Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I must apol ogize to this House for the tameness of the remarks which Iam about to make, and especially for their untimeliness. It will be remembered that at the opening of thesession I made some remarks upon the condition of the country, and that I was relied to by the Gentfrom NewYork, [fin RAYMOND] and by the able Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. Fnv ex. A recess of Congress followed. When congress reassembled for business on the 8th of anuary, I had prepared some rely to their remarks, and had obtained the corfor the purpose of delivering them. but the respect able Gentfrom WestVirginia [Mr. LArnsni: desired to make a speech on that occasion, and as he was a young member I ielded the floor to him, and have never since adan opportunity to deliver those remarks, which I d not consider important at any time; and they have lain by till now. Low, as this is a school for debate and as it has been intimated to me that my turn to speak had come, I have dug up the old man uscript, which is consequently tame. as the most of it has been since said by myself or others: and not being willing to lose the paper, [laughter] I have come here for the purpose. of so ing now whatI had intended to say then. this pretty much as follows: Since I had the honor to speak on the questions contained in the Presidents message relative to reconstruction, the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. FINCK] and the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. RAYMOXD] have replied to it; in a few plum remarks I will show with how much effect. They have very properly directed their efforts to refuting a single proposition, as on that depended all subsequent questions. I asserted that the late “confederate States of America” had occupied a position which entitled them according to the law of nations to be considered and treated as a belligerent. entitled to all the rights and subject to all the liabilities of a belliccrent engaged in a public war, and that they had beeuso acknowledged and treated both by ourselves and all the civilized nations of the world; that they formed a regular government, raised armies, fitted out vessels of war, and issued commissions to commanders both by sea and land which were accepted by us and by the civilized world as protecting those who ought under them from the charge of piracy and murder, and gave them precisely the same standing as the soldiers of 2 foreign nations at war with each other; that for ibur years they claimed to be a foreign, independent nation, and made warto maintain that declaration. I ored from this state of facts that the people an States within the jurisdiction of the conederate government had severed their former connection with the U.S., and broken the ties which bound them together, not justly or legally, but in fact; that the U.S. had conquered this formidable power, and as their conqueror had a right to dispose of them as they deemed for their own interest, always dul regarding the law of nations. o prove the law arising from the facts, I cited several authorities both from elementary works of celebrated publicists, and adjudicated cases of courts of the last resort. I think no one wrll deny that prima acic these authorities made out my positions. 0w, when learned gentlemen came to replyto an argument founded on legal authorities, and which is not pretended to be based on or even fortified by the opinion or judgment of the speaker, it was certainly to be expected that it would be met by other legal authorities, either modifying, contradicting, or overruling those already cited. Legalquestions are to be decided by authority, by judicial decisions, or by the works of distinguished. elementary writers. The mere unwritten opinion or judment of no man or set of men deliv ered in debate can wei h a straw against such standard authority. I rave looked through the speech of the distinguished Gentfrom NewYork, (which I was not so ortunate as to been) and do not find that he has cited a single authority on this point to contradict or explain those which I produced. Why not produce some authority?p He does not deny O facts from which I reasoned. But he does deny that the civilWar broke the bands of the Union, or dissolved the original condition of the nation. I had quoted Vattel where he says: " CivilWar breaks the bandsof society and government.” “They stand precisely in the same predicament as 2 nations who engage in a contest." "The State is dissolved and the war between the 2 partiesstands on the sameground in everyrespectas a war between dilIerent nations." Now, sir, this, without multiplyingauthorities, makes out my main substantive reposition, from which all the others are coro lanes. The gentleman denies the correctness of Vat tels doctrine, and says the war did not “dissolve the States, ” but he gives us no authority but his own. I admit the gravity of the Gentlemans Opinion, and with the slightest corrob orating authority should yield the case. But without some such aid I am not willing that the sages of the law whom I have been accustomed to revere, Grotius, Rutherford. Vattel, and a long line of compeers, sustained by the verdict of the civilized world, and armed with the pan Oply of ages, should be overthrown and demolished by the single arm of the Gentfrom NewYork. The gentlemen say that this admits the doctrine of secession and the efficacy of the secession ordinances. The gentlemen are too shrewd to believe this stereotyped inference, but they may hope that others will believe it. The ordinances of secession amounted to nothing, either in law or in fact. It was the formation of a regular, hostile government, and the raising and supporting of large armies, and fora long time maintaining their declaration of independence, that mat c them a belligerent and the contesta war. Had there been nothing but secession ordinances it would have been "barren thunder.” Who is stupid enough to believe that the assertion of a fact is the Justification of it? Does the gentleman believe that the people are not astute enough to discern between the right and the fact? The gentleman in one place says “that in dividua s, not States, made this war.” Philli morc, as I quoted, says “individuals cannot make war.” The Supreme Court says that this “war was made by States.” I pray the gentleman to quote authority; not to put too eavy a load upon his own judgment; he might sink under the weight. ive us your author. The gentleman says, “The Gentfrom Pennsylvania says they forfeited their State existence by the fact of rebellion." That is not my doctrine; but as others hold that doctrine, I argued that, if true, still my view of the prope rpower to reconstruct was the same, to wit, congress. I never held to the suicide of States, though I think it possible; but it did not happen in the present case. The gentleman, in is colloquy with my colleague, [Mr. KELLEY stated the true doctrine of the existence, 20 States, thoueh it seemed to me wholly inconsistent with his other position, that this was a war of individuals, and not of States. His position is, that the rebel States have never been disorganized, but have been always under State government; and that their relation to the U.S. did not affect that question. So say I; and so I said 2 years ago. While others contended that the loyal people formed the State, I thought, and still t in, that ALL the people within itsjurisdiction who are legal citizens have an equal voice in the State government, without regard to character; that the control of republics depends on the number, not the qua it of the voters. This is not a Government. O saints. It has a large sprink ling of sinners. The 11 confederate States have always been well organized under State governments. True, after the rebellion they nit the Union, and organized under the conederate government. They were well organized States; but they were not organized in but out of the Union, under laws very different from those of the U.S. If they wish to reorganize their States must they not come into the Union anew? but how come in, if they were never out? It seems to me it reduces the gentlemans argument to an absurdity. The gentleman (Tom Ohio is much more logical than the Gentfrom NewYork. e contends that as the States were never out of the Union they may send Representatives here and demand admission under the Constitution without conditions or asking leave of anyone. If both the gentlemen are right as to the status of the States, then the Gentfrom Ohio is certainl right. What authority has the Gentfrom NewYork to question the right of a member from a sovereign State, except upon the ground of his qualifications? By declaring these States never out of the Union, does not the gentleman see in what deplorable guilt he involves the President? What rank usurpations has he practiced in intermeddling with the domestic a airs of a State! All States in the Union are equal, as the Gentfrom Ohio justly declares. How ong would the President occupy the White House if he attempted the same things in NewYork and Pennsylvania that he has done in SCarolina, Alabama, and other rebel States? If I believed as the gentlemen do, I should deem it the duty of Congress forthwith to present articles of imeacliment. tthis point I desire to say a word which may seem egotistic. You may have observed that since 1 made my 1st speech at the opening of Congress, giving my views on reconstruction, certain newspapers have been attempting to disturb the harmony which existed between the President and myself. In the most polite language and the most flattering epithets within tieir vocabulary they have e nounced me as the enemy of the President, and, with the aid of a certain high official. as having waged a successful war against him. Those journals have, perhaps unintentionally, done me too much onor. I will say, however, once for all, that instead of feelingpersonal enmity to the President, I feel great respect for him. I honor his integrity patriot ism, courage, and good intentions. e stood too firmly for the niou, in the midst of dangers and sacrifices, to allow me to doubt the purity of his wishes. But all this does not make me fear to doubt his judgment and criti cise his polic. When I deem his views erro neous, I shalisa so; when I deem them dan fierous, I shall enounce them. While I can have no hostility to the President, I may have, and have, very grave objections to the course which he is pursuin. I should have for ot the obloqny which I have calmly borne Tor 30 years in the war for liberty, if I should turn craven now.