Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, in the discussion of the important issues now under consideration, it may be well for us to recur briefly to 1st principles: and I feel gratified that the honorable and learned Gentfrom Ohio has given us so lucid and able an exosition of the olity of our Government. be people of the U.S. constitute a nationality; the Govlernment the machinery by which or through which they exercise the powers of the national sovereignty. The operations of thissoverei ty are not affected by State linesno State legislature, Executive, or convention, having the right to alter, anunl, repeal, or hin der the execution of any constitutional law of Congress, or to change the practical relations of the citizens within its limits to the national Government. “This constitution, and the lawsof the U.S. which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties, 110., “ shall bethe supremelaw of the land.” “ 7 “any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”amatilution of the U.S., Article 6. The socalled ordinances of secession adopted by the people of some of the southern States are of no more legal effect by way of dissolving their allegiance to the General or national Government than the blank aperupon which they are written; otherwise the might be plead in bar of a prosecution by the Government for treason against any citizen who had his resi dence within the limits of such Statea defense which I presume even the chief of secessionists would not now gravely offer. No citizen can expatriate himself and yet remainwithin the territorial limits of the Government to which he owes allegiance. An individual becomes or is a citizen of the U.S. by virtue of his relations to the national Government, and not by virtue of his bein a citizen of one of the U.S. The nion is the nation, and to the Government of the Union within its constitutional scope and authority is our allegiance due. It is, nevertheless, true that we owe an allegiance to our State governments acting within their limits as rese bed by the Constitution of the U.S. These principles being true, it follows that “the rebellion was never limited by State lines. Its limits were never defined by legislation, but its authority was extended as or as its power could carry it, whether over entire States or parts of States, or whether the people of those States had ever adopted the farce o an ordinance of secession or not. The right of separate State secession we never recognized. It never did and does not exist in our form of Government. No Government ever did, ever will, or ever can vest anywhere the power to destroy itself, for the mere vestingof such power would be its destruction. We were compelled, however, for 4 long and dark years, to accord a respect, however reluctant, to the power of the rebellion. There is a disposition, with some, to attach to these ordinances of secession 11 legal importance to which they are by no means entitled. The President in his restoration policy takes up the several State governments which were overthrown by the rebellion as they stood immediately prior to the adoption of these several ordinances, confirming all that was done by them prior to this time, and repudiating all that was done subsequently. This may not be positively objections c, provided we are not misled by it into an undue respect for those ordinances, considering them as only the starting points, the acts of rebellion, by which the several State governments were overthrown or perverted from their proper relations to the national Government. his is a convenient prominent act from which to date the rebellion in the several States in which such ordinances were adopted, but is not sustained by the facts as the 1st act, in any such State, of organized rebellion and treason. The organizing of a military force hostile to the U.S., and appropriations for their payment, the seizure of U.S. forts and other public property, and other acts of violence in all the States comprising the late socalled confederate States of America, preceded the adoption of the ordinances of secession. Thus Georgia State tree 8 seized Forts Pulaski and Jackson, and the U.S. arsenal at Savannah, January 2, 1861, though the ordinance of secession was not passed until Janu ary 19, 1861. In Alabama, Fort Morgan and the U.S. arsenal at Mobile were seized Jan uary 4, and the ordinance of secession adopted on the 11th. The Louisiana forts and arsenalwere seized by State troops on the 11th of January, though the ordinance of secession was not adopted until the 26th and so on through out the entire catalogue. The act was not an original act of or attempt at secession, but was originally an act of rebelion and secession, and was subsequently brought to its aid as one means of giving it strength by uniting the people in its support, just as the military despotism, the reign of terror, inaugurated by the eaders, was another means, looking to the same end. These ordinances could not bind the conscience nor determine the allegiance of individuals, nor extend the authority of the rebellion to State lines, when the power of the rebellion was not sntiicient to maintain it there; and individuals are none the more or less traitors, and the people were none the more or less in rebellion because such ordinances were or were not adopted in their States. The people of the State of Virginia adopted an ordinance of secession; the people of the States of Kentucky, Missouri, and a land did not; yet the northwestern portion of Virginia, comprising most of what is now WestVirginia, was more truly loyal, maintained its relations to the national Government better, and rendered to it a more cheerful support in its measures and policy for crushing terebellion, than certain districts in each of the other 3 States mentioned. The people of Virginia adopted an ordinance of secession. but those of northwestern Virginia never rebelled. The people of may ryland, Kentucky, and Missourinever adopted such ordinances, but those of portions of each joined the rebellion; and it is certainly attaching a legal importance to these ordinances not justified by the principles and olity of our Government to subject the people of loyal WestVirginia to pains and penalties from which those of the disloyal and rebellious portions of those other States are exempt, as was done in the case of returning rebels, after the surren der: and for no reason except that the people of Virginia adopted an ordinance of secession. Certain of the State governments were overthrown by the rebellion just as was the national Government wherever the power of the rebellion extended. The States were not, and could not, be parties to the rebellion, because they are not subjects of the national Government. Individuals, citizens, you and I, are subjects of the Governments, both State and national. We may commit treason against either or both, and may overthrow either or both by different or the same overt act, by which we subject ourselves to the ains and penalties of treason, and forfeit the rights of citizenship ay, the right to life itself under either or both; but the rights and powers of the Government are in no way affected y our treason, except so far asthey may be paralyzed for a time by the blow we strike at their life; and the doctrine that the States have committed felo de se, or selfmurder, is net only monstrous within itself, but subversive of the vital principles of our Government, and fraught with many dangers. We must preserve the ancient landmarks for our own security and protection, for we know not how soon we may need to use them in our own defense. We know not in what form, or in what direction, the next attack may come, if come it ever shall, which Heaven forbid. But I warn you that this doctrine is too near of kin to secession for us to take it to our bosoms; and that selfinterest and personal aggrandizement are more potent influences with ambitious and unprincipled men than climate, soil or latitude. As before stated, the authority of the rebellion was extended wherever its power could carry it; and I here protest against the use of the expression, so common, that States were in rebellion. A certain disaffected portion of the people of the U.S., extending over a ar c section of its territory, go into a rebellion, under the auspices and power of which they inaugurate a government in lieu of that of the U.S., and subvert the State governments within the extent of their usurped jurisdiction, and make them subservient to their purposes. The States (as such ) of Virginia, ennessee, and Arkansas, were no more in rebellion, when overrun by rebel hordes, than were those of Maryland, Kentuck, Missouri, and of Pennsylvania, under similar circumstances; and if the constitutional and legal rights of loyal citizens of the U.S. in the States and districts in which a majority of the resident population joined the rebellion, differ in any wise from those where all were loyal, (if such could be found) but overrun for a time, I confess the distinction is too refined and metaphysical for my comprehension. The governments of Maryland and Pennsylvania were never absolutel under rebel control, but the people of certain tricts within those States know what it is to obey rebel orders; their local municipal regulations, both State and national, were for a time overthrown, but immediately upon regaining the power they were “restored, ” and who questioned the authority of the loyal people to restore them? The governments of Kentucky and Missouriwere overthrown, were in the possession and under the control of those engaged in the rebellionat least they had, for a time, possession of the capitals of those States and among them those whom the recognized as the Governors of these States with their Legislaturesand they never had any government anywhere recognized by an power on earth except themselves and if am not mistaken, these States were, at some time, by some one and in some way, annexed to the confederacy. At least I well remember, that when campaign i“ng down South, the rebel ladies, in singing the Bonnie Blue Flag, ” did most emphat ically claim that the constellation had grown from one to 13 stars; and that to make these they did count Kentucky and Missouri; and my impression is and a “ ways was, that the Bonnie Blue Flag, ” asserted by such authority, was and is as binding upon the citizens of Kentucky and Missourias ever were the socalled ordinances of semssion upon those of Virginia, SCarolina, or Texas; and that they all deserve to be subjected to equal disa bilities and then, you now, they raised a terrible wail for “Maryland, my Maryland, ” to such an extent that, if I remember correctly, General Lee did annex it, by proclamation, during one of his raids. I have noinformation as to whether John Morgan and the St.Albans raiders annexed Indiana, Ohio, and Vermont to the confederacy or not, but if they did not they were certainly very forgetful of their dut as conquerors; but whether they did or not, T conceive, does “neither good nor harm. ”. But who questioned teright of the loyal people of these States to recstablish their governments in their respective capitals when they recovered the power to do so? and where is the difference in the principle involved in the condition of these States and of those yet unrep presented upon this floor? Those et unrepresented were a while wholly instca of partially overrun, and were longer under rebel control but are the rights of loyal citizens destroyed by “the laws delay, ” or by the inabilityof the Government to which they bear allegiance to extend to them, for a time, its protection and support? In what, then, consists the ditTerence in principle, except it be in the single fact that in the one class ordinances of secession (so called) were adopted, and in the other were not? Sir, those who accord to those ordinances an importance so essential and vital as this, are, in my humble opinion, not one whit less disumonists in theory and principle than those who adopted them. But we are seriously told upon the floor of this House, by those claiming to be par excellence the friends of the Umom all these States are out of the Union! Look, sir, and, count the stars and stripes upon that flag. Does this House indorse a flaunting lie in its presence every day, hour, and minute of its sitting? Why floats in the breeze that banner unborn from the to of this Hall, attracting the gaze of admiring multitudes for miles around, if 11 of the States represented thereon have ceased to be States, and are no longer members of this Union? Is it to deceive foreign nations through their representatives at your Government? Go, sir, and ask the honest tar in your navyyard, or upon the wide ocean, or in a foreign port, if the flag floating from his masthead flaunts a lieis a deception and a cheatl Ask the returningveteran, scarred and maimed, who risked his life and shed his blood to save and perpetuate the Union if “ the war has been a ailure, ” and if the liag he bears so proudly homeward is all that is saved from the wreck of his dismembered countryl Sir, I leave the reply to your imagination; and I would not envy the gentleman who champions this doctrine the pleasure of a tour over this country, charged with the dut of cuttin the representatives of 11 States lrom that ag which has become a house 11:01:; god in every loyal family throughout the n. To restore these State governments, then, is, in my opinion, to reinstate them as they existed when overthrown by the rebellion, subject only to such changes as are necessary to conform them to the present status of the national Government. During the suspension of the proper practical relations between the people of these States and the national Government, the institution of African slavery has been abolished, and upon resuming these relations, they are now required to conform their organic law to this very important change, not because their State constitutions are not republican in form without this change, but because the constitution and laws of the U.S. are supreme, and those of the several States must conform to them. I need not stop here to discuss the operation and elfect of the emancipation proclamation in the absence of further sanction; for though important in the day of its active operation, it is now superseded, or rather confirmed, by the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, which is now a part of the supreme law of the land. This amendment gives Congress the wer and makes it its duty to guaranty the edom given. This power I feel assured congress will exercise, an in the same manner and to the same extent, subse neat to the admission of the representatives of these States as prior to such admission. It is a power to be exercised by consee, not on or t rough the agency of the scvera State governments, but, as in the exercise of all its other powers, directly upon the subject. No issue then, even with the aid of special pleading, can be made up here on this question. We hear a great deal, however, said with reference to compelling the people of these States to adoptthis measure ort atmeas are as a condition precedent to the admissiOn of their representatives into Congress. Sir, if they are States, Congress has no more right to comel them to adopt any measure than it has to a opt it for them and transfer itto their code. If they are not States the have no rightto act upon these questions, an their action is consequently without significance or the sanction of public law. But in either event, admitting the power of conass to require such action, and the right of the States to act upon these questions, what respect would the gentlemen now contending for such action give to it, thus wrung from them under duress? Or what evidence would it give to anyone upon which to base an opinion as to the actual condition or prevailing sentiment of these people? The conVention in one State declines to repudiate the rebel debt; the President tells them they must do it before they can hope for representation in Congress; they then reconsider and reverse their former decision I Now, whatimportance can be attached to this action? The honorable Gentfrom Ohio remarked with significance, that in his opinion it did neither “good nor harm" and I am confirmed in the opinion that if it does no harm, it at least does no good. The policy to be pursued resing the qualifications of electors in these States, during reorganization, is, I presume, so far determined and conceded as to be no longer involved in the direct issues now affecting this question. Then I come to the allimportant question of guarantees. We have now waiting action by Congress sibly less than 20 guarantees proposelio; amendments to the constitution of the U.S. I do not propose now to discuss the merits of these severa propositions, and do not know with sufficient ccrtaint what they are to enter upon such discussion, at suppose there will be an opportunity to investigate them, unless they should be acted upon under the operation of “the previous question, ” and without being printed. Iwill say, however, that I doubt the necessity of so much constitutional amendm ent, and at if it is really necessary, we had best have a convention at once; for to give to so manquestions, of such importance as we are tol these are, the consideration they deserve when becoming part of the organic law of the land, would require the time of an ordinary session of Congress, and I think we should not form the habit of changing that sacred in strument for light causes or with too much facility. Gentlemen manifest more fear now for the safety of the constitution and the Union than when there were 500,000 rebels arrayed in arms against it. I confess I am unmoved by such fears. Some of the proposed amendments, so far as I understand them, seem unobjectionable, and when brought to a vote I now see no reason for not voting for them. If you can frame an article which more positively refutes the dogmas of nullification and secession than the 2nd clause of the 6th article, before quoted, the 15th clause of the 8th section of the 1st article, which provides “for calling forth the militiato execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, ” and the 1st clause of the 3rd section of the 3rd article defining treason, lwill vote forit; but I can conceive of nothing plainer upon this point than the constitution as its framers made it and know of no such verification of, or commentary upon, the Government under it, as is found in the legislation: of congress, and the action of the Executive, during the rebellion. But if you can frame an article which will give more than “thelast man, ” and mort c more than “the last dollar” to save the own, I will vote for it. The proposed amendment concerning the national and the rebel debt, as I heard it read once from the Clerks desk, appeared unobjectionable, and has passed this House. But what I do object to, and most solemnly protest against at this point, is the determination, upon tie part of some, to refuse representation to the people of these States, regardless of their condition, until these amendments are secured and why? Because, say they, their adoption is necessa in orderto secure the permanent ascendency of the present dominantpnrty, and ifthe ople of these States are admitted to participatlon in the ratification of these amendments t my will be defeated. Sir, I wish as much as anyone that the present dominant party may long control the administration of affairs in this country; the deserve to do so, and will do so if in their administration they act wisely and justly; but if the principle just indicated is persisted in and prevails, 1p ask you, what is your written constitution worth, what the value of any guarantees that may or can be incorporated into it be yond their subserviency to party purposes? If the dominant party can keep the minority from participation in the affairs of the GOvernment until the constitution can be amended to their prejudice, from the day this principle becomes incorporated into the polity of our Government, the constitution, instead of the chart of our liberties, becomes only an instrument of oppression, with which to bind more firmly the t ran nical will of a popular majority, by which the rightsof minorities are unknown orunrespected, and to be changed with each revolution of popular sentiment. Better, far better, abolish it at once, and let us look to the law, to custom, and to necessity for the landmarks to our liberties, than that it be prostituted to such base purposes. Besides, sir, without pretending to prophetic wisdom, the people of this country will never make a constitution looking only to the interests of any party. They are loyal and yet national; looking to the interests of the count, and of the whole country, jealous of. the rights of minorities and the revisions for their protection; remembering, from personal experience, that political or party ascendency is among the uncertainties of this world. In a word, sir, the people are just, and will repudiate any party which attempts to trample upon these principles. I have said that to restore the State governments which were overthrown by the rebellion was to reinstate them as they existed before overthrown, and in harmony with the constitutional amendment abolishin slavery. Acting upon this policy, let us see wht guarantees can and would be required. 1. The applicant claiming a seat upon this floor must lie loyal; and I would not accept whitewashed loyalty, or 10 alty of a recent growth; he must have been foyal all the time all the way through. He must be able to take, and must take, what is opularly known as “ the test oath, ” and I won (1 not even accept that as conclusive, as barring further investigation which might contradict the presumption raised by it and I care not, so for as this question is concerned, whether the test oath be decided constitutional or unconstitution al; while it is a part of the law of the land, I would use it as a means of arriving at a knowledge of facts upon which the claims of the applicant should be decided. If it should cease to be law, I would arrive at a knowledge of the same facts by other means, and the result should be the same. No man. after the commission of treason against the U.S., was ever admitted to a seat upon the floor of congress; and no such one, With my sanction r shall be and Congress has expelled members, after admission, for disloyalty, in the absence of overt acts which would support a prosecution for treason; and under similar circumstances, and for the same cause, I would sanction such action again. 2. I must know that the constituency from which the applicant comes is of sufficient loy alty to preserve or maintain, as against home disalfectiou, a republican State government in harmony with that of the U.S., without the support of the militar power of the country, an that his credentia s are signed by n Governor constitution ally elected and administering such State gove rnment, which must no more recognize, as legal or binding, anything done in ai of the rebellion, than it did before the rebellion was inaugurated. Then each several application must stand upon its own individual merits. Judging of the people of these States by this rule, from what is publicly or officially known of their condition, I should determine that it is not such as to entitle them, at present, to representation. They have been declared by proclamation of the Executive in rebellionas waging war against the U.S.; and I am et notified of no proclamation of eace, or that martial law has been superseded y civil in any or either of them. From what is known privately and unofficial tlji; of them I am of the opinion that some of cm are in a condition to entitle them to representation; and that if an investigation of the facts proves their condition to be such as before indicated their loyal representatives should be permitted to qualify at the earliest day possible. I need not tell you that the condition of our country, especially with re,ard to our finances and in view of our foreign relations, demands that we be united at the ear liest day practicable consistent with the public safety, which is always a paramount necessity. With regard, however, to the people of most of these States, I am free to say, that so far as I 1866. 141 am able to judge of their condition and of public sentiment in them, from the tone oft eir toss, and the general character and antecedents of those recently elected to offices ofhonor and trust, they are far, very far indeed, from being what they were before the rebellionof filling what I should consider prerequisites for the admission of their representatives; and until these rerequisites are met and satisfied, whether it e one year or ten years, or more, I would govern them by martial law and without representation; and i necessa to preserve the territory in the interest of loya tyif the present population should prove incorrigibleI wou d sweep their landed estates from them by confiscation, and recolonize the country with loyal citizens. I am happy, however, to say that, in my opinion, a resort to such extreme measures will not be necessary; but at the same time I must say that restoration has been retarded, and the questions involved in it compli cated, by permitting power to get too soon into the hands of whitewashed rebels instead of placing it exclusively in the hands of Union men, and organizing upon them as a nucleus; the consequence of which is that they(the Union men) are now as much proscribed, if notactively ersecuted, throughout the great portion of the oath as they were during the rebellion. I would love just here to enter a plea for the Union men of the South, but must forego that pleasure for the present. But I hear it said that we must reconstruct upon a basis which will forever preclude the possibility of another rebellion. I confess, Owever, my astonishment at the serious entertainment of such an idea. Why, sir, the Almighty himself cannot organize a Government with provisions or guarantees which shall preclude the possibility of a rebellion inst it. The only guarantees against rebelhon of which I am aware are 1. To lodge within the Government the right to use all its resources to crush rebellion, which is an essential prerequisite, expressed or implied in every Government; and 2. A wise, just, and which administration of the Government by party in power, by which the affections of the people are confirmed in favor of its preservation. Let it be administered in an oppressive and tyrannical manner, and so soon as sufficient numbers become estranged toward it in their affections, and fail of redress or justice through poace able measures, so soon will they apeal to the God of battles; and guaranteesF care not what they arewill be thrown to the winds. I appeal to the history of the world, and of the Government of thenniverse, moral and political, in verification of the truth of this doctrine. All history proclaims it, and all men who have read intelligent know it. I trust, sir, that the administration of this Government by “the party of the Union” will be so wise and so just as, 1st, to give the party favor with the people and thus long continue the administration of affairs in their hands, and 2nd, to seal the affections of the people to the Government, by which, together with a little time and the social friction incident to American society, we may confidently hope and expect soon again to see the people of this great country united, not only in theory and by law, but in feeling, in sympathy, and in the great work of civil and religious liberty, of human regress. in all its material interests, and of reedom, looking with increased veneration to the constitution and Government of our fathers as the common guardian, and to the old flag as the emblem of all, and rejoicing ugainin the proud title of Ansm exs CITIZEN.