Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I desire to express myself in favor of the main purposes of the bill now under consideration: Through the clouds of a great war and the confusion of a vast mass of uncertain legislation we are at length reaching something tan gible; we have passed the “Serbonian bog, ” and are approaching good dry land. This is the logical conclusion of the war. The war was simply the expression of the determination of the nation to subordinate the almost unanimous will of the white people of the rebellious States to the unity and prosperity of the whole country. Having gone thus far we cannot pause. We must still subordinate their wishes to our welfare. This bill proposes to commence at the very foundation and build upward. We have the assurance of President Johnson that “the rebellion has in its revolution ary progress deprived the rebellious States of civil government, ” and that their State institutions have been “prostrated and laid out upon the ground.” In such a state of anarchy and disorganization the very foundations of society are laid bare; and we reach, as it were, the primary rocks, the everlasting. of justice and right which underlies all human government. In the language of the great Edmund Burke: “When men break up the original compact or agreement which f. its corporate form and ca Fo to a State they are no longer a people; they have no longer a corporate existence; they have no longer a legal coactive force to bind within, nor a claim to be recognized abroad. They are a number of vague, loose individuals, and nothing more; with them all is to begin again. Alas! they little know how many a weary step is to betaken before they can form themselves into a masswhich has a true political personality.” lourke's Works, vol. iii, p. 82. I shall not stop to consider the objection made to the 2nd section of the bill by the Gentfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. PAINE]. With the purpose and intent of his remarks I thoroughly concur. I conclude, however, that the object of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. "STEvex's] in providing for such a partial and temporary recognition of the rebel governments, was to protect society from the evils of a total abrogation of all law and order. But it seems to me that whatever binding force those governments can have, founded as they are upon revolution and by the hands of revolutionary agents, is to be derived solely from such recognition as Congress may give them. It may be possible in this and other particulars to perfect the bill. I desire to speak rather to its general scope and purpose. Government having, by the acknowledgment of the President, ceased to exist, law being swept aside, and chaos having come again in those rebellious States, by what principle shall the lawmaking power of the nation the congress govern itself? Shall it bend its ener ies to renew old injustice? Shall it receive to its fraternal embrace only that portion of the population which circumstance or accident or century old oppression may have brought to the surface? Shall it having broken up the arm ies and erushed the hopes of the rebels pander to their bigotries and cringe to their prejudices? Shall it hesitate to do right out of deference to the sentiments of those who but a short time since were mowed down at the mouths of its cannon? It is to my mind most clear that slavery having ceased to exist the slaves became citizens; being citizens they are a part of the people; and being a part of the people no organization deserves a moment's consideration at our hands which attempts to ignore them. If they were white people whom it was thus sought to disfranchise and outlaw not a man in the nation would dare to say nay to this proposition; every impulse of our hearts would rise up in indignant remonstrance against their oppress ors. But it has pleased Almighty God, who takes counsel of no man, not even of the founders of the rebellion, to paint them of a different complexion, and that variation in go the mucum is to rise up as a perpetual arrier in our pathway toward equal justice and equal rights. For one, with the help of God, I propose to do what I know to be right in the face of aii prejudices and all obstructions; and so long as I have a seat in this body I shall never vote to reconstruct any rebellious State on any such basis of cruelty and injustice as that proposed by the Opposition here. Take. case of SCarolina. She has 300,000 whites and 400,000 blacks; and we are asked to hand over the 400,000 blacks to the unrestrained custody and control of the 300,000 whites. We are to know no one but the whites; to communicate with no one but the whites; this floor is to recognize no one but white Representatives of the whites. The whites are to make the laws, execute the laws, interpret the laws, and write the history of their own deeds; but below them, under them, there is to be a vast population a majority of the whole people seething and writhing in a condition of suffering, darkness, and wretchedness unparalleled in the world. And this is to be an American State This is to be a component part of the great, humane, Christian Republic of the world. This is to be the protection the mighty Republic is to deal out to its poor black friends who were faithful to it in its hour of trial; this is the punishment it is to inflict upon its perfidious enemles. No, sir, no sophistry, no special pleading, can lead the American people to this result. Through us or over us it will reconstruct those States on a basis of impartial and eternal justice. such a mongrel, patchwork, bastard reconstruction as some gentlemen, propose, even if put into shape, would not hold together a 12 month. 4 million human beings consigned to the uncontrolled brutality of 7 other million of human beings! The very thought is monstrous. The instinct of justice which God has implanted in every soul revolts at it. The voice of lamentation would swell up from that wretched land and fill the ears of mankind. Leaders and avengers would spring up ou every hill top of the North. The intellect, the morality, the soul of the age would fight in behalf of the oppressed, and the structure of socalled reconstruction would go down in blood. Does any man think that it is in the American people, who rose at the cry of the slave under the lash of his master, to abide in quiet the carnival of arson, rapine, and murder now raging over, the South? Sir, a Government which would perpetuate such a state of things would be a monstrous barbarism; the legislative body which would seek to weave such things into the warp and woof of the national life would deserve the vengeance of Almighty God. A Senfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. CowAN] the other day in the U.S. Senate said: “I have no doubt but there are large numbers of the American people who are exceedingly anxious to jo. negro suffrage through the southern States. But has anyone of them ever made an argument to show that the southern States would be better governed; that there would be more peace and more quiet in .".of it? I have never heardthose arguments if they have beenmade, and I do not know how anybody could make them.” I will give the honorable Senator an argument, most potent and convincing, as to the kind of “peace and quiet” which now reign in the South without negro suffrage, and which will reign there so long as negro suffrage is denied. General Ord has just made a report upon the condition of things in Arkansas. He sums up matters as follows: “Outrages, assaults, and murders committed on the persons of freedmen and women are being continually reported from, all sections of the State, and a decided want of disposition to punish offenders apparently exists with the localoand in the minds of the people. There have been reported 52 murders of freed persons by white men in this State in reports the past 3 or 4 months, and no have been received that the murderers have been imprisoned or punished. In some parts of the State, particularly in the southwest and southeast, freedmen's lives are threatened if they report their wrongs to the agent of the bureau, and in many in stances the parties making reports are missed and never heard of afterward. It is believed that the number of murders reported is not half the number committed during the timementioned.” Or if this is not sufficient, I would answer the distinguished Senator still farther by quoting from the report of the officers of the Freedmen's Bureau as to the state of affairs in Tennessee as a further testimony to the condition of southern society without impartial suffrage: “Captain Kendrick reportsinsubstance that having proceeded to Union City he conversed with many of itshiet citizens, who told him that but fowfreedmenwere about there, as they were driving them away as ward and select his master! rapidly as possible. There seems to be a fixed determination that the freedmen shall not reside there, and the citizens force them to fly by ravishing the females, shooting, beating, and cheating them. The superintendent of the bureau there, while investigating a case of assault upon a negro, was compelled to magistrate desist by threats upon his life. The of the town states that he is powerless to administer justice, owing to the feeling in munity. Captain the corn Rendrickmentions the ense of a freedwoman named Emeline, living in Union City. who, during the absencoof her husband, was brutally violated by a party of whites. She appealed to justice the of the peace, who informed her that nothing could be donefor her on account of the feeling in the town. Avons, The next day 2 men, named Goodlow and of Union City, took her into a field and whipped her. A freedman named Callutir was whip by a man namedStanley, for saying that he had fought in the Union army. A Mr. Roscol, county trustee, has been persistently persecuted by a gang of desperadoes because he was prominent in defending the Union, and has beenshot at several times while sitting in his house. About a dozen bullet holes may be seen in his door. At Troy the freedmen are getting on prosperously and have no complaints to make. The feeling of hostility toward northern men at this E. the captain reports, is more bitter eventhan at City. Loyal Union citizens are waylaid and shot, and the ruffians escapepunishment. A man named Hancock was called out of church, where he had just expe rienced religion, by a Dr. Marshall, who told him 2 persons outside wished to gone see him. When he had a short distance 2 men named Carruthers attacked and severely beat him with clubs beeause Hancock wore a Federal uniform coat. Several other cases of outrage of murder, an aggravated character, and even are reported by Captain Kendrick, and thosa who are thus maltreated daro, not utter a fprä of complaint through fear of the desperadoes. c ree olumncinds that a detachment of troops be permanently stationed in this county, and says that mat . will grow worse instead of better until it is One. I find in the morning open the following letter, which explains itself: HEADQUARTERsDEPTor THEo Charleston, SCarolina, January 10, 1857. GENERA1: According to an article in ton, Daily the Charles News of this morning, it appears that the ail at Kingstree, SCarolina, has been destroyed y fire, and 22 colored prisoners smothered or burned to death, while the only white prisoner was perinitted to escape. The article states that the jailer, who had the keys, refused to open the doors without the authority of the sheriff, and the sheriff refused to act, without th9.9rders of commanding the lieutenant the troops at Kingstree. This statement presents a degree of barbarity that would appear in credible except in a community where no value is placed upon the lives of colored citizens. The general commanding directs that you cause an immediate and thorough investigation of this affair that in the mean time you arrest the sheriff and jailer, and if the facts prove to be as stated, that you hold them in military confinement, under the charge of murder, until the civil authorities shall be ready and willing toW. them. tfully, y bedient t ery respectfully, your obedient servant, J. W. cy.ous, Brevet Captain, and 1st Lieutenant 6th Infantry, Acting Asst Adjutant Brevet Major General H. K. Scott. Com. Mil. Com., SCarolina. I might fill pages with similar testimony, but it is not required. It is too evident that when you strip a man of all means of self defense, either through the courts or the laws, deprive him of education and leave him to the mercy of his fellow men, he must suffer all the pangs which our unworthy human nature is capable of inflicting. Who is there believes that man can safely intrust himself solely and alone to the mercy of his fellow man? Let such a one step for Let him in the wide circle of the world choose out that man pure, just and humane–upon whose vast, all embracing charity he can throw the burden of his life. Alas! there is no such man. Life is a perpetual struggle even under the most favorable circumstances; an unending fight of man against man, "For o slight plank whose weight will bear but One!” And occasionally how monstrous and horrible are the giant selfishnesses which start up under our feet like ghouls and affrights! History is the record of the gradual amelio ration of deep rooted, ancient injustice. What a hard, long, bloody, terrible fight it has been 1 But for the fact that our national organization rests upon a basis of new colonizations we would not possess the large measure of liberty we now enjoy; we would be as are the old lands of the world, still weighed down by the burdens of feudality and barbarism. But being peepled by the overflowings of the poor labor iEng peo.ple of Europe, who left the errors and of the Old World in mid ocean, we have started upon our career of national greatness on the grand basis of the perfect political equality of all men. We cannot fail to recognize the all fashioning hand of God as clearly in this sublime dec laration as in the geologic eras, the configuration of the continents, or the creation of man himself. What a world of growth has already budded and flowered and borne fruit from this seed I What an incalculable world of growth is to arise from it in the future! Now, then, comes the question to each of us, by what rule shall we reconstruct these pros trated and well nigh desolated States? Shall it be by the august rule of the DeclarIndep; or shall we bend our energies to perpetuate injustice, cruelty, and oppression; and make of this fair Government a monstrosity, with golden words of promise upon its banners, a fair seeming upon its surface, but a hideous and inhuman despotism within it; the Christianity and civilization of the 19th century crystalized into a nation with Dahomey and Timbuctoo in its bowels! A living lie, a rotten pretense, a mockery, and a sham, with death in its heart. There are but 2 forms of government in the world: injustice, armed and powerful and taking to itself the shape of king or aristocracy; and, on the other hand, absolute human justice, resting upon the broad and enduring basis of equal rights to all. Give this and give intellience and education to understand it E and you a structure which will stand while the world stands. Anything else than this is mere repression, the piling of rocks into the mouth of the volcano, which sooner or later will fling them to the skies. What is this equality of rights? It is the rescribing of a limit to human selfishness. this the hospital measure which gives so many feet of breathing space to each man in the struggle for life. I must not intrude upon m neighbor's limit nor he upon mine. It is universal selfishness regulated by a sentiment of universal justice; fair play recognized as a common necessity. Break down this barrier and the great waves sweep in and all is anarchy. Hear Motley's description of society in the ancient time, ere this principle arose “to curb the great and raise the lowly:” “The sword is the only symbol of the law, the cross is a weapon of offense, the bishop a pirate, consecrated and every petty baron a burglar; while the " people alternately the prey of duke, prelate, and ignior, shorn and butchered like sheep, esteem it. to sell themselvesinto slavery, or to huddle eneath the castle walls of some litthe potentate for tRheepusabkliec, of his wolfish protection.” foise of the dutch p. 14. Sir, all history teaches us that man would be safer in the claws of wild beasts than in the uncontrolled custody of his fellow men. And can any man doubt that he who lives in a community and has no share in the making of the laws which govern him is in the uncontrolled custody of those who make the laws? The courts simply interpret the laws, and what will it avail a man to appeal to the courts if the laws, under every, interpretation, are against him? Set a man down in the midst of a community, place the mark of Cain upon his brow, declare him an outlaw, take from him every protection, and you at once invite everything e, sordid, and abominable in human nature to rise up and assail him. Is there any man within the sound of my voice who thinks so highly of our common humanity that he would dare trust himself in such a position for a day or for an hour? But if to this you superadd the fact that the poor wretch so stripped of all protection was but the other day a bondman, and was forcibly wrested from the hands of his master, and that to the common sordidness of our nature must be added the inflamed feelings growing out of a long civilWar and the wrath and bitterness begotten of disappointed cupidity, you have a condition of things at which the very soul shudders. But this is not all; you must go a step further, and remember that the poor wretch who thus stands helpless, chained, and naked in the midst of his mortal foes was our true, loyal, and faithful friend in the day of our darkness and calamity; and that those who now flock around him like vultures gathering to the carnage were but the other day our deadly enemies and sought our destruction and degradation by bloody and terrible means. Sir, I say to you that if, in the face of every prompting of self interest and self protection, and humanity and gratitude, and Christianity and statesmanship, we abandon these poor wretches to their fate, the wrath of an offended God cannot fail to fall upon the nation. There never was in the history of the world an instance wherein right and wrong met so squarely face to face and looked each other so squarely in the eyes as in this matter. Never did truth array herself in such shining and glorious habiliments; never did the dark face of error look so hideous and forbidding as in this hour. And yet in the minds of some we find hesitation and doubt. I cannot but recur to a famous parallel in history. On the 22d of January, 1689, the English Parliament assembled to decide upon the most momentous question ever submitted to that body. The king, James H, had fled the realm; the great seal of royalty had been thrown into the Thames; William had landed; the nation was revolutionized. The great debate commenced. On the one side was the party of human liberty striving to cast down forever a dynasty strangely devoted to tyranny and absolutism; striving to make plainer the doctrine that the king reigned by virtue of the consent of his subjects. On the other hand were arrayed all the evil forces of the time and all the restraints of conservatism. In precisely the same temper in which it is now argued that a State can do no wrong, and that under no circumstances can it cease to be a State, it was then argued that, although the king had fled the land and was at the court of France, nevertheless the magistrate was still bresent, that the throne, by the maxim of Eng ish law, could not be vacant for a moment; and that any Government organized to act during the king's absence must act in the king's naille. It was most plain that the liberty, the pros perity of England could only be secured by the deposition of James; and yet those who sought by direct measures to reach that end were encountered at every step by a mass of technical objections. The musty precedents of the law 1000years.were raked up; and texts of the Holy Book were called into the defense of royalty as liberally as we have seen them in our own day paraded in defense of slavery. StPaufs injunction to the Romans to obey the civil power, played as important a part in those debates as the texts of Ham and Onesimus have played upon the floor of this House. Either the liberty of England must have erished, encumbered in this mass of . prece and technicalities, or the common sense of England must reach its own safety over the whole mass of rubbish. The common sense of England triumphed. James having fled he was declared to have abdicated the throne, and the throne being vacant Parliament as serted the right to fill it. Now, in like manner at this day the resolute common sense of the American people must find its way out of the entanglements that surround it and go straight forward to its own safety. The purpose of government is the happiness of the people, therefore of the whole people. A Government cannot be half a republic and half a despotism a republic just and equable to one class of its citizens, a despotism cruel and destructive to another class; it must become either all despotism or all republic. If you make it all republic the future is plain. All evils will correct themselves. Temporary disorders will subside; the path will lie wide open before every man, and every step and every hour will take him farther away from error and darkness. Give the right to vote and you give the right, to aid in making the laws; the laws being made by all will be for the benefitof all; the improvement and advancement of each member of the community will be the improvement and advancement of the whole community. Dealing with men, with all the attributes of men, with the souls, hearts, and minds of men, it is contemptible to attempt to turn justice aside by appeals to the color of the skin. At what Wii. point of the mingling of complexions shall these statesmen drive the stake and say, Thus far is man and beyond is brute; here human rights begin and there they terminatef What chemist shall analyze the mixture of man and beast, and tell us what fraction of an immortal soul is possessed by such a one? Or how many mulattoes go as component parts to make up one soul in heaven? Sir, such a doctrine is too monstrous for consideration The earth is God's, and all the children of God have an equal right upon its surface; and human legislation which would seek to subvert this truth merely legislates in justice into law; and he who believes that in justice conserves the peace, order, or welfare of society has read history to little purpose. Let us then go straight forward to our duty, taking heed of nothing but the right. In this wise shall we build a work in accord with the will of Him who is daily fashioning the world to a higher destiny; a work resting at no point upon wrong or injustice, but everywhere reposing upon truth and justice; a work which all mankind will be interested in preserving in every age, since it will insure the increasin glory and well being of mankind through. ag eS. ELDRIDGE. Mr. Speaker, it is of little avail, idle perhaps, to attempt any resist.ance of a caucus measure of the majority of this House. But it is hard, sad to stand silently by and see the Republic overthrown. It is indeed appalling to those accustomed from early childhood to revere and love the Constitution, to feel that it is in the keeping of those having the power and determination to destroy it. Good men, patriots, have hoped that the mad passions of the war would ere 2 years had passed been succeeded by the spirit, and temper that characterized those who origin ally formed the Union. But how great and their disappointment must be seen in the destructive and revengeful measures now pending in this House. With the passage of this bill must die every hope and vestige of the government of the Constitution. ever was there a measure or movement fraught with such fearful and fatal consequences, to the Republic. It is indeed the final breaking up and dissolution of the Union of the States by the usurpation and revolutionary act of congress. If the bill itself does not on its face and in express words recite the fact the speech of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVens, ] who introduced and has the ".ment of it, plainly declares that it is revolutionary in spirit and purpose. No rebel to this Government, north or south, ever called with more bitter hate, scorn, and contempt for the forces of revolution to unite and rally to overthrow it. No leader ever had more supple and willing followers, none was ever more complete master of the situation. His word is law, his call will be obeyed. Hear him as reported in the Globe: “May I ask, without offense, will Congress have the courage to do its duty? Or will it be deterred by the clamor of ignorance, bigotry, and despotismfrom perfecting a revolution begun without their consent, but which ought not to be endedwithout their full participation and concurrence?. Possibly the people would not have inaugurated this reyolution to correct the palpable incongruities and despotic provisions of t!. Constitution; but having it forced upon them, will they be so unwise as to suffer it to subside without erecting this nation into a perfectRepublic?” He need not have asked, “Will Congress have the courage?” The majority will surely follow their bold and daring leader even into revolution: “Will it be deterred by the clamor of ignoranee, bigotry, and despotism from perfecting a revolution begun without their consent, but which ought not to be ended without their full participation and concurrence?” What revolution? Begun by whom? Without whose consent? To be concurred in by the majority of a constitutional Congress? Or is the revolution referred to the one begun by secessionists, carried on by rebels to the constitution and the Union for the purpose of dividing it, and to prevent which all the people of all the land were made mourners and future en.erations burdened with untold millions of And this is the revolution in which, by this monstrous bill, the gentleman calls upon his friends and his party to fully participate and concur. Revolution it oto break up and divide the Union. Precisely what secession and rebellion, but for the valor of the Army of the Union, would have accomplished. “Possibly the people would not have inaugurated this revolution to correct the palpable incongruities and despotic provisions of the Constitution.” What people? Not the southern secession ists certainly, because there was no doubt, no possibility of mistaking their position. They are willing now the revolution should “sub side;” they are willing to submit to the constitution as it is and with all its “incongrui ties;” they are willing the Republic should stand. They have given up the revolution, and the gentleman and his party followers, by this bill, have taken it up and propose that it shall not subside till the “palpable incongruities” of the Constitution are removed. It is then clearly admitted by the gentleman that the purpose of this bill is to correct or remove certain supposed “incongruities” in the Constitution by adopting and carrying for ward the revolution inaugurated by secession ists, culminating in most bloody war, and which he says “possibly” without their beginning might not have been begun. There can be no mistaking the object of this bill as declared by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. It is to avoid or get rid of the constitution or some provision of it. Its revolutionary purpose is as clear as the sun light. He says, in the same speech, advocating this bill, (and be it remembered that speech was no extemporaneous one, but carefully prepared, written, and reserved several days after delivery for revision:) “Think not I would slander my native land; I would reform it. 20 years ago I denounced it as a des: our million The bnlatcwkemnteyn million white men enchained I pronounce it no nearer to a true Republic now when 25 million of a privileged class exclude 5 million from all participation in the rights of government.” 20 years ago he “denounced” his “native land as a despotism, ” and he “pronounces it no nearer to a true Republic now.” There were traitorous bad men in 1860 and 1861 who did the same thing, who as honestly believed as he did that it was a “despotism.” Their. convictions carried them into rebellion. The gentleman by this bill proposes not to let that rebellion and revolution end without “full participation and concurrence.” If traitors instigated that revolution I need not characterize those who fully “participate and concur in it.” Sir, immediate passage of this bill is urged by the gentleman because of the late decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Milligan. That decision he denounces as “infamous, ” “dangerous to the lives and liberties of the loyal men of the country.” What is there in this decision that calls for revolutionary measures?. In what way is this bill to interfere with or effect it? What is there in it to call for malediction and denunciation? The gentleman does not complain that it does not truly declare the law. ls the court itself to be stricken down; to be revolutionized? Are the provisions of the bill as sweeping and extensive as that? Sir, none but despots and violators of law hate or fear that court or its decisions. None but those who would denounce and contemn their native land denounce it. It brought the glad tidings to the depressed and despairing people of this country that the Constitution has not yet been destroyed, that it yet stands the bond of our union, the fundamental law of the land. For one I thank God for that decision in this dark hour of our country. It may save us from just such usurpation as this Congress, by this bill, would inflict upon us. It is the only hope of liberty in this land today. That decision has crowned the court with immortal i. Time, the clamor of disappointed emagogues, nor the malignant howl of crazy fanatics can ever dim the luster it has shed upon American jurisprudence. Future generations in all coming time will honor and revere that court as the great conservator of constitutional liberty and law. It rose above the surging, remorseless passion of rebellion and civilWar into the calm judicial atmosphere of reason and truth, and gladdened the hearts of the millions who never “denounced their native land” by declaring the law as it is: “The Constitution of the U.S. is law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with theshield of its protection all classesof men at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the with of man than that any gorfeiatst epmroevrisgieonnesiecsan besuspendedduring any of the of the Government. such a doctrine leadsdirectly to anarchy and despotism.” Where is there an honest lawyer who doubts that as law 7 What is there to denounce in it? What is there infamous in that opinion? Sir, these denunciations are because that court does not adopt revolution as a precedent, because it does not follow the lead of the gentleman by “full participation and concurrence” in the rebellion to revolutionize this Government. But the passage of this bill is a necessity also, according to the gentleman's construction of it, because the presidential office is in his way. It is not only to deprive the Supreme Court in some manner of its lawful jurisdiction, but the Executive of the nation, “the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, ” is to be made to bow in meek submission and obey the behest of the gentleman and his party in Congress., Listen, again, to his speech in support of this bill: “Though the President is of. Commander in Chief, is his commander; and, God willing, he shall obey. He and his minions shall learn that this is not a Government of kings and satraps, but a Government of the people, and that Congress is the people.” The President refuses to go with the gentleman and his followers into a “full participation and concurrence” in the revolution inau gurated by the rebellion, and this measure is to reduce him to obedience; to bring him into accord with the will of the majority of this Congress; to simplify the Government by striking down or usurping the powers of the coordinate depts. There seems to be, then, 3 leading objects in this measure to be carried into prac tical effect by a full “participation and concurrence” in “the revolution: ” to get rid of the Supreme Court or its decision; to depose the President or compel him to “obey” the majority of Congress; and thereby, or as an additional object, correct “palpable incongruities and despotic provisions of the Constitution, ” and turn ten of the sovereign States of the Union into Territories, or hold them without governments as conquered provinces. These are some of the avowed, bold, wicked, revolutionary purposes of this scheme. No wonder at the doubt of the gentleman: “Will Congress have the courage” to come down to the requirement? No wonder he finds it necessary to storm, bluster, threaten, and scold his weak kneed followers. But they will all come in to the support of this or some like measure.. They will tremble, turn pale, and curse, a potlittle, but his cunningly insinuated in the question he put, “Do you believe in hell?” will bring every mother's son of them, unless possibly the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. RAYMonD] of whom nothing quite certain is known till after he has made his speech and recorded his vote. More, doubtless, was meant by this states man like inquiry. There may have been a more solemn significance. The tendency of his party in that direction admonishes all its members not to deny the Divinity, in the presence of which they are soon to appear. Sir, this seems almost like trifling with a gravesub. ject, and yet the devout earnestness withwhich that inquiry was propounded by the venerable gentleman cannot fail to impress this House with the thought that there is some veryclose and intimate connection between this measure and that gloomy abode upon which he would have his followers fix their faith and belief. I listened to and have examined the gentle. man's speech in connection with this bill to find, if possible, some argument, somesugges.tion of constitutional authority or warrant for the measure; but there is none absolutely none. Ten of the pillars on which this Union rests, and some of those upon which and by the power of which it was originally erected, are to be torn from under it and prostrated to the earth by unauthorized and arbitrary power, by some means or power unknown to ourlaw. The principles upon which it is to be done are all false, both in theory and fact, and as destructive of the Union as the States. The preamble, which has been stricken outsince the bill was reported and since the gentleman made his speech, recites that the “confederate States, ” socalled, “have forfeited all the rights under the Constitution.” And in his speech he declares: “The Federal arms triumphed. The confederate armies and governmentsurrenderedunconditionally. The law of nations then fixed their condition.They were subject to the controlling power of querors. the conNo former laws, no formercompacts of treaties existed to bind the belligerents.Theyhad all been melted and consumed in the fiercefires of the terrible war.” Now, sir, I deny every assertion heremal; except only that “the Federalarmstriumphed And that of itself, in view of the of the contending parties, is a complete refus tion of all the other allegations and conclu.sions. The States and their governmentswere not destroyed. All the attempts to takethen out of their relations to the other States of the Union were failures, and every step in that direction was an illegal and void act. Ando moment the rebellion was o down and the people freed from its control they, the people of the State, had the right to their State gobernment as before the war. On the part of the confederates the struggo was to separate and divide; on our part " prevent separation and division ando the States in the Union. They sought to avo the laws of the Federal Government enforce them. They denied their obligo. to obey the Constitution: we insisted upon their obedience. They declared they would no o: live with us as States in the Union: "They demanded they should remain forever. o claimed the right to secede when they felt disposed; we avowed secession a monstrous ho and that the Union was formed in perpe”; They left the Hails of Congress and do they would no longer perform their do: functions in the Union: we swore ono: of our country that they should obey the Constitution and laws made in pursuance o: They seized their arms and appealed ". W6 God of battles for the justice of their. accepted the wager of battle, and lifted o6 in prayer to Heaven that the issue o: Ore with us. We pressed them closely oj closely, and in their agony and desper." it cried for the purpose of rallying theiro: forces, we meant to “subjugate o nly as victory wavered in the balance we so." before God and the civilized age, deo i. “That, banishing all feeling of me” o: or resentment, ” we “will recollectoo. ar “duty to the whole country; that.:op not waged upon our part in any SP. uest of pression, nor for any purpose of. to subjugation, ” “but to defend and supremacy of the Constitution and to } and the Union, with all the dignity,that rights of the several States.; th9 as soon as these objects are acco"P war ought to cease." “The Federal arms triumphed, ” and if the triumph is complete, determined all in their the issues favor. “The confederate armies and government were overthrown and surrendered” not “unconditionally, ” but upon these con: ditions, held out to them and never with drawn till the end of the war. The law of nations holds such promises as binding., Wattel, page 439, says: “All promises made to an enemy in the course of war are obligatory.” Neither are treaties made void by war which were “stipulated in case of rupture.” This is the case where the war is between 2 nations. I utterly deny the abominable and detestable doctrine of the gentleman as the law of nations, that the conquered nation is subject to the absolute will and disposal of the conqueror. What he may or may not do depends in some measure on the cause of the difficulty and who were actually engaged in it. His rights spring from the sources of natural justice, and should be exercised and measured by justice and humanity. The doctrine that the conquered nation may be disposed of at the sovereign will and pleasure of the conqueror is opposed to the humane and enlightened sense of the age; It is the source and fountain of despotism and despotic power. It is not the law of nations. Vattel, page 454, writing upon this subject, says: “But if the whole nation be subdued, in what manner can the victor treat it without transgressing the bounds of jus, ice? What are his rights over the conquest?. Somehave dared to advance this monstrous principle that the conqueror is absolute master of conquest, his that he may dispose of it as his property, treat it as he pleases, according to the common expression of treating a State as conquered country: and hence they derive one of the sourcesof despotic government. enough of those who would reduce men to the state of tranfserable goods, or, use them like beasts of burden, who would deliver them up as the property or patrimony of another man. Let us argue on principles, countenanced by becoming humanity.” reason and But I deny that the law of nations fixed the condition of the socalled confederate States, or in any manner determined their status. The law of nations or the common laws of war, those maxims of humanity adopted by common consent for the more humane conduct of war, undoubtedly applied in its prosecution in the conduct of the war itself. But ours is a nation, with a government of its own, with a written Constitution and laws providing for peace and war, “with stipulations in case of rupture, ” which the “fierce fires of war” have not consumed. That Constitution has not been super seded by the law of nations, but it stood at the end of the war, and still stands, vindicated and sustained, the supreme law of the land “in war and in peace.” For those innocent of its violation it provides protection and immunity, and for the guilty speedy, fair trials and just punishment. It superseded and annulled all rules, canons, treaties, compacts, laws, and constitutions not in harmony in letter and spirit with its provisions. And in the language of the Supreme Court, before quoted “The Constitution of the U.S. is law for rulers and, people. equally in war and in, peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men at all times and under all circumstances.” This is the voice of authority and settles the question finally and fully as to what laws are to be executed and control in the government of the people of the U.S.. Away, then, with all those who “denounce their native land;” who would substitute the uncer tain, doubtful, and undefined laws of war and of nations for our matchless written Constitution; who would apply the musty code of the monarchs and kings of the dark ages to the citizens of the Republic and subject them to the forfeitures and penalties of the rules and laws of barbarism; who, contemning and denouncing the organic law of the Union, with bloody and malignant hearts would subjugate, confiscate, banish, burn, kill, and 3. others for resisting a Government which they themselves denounce as a despotism; who professing to be the especial champions of iberty would destroy the only charter by which it is secured to the people. But it is insisted by the gentleman in his speech and in the preamble to this bill that the warrant for this measure is to be found in the fact that the States called the “confederate States of America” have “forfeited all their rights under the Constitution.” Qn the 25th of January, 1866, in a speech delivered in this House, and published in the Globe of that date, I argued more fully than I can now the question of forfeiture and many of the others involved in this measure: I now affirm all I then said. The positions taken are, in my judgment, unanswered and unan swerable. I assert now as I did then, this Government is one created under and by a written Constitution emanating from the people through the States acting in their highest sovereign capacity. It has no powers sovereign or otherwise except such as are granted to it in and by that instrument. All powers not granted are expressly reserved to the States or the people thereof. The original purpose of the States in forming the Union under the federal Constitution was the better to protect and preserve each other and the rights and liberties of their several communities from violence, both from within and from without. The juris diction granted to it over the States was to govern and control them as States and people of States in the Union. It was the creature of the States, deriving its life from them, and without any power to live except in the life of the States. It is a grand and majestic structure; its beautiful proportions towering high up among the proudest nations of the earth, uplifted, upheld, and sustained only by preserving the States by and of which it was created. Its highest authority and most solemn duty, self preservation, demands the preservation of the States. It has no power, express or implied, by which it can consent to “forfeiture” by a State of any of its rights under the Constitution. The obligation of a State to remain in the Union and exercise its functions and perform its duties as a State is not an obligation to the Federal Government alone, but to each and all the other States, and to every citizen of the U.S. But if it were possible that a State of the Union could “ forfeit” its rights as a State, what would become of those rights, where would they vest? Certainly not in the Federal government, because under the Constitution from which it derives all its powers and jurisdiction it has not the power or authority either to hold or exercise any of the rights that properly appertain to the States as such. t has no use for such powers and no lawful right to exercise them. Should it attempt to seize, hold, or exercise or accept, even as a forfeiture or otherwise, any rights or powers not granted in the charter by which it was cre ated it would be nothing but usurpation. It must preserve the States and the governments of the States and the people:of the States in order to preserve and enjoy the powers and rights conferred upon it by them. Any other position is destruction of the Union. Sir, this Union is not yet destroyed. The Constitution still binds and holds the States together. Its provisions have not been “melted and consumed in the fierce fires of terrible war.” It is only the fiercer fires of moreter rible and successful war that can melt and consume the ligaments by which that instrument binds together the States of this Union. All other “laws, compacts, and treaties” may “melt” and be consumed, but while the constitution remains, while its provisions stand, war may rage, secession surge, and fanatics howl in vain against the Union. It will stand till the Constitution itself is melted and destroyed. There never was a more abominable doctrine or one more fatal to this Government than that which asserts its right and power to hold the late insurgent States as conquered territory and the people as conquered subjects. It is a virtual denial of the power of self preservation, and a pregnant admission that the powers assumed and the rights asserted are not to be found in the Constitution. It is a most base and wicked subterfuge by which to usurp and exercise ungranted and despotic powers. It is a doctrine no less fatal to the nion than the States. If persisted in by those in possession of the Government, and acqui. esced in by the people, it must end in the overthrow of the Republic and the establishment of an empire upon its ruins. It is at war with every principle of the Constitution and a complete swallowing up of the liberties of the people it was intended to secure. Hereafter our charters will be written grants of privileges from the Government to the people, instead of written grants of power by the people to the Government. This bill can be looked upon only as a bill granting privileges from the hand of arbitrary power to a pretended, wicked, and undeserving people who have forfeited all their rights under the Constitution. It is “a crumb from their master's table.” It is a generous gift from this magnanimous Congress of so much of liberty and privilege to the people as it deems prudent and best. Is not this the plain, unvarnished theory of this measure and of the gentleman's speech? Ten of the States of this Union with ten million people of the U.S. have been conquered, and in virtue of its conquest the Federal Government is invested with all the rights and liberties of these States and people, holding them as a conquerer to be reluctantly doled out according to its supreme will and pleasure by this charter of privileges. I say relunctantly, for even this has been delayed for almost 2 years. Have not the centuries been rolling backward? Can we not almost see the people demanding of Congress Magna Charta? Sir, the doctrine that this Government can make conquest of any of the States of this Union is opposed to, is at war with the fundamental idea of the Government itself. It would destroy the harmony of the system of States and Union by allowing of antagonist interests. It would offer to the General government the allurement of power and aggran dizement not in the interest and growth of the States and Union, but in its own separate interest. It would nullify all the provisions of the Constitution reserving powers to the States and the people. It would be equiva lent to a bribe to the Government to destroy the States and the liberties of the people by the exercise of despotic powers..But it is absurdly impossible that the U.S. Government, except by usurpation, should make “conquest” of one of the States of which it is composed. It has certain prescribed limited powers and jurisdiction with the means and capabilities of using and exercising them, but no use for, no capacity to hold, or means of exercising any others. It had before the war, by the authority of the organic act of its creation, the power and jurisdiction, certain, defined, and limited, to control, govern, and preserve the States as States in the Union. Its jurisdiction is the same now the war is over; no greater, no less. There is, there can be no such thing as this Government being able to increase or enlarge its powers or jurisdiction over the States by “conquest.”. It can derive powers but in one way and that by constitutional grant. No act of any or all the parties to the Constitution can take from or add to those granted thereb in any other way than by amendment according to the provisions of the Constitution itself. Under the Constitution as it is, the power is granted to the General Government to suppress insurrection, repel invasions, and, upon application, protect the States from domestic violence. It is absurd that in successfully performing this duty it could by any possibility destroy the State, or permit the State or the insurrection or all together to destroy the State as such in the Union. And yet to such absurdities does the doctrine on which this bill is founded lead. Let insurrection arise in any State of the Union and the Government under take to suppress it; if it shall assume proportions large enough to entitle the insurgents according to the laws of war to belligerent rights, the nation becomes divided into 2 parties and the party that shall finally submit forfeited all rights under the Constitution and is subject to the will of the other as a conIfqueror under the law of nations. the Federal Government should be called on to protect the State from domestic violence and the disturbing party should be able in any manner to possess itself of the State, so as to deprive the inhabitants for the time being of all civil government, and should magnify its powers and increase its numbers so that under the human laws of modern warfare, the laws that govern public war, should be recognized as applicable to its conduct, such a State and all the inhabitants thereof, when finally the government should conquer, will have lost all their rights except only such as may be found in the law of nations as applicable when one nation conquers another. The bare statement of such a proposition shows it to be preposterous. The Constitution is the paramount and ever continuing law, both in war and in paace. The Army can only be used in aid of its enforcement. It is clear that no warrant for this measmre can be found in the Constitution. The gentleman certainly has not claimed it. No one believing in the truth of the preamble of this bill will claim any constitutional power for it under that section: “the U.S shall guaranty to every State in this Union a RFG.” The bill goes upon the theory that they are not now States in the Union; indeed, that they are not States at all. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania styles them States never “restored from a state of conquest, ” “out lawed States, ” and says: “Congress denies that any State lately in rebellion has any government or constitution known to the Constitution of the U.S., or which can be recognized as a part of the Union.” If, then, these are not States, or if not “States in this Union, ” that provision of the Constitution has no reference to them. It refers in express terms to States “in” the Union The Government has no such power, and is under no such obligation to any other States. There is then no law, no constitutional }. ". for this measure, and no rightful power or holding these States in a state of “conquest.” The war long since finished its bloody, its devastating work of suppressing the insurrection and putting down the rebellion. All have. combatants and people, and admit that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land in all emergencies for rulers and people. To hold these States as the gentleman says they are held, as “outlawed” States in a “state of conquest, ” is the usurpation and exercise of despotic and tyrannical power in its most odious form, and will assuredly end in the destruction of all constitutional government. Sir, a fearful responsibility rests upon those who would continue this state of things. Let us not flatter ourselves that this appetite for dismantling and devouring States and converting them into Territories will be satiated with the ten States now claimed by conquest; the more it devours the more it will demand. Already it has been declared by the leader of the majority here that the constitutions of Maryland and Kentucky, and even his own State of Pennsylvania, States as patriotic, as any in the Union, ought to be reformed and made to accord with the congressional idea of republican government. A few months more of rapid progress and advancement like that of the last 2 years, and Congress will provide constitutions for all the States in accordance with its view of the spirit of the age and of republican government. Congress by its usurpations and assumption of powers and its growing hostility to the other coordinate depts of the Government is rapidly becomin the most fearful despotism that ever. in this country. Through its acknowl edged leader it scandalously denounces the decision of the highest tribunalas “infamous;” calls God to witness that the Chief Magis trate of the nation shall obey Congress, and with most audacious effrontery falsely declares “Congress is the people.” With the provision now being made by it for osession there seems to be but one step more, and that is to declare the office for life, with the right, by will, to name a successor. No candid man can deny that this measure is revolutionary. That we are in a state of revolution seems to be admitted by the advo cates of this bill a revolution by whomsoever “concurred” in is now adopted and carried on by the majority of this Congress. It is a revolution more dangerous to the Republic more hostile to its underlying its ejeniini principles, than that which was prosecuted by armed rebellion. That was for separation, for a separate republic. The government it was to establish was founded on a written constition with provisions challenging the respect of the most liberal and enlightened minds, and which, had it not been for its provision for slavery, would have been no reproach to any age or, to any people. The revolution of to day is against our written Constitution, and if successful will convert the Union into a des potism. Think not this can be done in peace or without the shedding of blood. It is not well to forget the fearful throes of the nation when secession would have rent the Constitution asunder and severed the Union. Peace able consolidation is as impossible as peace able secession. “Let us alone, ” will no more avail in the one case than the other. The people will not relish empire more than a dismembered Union. All history is not a lie. Human hearts and human passions are not all unlike what they have been in the past. The order of our Government cannot be reversed without a desperate struggle. The people will not long brook to crawl at the feet of despotic power, or beg their rights and liberties from the hands of one or 200 despots. The people know the source of sovereignty is the people. “Congress is' not “the people.” The people acting through the States created the I U.S., to protect, defend, and preserve, not to destroy, the States. 26 States are not the U.S. The charter of the people's liberties did not come down from Congress. All the sovereign powers of Congress are named in the people's charter to Congress. In that charter is all our warrant. Go beyond it and you invade iberty. When liberty is invaded all but slaves and despots resent, and sooner or later will resist the invasion. It is the common cause of all who are worthy to be free. It is the cause of the people against power. In such a conflict liberty and justice o be not only vindicated, but their wrongs will be redressed and the mal efactors punished. Retribution may be slow, but it will come with unerring certainty, measured by the hand of. divine justice. Mr. Speaker, I hope, I devoutly pray these troublous times may have an end without further sacrifice of fraternal blood; that our constitutional rights and liberties may not be lost in this fanatical revolution. Let sectional hatred and all revenge be buried in oblivion. Reconciliation is the only restoration. This Congress has never avowed any “policy” for either. The gentleman admits if we ask even now “what is the policy of Congress, the answer is not always at hand.” It is time that answer were ready; it is time all were satisfied and assured. Delay awakens doubt and distrust and begets danger. If those who pant for more blood could reflect, they too would discard further sanguinary measures., Malig nant passion has counseled long enough; let it slumber. Is it not enough to enslave ten million people; hold them in a “state of conquest for 2 years?” Congress has opportunity such as no other body of men ever such as I fear it may never have again, by a word to speak peace, reconciliation, amity to a suffering and unhappy country. A brave and unarmed people lie conquered at your feet, bowed in spirit and oppressed with many sor rows. They have surrendered all for which they contended on the battle field and more than you demanded before they gave to you their arms. Let not the pride of victory, passion, or revenge make you unjust and change your victory into defeat. Generosity never lost the conqueror any thing; cruel and unwise exactions have renerved many an arm and renewed many a struggle. Better than that subjugation and oppression should corti Ye follow the example of the monster Duk, of Alvah; take 20,000 to the block and be satisfied. 200,000 may not satisfy the people for wrong and injustice long continued. During