Mr. HENDRICKS. Very well, then, as the Senator is not able to say, his criticism upon that point has not much weight. Crom well held the power in England for 12 years, or about that length of time. His government was a usurpation. It was treate so by its opponents during its entire existence. It was treated so after it ceased to exist and after the monarchs were restored to the throne. It was treated so by the execution of men connected with that government, men who had connected themselves with the political move ments and the military movements of the protectorate; but no man after the Restoration brought a charge against any judge because he had administered law and equity among the people of England. It is left for as among our race to aver that it is a crime to hold a court in a State under the State authorities, under a defucfo government, ifyou please. It is left for us to so that a man who dischar as that duty to mankind is guilty of a crime. Mr. Collamer, who was a well read historian as well as a light in the law, stated the case of Chief Justice Hale as applicable to the case of the people in the southern States. There was no c arge against that distinguished statesman that he sympathized with the southern cause it was not questioned that he was patriotic and true to his country, but he said that the discharge of judicial powers, the exercise of a judicial 0 cc under these State governments was no crime. They were governments do f note, the authority and the power of the Government of the YU.S. was for the time suspended and he who exercised an office which gave no aid and comfort to the rebellion was not guilty of crime. Is it the o iiiion of learned Senators that for 5 years the people of the southern States were to remain Without the administration of the law? Is it the opinion of learned Senators that a government defado being established no man ared to exercise the powers of a judge under that government for 've years? Mr. President, I believe that upon this question I am so unfortunate as, perhaps, not to agree exactly with any political party. I believe that the States of this Union are inde structible. I believe that they continued to exist during the period of the whole rebellion, and that their attempt to detach themselves from the Government of the U.S and to attach themselves to another government was simply null and void. I believe that during the whole period of the rebellion the governments of the States continued to exist, and I look for the time when the SCOTUS will say that the acts of the State governments during the entire period of the revolution, which were not political in their character, and which were not to contribute aid to the rebellion, were legal and valid, and that the acts of the confederate government, socalled, were ab initio void. For myself, I do not believe that the POTUS had any occasion to reorganize the State governments. That was my opinion about it. but he thoughtit to be his duty, and the people accepted his proposition, and the people gave validity and power and authority to that which he could contribute neither to. By the act of the pee la the new constitution has been adopted in 01111Carolina and other States. It is not because the President suggested that it should be done, but because the people acquiesced in the proposition and breathed into the new organization the breath of life. I believe that those State governments continued during all the of the rebellion; that in the eye oftlperiod e law their connection with the' Government of the U.S. was never broken; that their resolutions of secession were simply nothing; that their old obligation to the U.S and their legal connection with the U.S. continued all the while, and that it was perfectly right and proper for any man to hold a judicial office in any State of the Union. Sir, we cannot go the ength of saying that in the case of a revolution, when a government defacto is established and the authority and power of the Government of the U.S or the time being is suspended, the laws shall not be administered. this in the cause of humanity that courts shall be held. m1 Then, upon this question, Mr. President, my opinion goes somewhat further than the tech nical points which have been made. If Mr. Pu'rnnsox held the ofice of judge in the State of Tennessee and under the authority of the State of Tennessee, it is no treason, it is no wrong; it is a ht and virtuous act, for which we cannot u him and for which we cannot drive him from the Senate, if the people of Tennessee have rightfully elected him. 7 This, sir, is an important question, if we shall say that it is necessarily treason to hold any Office whatever in the States of the South during the rebellion. I am not prepared to go so far. I do not think it is the spirit of the statute, or the spirit of the rule of the Senate; but, sir, I agree with the Senfrom Pennsylvania upon the technical question made by him that the proposed Senator is to take the oath under the rule; and if that oath be not true, then the question comes up before the Senate whether the Senate has been offended, by that act, and upon that question 2/3rds albue can render an effective vote.