Mr. J. L. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the great question of reconstruction and the colateral issues properly belonging to it have been agitating this country in some.form or another since the 1st session of the 30 8th Congress. The rebellion which has been so gloriously crushed out has devolved upon us the solemn duty of dealing with its results in such a manner as that a permanent peace shall be secured and a lasting adjustment of all the irritating causes that produced it, shall be forever put at rest. I, for one, have made up my mind what course I shall pursue, and “with malice to ward none, with charity for all, with determination to do the right as God giveth me to see the right"to advocate and support such principles as will reconstruct the States latey in reellion on a sure and loyal foundation, and that treason will never again lift its bloody hand to strike down the bulwarks of the constitution. I Differences have arisen among us as to how this can best be done. Loyal, patriotic, honest men have spoken on the subject, and while some of them diller as to the details, and others as to mere abstract questions and theoretic views of " State suicide, ” we all agree on one point, and that is, that no rebellious State shall be represented on this floor until her people show such unmistakable proofs of repentance and loyalty for the future as will warrant us in believing that “the Republic an receive no detriment” at the hands of its former assailants. The ComReconstruction, to whom this House, by the unanimous vote of the majority, intrusted the investigation of the condition of the rebel States, have not as yet reported that any of them are in a condition “.0be represented here, with the exception of he State of Tennessee. That committee, composed as it is of some of the best and most ntrictic members of this body, is entitled to our Eghest consideration and respect, and would not, I am sure, abuse the trust that has been placed in their hands. The fact that they have not yet reported that any of these States, except the State of Tennessee, are in a condition to be represented is a strong argument to my mind why we should not be precipitate in our action and however lunch that committee may have been abused by the whole copperhead press of the country, and arraigned: by the President as an “irresponsible directory, ” I can see nothing either in the material of which it is formed or the duties which have been assigned them by the Senate and the House that detracts either from the conclusions at which they arrive or the right they have in exercising the powers allotte to them. Acting on behalf of the Senate and the House, they act as any other committee, clothed with such powers only as the Senate and the House see fit to give them. Their conclusions, and the facts upon which their judgment is based, must be anmitted to the Congress for its ratification or reection. How it can be looked upon or calle “irresponsible, ” when it must render an account to the country for its conduct, is hard for me to comprehend. That it can be likened to a “directory, ” when it has no power of its own, and when its resolutions are feeble and lifeless except they receive the assent of Congress, is still more dillieult for me to understand. The JtResolution empowerin that committee to act was passed on the 4th ay of Decem her last, and received the support and the vote of some of the very men whom we find today denouncing it as a usurpation. When it went out to the world no one saw in it anything but a legitimate exercise of the powers of congress, and the President himself, so far as I am aware, did not say a word in opposition to it. v The Constitution says that “each House shall be the judge of the election, qualification, and returns of its own members.” It nowhere says that each House shall separately, for itself, do this, nor that it shall not be done h the concurrent action of each House. Each House can act separately for itself, and in all questions touching the elections, &c., of the members of each House, the practice heretofore in ordinary cases has been for each House to act without the concurrence of the other. But the question involved in the admission of the Sens&Reps of the lately rebellious States was and is not a mere question of qualification, election, and return of its members, but goes to the fundamental principles of the status and organization of the people and the State governments of the States asking for the admission of their Sens&Reps. he Constitution says that “each House may determine the rules of its own proceedings.” (Article 1, section 5.) 003 this prevent the Congress from making joint rules, to be binding on both? On the contrary, has it not been the practice for each House, by concurrent action, to make joint rules, not only to facilitate public business, but to make their action uniform and harmonious? and if there ever was a case presented where neither House should act without the concurrence of the other it is in the mode and manner of dealing with the representation fronrthese States. If each House should act for itself we might have the strau e anomaly of the people being represente in one branch an the States unrepresented in another, or vice versa. Again, the Constitution says that “Th HoRep shall be composed of mcmbers chosen are 2nd year by the people of the severalStates, and lthoelectorsin eachStateshall have the qualifications requisite for the electors of the most numerous branc of the State Legislaturc." Art. 1, Sec. 2 Will anyone tell me that the House has not the power to inquire and ascertain whether a man sent here to represent the people was in fact elected by the e ectors having the qualifications requisite for the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures? Suppose a man should present himself with his credentials, bearing the broad seal of his State, certifying that he was duly elected, and it should turn out that he was not elected by the qualified electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature, but by a portion of the people not qualified as such an elector a negro population, for example will anyone affirm that we would not have the power to ascertain who and what these electors were; and if they were not what the Chnstitution says they shall be, to refuse to admit them? and the same may be said as to the power of the Senate in relation to the States and yet when Congress passes a JtResolution appointing a JtCommee whose duty is to inquire into the condition of 11 States, the majority of whose people have for the just 4 years been in armed and wicked rebelilion against the Government, and to report whether an of these States are entitled to be representetf because of their treason, it is denounced as a crime, and held up to the world as a monstrous outrage and a vile usurpation. Sir, if it be an outrage for me to refuse to admit to my house a man coming from a locality infected with some loathsome, contagious disease until I am satisfied I can do it without running any risks or hazards of my life, or to the ife of the inmates of my house, then it is monstrous in me to refuse men admission here, coming from disloyal constituencies, until I am satisfied their admission will not endanger the life of the Republic. This unseemly haste on the part of these States to come back into Congress on their terms is only equalled by their precipitate action in leaving these Halls in 1861 to join in breaking up by force of arms what they would tear down tomorrow by political trickery if you but give them the opportunity and the power. While I am as deSirous as any man that the States unrepresented should have their dele gates participate with us in our deliberations, am at the same time sensible of a duty that I owe to my country and to such of the loyal masses of the South as stood true to the Union in its hour of peril, that is aramouut to any courtesy that might be wi ling to extend to them. Sir, the smoke of the great revolutior through which we have just emerged has not yet sufficiently passed away to allow us to discern clearly the rospects or hopes of the future. For myself, as I never entertained a doubt during the long and dreary night that for nearly 5 years hung like a death pull over our country, that the rebellion would be finally crushed out, and traitors made to feel the enormity of their guilt, so today, if I feel a sad disappointment that they have not met that doom that their treason entitled them to receive, I have an abidin" confidence in the devotion and patriotism of, the loyal masses of the people that they will never allow these rebe s, who have forfeited everything by their rebellion, to dictate the terms upon which they shall resume their relationship to the Government. They are either to be consulted as to what conditions will best please them, or we are to make known to them upon what terms we please to receive them. eare either to consent that such men as they select shall be our peers in this House, or we are to tell them what character of peers they shall send here. We are either to exact no guarantees for future security, or we are to impose such guarantees as Congress in its wisdom may deem best for the public good. I old that treason is the same, whether it be committed by an aggregate of individuals, or by but one individual. It is levying war against the U.S.; giving aid and comfort. to its enemies. When an aggregate of individuals commit treason, they are as liable to pay its penalty as any single individual would be. If any person in a State commits treason, and you have the power to prescribe the conditionsupon which eshallbe pardoned, (which the President has done, boti by his amnesty proclamation and the thonsan s of pardons ie has granted) then you have the power as a Congresstosaytothese samemeii, “ eforeyou shal be allowed to exercise your functions as States, you shall 1st comply with certain conditions, which we deem to be necessary before we can allow you to resume all your rights as members of a State." The Constitution says the U.S shall I guaranty to each State a RFG. At the end of the rebellion we ound that the insurgents had erected insurrectionary governments that were in the hands of traitors, and that were not only not republican but that were usuations and tyrannies. Wefound that the robe s in arms had seized hold of the political machinery of the States, and had not only carried them into rebellion but had linked their fortunes to a pretended and revolutionary confederacy. which they acknowledged, and to which they had all sworn allegiance. “e found that men who were true in their loyalty to this Government were hunted down like dogs and treated like beasts; their property confiscated, their homesteads desolated, their wives and children forced away from them because of their loyalty. We found all this, and more which I shall not stop to recount, and which history will blush to record. This being the case, the question is. not whether the States that went into rebellion were ever out of the Union, not whether by their ordinancesof secession they succeeded in doing what their ordinances proclaimed to the worl, but whether the State governments we found in existence at the time the combined armies of the confederacy surrendered to Grant were the legitimate State governments recognized by the Constitution, and republican in form, or were usurpations, presided over by traitors to their country. It cannot be contended for a moment that the State governments found in existence in April, 1865, were the same State gerernmeuts that existed prior to 1861. Not only is this not so, in relation to the functionaries representing these State governments, such as Governors, judges, and members of the Legislature, but in many. if not all of them, their State constitutions had been changed in order to meet the new obligations which they had contracted in attaching themselves to the rebel usurpation. Were these State governments legal or illegal; were they constitutional or unconstitutional; were they republican or antirepublican? If they are le 1, constitutional, and republican, then were eir ordinances of secession legal, constitutional and republican? If, on the other hand, their ordinances of secession are and were void, then their State governments made under their ordinances of secession are void. The one follows as the necessary consequence of the other. This being the case, their secession ordinances being void, and all their State governments in existence during the rebellion being in like manner void an nsurpations, we are forced to come to one of 2 conclusions, either that the State governments in existence in 1861 and prior to the rebllliou, are in existence now, unchanged, with all of their rights and immunities in as full and ample a manner as they possessed them at that time, or the rebel usurpations which continued in these States for 4 years, and which have been overthrown by force of arms, are still in existence, or the new State governments, created by provisional governors up inted by the President, are in existence. f the 1st be the case that is, if these State Governments have had an existence all through the rebellion just as though no rebellion had happened then there is no oblition, no condition that either Congress or the Executive, either as a war measure or in any other respect, can impose upon these States. Then neither Congress nor the Executive have any right to say. you shall 1st adopt the amendment to abolish slave, and repudiate the doctrine of secession, an as a condition precedent before their admission to representation in Congress. Then neither the President nor Congress has any right to say that before any of their representatives shall be admitted here they sha l 1st be loyal, and then take an oath of loyalty. Ifihis be ti so. then neither Mr. Lincoln nor Mr. Johnson had any right to appoint provisional governors of States whose machinery of government was already in existence, and which the rebellion did not and could not destroy. Then all the acts done by these provisional governors are illegal and void, and without warrant of law, either under the constitution or the laws of nations. It a ears to me, sir, that a strange confusion O ideas has taken place in the discussion of this question. A State is confounded with the government. of the State. A State cannot gout of the Union unless by successful revolution it succeeds in a separate, independent nationality, acknowledged as such by the world. Secession ordinances cannot carry a State out of the Uniou, because if they could, every State that attempted to secede would today be out of the Union. But the government of a State can become usurped an so utterly destroyed as to require not only remodeling but an entire new frame work. Suppose, sir, for illpstration. that the rebels in my own State had succeeded in 1861in passing an ordinance of secession and forcing the loyal Governor of Maryland either to leave the State or to vacate the functions of his office; suppose, in place of the State government then in existence, the had elected another Governor, Legislature, an judiciary all of them sworn to support the u start and usurping confederacy; suppose this State government so organized had waged war against the U.S. for 4 yEars, and at the end of that time was compelled by force of arms to submit to the power against whom it bad rebelled, in what condition would my State have been and what would have been the duty and the obligations of this Government to the loyal Union men of Maryland who refused to in e art in the usurpation, and who never yielde a vol untury support to the confederacy? To be sure the boundaries of the State would have remained the same as they do now. Its geography would not have been changed, and possibly its name would have been allowed to exist. But suppose one portion of the people, acting under t 10constitution of the State as it existed (prior to 1861, had elected Representatives an Senators, and suppose another rtion of the people had elected Senators and epreseutatives in accordance with the laws made during the 4 yearsit was in rebellion, and that still another portion had elected Sens&Reps in accordance with a constitution and laws made and enacted under and by virtue of a convention called into being by a provisional governor appointed by the president as Commander in Chief of the Army, which State government would you recognize, and which set of representatives woulfinyou admit, and where wou d the power reside as to which was the State government and who its Representatives? If you say you would recognize the State governments in existance prior to 1861, then how can you reconcile the fact that the State governments organized in all of the lately rebellions States are today the creatures and creations of the conjoint action of the POTUS by the appointsment of provisional governors, on the one part, and the people of these States, acting by permission of the provisional governors, on the other. If it be said that this cannot be done, that the State governments as they existed in 1860 were usurped, then I want to know if you intend to acknowledge the rebel usurpations carried on for over 4 years in spite of the Constitution, and in spite of the armies and the Navy of the U.S. which finally ground them to owder. If you will not, as on cannot and are not, acknowled e the reel usur pations, then the question is presented, are the State governments as at present organized in the latedy rebellious States, so organized on such principles of justice and loyalty as to warrant the people of the U.S. to reinvest them with a the rights and privileges of States in as full and ample a manner as they were possessed by them prior to the time when they went into rebellion? In the discussion of this question. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to allow myself to be drawn into aconsideration of abstract questions, which when fully exhausted and finally answered brin us no nearer to the point we are trying to reacfi than when we started. For this reason I do not intend to assume, as many have who have receded me, either the right of a State to sece e, or whether the rebel States did secede, or whether the have ever been out of the Union, or whethert ey are territories. It is enough for me to know that the have been in rebellion; that during that rebelion their State governments ceased to have any relations (except as enemies) with the people of the U.S.; that certain consequences followed from their rebellion one the subversion or overthrow of their State governments, the other a suspension of the representation in Congress. I claim, air, that it is for Congress to decide not only whether these State governments having been once subverted, have been a sin reconstructed, but to examine and see iow they have been reconstructed, and whether they have been so reconstructed as to entitle them to representation here. In the language of the lamented Lincoln "let us all join in doing the actsnecessaryto restoring the properpractical relations betweenthese States and the Union and each forever after inno centl indulge his own opinion whether.in doing the acts, e brought the States from without into the Union or only gave them properassistance.they never having beenout of it." That we are all desirous of doing this I am satisfied. That it ought to be done quickly but with a view to secure future peace and security, both to them and to us, I am persuaded. So far as the constitutional power of Congress over this whole matter is concerned, I am convinced it is ample and exclusive. The President, as Commander in Chicf of the Army and the Navy, has the power to erect military provisional governments as temporary expedients for peace and quiet. Butthese pro visional governments only proved 2 things: 1st, that the old State governments had been subverted or destroyed; and 2nd, that having been destroyed, some expedientmustbe resorted to to make a new one. The power of Congress commenced where that of the President ceased. His power ceased when he withdrew his provisional governors. The power of Congress commenced when called upon to recognize the Sens&Reps of the newly reconstructed State governments. That this power is in Congress, and exclusively in Coneress, I shall read a short passage from the decision of the SCOTUS in the case of Luther vs. Borden, reported in 7 Howards Supreme Court Reports, at page 10. Say the court: “The 4th sectionof the 4th articlcof thoConstitution of the U.S. provides that Congress shall guaranty to every State in the Union a RFG. Under this article of the Constitution it restswith Congress to decide what government is the estnhlished one in aState. For as the U.S. guaranty to every State a republican government. Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in a State before it can determine whether it is "republican or not. ml when the Sens&Reps of a State are admitte I desire gentlemen to pay their particular attention to this “lnto the councils of the Union, the authority of the governmentunderwhich they are appointed.as wall ns its republican character is recognized by the proper constitutional authority." What stronger authority could you have, as to the meaning of the guarantee clause and of the duties and powers of congress under it than this? and what better vindication could, we desire, as to our refusal to admit these Sens&Reps from the rebel States until their condition has been inquired into and the form of government they have made hatl been ascertained, than the announcement made in this case, that when the Sens&Reps are admitted into the councils of the Union the authority under which they are appointed is not only recognized, but the republican character of their tote governments is at once and forever acknowledged? : Acting on this theory, at the 1st se ssiemof the 38 h Congress a JtResolution ! was passed declaring that no State declared to be in rebellion by the reclamation of the President shall be entitle to appoint electors for President and VEEPnntil both Houses of Congress by concurrent action shall have recognized a State government in such State. This theory of reconstruction is not therefore it new one, made by this Congress to keep the rebellious States from partici nting in legislation, but has been solemnly decided by the SCOTUS as a power vested exclusivel in Congress, and one that no ceiirdinate branc of this Government has the right to interfere with. and, sir, the world will be so rised to know that both hlilbSeward and the resident held to this doctrine, and so instructed some of the profisional governors of the socalled reconstructed States. In answer to a letter from Governor Marvin, provisional governor of Florida, Mr. Seward, on the 12th of September, 1865, thus speaks: DiirAsrirrzxror Sim rs. WAsniso ros. September 12, 1865. SIR: Your Excellepeys letter of the 29thultimo, with the accompanying proclamation, has been recoiyed and submitted to the President. The stepsto Whllh it referstoward reorganizing the government of hloriilnse cmto be in the main judicious, and good results fromthemmay behoped for. The presumption to which the proclamation refers, however, in favor of insurgentswho maywish to vote and who may haveapplied for but not receivedtheir pardons, is not exactly approved. All applications for pardon will be duly considered and will be disposedof as soonL3may a practicable. It must, hmvever. be distinctly uncrstood that the l(.l0Illll0tlol which your proclamation referswill besubject to the doors onI of Congress. have the honor to be your Excellencys obedient servant, WILLIAM H. SEWARD. His Excellenc WILLIAM MARVIN. PromnonalGovernor of the atcaf Florida. Tallahassee. What did the Secretary mean, when he said that the restoration to which the Governors sroclamation referred “will be subject to the decision of Congress, ” if it was not that to Congress attached the duty. the power, and the responsibility of deciding how and when that restoration was complete, final, and satisfactory. Again, in a dispatch dated July 24, 1865, Mr. Seward, by order of the President, sends the following telegram to Governor Sharkey, of Mississippi: WASHINGTON.July 24.1865. w. L.SKARKEY, Provisional Governorof )iffasiaaippi: Your telegramof the 21sthas been received. The Prosidentsees no reason to interfere with General Slocums proceedings. The government of the State will be provisional only until the civil authorities shall be restored with the approval of Congress. Meanwhile military authority cannot be withdrawn. WILLIAM H. SEWABD. Has Congress said any more? Could congress say any more? Which of the civil authorities of any of these States has been restored with the approval of Congress? and yet Mr. Seward undertakes to unite with those who denounce the action of Congress as revolutionary because congress assumes to do what he says cannot be one except with the approval of Congress. If Congress has not the constitutional power to inquire into and determine the fact whether the governments of these States latel in rebellion have been properly reorganize, Iwanttoknowwhohas that power? Has the President? If he has, where oes he find his power? It is clearly not in the constitution, and it is equally as clear that it is not to be found either in the laws of Congress or in any military power tha the possesses as commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. Has the Supreme Court the power to determine this question? It certainly cannot have, since all of its powers are well defined, and, as I have before stated, that tribunal has decided that Congress has the power. We are driven, then, to one of 2 conclnsions: that there is no power anywhere, in any of the coordinate branches of this Government to judge of or determine upon the reconstruction of these States, or that power belongs to and resides in the Congress of the U.S. By assuming the 1st, the States that went into rebellion would have the right to build up any kind of a government as a State organization, and provided it owed allegiance to the Constitution of the U.S. it would be entitled to be recognized as such and to have its representation in this House. More than this, the States that went into rebellion not only did not need any provisional or military governments to aid them in building up new governments after the fall of the confederacy, but by simply surrendering, after they were compelled to surrender, and yielding obedience to the laws of the U.S., after they were forced to do so, they had the right so inshmh to resume their former position in the Union, and to have all the original rights exprcised by them before they went into rebel tea. I, for one, cannot agree to any such a doctrine, but hold to the only safe rule for the reconstruction of these States, that the power is in Congress to determine when these States shall be entitled to exercise all their proper functions in the Union, and how and on what terms it shall be done. Ay, sir, and that until these terms are complied with they shall remain where they have remained for the last 4 years, in the Union to be sure, because they had not the power to get out of it; but in the Union, divested of their representation in Congress until the Union masses of this land have so hedged them in by properguarantees and safeguards for future protection as that they can be safely invested with all the powers of loyal States. The question then occurs, have the State governments of any of the rebellious States been reconstructed in such a manner as to entitle them to be not only represented inCon ess, but to receive all the powers and privileges of loyal States? n answering this question we should consider, 1st, the status of the pee do of these States as to their loyalty to the government; and 2nd, the nature or kind of State governments they have organized, and which we are called upon to recognize. I take it that no true, devoted friend of his country could wish that any of these States should again aid in controllin the destinies of this nation until the people of the States have shown themselves to be loyal to the Government which they are in part to control. When I use the word loyal in this connection, I do not mean that sturdy, bold, and defiant patriot who, through 4 years of blood and slaughter, maintained that no State had the right to rebel, and who refused to give a voluntary support to the rebel usurpation; but I take it in its new and amended sense, as a man who did go into rebellion, but who, having taken the amnesty oath, means in good faith to keep it. In this latter sense I am constrained to say that I do not believe that the vast majority of those who have taken the oath are loyal, because I do not believe, in the language of our patriotic President, that you “trust” them. That my opinion is not formed from any prejudice, but that it is a conviction based on sworn and legal testiine n, I beg leave to refer to the testimony of Hon. ohn Covode. In one part of it, in answer to a question put to him y the committee, he says: Mississippi rsAcladbwaimtha, loyal men from other States Ana whowere then in NewOrleans. They expressed a doe interest in having a correct policy inaugurated in ouisiunn on account of the O cutit would haveon their own States. They said that if Louisinuawas directedin the iightcourse at the start, from her position and relations to other States, it would go far to producethe best results in several other States. Iwill licri statethatmany trul loyal men whomImetin NewOrleanssecmedtolac confidence in their being ultimately protected and su )portedby the Government; and Iwas frequently as ed. if I becamesatisfiedor convinced that they were to be abandoned to the rule of the rebel element, to notify them in time to enable them to get away, more especially if the troops of the U.S. wereto be withdrawn. They said that if the troops were withdrawn they could not live there. I know many citizens of Louisiana who remained iriihin reach of the military becausethey did not dare to ventusp to return to their former homes." l In another part of his testimony the following. signi.ficant facts are develOped: Question.Have you a copy of your report to the President? “Amwer. I have not a copyof that report. I have at home the rough draft the report was made.but not the accompanyingpapers.as I had no copies madeof thorn. Not being awarethat. I should be calledbefore this committee to testify I brin (lldlfil that rough draft with me to the city. sta“encuenolwf the Concyluosuiosntastienfryoomur recollection thgsub rert to the resident which you state you madetoh in? the anaiccr. I might be able to state the substnpee of conclusions. Ono of them I recollect distinctly was to this eEect: "Ihat if the rebel element was allowedto votein theSouth every memberwhowould be returned to Congress would be hostile to the policy of the Federal Government, not only as regardspament of the national debt. but in referenceto the emanmpation of the negroes; that while they ex[iicrveda willingness to accede to the principles of wthiteheimtaancipationproclamation.they alwayse onpled determinationto regulate their own affairs in that respect, stating that they would have an organized systemof negro labor which they would control for themselves. Over and ovrr again. in conversation in NewOrleans. I heard them saying that they could make the condition of affairs better for them se lvos than it was before. The said that Government had treated the negroes an should be made to take care eferipples and those who were not able to work whilo theywould regulateand control the labor of“abIle bodiedmen. would hero state that while many in theSouth would say that Government must pay the rebel debt. As well as Federal debt, the better and more intelli gent class of  thein did notspeakin this way; but they told me distinctly that I could not expectthat they wouldholp to pay our debt or pension our soldier: for whipping them; that they would have power in the Government some day, with their increased representation, and would be able to defeat the payment of the interest on the debt or in some other way destroy public credit. I askedthemwhere they expectedto get help for that purpose and theyWould generally say that there were portionsof the North whore they had no interest in Government securitiu j – the West, for instance. I found that to be thofecling among the best men who had been in the rebellion that I met at the South. They seemedto take it for granted that we could not expect them, when ahiy shpuld again attain power, to help pay our c ts. New, this is the testimony of one of the men sent by the President to ascertain the amount and kind of loyalty there is in the South. Carl Schurz, also sent by the President to ascertain the feeling of the South, gives the following as his estimate of loyalty: “I may sum up all I have said in a few words. If nothing werenecessarybut to restore the machinery of government in the States lately in rebellion in point of form. the movements made to that cod by the peedo of the South might be considered satisfuctory. at if it is required that the southern people should also accommodatethemselvesto the results of the war in point of spirit, those movements fall far short of what must be insisted u on. "The loyalty of the masses ani inest of the leaders of the southern people consists in submissionto necessity. There is, except in individual instances, an entire absenceofthnt national spirit which forms the basisof true loyalty and patriotism." He also recommends the President to"Advise Congressin send one or more investigating oornmittccsinto the southern States to inquire for themselves into the actual condition of things beforefinal action is taken upon the readmission of such Statesto their representationin the legislative brapeli of the Government and ibowithdrnwul of the national control from that section of the country." Generals Terry and Turner and Colonel Brown"Conenr in representing the sentiments of the people of Virginia in relation to the Government as unimproved, and as rather having become embittered since Lees surrender. They say that at that time the people were humble, sick of war, longing for peace on any terms, and ready to accept gratefully the pardon of the Government, and to submit to any conditions that might be imposed, while now they are arrogant, exacting, and intolerant. Most Wlino i08 of that class express a decided opinion thatthe with druwnl of the ederul troops and of the Freedmens Bureau would be follower by an unrelenting proscription of white Unionists and persecution and remission to slavery of the colored people. The changeof feclingis very general] ascribe by these witnesses to the residents liberu policy. In regard to the Federal debt. the people of irginia are rep presented us in favor of its repudiation, or at least of coinbining wiihitth o confedorato debt. the witnesse s who have been connected with the confederacyuhow over, deny this, and represent the people as willing to pay their share of the Federal fight by taxation. 0n this subject General Lees opinion is that they are willing topay both, and opposedto a repudiation ofeither. General Swayne thus testifies before the ComReconstruction of the amount and kind of loyalty in Alabama. He says: "After the surrender of Lee a kindly feeling was generally expressed toward the U.S. since 1866 which a great increase of bitterness has taken place. displaying itself in a sort of social ostrnclsm toward Union men. northern emigrants and Army officers. There is a general desire on the part of the people to no the bureau removed. The Governor would like to ice it removed but while it remains extends to it cordial cooperation. The city of Mobile appears to be largely under the dominion olrowilyisni and actu nted throughout by a feeling of hostility to the frond men. During the past. 6 months 4 colored churches have been burned. in cons eucuce of an attempt to establish colored schools in t cm." Dr. James P. Hambleton, an exrebel surgeon, thus testifies as to the feeling in Georgia: " The peoplethere expect paymentfor their slaves and for the destruction of property by the war when the passionsof the hour shall have subsided. They expect that at. some future day there will be a sort of compromise by which the southern States will be relieve of their share of the rebel debt asa compensation for their losses. The people hold the some opinions as to State sovereignty as before the war. but having accepted the situation cannot. as honorable men. again resort to secession.” Talk about the loyalty of the South! Loyalty to whom and to what? Loyalty to the Government and ceple of the U.S. who have made them submit by force to the Constitution and laws the fought so long and desperately to destroy? s it. natural that the hearts of these people could so soon be chaned from one of intense, bitter, deadly hate to t iut of devotion and attachment to the Government? and if their loyalty is not one of de votion and attachment, what kind of loyalty is it? Do you propose to have 2 kinds of loyalty. one for the North and the other for the South? If on do, what is to be the nature of the one an the character of the other? If northern loyalty is shown by the 1,000s of lives that have been lost and the millions of money that has been s cut to preserve the nation, is southern loyaily to be proven by an utter contempt for the brave heroes who put down the rebellion, by a shameful recital of their high handed outrages in desolating loyal States, or by making demigods of their trai torous leaders, to whom even now they propose to erect monuments as enduring evidence of their new born love to the Government? Is this the kind of loyalty you want? Is this the kind of men you trust with the destinies of this nation? If it is, then, in my judgment, you need no JtCommee to hunt it up. You will find it broadeast from Virginia to Texas. If it is not, then you must wait, and wait patiently, until the people in that region learn what you mean by loyalty, and set earnestly to work to obtain it.