Mr. CLARK. Or perhaps an ad captandum speech for carrying the present measure, because when I come to refer to the record in the HoRep of those who voted for it, I find such names as Douglas, of Illi nios; Foot, of Vermont;ingersoll, of Pennsyl vania; AndrewJohnson, now President; Marsh, of Vermont; Ramsey, of Minnesota; Rockwell, of Massachusetts; Schenck, of Ohio; Truman Smith, of Connecticut; Caleb B. Smith, of Indiana; Vinton, of Ohio; and Winthrop, of Massachusetts. And when I turn to the SenateI. find Cameron, of Pennsylvania; Cilley, of NewHampshire; John M. Clayton, of Delaware; Corwm, of (Mio; Crittenden, of Kentucky; Davis, of Massachusetts; Dayton, of NewJer sey; Johnson, of Maryland; and Simmons, of R dIsland. I could not well perceive, myself, that they had got into any scheme of rebellion. But, Mr. President, laying aside that view of the case, I have not been able, as I say, to come to the same o‘clusion with the Senfrom Ohio, because it seems to me that it would only increase the difficulty under which we now labor. Either the act of 1846 was constitutional or it was unconstitutional. If it was a constitutional act, and reconveyed that territory to the State of Virginia, that was a cession with which we have now nothing to do. We cannot recall it. It was an act one, and the territory passed under their jurisdiction. If it was an unconstitutional act, it is a question for the courts to decide. Congress when it passed it undoubtedly thought it was constitutional. I' do not think it is quite the prerogative of this Congress to judge of the act of another Congress and say it was unconstitutional, and therefore repeal it on that round, but to leave it to the court to say whet ier it was constitutional or not; especially when ifdyou attempt to repeal it you only increase the ifficulty under which you now labor. You passed the act of 1846, and by that act, constitutional or not, you actually transferred all that territory to the jurisdiction of Virginia. It has been ever since within the jurisdiction of Virginia for 20 years. The people there have acknowledged the laws of irgmia. by your act, by your direction, by your cession. Now, it seems to me hardly right, for the Congress of the U.S. to repeal that act. I believe they will increase the difficulty by saying “we will repeal that act; we will resume the jurisdiction which we granted away, ” thus producin aconflict between the 2 jurisdictions the State of Virginia and the DistCol; I think it is far better for the peace of the country, for the safety of the country, for the quiet of the neighborhood; I mean to let that territory remain under the jurisdiction of Virginia until the question can be tried by the courts. If the courts decide the law to be unconstitutional, then the whole jurisdiction must revert to the DistCol. if it is decided to be constitutional, we have no power over it; and if you repeal the act, it must remain as it was. You do not escape the difficulty by the repeal of the act. There may be persons within that district who will say, “ this I'erritory passed to the State of Virginia by the act of 1846; it was an act done, and the cession was complete; you cannot recall it; we do not acknowledge the right of the DistCol over us; we prefer the jurisdiction of the State of Virginia; ” and they appeal to the courts, and the courts decide that that 1st act was constitutional; what then? It must remain there; the repeal cannot alter it; so that, in either case, you do not escape the difficulty. You only make matters worse, 'it seems to me. I prefer that the matter should remain as it is, so far as I am concerned, until it is decided by the proper tribunal, to wit: a court of the U.S.