Mr. JENCKES.R. Chairman, I have regretted much that this debate was persisted in today. I regret still more that I have not had an opportunity to prepare myself to meet, as this committee should demand of anyone who addresses it, the questions that have been suggested and partly argued here todayby the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. Rumoxnfl but I will ask the indulgence of the committee, and of the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SPALDlhG] to allow me to make a few statements. I do not know from What source the Gentfrom NewYork derives his knowledge of public law, or its applicability to the present condition of this conntr. But it seems to me that he has confounde questions of law and questions of fact, which should always be discriminated by those who have to act upon either or both questions. The gentleman states and properly, that every act or ordinance o secession was a nul lity. Undoubtedly it. was. upon that question of law we do not disagree. lbw he seems to me to overlook entirely what was the state of facts from the time of the passage of the ordinance s of secession until the time of the surrender of Lees army. Dnrin that period what were the relations whichal that territory I will not use the term States, but all that territorybetween the Potomac and the Rio Grande sustained to the Government of the U.S.? Who could see States there for any purpose for which legislation was required by the constitution of the U.S.? At the time of the passage of the ordinance of secession, States were organized there, in existence, in action, known to the constitution and the constitutional authorities under it. But were they in al? Did they obey the constitution of the d U.S.? This is a question that needs no answer other than that which is conveyed to every mind by the recollection of the last 4 years of war with their expenditure of treasure and blood. Those States were not destroyed, in the technical langu of the lawthey simpl died out. As their Governors passed out o office, as the terms of their legislaures expired, who knew those facts? bone but themselves and yet, be hind this graud cordon of armies, stretching from here to the Rio Grande, there were States in existence, organized as States, but States in rebellion occupyin the territory belonging to the people of the U.S. They were not acting in concert with this Government, but against it. That, Mr. Chairman, is a matter o foot. My eyes are not dimmed or blinded by the parchment on which constitutions or laws are written. like the men who carried the bayoncts and planted the cannon, recognize the fact that was before us during all this time. There was a state of rebellion. There were in that part of our territory no States known to our constitution or the laws that we enact, or the officers whose duty it is to enforce those laws. I recognize, too, the next fact. Bear in mind, I am simply stating now what I conceive to be the facts. The question as to what may be the law can be reserved for discussion on another occasion. I recognize fully the duties of the Executive and it was the duty of the POTUS, as the head of the civil and military power of this great Republic not “empire; God forbid that this country should ever be so designated with applause or even with tolerationto beat down armed opposition to it, whether it came from a foreign power or from domestic insurrection. That was the duty of the President; and he recognized it; and it was not the duty of anyone in this Congress to gainsay it. It was written on the face of the constitution that the President was to see that the laws should be faithfully executed, and the power of this Republic maintained; and he did so. The next factthe fact which seems to me to be the one most pertinent for consideration nowis that the military power which was og sed to this Government has been destroys. twas the dutv of the Executive to see that this was done, and to report to the Congress of the U.S. that it has been done. But what then? Then there comes the 3rd question of fact, intimately connected with the last, and hardly separable from it, because it requires the immediate action of the Executive and of Congress. All the power that existed in the shape of confederated States behind rebel bayonets and fortifications has fallen to the cart. The territory which these States in rebellion occupied was the property of the people of the U.S., an never could be taken from us. I hold it to be a question of public law, worthy of consideration y the representatives of the American people, by the resident and the Administration genera l, to ascertain what existed in the shape of civi constitutions and laws behind the military government that has been overthrown. I hesitate not to say, here or elsewhere, that the Executive of this Government has done his duty in this matter. All Conquering nations when they overcome a rebellious people by overthrowmg their military gower, look, as did the Government of GreatBritain when it had overcome the mutiny in India, to see what government of a civil kind has existed or may exist from custom among the people who are conquered. I see no reason in this view to discriminate between the argument of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania and the argument of the Gentfrom Ohio and the argument of the Gentfrom NewYork. It seems to me that if they will look at the particular questions which are now before us, and which require our action, the differences would be in terms and not in substance. The Executive is doing his duty. I do not wish to make a criticism of the manner in which it is dene. That may be done when measures come from the executive Dept, but we have none now. I wish for myself as a member of the House to say that I wish to do my duty. I do not wish to be compromised by the s ccch or or meat of the Gentfrom NewTork, or the gentlemen from any other State on any question which may arise before Congress when no question is here for discussion or action. When the time to vote comes, when business is in hand, then we may speak and bind ourselves. I think that no one here can speak for a party, and that no one is bound by what has been said by the Gentlemen who have spoken and when the Gentfrom NewYork says, looking at the question of reconstruction, that there resides in the Executive power to impose conditions on the resumption of the righto of the States which have been in rebellion I ask him where he finds that powerin the constitution of the U.S or in the public law, the law of war, the law of nations which overrides when it is once called into existence 7 Is it the power of carrying on foreign war or suppressing domestic insurrections