Mr. HISE. No, sir, I will not; I was so interrupted in a former speech that I made that it was impossible for me to get along. Now, sir, if there was no sufficient cause for these States by revolution or by secession to withdraw from the Union and to attempt to maintain their position by defensive war — because it was manifestly a defensive war — will you now attempt to reduce them to a state of political slavery such as is unheard of in this country or, I believe, in any other? You propose that a commission, appointed under the provisions of this bill by the supreme court of this District, shall be vested with despotic and arbitrary power to call an election, whether the people of the State desire it or not, to arrange and rearrange districts in these States at their pleasure and to authorize the people to vote or not to vote at their pleasure, having the privilege of adopting a registry of voters in these States. Where under the Government of the U.S. has a despotism of that sort existed? Where in this country has there ever yet existed, or can there exist, any government unless it be free and representative both in form and substance. Sir, what kind of an officer would you call one of these commissioners? Is he a Federal or a State officer? Is he an officer of the government of the U.S or an officer of a State government? Is his office legislative, executive, or judicial, or all combined? All combined in one. By this extraordinary bill these commissioners not only have authority legislative, executive, and judicial, but also to set up one government, overthrow another, and install their own officers at pleasure. This they can do under the authority proposed and attempted to be vested in them to make a registry of the men who alone shall vote. Now, sir, I hold that if these men are federal officers, then the Constitution is violated in their mode of appointment. Where is the constitutional authority to vest the appointment of a Federal officer in the district court of the DistCol. The Constitution provides that — “The President shall have power, by and with the advice and consentof the Senate, to make treaties, provided 2/3rds of the Senators presentconcur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice daonrds, consent of the Senate shall appoint, embassa other public ministersand consuls, judges of Supreme Court, the and all other officersof the U.S. whose appointments are not herein otherwise for, and which shall be established by law. but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of Depts.” Those inferior officers who are to be appointed by the heads of the Depts must be executive officers necessary as infe rior agents in the discharge of the duties pertaining to those particular Depts. If the authority of appointment is vested in the courts of law, of course it is contemplated by the Constitution that they are to be inferior officers of those courts of law, such as tip staves, prothonotaries, clerks, and messengers of the courts. As for other officers, judges, embassadors, heads of Depts, &c., their appointment belongs, under the Constitution, to the POTUS, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and they are, with the exception of judges, removable at his pleasure is a manifest violation of the Constitution. Again, sir, these commissioners are by this bill to be invested with a power which this congress has no authority to vest in any officer of the Government, legislative, executive, or judicial; that is, the authority to overturn a State government and superstruct another, in violation of every principle of republican and representative government. Again, sir, it is proposed in this bill to authorize a certain class of the population to vote in constructing these new governments. Herein we have a gross violation of the rights and powers of the State governments, who alone have the authority to prescribe the qualifications and conditions upon which the inhabitants of the States shall exercise the right of suffrage. This is a power that does not belong to the Government of the U.S. It is contained in no grant of the Constitution, nor is it to be derived by implication from any granted power. On the contrary, the implication is decidedly the other way, because the Constitution in defining who may vote for members of this House declares that those voting shall possess the qualifications of elect ors of the most numerous branch of the State. Legislature. Some gentlemen on the other side, in arguing this question, have admitted, as I understand, that the Federal Constitution is a compact between sovereign States. This cannot be denied, because it had no obligatory force upon any State except by its own agreement, that agreement being indicated by its ratification through a State convention. The Constitution was a compact, a treaty, an agreement in writing between all the States, in the nature of a charter, defining the skeleton and frame work of a Government to be instituted, with public functionaries to rule according to the provisions of that instrument, to exercise the powers granted, and to respect all the reserved powers and rights of the State. Gentlemen agree that the Constitution was a compact. They agree further that the compact was violated by the different ordinances of secession which certain States adopted. They agree that, in virtue of that provision of the Constitution which declares the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the U.S., “anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding, ” those ordinances of secession and acts of State Legislatures looking toward the secession and separate independence of certain States fall to the ground as null and void. That being the case, they failed to get themselves out of the Union by valid ordinances, by valid acts of secession, by any valid acts of their Legislatures, or by any valid proceedings of their popular conventions. It is admitted that they did not get out, in any such way. And we claim that they did not get out at all, but that they were forced to continue in the Union. We hold that not for a moment did they lose their right of representation under the Constitution of the U.S., either at the time of secession or during the whole progress of the strife, provided that without ob: struction they could have used and exercised their constitutional privilege. But they were forcibly impeded; they were prevented during the time of the war by the military occupation of the country, by armed force in opposition to the Government, from sending their Representatives here. Now, I have never yet heard that the non-user of a constitutional privilege contained in the solemn covenant of Government between all the States would by any operation of law or reason deprive them of that privilege, and what can you make of it except a non-user during the 5 years the war was prosecuted? It was nothing but an abstaining from the assumption and exercise of an undoubted right to have their Representatives upon this floor to speak and vote for them, and to legislate in reference to the interests of all the States of the Union, themselves included. They failed to use their privilege, their right of representation. Whether the non-user was voluntary, or the result of obstructing force makes no difference in point of law or logic. They were still entitled to their representation here, and whenever they send their Representatives here we are bound to receive them, or otherwise we tole justly liable to the charge of odis unionists and revolutionists, because the Union is one of States under a compact by which only unite upon the unalterable principle of equal representation in the Senate and proportionate representation in the Lower House of the Congress. The only answer that is urged to this legal view of the case—and it is an answer founded neither in fact nor in reason—is that they forfeited their places as States, their rights as States, and oright of representation in the Federal Government, as a penalty due and which can be rightfully and properly enforced against them for their rebellion. Now, this is the 1st time I have ever heard gentlemen who assume to be jurists or lawyers claim that a State, a political corporation, can commit a felony; that a political State sovereignty, with all governmental powers, except such as they granted to the Federal Government, can be guilty of any known crime or offense against the Constitution of the U.S or against any law of the U.S. in such manner as to make them subject to any kind of indict ment, prosecution, judgment, conviction, or punishment. I will admit that individuals may be punished; but that the number of individuals who have committed transgressions or offenses or crime may be so numerous as to make it bad F. to punish any of them. That is the case here? Not only can you not punish these individuals, but by the treaties and arrange ments by which their armies were induced to surrender, as well as by the amnesty of the POTUS as published, and the pardons by him granted since, nearly the whole body of people, high and low, engaged in the contest for self government are relieved from all penalties whatever, and are not now liable to be prosecuted, tried, convicted, or punished at all, even in the courts ef law. If they have violated the compact, as they concede it to be, and by such violation have forfeited their position in the Union, and their rights as States under the Constitution, why is it so? It is because by their acts of secession and by their resistance to the authority of this Union they have got out of the Union as States. Then the forfeiture of their constitutional right to representation in this Government involves the release of their obligation to obey it. There is no law to in dict a State or to define crimes committed by States. There is no mode of procedure of trial by which a State can be arraigned, tried, convicted, condemned, and then punished for any offense. In o: to the effect of an attempted secession of some of the States from this Union, and an attempt to obtain their independence by force of arms, in reason or law the effect of it can be nothing more nor less than to suspend by reason of obstructing causes their representation in Congress for the time being. Now, see what they propose. They propose to give to a commission unbounded authority; that commission to be appointed unconstitutionally by the supreme court of this District. I suppose it is known when they west the appointing power in this court what kind of court it is, and that they therefore look forward to and expect the appointment of a radical commission, a commission composed of men who are continually howling out these hackneyed words of “loyalty” and “disloyalty, ” of “traitor, ” “treason, ” and “rebellion.” These gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, would cease these vituperative cries, they would cease belching forth these words “traitor” and “rebel” if they could at once perceive and understand that the country, that a large majority of the intellectual, the intelligent, and educated portion of it, look upon them in their attempts to eject States from the Union as the actual rebels and traitors instead of the southern people, who are endeavoring under the Constitution to re 5ume their guarantied right of representation in Congress and their position ini. Union. Abusive epithets of that description may easily be bandied backward and forward with or without reason; but they should not, sir, be thrown out continually against the men who are in favor of the peaceable union of these States under the Constitution, with the rights of representation, with the rights of person and of property, with our liberties preserved; but if it were prudent and admissible to retaliate, might not these terms of reproach be justly and truly hurled at those of the majority who so freely use them, those who are for instituting unconstitutional dominion over ten States of the Union, for creating a sectional military despotism, and for preventing the continuance of the union of." the States under and as required by the Constitution of the U.S.; for they are not willing that the Union shall be reestablished under the Constitution, but persist in their efforts and purpose to eject from the Union ten States by refusing them representation, while at the same time they are designing to impose upon them a most odious, oppressive, and despotic government. ow, sir, my programme is this; it is plain and simple: let us be united. You cannot by injustice and oppression prevent the people of this country from quarreling, as families sometimes do, upon measures of policy. You cannot prevent the existence of difference of opinion. You cannot prevent the existence and civil conflicts of parties adherent and parties opponent to an existing Administration. You cannot prevent the formation of the party of ins and the party of outs. You cannot prevent the party that is out from opposing the one that is in. In a deliberative body like this, having lim ited legislative powers in regard to any great measure of public policy, there will be differ. ING views and opinions, leading to strife and controversy upon constitutional questions and upon important subjects of public policy, as, for instance, internal improvements in the States by the Federal Government. One party will deny you have any power in the premises; that you have any authority to collect taxes in one portion of the Union to be invested in making internal improvements in another. Men will assert that you do nothing less than prostitute the power of the Government when you obstruct the freedom of commerce and impose duties upon foreign imports for the purpose of aggrandizing certain classes at the expense of others. Of course we will squabble about all these things, but we willnevertheless do it peaceably and courteously, maintaining in the mean time a respect for and obedience to the Constitution and laws of the land. We will not kill one another, we will not make war upon one another or between parties or sections; we will act courteously, and amid opposing views and conflicting though tolerant opinions show to each other that def erence and respect which is due from man to Inan. Differences of opinion will exist in a RFG, and ought to exist; and it cannot, therefore, be expected from the people of the South that by coercive exclusion from their place in the Union and deprivation of their right of representation in Congress they will surrender all their political opinions and prejudices in regard to the extent of the powers of the Federal Government and the reserved rights and power of the States, and humbly get upon their knees and exclaim, “You Radicals are right; you are in power, and we will vote for all of your measures now and forever hereafter.” If you expect that sort of slavery, that kind of servile. on the part of these southern people before you allow them representation upon the floors of Congress, then the Union never will be restored. Were they to make such slavish and degrading q9nfession of repentance and reformation, you will never have any confidence in them; your suspicion and jeal ousy would remain; and the tenacity with which you have grasped and hold all power, and the dread of losing it and your party ascendency, will hereafter as heretofore cause you to continue your opposition to the union of all the States and to i. admission of the Representatives of the ten southern States in Congress. It is apparent; sir, that the use of the word “loyalty” in this country by this party means loyalty to them, loyalty to their domination, submission to their will, undisputed recogni.tion of their power and authority now, and a promise for its perpetual continuance. What you mean by freedom is to make slaves of these southern people, to put the State governments of the South in the hands of the negroes, be: cause by robbing the people of the South of their slave property and putting these negroes into power you hope to make them your own submissive slaves. The term “loyalty” is one inapplicable to this country. This term should be obsolete and find no place in an American lexicon. It means submission, unconditional slavish submission to a feudal superior, whereas in this country we are all equal and there is no such thing as legal or obligatory loyalty to any man or party required of an American citizen. We are bound to obey the Constitution until it is changed, to submit to the laws until they are repealed; but the right of free discussion always exists. Our whole superstructure of governments, State and Federal, are built upon the declared right of the people to alter, abol. ish, overturn, and reconstruct their political institutions at pleasure. What does the possession of this right amount to unless we have also the other right to be disloyal in the sense in which that word is used; that is, the right to controvert the views of others, the freedom of discussion, the freedom of the press, the right to object to any feature in the Constitu.tion or laws or policy of the country that we may think subversive of the public good or prosperity? It involves the right to overturn the Government itself—legitimately, I admit, not by faction nor by revolution—but by repealing or changing, in the forms preseribed, an existing Constitution, and the substitution of another by competent authority in its place. And yet, if any southern man should stand up here for the Constitution as it was and should speak against the fearful corruption of the dominant party here, he would be denounced with contempt as a disloyal man. Some gentlemen say: We offer you condi.tions; accept this constitutional amendment and you shall have representation in congress—as though it lay in them, exgratia, to give or withhold the right of constitutional representation 1 Sir, you deny this right in violation of right, of justice, and of the constitution. Conditions! You have no right to make conditions. The right of representation stands in the great charter of the Constitution, and can n?ver be forfeited so long as a State that you wrongfully deprive of representation is governed by and held amenable to the au: thorities created by that Constitution; so long as you attempt to rule, tax, and govern a Stats as a State of the Union, so long it is a State of the Union, and its rights as such can, only be defeated by a gross violation of the Constitu.tion; in fact, by an entire subversion of free government, protanto at least, to the extent you attempt to exercise control over disfranchised States. Now, sir, this attempt never can be carried out. I know well—I think the country well understand—what the party here in power are attempting to accomplish by the series of measures proposed and the system of policy projected. Those measures and that policy are eertainly calculated, if not designed, to uphold their dominion and to perpetuate their power, by keeping alive indefinitely the hostile, vin. dictive, revengeful feeling that has been engendered by long years of political controversy and strife, and o civilWar, so thal the public feelings and sentiments on theirs (the stronger section) will be so educated, fos tered, and strengthened, as to insure their continued possession of place and power. They will, to keep alive forever sectional jealousy and hatred, persistently reiterate the charge of southern disloyalty as furnishing a sufficient reason and excuse for depriving these people of their representation in Congress. If a loyal man conies here and asks admission, and if the State he represents has adopted the constitutional amendment, you say you will admit him. What right have you to inquire into the loyalty of a member? And when you do inquire, what would you ask? Your inquiry would be substantially this: “Are you humble; are you repentant; have you changed your opinions and feelings; are you willing now to subscribe to our dominion, and admit not only that all we have done is right, but all that we may do hereafter will be right. 2” [Laughter.] And if he answers in the negative you may pronounce him disloyal. It is upon such a miserable and unreasonable pretext as this that you deprive these States of their right of representation on this floor. The negroes are your friends, and they and the felons and jail birds are to be admitted to the right of suffrage and allowed to hold office in these States by your bill; and of such persons will be composed the membership of the proposed conventions, the miserable creatures that are claimed to be enfranchised by your civil rights bill, the reckless and unprincipled adventurers from the North who have overrun the South to plunder both the white man and the negro; camp followers, sutlers, Army contractors, and discharged convicts, are the kind and character of persons to whom will be committed, by the operation of this bill, the governments of these States, and who, should it be passed and carried into execution, will send epresentatives, “loyal” Representatives, to this House. My God! what a representation. it will be. [Laughter.] I have heard the question asked sometimes “Would you like to be POTUS, and receive an embassador from Hayti; would you like to sit at table with a fragrant African on one side of you?” And I have heard the answer made, “I would never serve in a body where the black man occupied that position on terms of equality with me.” These are the kind of men that are to make these new governments, overturn the existing governments, and send “loyal” representatives to Congress. Now, we understand all this, and the country ought to understand it. It is all a miserable scheme of public policy to destroy the political force and influence of the southern . as members of the Union, devised by a party whose adherents are loudest in professions of devotion to free government and of love of liberty. Ah, sir, Madame Ro land exclaimed during the bloodiest period of the French Revolution, “Oh, Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name!” These men claim to be the special advocates of human liberty and equal rights. They say they must put their friends, their loyal friends, in possession of the State governments and then they will send loyal delegations to represent them in Congress. Oh, yes, they will send loyal delegations! So this bill, if executed, will in effect establish corrupt and despotic local governments for all those States, and place in all the offices the most ignorant, degraded, and corrupt portion of their population, who would rule and ruin without honesty or skill the actual property holders and native inhabitants, mak,ing, insecure life, liberty, and property, and still holding those States in their Federal relations subject to the most rapacious, fierce, and unrelenting despotism that ever existed, that of a vindictive and hostile party majority of a Congress in which they have no voice or representation, and by which irresponsible majority they would be mercilessly oppressed for that very reason; and this. } be continued I fear until the country shall again be precipitated into civilWar. We think the design and purposee of this unwise and malignant policy is understood by the representatives in the congress of the U.S. But the country should understand it also, because it is impossible, that the American people should long sustain a party who do everything they please; who engage in all sorts of usurpation, and who sustain all sorts of monstrous and vile measures, unwarranted by constitutional law, subversive ofogovernment, and destructive to the Union of the States. They will not sustain them when they have full knowledge and are enabled to understand the purposes they have in view. Sir, I am not speaking to that party. What I say I say to the country in the hope that what goes forth to the people of truth, and reason will influence the public judgment, in time, by a change of rulers, to avert the impending ruin now threatening the whole country. I could make, sir, a series of charges against that party, the truth of which would find its verification in the history of the times, including the period intervening between the date of their advent to power and the present moment, that when understood and believed by a free people would overthrow any party in any civilized community in the world. "I have not time to do that now. We can do nothing with them by argument. We can do nothing by holding up the written Constitution and the laws. They are ruling, dominant, fierce, and triumph ant, with such force and powers of numbers that, in the exultant spirit of present possession and fruition, they are made blind to the adverse destiny which surely awaits them. Now, in the very zenith of their power they will triumphantly carry all their monstrous measures, tending to produce consolidation of all the powers of the Government of the U.S. executive, judicial, as well as legislative, an of all the States, in the hands of the dominant majority of this the legislative branch of the Government. They have deliberately engaged in an unconstitutional scheme for subverting the executive power of this Government, and today a monstrous bill was proposed and referred to a committee by a party majority to overthrow the judicial dept of the Government, to overthrow it in all its material characteristics, in regard to its main power of subserving the grand object had in view in the creation of independent depts of the Government. What is the Constitution but a paper with writing upon it—intelligible writing? How can you sustain this Constitution; how can you command respect for its provisions, save by an adherence to it and by keeping within its restraints, and it secured in such respect and restraint by an independent judiciary & The history of this Congress will show how little respect a dominant majority has for constitutional law, and how gloomy would be the hope or prospect of avoiding legislative encroachment and usurpation without the existence of an independent judicial dept of government of powers sufficient to check the inroads of the Legislature upon the Constitution. It was well known by the wise and sagacious men who framed the Constitution of the U.S. that that Constitution would not be respected by a dominant party majority in Con; gress, especially when it attained to a 2/3rd vote, since it would then “Play such fantastic tricks beforehigh heaven, As make the angelsweep.” The framers of the Constitution foresaw this, and hence they provided that there should be a judicial dept of the Government, and that the judges should be independent of the legislative dept, should hold their places for life, and should only be removed by impeachment in the most solemn form: Why was this done? It was in order that the people might rely upon that dept of the Government as standing as a breakwater, as an intervening wall of defense against the in vasions and usurpations of Congress in behalf and in defense of the rights of the States and of the people. Not only was the judicial dept thus created and for this purpose, but knowing that a check of that sort was necessary to preserve constitutional rule there was an executive dept created for the same identical purpose, an executive dept in which was odged all executive power. The only officer known to the Constitution in which that power is vested is the President. And it is necessary only to ascertain the distinction as to what is legislative and what is executive power in order to know whether any given power belongs to congress or to the POTUS. e.comes in with his beneficent conservative power and authority placed by the Constitution in his hands of putting a veto upon the unconstitutional action of the legislative branch of the Government, which power can never be overcome except by a vote of 2/3rds of each House of Congress, as has been the case here lately, and as will undoubtedly be the case repeatedly hereafter. And our only hope of the preservation of a free Government is in the judicial dept of the Government, and in the decisions of the Supreme Court pronouncing your acts unconstitutional and void.