Mr. HISE. Yes, sir, the pretext, and the same pretext that has been employed always as an excuse for deeds of blood and violence the world over. Now, sir, this bill does not expressly provide that the negroes alone are to be protected, and that those loyal fellows who come here to congress and ask to be placed in power over all the property holders and the virtuous and intelligent men of these southern States, and are to be permitted to oppress and rob them– the negroes. No, because they have nothing to be robbed of. Instead of that the negroes of the country have been taken by force from their masters, contrary to the Constitution of the U.S. It is very true that the bill does not say that they–the negroes—are to be the exclusive objects of protection. However, it might be said here with truth, that this military government is to be provided for the exclusive advantage of the enfranchised slaves and the extremely loyal adherents of the party in power here; and they and the military governors, with the troops furnished for the purpose, will be let loose by this bill to prey upon the other inhabitants, who, under the military government which this bill pro: vides for them, will be, by being oppressed and plundered, by imprisonments and military executions, driven from their homes or exter minated. Whatever may be the design, such I believe would be the terrible effects of this stupid, cruel, unwise, and unconstitutional measure should it pass and go into operation, regardless of the Oxecutive veto and the opinions of the supreme Court. This bill, I grant, does not say in express terms that the negroes and the poor loyal white men of the country alone are to be [. But from the speeches which have been made upon this floor it is perfectly mani fest that the men who have been engaged in the civil or the military service of the confederate government while it existed are to be disfranchised and punished, while their slaves and these loyal vagabonds and adventurers, who followed the armies to the South, and who are the authors of the false reports spread broad cast in the North of southern crime and cruelty, are to be placed in power to govern the coun: try. And when this is done, I suppose the southern States will be placed in their constitutional relations with the Government of the U.S., and be allowed representatives in the 2 Houses of Congress, provided they be black, or loyal if white, and are and remain true adherents of the Radical leaders and sup: porters of their measures. My friends, the Gentfrom Ohio and the Gentfrom NewJersey, have differed in regard to a very material and important question. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. E BLoND] entertains the opinion that the POTUS had no authority after the termination of the war to appoint provisional or military governors for the ten southern States. But the Gentfrom NewJersey [Mr. Rogers] entertains a different opinion on that subject, and he quoted judicial authority and opinion to sanction his view of the question. . my opinion upon the law of the case is simply this, that no State can get out of the Union legally; that every st tempt of the civil authorities, by ordinances or decrees of conventions or legislative enact ments, would not lawfully produce such result, because all such acts, decrees, and ordinances would be nothing more nor less than mere s o t 3.ullities. Being contrary to the laws, and the Government of Insurrectionary states. General Thomas says:."of ". so which vo Ose ordinances or decrees couo au.t hoorities) to exercise isahdiospoos!itifoonr, to bringhetchievsile have no effeot to jve the connection of the State governments in any of those States with the Government of the U.S.; they could not release or discharge them from their obligation to obey that constitution and those laws, nor could they have the effect of depriving those States of their orefsethrveed po.wers of local self government, nor immunities and privileges secured to them equally with all the other States by the Constitution of the U.S. That is Imfy opinion of the law of the case. soveriignty had gone on and succeeded in distheir connection with the Union by force, that would have been a breach of the Constitution successfully accomplished by In eans of a revolution. Our action as Colonies in severing our eeon nection with England was revolutionary. The law of the case was against us. We were left subjected and owed allegiance to the Government of England. The King of England was King of the Colonies. And the DeclarIndep would have been null and the Articles of Confederation would have been of no force or effect legally, except that validity and force were given to both by a successful application and use of military power, jin finally by England. } But that was not the case in the southern States. There was no successful application of force either by them or by the Government of the U.S. And, sir, the contrary opinion involves those holding it in these difficulties: if these States are out of the Union—you do not admit or contend that they got out by force of arms — by virtue of their civil proceedings, by their enactments in conventions and Legislatures, and by the votes of their people they got out of the Union, then they are still out of the Union. And if you maintain, then, that because they are not States in the Union they are deprived of all the rights of States, including that of representation, under the Constitution of the U.S., then they are relieved from all obligation to obey that Constitution. And you have no right any longer to govern them, because you can only govern them as States; and as States to be governed under and by virtue of the Constitution they must have representation. they be not in the Union, then they are out as independent States. In such case they are not bound by the laws or Constitution of the U.S., and the President would have no authority to appoint their Governors, nor would Congress have power to bind them by its enactments. But if these States are in the Union, they are entitled to representation in Congress and to the right of local self government, and the President would have no right to appoint their Governors nor Congress the power to establish, alter, or overthrow their local governments. The Congress of the U.S. has the power to admit new States; but I want to know if there is any power to put States out of the Union by war or in any other way? And if you cannot put them out, if there is no constitutional authority to eject them from the Union as States, then you have no right or authority to deprive them of their representation as States. Now, I admit that Congress did not at 1st expel them, but that they attempted to go out. Some lawyers on this floor concede that the Constitution is a compact between States, a treaty between the several States contracting with one another; "and they concede that all these ordinances are null and void by reason of the fact that they were contrary to and in violation of the compact or constitution of the U.S., because that Constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it are supreme and in direct opposition to such legislation.{ End of Hise speech and exchanges printed in Appendix.}