Mr. KERR. Mr. Speaker, it is proposed by the amendment of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEvens] to House bill No. 543 to reduce ten States of the Union to the condition of Territories, and govern them, not as Territories of the U.S. have hitherto been governed, nor even as conquered provinces, but as peoples dependent upon congress for every right they shall enjoy, whether of life, liberty, or property. This proposition is not only anomalous, but it is starth ng and revolutionary. It has no precedent in the history of free &v. It finds no rational justification in the real circumstances of the States to be thus denationalized. It rests for its defense upon a series of assumptions. Some of these are so absurd and baseless as merely to indicate a hopeless confusion of ideas or perverseness of jud othe part of their inventors. To such I shall give no attention. Others, equally unsupported by fäcts and alike void of legal or constitutional foundation, deserve attention because they profess a greater or less degree of conformity to law. It is assumed in the preamble to the bill to which I have referred that “the 11 States which lately formed the government called the “confederate States of America' have forfeited all their rights under the Constitution, and can be reinstated in the same only through the action of Congress.” This preamble asserts 2 propositions: 1st, the forfeiture; and 2ndly, the exclusive power of Congress to restore. Neither of these propositions is tena ble, and the failure of the 1st destroys the foundation of the 2nd. But the establishment of the 1st would not vindicate the truth of the 2nd. How have these States forfeited their rights under the Constitution? The Constitution affords no answer to this inquiry in direct and specific terms. It does not authorize the forfeiture of the rights of States in any manner whatever. It was adopted to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domes tic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, fo. the general welfare, and secure the lessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. The high and sacred office of the Constitution is to preserve, not to destroy, the rights of States. hen States are once permitted to enter the sanctuary of the Constitution the Union they cannot be taken or driven thence, even for punishment. It is made the imperative duty of all the States to protect each of them against invasion or domestic violence. The discharge of these high duties may some times, as in the late rebellion, require the aid of such !". forces as shall assume the forms and magnitude of war. But these facts in no degree change the oblitions or enlarge the powers of the Federal government. The ends for the attainment of which these forces may be used must always remain the same. Any attempt on the part of the Government to extend ho will be an assumption of ungranted powers and amount to usurpation. The only wise and noble purposes of written constitutions of government are to define and limit power; not in times of t peace alone, but at all times; not as against one dept of the Government alone, but against all the depts and agents of the Government and against the people. Attempted revolution against the Government cannot jus tify revolution by the Government. There is no way by which the limitations on power in the Constitution can be suspended except the mode prescribed by itself. No preponderance of popular majorities ean for an instant produce any such result. There is no “higher law” than the Constitution. It is supreme over all within its prescribed sphere. The federal Government, therefore, cannot destroy a State unless it 1st assumes the office and atti tude of a revolutionist. It can compel obedience, but not destroy. It can suppressrebellion, but cannot make States criminals and subject them to trial, confiscation, forfeiture, or punishment; it can only deal thus with persons. Once a State always a State, or there is no virtue, no vitality in our system. The reserved rights, or sovereignty if you please, of States must be respected and maintained. I do not mean that theory of “State rights” which is such a terror, in these reckless and revolution ary times to certain men and timid old ladies in this country; nor that imaginary hideous monster, “State sovereignty, ” which is denounced with such a fervor of malediction by people who know not what it means; nor that vicious dogma to which the South appealed to justify secession. But I do mean that rational.glorious principle which was established by ourancestors as the chief corner stone of the Republic when they erected our matchless system of government, with a writ ten Constitution to delegate, define, and limit the powers of the Federal Government, and in othey expressly declared that “The powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to people.” the I do mean that great and conservative doctrine which maintains that each government shall sacredly observe and respect the bound aries of its own power, and not attempt to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the other; which denies to the central Government the right to invade that residuum of power which is reserved to the States and constitutes their chief value and highest trust in our system of government; which guaranties to them the inestimable and inalienable right of local self government; which makes them the safest guardians of the dearest, the daily, and fireside rights and interests of the people. this this kind of “State rights” which has found a champion in every great statesman and jurist who has reflected honor and made his impress upon our country and our institutions. I might quote from their immortal but now neg lected or despised, words and admonitions on this great subject until the sun shall have gone down, but I will not. Out of the very numerous utterances of the Supreme Court of similar import I will cite one only, and that from one of the latest and most solemn judgments of that great tribunal, pronounced by a distinguished judge, who was never identified with the political party of strict construction. He says, in the case of Cummings vs. the State of Missouri, a few days ago, speaking for the court: “We admit the of the counsel for the State of Missouri that the States which existed previous to the adoption of possessedoriginally the Federal, Constitution all the attributes of sovereignty; that they still retain those attributes, except as they have been surrendered by the formation of the state constitution upon and the amendments thereto; that the new their admission into the Union, became invested with equalrights, and were thereafter subject only to similar restrictions; and that amongthe rights reserved to the States is the right of each State to determine the qualifications for office and the conditions upon which its citizens may exercisetheir various callings and pursuits within its jurisdiction.” These are honest, loyal, immortal words, spoken in the interest of the people, of liberty and law. They fitly vindicate the wisdom ôf our fathers in the organization of that great tribunal of last resort. They bear testimony to the despairing patriot that our country can endure the storms of civilWar and yet preserve the essential principles of liberty. Has the war forfeited the rights of these States? If it had been a foreign war, waged for conquest, we might, upon precedents, but withoutjustice, appeal to the tyrant's logic, that “might makes right, ” to justify anything we may desire to do with those States. But it was not a foreign war. It was a war on the part of the General Government to suppress insurrection againstits authority, “to insure domes tic tranquillity, ” and to maintain the States in their appropriate oand enforce obedience from the people. It was a mere attempt on the part of the Federal Government to ere cute the laws, and the vindication of the laws terminates the power. This vindication includes the personal punishment of the individual offenders; but this punishment can only be inflicted after trial and conviction “ to law.” In these opinions I am fully sustained by the decision of the Supreme Court in the prize cases. Judge Grier, on this point, expressing the unanimous opinion of the court, says: “By the Constitution Congressalone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare war against a State or any number of States by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Consti tuotwioen coHnefers on the President the whole executive is bound to take care that the laws be aithfully executed.” The very learned decision of Justice Sprague, of Massachusetts, in the case of the “Amy War wick, ” is so directly and forcibly in point in this connection that I cannot omit a citation from it. He says: “It has been supposed that if the rights of a the Government have othen, after the rebellion is suppressed, it will have the rights of conquest: that a State, and its inhabitants may be permanently divested of all political privileges and treated as foreign territory acquired by arms. This is an error: a to, and dangerous error. Belligerent rightseannot o exercised where there are no belligerents. conquest of a foreign country gives absolute and unlim ited sovereign rights; but no nation ever makes such a conquest of its own territory. If a power, either from without or within hostile a nation, takes portions on, and holds absolute, dominion, over any of its territory, and the nation by force of arms expels or overthrows the enemy and suppresses hostilities, it acquires no new title but merely regains the ssession of which it has beentemporarily 3. nation acquires no new sovereignty, but merely maintains its previous rights.” There is another paragraph from the mas terly opinion of the same high court, promul gated in the language of another eminent mag istrate, himself the judicial appointee of President Lincoln, and also having no connection or sympathy with any political party of strict construction, which is so full of truth, so bravely and earnestly uttered, and is so merited a vindication of the foresight and wisdom of our early fathers that it. be graven upon the memory of every American citizen. I beg the indulgence of the House to hear it. It is from the late opinion of the court, by Justice Davis, in exparte Milligan: “Time has proven the discernmentof ourancestors, for even theseprovisions [referring to the provisions of the Constitution designed to protect the personal liberties of the people] expressed in such plain English words that it would seemtheingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than 70 years, sought to great beavoided. Those and good men foresaw that troublous times rweosutilvde aurnisdeerwrehsetnrariunlte, rasnadnsdecpkeboyples, hwaorpuldanbded coemcie sive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper; and that the principles of erty constitutional lib would be in peril unless established by irre pealable law. The history of the world had taught them that, what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the U.S. is a law for rulers and people equally in war and in peace, and coverswith the shield of its protection all classes of men at all timesand u all circumstances. No doctrine involving more perni cious consequenceswas ever invented by the wit, of man than that any of its provisions can be during any suspended of the great exigencies of Government. such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despot ism, but the theory of necessity on which it is faailise, for the Governmentwithin the constitution has the powers granted to it which, are necessary to preserveits existence, as by the result of the great efhfoarst been happily proyed to throw off its just authority.” Of like import, touching the powers of congress over the States lately in rebellion, is the decision of another of the venerable justices of the Supreme Court, (Nelson,) lately made on his circuit in NewYork, on the application of certain citizens of SCarolina to be discharged from Federal imprisonment. That learned justice did not hesitate to recognize that State as being as much a State in the Union as the State of NewYork. These judicial opinions are in such clear har mony with the philosophy of our Government that they cannot fail soon to secure the approbation of the popular judgment unless we are doomed to the loss of our liberties and the overthrow of our cherished institutions by the mad and reckless spirit that rules the hour. I claim, therefore, that these States never were out of the Union. Every act of theirs or of their people designed to take them out was a failure or a nullity. It involved a personal crime only, and destroyed the practical relations of representation and cooperation which should exist at all times between the States and the Federal Government, but did not in any just or rational sense involve State suicide or State abdication or increase the powers of Congress over the States. Any other theory results in stultification. It is a confession of insincerity, of hypocrisy, and a covert purpose of revolution on the part of the majority who have controlled the country during the last 6 years. If its present policy is car ried out it will effo, revolutionize the Government. It will prove that we have more power and ability to resist the dangers of war than to guard against those of peace. I verily.believe that the most difficult duty ever devolved upon Governments or rulers is the pacification of discontented subjects or citizens. This duty seems to acquire tenfold greater embarrassments under a free Government, because the parties to popular disturbances are the people, and the most potent impulses of their natures become involved in the controversy and obscure their better judgments. The late war on our part was but a mighty display of the police power of the Government in aid of the civil authorities and to reestablish them. That duty done and the Army's and Navy's work was finished. The high prerogative of national mercy and pardon is committed by the express language of the Constitution to the Chief Magistrate of the U.S., who is by the same authority m.ade Commander in Chief of the Army and He cannot even delegate it to another or divide the responsibility of its exercise. I quote again from the decision of the Supreme Court in exparte Garland: “The Constitution provides that the President shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for iomffpeenasechs men against the U.S., except in cases of ?os. The power thus conferred is unlim with the exception stated: it extends to every offense known to. lawr and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon nor beexcnlingdnepfrreormogiatstiveexercise any class of  offenders. The of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restriction.” This beneficent power has been exercised in great wisdom and moderation by the President. The great body of the people lately in insurrection against the Government have been pardoned either by general amnesty or special grant.. These pardons, were all given before conviction. Of such the Supreme Court, in the same case, repeating the language in substance of all the decisions on this subject, say: “If granted before conviction they prevent any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching.” Yet the bill under consideration, in very contempt of the Constitution, laws, and court, utterly ignores all these facts. It assumes the to punish the recipients of these parons by imposing upon them most unjust and odious disabilities. In its 7th section, by novel and absurd provisions, it attempts to impose perpetual disabilities and singular punishments upon the States themselves, the corporations, which can no more be the subjects of punishment than they can be the recipients of executive pardon. In all its provisions it is so pregnant with mischief and so violative of correct and elementary principles that it certainly could not survive the test of judicial onation if it should unfortunately become a law. The bill assumes that the existing State governments were illegally formed, and then graciously concedes to them a temporary validity for municipal purposes. I have shown that no forfeiture of the rights of States, or of the right of the people to self government in the States resulted from the attempt to secede. If, therefore, at the close of the war these States were out of their proper relations of harmony and cooperation with the Federal Government it was their imperative duty by their own voluntary action to resume those relations. They have done so. They have voluntarily removed, exorcised, from their State governments every hostile or unconstitutional power or enactment, every indication of rebel ious purpose, and 100s of laws and powers before the war deemed legal and constitutional, but now out of harmony with the spirit of the times. It is further assumed in the bill that these things were done under duress. But this assumption is wholly gratuitous. There is no fact in the entire history of these changes in their local governments and laws that tends to establish such an assertion. The whole extent of the President's exercise of influence to secure them consisted in the expression of opinions and the giving of advice. The people of those States were at liberty to adopt his advice or reject it. That it was sound and patriotic no man will now deny. It was given in the interest of national reunion and pacification alone. It violated no executive duty. It transcended no executive power. But it is said by way of reproach or complaint that the President appointed provisional governors for those States. e was Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. In the language of the Supreme Court “The Constitution confers on the President the whole executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It was therefore his duty to know when the war had ceased and the lawful authority of the U.S. had been restored and established and hostile populations had been reduced to obedience. e needed no legislative action to inform him of these facts. He is the great head of the Government, to whom all such information is communicated by all its subor dinate officers. It is his duty, as the sworn conservator of the Constitution, to remember that when the authority of the Government over any insurrectionary district or people has been reestablished, it does not resume possession under a new title as conqueror, but under its old title as the legitimate Government of the country. In this great emergency, this new and terrible experience of our country, he tried to do his duty, and, in my judgment, has committed fewer errors in action or principle than any ruler similarly situated ever did in the history of Governments before. He found governments in each of those States upon the suppression of the rebellion that were in many respects not in harmony with the Federal Government under the Constitution, and he therefore could not recognize them as rightful State governments in the Union. The people had given up their resistance and returned to obedience, but had not undone the hostile attempts to change their State governments. To aid them in doing this, and to facilitate their transition from a military occupancy and hostile form of State governments to complete voluntary accord with the requirements of the Constitution, he appointed provisional governors. He assigned them a few obvious and simple duties calculated to facilitate the accomplishment of the great duty of restoration. But he did violence to no great principle. He exercised no arbitrary power. He recognized the great original right of the people to local self government. In the language of the Supreme Court, in Chisholm vs. reorgia, 75 years ago, he held that “A State does not owe its origin to the Government of the U.S. in the highest or in any of its branches. It was in existence E. it. It derives its authority from the same pure and sacred source as itself, the voluntary and deliberate choice of the people.” In my judgment the interposition of provisional governors adds nothing to the validity of the present State governments in the South. It merely aided in their speedy formation. Their validity, vitality, and sacredness all arise from the consent of the people. If they had been dictated by the President or Congress they would have lacked the very 1st principle of ol. governments. This is a wicked attempt to impose governments upon them by the usurped and despotic power of Congress, in violation of this sacred principle. But it is claimed that the President had no power to recognize these restored State governments in the South. The continued existence of the States themselves as States in the Union had been recognized in 1000ways by Congress and every dept 6f the Government, from the inception of the war until this present hour. These States are not Territories of the U.S. within the meaning of the Constitution, and never can be. They needed no enabling acts to authorize them to reform their State governments. They relood no congressional permission to do their duty. It was their office, and theirs alone, to undo as far as possible what they had done amiss. It was the duty of the chief executive officer of the nation, the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, to know when these States had resumed relations in entire harmony with the lawful authority of the Federal Government. Without this knowledge he could not wisely discharge the duties devolving upon him in either capacity. He must possess it to enable him to direct properly the movements of the military and civil forces and officers under his control. Having it, it became his duty to act upon it, and be controlled by it to its logical results. He is made the constitutional recipient of all such information in the 1st instance. It is thus, by clear and conclusive inference, made his duty to act upon such knowledge in the performance of his great duty to see that the laws be faithfully executed. He represents primarily the political power of the Government. In the Dorr rebellion in RhdIsland, in 1842, the President recognized the old charter government as the legitimate government of that State, and in Luther vs. Borden, a case which arose out of “those troubles, the SCOTUS held that the President was authorized to make such recognition, and that his action was binding on the court. The decision was based upon the impregnable ground that without this power the President could not in all cases execute the laws, and especially in the protection of States against domestic violence, for he could not lawfully determine which was the legitimate State government entitled to Federal protection. In 1861, just after the State of Virginia had withdrawn from Congress, a revolutionary government was organized at Wheeling, which as sumed to be the government of that State, although it only represented in part the portion of the State west of the mountains, and it elected Senators to Congress (Carlile and WILLEY) who claimed admission as representatives in the senate for the State of Virginia. Their admission was resisted on various grounds. The organization at Wheeling was in every respect irregular, and represented the voluntary action of a mere section of the people of that State. But President Lincoln recognized it as the legitimate government of Virginia, and the Senators were admitted to seats. The grounds upon which it was done are very forcibly stated by one of the wisest Senators and best men then in congress, Judge Collamer, who is now dead. His views apply with equal propriety and force to the present attitude of the States of the South. Their governments have been recognized by the Executive, and are in every respect more regular and the more legitimate offspring of the will of the people than was that revolutionary government in Virginia. I beg the attention of the House while I cite, as briefly as may be, Judge Collamer's views. I read from the Globe, volume 45 page 106:, “There are 2 difficulties which are suggested in cthoims incagsfero. mFirastn, eitwisgosvaeidrnm the antt tohfis Virsgianicae, rtaificnaetwe organization separated from the restof the State, but acting for the State as a State. This is in the nature qouf aalijfuicdaictiioanl, proceeding; we are now judging of the of our members. It is not, at all an uncommon thing in our highest tribunals that points arise in the investigation of cases, where the court are constrained to say, "that is a political question; with that the courts have nothing to do.” For instance, whether a foreignos; menced has become an independent people, whether in court it is to be treated and considered as a nation, is not a point on which the court can decide. That is Government uheasstiorenc;eaivneddifmtihneisteexrescfurotimvethheaat dPoofwtehre, recognized it as a Power on earth, the courts cannot go into the question whether he did it right or did, it wrong. It is a matter of political action, and the political power is what settles it, and we cannot examine into it any more. “ In analogy to that, in this judieial proceeding, must we not begoverned by the fact that the government of Virginia that has executed thesepapers and sent them to us is recognized by our Executive 7 They have called on him for militia, and have received militia from him. He recognizesthem as government the of Virginia. It is a political question; is settled. There, is no occasion for qur, inquiring urther into that., We, as a judicial body, on question, have nothing this to do with that. Here is the executive of of this Government that State teh, er recognized by the Executive is the end of that subject.” But the advocates of this bill and of like revolutionary measures tell the country that the governments of these southern States are not “republican inform, ” and that “the U.S shall guaranty to every State in this Union a RFG.” This provision supplies no justification whatever for the monstrous policy of these measures. It gives Congress no shadow of right to dictate constitutions to States of this Union or to Territories. Every contemporaneous interpretation of it is utterly inconsistent with any such idea. Our forefathers never tolerated by any act of theirs any such invasion by congress of the primary and inalienable right of self government in the people. In its true intent and spirit this provision is rather designed to prohibit just such changes in the local governments as the pending measures contemplate. Hamilton says, “this guarantee could only operate against changes to be effected by violence, ” and that it is “as much directed against the usurpation of rulers as against the ferments and outrages of faction and sedition in the community, ” Mr. Madison says:.; “The authority extends no further than to a guarantee of a RFG which supposes a preeristing government of the form which is to be guarantied. long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the States they are guarantied by the Federal Government. hen ever the State may choose to substitute other republican forms they have a right to do so, and to claim the Federal guarantee for the latter.” In these views Judge Story fully concurs. Now, Mr. Speaker, what have these States done that is not in strict accord with othese opinions and principles? Their governments are as thoroughly republican in form as those of any other part of the Union. They are all representative, with such deptal subdivisions to facilitate administration as have been approved by the experience of our whole country, and they all rest upon the consent and voluntary action of the people. It is falsely assumed that they were “formed in the midst of martial law, ” and therefore do not represent the will of the people. It is true that the military power of the Federal Government held possession of several parts of their territory. But these State governments were so changed by the people, without any interference whatever, military or martial, as to make them harmonize with the Federal government under the Constitution, so as to remove every line and vestige of hostility to the latter, in order that the presence of any military power of the Government should become unnecessary. I have no doubt that they this day more nearly represent the will and actual consent of their entire people than do the governments of any other equal number of States in the Union. It is further objected that these constitutions were not submitted for ratification to the people. With all due respect I cannot appreciate this as anything but a political subterfuge. As to the mode of ratifying constitutions of States there is no settled practice in our country; the mode of ratification, like the constitution itself, must be chosen by each State according to its own pleasure. It is a matter of very mine r importance. The modes and practice adopted by different States in the history of the formations of our constitutions have been very diverse. The truth is that the changes made in these southern State constitutions were generally very few in number, and such only as were necessary to abolish the changes interpolated into them during the rebellion, and make them harmonize again with the Federal Constitution. In the propriety of making these changes the popular mind of those States was almost a unit, and a submission of them to popular ratification would have been but a useless formula. But, Mr. Speaker, the undisguised and, in my humble opinion, most unrighteous purpose of all this kind of legislation is to usurppowers over those States that can find no warrant except in the fierce will of the dominant party in this Congress. It is alike at war with overy principle of good and free government and with the highest dictates of humanity and national fraternity. The real aim of this bill is to enable this Congress to subordinate all government in those States to its own partisan will and the accomplishment of its own ascendency in the country. I cannot perceive a single material result that can be attained by this bill that will not involve a palpable violation of some express provision of the Constitution. It proposes to degrade those States to territories, and put them substantially under the government of Congress. For this act no man can show a scintilla of constitutional authority. It proposes to impose punishments upon certain chasses of the people in the nature of various disabilities for offenses which were not thus punishable when committed. But the Constitution says “no expostfacto law shall be passed.” It proposes to prescribe the qualifications for office in States of this Union in violation of their reserved rights, as lately adjudged by, the Supreme Court. It proposes to disfranchise certain classes of citizens by mere legislative declaration, without trial or conviction according to law. It proposes a retrospective and, unconstitutional test, oath, the principle of which has just received judi. cial condemnation at the hands of the Supreme Court. It proposes by its 7th section to make the States which shall come into the Union under its o:unequal and infe rior in dignity and rights to all the others, and liable in certain cases to cease to be States in the Union and to lose their right to be represented in Congress. It proposes to make a mere act of ordinary legislation perpetual and irrepealable by any future Congress. It proposes by a sort of legislative supplement to the Constitution to declare what sort of laws and constitutions the States shall hereafter make. Let me read this 7th section: Sre.7. Abife:, That no constitutionshall bepresented to oracted onby Congresswhich denies to any citizen any right, privileges, or immu nities which are granted to any other citizen in the State. All laws shall be impartial, without regard to language, race, or former condition. If the provisions of this sectionshould everbeaftered.repealed. expunged, or in any way abrogated, this act shall becomevoid and said State lose its right to be representedin Congress. Now, Mr. Speaker, are we to believe that our revolutionary sires, after their long and bloody struggles with tyrants and tyranny, so little understood the logic of either as to in trust such dangerous powers as these to any dept of the Government? No, never; they had learned the value and necessity for written constitutions, that should be supreme law alike to rulers and peqple. But this bill attempts to prescribe the qualifications for voting in those States, in violation of another express provision of the Constitution. And here is disclosed another of the cherished purposes of the dominant party in such legislation. They are determined to confer universal suffrage on the negroes of the South. Very few men of any intelligence will yet claim for Congress the power to go into the northern States of the Union and prescribe the qualifications for suffrage in them. Yet no more wer exists in Congress to regulate suffrage in the States of the South than in those of the North. No man can produce a line of respect able authority for either. During the last ses.sion of this Congress I discussed this subject in this House with reference to the authorities bearing upon it, and I now refer to what I then said. I now merely repeat that all power over this subject resides in the States alone. Whether and when and owhat terms the negro may exercise the right of suffrage each State has the right to settle for itself. The venerable Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. BrNoHAM] in his able speech on this bill, indulged in some very starth ng propositions that seem to me not to be very consistent with his opposition to the bill. if I were compelled to.between his theory of Federal power over the southern States and the bill itself I think I would prefer the latter, as being, if pos. sible, the least dangerous and revolutionary. He assumes that the States represented in this House alone “are the nation, ” and that “there is no American nationality” outside of them, and that the States to be affected by this bill “have no power to legislate upon any subject affecting the life, liberty, or property of an American citizen, save by the sufferance of the American nation, ” and that “by their rebellion they ceased to possess the power or legal coactive force for local State government.” I am not sure that my acquaintance with the political vocabulary of the Radicals is sufficient to enable me to understand just what all this means. But I think I am safe in assuming that it means that the Radical party have the power and intend to exercise it to govern this country without the aid of the unrepresented States, the Constitution, or the Supreme Court. If the unrepresented States are no part of the “nation, ” it readily follows that they need not be counted in ratifying the proposed constitutional amendments. It is not so clear where the U.S. obtains power to govern States that are no part of do nation.” This whole doctrine is utterly subversive of the principles of constitutional government. I think I have already sufficiently answered it. It is not sustained by a single respectable authority in the political or judicial history of our Government. If it is, why are they not presented for our consideration? In so grave a matter as the proposed congressional government of States, there should be taken the utmost care to vindicate both its propriety and constitutionality. The learned Gentfrom Ohio assumes that there is some countenance iven to his theory in the decisions of the upreme Court in Luther vs. Berden, and in the prize cases. I am wholly unable to find any authority whatever in either of those cases to justify any such dogma. But I do find in them ample vindication for the positions I have endeavored to maintain, and I have cited from those cases. In truth, the whole course of decisions upon constitutional questions in that court; and especially those lately promulgated, are in irreconcilable conflict with all the leading measures and policy of the dominant party in Congress, and by the plainest logical sequence pronounce judgment of condemnation against them all in advance. Hence arises the growing hostility of Radicalism toward that great tribunal. The country may well anticipate an early attempt by the radical despotism that now claims to be the “nation” and to measure its power by its own will to reduce that last.".national safety to its control, and to make the judges mere clerks to record as law the edicts of party and caucus. The Gentfrom Ohio has pointed out the way. He suggests to his co workers that they “sweep away at once its appellate jurisdiction in all cases, “ and thus take from it nearly every opportunity to pass upon the unconstitutional measures of his party. but if the court should still, as often as its remaining jurisdiction might afford it proper occasion, put the seal of judicial condemnation upon the lawless doings of his party, then he invites you to seek its final destruction. Hear his sum mons, and let the country hear it and take warning of our danger: “If, however, the court usurps power to decide political questions and defy a free people's will, it will only remain for a people thus insulted and defied to demonstrate that the servant is not above his lord, by procuring a further constitutional amendment and ratifying thesame, which will defy judicial by annihilating the usurpers intion the aboli of the tribunal itself.” Yes, if the Supreme Court, a coordinate dept of this Government, gets in the way of Radicalism it must be destroyed. It must not be allowed to insult a “free people's will” by the faithful discharge of its duty under the Constitution. If the President, the representative of another coordinate dept of the Government, gets in the way of Radicalism be, too, must be disposed of Congress must be king; it is the “nation.” Constitutions must be remade, modified, or abolished if the exig encies of party demand it. And this must be done by a part only of the States, such a part as the party is willing to hear. We hear a great deal about the “American nationality, ” and “the nation, ” and the “People's will, ” and “the life of the Republic, ” and “a politic personality, ” and other transcendental terms and phrases, but they are all intended to operate upon the people, as a sort of political mirage, to inspire them with false hopes and lead them into political chaos or despotism. Mr. Speaker, when I reflect upon these most extraordinary assumptions of power and most revolutionary threats against the integrity of the Constitution my heart sinks within me, and I almost despair for the Republic and for the preservation of liberty in our country. If we are to be saved from such a fate, it must needs be by an interposition of Divine Providence to arouse the people to a consciousness of their great perils.