Mr. ROGERS. Let me conclude reading the extract which had commenced. It is the case of Green vs. Biddle: “Now. it is perfectly clear, that although Congress might have refusedtheir consent to the proposed seporation. yet they had no authority to declare hen tucky a separateand independent State. without the assent of Virginia, or upon terms variant from those which Virginia hiid prescribed. But Congress. altar recognizing the conditions upon which alone Virginia agreedto the separation, expressed by a solemnnot the consent of that body to the separation. The terml and conditions, then, on which alone the separation could take place or the act of Congress become a valid one. were necessarily assented to. not by a mere tacit acquiescence, but by an express declaration of the legislative mind, resulting from the manifest construction of the not itself. To deny this isto don the validity of the act of Congress. without which (en tucky could not have become an independentState: and then it would follow that sheis at this moment. a part of the State of Virginia, and all her laws are actsof usurpation.” I want gentlemen to mark that. The court further say: “The counsel who urged this argument would not we are persuaded. consent to this conclusion: and yet it would seem to be inevitable. if the promises insisted upon be true. This decision shows that, until Congress gives its consent to the transfer of one part of a State to another, all the acs of the other over the new territory are usurpations. It has no right or power then until. Congress has given its consent to that exercise of power. But, sir, the Congress of the U.S. never gave its consent to the admission of WestVirginia upon any theory that the counties of Berkeley and Jetferson were to form a part of the new State. I have the not of Congress for the admission of the State of “rWestVirginia into the Union, which, whether purposely or otherwise, has been omitted from the report of the committee. It provides as follows: “Whereas the people inhabitiliff that portion of Virginia known asWest Y irgiiiia did. Bia conventipn assembledin the city of Wheeling out o 26thofhin veinber, 1861. frame for themselves a constitution. with a view of becoming a separateand independent State; and whereasat a general election held in th counties composing the territory aforesaidon the Be day of March last the said constitution was approvec and adoptedby the qualified voters of the propOsed State: and whereas the Legislature of Virginia, by on net nosedon the 152thday of May. immoral KHO itsennsent to the formation of anywttnte irithin the jurisdiction of the said State of irmnla. to beknown by the name of WestVirginia, and to embracethe followinr named countim. The act then designates the 48 counHow much ties which are to compose the State of WestVirginia; and among them we nowhere find inention made of the counties named in the pending JtResolution; and they are not included in the 48 counties which. congress agrees shall constitute WestVirginia. It does not name the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson. The committee say this was a contract on the part of Virginia which cannot be recalled; and in order to substantiate that ground they refer to the action of Congress, Virginia, and WestVirginia, giving their consent to the admission of the latter State into the Union. which cannot be now withdrawn. We are told when that contract was entered into it could no more be annulled than any ordinary contract in reference to land. The gentleman also refers, as evidence to show that Virginia had no right to withdraw her authority and consent, that when jurisdiction was granted over the DistCol, and the States sold dockyards, grounds for forts, and U.S. buildings to the Federal Government, they might withdraw their consent as well as in this case. Sir, they could not withdraw their consent. Why? Because it only took 2 parties to make that contract, namely, the congress of the U.S and the States where the dockyards, buildings, grounds, and forts were located; and when Congress entered into that agreement with the State it was final and irrevocable and required the action of no other party in order to complete it. Therefore, these pluses have no bearing whatever on the point ere. Now, how does the case stand? If old Virginia was a State de ure in 1863, when WestVirginia was ndmitte into the Union, and the last act of the Legislature of Virginia giving her consent to the transfer in 1863 was valid, and she a State dejurc, how could she have been a government defade in only 2 years after, because when she gave her consent to this transfer the State of Virginia was almost solely much more than at any other timeunder the control of the confederate army. How could she have been a State de jun then, with the right to exercise sovereign power in conveying away a part of her own territory any more than she was in 1865, when she revoked her consent, and after the Union has been restored, when the war was at an end, when peace reigned. when her Legislature has been recognize, when the mails are carried through her territory, and when her Governor and her Representatives to congress, elected by the people, have been recognized by the executive branch of the Government? If the argument is good that because the Depts of this Government recognized the State of WestVirginia, and of o (1 Virginia in 1862 or 1868, is it not good now? Do not they recognize it? Does not the POTUS recognize it? Do not all the officers in the Cabinet recognize it in the same way I