Mr. ORTH. Mr. Speaker, we areing the solution of the important analpsirtoIiaccuhlt problems consequent upon the suppression of armed hostilities. such approach has not been rapid because rapidity was not desirable, but with that deliberation which the gravity of the questions demanded. Upon new and untried issues differences of opinion even among friends having the same 11timate object in view were to be expected, and these differences it was the part of wisdom , if not ofcharity, to tolerate. tis only by a free and fearless discussion, by patient research and examination, by full interchange of sentiment, that truth can be separated from error, and fallacies be detected and exposed. The war was commenced b the traitors for the purpose of destroying the nion. Patriots resisted the attack for the purpose of saving the Union. Here was n.broad line of distinction which none could misconstrue or fail to comprehend. The American people divided upon this issue, and were found upon the one side or the other, as they were moved by their sympathies or influenced by the dictates of their judgment. The contest was a long one and terribly severe and desperate. The patriots trium ihed, and that triumph indubitably established the fact that this Union shall not be destroyed. Hence it follows that we are destined to live together as one people, under the same Government, with an identity of institutions, and subject to the same laws. The war wrought radical changes in our social and political systems; and t ie machinery of the Government must now be thoroughly adapted to these changes before we can expect that harmony and unity so essential to our future peace and safety. This work must be performed by some one, and who shall do it, the patriots or the traitors? Who best prepared to do the work well, the men who tried to destroy the Union, or the men who succeeded in saving the Union? These questions admit of but one reply, and modesty at least would say that “traitors should take a back seat in the work of restoration.” This, then, is the work of the patriot; and in its performance he should be governed by 2 cardinal principles: 1st, that sooner or later we must live together as one people; 2nd, that we have a right to demand and must demand irreversible guarantees for the future peace and safety of the country before we consent to restore the late rebel States to their proper practical relations in the Union. bo person may feel any special interest in what I may heretofore have said in this House, yet nearly 18 months ago, in speaking upon these questions, I used the following language: “I do not for a moment believe in either of the positions assumedby the respectivefriends of each. that secessioncan tiiko any State out of the Union or that any State by such act has destroyeditself, committedsuicide. as it is said, or that the rebellious district is to be consideredand treated as foreign territory.” I entertain the same opinion today. The local governments in the several rebel States were undoubtedly destroyed by the act of rebellion, and Congress today can cit her provide for the organization of the new local State governments or may accept those already orvanized under the auspices of the executive dept, by virtue of its military authority. We have determined to adopt the latter course, whether wisely or not is no longer debatable. What remains to be done is for the people of the several States to ratify the constitutional amendment which was agreed to b as on yesterday, an amendment demanded byt c exigenc of the times as a condition precedent to the full restoration of the late rebel States. This we have the undoubted authority to do, and we shall be utterly false to all our great interests if we fail or refuse to enforce these recedent guarantees. This amendment contains 5 sections, as follows, namely: 1. Secures to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. the rights of American citizenship. 2. Bases representation in Congress upon the voting population of each State, thus depriving each State of political power in the same proportion as such State denies the right ot‘sudrage to its mule inhabitants. 3. Provides thata certain class, being the most intelligent and influential of the rebels, shall be deprived of the right to hold any office, State or national, on account of their participation in rebellion. 4. Declares the validity of the public debt and repudiates the debt of the socalled confederacy. 6. Empowers Congress to enforce these several provrsions by appropriate legislation. The adoption of this article shall be a condition precedent to the admission of any of the late rebel States to representation in congrcRBt and the future historian of our country, when reviewing the scenes through which we are passing, cannot. fail to remark the extreme of mercy and leniency which characterizes the course which the victor has seen fit to adopt toward those who have been guilty of such great and aggravated crimes. A different policy from this is urged upon our people, one which contends for the im mediate and unconditional admission to seats in Congress of the socalled loyal Representatives upon their simply taking the official oaths, insisting that the suppression of the rebellion restores the rebel States to the same rights they possessed before the rebellion. This to my mind is most mischievous and suicidal and would be a premium for treason instead of a punishment of traitors. It would increase the political power of the South to the extent of 13 members of Congress and presidential electors, thus endangering the freedom of the former slave, the payment of our national debt, and the pensions we pay to our disabled soldiers an to the widows and orphans of the war. A policy so detrimental to the best interests of the nation should find no supporters among those who have been struggling against treason and traitors for the last 5 years. The fact that it counts among its supporters the whole tribe of reconstructed as well as unpardoned rebels, together with those who sympathized with them in their hellish attempt to destroy the Government, is of itself (were there no other reason) sufficient to deter all patriots from ivin it the least countenance and support. Shou d the 39th Congress have sanctioned this policy, instead of receiving the heart support of the country, its members would in all coming time be regarded as the betrayers of public liberty. The issue is, then, fairly and squarely presented to the American people by these respective policies for their adjudication, and resolves itse finto this single question: shall those who saved the Republic or those who tried to destroy it be permitted hereafter to shape its policy and control its destiny? With these guarantees, obtained from each of the late rebel States prior to granting them the right to assist in legislat ing for the country, we shall have such guards and checks as Will effectually prevent the accomplishmentof wrong, were it ever meditated. The best preventive of evil in every position of life is to remove the power to do evil. Having thus agreed upon the proor guarantees, our next duty is to provide such legislation as will carry them into effect. On this subject there ought to be but little, if an, diversity of opinion. There may be some 'di erence among us as to the amendment proposed by the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BING HAM] to the JtResolutions of the select committee. I shall favor the adoption of this amendment. It provides substantially that when anyone of the States recently in rebellion shall have adopted the constitutional amendment which we have submitted to the several States for ratification, the Sens&Reps from such State, if found duly elected and qualified, after having taken the oaths of office required by law (includin, ofconrse, the test oath may be admittedintoi‘on ress as such. This prop position, to my min, is fair and reasonable, and not justly obnoxious to any serious objection. It is feared by many that a State recently in rebellion may, after ratifying such amendment and thus obtaining representation in Congress, rescind, repeal, or aniiul such action before it shall have become a part of the Constitution. According to my interpretation of the Constitution, whenever the Legislature of a State has once ratified a constitutional amendment which has been submitted by Congress to the States, such action is absolute and irrevocable. The language of the Constitution on this subject is direct and explicit. A constitutional amendment, whatever it may be, is submitted for “ratification, ” and for ratification alone. The U language is not in the alternative, “for ratification or rejection.” Should the legislature of any State reject such amendment, tie legal effect of its action would be the same as if no action whatever had been taken in the prem ises, and the same or any subsequent Legislature of the State can proceed again to the consideration of the subject, and this the Legis'lature can do ad infinitum until such action results in a ratification. When once ratified, then the power of the Legislature over the subject is spent, exhausted, terminated, and cannot be reversed or recalled. The act is accomlished, and in the nature of things becomes irrevocable, because the subjecthas then passed beyond the further control or jurisdiction of the Legislature. Why is this so, and whence the difference between this and an ordinary legislative act which is subject to modification, change, or recal? For the simple reason that it is not a legislative act in any true sense of the term. In actin upon proposed constitutional amendments the Legislatures of the several States derive all their authority from the national constitution and the action of Congress under the Constitution, and for the time bein they are invested with the sovereign power of the people of their respective States. Sovereign power only can alter or amend the fundamental law of the land; that is, the people alone, acting through conventions, can under our political system change their constitutions, State or national, except wherea different mode of amendment is prescribed b the instrument itself. Where a different. mot e is prescribed, then the body thus authorized to act assumes a sovereign capacity, but is limited in its action by the express terms of the Constitution conferring such authority; and herein it differs from aconvention emanating from and representing the people for the purposes of general amendment and change of the Constitution, such convention being unlimited in its authority over the subject. In all other respects the Legislature of a State is acting under and by virtue of the powers conferred by their local constitution; at here is an exceptional case, not arising under nor conferred by a State constitution, but by virtue of a power created and conferred upon them by the national Constitution. This power is simple and direct, and must be exercised within the express terms of the grant, which is not to reject, but to ratify an amendment. A rejection eo nomine is simply a refusal to ratif, and has the same import and none other than a neglect to act at all. It will not be contended that a neglect to act at any time deprives the Legislature or its successors, however remote such succession may be, from atfirmativeaction thereafter, and the same result follows a negative action or refusal to ratify or a so cafled rejection of any proposed amend vment. Thus an amendment maybe proposed to the several States in 1866, and the State of Indiana, for instance, may refuse any action until the year 1870, at which time she may refuse to ratify, and may designate such refusal by the name of rejection, still no one will contend that the Legislature for the year 1880 is at all precluded from any action in the premises. There is no action in contemplation of the national Constitution by any Legislature in this respect until such action is affirmative in its character, and results in the ratification of the amendment submitted. Again, I have already stated that a ratification by any Legislature is in its nature irrevo cable. This results from the ecnliarity of our institutions in this respect. Vlicn the Constitution was formed and adopted by the Convention it was submitted to the several States then forming the Confederation, and it was provided that “ the ratification of the conventions" (in stead of the Legislatures) “ of 9 States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the States so ratifying the same." This, then, was of the nature of a compact or agreement, and so with all amendments to the original Constitution, and binding upon each individual State when ratified by it. Let. me not be misunderstood at this point. I do not contend that the ratification o a constitutional amendment by a single State makes such amendment binding upon that particular State before it shall have been ratified by the requ i site number of States. Not at all. My pos ition is, that such ratification is binding upon that State only so far as to prevent it from receding from such ratification, and not so as to compel such State to conform its legislation to such amendment until assented to by a sailicient number of States to make it obligatory as a part of the Constitution. In this respect it may be likened unto an inchoate contract between 2 or more individuals. A makes a proposition for the sale of property to B, giving to B a certain length of time within which he is to accept or reject the proposition. In this case A is bound by his imposition until the expiration of the time iimited, and cannot. withdraw the same so as to defeat his liability until B has signified his intention in reference thereto; and when B gives his assent to the proposition it becomes a perfect contract he gweltlan the parties and equally obligatory upon 0t. So with amendments to the Constitution, except that here there is no limitation of time within which the several States shallact affirmatively on such amendments, but this factdoes not im air the validity of the compact or lessen its binding obligation upon any State which may have ratified, for there being [to limitation of time, of course time does not enter into or become of the essence of the contract. Were it otherwise no amendment could ever he adopted, or rather would be subject to the changing sentiment, the whims and caprices of the several States to an extent that would destroy all hope of any amendments ever being adopted. 4 The several States in the very nature ofthings cannot act simultaneously upon any proposed amendment; one State must almost of necessity take action before another, and thence await the action of other States. Will it be said that while thus awaiting the action of others it can reverse its own action? Suppose it. be true as contended, that it requires the assent of 27 of our States to give vitality to any amendment. If it be said that when 26 have ratified, and the 27th State is in the act of ratifying, anyone or more of those26States mayreverse theiraction, when or how can you ever hope for the adoption of any amendment? A different position from that for which I am contendingis so near akin to the doctrine of the right of secession that I could not, for this reason alone, ive it my assent, without the most co cut an convincing reasons, which much rejection on the subject has failed to bring to my mind. In the examination of legal questions we always gladly avail ourselves ol precedents whenever we can summon them to our aid, and although we have in this case no direct prece dent on the question of the right of a State to withdraw its assent when once given, yet our constitutional history furnishes at least a strong negative pregnant against the maintenance of such right. in the fact that the Constitution was not adOpted simultaneously by the States, but at different periods, ranging from the 7th of December, 1787, to the 29th of May, 1790, and that during this period of nearly 3 years no single State attempted to withdraw the assent which it had given. The Constitution was adOpted in the following order of time, namely: Delaware. Pennsylvnnia. NewHampshire. Virginia. NewYork. Rhodo Island. The 1st ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted by the several States in the following order of time: NewJersey. NCarolina. SCarolina NewHampsh Delaware Virginia 3.1791. december 15, 1791 being only 11 out. of the 14 States then composing the Union. As I have already stated, there is not a sin gle instance on record where any State ever attempted to withdraw its assent, given to the original Constitution or to any of its amendments, and this of itself furnishes strong proof of the correctness of the position for which I am contending. I would be one of the last members on this floor, Mr. Speaker, who would in the least jeopard the future peace and safet of this glifeat Republic by permitting a sing a one of the States recently in rebellion to resume its position in the Union without 1st obtaining the guarantees we propose to secure and which we have a right to demand; and hence if there were any doubt upon my mind in reference to this question I should not hesitate to say that none of the late rebel States should he thus recognized until such uarantees shall have 1st become a part of the Constitution. We believe that these guarantees are demanded by the States who remained loyal to the Union in our recent struggle. If this be so, of which I entertain no dou t, where is the cause for up prehended danger to result from the adoption of this amendment to the pending bill? Suppose, however, that the loyal States refuse to adopt theseguarantees, thus deciding in favor of a different policy of restoration, shall such refusal operate to the disadvantage of any of the late rebel States? This would be so evidently unjust that I, at least, am unwilling to advo cate such a course. Shall Tennessee or Arkansas, for instance, be punished for the recnsancy ofIndianaorPennsylvania? Supposethatwith in the next 2 or the next 5 years all of the 11 late rebel States shall see fit, in order to resume their practical relations in the Union, to adopt these constitutional amendments, it will then require only the assent of 16 of the loyal States to make these guarantees at art of the Constitution. Are members of this house afraid to iutrust this question to 16 oIut of the 25 loyal States? For myself, entertain no such fears; to do so would be to doubt' the patriotism of the people who have made so many noble and heroic sacrifices to save the Government from destruction, and who are equally prepared to demand and enforce proper guarantees for our future peace and safety. Mr. Speaker, I do not conceal the fact that, personal y, I desired the adoption of more strin gent terms and the assumption of a more ele Ivated position than this Congress has assumed. preferred a position more in consonance with the liberal spirit of the age in which we live, and with those true principles of freedom and humanity now rapid y spreading over the civilized globe, and which are destined to encircle it as the earth is encircled by its atmosphere. These guarantees are the result of a concession among friends having the same general object in how, and in that spirit they receive my assent. We have sent them to our people for their adoption; let us recollect thatin doing so we have but taken one step, a great step, I grant you, in the right direction, and trust that the work thus auspiciously carried forward is not to stop, but to continue its onward march until wrong, injustice, and oppression shall everywhere disappear. The years numberin from 1861 to 1866 are momentous years, an will form one of the brightest epochs in the annals of our race. Those years have witnessed a struggle of unexam led proportions, and a victory without a para 101. They have witnessed the salvation of a republic whose principles and whose power will be felt in every and They have witnessed the enfranchisement of a race who had been in bondage over 200 years; restored not cal to lib 'Z crty but by our recent action place in the planation of this. possession of their civil rights, and who are daily giving evidence of their appreciation of the boon thus conferred. Our forefathers secured liberty to themselves and their posterity; we have done more more than they, more than Grecian or Roman ever accomplished; we have given liberty to others. Let the American people see to it that in this noble work no backwar steps are taken. ENROLLEDJtResolution SIGNED.