rate government. With a knowledge of these facts, it would seem to be of the first importance, in the reconstruction of the government, to secure in every State a loyal voting population. The statistics of Tennessee show, that it is entirely practicable, by the extension of the elective franchise universally, or by a qualification which will render it practicable ultimately, and within a reasonable time, for the adult male colored population to become voters, to place the government of that State irrevocably in the hands of loyal men. In the exigency that exists, it would seem to be wise statesmanship to accept the services and political power of men who have shown themselves, under all circumstances, to be true friends of this nation. Moreover, the admission of the colored men to the exercise of the elective franchise would enable the loyal people of Tennessee to restore to the mass of their fellow-citizens who have been engaged in the rebellion, and who are not criminally or officially distinguished from their associates, to participate, without much delay, in the government of the State and of the country. This measure, which cannot be safely adopted if the elective franchise is limited to the white people in Tennessee, will become entirely practicable by the extension of the elective franchise as suggested. The magnanimous character of such a proceeding could not fail to induce many of those who have been engaged in the rebellion to support the government in good faith. Moreover, the rule of excluding permanently, or for a long term of years, all those who have participated in the rebellion, if adopted in the case of Tennessee, must be extended to the other rebel States. In some of those States, not more than a tenth or a fifth of the people have been loyal; and in such States it would be impossible to set up a government, with any hope that it could be maintained permanently, in which the elective franchise should be limited to the loyal white people exclusively. Hence the country will be compelled to hold such States for a long period of time without representation in Congress, and subject to the authority of the national govern ment. This theory is contrary to the theory of our institutions, to the practice of the government, and cannot, for any considerable period of time, be pursued. In a few years, at furthest, such States, even those where the number of loyal white people is least, will be admitted to power in the government of the country, with the elective franchise in the hands of disloyal whites, who, by irresistible majorities, will control the policy of the States and the character of their representation in Congress. Regarded as a national question, and as a subject affecting the peace and prosperity of the country, it is of prime importance to secure to each State a loyal basis for the maintenance of its government. It seems unwise to consider as of primary importance the political character of the representative who may offer himself for a seat in Congress. The right to be represented is the right of the people. No individual has a right to be a representative until he has been duly elected. While it is eminently proper for each branch of Congress to inquire into the loyalty of every claimant of a seat whose loyalty may be questioned, it still is vastly more important to ascertain the loyalty of the constituency he claims to represent. The official life of the representative, whether in the Senate or the House, is comparatively brief, while the constituency is enduring. If the constituency be loyal, the power of the representative for evil, even though he be a man of disloyal opinions, is relatively unimportant; but, if the constituency be disloyal, no limit can be assigned to its power to affect perniciously the public welfare. It is also to be observed, that, technically considered, a man is loyal whose disloyalty cannot be proved. If a constituency is disloyal, it will always be in its power to select, as its representative, a man who is free from any personal participation in disloyal proceedings, and yet who will give his vote and influence in a manner to thwart, impair, and finally to destroy the government. Nor can the undersigned be indifferent to the claim of the colored people of Tennessee to a participation in the government of that State and the country. By the laws of the land, they are citizens, and are entitled consequently to the rights and privileges of citizenship. Nor does it seem to be a compliance with the provisions of the Constitution by which the United States guarantees to every State a republican form of government, if we permit Tennessee to assume relations as a State while she excludes more than one-fourth of her people from the ballot-box, which is the only means of protection in time of peace. It should be borne in mind also, that the colored people are to be taxed as other citizens, and that they are deprived of representation permanently by the existing laws of Tennessee. It is urged as an argument for admitting the rebel States immediately, that otherwise they are subject to taxation without representation, contrary to the theory of republican government. In the case of the rebel States, the deprivation of representative power for a brief time is the result of their own criminal folly; but what justification can be offered for recognizing a system of government in Tennessee which excludes permanently more than one-fourth of its inhabitants, while they are taxed equally with those who exercise political power? The undersigned do not, on the present occasion, express any opinion as to the legal relation sustained by Tennessee to the Union, inasmuch as they consider it more important to secure her re-appearance as a State, clothed with full power, and in harmony with the general government, upon principles which guarantee at once loyalty to the Union and domestic peace within her own borders. They therefore recommend the following amendment to the conditions reported by the committee: "Said State shall make no distinction in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race or color." 448 LOAN BILL AND CURRENCY. REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MR. [R. SPEAKER, - There are two facts connected with our financial experience which have not, as far as I have observed, been noticed, and which seem to me to contain all that is necessary for the solution of our difficulty. I am free to say, that, if I were to follow in this matter the dictates of my own judgment, I should not incline to any legislation, further than to remove from the mind of the Secretary of the Treasury the doubt which he entertains with reference to the authority conferred upon him by the last clause of the act of March 3, 1865, by which he is authorized to convert outstanding interest-bearing obligations into new interest-bonds. I would by law so construe that language as to allow him to sell new bonds, and with the proceeds reduce the outstanding interest-bearing obligations, such as compound-interestbearing notes. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. With the permission of the gentleman from Massachusetts, I desire to make a single inquiry. I understand that the Secretary of the Treasury has been engaged for some time in converting the outstanding interest-bearing indebtedness of the United States of various kinds into |