Mr. WILLIAMS of Oregon addressed the Senate in support of the resolution. [His speech will be published in the Appendix.] Speech entitled Apportionment of Representation. February 15, 1866. The Senate.on in ComWhole, having under consideration the JtResolution (H.R.No. 51)proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. MR. WILLIAMS said: Mr. PresIDENT: Much discussion has taken place here and elsewhere as to the legal condition of the States lately in rebellion, which I shall call for the sake of brevity, if for no other purpose, rebel States; and I propose at this time, With the indulgence of the Senate, to submit some views which I entertain upon that subject, to which I shall add some suggestions as to the proposed constitutional amengiments. I have no written speech to read, and I shall not therefore aspire to beauty of expression or elegance of style, but hope that any defects of that kind which may apear in what I have to say will be made up bytepractical nature and aptitude of my remarks. I have the honor to be one of the socalled ComReconstruction, and I presume, therefore, it will not be proper for me to discuss to any considerable extent the condition in fact of the rebel States; but I suppose I shall be safe in following the example of the experienced Senfrom Maryland, [Mr. Jonssos, ] who is also on that committee, and confine what I have to say chiefly to the legal aspects of the question. Philosophers and statesmen, so far as I am acquainted with their writings, find it necessary before they begin their essays or arguments to define the terms which they propose to use, so that as they proceed they can understand eaeh other and arrive at an intelligible, if not a satisfactory, conclusion. No little can fusion, in my judgment, has grown out of this discussion by the use of terms and expressions which are intended but do not describe the existing state of things with sufficient clearness and certainty. When Senators affirm that the rebel States are in the Union, that expression does not exactly describe their condition; for the State of NewYork is no more than a State in the Union, and everybody recognizes a wide difference between the condition of the State of NewYork and the condition of the rebel States. When Senators affirm that the States are out of the Union, they use an expression that is true of Canada and Mexico, but when applied to the rebel States it cannot and does not mean what it does when applied to the countries that I have just named. Io be a State within this Union, to use the exact language of the constitution of the U.S and adopt its meaning, not only im lies the existence of a State, but it necessarily implies the existence of certain relations between that State and the General Government. RhdIsland, in 1790, 2 cars or more after the Constitution of the U.S. was formed and had gone into operation, was a State as much as it is to. dny; but it was not a State within this Union for the relations had not then been establishe between RhdIsland and the Federal Government which are necessary to constitute a State in the Union. Growing out of these relations are certain rights, some of which appertain to the General Government, and some of which apertain to the States, and when any State of this Union violently and forcibly disrupts those relations, it divests itself of the rights which depend upon those relations for their existence. To the preservation of these relations peace is a necessity. They were made in peace. They were intended to be supported and maintained by peaceable means and measures, and when a war occurs between a State and the General Government, a state of things is necessarily produced which is inconsistent with the existence, or at any rate with the operation, of those relations. I make no distinction between a State and the people of a State. What is a State but an gregation of individuals within certain boun aries, organized into a political body? When many or few persons assail the authority of the U.S. in a disorderly and tumultuous manner they constitute a riot, an unlawful as semblage, or an insurrection, but when the majority of a State, coercing the minority, adopt. the State of nization, and, acting through that State organization, rebel, there is war between that State and the Federal Government. I say that there is no practical difference between a State and the people of a State, becausea State is simply the political designation of certain people Within a geo phical division of the country. Can a State e anything else than it is made to be by the people? What are the laws of a State but the expressions of the popular will? What is a State organization but an invention to ascertain, to express, and to execute the will of the people, or a majority of the people? Take the State of SCarolina, for instance, and I shall refer to that State for example in what I have to say. suppose all the people in that State were or are rebe s, can the State, in the nature of things, be anything else than a rebel State? Go into that State and you find a man and he proves to be a traitor; you find another man, and he proves to be a traitor, and so you go through the entire State and find all the people traitors; but when this mass of treason is organized into what is called a State, then it is claimed by some that loyalty is begotten, that the creature entirely on er the control of the creator is not what the creator desires it to be. I do not say, Mr. President, asa matter of fact, that all the people in the State of SCarolina are traitors, but I do say that a majority of the people of that State, compelling the minority to submit, did seize upon the State organization and convert it into an embodiment of their views and wishes, so that it became in point of fact the mere incorporation of the individual traito s in that State. Sir, there is political treason as well as legal treason; and political treason, it seems to me, is quite as dangerous to the country as legal treason, because it is distinguished by no def inite shape or form. Political treason can give shapes to Proteus and colors to the chameleon. When Satan, as I have read, was defeated in his attempt n on the throne of the Most High, he and his follbwers were hurled over the bat tlements of heaven upon the blazing plain below, and there be assembled around him his discom fited hosts and besought them to accomplish “by guile and fraud what force effected not.” I express no opinion upon the subject, but is it not possible that the conspirators who brought this country to the brink of ruin by the late rebellion, and who have been restored to their former places of power and influence by an unlimited exercise of the pardoning power. may be now contriving and conspiring, as did their great prototype, to accomplish by “ guile and fraud whet force effected not?” Has the Government, I ask, no power to protect itself against treason unless it comes in the panopl of arms? Is it true that treason is not as rose to be dreaded and feared when it approaches the Government as did the arch deceiver our frail mother in the garden, with soft and gentle words, as when it comes with all the pomp and circumstance of war? Is the arch enemy of mankind less to be feared because sometimes he finds it necessary in the prosecution of his wicked purposes to disuise his true character and a ear as an ange of light? Mr. President, when Senators affirm that these rebel States are States in this Union, I make no issue with them upon that allegation; I do not traverse the averment and say that these States are out of the Union; but when Senators deduce from what they have said the conclusion that these States are entitled to all the rights and privileges of States within this Union controvert that conclusion. I deny that these rebel States are entitled to all the rights and privileges of States within this Union. To say that a State is within the Union is of little consequence; to say that a State is out of the Union is of little consequence; but to say that the rebel States are or are not entitled to the rights and privileges of States within this Union is aprac tieal question. That is the question now pressing upon congress for decision. That is the precise issue by ore the country. Let as t and eliminate, if we can, the truth from that issue.