constrained to differ, and have expressed that difference, and it has generally been received with kindness. The other day I expressed the same difference, little expecting, however, an arraignment on this floor. Here followed a conversation, in which Mr. Sumner, Mr. Yates, Mr. Howe, Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, and Mr. Thayer, of Nebraska, took part. Mr. Yates was willing to except from the resolution necessary legislation on the Western frontiers. Mr. Sumner continued:-- Now I submit to my excellent friend, whether his conclusion does not entirely impair the value of the caucus conclusion, except to this extent, in which we all agree, that it is an expression of the opinion of political associates, calculated to exercise a strong influence on the course of public business, and to be received with respect, but not to be imposed upon this Chamber as a rule. MR. YATES. Allow me to ask the Senator whether he did not submit himself to the same sort of decision in the Reconstruction measures. Those matters were before a caucus, and acted upon. MR. SUMNER. In the caucus on Reconstruction I moved the amendment that in the future constitutions of the Rebel States the ballot should be required. A division was had. I allude to it now because interrogated openly in the Senate. A division was had, and there were two stand-up votes, when the motion was carried by a vote of 15 to 13. By 15 to 13 in that caucus it was voted to require suffrage for all in the future constitutions of the Rebel States. MR. EDMUNDS. And what would you have thought, if the thirteen had repudiated that action? MR. SUMNER. To repudiate a proposition in favor of human liberty would have been a very different thing from repudiating a proposition against human liberty. MR. FESSENDEN. When the question is put to the Senator, what he would have thought, if the thirteen had repudiated it, he says that is a very different thing, being in favor of liberty. MR. SUMNER. Very well, does not the Senator say the same? MR. FESSENDEN. I say there is no difference, where a man promises to do a thing with a full understanding; he has no right to violate it, whether it is one way or the other. MR. SUMNER. The question is, whether the man does promise. There is the point. MR. FESSENDEN. Very well, then, my reply is, that, if there was no promise in the case of the thirteen to support the decision, there is no promise here; if there was a promise in the case of the thirteen to be bound by it and support it, as they did, then there was a promise here. The Senator may make the distinction, if he can.