Mr. HENDRICKS. The question was, if the people of the State have elected the convention, do not they breathe validity into the acts of that corivention; and especially if the constitution is submitted to them and they vote for it, do they not breathe the breath of political life and power into that instrument? era is as far as choose to go. There is where I rest it. The President, for the purpose of plancing the people in a position to place their State governments in properrelations to the Federal government, has done what he did, and then the people take it up, and they make the State constitution a thing that no President can do. It is the voice of the people that makes a State government. Then that State government is established, established at the request of the President, if you please. Why is not that a valid constitution and State government? That is the argument thatI present to my colleague. He took the round that the governor being appointed without sufficient authority on the part of the President, and issuing a proclamation that he could not properly issue, therefore no 1 1 government could result from it. Sir, how oes theState of California a ear here today? After the conquest from Mexico she never had a territorial government. Her birth was in military rule. A military commander inaugurated proceedings and then the people took hold and established a State constitution, and congress took the people of the State by the head, not because the military governor had any power, not that he was appointed military governor, but that the people had acted upon is suggestion and the act of the people made a vali and powerful State government, which is now the ride ol" the Union. Mr. President, this doctrine of my colleague, that there are no States in the South, that they are lost stars, that they have gone out of existence, I think one of the most dangerous hercsies of these times, and if persisted in will lead us over a precipice thatI ope neither we nor our children sha lever see. 1 he distinguished Senfrom Kentucky [Mr. Gurnaiiz] told you the other day that you could not govern million people without representation. 8 o you think you can, permancntl 7? If so, the men of 1866 are not the men a 1776. 3 million people because they were taxed without representation defied the power of Enflland and threw down defiance at her feet. oes any Senator suppose it is possible to govern so large a country as the South, so numerous a population, so brave a people, so gallant a people as they have shown themselves to be in this contest With the grandest people on earth, our northern soldiers? No, sir, it cannot be done. They must be brought into relations with this GOvernment in every respect. But, Mr. President, I ask my colleague and I ask other Senators, how is it that you maintain the doctrine? This war commenced in April 1861, with the firing on Fort Sumter. Shortly after that there was a battle across the river here, at Bull Run. A few days after that Congress passed a resolution declaring the purpose and policy of the Government in the prosecution of the war, and I will read it. Although it has been so frequently read in this body, yet it is a necessary part of any argument that can be made on the subject: "That this war is not prosecutedupon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquestor subjugation. nor purpose of overthrowing or lnterferin with the rights or establishedinstitutions of those States, but to defend and supremacyof the constitution and all laws made in pursuancethereof and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several Statesunimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.” maintain the 1866. 883 That was the battlecry. When Congress passed that resolution almOst unanimously my colleague. I believe, supporting it, he then being a Senfrom the State of Indiana it was as if printed upon every banner at the head of every regiment of your Army; and I wherever those banners were carried by the victorious hosts of the North that sentiment was carried. It was the boast of the soldier; it was the boast of the brave commander every where that this was not a war of oppression, that this was not a war of subjugation, but it was a war to bring the States again into their properrelations to the U.S., and that they should be brought in with all their rights, privileges, and dignity unimpaired. That is what you said to the country, Senators; that is what the State Dept said in its corre spondence to the nations of the earth and again, sir, President Lincoln, a year and a half later, in a proclamation to the country, dated Se“ptember 22, 1862, used this language: I. Abraham Lincoln. POTUSA and CommanderinChief of the Army and Navy thereof, do herebyproclaim and de clare that hereafter as heretofore the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the U.S and each of the States and the people thereof. in which States that relation is or may be suspendedor disturbed.” The purpose of the war, he said, was simply to bring the States into practical relations again to the Government. In various acts you have recognized these States; I will not trouble the Senate to repeat their provisions among them were the act apportioning representation, and the act imposing taxes upon the people of the different States, and that act again referred to in the laws of 1864. These are instances in which Congress has recognized the States, but the great controlling action of Congress upon this subject is this resolution of 1861. Mr. President, you said to the gallant men in the ranks, ” You are not called upon to tight in a war of aggression, you are called upon to hold up the constitution of your countr, you are called upon to fight to restore this nion, not to destroy;” and in that cause and for that cause they went forth; they fought the battles and now that the battles have been fought, and now that they come home, many of them wounded and scarred, after standing upon the rough edge of 100 battles, can on, senators, take that assurance back from them; can you now say to them that this was not a war for the restoration of the Union, but it was a war for connest and we will hold these States assubju the and conquered provinces1 When you do that you violate the highest faith of the nation, not only to the soldiers of the North, but the faith of the nation to the loyal men in the southern States, the faith of the nation to all the nations of the earth. How did my colleague, how did other senators, come to vote a few weeks ago for a bill which you all admitted was not constitutional except under the provisions of the constitutiona amendment? The chairman of the committee who presented that bill said that the bill was not constitutional except for that amendm ent. He did not claim constitutionality for it unless that amendment was apart of the constitution of the U.S.; and when did the amendment become a part of the constitution? When was it adopted? When it received the vote of a portion of these southern States, together with the northern States, Mr. Seward published to the world that this amendment was adopted, because, of the 36 States, 3/4ths of them had agreed to it. You Senators who claim that these States are out of the Union, are willing to act upon a constitutional amendment which has no validity unless you recognize the action of those States in respect to it. You vote upon it. You say in the most solemn manner possible that these States are competent to approve a constitutional amendment, and you t ierefore adopt it as a part of the constitution; but now you say they are not in the Union to be represented. “Is that right? But my colleague with greatingenuity has referred to 2 instances in which he says congress has ignored the existence of these States. he Senfrom Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] proposed a resolution thata uorum of the Senate consists of a majority ot the Senators duly chosen. My colleague says that these States were not represented in the Senate at the time their eiristence was ignored by the adoption of this rule in the body. I think not; the Senate at the time thought not. That was adopted May 4, 1864. The constitution provides that a may grity of each House shall constitute a uorum. ow, what is a House? What is a I case as applied to the Senate? A quorum of the senate is a majority of the Senate. In respect to the other House there is no ditheulty about this question, for the constitution defines the HoRep as composed of “members chosen every 2nd year.” It is composed of members “chosen, ” not of members that might be chosen and those that are chosen, but of those who in fact are chosen. But the language of the constitution in regard to the Senate is alittle more dilficult on this question. The Senate of the U.S., the constitution says, shall be composed of 2 Senators from each State chosen by the Legislature there offor 6 years. The language is “chosen, ” and the Senate adopted this rule upon the ground that Senators who were chosen constitute the Senate as a body. It was upon that principle that the resolution was adopted, and thin the debate, which was mainly maintained by the Senfrom Maryland, [Mr. Jonnsos] holds that ground. This resolution was not adopted upon any ground that the States were out of the Union, but upon the ground that the Senators who had been “chosen” composed the Senate. But my distinguished colleague has referred to another instance which I think he will find a little unfortunate for himself. He refers to the JtResolution of last winter in which we de nied a vote to Louisiana apd Tennessee in the Electoral College for President and VEEP. That resolution was reported to this body by the distinguished Senfrom Illinois, [Mr. TRUMBLLL] and it read: “Whereas the inhabitants and local authorities of the States of Virginia. NCarolina. South enrn lina, Georgia. Florida. Alabama. Mississippi. Lohisi unn. Texus. Arkansas mnd Tennessee rebel edagainst the Government of the U.S and have continued in a state of armed rebellion for more than 3 years and were in said state of armed rebellion on the 8th day of November. 1864: Therefore. “Be it resolved 6the Senate and HoRep of the U.S.A. in Congress assemble. That the Statesmentioned in the preamble to thisJtresolution are not entitled torepresentatio 9th eElectoral College for the choice of resident and VEEP for the term of office commencingon the 4thday of March. 1865: and no electoral votes shall be receivedor counted from said States concernin the choice of President and VEEP for sai term of office.” My colleague holds that this resolution ig nores the existence of these States as States. Let us see. The gentleman who reported the resolution offered an amendment to strike out from the preamble the words “ and have continued in a state of armed rebellion for more than 3 years, and were in said state of armed rebellion on the 8th day of November, 1864, ” and to insertinstead of them these words, “and were in such state of rebellion on the 8th day of November, 1864.” The Senfrom Illinois, in maintaining this resolution which he reported, said: “The ComJudiciary. by the amendment they have reported. proposeto alter the preamble somewhat. The objectoft iis alterntion is to avoid as far asposeiblouny committalupon the subject which the amendnient of the Senfrom NewJersey brings up. The object of the amendment of the committeeis simply to put the preamble in such form that if it is adopted, and the resolutionpassed, Congresswill not have decided whether Louisiana is in the Union or out of the Uniou. whether she is a State or not a State. It will betime enoughto docidothat question when it is presentedto us.” Now, I will call my colleagues attention to an amendment that was offered by the Senfrom NewJersey, (Mr. TenEyck.) Mr. TenEyck said: "I move to strike out of the preample the word Louiziana. will simpl state that it is a matter of history that the Statoof aluannhasreornnisod or at least attemptedto do so and in the opinion of many, and perhapsmost. of the loyal citizens of that State, has reorganizedas a State.” He said further: IMy object in moving this amendment is, under athlliosrdsetadtetoofa floayctasl, that some opportunity may be people who have sulieredall the horrors of the robelion. who have got the better of it and put it under foot, of coming back and resuming their place in the councils of the nation. ". That is what Mr. TenEyck said in support of his amendment; he said he wanted these peo10to have the right to vote for POTUS; the resolution of the Senfrom Illinois said that because of the rebellion on the 8th day of November, 1864, the States of Virginia, NCarolina, SCarolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana Tennessee, and others, should not be allowed to cast avote in the Electoral College for presidentand VEEP. The Senfrom NewJersey, Mr. TenEyck, moved to strike Louisiana from the list, and to give her a right to vote for President and VEEP. That brought the very question up. In support of his amendment he urged that he wanted the loyal men of Louisiana to have an opportunity to place themselves properly in the Union, and that their voice should be heard. Some debate went on, and the vote was takcii on Mr. TenEycks amendment to strike out Louisiana from the disability, the effect of which would have been to allow her to vote for President and VEEP. The vote being taken on the amendment was eas 16, nays 22. 1 he yeas were Messrs. Cowan. Dixon. Doolittle. Forwcll. Harlan. Harris. llowe, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas. Nes lnvifillll. PomsroyJtamley. Ton Eyck. Van Winkle and i say. I voted against striking it out, for I did not think the gOvernment established there by General Banks at the point of the bayonet was such a government as we ought then to recognize. The question had been very fully discusse, and on those grounds [oppose it; but my colleague voted to strike Louisiana from the resolution, toallow Louisiana to cast her vote for the POTUS in the Electoral college; and upon what ground? Ho now says she is not in the Union; she isn lost star again wandering beyond the observance of an judicial telescope. That is her present condition; she is not to come here and plead her cause; but last year before it was announced tt political power was to be held and permanently secured before Louisiana or another southern State should come back, my colleague then voted as he thought was right, that Louisiana was a State in the Union, and that her vote for President cast on the 8th day of November. 1864, was a valid vote that ought to be counted. How is it that she is out of the Union now, but was in this Union then? I shall not pursuc hat argument further. When, ask, does my colleague propose that these States may come back? Is this Union permanently dissolved? My colleague reweats the question and says, “They cannot be a mitted at present with benefit to themselves or sa"fety to the nation, ” and he adds: and the resurrection trump shall sound thosn m mousof these rebels to the general judgment before my voiceor vote shall summon them to those halls.” But. Mr. President.zentlemen ask us. whenshall those states by restored?" Yes, Mr. President, gentlemen ask that; 260,000 voters in Indiana ask it today; 100,000 soldiers in Indiana ask the question; thesoldiers all over this country ask the question, when shall the fruit be gathered for which weplowed southern soil? When is this Union to be restored for which we fought and left many a comrade in a lonely grave behind? That is the question that is being asked, and it is a question, Senators will allow me to say, which must be answered. When? My colleague says when the judgment trump shall sound, not before, will he admit rebels. Then a generation must pass away. I say come back now; in all cases where the people of the southern States have formed State governments, have maintained peaceand obeyed the law, and ask that their State: shall be placed in properrelation to the Federal Government, I say uow, I say now as an avoidance of future trouble, restore the Union at once. But, Mr. President my colleague asks for some more blood. He says: “But, Mr. President, gentlemen ask us. wben phnll thesoIStatesbe restored? Not by my vote. until all these constitutional guarantees are placed utterly beyond all recall.” When is that to be? That is distinct enough. All these constitutional amendments mustpass the ordeal of Congress and then go before the States and take theround ofycars until 20 7 of the States approve them; and not till then will my distinguished colleague hear the petition of the States of the Union at the door of the Capitol “Not until the leadin traitors in this rebellion shall have been punishe, and shall have met the folons doom.” That is to be in the way. If the President will not cause to be hung all the men that my colleague thinks ought to be hung, he will not let the States come back at all! Upon what ground is that based? But, Mr. President, we hcnra good deal said about blood now. Yesterday the Senfrom Oregon [Mr. Winnuns] criticised the president for islenieucy toward the South. A few days ago the Senfrom Ohio [Mr. WADE] made a severe criticism on the President forhis leniency, and my colleague asks for blood. Mr. President, this war commenced with blood; ay, blood was demanded before the war. When the Good men and the patriotic, North and South, representing the yearning hearts of the people at home, came here in the winter and spring of 1861 in a peace congress, if possible to avoid this dreadful war, right then the Senfrom Michigan [Mr. CHANDLER] announced to his Governor and the country that this Union was scarcely worth preserving without some blood letting. His cry before the war was for blood. Allow me to say that when the Senators name is forgotten because of anything he saysor does in this body, in future timeitwillbebornedown upon the pages of history as the author of the terrible sentiment, that the Union of the people that our fathers had cemented by the blood of the Revolution and by the love of the people; that that Union", resting upon compromise npd concession. resting upon the doctrine of c nality to all sections of the country: that that nion which brought us so much greatness and power in the 3 quarters of a century of our itc; that that Union that had brought us so much prosperity and greatness until we were the mightiest and proudest nation on Gods footstool; that that grand Union was not worth preserving unless we had some bloodlctting. Mr. President, it is not the sentiment of the Senators own heart; it is the expression of a bitter political hostility; but it will carry him down to immortality; he is sure of living in history. he has gained that much by it. Sir, the thirst was for blood before the war, and now that the war is over, that thesepeople have fallen u“pon their knees in your presence and say, We are a conquered people, wencknowledge it, we promise our allegiance to the Government, we promise obedience to the law, we have sent our soldiers home, we call for no armies in our midst to keep us in obedience to the law, we ask again that our States shall come back into the council chamber of the nation, ” and the cry is, ” Blood! blood! bloodl"