Mr. JOHNson. That is not the question before the Senate. I suppose we ha a government before the cesston was obtained I fbrget now how long it was after the Constitution was adopted before the territory was acquired and during the whole of, that time I imagine we had a Government. There is no authority in the Constitution to procure a seat of Government at all except With the assent of the States; and if the honorable member supposes that the absence of a seat of government is to put an end to the Government, then we had no Government during the interval that elapsed from the adoption of the constitution up to the period of this acquisition; and to that result I am sure he will not come. This power, as I was going on to say when interrupted by my friendfrom Maine, 18given solely for the purpose of vesting in Congress the exclusive authority to legislate, and nothing else. It is a continuing power that may be exercised at any time that Congress may think proper to exercise it, if it can; and if, therefore, Congress at any time hereafter shall think proper to change the seat of Government, they may, with the consent of the States in the locality which they may select, procure a place for the seat of Government. ow, suppose that is done; are they compelled then to continue the owners of these ten miles square? The very object of their becoming the o ners will then have terminated. The purposgof making them the exclusive owners of the property was to give them the exclusive authority to legislate, and nothing else. It was to protect the legislative and executive depts of the Government of the U.S. from the possible failure to perfprm their duty by the States in which they might be sitting, to make this Government capable of defending itself by any means that it thought proor and the sole purpose, therefore, was to clot e Congress with the authority of exclusive legislation. It had nothing in the world to do With any particular territory, except the particular territory that Congress might hold from time to time as the seat of Government and have acquired under the authority of the Constitution. Again, my friendfrom NewYork tells us that, once acquired, we must continue to hold it; we cannot get rid ofit. He denies, therefore, the authority to change the seat of Government at any time without a change of the Constitution, and he supposes that to be the case because the power conferred is a power to exercise exclusive legislation over the ten miles square or an portion less than the ten miles square that ougress may occupy. Does not the honorable membersee that if his argument is sound it really applies to all the other terri etory which Congress may acquire under the same provision of the Constitution? It says they are “to exercise exclusive legislation." That was the thing the Convention had in view, to protect the rights of the Government, to maintain its safety, “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the U.S., and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of tge State in which the same shall be, for the erection of fdrts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.” We have from time to time purchased with the assent of the States portions of territory for the purposesmentioned in the provision whichI have just read. Does the honorable member mean to say that if we cease to want those places for forts arsenals, or dock yards we cannot abandon them and surrender them to the States? I should think not; and yet in one sense the title acquired in such portions of territory is a title acquired under the constitution. But the error of my friend’s argument, if he be in error, as I think he is, is in confounding the object of the provision with what he supposes to have been its purpose. The object of the provision was solely to enable the government to acquire territory for the purposes therein mentioned, not to compel them to hold it after they had acquired it. lfthe acquired it for a fort or an arsenal, and a rward it was discovered that it was not suited for either, Or that the exigency which had rendered it necessa in the 1st instance was terminated, it shoal certainly be in the power of the government to cede it back; and as the language with reference to forts and arsenals isi entical with that which is used with reference to the ten miles square, why is it that it is not in the power of Congress to cede the whole or a part of it back when Congress becomes satisfied that it is necessary no longer to keep the whole or a part of it? I never heard it questioned. The only doubt that has ever arisen and, as I understand them, that is the ground stated by my friendfrom Michigan and my friend from NewYork is because this particular territo is to be used for the seatof government. hatis true. You cannot abandon it and keep it for the seat of Government without failing to accomplish what the Constitution intended to accomplish, which was that the seat of Government should be under the exclusive legislation of Congress. But if you can part wrth territory acquired under the same clause for either of the other purposesmentioned in the clause, I ask my honorable friendfrom Michigan upon what logical ground he can deny to Congress the right to get clear of this as well as any other territory acquired under that clause. The suggestion of my friendfrom Michigan that the act of 1846 was the beginning of the rebellion is only the result of a teeming fancy. He has hated the rebellion so keenly, and has viewed it so properly with such abhorrenee, that it raises itself up in his imagination upon almost every occasion. Now, let me say to the honorable member that in 1846, when that law was passed, there was no man, woman, or child in the U.S. who dreamed that such a rebellion was contemplated by anyone. Certainly, as far as I know, and Iliad some reason to know, the suggestion fell from the lips of no one that it was intended to accel erate in any way the bringing about of such a rebellion, or that it could have a tendency to accelerate such a rebellion.