qualifications and restrictions imposed upon the late rebels in the same measure as the spirit of disloyalty will die out, and as may be consistent with the safety of the loyal people."

It cannot for a moment be contended that I have uttered any sentiment in conflict with this declaration in the national platform, unless it be shown that the spirit of disloyalty has died out. We fail to find the evidence of such a death, which would cause rejoicing, in the press of any portion of the country, or in the fact that details of soldiers were found necessary in our own and other States to preserve the peace at the late election, and that in some localities the only security for loyal men was to remain away from the polls.

When, and how, according to that resolution, do the party in power favor the removal of restrictions? "In the same manner as may be consistent with the safety of the loyal people, and as the spirit of disloyalty will die out." As the spirit of disloyalty will die out, we are willing. When it shall die out of a part, we are willing to remove disabilities from such part. When it shall die wholly out we are willing to wholly remove. And what is the resolution in our State platform? "That while we believe that the disfranchisement of those who engaged in, aided or sympathized with rebellion, was not only a legitimate and just consequence of their own conduct, but a necessary measure for the safety of the loyal people of the State, we cherish no revengeful feeling towards those who fought in fair and open battle, though for an unjust cause, and stand ready to restore to them every political privilege at the earliest moment consistent with State and national safety."

Assuredly we are not to yield to an argument that that language means that it is "consistent with State and national safety," to restore political privileges whenever we may have the numerical strength. Such a principle would be most unsafe to adopt in the legislation and government of a country, as the prevailing party would ever regard their rule the safest.

If that had been the principle intended, it should have been so stated in the resolution. But it does not say it will be consistent with safety, when we can control at the ballot box, to remove disabilities; but pledges the party in power to do so when "consistent with," in agreement with, in accord with "State and national safety." The resolution does not say, when safe for us now living who have at present the majority, but for "the State" that is to survive us. If so limited in our views, I fear we would be poor legislators and statesmen.

We have to transmit a government, a preserved "State," to posterity. We must consider its "safety," not merely our own; not the safety of to-day, but all the remaining days of its life. To be safe, we must preserve and transmit the principles of safety on which it has been and must be preserved.

If the principles and purposes for which the rebels fought were wrong, no greater blunder or violation of principle could be committed than for the successful party to permit the rebels to assert through the ballot box the principles they fought for and lost on the battle

field.

If the cause and principles for which the Union soldier fought were right, we should maintain them by our policy and laws.

While we seek no indemnity for the past, it is alike due to the memory of our dead soldiers and living companions, as well as to our country and to the rights of man, that the victories gained in the late war should secure the future peace of the republic upon the principles fought for by the victors.

These are the principles all should recognize, and preserve and transmit, as they are the only principles of safety for the future.

It would be a violation of them to remove the restrictions imposed on the disloyal, so long as they adhere to the "lost cause," or the principles for which they fought.

Therefore, no change can be safely made until those to be relieved submit to and acquiesce in the decision of all questions settled by the war. But whenever such acquiescence shall be yielded by the disfranchised, removal of restrictions will be no doubt speedily made, in accordance with late platforms.

To state that such acquiescence is not yet yielded by the great body of the disloyal, is to say what will not be denied.

Until such acquiescence be yielded the policy of the loyal party, standing on unchanging principles, cannot change.

If their conduct has been such as to induce the present Legislature to present such an amendment as advocated by some; if they have sincerely united with Union men in supporting laws, preserving order and crushing out law breaking, the press of the State of all parties have shamefully failed to present the evidence.

I am happy, however, to be able to say that a proper spirit was manifested in our State during the late canvass by quite a number of those who fought bravely on the wrong side in open battle.

Whenever their disabilities can be removed I shall be more than willing to co-operate. But I am not willing, with one repentant, to restore two, more malignant, if possible, than during the war.

In connecting the two propositions, negro suffrage and rebel suffrage, not only are justice and injustice connected, but justice is jeopardized thereby if not surely defeated. While the opposition party would manifest their old spirit, the unjust proposition of rebel suffrage would assuredly fail, and carry down the just proposition of negro suffrage connected with it. The line between loyalty and disloyalty is so distinctly marked, and feelings so intense, that many earnest friends of negro suffrage would vote against both propositions united in order to defeat rebel suffrage.

Again, connecting the two would be a direct stab, though, of course, not intended, at negro suffrage. How? Because the defeat of the propositions united in one would place it, negro suffrage, in a worse condition than its companion, rebel suffrage. How is this? Negro suffrage can only be had by and through a constitutional amendment. Rebel suffrage is already provided for in the Constitution (see section 25 of art. 2). The General Assembly is empowered to suspend or repeal the sections of the Constitution imposing restrictions on white voters after the first day of January, 1871. A constitutional amendment submitted by a General Assembly is to be voted upon at the general election then next ensuing. Should an amendment be submitted by the present General Assembly, it would be voted upon at the general election, November, 1870. Should rebel suffrage be defeated, the General Assembly of January, 1871, could, nevertheless, if disposed, remove rebel disabilities. But, what then would be the condition of negro suffrage if defeated in 1870? It could, under our Constitution, only be presented again as a constitutional amendment; and, if presented in 1871, could not be adopted until the general election of 1872, and negroes could vote at no general election until the fall of 1874, two years later than the time at which rebels might become voters under the power already conferred on the General Assembly. Are we prepared to give this advantage to rebels over loyal men?

And where is there the shadow of a necessity? It will be conceded

that an amendment for rebel suffrage would not pass without a great change in the disposition of the opposition party, if one were offered. If it be contended that the opposition will acquiesce and accept the double proposition as a compromise, and cease their hostility to the laws, then there is no necessity. They can show a change of feelings by their acts, by their expressions, in their conversations, through their press, between this time and the next general election in November, 1870, and, in view of the facts, the people can select members of the next General Assembly instructed to exercise in January, 1871, the power now conferred and remove disabilities.

To submit the double proposition, therefore, would place the negro, but not the rebel in a worse condition, if two separate amendments should be joined in one, which is forbidden by our Constitution.

To submit them separately at the same time would enable the opposition, through deception, and by inducing a disloyal immigration from abroad, to admit rebels to the ballot box, and exclude the loyal blacks.

The only plan, therefore, safe for the State, if loyalty is to prevail, is to submit the one proposition of negro suffrage and keep rebels on probation.

Still again, I would direct attention to our present Constitution, adopted in 1865, which so wisely provides for all the emergencies that may arise, as if in anticipation of the very questions that are upon us.

There is no necessity for a constitutional amendment to remove the disabilities of the rebels who manifest a proper law abiding spirit, while they shall remain imposed on the obstinate.

As per twenty-fifth section of second article of the Constitution, the General Assembly may remove disabilities by suspending or repealing sections, and likewise "every suspension or repeal" "shall be general in its terms," "but the General Assembly may except from the benefit of such suspension or repeal any person or class of persons it may see fit." In other words, the General Assembly may repeal the sections imposing disabilities and except from the benefits of the repeal the class of rebels who may remain obstinate.

Thus the brave men who fought in a wrong cause, and will in proper spirit, aid in enforcing laws, may be relieved by the next General Assembly without further legislation, and the obstinate remain disfranchised.

But should you, in your wisdom, determine that the time has arrived when we should have all restrictions upon voters removed, disloyalty as well as color, I trust you will consider the advantage of having an amendment of the Constitution of the United States in that respect, and act accordingly.

I am not prepared to advise or favor such an amendment, and desire to be so distinctly understood. But it would be infinitely preferable to the one suggested by some for our own State. It would at least compel other States to mete out that justice to colored citizens they may never otherwise extend.

There is, however, an amendment to our United States Constitution which should be at once proposed, and would be adopted without hesitation, by all loyal legislatures. I mean an amendment to remove the disabilities imposed on account of color in all the States.

I hope the time is not distant when those who sought the nation's life will, in their nobleness of nature, acknowledge their error, return to a willing submission to the laws, that all disabilities may be removed.

In the meantime I desire, and doubt not, we shall harmonize in

our views in all needed legislation for the peace, security and happiness of all. May we so labor that God, "by whom and for whom all dominions and powers are created," will be honored.

J. W. McCLURG.

The President of the Senate announced that the business for which the joint session had met having been completed the joint session was now dissolved.

The Senate retired to the Senate chamber, and the Senate was called to order by the President pro tem., Senator Headlee.

Senator Harbine offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the thanks of the Senate are hereby tendered to Lieutenant Governor George Smith for the ability, dignity and impartiality with which he has presided over the deliberations of this body during the term of his office, and that in retiring from the position of Lieutenant Governor and President of the Senate he bears with him our best wishes for his future health, happiness and prosperity. Resolution read and adopted.

Hon. Edwin O. Stanard, Lieutenant Governor elect, was then introduced, who then came forward, and the oath of office being administered to him by Judge David Wagner, entered upon the discharge of the duties of his office as President of the Senate.

Senator Bruere offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the farewell address of Lieutenant Governor Smith be spread upon the journal of the Senate;

Which was read and adopted.

The address is as follows:

SENATORS-As my term of office has expired, in retiring from the position of that of presiding officer of your honorable body it will not be necessary for me to offer an apology for a non-conformity to precedents, that is, in the way of a lengthy address, as you are all aware that I am not possessed of that valuable gift which imparts interest on such an occasion.

Four years ago when I entered upon the duties incumbent on the position, my fixed purpose proceeding from a sense of duty, was to faithfully and impartially perform the same to the best of my abilities. With a knowledge of the difficulties incident to the position, often resulting from conflicting opinions and interests, sometimes from the complications of Parliamentary law and the rules governing the Senate, I can assure you that I entered upon my duties with much distrust in the result.

The support which has been extended to me by Senators, their uniform courtesy and kindness, have rendered the duties pleasant and greatly contributed to a relief from embarrassments that would have retarded business, with the consequent injurious effects upon the public interest.

To you, Senators, and to your predecessors, in return for this good will and generous support, I cheerfully tender my heartfelt thanks.

With a firm conviction in the justice and beneficial influences of the principles of the radical republican party, and with an earnest desire to see them at the earliest period incorporated into our code of laws, nevertheless, I have at all times scrupulously aimed to avoid the exercise of any unjust influence of the Chair to the accomplishment of

such a purpose. I have reason to believe that my course in this respect has received the approval of my political friends, and secured the respect of Senators of the opposition.

Many of the more important issues, State and National, which were pending four years ago, having been adjusted in a manner satisfactory to a large majority of our people, the wisdom of which is best attested by their results all over the State and country, the evidences of renewed vigor, confidence, and wide-spread prosperity, are so palpable as to effectually baffle any and all efforts of the unthinking or fossilized remains of the days of pro-slaveryism to create a different impression.

Occupying the position you do, you have the satisfaction of knowing that you have contributed your share in the promotion of so good

a cause.

I feel satisfied that after sufficient time has elapsed to modify the asperities of the late contest, the result of the national election will be by the mass of our people considered a cause of profound gratitude to the Giver of all good.

Believing as I do, that it will be generally admitted that the moral influence of the election of General Grant insures peace, good order and ample protection to the whole American people, a prudent consideration of our foreign relations, and the faithful enforcement of law.

From a few days' acquaintance with my successor, the Hon. E. O. Stanard, I feel assured that you will have in the chair a gentleman, courteous and competent, whose efficiency as your presiding officer will insure the dispatch of business, and command your highest confidence and respect.

Senators, I feel confident that with your usual close application and careful consideration of the business that will come before you, that you will be able to pass upon the measurs necessary to the promotion of the public interest, and return to your families and constituents at an early day.

May God give to each of you good health and the strength of body and mind necessary to the performance of your high and responsible duties, is the prayer of your retiring friend.

Senators, for the renewed evidence of your confidence and personal regards, as contained in the resolution of the Senator from Buchanan, I again tender you my sincere thanks.

On motion of Senator Spaunhorst

The Senate adjourned until ten o'clock to-morrow morning.