Mr. BINGHAM. I understand the gentleman exactly. That bill was reported in connection with the pending amendment, eve word of it substantially, except this: the 3rd section of that amendment as it now stands was reported by the committee as a bill subject to modification by a majority of Congress, which by the amendment may be modified in its effect by Congress, 2/3rds assenting thereto. There was another section which the congress rejected, in my judgment wisely rejected; that was the section which disqualified rebels from voting for members of Congress or elect ors for President and VEEP until 1870. It will not do for the gentleman to say that that bill ceased to operate as a declaration of the judgment of the JtComReconstruction, when the fact is on record that every member of that committee in this House and in the Senate voted to strike out the 3rd section of the amendment and incorporate in its stead what was before reported by the committee, as I have already said, in the form of a bill imposing the disability to hold office, military or civil, State or national, upon those who had broken official oaths to the U.S. to engage in rebellion. I stand upon the proposition that the Congress by that vote ogive out this amendment to the people of the U.S. as the future basis of reconstruction: and further, that every member representing the Union party upon the JtComReconstruction, by recording his vote in the Senate and in the HoRep in favor of the substitution of the 3rd section of the amendment as it now is for the 3rd section as it was originally reported, thereby, declared the amendment, as it now is, the basis of reconstruction as provided in the bill reported by that committee, and is bound to stand by his record so made if he oil. consistent. Mr. Speaker, the people of the U.S. so understood and accepted it. There are gentlemen here, not a few I under take to say, who owe their reelection to the 40th Congress to the fact that the Union State conventions in the States which they represent upon this floor declared their as ceptance of this constitutional amendment, in manner and form as it now stands, as a condition of future restoration. In saying this I am not saying that either directly or indirectly or by implication this restricts, in any manner or form, the power of the Congress of the U.S. in themean time to pass such laws as may be necessary for the protection of life and liberty and properly throughout the lately insurgent States. To me nothing can be clearer than that the power so to legislate over those States, until theirdue reorganization and restoration, is in the congress of the U.S and nowhereelse. It is precisely because I believe that the so". ereignty of the nation is alone in theorganized constitutional States of this Union, maintain'ing their relations to the Federal Government and represented in the Congress of the U.S., that I claim the existence of the power in this Congress, 1st, to propose to the eral States so organized this amendmenttoto Constitution for their ratification; and 2nd to pass and enforce within the lately insurgo States for the time being all laws not inconso. ent with the provisions of the Constitution of the U.S. for the protection, thro out those States, of every person in his rigo of life, liberty, and property. This is no opinion with me, but a conviction uttered o my place here 5 years since and early in e rebellion. Time and the action of every dept of. the Government have only me in it. Sir, icts the gentleman's bill, while it so with the constitutional amendment, o ignores the 1st duty of the Congress oe U.S., to give the protection of " to life and property in disorganized so I listened, sir, with attention to the;e man's carefully prepared remarks. In his words. I know that his heart was o when he said that it was fit and prop." in those who are without theo of o: disorganized States should have the power of law, and that right speedily. But. lenge the gentleman, and I challenge”. cate of his bill, to the issue that I make to i. that his bill gives no protection of.law of protection which those people have.no it gives no protection to anybody, loyal" loyfal, oin any State. o & that I may be pardoned or.ing the bill, as also for the o rture stated that it is a clear, pp. from the intent and letter of you. otional amendment. The bill, in o: is framed in the spirit of the oo eel tinguished man of this country wo d Cop' nd waging war thisCUP on this amendmen; an dle, " af gress, denouncing both as. is asking the swindling Congress? swindling indow." amendment out of the Window. I see in the legislation thus attempted to be in itiated by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania the inauguration of that movement, and I for one stand here to enter .against it. Let theosafety of this Republic I ask it in the name of my afflicted country rest upon guarantees embedded in the Constitution by the sovereign act of the people, and not upon repealable acts of Congress or parchment contracts entered into by Congress with insurgent and disorganized States. I submit with all confidence that what is contemplated by the gentleman's bill is to patch up a restoration by the usurpation of powers which do not belong to the Congress of the U.S., induce the people to fling aside the constitutional amendment, and thereby subject the future of this Republic to all those dread calam ities which have darkened its recent past. Mr. Speaker, I may be pardoned, before I Fofurther with the consideration of these ills, if I attempt in a few short words to fortify what I have. of the power of Congress to present the pending, amendment, the power of the loyal organized States here represented to ratify it and make it part of the Constitution of the U.S., and the power of Congress in the mean time to protect person and property in these insurgent States. May it not safely affirmed that the American nationality as a political organization never existed an hour but by means of organized State governments? Your Constitution began to be through that instrumentality, and it E. continued to be through that instrumentality. I do not lose sight of that other fact, that, notwithstanding the division of this people into States under the Constitution, they are nevertheless one people, with one Constitution, one country, and one destiny. But still, sir, their political power as one people is primarily exercisable under the Constitution of the U.S. only through and by organized constitutional State governments. There can be no representative body of the people of the U.S. in Congress save through organized State governments and elections therein held. There can be no senatorial body of the legislative power of this nation save by the direct act of legislative assemblies in organized States. There can be no election of a Chief Magistrate of the U.S. save through electors appointed in such manner as the Legislature of the respective States may direct, and in default of an election } the State electors the election can only be had by the Representatives of States of the U.S. in the HoRep voting by States, the Representatives from each State having but one vote. This being so, it necessarily results, not withstanding the strange utterances that have been heard in another place from a distinguished Senator, that the people of organized States of the Union who maintain their constitutional relations to the Government of the U.S., and only the people of such organized States of this Union, are the nation. This proposition has of late been denied, I regret to say, in the interests of those who lately waged war against the Government. I repeat, there is no American nationality without States of the Union duly organized and maintaining constitutional relations to the Government of the U.S. in conformity with the Constitution of the U.S. It therefore must be that when in the late rebellion the people of the insurrectionary States organized conspiracy and took up arms against the Government of the U.S., though they failed, thank God, to overturn the fabric of American empire, though they failed to swee away the supremacy of the American Constitution, though they failed to denationalize the American people, and to blot that people from the map of nations, they did succeedin overturning their own local constitutional State govern ments; and thenceforward to this moment (except in restored Tennessee) they had and have no power to legislate upon any subject affecting the life, liberty, or property of an American citizen, save by the sufferance of the American nation represented in the Congress of the U.S. The rights of a people to be recognized as such and to act as such can only exist under legal organizations. To use the words of Burke: “When men, therefore, break up the original compact or agreementwhich gives its corporateform and capacity to a State, they are no longer a people; they have no longer a corporate existence; they have no longer a legal coactive forco to bind within, nor a claim to be recognized abroad. They are a number of vague, looseindividuals, and nothing more. With them all is to begin again. Alas! they little know how many a weary step is to be taken before they can form themselves into a mass which has a true politic personality.” Burke's Works, vol. iii, p. 82. The conclusion is irresistible that the rebel States by their rebellion ceased to possess the power or locoactive force for local State government. When a State of this Union becomes thus disorganized the power of government therein is exclusively in the Government of the U.S. The jurisdiction of the U.S. Government within the limits of this Republic is nowhere, either by the letter of the Constitution or by any intendment of the Constitution, limited or restricted for the general purposes of legislation except by the presence of an organized constitutional State government. It therefore is that, from the day treason did its work in SCarolina to this hour, the legislative power of the U.S. was as exclusive within the State of SCarolina as it is this moment within the DistCol. So it must remain, and so it will remain until SCarolina is restored to her constitutional relations with this Government by the reorganization of a constitutional State government acceptable to the American people and made valid by the approval of conress. g If this be so, Mr. Speaker, it follows that this Congress of the U.S. had full power, without the consent and against the consent of every insurrectionary State in this land, to propose the pending amendment to the Constitution to all the organized States of this Union for ratification. There is, there can be, in my opinion, no question of this. But it does not follow from this that the people of each of those States may not reorganize their local State governments destroyed by their rebellion, and ratify the pending amendment with the consent of this Government. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENs] pronounced this o Sir, the JtCom on Reconstruction held otherwise when they reported the bill which I have read, and therein provided that whenever the amendment shall have become art of the Constitution, and any State lately in insurrection shall have ratified the same, &c., such State should be entitled to representation in Congress. The framers of our Government also differed from the Gentfrom Pennsylvania in this behalf. When this Government was organized under the Constitution, there were but 11 States in this Union. NCarolina and RhdIsland were not members of it. They were not represented in that 1st Congress which organized in 1789 in NewYork. They had no voice in the election of the 1st Executive of the nation. They were not in the Union or of the Union. Yet, sir, after this Government was organized, after the Congress had enacted laws, and especially the judiciary act, these States not in the Union, or of the Union, did ratify and accept the constitution of the U.S., and thereupon. were admitted to representation in Congress. Upon their admission in June, 1790 a year after the 1st meeting of Congress by special enactments the judiciary act of the U.S. was extended to each of those new States, the Congress thereby confessing that organized States not in the Union or of the Union might ratify the Constitution, and, by Congress subsequently assenting thereto, the ratification became valid upon the admission of such States to representation. It is no answer to say they were original States, and might ratify by force of the Constitution itself. The provision of the Constitution conferring power on the original States to ratify only applied to such of the States, not less than 9, as ratified before the Constitution was established and the government organized under it. Hence it was that when. 2 States were admitted after the Government had been organized the preto legislation of Congress was extended over. them. To ratify a constitutional amendment is the exercise of the power of a State of the Union. So also is the election of Representatives and Senators of the U.S. Many of the States now in the Union exercised, powers of States before admission and preparatory to their admission as States. They formed constitutions of State government, elected Legislatures, chose Senators, which, under your Constitution, can only be done by a legislature of a State. The moment the Congress of the U.S., by admitting into the Union these new States, affirmed what was thus done by them in advance of their admission, and thereby those acts become as valid as any lawful acts done by them as States after their admission. If Congress had rejected the new States of course their acts as States were void and of no effect. ISo submit the people of the insurrectionary States may proceed with the work of reorganizing State governments, the formation of a constitution, the election of a Legislature, and the formal ratification of the constitutional amendment and all that they do in that behalf may by the subsequent act of the national sovereignty by resolution be made valid. Let those States ratify the amendment, and thereby give some evidence of a fitness and desire to be restored to the equal powers of States in the Union. nstead of discouraging them as the Gentfrom Pennsylvania proposes, and denying them the privilege even of petition for admission, let us stand upon the declaration of the JtCommee that those disorganized States may ratify the amendment and that they ought to ratify i.t. Yet I reafirm distinctly here, and do not wish to be misunderstood about it, that those insurrectionary States have no power whatever as States of this Union, and cannot lawfully restrain for a single moment that great body of free men who cover this continent from ocean to ocean, now organized States of the Union and represented here, in their fixed purpose and undoubted legal right to incorporate the amendment into the Constitution of the U.S. But, say some, there are 2 depts of the Government against this asserted power of the people of the organized States, the executive and judicial. My answer is, neither of these depts has any voice in the matter no }. to challenge the authority of the people. have no concern or care for any influence which the President may seek to exert. He is powerless with the people. He can in no way reverse their final judgment. But we are told the SCOTUS will strike down this amendment, if ratified by 3/4ths of the organized and represented States and declared duly ratified by authority of an act of this Congress. I do not share in the fears thus expressed. That supreme tribunal of justice has no power in the premises. It is not a judicial question; it is a political question in the decision of which the Supreme Court can in nowise interfere. Gentlemen might, as well claim that the supreme Court might inquire into the question whether the State of Ohio, for example, is one of the States of this Union. That is a question decided by the sovereignty of the nation in congress assembled, and when so decided the decision is final and conclusive upon every judicial tribunal in the land, Federal and State. The SCOTUS to undertake to adjudge the power of Congress to propose a constitutional amendment and the power of the people to affirm it! A Congress competent to enact laws is competent to proposeamendments to o the Constitution, and the competent to elect a lawful Congress deI ri are competent to ratify a constitutional amendment proposed by such Congress. Whether a State of this Union has levied war against the U.S or has a republican constitutional State government, or is entitled to representation in Congress, or to choose electors for POTUS and VEEP, or can rightfully exercise any of the powers of an organized State of the Union, are political not judicial questions, and can be decided only by the political dept, the lawmaking power of the U.S., and from that decision there is no appeal, and there exists no power of reversal save in the people at large. Even the Supreme Court has always affirmed this. That tribunal so affirmed in Luther rs. Bor den; it again so affirmed in the prize cases. But, sir, if that tribunal had never so affirmed no intelligent man at all conversant with the Constitution of the U.S and the relations of the original States at the time of its adoption, and the mode and manner in which the Government of the U.S. was organized under it, could for a moment doubt that the action of the people over the political power of States and the relations of States was conclusive upon the judiciary, Federal and State. Let the amendment be ratified by 3/4ths of the organized and represented States and it is in vain that conspirators and aiders of rebellion will appeal to the Supreme Court to relieve them from the righteous and just provisions of the great decree of the people. Sir, the power of the people, organized under 26 constitutional State governments and represented in Congress, to amend the Constitution of the U.S and enact laws for the common defense and general welfare of the U.S., and make treaties and declare war, and raise and support armies and navies, cannot be made a question in the Supreme Court or elsewhere, for it has been settled and forever closed both by the sword and the ballot. It is idle to suggest a reversal by the Supreme Court of the judgment of the people of these organized States of the Union, either upon the question of their constitutional power to crush and subjugate armed rebellion by arms, or of their constitutional power to govern insurgent and disorganized States by laws, statute and fundamental. The Supreme Court, therefore, cannot very well at this time of day raise the question whether the 39th Congress of the U.S. is a competent body to enact laws or propose amendments, as was done by the 38 h Congress, representing the same States. If the court should be of that mind, it had better upon quo warranto proceed to determine whether we have a right to legislate upon o question whatever, for a Congress that can lawfully legislate can lawfully propose amendments, and States that can loft.elect the Congress can lawfully ratify amendments to ‘the Constitution of the U.S. The original jurisdiction of that court is very restricted, as gentlemen well know, by the terms of the Constitution. Their appellate jurisdiction, both by the text of the Constitution and by every decision which that court ever made, depends exclusively upon the will of Congress. If therefore, gentlemen are at all apprehen sive of any wrongful intervention of the supreme Court in this behalf, sweep away at once their jurisdiction in all cases, and leave the tribunal without even color or appearance of authority for their wrongful inter. vention. Do this, and let that court hereafter sit to try only questions affecting embassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and ques.tions in which a State shall be a party, as that is the beginning and end of its original juris diction. By the ruling of that court thus restricted we may safely conclude that they will decide as heretofore, that the clause giving original jurisdiction in cases in which a State shall be a party only applies to those States that are members of the [. If, however, the court usurps power to decide political ques.tions and defy a free people's will it will only remain for a people thus insulted and defied to demonstrate that the servant is not above his lord by procuring a further constitutional amendment and ratifying the same, which will defy judicial usurpation by, annihilating the usurpers in the abolition of the tribunal itself. Sir, I beg pardon for exhausting so much of the time and patience of the House as I have already done in trying to make clear this proposition of the power of Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution and to decide finally the question of the ratification thereof, as well as to legislate for the nation. It needs no argument. The legislative power of the nation is in the representatives of the organ:ized constitutional States of this Union; and what are organized constitutional States of this Union is clearly defined in your Constitution, namely: 1st, those that originally assented to that instrument, having been previously States, and thereby organized the government under it, and which still sustain their constitutional relations to it and have not forfeited or broken the same; 2nd, those new States that were afterward admitted by acts of Congress and have not since disorganized and revolted. All such States, thus once in the Union and continuing to be organized constitutional States of the Union, and only such, are entitled to representation in Congress or to exercise any of the powers reserved to the States of the Union by the Constitution. By the express terms of the Constitution there is, there can be no constitutional States in this Union save States duly admitted, obedient to the Constitution and laws of the U.S., whose governments are republican, and all of the legislative, executive, and judicial officers of which are bound, by an oath to support the Constitution of the U.S.. sir, it is written. A State without executive, legislative, or judicial officers bound by an oath to support the Constitution of the U.S. is not a State in this Union or of this Union for local or municipal purposes. It simply remains a State in the Union and of the Union, despite its treason and rebellion, for Federal purposes that is, for Federal Government; and it is because the late insurgent States sustain this relation that yourJtCom on Reconstruction recognizes the fitness and proriety of the people of those States reorganizing constitutional governments in conformity with the provisions of the proposed amendment, now that their illegal Governments defacto, established in rebellion, have been stricken down by the sword. And here, sir, is the point at which I take my departure from the honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania. His bill is framed upon the idea, which he has expressed more than once in this body, that the people of these insurrectionary States are a foreign nationality, that they are alien enemies. This position the gentleman has attempted more than once here to fortify by reference to the utterances of the SCOTUS in what are known as the prize cases. I beg leave to say, notwithstanding the gentleman's reiteration of that statement, that the court never made any such decision. The language of the court was most carefully worded. They decided that during the war, the great public, solemn war waged by the Government of the U.S. against this armed insurrection, the Government of the U.S. had a right, upon its own election, to treat the insurgent States as though they were a foreign nationality not that they were so; not that the Government declared that they were so; not that the Government ever intimated by recognizing in them the rights of belligerents that they were foreign nationalities, but that, in the assertion of the nation's rights and to crush rebellion by arms, the Government of the U.S. might of its own election for the time being recognize them as entitled to the rights of belligerents, and treat them as though they were foreign nationalities. The words of the court are, “they were enemies, though not foreigners.” Sir, I will not with my present convictions, under whatever press ure, here or elsewhere, assent to any legislation, which on its face recognizes the gentleman's dogma as that at any time from the hour when treason fired its 1st gun on Fort Sumter to the present moment any rood of the republic was dissevered from the rest and made foreign territory. The States lately in rebellion were and still are within the jurisdiction of the U.S.; and therefore it results, notwithstanding their treason, that the moment the Government of the U.S. by force of arms was able to establish within the lines of SCarolina its courts of justice, it might hold any rebel or other criminal against its laws to answer at the bar of its own courts without being charged with any departure from the Constitution, which expressly requires that all persons tried for crime against the laws of the U.S. must be held to answer in the State and district, previously prescribed by law, in which his crime was committed. Why, sir, the gentleman's bill and the gentleman's hypothesis would operate as a general jail delivery. All the murderers, all the assassins, all. poisoners of our captured prisoners anywhere within the rebel States, are to go unwhipped of justice at the bar of our tribunals, because, forsooth, their crimes were not committed within a State of the Union and a judicial district in such State previously precribed by law. The gentleman so understands it himself; and therefore I may be pardoned for reminding him and the country th. in his carefully prepared remarks he scouted the idea of holding anybody to answer for treason who participated in the late rebellion within the rebel States. He said that it was utterly impossible. Well, if it is impossible it is because the nation, by its own action, chose to estop itself in that behalf by granting them the rights of belligerents. The impossibility does notarise from anything that treason did or attempted to do within the limits of those States and the jurisdiction of the U.S. Having said this, I will now proceed, as briefly as I may be able, to consider more in detail the provisions of the gentleman's bill. And the 1st remark that I have to make is that this bill is very offensive to me in this: that it is an attempt to restrict the right of petition in the people of the several late insurrectionary States. Why, sir, in the government of our common Father the poorest worm that crawls is given the right of petition, and under the Government. our fathers it has been wisely ordained that the Congress of the U.S shall pass no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition Congress for the redress of grievances. This bill, from 1st to last, as though it were the utterance of an unlimited and crowned dictator, says that a million men in this land shall not peaceably assemble and petition this Government. I know it is very easy for men to say that traitors have no rights which we are entitled to respect. If I were to concede that, it does not result that the Constitution of the U.S. has authorized the Congress of the U.S. to decitizenize a single man in the Republic by act of Congress; and yet, lest gentlemen may think that I am forcing by implication something that is not contained in the text, I will quote from the bill: That all persons who, on the 4th day of March, 1861, were of full age, who held office, either civil or military, under the government called the “confederate States of America, ” or who swore allegiance to said government, are hereby declared to have forfeited their citizenship and to allegiance have renounced to the U.S., and shall not be entitled to exercise the elective franchise or hold office until 5 years after they shall have filed their intention or desire to be reinvested with the right of soand shall swear allegiance to the U.S and renounce allegiance to all other governments or pretendedgovernments. What is the organization of government by the people within any of the Territories of the U.S. where there exists no aecepted presentation thereof to the Congress of the U.S. asking its approval but the simple exercise of the right of petition? And yet the gentleman puts into this bill a provision “that the 11 States lately in rebellion, except Tennessee, may form valid State governments in the following manner, " and subject to foregoing the forfeiture and denial of right. Sir, the people of those States have the right to form State governments and to submit them to the Congress of the U.S. without an act. Congress has the right, I mit, to aid them in the exercise of this privilege by an enabling act. But i submit to this House, and I submit to that great body of free men represented by this House, that the Congress of i. U.S. has no color of authority for providing by law, 1st, that a million persons, natural born male citizens of therein, this Republic and resident are no longer citizens of the U.S.; and next, that the people of the ten States lately in insurrection may not form a constitution of State government otherwise than as provided in and through this bill; and yet this bill so declares, and then proceeds as follows: Sec. 2. Abife:, That the State governments now existing defacto, though illegally formed in the midst of martial law, and in many idnusrteasnsc, es the constitutions were adopted under and not submitted to the ratification of the people, and therefore are not to republics, yet they be treated as free are hereby acknowledged as governments valid for municipal purposes until the same shall be duly altered,o.o and executive officers shall be recognized as such. I thank my venerable friendfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEvens] for granting even this much of law to that people. For, excepting this section, which my excellent friendfrom Wisconsin [Mr. '. }. assailed, both the bill of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVex's] and the bill of my colleague, [Mr. J. M. AshLEY, ] reported from the ComTerritor, give those people no protection of law at all; none whatever. In saying this, I am not unmindful, sir, of the fact that this bill does provide for conventions to assemble in June next. But in the mean time it gives nobody, loyal or disloyal, any protection of law whatever, except such as they may have by and through these illegally organized State governments.