every State of the Union, in accordance with the written words of your Constitution, may, by the national law, be secured in the equal protection of his personal rights. Your Constitution provides that no man, no matter what his color, no matter beneath what sky he may have been born, no matter in what disastrous conflict or by what tyrannical hand his liberty may have been cloven down, no matter how poor, no matter how friendless, no matter how ignorant, shall be deprived of life or liberty or property without due process of law-law in its highest sense, that law which is the perfection of human reason, and which is impartial, equal, exact justice; that justice which requires that every man shall have his right; that justice which is the highest duty of nations as it is the imperishable attribute of the God of nations."

Mr. Conkling of New York had not assented to the report of the committee in favor of the resolution. Mr. Hotchkiss of New York was opposed to the adoption of the amendment, not believing it to be as strong as the Constitution now is. Mr. Conkling then moved that the further consideration of the resolution be postponed until April. Mr. Eldridge of Wisconsin moved to lay the resolution on the table, but the motion was lost.-Yeas 41, nays 110. The question recurring on the motion of Mr. Conkling, the House, by a vote of 110 to 37, postponed the further consideration of the subject to the second Tuesday of April, and the resolution was not again taken up.

CHAPTER IX.

REPRESENTATION.

Concurrent Resolution reported by Mr. Stevens on admission of Senators and Representatives from rebel States.-Mr. Grider's minority report.Speech of Mr. Eldridge.-Mr. Stevens.-Resolution passed.-In the Senate Mr. Fessenden called up the Resolution.-Debated by Messrs. Cowan, Fessenden, Johnson, Trumbull, Davis, Dixon, Sherman, Fessenden, Doolittle, Howe, Johnson.-Speech of Mr. Fessenden, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Dixon. Remarks of Mr. Trumbull, Mr. Dixon and Mr. Howard.-Speech of Mr. Nye, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Johnson.-Mr. Hendricks moved an amendment.-Speech of Mr. Wade, Mr. Cowan, Mr. Davis, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Fessenden, Mr. McDougall.-Resolution passed.

In the House of Representatives on the 20th day of February, 1866, Mr. Stevens reported from the Joint Committee on reconstruction, a concurrent resolution, "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."

Mr. Grider of Kentucky asked Mr. Stevens to yield the floor, to permit him to make a minority report concluding with a resolution that the State of

Tennessee was entitled to representation, but Mr. Stevens declined to yield. Pending the motion for the previous question dilatory motions were made, and protracted resistance was made by the minority. After a struggle of several hours Mr. Eldridge of Wisconsin stated that the minority felt that a measure containing such provisions ought to receive deliberate consideration, and for that reason they had striven through the day against immediate action; but they knew it had become a question of physical endurance; they knew their weakness; they had done all they could and they yielded to power, throwing upon the majority the responsibility of that most extraordinary and most revolutionary measure.

"The gentlemen," replied Mr. Stevens, "accept their condition just as Jeff Davis did his, because they cannot help it. I confess sir, for so small a number they have made a most venomous fight. I am only sorry that the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. Rogers,) who belongs to the same tribe, could not have had an opportunity also to shake his rattle and point his sting."

On the motion of Mr. Washburne of Illinois, the House ordered the yeas and nays; the question was then taken and the resolution passed.-Yeas 109, nays 40.

In the Senate on the 21st Mr. Fessenden proposed to take up the resolution; and after a debate in which Messrs. Cowan, Fessenden, Johnson, Trum

bull, Davis, and Dixon participated, it was taken up, read, and then went over under the rule.

On the 23d Mr. Fessenden again proposed to call up the resolution. Mr. Sherman was opposed to taking it up at that time. He anticipated no good and much evil as the result of precipitating the Senate into a debate on the resolution. After farther debate, participated in by Mr. Fessenden, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Howe, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Trumbull, the resolution was taken up by 26 yeas to 19

nays.

Mr. Fessenden then made an elaborate argument upon the condition of the country, in review of the veto, on the Freedmen's bureau, and upon reconstruction. He maintained "that this country has been in a state of war, decidedly in a state of war, war according to the books, war in its worst acceptation, war in the very strongest meaning of the term, without any limitation or qualification. If we have been in a state of war, the question arises -and it is a very simple one, and I think this whole thing lies in a narrow compass-is there any dispute as to what are the consequences of war? What are the consequences of successful war? Where one nation conquers another, overcomes it without qualifications, without terms, without limits, and after a bitter contest succeeds in crushing its enemy, occupying its enemy's territory, destroying its posts, what are the consequences? Is there anything

more certain than that the conqueror has a right, if he chooses, to change the form of government, that he has a right to punish, that he has a right to take entire control of the nation and the people, that he has a right to exact security for the future, and such security for his own safety as he may demand; that all these rights are his, with only the limitation that he shall not abuse them and conduct them in a manner contrary to humanity, in the ordinary acceptation of the term ?"

Mr. Fessenden closed his very able speech on Reconstruction with this emphatic declaration: "My judgment is, that we hold the power over that whole subject in our own hands, that it is our duty to hold it in our own hands, and to regard it as a matter of the most intense interest to the whole people, involving the good of the whole people, calling for our most careful consideration, and to be adjudged without passion, without temper, without any of that feeling which may be supposed to have arisen out of the unexampled state of things through which we have passed."

On the 26th the debate was resumed by Mr. Sherman, who addressed the Senate at great length upon reconstruction. He deprecated quarreling with the President unless compelled to it by his base betrayal of the obligations imposed upon and accepted by him as the candidate of the Republicans. "The curse of God," he said, "the maledictions of millions of our people, and the tears and blood of