Mr. COOK. Every individual citizen of each State in the Union has rights in every other Statethe right to acquire, possess, and dispose of property; the right to fix his domicile in any State, and to enjoy every civil and political right or privilege possessed by the citizens of sac 1 State; and to require that every State and every citizen of every State should contribute a propershare toward the common defense of the nation and bears proportionate part of all public burdens. An these rights o has, not by virtue of any State authority, but by virtue of the constitution of the U.S. The individual citizen sustains no relation to the national Government through or by authority of the State governments, but through the constitution of the U.S.; and this constitution, which secures to him these rights in each State, is superiorin authority, in respect to questions affecting the whole people, to any State authority. Icnce it is impossible that the action of any State can take such State out of the Union in such sense that the rights of the citizens of any other State shall be abrogated therein, or the authority of the U.S. Government, which is the act. r obstiniissioniihtiionii?:7 wh February; “1;?! of all the peeple of all the States, shall be subverted or impaired. State governments are political corporations, and derive their existence and powers as States in the Union from the assent of the whole people of the U.S. The whole people of any State can go into rebellion against the national Government, and in such case there can be no State government in such State acting in, accord with the national GOvernment under the constitution and so when such a controlling majority of the people of any State have thrown off their allegiance to the constitution and Government of the Union that the political authority of the State has been arrayed in active hostility to the nation, then such State governmentkisvde strayed antldead. iTtderiVHitsufeind power from its accord with the Federal constitution and Government, and when it is hostile to them it ceases to have power rightfully to bind any loyal man in its borders. This must be conceded by all who admit that the constitution and the laws enacted under it are the supreme law of the land. Then it follows that a State may go out of the Union in such sense as to lose all right to exercise any authority in the Government, and all right to be represented in the national councils. It is said that there have always been loyal men in those States who have all the rights of representation in congress that men in loyal States have, and that t cir right in this respect could not be affected by the action of any number ofrebels in those States. The answer is, the manner of the exercise of these rights must be prescribed by State law; these men cannot act excc it through State organizations. There must be a legislature to elect Senators and to prescribe by law the manner ofelect ng Representatives and the State governments necessary to do this may be, and actually have been, entirely destroyed in these southern States by the rebellion. The question whether these States are in or out of the Union seems to me to be irrelevant to this discussion, darkening counsel by words without knowledge. There is no dispute, so far as I am aware, upon 2 propositions: 1st, the States lately in rebellion have never been out of the Union in such sense that the laws of the U.S. have not been rightfully in full force in their bounds, or in such sense that it has not been within the authority of congress to levy and collect taxes in those States, or within the duty of the President to cause the laws of the U.S. to be faithfull executed to the full extent of the power which he could bring to bear for that purpose; 2nd, that there has been a time extending through nearly 4 years when there was no loyal State organizations in those States, no States with State governments actin within the Union and under the constitution. Vhether gentlemen on this floor believe that the State o SCarolina has now a State organization capable of electing members of the Senate of the U.S and of providing by law for the election of members of this House or not, no one will contend that there has not been a time extended for. years when there was no Legislature in that State capable of electin an man, however loyal, to the Senate of the U.S., or capable of enacting any law rightfully binding any loyal man. Now, whether you call a State which is in this condition in the Union or out of the Union, is a mere question of words. I should define it to be within the Union for all purposes of the execution of the national laws, and without the Union in so far that it has no government organized in accordance with the constitution and acting in harmony with the FederalGovernment or ca able of exercisin any control in its affairs. SNhen it is allege that certain gentlemen upon this floor a so with the secossionists of the South because they say that certain States have no State governments within the Union, the argument is mani festl unreasonable and unfair, a mere trick of wor s, because a different meaning is attached to the words “out of the Union in the 2 cases. The rebel means by that phrase out i from the control of the national law. The loyal man mcans under the national law, but having no State government capable of exercising any share in the national Government. That theseStates Were not in the Union for the purpose ofelecting President and VEEP at the last election was certainly the view of those who voted for the followmg resolution, which passed this House Without dissent: Whereas the inhabitants and local authorities of ltihnea, SGtactoersgoinf, V Flrorida, NCarolina ssip Spoiu, then roana, Texas, Arkansas and Tennessee rebelled aguainst the Government of the U.S and were in such condition on the 8thdayof November, 1864t. hat no valid election for electorsof President and VEEP, accordingto the constitution and laws thereof, was bold therein on saiddnv: Thercforc. Be it resolvedbythe Senate and HoRep of the U.S.A. in Congress unemblerl. that the Statesmentioned in the preamble to this joiut resolution are not entitled to representation in thuElectoralCollege for the cboicoof President and VEEP, for the term of Office commencing on the dth day of March. 1865, and no electoral votes shall bereceived or counted from said States conce rnin the choice of President and VEEP for sai term of office. The real and practical question, however, before us is this: when the relations between a State and the Federal Union have been broken by treason; when the constitution of the State under which it became one of the U.S. is subverted; when the State has no relationtio the other States in the Union than that of a public enemy; when this condition of affairs is recognized and affirmed by every Dept in the Government, by the Congress in solemnl declaring that such States are wholly in rebellion, and forbidding loyal men from carrying on an trade or commerce with them, by the presient in proclaiming their pOrts block aded, by the Supreme Court in solemnly decidingt at their ships and vessels are lawful prizes of war; when the people have openly thrown aside all allegiance to the national Government, and have required all who exercise authority in the State to take an oath to overthrow instead of to support the constitution, how shall such State be restored to its former relation to and authority in the national Government? B what action; whether by the action of the resident alone, either as president or as CommanderinChief of the Army, or by the action of Congress and the President as the lawmaki power? This question I shall briefl discuss. e constitution provides that the U.S shall guaranty to each State a RFG at some time and in some manner; then the U.S., including the whole lawmaking power, the Congress as well as the President, must have the right to pass upon the government of a State, and to ecide whether itisin accordance with the constitution. Accordingly this is done when new States present their constitutions and are received into the Union, or when they come into the Union in pursuance of enabling acts of Congress, in which the character of the constitution to be framed has been limited and defined. If these constitutions are afterward legally altered, it is by virtue and in pursuance of their own provisions, and the new government retains the character of the old, to which Congress has given its assent. But suppoae an attempt should be made to change the government of a state by a majority of the people in a manner not authorize by the constitution in force, but wholly independent of it, could the State constitution be so changed without the assent of Congress? This is nota question of1st impression. It has been solemnly adjudicated by the highest tribunal in the land. In 1841 a portion of the people of the State of RhdIsland attempted to a terthe organic law of that State, and acase afterward arose which was carried to the SCOTUS. In the trial of this case one party offered to prove that a large majority of all the voters of the State of RhdIsland voted for this new constitution and approved it, and so the case stood precisely as though it had been conceded that a majority of the voters of that State had ordaine that constitution with fundamental law of RhdIsland. The material question in that case was, what was the legal State organization in RhdIsland, and the Supreme Court do say where the decision of that question rests. quote from the decision of the court in the case of Luther vs. Bordell at al., Howards Reports, page 42: I "The 4th section of the 4th article of the constitution of the U.S. provides that the U.S shall guaranty to every State in the Union a RFG and shall protect can i of theni against invasion.: Under LI article of the Constiluion it rests with Congressto decidewhat government is the established one in a State: for. as the U.S. suarauty to eachState a republican government, Congress must necessarily decidewhat government is established in a State before it can determine whether the established one is republican: and when the Sens&Reps of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union the authority of the government under which they are appointed as well usits republican character isrcorganized by the proper constitutional authority and its d ison is binding upon crery other Dept oftin government and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal. It is true that the contestdid notlast long enough to bring the matter tothis issue. yet the right to decido is Dlaoed there.” My colleague [Mr. BAKER] referred briefly to this decision; and in reference to his remarks upon it thelronorable Gentfrom NewYork [ Mr. Ramona] says: "The decisinn of tho Supreme Court, in the caseof the Dorr rebellion in the late of RhdIsland. has been quoted here to show that it was for Congressto decide when a RFG which they are bound to guaranty does exist in aS I have not that decision by me at this time. thinkilgciitloiiicii will rend it with special regard for its language and especially qualifying clauses in it, they will discover that the decision was to this ode ct: that it was for Congressto decidewhat was a RFG by deciding upon the admission of momberscoming from that governmen or clect d under it. This is the mode and scope of the actionof Congress upon this point and havink decidedit the membersthus admitted are members of Congress and laws in the enactment of which they take part are binding upon all the Deptsof the Government. As I understandit. that is the extont to which upon that point that decision went.” I believe that if the honorable Gentfrom NewYork will read the decision with s ccial regard ioritslanguagc. he will find that this case is not limited as he supposes, and that whatever it did decide, the omts he suggests, which are, that Congress as the exclusive right of deciding who are its own members, and that when they are admitted, laws, in the enactment of which they take part, are binding upon all the Depts of Government, were not even before the court. What was this case? It was not a question whether one man oranother had been legally elected a member of Congress from RhdIsland; it was not whether laws enacted in part by men whose title toa seat in Congress was isputed were valid lawsby no means; and yet these would have been the questions if the decision had the extent only suggested by the Gentfrom NewYork. But the question was this: 2 rival organizations were claiming to be the government of the State of RhdIsland; an officer acting under the authorityofone was prosecuted by an adherentoithe other., The only question was, was the organization under which the plaintiff was actin the legal State government of RhdIsland? t was conceded, for the purposes of that case, that this government was the act of the majority of the voters of RhdIsland. No Senators or Representatives had as yet claimed seats in Congress under itsauthority; and the decision was, that it was not a State government untiLCongress had recognized;it that no other Dept of the Government could give it this recoguition Congress alone could reathe into it the breath of life.” It is true, ” say the court, “that the contest did not last long enough to brin the matter to this issue, yet the right to decide is placed there, and not in the tribunals.” It has been solemnly decided, therefore, by the highest tribunal in the land: 1. Ihat the right to decide what government is the established one in any State is in Congress. 2. The admission of Sens&Reps is one mods of recognition by congress of the authority of the government under which they are a pointed, and binds all the Depts of the national Government to, consider and treat it as the loyal, rightful government of the State. 3. The decision of Congress upon this question is final and conclusive upon the Presrdent and every Dept of the Government. "4. Until Congress has decided the question, it is undecided. To:1 ply these principles to the case before us. ere are 11 States asking the admission of their Sens&Reps, and by what authority do they claim this recognition; because they are the old State organizations, once in full relations with the federal Union organizations, overborne for a time by the violenceof treason, but now resuming the authority they had before the war? By nomeans. The State governments now seeking recognition in these States are not the same governments that existed before the war, not the same Officers, not the same Legislatures, not men elected to office on the same basis of suffrage. They supersede and set aside the old State governments. The officers of many of those States, elected before the war, were commissioned to hold their offices until their successors were elected and qualified under the provisions of the State law then existing. Those successors have never been elected. 1 use old State governments are all destroyed there is left nodonger any through whom their functions can be exercised. Their Governors, legislators, State Officers of every name, became traitors, civilly dead. New governments with reconstructed constitutions ask recognition at our hands and by whom are they reconstructed? By the whole people, by the loyal people, even by those who have a right to be heard, by those who will truly support and defend the constitution of the U.S.? These questions demand an answer, and the Congress of the U.S. is the only power in the Government that can give the answer. If the assent of Congress must be given to the admission of a new State in order that it may be determined whether such new State has a RFG, if, when there are 2 organizations, each claiming to be the rightful government of a State, it rests with Congress finally to determine for every Dept of the Government which is the true State government, as the Supreme Court has express y decided in the case fhave cited, then it assuredly follows, that when the State organization has been subverted and destroyed, the relations between the State and the national Government broken, that Congress is the power that shall determine whether any new organization which claims to be the State government, but which has never been recognized by Congress, is the rightful republican government of the State, whether the organizations in the States lately in rebellion are governments organized by the loyal people of the States, and whether they are governments republican in form, are questions which must be at some time and in some way settled by Congress. It must decide what it has not yet decidedwhether the organization in Georgia (I name one State for convenience of illustration) is the act and choice of the loyal people of that State, for it is as their act and chaice only that it can have any claim to be considered as a government, or whether, if this organization is not fairly the act of the loyal peo"ple, and is not created in pursuance of any law of Congress, it is yet better to recognize it as the basis for a reconstruction of the Union; and I aflirm, upon the authority of the case cited, that unti Congress has ecided these questions, they are not decided. But one year ago the State of Georgia was in jthe power of traitors the power of the State was used to subvert the constitution and overthrow the Government; her citizens had been arrayed in arms against the soldiers of the republic; she had no actual relations with the national Government except those which exist between belligerent communities. Now, by whose act does that State resume its relations with the General Government and become entitled to be represented in Congress, to aid in directing the councils of the nation in making its laws and in reserving its life and power? Can it come bacE by its own State action? Can rebels and traitors, by their own act, become entitled to send Representatives to this House? Is there this element of death in our political system? If not, does the amnesty act or the special pardon of the President form the individuals thus ardoned into State governments fully investe with the powers of loyal States, and requiring no assent of the people of the U.S., through their Representatives, to their resuming their place in the Union? Do these who have no State governments, because they are ardoned for acts of treason, become thereby State governments upon which congress shall have no right to pass and to declare, whether they are republican in form? A pardon confers only a capacity to take political rights, and thus enables individuals to become the bases of a political oignnization known as a State. Has the President the power to restore these State governments? The constitution gives to the President, as President, authority only to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed;” but it has not submitted to his judgment the question whether any State has a RFG. So too, as relates to the clause in the same article of the constitution providing fer cases of domestic violence. It rested with Congress to fulfill this guarantee. Congressprovided that the President, upon application of the Legislature, or, when it could not be convened, of the Executive of any State, should call forth the militia to suppress insurrection. If the insurrection shou assume such proportions as to destroy all State organizations and all civil government, then, when the insurrection is suppressed and there is no armed enemy in hostility to the Government, it is the duty of the president, as CommanderinChief of the Army, to control the rebellious States thus reduced to subjection, to keep order to prevent anarchy; an if, in his judgment, the best way to do this is to appoint provisional governors, and to say to the people, if you choose, in a certain way which I point out, to get together and make regulations for the management of our own internal affairs, I will help you; an when I, as CommanderinChief of the Army, am satisfied with what you have done, I will doe what? Declare our reorganized governments republican in min, and now in full relations with the national Government, and of equal power in that Government with the loyal States? Not so. But I will withdraw the Army, and my direct control of our affairs shall cease.