Mr. BAKER then proceeded to address the House.[ published in the appendix] Reconstruction. SPEECH OF HON. JEHU BAKER, OF Illinois, , January 17, 1867. The House having under consideration the bill (H.R.No. 543) to provide for restoring to the States lately in insurrection their full political rights, Mr. BAKER. Mr. SpeakER, I rise for the purpose of indicating to the House some reasons why, in my opinion, the pending bill should not be adopted in its present shape, but should be referred to the JtCom on Reconstruction. The subject matter of this bill and of the ending substitute is of a character the most important that can be brought before the American Congress, and it ought therefore to be thoroughly and exhaustively considered; and all experienee has shown that an able and well composed committee is the most proper body for giving due consideration in the 1st instance to important measures of legislation. I am not at all satisfied with the bill in its present form, and although there are many arge questions collaterally connected with the measure now before the House into which I might illogically enter, I shall confine myself rigorously to a mere statement of my objections to this particular bill, as reasons why it should not be adopted but referred for more mature consideration by the committee. I will read the preamble to the bill, which is as follows: Whereas the 11 States which lately formed the government called the “confederate States of America have forfeited all their rights under the and can be reinstated in the same only through the action of Congress. Now, sir, I object to the phraseology of this preamble, in that it employs the term “government” without qualification or restriction as applied to the lately revolted States. The word “government” is the term used for a valid, legitimate Government. When such a Government is not meant we qualify with some adjec tive, as “so called” government, “pretended” government, ” or, better still, “de facto” government. I am unwilling to imply in a public statute, even by the remotest intendment or allusion, that the socalled “confederate States of America” had ever the slightest valid existence as a legitimate “Government.” The preamble further asserts that these revolted States have forfeited all their rights under the Constitution of the U.S. Now, I am not prepared to say I agree to this prop position without qualification. I understand that it is the duty of this Government to guaranty to each of these revolted States a State government republican in form. And if it is a constitutional obligation upon this Government to thus guaranty a republican State government to each of these States, then I would really suppose it is their right to receive such a government. The obligation to guaranty appears necessarily to involve the right to receive the benefit guarantied. Further, sir, I suppose the word “State.” includes the people thereof as a part—certainl a very important part—of its contents; and am of opinion that the people of each of these jo's.have, under the Constitution of the U.S., the right of petition. And in my othey have the further right to occupy the legal status of citizens of the? U.S. in the most general sense of the term citizen. This I put 1st upon the general ground that the Boo. of the U.S. is their sovereign. Sovereignty over these people is based on the necessary assumption?. they are subjects or citizens of the sovereign Power and owing it allegiance. The 2 things are inseparable. But, 2ndly and in a more particular sense, we have in the most solemn manner recognized them as citizens. At the last session of Congress we proposed to the States of this Union the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S., the 1st article of which provides that aii persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the U.S., ” &c. Now, sir, the terms of that amendment cover, those persons who have engaged in armed revolt against the U.S. They were born in the U.S.: they are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.; and it results by force of the 1st article of the proposed amendment that they are citizens of the U.S. Furthermore, the 1st section of the civil rights bill—in substantially the same words—declares these people to be citizens. I am not therefore prepared to say, in an absolute and unqualified sense, that they have no rights under the Constitution. I find myself compelled also to take serious exception to the 2nd section of the bill of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVess.] It is in these words: Sec. 2. Abife: That the State governments now existing defacto, though illegally formed in the midst of martial law, and in many in stancesthe constitutions were adopted under duress and not submitted to the ratification of the people, and therefore are not to be treated as free. }}. yet they are hereby acknowledged as valid governmentsfor municipaloduly altered, and their legislative the ansdame exsehcaulltibvee officers shalf be recognized as such. By the operation of this section, the moment this bill passes and becomes a law these respective defacto State governments, established under military power, and not valid unless recognized by the legislative dept of this Government, become that instant valid State governments for municipal purposes, long before the scheme of reconstruction contemplated by the bill is effectuated. And let me observe that, for reasons foreseen or not fore seen, this scheme though passed here might never be effectuated; and then we should find ourselves in the awkward position of having recognized in advance as valid for all State }.”these respective military governments. having once so recognized their validity it may be possible that that recognition might be retracted; but I desire to impress it upon the House that there would be very great difficulty in taking back what we had once declared in due form of law upon such a subject. I suggest that the wiser course would be that this recognition of these defacto governments as valid, retrospectively, should be postponed to such time as the scheme of guarantying loyal, civil, constitutional governments in their stead, may go into practical effect; and that to recognize them in advance would be to incur the danger of further embarrassing the whole subject by the logical consequences of our own illogical procedure.