderance of in the Senate, 401; answer, 403; her happiness in not being despised, 413. 

 NEW ENGLAND Senators not silent during the war, 402. 

 NEW HAMPSHIRE, negroes citizens in, 201. 

 NEW YORK and Mississippi, inequality in their representation, 329; not affected by change in the basis of representation, 332. 

 NEW YORK Times, editorial in the, 444. 

 NORTH CAROLINA, negroes citizens in before the Constitution, 200; legislation of, concerning white slaves, 349. 

 NORTH and South, statesmen of the, 384. 

 NORTH, the political, what constitutes, 57. 

 OBJECT of the war, 44. 

 OFFICE, ineligibility to, as a punishment, 458. 

 OLIGARCHY, the power of, should be ended, 350. 

 PACIFIC Railroad, Committee on, 30. 

 PAINS and penalties of not holding office, 458. 

 PANEGYRIC on Union and rebel dead, 364; answered, 370. 

 PARLIAMENT and the King, 477. 

 PARTISAN controversy, 442. 

 PARTY for enfranchisement, how to be raised up, 411. 

 PARTY man, Mr. Hendricks not suspected to be, 412. 

 PATENT medicine in the Senate, 162. 

 PATTERSON, Senator of Tennessee, case of, 478; admitted to a seat, 482. 

 PENALTY essential to effectiveness of law, 259; is not permission, 414. 

 PENNSYLVANIA does not need the Freedmen's Bureau, 133; against negro citizenship, 195. 

 PEOPLE, "the sacred, " constitute the States, 327; their verdict for Congress, 564. 

 PERRY, Governor, his disloyalty, 562. 

 PERSIAN Mythology--Gods of Light and Darkness, 277. 

 PHYSICAL endurance, a question of, 419. 

 POLICY of Congress shown in legislation for the District of Columbia, 50; of the President, 423. 

 POLITICAL existence alone entitles to representation, 330; faith maintained in "the worst of times. " 532; rights not conferred by Civil Rights Bill, 256; society in the South must be changed, 445. 

 PRECIPITATE action deprecated, 382. 

 PREJUDICE of the Southern people against the negro, 161. 

 PRESENT time contrasted with 1787, 338. 

 PRESIDENT'S right to say who constitute Congress, 431. 

 PRESIDENCY, negroes allowed to compete for, 222, 229. 

 PRESIDENT Johnson, duty of Congress to sustain, 41; Congress not to be bound by his opinion, 42; reluctance of Congress to break with, 94; described as whitewashing, 99; not a "summer soldier, " 100; his character as a witness vindicated, 101; restores the habeas corpus, 123; views on good faith to freedmen, 131; policy of restoring lands to rebel owners, 143; veto of Freedmen's Bureau Bill, 164; answered by Mr. Trumbull, 171; veto of the Civil Rights Bill, 245; his controversy with Congress, 262; harmony desirable, 269; his dictation to Congress opposed, 276; defended by Mr. Lane, of Kansas, 280; wearing his collar, 181; as Moses of the negroes, 282; not infallible, 283; his defection and its effect, 294; his invitation to Congress, 314; the Constitutional Amendment construed as an attack upon, 343; speaks through an "unusual conduit, " 366; effect of his dictation, 372; effect of his speech, 419; description of, 423; effect of his opposition to reconstruction, 451; his patriotic duty, 459; eulogy on, 460; charged with responsibility for the state of the country, 463; taking "ministerial steps, " 464; his influence in Tennessee, 473; his protest against a preamble, 477; veto of the Suffrage Bill, 500; his usurpations, 508; how long he governed the South, 519; his greatness, 520; hope for harmony with, 524; hope only in the removal of, 526; his course rendering military reconstruction necessary, 527; how he executed the law for two years, 536; his terms towards Congress, 561; his 22d February speech, 563; before the people, 564; his vetoes, impeachment proposed, 566; resolution complimentary to, 571. 

 PRESIDENT of the Senate, the office vacated and assumed, 576. 

 PRIVILEGES and immunities of a Member of Congress, 575. 

 PROGRESS, in six years, --a scene in the Senate, 389. 

 PROGRESS, the tide of, cannot be stayed, 400. 

 PROPERTY qualification may be restored in South Carolina, 332. 

 PROSPECTS, brilliant, before the country, 394. 

 PUBLIC justice slow, but sure, 287. 

 PUBLIC Lands, Committee on, 30. 

 PUNISHMENT and reward, Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Sumner, 413. 

 PUNISHMENT of the Southern States, 395. 

 QUALIFICATION of Members decided upon by each House separately, 39. 

 RACES, differences in, cannot be obliterated, 56; diversity of opinion concerning, 360. 

 RADICAL bull taken by the horns, 314. 

 RADICAL and Conservative policy contrasted, 320; different in details, not in essence, 322. 

 RADICALISM, no danger of shipwreck from, 462. 

 RADICAL majority, its ranks strengthened, 294. 

 RADICAL principles indestructible, 428. 

 RADICALS, their purpose to be rational, 489. 

 RAIL-SPLITTER and tailor-boy, 400. 

 READING and writing as a qualification for voting, 487; Mr. Dixon's proposition, 495; lost, 499. 

 REAM, Miss Minnie, her commission to make a statue of Lincoln, 470. 

 REBELLION, its surviving strength, 527. 

 REBELS, their hatred of the negro, 76; retributive justice to, 77; what is expected of them, 133; authority should not be restored to, 122; should be trusted, 223, 386; their confidence to be won, 228; not to be conciliated by the sacrifice of the freedmen, 231; not to be deprived of citizenship, 233; called "the nation's dead, " 364; reply, 370; sufficiently punished, should be reädmitted, 429; instructions to, 426; proposition to disfranchise, 436; opposed, 438; the number who would be disfranchised, 440; their disfranchisement passes the House, 450; rejected in the Senate, 455; the most guilty, 448; in Congress, six years ago, 449; generosity towards, illustrated, 461; their conduct gives justice to the negro, 516. 

 REBEL States, their status, 37, 41, 45; facts respecting, 46; cannot destroy the Union, 145; their treatment of the negro, 153; their lack of representation no obstacle to legislation, 185; should not deprive loyal States of the power to legislate, 254; laws of, oppressive to freedmen, 261; how their absence affects legislation, 268; dead, 308; how restored, 309; how they lost their existence, 321; never out of the Union, 314; how should be treated, 318; bill to restore to political rights introduced, 502; Mr. Stevens' labor upon it, 528. 

 REBEL war, novel theory of, 509. 

 RECONSTRUCTION, as begun by President Johnson, 14; resolution to appoint a committee on, 34, 48; committee on, 49; their appointment, how regarded, 307; first report of committee on, 324; committee on, denounced, 441; its consummation eloquently portrayed, 448; Report on, 466; three modes of, 503; character of the committee on, 513; styled "Maelstrom Committee, " 519. 

 RECONSTRUCTION Amendment proposed, 435; denounced as revolutionary, 437; passage in the House, 450; influence of the Democrats in passing, 451; length of debate on, in the Senate, 453; amendments and substitutes proposed, 454, 455; "stupendous mercy, " 461; passage, 462, 463; its form, 463; transmitted to the States, 465. 

 REEL in the bottle, 415. 

 REFUGEES, their stories, 523. 

 RELIGION, appealed to, 458. 

 REMARKABLE combination of Senators, 415. 

 REPRESENTATION, Constitutional Amendment concerning, proposed, 324. 

 REPRESENTATION, modes of, considered, 330; the old rule of, arbitrary, 344; of Southern States, resolution concerning, 417; passage, 433; "straw in a storm, " 422; "useless, yet mischievous, " 432. 

 REPRESENTATIVES, seats of, 25. 

 REPRIMAND of Mr. Rosseau, 574. 

 REPUBLIC, American idea of, historical summary, 375; its overthrow lamented, 507. 

 REPUBLICANISM, its meaning, 477. 

 REPUBLICAN Government denied to the District of Columbia, 90; how guaranteed, 311; what constitutes, 356; inconsistent with denial of right of suffrage, 340; opinion of the fathers concerning, 385. 

 REPUBLICAN Party, its success or failure, 88; Rousseau's remark upon, 151; its responsibility, 306; declared by Mr. Stevens not responsible for his opinions, 308; its demands, 323; its negro capital, 361; alone benefited by change in Basis of Representation, 362; how it may retain power, 395; history and triumph of, 429; its "scheme, " 442; its position defined, 443; its desire, 510. 

 REVOLUTION, a Constitutional and peaceful, 206; produced by Civil Rights Bill, 287, 288. 

 "RICH man's war, and poor man's fight, " 446. 

 RIGHTS, danger of denying, 88; of voting essential to the enjoyment of other rights, 92; as affected by emancipation, 328. 

 ROUSSEAU and Grinnell, affair of, 151, 572. 

 ROME, her treatment of conquered Latium, 314; her noble "bloods" lost, 338; she rebukes America, 392. 

 RUSSIA, an example of, 99; Czar of, his example cited, 155. 

 SAVIOUR of the world found his followers among the poor, 88. 

 SARSAPARILLA and the ballot, 163. 

 SCHOOLS for freedmen should be provided by Government, 130; of colored people in the District of Columbia, 59. 

 SCHURZ, General, evidence of his report, 76, 563. 

 SCOTT, General, his death, 459; funeral and statue, 570. 

 SECESSION, Ordinance of, a nullity, 314. 

 SELF government, a right, 61. 

 SELF preservation, a right of the nation, 522. 

 SEATS, selection of, 23, 24. 

 SENATE, opening scenes in, 14; supposed division of, 431; its proper business and mischievous business, 460. 

 SENATOR, the Greek, and the Sparrow, 93. 

 SENATORS not legislators for their own States alone, 186; republican, as they appeared after a caucus, 456. 

 SERAPIS, destruction of the statue of, 145. 

 SEWARD, Secretary, his despatch to Minister Adams, 71; and the nobleman's dog, 509; defended, 512. 

 SHERMAN, General, his order assigning lands to freedmen, 114, 128. 

 SHERMAN'S Amendment to the Military Reconstruction Bill, 534. 

 SLAVE, the, under American law, 197. 

 SLAVEHOLDER, the last in America, 127. 

 SLAVES have supported themselves and their masters, 70. 

 SLAVERY, its evil influence, 87; dead, 102; its destruction, 145; abolition of, duty consequent upon, 188; voted perpetual by Congress, 230; right of U. S. To prohibit, 319; not confined to the African race, 348, 349. 

 SMALL, the negro pilot, 71. 

 SOUTH, what constitutes the, 57. 

 SOUTH CAROLINA attempts to keep the slave in bondage, 96; her laws against the negro, 146; her representation to be reduced, 331; and Wisconsin, inequality in representation, 334; her numbers of whites and negroes, 334; how she may evade the Constitutional Amendment, 341; President Johnson's advice to, 562. 

 SOUTHERN people, their kind feeling towards negroes, 227; a majority opposed to secession, 446; their disposition, 470; advised to strike for liberty, 494. 

 SOUTHERN States, number of illiterate persons in, 146; in a better condition than to be expected, 109; their representatives should be admitted, 355; the numbers disfranchised by them, 365; an appeal to their love of power, 369; anti-republican, 376; punishment of, 395; not kept out by New England jealousy, 403; their losses in the war, 408; revolution relating to, 417; their relation to the Union unchanged, 427. 

 SOVEREIGNTIES, divided, essential to the existence of the nation, 267. 

 SPEAKER of the House, his influence upon legislation, 576. 

 SPECIE payments, when to be reached, 556. 

 STARS of heaven and the constellation of the States, 144. 

 STATE of the country, unparalleled, 178. 

 STATESMANSHIP the rule of, 539; what constitutes, 532. 

 STATESMEN of the North and South, 384. 

 STATE sovereignty, the doctrine destroyed, 319. 

 STATES rights defined, 228; Civil Rights Bill endangers, 222, 236; answered, 240. 

 STATES reserved the right to confer citizenship, 265; the number recognized by the President, 335; South and North, their ratio of representation compared, 344. 

 STATISTICS of Freedmen's Bureau, 154, 182. 

 STATUTES declaring what the law is, common, 254. 

 STEWART'S proposition for universal suffrage, 435. 

 ST. DOMINGO, insurrection in, without a parallel, 68. 

 STOCKBRIDGE Indians naturalized, 233. 

 STORY, Justice, as quoted by President Johnson, 500. 

 SUBJECTS, who are, how made citizens, 232. 

 SUFFRAGE in the District of Columbia, bill extending, 51; the first act in a political drama, 54; not prematurely proposed, 91. 

 SUFFRAGE limited by the influence of slavery, 52; negro to be effected by Constitutional Amendment, 327; the proper basis of representation, 335; the right of, Congress may regulate, 364; negro or rebel? 383; impartial, advocated by Mr. Yates, 398; by Mr. Pomeroy, 404; female, advocated and opposed, 488; advocated by Mr. Wade, 490; rejected, 495; its true base, 495. 

 SUN obscured by Congressional acts, 337. 

 SUPPLEMENTARY Reconstruction Bill, 550. 

 SYMPATHIZERS, Northern, with rebellion, 78. 

 TACTICS, Parliamentary, 418. 

 TARIFF, subject of the, 554; bill, 555. 

 TAXATION without representation opposed, 326, 333; proposed exemption of unrepresented negroes from, 386; the principle of, announced, 555. 

 TEARS for the slave, 192. 

 TEMPTATION to be friends of the President, 564. 

 TENNESSEE, efforts of members to gain admission, 17; effect of veto of Freedmen's Bureau on the admission of, 418; right of Congress to inquire into the loyalty of, 424; her reädmission anticipated, 448; first to ratify the Constitutional Amendment, 473; resolution for restoring representation to, 474; its passage, 476. 

 TENURE of office, bill to regulate, 559. 

 TERMS of surrender to be fixed by the President, 319. 

 TERRITORIAL Government proper for rebel States, 312. 

 TERRITORIES, democratic doctrine on, fruits of, 442. 

 TEST Oath, 21; should be modified, 47; resolution to modify the, 480; opposed by Mr. Stokes, 480; by Mr. Conkling; laid on the table, 481. 

 TEXAS, citizenship conferred on the people by legislation, 198; negroes in, unaware of their freedom, 393. 

 TIME proper for amending the Constitution, 345, 352, 355. 

 TOOMBS and his gang make a "hell of legislation, " 449. 

 TOWNSEND'S Sarsaparilla, and suffrage, 530. 

 TRANQUILLITY impossible while rights are denied a portion of the people, 486. 

 TREASON, charge, of resented, 284. 

 TRIBUNES of Borne, their "veto, " 278. 

 TROUBLE with the negro, how ended, 390. 

 TRUMBULL, Senator, his visit to the President, 262, 283. 

 UNION Party of 1861, its policy on slavery, 342; its position defined, 443. 

 UNION to be dissolved by act of Congress, 40; under the Constitution and old confederation, 316; means of having a prosperous, 461. 

 UNIVERSAL suffrage, its sure triumph, 400. 

 "VENOMOUS fight, " a, 419. 

 VERBAL details, criticism on, deprecated, 520. 

 VETO, of the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, 165; bill fails to pass over, in the Senate, 187; Mr. Raymond desirous of avoiding, 235; of Civil Rights Bill, 246; efforts of Congress to avoid, 262; appeal of Senator Andrew Johnson against, 264; power of the Executive, 278; of the second Freedmen's Bureau Bill, 302; of the District of Columbia Suffrage Bill, 500; of Military Reconstruction Bill, 542; of Tenure of Office Bill, 560

 VETOES, summary of, 565. 

 VIRGINIA, her legislation concerning citizenship, 349. 

 VIRGINIANS, probable effect of negro suffrage upon, 498. 

 VOTE on appointment of Reconstruction Committee, 35, 48; on Negro Suffrage, 93; on Freedmen's Bureau Bill, 136, 157, 187; on Civil Rights Bill, 219, 243; on veto of Civil Rights Bill, 288, 289; on Reconstruction Amendment, 450; on Basis of Representation, 371, 416; on Military Reconstruction Bill, 535. 

 VOTES of disfranchised persons in the Electoral College, 329. 

 VOTERS, objections to, as basis of representation, 351. 

 VOTERS, qualifications of, under the Military Reconstruction Bill, 550. 

 VOTING, the mode of in Joint Committees, 39. 

 VOTING, the right of, not correlative with the duty to bear arms, 493; population in States, old and new, 335. 

 WADE accused of secession sentiments, 428. 

 WAR, effects of the, 62; opinions of General Grant and the Attorney General on its termination, 123; results of the, 209. 

 WAR of races, how produced, 75; how avoided, 383. 

 WAR power of the Freedmen's Bureau, 125. 

 WAR, the only remaining means of preserving civil liberty, 519; difficulty of raising soldiers for such a, 521. 

 WASHINGTON City thriftless under the rule of slavery, 52; schools and churches of colored population in, 59; negroes in, their property and patriotism, 71; its situation, 571. 

 WASHINGTON, George, on alterations of the Constitution, 358. 

 WAYS and Means, Committee on, 29. 

 WELFARE, public, subserved by passage of Freedmen's Bureau Bill, 149. 

 WHIPPING negroes to disfranchise them, 504. 

 "WHITE-MAN'S Government, " this is not exclusively, 57, 61; the idea opposed, 207; eloquent passage concerning, 391; answer to, 396. 

 "WHITE, " mistake of Colorado in using the word, 559. 

 WHITE people, civilized governments intended for, 60; sometimes vote wrong, 79; never legally slaves, 370; not discriminated against, 258; recipients of bounty of Freedmen's Bureau, 163; General Fiske's statement, 182. 

 WHITE population to be crowded out by blacks, 150. 

 WHITE soldiers did more than black, 66. 

 "WHITEWASHING, " charged against the President, 99, 563. 

 WISCONSIN, instructions to the Senators of, 286; and South Carolina, their unequal representation, 334; her declaration on negro suffrage, 394; radicals of, Doolittle against the, 533. 

 WOMEN, crusade against, deprecated, 370. 

 YOUNG gentlemen in Congress, suggestions to, 529. 

THE END.