Mr. HISE addressed the House for one hour. [His speech will be published in Appendix] SPEECH OF HON. ELIJAH HISE, OF KENTUCKY, February 7, 1867. The Househaving under consideration the bill (H.R.No. 1143) to provide for the more effectualgovernment of the insurrectionary States. Mr. HISE said: Mr. SpeakER: Hf had not been prepared, by other measures hitherto adopted and others hitherto introduced into this House, I should not have been less startled at the introduction of this than if I had received the sudden intelligence that the ten States enumerated in this bill had been sunk by some great convulsion of nature and submerged under an oceanic del uge. I acknowledge, however, that I have been to a considerable degree prepared to anticipate the introduction of this or some similar measurein this House by the committee to which I have been attached. The chairman of the ComReconstruction, in laying the foundation for the authority of this Congress to adopt this most extraordinary measure, has made a most extraordinary assumption, namely, that the States by their attempt to retire from the Union, and the efforts of their people to cast off the authority of the Constitution and laws of the U.S and to set up a separate and independent government for themselves, thus giving occasion for the prosecution of a war by which they were finally subdued and their severance from the Union thus prevented, are thereby to be regarded as occupying the position of territories of a foreign country, conquered by us as such, and subject therefore to the unlimited authority of the Congress of the U.S., which has complete and plenary power to institute over them or their inhabitants such government, civil or military, as it may choose to establish, regardless of the charter under which the Congress of the U.S. derived its own existence and authority, and regardless of all the limitations and restrictions upon the exercise of power by Congress therein contained. such, sir, is the ground upon which the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEvens] assumes to exercise this most extraordinary authority. He likens it to a case of a war with a foreign Power, where the conquered people are dependent upon the mercy of their conquerors even for their continued existence as a i. He founds his assumption upon what he calls the laws and usages of war as defined o by standard authorities upon international law and as observed in the conflicts between civilized nations, and by which authority is erro neously claimed to institute a military despot ism and impose it upon the people inhabiting that conquered territory, thus placing their lives, liberty, and private estates at the disposal of the commander of the forces detailed to maintain his authority. I think I have stated briefly as I could the position assumed by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania as the foundation of the authority of Congress to pass this bill. On the other hand, the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. BINGHAM,) repudiating expressly the ground of authority assumed by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, and maintaining that the late insurgent States are still States of the Union, and that they never have been otherwise, claims that the authority for the passage of this or any other measure in regard to the people inhabiting these ten States is to be derived from the constitution of the U.S. alone. Now, sir, in making an argument upon a great constitutional question like this, in such an.assembly as this Congress of a great confederate Government of 38 States, with the high reputation of those gentlemen, they should be able to so put the statement of the case, so connect the line of argument, that there should be no mistake of fact, no misap plication of law, no sophism in their argu mentation. What they say should have all the accuracy, the neatness, and completeness of a piece of machinery adapted skillfully in all its parts to the consummation of a perfect whole, so that when it goes to the country it may deserve the influence which they intended it should exercise upon the minds of the people in creating public opinion. Now, sir, in the 1st place, I deny that a State once in the Union can ever get out of it except by force—never by law. And in considering this subject we must consider it in the light of the law as applicable, not of force, which would be applieable only in the event that such force is finally successful. If the attempt to sever their connection as States of the Union and to set up an independent Government for themselves did not prevail, then they have not lawfully effected a separation. The force, unless successful, does not alter the law of the case. The law, then, of the case is undoubtedly this: that this Congress has no existence as a legislative body except by virtue of the fundamental law which spoke it into existence. It has not one iota of authority beyond the grants of power contained in the Constitution of the U.S., that power to be carried out and executed by necessary and proper means to effectuate the great ends and objects for which the States confederated and agreed with one another upon the adoption of this constitutional charter. The functionaries of this dept of the Government were spoken into existence alone by virtue of that instrument. This statement cannot with truth or reason be denied. Now, when gentlemen assume the position that a bill before a legislative body is constitutional, they are bound, if it is questioned, to produce the constitutional authority. They are bound to refer to the article or clause which sanctions by fair, logical argument, and by just rules of interpretation, their assumption; because if the power is not found in the Constitution it does not exist, and congress cannot assume it. He who takes the position that a measure is unconstitutional of course does not, in his judgment, find or admit the existence of the power to pass it or to have it executed; if it is not found by him in his examination of the instrument it does not exist there; and when gentlemen are chal lenged to show the clause in the Constitution upon which the authority is based they are bound to produce it. Now, I have given close attention to the discussion of this bill, and though gentlemen have been repeatedly challenged to show their constitutional authority I have heard no intelligible response to the challenge. When asked where they find the constitutional provision upon which to base this bill, they have not answered it. Nowhere from beginning to end of that instrument can they find any authority—in none of the special grants of power contained in that instrument. Hence the Gentfrom Pennsylvania has been represented as saying that the Constitution is played eut, that the States having made an unsuccessful and abortive attempt at severance and independence the Congress of the U.S. is under no constitutional obligation whatever in regard to their government or treatment as States of the Union. Thus he sets aside the Constitution and claims that they are conquered territories, whose inhabitants are subject to the will of the conqueror, according to the usages i: war as defined by writers on international aw. Now, sir, the answer to that is full and com. by saying that you cannot speak in this all. You have no right to utter a word here except by virtue of the Constitution of the U.S. You have no authority to pass a law except by virtue of that instrument. If, then, the Constitution is to control, I deny the authority of this Government even in a war with a foreign Power to conquer territory and to take its inhabitants under its arbitrary do minion. There is power and authority to make war and peace, but I am thoroughly satisfied from my reading of our political history, as shown in the essays of 3 of the most learned members of the Federal Convention, Hamil ton, Jay, and Madison, as well as by later authors upon the subject, that it never was intended that this Government should make any other than defensive war. War for subjudgation, war for extending dominion, has no authority under our Constitution. Under the war making power of the Constitution aggressive wars for the conquest of foreign countries and to enslave their people were never intended to be authorized—only war for the protection of the independence of the States of the Confederacy which had been achieved by a long and bloody struggle with a foreign Government—to maintain our rights as a nation on the land and on the sea. The power to raise and port an Army and a Navy was intended only as a means of defense. The right of conquest does not exist under our Constitution, much less the authority to impose upon a conquered territory and its inhabitants a despotic government, such as does not and cannot exist under the Constitution of the U.S. Now, if gentlemen are right in their theory that these States are to be regarded as foreign territories, made foreign by their acts of secession, and the war was waged as a war against a foreign country and resulted successfully by the subjugation of their forces in the field, then the question comes up as to what authority the Government or the Congress of . the States has over the territory and the inhabitants of the territory so conquered. Now, I say that this Government has no right to set up any authority at home or abroad, for foreign or domestic purposes, not conferred by the Constitution of the U.S., which was intended, so far as we are concerned, to embody the laws of war and the laws of nations as applicable to our character of government, both State and Federal. Now, when we had the war with Mexico we conquered nearly the whole of that country. We conquered the States of NewMexico, California, Chihuahua, Tamaulipas, and Wota Cruz, and took possession of the capital of that republic. et so well convinced was the then existing Administration, at the head of which was Mr. Polk, that the Government of the U.S. could not by violence and force conquer and annex foreign territories and, under the Constitution of the U.S., govern the people of those territories arbitrarily, that they did not rely upon the right of title by Songuest at all. On the contrary, we obtained by the treaty of peace with Mexico a cession of a portion of her territory, for which we paid an equivalent in money. And when the subject of the admission of California was considered before Congress, and when the subject of imposing a territorial form of government upon NewMexico was under consideration in this House, in which there were then as Representatives the most intelligent, patriotic, and illustrious men that ever adorned our own or any other age, it was admitted that whether our title to the country was to be regarded as acquired by conquest, by subjugation of the inhabitants, and the taking possession of and holding the country by military power, or by cession and treaty, we had no authority to impose arbitrary and despotic government over the people of that country; but the laws and customs of the country as previously existing continued to exist in full force and vigor for their government, except so far as they might be in conflict with the Constitution of the U.S. I therefore ask my friendfrom Ohio, [Mr. BINGHAM, for whose acumen, judgment, and ability in making nice and accurate distinctions in argumentation as well as in legal ap F.”I have the highest respect—I ask him Gw in the name of common sense he can claim the authority and right to impose upon the inhabitants of these States an arbitrary military dominion contrary to the character of the Government of the U.S. itself, contrary to the representative principle, and contrary to our constitutional theory, that the military should ever be held to be subordinate to the civil authority?