Mr. STEVENS. If the gentleman will permit me, I desire to state that what I said on that occasion was this: that I did not vote for the erection of that State under any provision of the Constitution giving us authority. My idea was that to call on Virginia as then organized to give consent to the formation of the State of WestVirginia was absurd. I held, although all my friends on the other side of the House did not all coincide with me, that as part of the conquered territory of the nation, we had a right to deal with that State as we pleased. I voted for the bill on that ground. M. HARDING, of Kentucky. I under stood it so, precisely. But in that case, as in others, the Gentfrom Pennsylvania was a pioneer. The gentlemen on the other side have all adopted. doctrine, at least enough of them to sustain him in contending that the Union was dissolved and that the Constitution was no longer applicable to the question. I say it to the credit of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania that he is always logical and consistent in his argument, though his prem ises on these questions are, as I hink, always wrong; but grant his premises and you cannot combat his argument. He never held that there was any authority in the Constitution for the bill creating the State of WestVirginia, nor does he take the ground that there is any authority in the Constitution for this military bill. As the Gentfrom Pennsylvania is now in his seat I will repeat a remark which I made a short time ago when he was absent. I said that he was the 1st to make the start ling announcement here in this House a few ears ago, “That all compacts between the orth and the South were abrogated, and that the laws of nations and of war thenceforward controlled the destinies of each party in the conflict then pending.” That is his ground. He is too good a lawyer ever to claim that there is any warrant in the Constitution for this bill. He will not do it. Yet gentlemen on that side of the House who pretend to repudiate his doctrine follow him in the support of this measure. If they had taken his ground they would at least have made a show of consistency. When he made the announcement to which I refer I was a little startled, and I remember that 2 or 3 gentlemen whom I see here sprang upon their feet and drew him into a sharp debate. But he said that he was a pioneer. The idea then occurred to me that with a sort of mischievous foresight he was looking for ward to the termination of the war. He saw that this Union platform would only bear their expenses to the close of the war, and anticipating, what now occurs, that when the war was over and the rebellion supPressed, and these States being States in the Union there would be no constitutional ground for keeping them out. Hence he took the ground that he did, 2 or 3 years ago, looking forward with a degree of foresight that seemed to belong to none other of his party to the time when the States in rebellion should be conquered the time when the war would have ceased. Hence he took the ground that the Union was dissolved, and all compacts between the North and the South abrogated, that the conquered would be subject to the will of the conqueror. Having taken that ground 2 or 3 years ago he now feels that he can consistently occupy it when the war is over. At that time the doctrine of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania did not find a single indorser. Yet he declared to those of his own party who took issue with him that he was a pioneer, and that, they would all in due time come forward and occupy his ground. This has come to pass, and it seems to me that the whole host of that party are now madly rushing this Government headlong to destruction. Without stopping to argue in reference to this bill, I ask gentlemen who love republican government whether they are not alarmed at the idea that such a measure as this should find any favor here?. Think of the idea of establishing and enthroning a supreme, absolute despotism over 8 or ten million people in the ten States of the South ! Think of surrendering up every power into the hands of the military 1. But a few months ago you were alarmed at the mere shadow of monarchy in Mexico. The Monroe doctrine was urged against tolerating monarchy anywhere upon this continent, and yet gentlemen seem to have forgotten all that; they are now ready to establish and enthrone an absolute military despotism over ten States of the Union. How long do you suppose there will be any respect felt for republican government in any part of the country? When the SCOTUS and the Chief Executive of the nation are denounced, when both are ridiculed and brought into contempt, when 1/3rd of our whole territory is surrendered up and passes into the hands of a bloody des. potism, how long will the people revere the Constitution? How long will these military men in the South be satisfied with this power, with absolute and supreme power over 1/3rd of the Union? Does any man suppose they will be content with that? How long will it be before that despotism will extend and enlarge itself until it covers the whole Union? Mr. Speaker, those military men who receive these appointments, who are to be intrusted with this absolute power of life and death over loyal and disloyal must of necessity have the spirit of tyrants. It is utterly impossible it can be otherwise. No matter what is intended, such is the result. You are going to place absolute power in the hands of the worst men to be found in the U.S. There is no true patriot, no friend of his country, who will ever aid in subverting and destroying its liberty. In other words there is no man who will consent to do the work of a tyrant who is not a traitor and a tyrant himself. I say it boldly whenever you pass this bill, any man–I do not care what his fame may have been before who accepts an office like this of absolute power of life and death over 1/3rd of the whole country must necessarily be a tyrant and traitor. Mr. Speaker, I repeat, no man who is not a tyrant himself can fill the office and do the work of a tyrant. You are, then, proposing to establish an absolute despotism without any hope that any other than a tyrant will fill the office. You cannot escape this conclusion; and I ask the House to mark it well. Now, sir, we have been told the South have forfeited their rights. If they have, do you acquire constitutional power by reason of that forfeiture? such has been the strange argument we have heard upon this floor, that we have the power to do this, that, and the other thing to establish a despotism over ten States of this Union. And why? Because they have forfeited their rights. oes any lawyer here contend that a forfeiture of rights enlarges the constitutional power of Congress? Do you acquire power in that way? No man who has a reputation as a lawyer can successfully up hold any such doctrine. Let us look at it a little further. Gentlemen admit that there are loyal men in those States and loyal men have been there during the whole war, but loyalty it seems is to go for nothing under this bill. This military despotism is to Press alike upon the loyal and the disloyal. It is therefore a cruel mockery to talk about the loyal people in the South when you establish a military despotism like this over loyal as well as disloyal. Loyal as well as disloyal, aged men and women, infants in the cradle, all alike to be crushed under this despotism Ah, but most of them are disloyal, you say. Are they? Does any man in his sober senses believe it is the right way to make them loyal to tax them without rePresentation and treat them as slaves Will they learn to love and reverence a Government when they are visited by nothing but its merciless cruelty and oppression 7 And now, sir, in regard to all these stories of crime in the South that we have heard again and again until we are weary of their repetition. I do not pretend to say but what there are outrages in the South in almost every county, and possibly even in every neighbor. hood. But what of it? Suppose a record had been made up of the horrid crimes and bar barous cruities that have occurred in any section of the North; is there a child that need be misled by it? The truth probably is, that the whole community in the North, South, East, and West has become to some extent demoralized. They have been accustomed to look upon the shedding of human blood with less horror than formerly. The whole land has been deluged as it were in blood. Ater rible war has prevailed for 4 years, and the natural result is demoralization, and I apprehend there is quite as much of it, if not more, in the eastern States as anywhere else. Let me cite a few examples. Only a few days ago we read an account of 2 aged females, (white women, one aged 60 and the other 70,) living in a quiet, secluded place in the State of Maine, whose house was entered by ruffians, who 1st brutally violated their persons and then murdered them. You may look long before finding in the dark catalogue of crime a more brutal and savage outrage.