to annul, and to destroy the Constitution and to centralize this Government, and thereby to take away from the people the privileges which that Constitution formed by our forefathers gave to them. The gentleman from Illinois belongs to that party, and he will allow me to say, a party which does not seek any immediate restoration of this Union. They find that Andrew Johnson seeks that restoration in good faith.

His spirit of loyalty and fidelity to the Constitution is far different from that evinced by the Republican party. It is far different from that spirit of the gentleman's party which pressed through hurriedly the admission of the State of Colorado with two Senators in the other branch of Congress, simply because those two Senators will make up the two-thirds vote in the Senate and enable the Opposition party to be equal to any emergency against the conduct of the President in defending the Constitution of the United States. Yes, sir, that State was admitted into the Union, so far as the votes of the two Houses can go, when it has not as many inhabitants, I venture to say, as there are voters in my own district.

That is the party against which we are arrayed. It is the party which the people must overthrow before they can expect any full restoration of this Government. We can never have a continued peace until the principles embodied by Andrew Johnson in his veto of the Freedmen's Bureau bill, his veto of the civil rights bill, and his speech of the 22d of February last shall guide this country in a restoration of the Union of these States.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I like that Christian virtue called patience, and have tried to exercise it toward iny friend over the

way.

I am

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. much obliged to the gentleman for his kindness. I knew his patience and his kindness of old, but perhaps I have encroached upon them too much.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. Not at all. I yielded more readily to the gentleman because he claimed to represent the Domocratic party, and I wanted him to have the privilege of defending his friends, as he has done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with the gentleman's permission, before I enter upon the subject which I intend to discuss, I propose to ask him a question in reference to the very subject he has adverted to. The gentleman says, and I do not controvert it, that he comes from a loyal district in Pennsylvania, and that his constituency are as loyal as that of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. INGERSOLL.] I want him to tell this House whether he supports today the Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania for Governor, Heister Clymer.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I do; and I expect to do so with all my heart, because I believe his election will aid in the res toration of the Union.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I only wanted a categorical answer.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. You have got it.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I will now refer to a scene which has come up vividly before my mind since my friend from Illinois [Mr. INGERSOLL] commenced his speech-a Scene which occurred three years ago or more in the Senate of Pennsylvania-when I heard Andrew Johnson slandered and vilified more than I ever heard any man abused in a public body by that same Heister Clymer and his Democratic associates. I have the speech here. I was told that the Senator was careful to suppress some parts of it, but in that speech he assailed Andrew Johnson in the strongest terms, declaring him utterly unworthy of the confidence of the Democratic party. And why was it that he made that assault on Andrew Johnson? Because we were disposed to honor him by giving him the use of the hall of the Senate of our State in which he could be heard in defense of the war. The Democratic party

refused to vote for it; they would not even permit his voice to be heard in that hall in favor of the cause of his country.

A motion was first made in the House that Andrew Johnson, and Governor Wright, of Indiana, should have the use of the hall of the House in that dark hour of the country, and how was that motion met by the representatives of the great Democratic party, who are now, or claim to be, the special friends of the President? It was defeated by their votes, and then presented in the Senate. I have no disposition to join in any vituperation against the President. I am far from indorsing some of the utterances of my friend from Illinois [Mr. INGERSOLL] in his speech to-day in regard to Andrew Johnson. I shall never engage in any personal abuse of any man who may be opposed to the policy of the party with which I act. But, sir, I say that this same Democratic party, led on by this same Heister Clymer in Pennsylvania, were opposed to allowing Andrew Johnson an opportunity to be heard in the hall of the Senate of Pennsylvania, and that the very same leaders have been here in this capital, and I have met them in the presence of the President of the United States, asking, as I suppose, for his interference in the State in favor of their party. These very men abused him two years ago as I never heard a public man abused in a public assembly, as I had occasion to know, for I was in the chair at the time, and was compelled several times to call them to order on account of their low abuse of a man that I supposed then to be, and still hope that I may be permitted to call, a patriot.

[Here Mr. WARNER handed Mr. LAWRENCE the speech referred to.]

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I suggest that the gentleman have leave to print it, so that it may go to the country along with the speech of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. INGERSOLL,] to see which is the worst.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I have not said anything against the President, and shall not.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I am not alluding to your remarks.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I say that the men who were the enemies and traducers of Andrew Johnson in my own State, the copperhead party, who have held their secret cabals day and night, who have conspired against the Government, are now swarming around the President, getting down on their knees like sycophants, and asking for crumbs. I have seen them myself. And I have been told on good authority, and I believe it, that some of those who, a few weeks ago, nominated Mr. Clymer, came here to see if the influence of Andrew Johnson could not be had to carry that State for the Democracy in the coming contest.

Now, this is not saying anything against Andrew Johnson. I am telling who they were who abused him at that time, and who were his enemies. Those men to-day repudiate, as I suppose my colleague [Mr. RANDALL] does, the Baltimore platform; although my friend commends Andrew Johnson because he says he stands on that platform. And yet did my friend and colleague support and approve that Baltimore platform? I have no doubt he denounced it in every Democratic club-room in the city of Philadelphia, the very platform on which he says Andrew Johnson now stands.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. The Democratic party of Pennsylvania are not responsible for everything that Mr. Heister Clymer may say in his individual capacity. [Laughter.] Moreover, let me say that the Democratic party of Pennsylvania indorsed Andrew Johnson in their resolutions, because they be lieve his policy of restoration will give us once more a united country, and only on that ground. Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. And the same party in my State sustained Vallandigham and indorsed him.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. When? Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. In their State convention, in 1863. And I doubt

whether we could have carried the State for Governor Curtin but for that full indorsement of Vallandigham.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I demand my colleague's authority for that assertion. Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I give my pledge, if the gentleman will accept that. Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I will accept the gentleman's pledge for forty-eight hours.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. In the convention that nominated Woodward for Governor, against Curtin, a resolution was passed congratulating the Democratic party of Ohio on their nomination of Vallandigham. And if that is not so I will agree to give the gentleman

Mr. SMITH. Twenty cents. [Laughter.] Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. More than that; I will give a basket of champagne. Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman is mistaken. The convention denounced the arrest and manner of incarceration of Mr. Vallandigham.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I am astonished that my colleague [Mr. RANDALL] has such a short memory. I have had occasion to read that resolution before tens of thousands of the people of Pennsylvania; I have had occasion to refer to it more than fifty times. I do not misrepresent the Democratic party, nor do I misrepresent Mr. Clymer, who is a personal friend and an honest man. He has voted consistently and at all times against the war policy of the Government, and against making appropriations to feed and clothe the soldiers who were fighting for the Govern ment; he has always sustained the copperhead party and its friends in the State of Pennsylvania. He is and has been a consistent leader of that party, and stands to-day as the candidate of that party in our State for Governor; a party, the members of which did all they dared to do, and keep out of prison, to hand us over to the rebels in the South.

Mr. SMITH. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. Certainly.

Mr. SMITH. I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. LAWRENCE] if it is not his wish as well as the wish of every loyal man in the country, I presume, that all men should be loyal and obey the laws and sustain the Constitution and the union of the States. Is not that his wish?

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. That is my wish, certainly. And I should be very glad to see those punished who did not do so. And I would like to see some of them hung. and could name about twenty of them myself for that purpose. M SMITH. number.

And I could double the

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. And I do not know but I could name some in Ken tucky.

Mr. SMITH. And I would double that, too. But I would ask the gentleman, if he finds men disposed and willing and anxious to obey the laws, and do obey them to all intents and purposes, would he have any cause of complaint against them?

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. Does the gentleman expect me to have any faith in the Democratic party repenting of their sins? [Laughter.]

Mr. SMITH. Allow me, if you please. Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I thought the gentleman referred to them.

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no; I am not in the Clymer controversy at all. I do not know any thing about it. I speak of those who are willing to obey the laws, and I do not come within the purview of the gentleman's rule of punishment. As to hanging the leading traitors, I am as much in favor of that as the gentleman from Pennsylvania can be.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to take up so much time. I was drawn into this discussion,

as the gentleman from Kentucky is aware, by the remarks of my colleague.

Mr. SMITH. I disclaim any intention to interfere in the controversy between the gentleman and his colleague. I was only asking a question with reference to the point of repentance and confession, whether the gentleman would forgive a man on that ground.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. Certainly I would, so far as I am personally concerned; but I would not, for that reason, exempt all the traitors from the just penalty of their crimes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a dozen gentlemen around me are calling for the reading of the speech of Heister Clymer, to which I have referred, and which is just handed to me by the gentleman from Connecticut, [Mr. WARNER.] How he happened to have it I know not. In compliance with their wishes, I send to the Clerk's desk to be read an extract from the Legislative Record, the official report of the debates in the Pennsylvania Legislature.

The Clerk read as follows:

"Mr. CLYMER. Mr. Speaker, on this day, at this hour, in this place, a great issue is on trial, fraught with the interests, not only of the present, but of the future; and if I, in the decision of this issue, have acted a part, however unimportant, I shall hereafter look back to this day, to this hour, and to this place, with feelings of no little gratification."

"What is the question presented? It is a proposition to invite Andrew Johnson, the so-called Governor of Tennessee, to address the people of Pennsylvania from the Senate chamber of this State. I have various reasons for opposing this proposition. In the first place, I here boldly proclaim that he is not at this hour and never has been, by the Constitution or under the laws, the Governor of the State of Tennessee, except when years ago he was elected to that office by the people. I say, sir, that his appointment by the President of the United States to that position was a usurpation of power on the part of the President, and that there is no warrant under the Constitution, no authority in the laws for his appointment; and that every act which he has assumed to perform by virtue of his unconstitutional and illegal appointment has been in derogation of the rights of a sovereign State, and in flat violation of the Constitution of the United States.

"I say, sir, furthermore, that no such position as military governor of a State is known to the Constitution of the United States; that there is nothing in that instrument which authorizes the President of the United States to appoint a military governor of any State; and that to make such an appointment was to create the State of Tennessee a military province; and that his appointment was made to carry out and subserve the purposes of the present Administration.

which is to reduce all the States of this Union to the condition of mere dependencies of a consolidated oligarchy or despotism. That is my position, so far as concerns this pretended Governor of Tennessee. Andrew Johnson has not been for years, and is not now, the Governor of that State; and I will never recognize him as such by voting for this resolution.

to the public along with the speech of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. INGERSOLL.]

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I cannot yield for that purpose.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. It will take only a minute.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman knows very well that I have not much time.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. The doc ument which I desire to have read is the platform upon which Heister Clymer was nominated as a candidate for Governor.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I have seen that platform over and over again. It is an utter abandoment of all the old positions of the Democratic party.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. It is a good Union platform,

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. But, sir, of what use is a platform which every one knows to consist simply of hypocritical professions? Sir, the platform which that party has adopted in Pennsylvania for campaign purposes is a card representing Clymer supporting a white man, while General Geary, that heroic man, who traveled with Sherman through the South, and returned victoriously, is represented as holding up, or perhaps embracing, a negro. Sir, the only capital of the Democratic party to-day in Pennsylvania is the negro question. They attempt to appeal to the lowest passions and prejudices of the ignorant and debased with regard to the negro. Because some of us representing here the State of Pennsylvania voted for negro suffrage, as an experiment, and to enable them to compete with returned rebels in this District, our names are paraded as friends of the negro in preference to the white man. In this, with the tricks of demagogues, that party appeal to passion and prejudice, and not to judgment and reason.

Now, I say that is the platform upon which these men stand. It is published in every Democratic paper in the State. I eulogized President Johnson when these men were denouncing him. I stood by him at that time, in Harrisburg, when he made one of the most able arguments that I ever heard in defense of the Constitution and the right of the Government to put down this rebellion. I followed him then;

followed him in Tennessee, when he stood like an oak stricken in the forest, when he was driven from home, and his family were scattered. I stood by him then, and I stood by him as the candidate of the Republican party in the last campaign. I helped to elect him. I would be glad, sir, to say that I indorsed every act of his Administration. I do not, and I cannot. I came here as anxious as my friend from Illinois that we should be united, that the President and Congress should stand together in this great issue. I knew the assaults we had to, meet from the Democratic party. I knew they were thirsting for the loaves and fishes. I knew they would use every effort to secure possession of the Government. I was anxious that we should stand upon the platform of the party which would save us from this humiliation and disgrace. I did all a man could do to stand by the President, and, as some of my friends know, I subjected myself to suspicion and reproach from some of my radical friends, because I did not indorse all their policy. I regretted to hear the President abused early in the session. I was anxious we should be kept As together; but after his speech of the 22d of February, and after his veto of the civil rights bill, I found I could not go for his whole policy without degrading myself and losing my own self-respect.

But, sir, without regard to any question of his official position, take Andrew Johnson as an individual, assuming that he is rightfully clothed with the robes of office and may constitutionally exercise the duties of that high position; even then, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I never by my vote will allow a man to come into these halls and from this place speak to the people of this great State in support of what I know to be illegal, unconstitutional, and tyrannical acts of the Federal Government. I know, sir, that Andrew Johnson has gone as far as the farthest, and is ready to go still further, to destroy, to uproot, to upturn every principle upon which this great and good Government of ours was founded. I know that he has bent with suppliant knee before the throne of power; I know that for pelf or some other consideration, he has succumbed to every measure presented to him for approval or disapproval; and I know that in speeches delivered in the capitals of other States he has enunciated doctrines which, if adopted by the people of the great North, would be subversive of individual freedom and personal right. Sir, by no vote of mine can any person holding such views address the people of Pennsylva nia in this chamber. Never, sir, never, so long as I have a right to forbid him."

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. the language to which I have referred does not appear in that speech, it is proper that I should say that Mr. Clymer and others suppressed a portion of the most objectionable part of their speeches. But from the whole tenor of that speech, the House will observe that it was a repudiation of Andrew Johnson, not only per sonally and politically, but officially.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. Will my colleague yield to me a moment?

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. what purpose?

For

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. That I may have read a document which I wish to go

And I say here, in the presence of the nation, that my district that voted for him was in favor of sustaining his Administration until by some of his own acts, and by means of the copperhead party all over the land, he succeeded in destroying that confidence which I desired to cultivate; and to-day I have the gratification to know, although I represent a doubtful district, that the President, by the removal of pure, honest, and patriotic men, and by pardoning

men covered all over with crime, who have been guilty of treason to the country, and by suffering himself to be led astray by our opponents, has made it necessary for the Union men to stand together in support of the general policy we sustain here, and they are as earnest and as powerful as when they sustained Andrew Johnson for the Vice Presidency of the United States. They stand in opposition to the general policy of the President, and in favor of the general policy pursued by the party in Congress, and I stand there with them. I am not going to abandon my principles to follow the lead of any man. I was willing to yield something for peace and harmony. When war is made upon us, when it comes upon the wings of the wind every morning and every evening, when we are attacked upon all sides, when attacks are made upon our people because they are not willing to bear the yoke, I cannot support the policy.

Mr. Speaker, I will not abuse the President personally. I never do that thing. I predict, with the honorable gentleman from Illinois, that we need not fear the contest. We live in an age of advancement, when bibles and churches and school-houses are scattered all over the land, when men are expected to respect a man because he is a man, when men are expected to do justice to all men, white or black; and I say the day is not far distant when this miserable copperhead party, that has no love of principle, that does not stand by its professed principles during more than one campaign, that has changed them in my own State twenty times within my own knowledge, when this Democratic party that derided Johnson, that slandered Lincoln-yes, sir, for they did deride, vilify, and slander him all over the land, calling him a low buffoon, while to-day they come up and hypocritically sing praises to his memory-I say that the day is not far distant when this Democratic party will sink into oblivion covered with the curses of the people it has deceived.

This same party rallies around President Johnson by night and by day. Go to the White House any time you please and you will be sure to see some of them, and always the shadow of some of the Blairs. [Laughter.] I have scarcely ever gone there without meeting some one of the family. I have seen the old man, who is almost ready to fall into the grave, there. It was the same during Lincoln's administration; he was always there trying to lead the President away from the people, in order to give office to the family.

I feel like the man in my own State at the time that President Jackson removed the deposits. He said, "I didn't wish General Jackson any harm; but I shouldn't care if the Almighty took a fancy for him." [Laughter.]

No family in this land so few in number has done so much to alienate the President from those who were his friends as this family of Blairs.

I have been drawn off into this personality. How could I help it? The Union organization by which I have stood since the first tocsin of arms was sounded at the attack on Sumter, I have followed it, never stopping to inquire whether a man who adhered to it was a Democrat or a Republican, and it was this organization and its policy that saved the country. I have met these men who call themselves Democrats everywhere. I know where they stand, and how they long for the flesh-pots of Egypt. But I have always found myself right when I have sustained the Union organization in my own State. Months ago I trembled for the President elected by Union votes, when I saw those men about the White House trying to steal him away, flattering him, eulogizing him, and dictating a policy for him.

When I saw, long since in the State Department, a pile of pardons as high as twenty family Bibles, [laughter,] and a man carrying a lot of them out, I saw it was a wholesale business, and was informed by a gentleman there he had carried out thousands of such.

Well may we tremble for the President, when

we reflect how much depends on his fealty to his true friends.

But as my friend from Illinois [Mr. INGER SOLL] has well said, the Union party will sur vive and save the country. I glory, sir, today, in the record of that party. There never has been a party in any country that has done so much for liberty. It has saved this Government from destruction. While the soldiers met the rebels in the field of battle and defeated them, the loyal men of the North met their allies in the political field, at the polls, and defeated them. I repeat, this Union party has saved the country in its hour of trial and it will triumph in the end, not so much on account of its numbers as because it is right. As my friend from Chicago [Mr. WENTWORTH] remarked the other day, "God will sustain us if we sustain the right."

As

I repeat, then, the Union party is bound to triumph. I may not indorse all that is done here by it. I am not quite satisfied with the report of the committee on reconstruction and shall vote to amend this proposition. But the Union party will live in spite of adversity. Already the political ax is falling upon the necks of our friends. Heads are falling in my own State. A MEMBER. Who are they? Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. good men as ever lived are being displaced for bad men. The President has turned out the marshal of western Pennsylvania, as pure and upright a man and as capable as ever held office anywhere, and appointed a man in his place who was dismissed from service on a charge implicating his integrity. Thank God, he is not confirmed, and will not be. [Laughter.] I have met him very often. I do not know how much money he has made out of the position that he lost. The report varies.

It is

Mr. SMITH. Who recommended him? Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. not for me to say. Certainly the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. SMITH] did not.

Mr. SMITH. I suppose somebody from Pennsylvania did it, and I would like to know.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. When I spoke to the President about the late marshal, and told him what I knew of him-told him that there was no more competent or worthy officer to be found-the President intimated that he should not be removed; but before two days elapsed he was removed and another name sent into the Senate; the one to whom I have referred as having been dismissed from the service of the Government charged with various crimes.

Mr. SMITH. I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. LAWRENCE] if this person who was appointed marshal by the President did not carry with him some similar recommendations, in a political point of view, to those upon which the President released Clement C. Clay upon parole.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I am glad the gentleman has asked me that question. Now, I venture to say-and I have not seen the record, and do not know whether there is any or not-that there is not an honest Union man in western Pennsylvania who signed any remonstrance against the late marshal. No charges were or could be preferred against so pure and upright a man, respected and loved by all who knew him. But there is a little cabal or clique of three or four men in Pittsburg, in the district of my colleague, [Mr. MOORHEAD,] who cannot control twenty votes in any ward or borough in the State, brought this influence, with the aid of leading Democrats, to bear on the President; and I now make the prediction that notwithstanding that attempt to break down my colleague in his own district by removing some of his purest and best friends, he will come back here to the next Congress with as large a majority as he ever had before. Those few men, heads" we call them there, are men who al ways want offices from any party that has them to give. I hope the President will deem it proper and right to withdraw the name he proposed for marshal from the Senate. I am certain the President has been deceived in

sore

regard to that man, for he would not inflict such injustice on his loyal friends in western Pennsylvania-men who sustained him so cordially and so effectively.

I have always been treated kindly by the President personally, and always expect to be. When he makes a mistake he allows me to refer to it. And if I make a mistake I am willing that he should refer to it, if he does not do it in a speech on the 22d day of some month. [Laughter.]

Now, Mr. Speaker, I had not the slightest intention when I came here to-day of saying one word of what I have said. I have a speech here on the tariff, and on the subject of protection to wool. You told me that I could not get the floor next Saturday, but that I might get in a speech to-day, if I would hurry up and get it ready. So I went home yesterday, and being a hard-working man I sat up late last night and got up early this morning, and about concluded my preparations for a speech to-day on the tariff.

Now, I represent a district that is more interested in wool-growing than any other district in the country, not even excepting that represented by my friend from Iowa, [Mr. GRINNELL, who has shown so much interest in wool this session. And I believe my own county has more and better sheep than any other county in the country. [Laughter.]

Mr. GRINNELL. I have been charged by the people in my district with having had so much to do with another kind of wool that was not so popular, that I thought I would go for another kind that the people are more willing

to have.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. Representing a district which has such a deep interest in the subject, I thought I would be justified in saying a few words in favor of protecting wool. When this political subject came up I was led into speaking upon it, and I have said more than I had intended to do. I have this speech here on wool and tariff, but I feel some hesitation in boring the House with it, for it is a dry speech, full of statistics and figures.

Mr. SMITH. I move that the gentleman have leave to print his wool speech instead of the one he has made. [Laughter.]

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I object to that arrangement.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I do not know that the speech I have made now will appear very well in print. But I am sure the speech of my colleague to-day [Mr. RANDALL will not compare very well with his former record.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. LAWRENCE] should not publish his speech of to-day we should lose Clymer's speech; and I should not want to lose that.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the reporters of the Globe have already taken down his speech of to-day.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I have been led off on this political question. But I want it distinctly understood that I intended only to get in this wool speech to-day. [Laughter.]

Mr. GRINNELL. I move that the gentleman have leave to print his wool speech.

Mr. SMITH. Certainly; that is right. No objection was made, and leave was accordingly granted. [The speech will be published in the Appendix.]

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I have kept very quiet this session, as members very well know. I thought it most prudent in a new member not to mix up in these political discussions. But I felt it to be a duty that I owed to the people I represent to speak on this question of protection for wool. I have presented petitions with more than ten thousand names asking Congress to give them increased protection on wool. I have been, with others, before the Committee of Ways and Means on this subject, and I will say to the country that we believe the committee have agreed to report

just what the wool-growers desire on that subject.

Mr. BANKS. I hope the gentleman from Pennsylvania will go on with this speech and let us have the other in print.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I have little more to say, as my time is nearly out. I wish now to say, in addition to what I have said, that I am willing to trust the future of this great nation to the Union party which has done so much for the country. When a party is held together and actuated by an honest desire to perpetuate the greatest good for the greatest number, you cannot by these side issues and by executive patronage corrupt it and lead it away from the path of duty.

Sir, the people do not forget the amount of blood and treasure that they have spent during the last four or five years. They do not expect this Congress to proceed in the work of reconstruction upon a policy which would lose to the loyal people of the country all that they have gained in the late contest. And this Congress will be sustained as far as they are right.

The members of the Union party have been slandered and vilified and denounced all over the country; but, sir, I venture to say that this Congress comprises a body of men as honest and as faithful to the interests of the country as any men who ever sat in this Hall. Sir, we are assailed, not because we are partisans, but because we stand together as men loving justice, standing up for the right.

In the coming contest in Pennsylvania the Union party will be sustained. My colleague over the way [Mr. RANDALL] knows that the contest promises to be as bitter as any that we have ever had in that State. He knows how loyal the people of that Commonwealth are. He knows that Pennsylvania gave to the aid of the Government as many soldiers, and more, perhaps, in proportion to her population than any other State in the Union. He knows that the great heart of that giant State-it has sometimes been called the blind giant--has always beaten in unison with the highest and best interests of the country. And I tell him that on the night of the second Tuesday of October next we will send up from western Pennsylvania a voice which will convince him that the people have not forgotten the record of Heister Clymer. They have not forgotten the fact, which the legislative journals prove, that he uniformly voted against securing to the soldiers in the field the elective franchise; and in a public speech he boasted of having done so. In my presence he voted over and over again against every proposition calculated to assist and sustain the State and the nation in the late struggle. He has been a most consistent friend of Vallandigham and William B. Reed, and that class of men all over the country; and he is a fit representative to-day of the Democratic party. He is a friend of Woodward, who as judge of the supreme court made a decision against the constitutionality of the conscription law, and who, because of that decision and one against enfranchising the soldiers of the State, was nominated by the Democratic party for Governor.

Mr. Speaker, I say that when the people of Pennsylvania come to look at the record of the Democratic candidate for Governor in my State, not only on these questions relating to the war, but on other questions, they will repudiate him. The Union party in that State, as members of this House are aware, have nominated a candidate without reference to his political opin ions; a man who did once act with the Democratic party. We expect to elect him, and we will elect him. I can assure you the people are honest and well-informed and will stand by the country, and the truest, best friends of the country, and all will be well. Now, I will not detain the House longer. Not a word on this question which I have said did I intend to say when I came into this House. I now yield the floor.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I did not intend when I came here to-day to participate in this debate, nor did I expect when I came here to be entertained with debate of the character

of that indulged in by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. INGERSOLL.] Indeed, I should not now say anything did I not feel it was my duty, when a man holding a high official position in the United States, the highest within the gift of the people, is assailed in his personal, political, and national character, as a Representative of the people to sustain him in the principles which he has enunciated, and which I believe to be the true Union principles of the country. Nor do I, in the remarks I intend to make, expect to indulge in any loose charges against those who represent the Republican or so-called Union party. I am not ready to believe that the rank and file of that party are disloyal to their country, nor am I willing yet to believe that those eighteen hundred thousand men who supported George B. Mc Clellan in 1864 were disloyal to the country and wished to accomplish its ruin and to establish a despotism in place of the free Government which descended to us from our forefathers.

But while I support the doctrine of the Presi dent of the United States with the rank and file of the Democratic party, it is from the fact that the doctrine he has enunciated now, and the doctrine he has always enunciated, is the doctrine of constitutional liberty, which is the very life and soul of our form of Government, without which the light of liberty would go out and we would sink into despotism. I take the ground here, and without fear of successful contradiction, that Andrew Johnson has not violated any principle he ever enunciated, that he acts to-day under the solemn obligations of the oath which he has taken to support the Constitution in all its integrity, that he has betrayed no principle or party, and that his only ambition and his only hope are to sustain this great and glorious Union in the pristine vigor which it had before the war commenced.

I am ashamed, sir, at the situation which affairs have taken in this country. I weep in silent sorrow that a Representative of the United States Congress should get the attention of this House and country in vilifying and abusing as true and noble a patriot as ever stood up in any country in defense of its imperiled existence; a man, sir, who left the Senate of the United States in response to the call of his country; a man who, although southern-born, still imbued with the teachings of the fathers of the Republic, stood with those lovers of his country whose blood has been so freely shed upon southern soil; a man who has been identified with the Unionists of the South from the commencement, and whose defense of our flag, emblematic of the principles of constitutional freedom, made him the envy and admiration of all civilized nations. Yes, sir, he left the Senate of the United States for the purpose of vindicating the founders of his country, and to stand by the principles embodied and set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Sir, I would not degrade this House so much as to descend to the position which has been taken here today by the honorable gentleman from Illinois in vilifying, abusing, traducing, and slandering as noble a patriot as ever lived upon the face

of this earth.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. The gentleman refers to the present President having left the Senate of the United States. When he left the Senate he did it to take possession of the office tendered to him by President Lincoln; that of military governor of the State of Tennessee. I wish to ask the gentleman from New Jersey whether he indorsed the act of President Lincoln in appointing a military Governor for Tennessee? If he did not, did he indorse the acceptance of that office on the part of Mr. Johnson?

Mr. ROGERS. I have no hesitation in saying that the appointment of military governors in time of war, when the civil tribunals could not perform their functions in the Union, was constitutional under the right to raise and support armies, repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that when Abraham Lincoln appointed Andrew Johnson as

that sheet to have used on that occasion.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. Allow me to ask if Mr. Clymer has not been reëlected to the Senate by the same people, and also renominated for Governor, since he made that utterance.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. The gentleman from New Jersey evidently misapprehended my question. I asked him whether he, at the time Mr. Lincoln performed that act, indorsed it.

Mr. ROGERS. I say this: that I never had anything to say about it, that I know of, either publicly or privately, in any way whatever. But I never doubted the right of a military commander in a military district where hostilities existed and the flag of the country was being assailed by armed invasion, to use the military power within those military lines. And I say I have always indorsed, and do now indorse, the act of Abraham Lincoln in appointing military governors within the lines of the military operations.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. The gentleman occupies a somewhat conspicuous position in the Democratic party, and inasmuch as he says that at that time he has no recollection of having uttered any word of indorsement or disapproval as an individual, I would ask him whether the party with which he then acted and now acts indorsed the acceptance of office by Andrew Johnson.

Mr. ROGERS. I say, sir, as a party, you can nowhere find in any State, county, or township an instance where the Democratic party ever denounced Abraham Lincoln for the exercise of military power within a State while the people of that State were arrayed in insurrection against the Government, and where civil law could not prevail.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I believe that the speech which was read at the desk a few moments ago, made by Mr. Clymer, the Democratic candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania, does distinctly denounce the action of Mr. Lincoln in making that appointment, and denounces the acceptance of it by Mr. Johnson. Now, I would like to ask the gentleman whether that utterance of Mr. Clymer at that time was not in harmony with the views and position of the Democratic party.

Mr. ROGERS. As to the utterance made by Heister Clymer I have no knowledge, and I am free to say that so far as my knowledge extended the party indorsed no such sentiments as are attributed to Mr. Clymer, but there is no proof that he ever uttered them except the assertion of an abolition sheet. And let me say further, that the Democratic party, with its eighteen hundred thousand voters in the North, and representing millions of women and children, is not to be bound down by the idle or loose declarations of any man, any more than the honorable gentleman would wish to have the whole Republican party bound down by the declaration of Wendell Phillips when he said that he had been a disunionist for thirty years, or of Horace Greeley when he held out an invitation to the southern people to secede.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I presume when that question was pending in the Senate of Pennsylvania that the Democratic party was represented in the persons of the Democratic Senators. Now, I ask whether that party thus represented did not sustain Heister Cly mer by voting to refuse the use of the hall for the purpose of having that address made by Mr. Johnson.

Mr. ROGERS. No, sir; that was no indorsement of what Mr. Clymer said at all, any more than voting upon a proposition brought forward by a man is an indorsement of his speech made on that proposition. The Senators had a right to refuse the use of that Hall to anybody for a public meeting; and simply because those Senators who represented the Democratic party saw fit to cast their votes in accordance with the proposition of Mr. Clymer, it by no means follows as a fair conclusion that

Mr. ROGERS. That may all be; but because he was reëlected it is no evidence that the people who voted for him indorsed all he has said. I have no doubt that we have said many things on this floor and elsewhere that all our constituents do not indorse; and I will guaranty there is not a member here whose whole constituents will indorse all he has said. Will any one undertake to say, for instance, that all the Republicans of the district that send to this body the gentleman who says he regards the States lately in rebellion as conquered provinces will indorse that utterance of the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS?]

It is most unfair to undertake to make a great party responsible for what a few individuals may say. Because some men in the Democratic party may be unwise, that ought not to consign the Democratic party and its great doctrines to the tomb, even if the party should happen to support some of those men for official position.

I know there are members of the other side of the House, and I can pick them out, who often support measures advocated by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] and yet disagree with him in the reasons by which he has reached his conclusions upon the subjects. I know from having had private conversations with them, and from hearing their speeches upon this floor, that this is the case. There are some of them who hold that the States are out of the Union, are dead for all political purposes; others hold that they are States in the Union, but without the right of representation. But there are some who hold with the Democratic party, that those States are entitled to immediate representation upon their representatives taking the oath prescribed by the Constitution and the laws, yet they all vote together when the test comes.

Now, to charge a whole party with the responsibility of the acts of Mr. Vallandigham, or anybody else, is uncharitable and unjust to the eighteen hundred thousand men in the North, many of whom had periled their lives in defense of their country, who voted for George B. McClellan for President of the United States. I say without fear of contradiction that the records of the Democratic party, from a period coeval with the formation of our Government, show that their doctrines and principles brought us to a state of prosperity unequaled in the annals of history. And only when the last generations of mankind have been gathered to the silent tomb will the principles they have always maintained and advocated cease to exist. And I am not to be driven from my honest convictions of duty by any denunciations of the party to which I belong, or by calling them traitors and disunionists.

Sir, Andrew Johnson is pursuing now just exactly the course he has always advocated. You cannot find in the Baltimore platform, upon which Abraham Lincoln was nominated and elected as President and Andrew Johnson as Vice President of the United States, one single word which contradicts what he now seeks to carry out. Will you call Andrew Johnson a traitor and disunionist because he wants the union of the whole country? What was the object of the bloody war from which we have just emerged? Why were a million men killed, maimed, and wounded upon the field of battle, and $8,000,000,000 of Federal and $1,500,000,000 of State debt imposed upon the country? Why have weeping and sorrow and anguish been carried to almost every home in this broad land? It was because we desired to perpetuate the Union which our forefathers established and handed down to us for the protection and defense of the white men and the white women of this land.

Sir, Andrew Johnson wants the Union as it was. He wants the Union that was made by the fathers and sages of the times that tried men's souls. He wants the Union which was intended to be the shield of the rights of the States, and the protector and guardian of the rights of the Federal Government. He wants the proper equilibrium preserved between the three coördinate branches of the Federal Government. And because he will not violate every pledge of faith that the Republican party made to the people in 1864, he is to be branded here as a tyrant and usurper, and as a violator of the principles which lay at the foundation of our Government.

I do not want to insult any one. I do not rise for any such purpose. But when any of you rise here and charge, as you have to-day, the Democratic party and Andrew Johnson with being traitors to their country and sympathizers with secession, I denounce it as wickedly false. This Congress, by its acts, through this central directory of fifteen that holds its secret sessions in this Capitol, is sapping the very lifeblood and weakening the very foundations of this Government.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I would ask the gentleman from New Jersey if he is not himself a member of that central directory of which he speaks.

Mr. ROGERS. I am, and I have great respect for the men who are on it. I am not here to say that those men, or any men upon the other side of the House, are actuated by any desire to commit intentional wrong. I would not degrade myself and the country by charging that gentlemen on the other side of the House, who have always treated me with respect, are any of them desirous to injure the country. But their prejudices and their passions, as in the case of John Brown when he committed murder and treason in Virginia, are leading the country on to destruction, and without the interposition of Andrew Johnson the lamp of liberty would soon be extinguished forever.

Now, sir, I had no participation in the election of Andrew Johnson

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I should like to ask the gentleman another question. It may be that this " directory" has been guilty of something which has not been disclosed. If the gentleman is at liberty to name it I should like him to do so. I believe that the committee has removed the injunction of secrecy.

Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman knows perfectly well what has been done by that committee. He knows that from that committee have emanated projects of disunion. He knows that from that committee has emanated the doctrine embodied in the proposed constitutional amendment and the two bills which have been presented the doctrine that the war dissolved the Union, that the southern States are out of the Union, and that it will require an enabling act of Congress and an amendment of the Constitution to bring those States back into the Union.

I am no disunionist. I will coöperate with no party that seeks to destroy this country. When the leaders of the majority party on the floor charge me and my fellow-members of this Democratic party with being traitors, I hurl back the charge into their teeth, and tell them that they are the only party now preventing the consummation of the great work of restoring the Union upon the principles of self-government consecrated by the blood of our revolutionary forefathers.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. The committee of which the gentleman is a member have presented their report proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. One provision of that proposed amendment is, as I understand, that the southern States shall no longer be entitled to that unfair and unjust share of representation which they have heretofore enjoyed, and that, instead of having as the result of four years of war, an increase of political power in consequence of the emancipation of the slaves, they shall conform to a basis of representation which will be just to both

the North and the South, applying to all the States alike, and under which those who are enfranchised shall be represented. Now, I desire to know whether the gentleman is opposed to that principle embodied in the report of that committee, or "directory," as he terms it.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir, I am opposed to it for the same reasons that our fathers were opposed to taxation by the British Parliament when they were denied representation in that body. I am opposed to it on the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the fundamental doctrines of the Constitution.

Sir, let me say further, in answer to that suggestion, that at the time of the formation of the Constitution slaves were held in all the States except one, and there was in many of the States a large colored population. From time to time slavery was abolished in the dif ferent northern States; yet, although the abolition was not accompanied by the enfranchisement of those who were emancipated, no one proposed that any of these States should be deprived of representation for the colored population to whom they denied the right of suffrage.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. We are not proposing, as I understand, even if we adopt the amendment reported by the committee, to take away from any State any just share of representation. The proposition, as I understand it, is this, and no more: that a man in South Carolina shall have no more political power in this nation than a man in New Jersey or in Iowa; that a white man in the State of South Carolina, which inaugurated this rebellion, shall not have as much power as that exercised by three men in the State of Iowa. I ask the gentleman whether he is opposed to that kind of representation.

Mr. ROGERS. I maintain, sir, that there is no more necessity for an amendment of the Constitution, because a portion of the southern population, lately slaves, have become free, than there was for a constitutional amendment when the various northern States abolished

slavery within their limits. I say that the Constitution as it stands grants to the southern people no right of representation except that based on population; and in this respect all the States are placed on an equality; the South enjoys no peculiar advantage. Sir, if a million foreigners land at the port of New York and become a part of the population of the State of New York, that State, under the Constitution, is entitled to representation for those foreigners, although they may never become citizens and never vote.

And I say, sir, that the representation which has been allowed to the people of the southern States for the people of color will not exceed the basis for representation of foreigners who are not entitled to vote in the northern, middle, and western States.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Would not the same result follow if one hundred thousand foreigners or a million foreigners should go into South Carolina instead of into New York?

Mr. ROGERS. Exactly. Let us leave the landmarks of this Government as they were when the Government was made. I believe this Government is the fruit of the most experienced wisdom of any people who ever lived, and that Washington and Jefferson and the men who framed the Constitution of the United States, coming out of the Revolution imbued with the principles of liberty and having the mantle of victory and patriotism thrown over them, were the best judges of what the true interests of this country are. Sir, in this time of excitement and of peril, when the Union, by the action of the members of this Congress, is dissolved, because eleven States are prevented from sending their Representatives here, to which right, under the Constitution, they are entitled, it is no time to amend the Constitution.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. The gentleman speaks of the excellence and perfection of the Constitution as our fathers made it. I ask him whether he does not think the Constitu

tion now, embodying as it does the prohibition of slavery throughout the country, is not a little better than it was before.

Mr. ROGERS. That is an issue which I am not here now to discuss. It is an issue dead and gone. It is part of the history of the past. It has become part of the Constitution of the United States and freedom has been proclaimed to four million people. My vote, power, and influence shall be given to sustain that provision so long as I may live, whether North or South shall desire to strike it out.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask whether if those States who have been in rebellion were represented in these Halls at that time that provision would not have been defeated.

Mr. ROGERS. At that time these men were engaged in rebellion and were convicts before the altar of patriotism. The execution of the law has been forgiven by the clemency and Christian character of the President. While they were firing upon the flag of the country and trying to destroy this Government they were not entitled to any consideration at all.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask the gentleman whether he approves that portion of the President's conduct and policy which compelled the people of these unrepresented States to ratify that amendment and make it a part of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. ROGERS. I did not then approve of it, but I believe now it was for the best interests of the country; that as an issue of war it should be given up in the reconstruction, after the war had wiped out slavery, to prevent future agitation upon it. I am satisfied that the best interests, the grandeur, glory, and perpetuity of this Government demanded that the States should perpetuate the result of the war in striking the shackles of slavery from every human being within the length and breadth of this land. I never was in favor of slavery. No man, sir, ever heard me advocate slavery in the abstract, but I was in favor of standing by the elementary principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States. I believed, and do yet believe, that abolishing slavery by war was in violation of the plighted faith of Congress as given in the Crittenden resolutions adopted after the war had begun, and of the letter, spirit, and intent of the Constitution. That proposition set forth the principles upon which this war was fought, and it emphatically declared that when the rebels laid down their arms the Union should be restored.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. The gentleman has to some extent eulogized the abolition amendment, and also the conduct of the President of the United States in relation to it, the Congress that passed it, and the Legislatures in the insurgent States which ratified it.

Mr. ROGERS. I have not eulogized them at all.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask the gentleman whether, in his opinion, that great good could have been provided, whether that amend ment of the Constitution could have been had, whether that security of liberty could have been procured for the people of this country if the insurgent States had been represented in these Halls; and if not, whether it would have been wise to postpone until their recog nition was procured action on that amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. ROGERS. No, sir; I am not finding any fault, and if the gentleman had listened to me he would have seen that I found none with the course of action at that time in taking advantage of the absence of southern Represent atives. But I held then as I do now, with Alexander Stephens, that there is no power in the Federal Government to usurp the functions of a State that have never been delegated to the Federal Government, even by a constitutional amendment made without the authority of the other States. I say that the abolition of slavery was an event of the war, and the result of one of the principles of war resorted to by the conquering power, that being the arbitrament to which the southern people submitted. And slavery having been abolished under those circum