CONGRESS,. UNITED STATES. 



170 



"That it is duo to the dignity of the "I 

 States w n great nation it' sho punishes tlio 

 actual traitors u ho incited the rebellion that 

 It be done solemnly and according to the strict- 

 est form of law, in open courts, where tlio 

 prisoners may have counsel and witnesses so 

 tlnit they may make their defence, if they have 

 any. 



' That according to the Constitution and laws, 

 nil the States are still in the Union; that seces- 

 eion ordinances could not repeal the one nor 

 war set aside the other ; that they are neither 

 dead hy forfeiture orfelo de sc, but are now in 

 full and perfect existence with all their munici- 

 pal machinery in full play. 



" That the proposition of the committee of 

 fifteen to amend the Constitution is fundamental 

 and revolutionary, and destructive of the free- 

 dom of the States and the liberties of the 

 people ; that it is a threat to deprive them of 

 their rights by compelling them either to admit 

 negroes to the right of suffrage or to give up 

 a share of their representation, which is theirs 

 by law and the last amendment to the Consti- 

 tution. 



" That the resolution now before us from the 

 same committee is also revolutionary and de- 

 structive, being an attempt to suspend the Con- 

 stitution and laws in regard to representation 

 in Congress over cloven States of the Union 

 until Congress shall see fit to restore them. It 

 is a declaration on the part of the members of 

 the present House and Senate, that having the 

 means of keeping these States from being rep- 

 resented here, they are going to do so as long 

 as they please ; that no one of these measures 

 can be justified as a punishment for the rebel- 

 lion ; that the Constitution forbids them as bills 

 of pains and penalties, and as ex post facto in 

 their character. 



" Then, sir, here at the conclusion, I will en- 

 deavor to answer a question which has been 

 so often put ; and with that air of braggart 

 triumph that indicates an answer impossible. 

 The question is this : ' Would you bring back 

 here into the Senate rebels and traitors, the 

 authors of all our troubles, whose hands are yet 

 red with the blood of our slaughtered people ? 

 And if not, how do you propose to avoid it 

 unless you deny these 'States representation for 

 a time at least?' 



" To all this I answer, no, as emphatically as 

 any other Senator can do; but I would keep 

 them out in a very different way from that pro- 

 posed. I would keep them out by following 

 the mode and seeking the remedy afforded by 

 the Constitution and laws, instead of adopting 

 a course forbidden by both and unjust in itself 

 I would keep out traitors, not keep out States; 

 I would punish criminals, and not enslave com- 

 munities ; I would single out the guilty, and not 

 confound the innocent with them. 



u Is not this easy ? When the traitor asks ad- 

 mission here, you can arrest him for his treason ; 

 you can commit him for trial ; and the offence 

 is not bailable. I suppose everybody will agree 



that would keep him out, at least till he i tried. 

 It lias another great advantage, too: it u lawful, 

 and none can complain of it. 



" After the trial, if acquitted, he is not a trai- 

 t<T. Mini his case presents no difficulty. If he U 

 convicted, attainted, and hanged, I suppose that 

 would allay all fears of his return. 



" Now, Mr. President, when I think how ob- 

 vious and effectual this plan would bo, I am 

 amazed that it should have ever entered into 

 the human mind to contrive another. Why is 

 it not adopted ? Sir, I am afraid to answer. I 

 am afraid there are patriots who would prefer 

 to let treason go unwhipped rather than they 

 should risk their own hold on power. It looks 

 to roe much like that ; and if so, I am sorry 

 that any man can be so short-sighted as not to 

 see the fatal consequences of such an exchange 

 as this. Does it not say, your treason may go 

 if you let us rule the country ? 



" One word more and I am done. The coun- 

 try is alarmed, the people are anxious, and the 

 political atmosphere bodes the coming of no 

 common storm. What can we do to prevent 

 it and bring back peace to the country and 

 harmony to the party? Is there no common 

 ground on which we can stand ? Is there no 

 common standard round which we can rally ? 

 I think there is, sir. Surely, we may go back 

 to the Constitution which we have all sworn to 

 support. We can go back to the laws and en- 

 force them without dissension among ourselves. 

 Then there are things which we may avoid 

 doing. We may avoid new measures on which 

 we cannot agree, and which only serve as 

 wedges to split us further and further asun- 

 der. 



"Mr. President, why these new measures? 

 Who is bound to the support of a new measure 

 except the author of it? What member of a 

 party is bound to a new measure not in con- 

 templation of the party at the time it was or- 

 ganized, at the time its platform was laid down, 

 except the author ; and if dissension and divi- 

 sion spring up from the new measure, who is 

 responsible for that ? The man who stands on 

 the record, or the man who introduces the new 

 measure ? The man who catches the foxes and 

 ties their tails so as to send them into the stand- 

 ing corn, or the men who do not ? These are 

 questions that the country are coming to ask. 

 They will ask, who did this thing, who brought 

 this about? Was the Freedmen's Burean in 

 the Baltimore platform ? Was it in the Chi- 

 cago platform? Where did the party agree to 

 that as a party? Where was that laid down as 

 a line to which all party men should come? 

 The pretence is absurd. The Freedmen's Bu- 

 reau bill is not now and never was a party 

 measure, except with some few people who 

 took it into their heads that it was a very good 

 thing. Nobody blamed them for that; they 

 had a right to believe that; but other people 

 who did not believe it are not to be ostracized 

 on that account, particularly if those who did 

 not believe it thought that in itself it was not 



