Mr. COOK. In reply to the question proposed by the Gentfrom Ohio, I have toing that there was po legal State say my view is this: while the power has been deleted to the President by the act 051796 for the purpose of putting down an insurrection which oes not go to the extent of abrogating the government of a State; while he may decide under that law the rebellion is put down and the old Government is restored to the exercise of full power, yet, after the rebellion has gone to the extent of subverting the State government, it does not clothe him with the power to recognize another government set up in such waythat its Sens&Reps are entitled to seatsin Congress. fitbe true, when the State government is utterly subverted and overthrown, the POTUS has the power to say, when the people of a State are again in accord with the people of the Union and the national Government, you will have the spectacle presented of a granted power over riding State and national authority. There is no escape from it. The case supposed is not applicable, for before the presiout can act under the law of 1795there must be the demand of a State Governor or Legislature, and when the rebellion is suppressed such Governor and Legislature remain in power. There is no power of reconstruction here. Could Congress grant a power in 1795 which should conclude it now. uppose the Executive 2 years ago had recognized the rebel government of SCarolina; would congresshave been boundthereby? If you replyt at it was a rebel government, I an swer, that is begging the question. I want to be sure that these southern governments are loyal, a proposition not entirely beyond question. It is, hqyvever, to my mind too clear for argument that on government established in those States, or either of them, is, to the extent that it is the act of the CommanderinChief of the Army, a purely military government. A provisional governor appointed by the president, as CommanderinChief, as the provisional governors of these southern States were, is a Military officer, a commander of an army; as such can make only military appointments and establish only military governments. A purely civil function of government cannot be or formed by a purely military officer; an to judge and determine when States which have utterly destroyed their loyal civil governments, have established others republican in form, is a question urely for the civil authorities. H t then fo lows as well from reason as from the authority cited that those States which have been Without any legally organized governments for 4 years, and have now reorganized their State governments, must submit to Congress the question whether these reo anized governments are the acts of persons out weized to form State governments, that is of loyal men, and whether they are republican in form. it is said with great earnestness that the president has the only power to determine when the rebellion is over and to end military authority, leaving the States to the restored and recontructed governments. Where does thisprinciple lea 7 Let me state it in other wor s: it is, the President has a rightto determine when force is necessary to execute the law; has a right to set up military government in place of; any overthrown by dislo alty; and then has the right to determine whon those military governments shall end, which involves the right to determine how long they shall continue; and we might have the extraordinary spectacle presented of the different Depts of the government differing in opinion as to whether an organization claiming to be a State government was really so or not; the Executive hold government, and that he, as Commander in Chief, must set up and continue military government in such State, and COngress admitting Sens&Reps claimin seats under the authority of the State organizations thus set aside by the President, a conflict would result which would render the harmonious Operation of our Government wholly impossible. These States, it is said, cannot at any time be controlled by Congress. While the rebellion exists and their people are in arms against the Government, they are to be controlled by Military government, and when the rebellion ceases they are at once to be remitted to all their rights as States and that it is purely in the discretion of the CommanderinChicf to say when these military governments shall cease. But are not these military governments, while they exist, under the control of Congress? Is there in our Government any purely military olIi cer, whether he be CommanderinChief of the Army, Lieutenant General, or any other officer who is independent of the lawmaking iower? Could not Congress, by law, provide not no military officer should assume any function of civil government, or regulate by law the extent to which he might assume civil control? Did not Congress during the war prescribe by law what should be done by the military with slaves? Congress, says the constitution, shall havepower to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces, including, as I suppose, the commander of the forces and the military governments administered by them. Those who ieny to Congress all right to legislate for these States lately in arms against the Government must deny that military government could be established at any time and for any period in those States, that they must be left to anarchy, or they must allirm that there is a military power in the Government superior to the civil power, not under the control of the lawmaking power, and consequently not under the control of law. Congress has by law provided that in case of insurrection in any State too strong 1rthe civil power to suppress, upon the demo d of the legislaturc, or Governor, if the Legislature could not be convened, the President shall call out the militia to suppress it; but in the case before us there was no such demandGovern ors and Legislatures were rebels alike. The President must see that the laws are faithfully executed, and under this power troops were called for and armies raised; but is it not too clear for argument that, in simply enforcing the laws. he must of necessity act in subordination to the lawmaking power? if, then, any State which is rightfully under the control of a military government is right fully under the control of Congress, ought not Congress to determine when such military government should cease and such State resume its relations with the General Government which have been broken? That recognition by congress of the State government by the admission of Sens&Reps should not be made until military control in those States ceases to be a necessity, unless this military control can exist after such State has thus resumed its equal place in the national Government. The question then arises whether, when a State is in full relation with the General Government, when the State government has been recognized by Congress, authority yet remains in the President as CommanderinCbief of the Army to exercise military control in that State. I admit that when an insurrection exists in any State too strong to be suppressed by the State, and when the properState authority has called upon the President for aid, that the commander of the forces engaged in suppressing the insurrection may proclaim martial law, and may for the time suspend the action of the civil tribunals; but when a State has no legal State government and is ruled, by military authority alone, can a State government he organized, and the relations between that government and the national Government be fully restored, and yet military government existin the State? In other words, if the people of any State are in rebellion and insurrection and so amenable to military law, ought they to be represented in Congress? If the rebellion has ceased and the insurrection is suppressed and the loyal State 1 government restored, can militarygovernment nger be maintained in such State 7 In another form the question is. can the President as commanderiuChiet of the Army in any State. where no actual state of war is existing, set aside the civil authority and annul the enactments of the Legislature? If this is so, there is no authority in this Government, Sta? or national, except the Executive and this is a fair statement of, the question before us; for it is a matter of history that in 6 distinct instances have the military authorities, acting under the direction of the President in the southern Statesv set aside the laws enacted by the Legislatures of States which it is insisted are fully reorganized and have resumed their relations with the Union. If these governments, organized under the direction of the commanderinChief, are military governments, such exercise of power was properand right. If they are State governments, as is claimed, with equal authority in the Union with other States, the doctrine insisted upon would place all State governments within the control of the national Executive. I affirm that until the rebel States are loyal enough to remain peaceable members of the nations Union of their own accord and without the coercion of the national armies, they are not entitled to assist in governing the nation. In 1S6} and 1862 the doctrine was to some extent received that although the loyal State governments had been overt rown, and all the men holding State offices and the controlling majority. of the voters were traitors, yet the Representatives of such State might still remain in Congress; and disloyal men held seats upon this floor until the war began and then went from these Hallsto join the ranks of our ene mies in the field. Suppose all the Representatives and Senators adheld their seats, and had thus retained the power in conjunction with the northern men who always voted with them to embarrass the action of the national Government, (and there was no 2/3rds majority of loyal men to expel them at that time) is it not apparenttocver manthatin those two earsour country would have been ruined an treason would have triumphed? If we have learned nothing by this eXperience, is it certain that those who today would destroy the Government if they could are equally dull of apprehension 1 It is certainly possible that the men who for 4 years have striven so earnestl to overthrow this Government, and have periled so much in their efforts to destroy it, cannot safely be intrusted with the control of it; and that to place the political power of the nation in their hands would only give them a weapon for its. destruction more effective than the bay onets which they used against its life while they had the power to do so. Certainly there are precodqnts of this sort so fresh in our memories that they cannot pass unheeded. 5 years ago men held seats in this Hall and in the senate, ay“ and in the Cabinet of the President, who were bound. so far as oaths can bind such men, to support the constitution of the U.S., an with the oath of God fresh upon their lips were plotting and earnestly endeavoring tolsecure its utter subversion. After 4 yearsof bloody war has intensifiedevery feeling of bitterness then existing, have we the entire assurance that oaths ofloyalty enforced by the power of thenutional armies will be more binding and more effective than the oaths which heretofore were so freely taken and so bascly broken? Shall we have no guarantees from these men before we admit them once more to make laws for loyal men? Shall we intrust to their decision the questions whether we shall preserve the public faith by repaying the money which loyal men among us have advanced to sustain the Government in the time of its need, and whether we shall pay the pensions we have promised to the soldiers who, in endeavoring to sustain the Government, have by thy:Ihands of those same men been muti latedand disabled? But it is said that we refuse to admit loyal men to, seats in this House, and the names of honorable and loyal gentlemen from the State of Tennessee are sounded in our cars from day today as if this question were a purely personal. one to them. I have the honor of the acquaintance of some of them, and if the question of their admission concerned thema one I should rejoice to vote for their admission, but it is not so. The admission of these loyal men from Tennessee means full recognition of the State with all the powers belon i ng to any State in the Union; it means the Withdrawal of military government, not the troops, perhaps, but the Government, for it cannot be that it. will be claimed that the old axioms of the fathers are to be reversed and the civil power of a State subordinated to the military power; it means the abandonment of the Union men of that State to the control of the Legislature and the courts of that State, and that, too, when the Governor of that State has publicly declared, in a letter to the Speaker of this House “If the removal of the Federal troops from tennesseemust necessarilyfollow upon the admission our congressionaldelegationto their seats. why their and in that casethe loynlmon of Tennesseebegto Without Representativesin Congress. I tell you, on through you all whom it may concern. that withouta. law to disfranchise rebels and a forceto carry out the KIOVISN)!!! of that law. this State will passinto the and sof the rebels and a terrible state of affairs is bound to follow. Union men will be driven from the State. forced to sacrifice what they have and seek homes elsewhere and yet Tennessee is in a much. Better condition than anyof the other revolted States and affords a strongerloyal population.” Where it is apparent that the judges who are holding their office by appointment of the Governor could not be elected by the people, and when the Union men of Tennessee are saying to us such words as are contained in the memorial of the Union State central committee “Supposing the supervising power of the General Governmentwithdrawn from lennessee, and assuming that. To some extent at least, the passions. prejudices and resentmentsof the majority of the people Will be reflectedin theirlegislation. it is not difficult to anticipate the true policy and the character of the civil and Judicial administration which will prevail. It may besafely assumed “ “ 1st. That so far as possible. in legislation and the bestows of patronage and the management of all public nffuirs. the late rebelswill bethe preferred class and that all the actsof the rebel State government. including the removal auddeslruclion of the State banks and State treasury. the disarming and conscription the people and the impressmentottheir property and all the actsofrebelo iccrs. soldiers and guerrillas will be legalized. Those who have conrobbed wounded and imprisonedwillgo unredrcssed, yvhilo thosewho have inflicted these injuries will be Justified in law. as theynow are in public sentiment. “2nd. As is even now the case in man locali ties. serviccs rendered and wounds reccive in the confederate cause will be passports to preferment. while to have taken sidegWith the causeof the Union will be equivalent to nJudment of infamy. forever consizning the offenderto o scurity and disgrace. "3rd. If the Legislature does not votethanksand medals to southernheroesandunite with other soutbern States to pay the confederatedebt. it will befrom gear or policy and not from want of sympathy or desire. "4th. As far as possible. restrictioris will be thrown around the negro and his elevation in the scale of being discountenanced. if not actually prohibited; hewill be excluded from the courts. fromcom mon schools, and probablyfrom all meansof education. from business and privileged occupations, and perhapsfrom the acquisition of property.” The returned rebel soldiers and those whoafllliate with them. o only boastthat at the nextgenurnl elections they wi I obtain entire control of the State government. Indeed.” is now the casein mnn couns ties, that those who have been most notorious ortheir advocacy and support of rebellion are the 1st to receive the suppoit of the people for office. Service in the rebel armyis. in many partsof theStatc. the best pmspost to poSition apd power, while to have been connectedWiththe Union Army isi –cgarded as ulfixin a stigma. Deeper and more indelible than the bran up“on the brow of cain. Under the appointing plower, asexermsedby Govnrnor Brownlow. wc pow have a loyaliurheinry; get all their power apd influence cannegtpreyent reel juries from practicing the ossestinjustice toward loyal men. while itisalmost impossibleto bring rebel o enders to justicc. Should theiudicinrg of ourstate fall into rebel control. sad indeedwill e the condition of those who. trusting to the nations faith. havn breasted the storin of treason here. In a social apd business point ot view Union menand Union familiu are proscribed and insulted.” The mere presence of troops in Tennessee cannot prevent the ascendency of disloyal men in her Legislature, and unless as in Mississippi and in Gear in. the military actually do set asidh the acts oft leLegislature, the Union men and the freedmen can have no protection from us. I believe that the State of Tennessee is perha a an exceptional case; that more of her eo To have been loyal during the war; that so 1:15 by law declared that black men may testify in court and enjoy etnnl civil rights with white men; and I know that the men she sends here are loyal uion. What. I want tohnow is this: 1866s1nrnlod 903, can those loyal men maintain their ascendency in Tennessee? In recognizing them we recognize those who shall come after them, when it will be too late todeny such recognition. Can lplyal men hold the Legislature of Tennessee? ill the judges appointed by Governor Brown low, not elected, be succecedby loyal judges elected by the people? Will the Union men and freedmen be safe if we place it out of our power “tohelp them? If we recognize the State government of Tennessee without exacting any uar antees against the assumption of the rebel ebt, shall we not set a recedent which it will be unsafe tofollow with other southern States? I do not answer these questions; I only ask them. I look for the answer to the committee whom we have charged to inquire, and I will await their answer, at least until I am willing by my vote to brand them with bad faith or cul able remissness in their high duty. but there can be no taxation without representation. The 2 are inseparable. The argument so persistently urged surely has not been well considered, or it would be seen that men may rightfully be deprived of representation for such period as may be necessary for the safety of the GOvernment; and the very men who urge this maxim of no taxation without representation are acting upon this theory. Whom do they ask to be represented upon this floor? All Tennessee? NO; a minorityof the People of Tennessee. The State government they ask to be recognized forbids a majority of the taxpayers of the State from voting, (white taxpayers.) The ask recognition because they exclude rebe s from voting. ft is taxa 1tion without representation on a grand scale, arid it is necessary and just. Therefore, the application of the maxim in question is unjust, and the position of those who urge it is obviously illogical. If it is true that the military must be isnperior to the civil authority in those States, shall we recognize the supreme authority of the civil power and withdraw all military protection from loyal men at a time when evidence is accumulating before us that suits are being brought by 100s in some of the southern States against Union men who have served in the armies of the nation for acts done under command of the ir officers; and that these courts are deciding that the command of a military superior furnishes no defense, because no officer had the right to direct that private property be taken for public use without compensation, and the Union soldier is held liable for property of rebels taken at a time when the rmy was compelled to subsist upon the country through which it moved, and made to respond in damages for acts without which the country could not have been defended? But on the other hand, when uerrillas are sued for injuries to the property of nion men, these same courts hold that there is no liability, the U.S. having recognized them as belligerents, and their acts are acts of war; and so Union men “are plundered and oppressed. Evidence is not wanting showing a so that when Union men brin" suits to recover estates which have been confiscated by sentence of the confederate courts on account of the loyalty of their owners, the State courts are deciding that those sentences of confiscation, being the acts of adefacto government, are valid and binding, and the recov ery of the estates of Union men seized by rebels is rendered forever impossible except by the action of the national Government. It is a fact not to be disguised that in all the southern States thespirit of the majority of the ople is hostile to the Government of the U.S. "and that were they once restored to their old place in the Union and the military powerwith rawn, the State laws that have been enacted by Legislatures elected by a minority of the pjeople, and which were designed to protect nion men and freedmen, would be swe taway, and the judges appointed by such loyal Govern ors as rownlow would have to give place to men who would execute the will of the rebel. lt orities. B an we now place the freedmen in the uncontrolled power of their former masters? The negro codes enacted by the reconstructed Legislatures of Mississippi and SCarolina are our sufficient anstven; codes so malignant in their spirit, so contrary to all the guarantees given to these men when we needed their aid to maintain the Government, that the military commanders, acting under the authority of the President, have set them aside; thus overridin the legislation of States which gentlemen the fi us are reconstructed and in full possession of all the powers of any States Of this Union. It is a parent that the men who have striven har est to destroy the nation are the men to whom in many instances will be intrusted the execution of these negro codes. The very Sens&Reps elected, for the most part are men who were elected because they could not take the oath of loyalty; and to have borne arms a uinst the country, to have sLaughtered most o our sons and brothers, is the sur est passport to office in these States which we are told are now repentant and loyal, The recognition of these States now means the abandonment of the loyal men and the freedmen of the South to the mercy of men who hate and despise them for their loyalty. It would present the strange spectacle of the conquerors accepting all the results of defeat; the institutions of the country reserved at a vast cost of life and treasure, only that loyal men should be placed more completely in the power of traitors. Sir, if we abandon these men who have risked all in the defense of the country, and are now defenseless without our aid; if we refuse to protect the freedmen who at our call have aided us to suppress the rebellion, and who are now thrown upon our hands with nothing on earth that they can call their own, helpless and defenseless, we shall be held faithless and dishonored before God and the civilized world. Before the military power of the nation is with drawn, then, we must have guarantees, both for the security of the nation and for the protection of those who are the wards of the nation and for whose defense the national honor is pledged and among those guarantees I would require ratification by those States of the amendment of the constitution which has passed this House forbidding the levy of any tax or impost for the payment of the rebel debt in whole or in part. I: is true that in their remodeled constitutions this debt is repudiated, but we cannot forget that this was done under the coercive power of the Government and underthe direction of the CommanderinChief of the armies, and that they were exceedingly reluctant to repudiate this debt. How did they do it, of their own choice? No, by the stern dictation of the president declaring to them that unless the action which they earnestly desired to take, and did at 1st take, was reversed, that their reorganization as States in the Union was impossrble. If this debt was repudiated with such intense reluctance, is it certain that when all political power is again given to their hands t cy will not rescind their action? Already in the Legislature of Louisiana resolutions have been offered for the calling of a new convention to amend the constitution of the State, and I ven ture the prediction that it will not be 2 years after that State is fully restored to all the rights of a State in this Union before this constitution, which is regarded with aversion by so large a mass of her peole, will be replaced by a new organic law. lr e ought not to leave the question, whether the loyal Union men of the South, who have already suffered so much on account of their devotion to the Union, shall be taxed to refund to rebels the money advanced by them to secure the destruction of the lives an property of loyal men to the decision of the robe 5 who have advanced the money and seek its reaymeut. The question whether Union men of the South shall be required to pay for the destruction of their own property and their own bitter perse cution, whent cy were imprisoned in dungeons and were driven from their homes and hunted like a partridge upon the mountains, is a question to be decide by the loyal men of the nation, and not by the traitors who want the money. If they, in good faith, have repudiated this debt, there can be no objection on their part to the ratification of this amendment; if not, its ratification is essentially necessary., I would also require that the ameiidment of the constitution, which has passed this House, should be adopted by those States, which should forever destroy the unequal and unjust nppor tioument of representatives by which slavery so long succecedin controlling the Government, and which should secure to loyal men the same influence in the Government which is accorded to rebels. I would say to these men, you must agree to relinquish all claim to arepresentation based upon the fact that you have among you persons whose education and development you have pprohibitedby law until you have made each one to amount to 3/5ths only of a human being, and whom you have never represented, whose views and Wishes were never considered, and who were deemed guilty of a crime of unspeakable atrocity when the ventured to petition the men who were electe as their Representatives in this House. You shall not be any stronger in this Government because you have been slaveholders or rebels. The passage of the bills now before congress extending the duties of the Freedmens ureuu, and for the abrogation of all distinctions in civil rights is. in my opinion, absolutely essential. The freedmen are by the action of the Government thrown upon our hands help: less and defenseless. upon the call of the nation they rallied to its delense; by their aid the nation was saved, and we cannot permit them to suffer without our hel. Our Government fed and protected those who had been stolen from Africa and were captured by our cruisers, and who had no claim upon us but one of a common humanity. We have at the present we;sion of Congress passed an act appropriatin $500,000 to feed and clothe Indians who ha been fighting against the Government in the cause of the rebels; it was passed, too, by the votes of gentlemen who claim that it is unconstitutional to save the helpless and infirm and wounded among the freedmen and refugees from starvation, although they are the families of men who have been hghtingour battles and are sufferin on that very account. The same men who eclaimed so earnestly upon the unconstitutionality of appropriating money to keep these helpless poor from starvation see clear constitutional power to pay masters for their slaves who were enlisted in the Army. When the late POTUS proclaimed the freedom of the slave, and when the nation called upon the colored men to arm in its defense, the pledge of the nation was solemnly given to them that their freedom should be maintained. Did this mean only that they should no longer be bought and sold like beasts in the shambles, or did it mean that they should have the civil rights of free men; the right to contract for their labor and to compel the performance of contracts made with them, the right to seek their own happiness, restraine like other men only by such law: as should protect the rights of other s; the right to acquire and possess property; the right to develop their higher natures by education and culture? lfthe 1st only was meant by the proclamation, the President might well have hesitated to have in yoked upon that act " the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.” If the nationldid guaranty to them the civil rights of freedmen that pledge must be redeeme; and so far as it is necessary to carry into effect the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery it must be effected by the legislution of Congress. For myself, I hope to see such amendments to the constitution and such legislation as will secure impartial justice and equal rights to all men, and will make the grand enunciation of the fathers of the Republic, that God cre ated all men equal, and endowed them with inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that all just Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed, living, practical trail in all the land. I am well assured that these are the fundamental ideas which underlie all our theory of government, and that upon their complete development the life and progress of the Union depend. We have seen the sure results of injustice and oppression in this land of ours. Are we not wiser now than before we sought to establish iniquity by law, and to enter. into a contest in which, to use the idea of Jefferson, every attribute of the Almighty was against us? In the light that streams so full and clear from the last 4 years of our his to, do we not see that they, and they only, win at ast who work With God for human liberty and progress?