Mr. DELANO then concluded his remarks, which will be published in the Appendix. Speech entitled Reconstruction. February 10, 1866, Onthepolitical cenditiorii of theStateslateLving rebel on. Mr. DELANO said: Mr. Speaker: I repose to examine the following question: what is the political condition of the States lately in rebellion? 4 years and more of war has produced great changes in the social condition of the insurrectionary States, and has materially affected the political relations heretofore existing between them and other States of the Union. These mighty changes cast upon us the momentous question which I propose to consider. The importance of this question has never been equaled by any subject presented to an American congress since the formation of our Government. 11my opinion, upon its proper solution depends not only the peace and prosperity, but the existence of our count. Differences ofopinion in regard to the condition of these States and as to the best manner of restoring them to their normal condition in the Union, must be expected. These differences are not merely natural, but necessary. Our forefathers in forming this Government, on in framing the great fundamental law for its control, encountered like differences of sentiment in regard to the great organic law which they had undertaken to make; but with a proper respect for the judgment of each other, and in a spirit of concession and conciliation, they entered upon their work, and accomplished it harmoniously. Let a like spirit animate this Congress. Let a proper appreciation for honest differences among each other, or between ourselves and other Depts of this Government, prevail Let us all be forbearing toward those from whom we ask a like exercise of charity, and I sincerely believe we shall be able to a just the great measures before us, for the best interest and with the opprobation of our common constituents, in sue a manner as to make solid the foundations of our Government. Thus the present threatenin clouds will pass nwa, and unIiversal peace on harmony be restore. propose to analyze the condition of public opinion n )0". this question as it seems to present itselt in this House. 1st, there is a class of persons who insrst that the insurrectionary States are not only in the Union, but that they are States in the all est sense of the term, having a.right to demand representation on this floor. I do not. know whother this class is willing to admit Representatives still seething in treason and whose hands are red with the blood of our slaughtered countrymen, who are yet unwilling to yield submissively to the great decisions of the war; butwhet her or not they are so willing I do not belong to this class of politicians. I believe these States are in the nion and that they possess the right of local and domestic legislation; that their proper relation with other States has been so interrupted and changed as to de rive them of the absolute right to demand the acmission of members to this floor without conditions and proper qualifications for membership. 2nd ly, it is insist edb another class that these States are dead, in the condition of conquered provinces, subject to be governed by, congress in all respects as any other Territory. I have no faith in this theory. I do not believe the States have been destroyed, nor that they may be held as conquered Territories, and I propose to lay before this House and the country, briefly as possible, myreasons for opposing this theory. The distinguished Gentfrom Pennsyl vania, [ML Srsvsusd in o ening the debate upon this subect, announce the starth ngpropposition that these States are deadl It was put forth, manifestly, as the theory which was to guide the majority of this House in their delib erations and legislation in the important questions of reconstruction. The sagacity an influence of the honorable gentleman who made this announcement are acknowledged and felt in this House and throughout the country. His capacity to understand the remote consequences of any position he assumes, and to trace those consequences to their full extent and influence no one appreciates more fully than myself. I was, therefore, naturall and necessarily alarmed to see this proposition coming from an acknowledged leader of the House at the opening of this debate, under circumstances justifying the a prehension that it was to guide and lead this House to its final conclusion upon the subject. I make these observations to justify myself in giving so much attention, as I shall give, in these remarks, to what has been said by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. That I may do the gentleman no injustice, I make the following quotations from his speech of December 18, 1866. Of the States lately in rebellion, he says: “They have torn their constitutional States into atoms, and built on their foundations fabrics of a totally different character. Dead men cannotraise themselves; dead States cannot restore their own oxist on oeasit was.” Then, referring to the Constitution, lie uotes from the 3rd section of the 4th artic c the following: “ New States maybe admitted by the congressinto this Union." and proceeds thus: “In my judgment this is the controllin provision in this case. Unless the laivonntions is a dead letter. the late war between the mo acknowledged belligerents severed their original compacts and broke all the ties which bound I am together. The future condition of the conquered power depends upon the will of the conquerors. They must become in us new States or remains conquered provinces." In another place in the speech he says: " To prove that they are and for 4 years have been out of the Union. for all legal purposes, and being now conquered subject to the absolute disposal O Congress, I Will suggest a fow ideas and adduce a few authorities." The learned gentleman then proceeds to show that the confederate States, during the war, were an independent belligerent, and were so acknowledge by the U.S and by Europe, and were, therefore, precisely in the condition of a foreign nation with whom we were at war; citing, in support of this position, several writers on the law of nations and the decisions of the SCOTUS Further references seem needless to show the position of the gentleman on this subject. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania was soon followed by my honorable colleague [Mr. SHELLABARGER] in an able and delaborate speech which a pears tosustain, substantially, the sainc views. That I may do my colleague no injustice, I Wlll quote a passage from his speech, shownig that he considers the insurgent States as having lost the rights and powers of government, and that the U.S. may and ought to assume and exercise these lost powers. Here, I may re mark that I might uote many other passages to the same effect, at the one I am about to produce seems sufficient. My colleague asks, what is before Congress? and answers it thus: "It is. Under our Constitution.possibleto, and the late rebellion did in fuct so. Overthrow and usurpin the insurrectionaryStatestheloyal State governments as that during such usurpation, such States and their peopleceasedto have any of the rights and pwersof government as States of this Union and this lossof the rights and powersof government was such that the U.S. may and ought to assume and exercise local powersof the lost State governments.”