Mr. HOLMES. Mr. Speaker, the policy to be pursued by congress with the States and people lately in reellion is brought to our notice by the annual message of the President now upper consideration, and it has occupied the attention and elicited discussion from some of the best minds of the age, both in and out of Congress. I do not expect that I can at this time throw anynew 1ightu on this subject, especially in the hour al otte to each member in this discussion, and which hardly gives time to state, much less to examine at any length, the different propositions that have been advanced. The effect produced by civilWar ii on the relations of these States and their peoplete the General Government has been often referred to in this debate, and yet I ask the indulgence of the House while I read from a well known American author, Chancellor Kent, a concise statement of the rights, duties, and disabilities growing out of a state of war: “It is a well settled doctrine in the English courts and with Englis urists. that there cannot exist at the same time a at for arms and a peace for commerce. The war puts an end at once to all dealings and all communications with each other and place even individual of the respective Governments. on well as the Goveruments themselves. in estate of hostili ty. This is equally the doctrinc of all the authoritative writers on the law of nations and of the maritimo ordinancesof all the grout Powers of Europe. It is equally the received law of this country; and was so decidedfrequently by the Congress of the U.S. during ptho revolutionary war and again by the SCOTUS during the lastwar; and it is ditheult to conceive of a point of doctrinemoredeeplyor extensive] rootedin the Gen erul maritime law of Europe. on in the universal and immemorial usageof the wholecommunity of the civilized world.: It follows as a necessary consequence of the doctrine of theillegulityof all intercourseor trafliqwithout express permisswn, that all contracts with the enemymadeduring war are utterly void. The insurance of enemics property is an illegal contract, because it is as ccioo of trade and intercourse with the enemy. The rawing of a bill of exchangeby Lu alien enemyon a subicct of the adverse country is an illegal and void contract becuuse it is a communication and contract. The purchase of bills on the enemys country or the remission and deposit of fundsthere il a dangerous and illegal act. because it maybe cherising the resourcesand relieving the wants of the enemy. The remissionof funds in mono or bills to subjects of the onemy is unlawful. Thain ibition reach! to eviery communication direct or circuitous. Every relaxation of the rule tendsto corrupt the allegiance of the subjectand prevents the war from fulfilling its cud. The only exception to this strict and rigorous rule of international jurisprudence in the case of ransom bills and they are contracts of security founded on a state of war and engenderedby its violence. All commercial partnerships existing between the subjectsof the 2 parties prior to the war are dissolved by the mere orce and act of the war itself." l Kenll Gum.78 80; Valle].321:16 John liq, 438; Wildlmul, vol. 2 p. 8; 2 “In/lace, 258.419. "All the property of the peopleof the twocountriesI on land or sea is subject to capture and confiscation by the adversepurty.as cricmysproperty." B Opnuonof Juatwe Grter. Also, dissenting opinion of Justice Nelson, in this case, in which 3 other justices concurred, describing the effect of war substantially as above stated, and holding that after the passage of the act of Congress of July 13, 1861, civilWar, with all its rights and obligations, existed between the U.S and the States in rebellion. (See opinion of Nelson at page 687.) This is undoubtedly the strict, rigid rule of international law. It is based upon theory that the Government represents every individual in the State, and that each individual is, in judgment of law, a party to the acts of his own Government, and responsible for them. It figures, in the 1st instance, the question whether the individual citizen is, or is not, in feeling and at heart, an enemy of the nation or State with which his Government is at war; and assumes that commercial intercourse is disengenuous and improper, in time of war, with parties occupying the position of public enemies. When these well settled principles of law are stated here or elsewhere, our political opponents, without solicitation, I trust. immediately assume the ratuitous task of defending the President and loyal men of the States lately in rebellion from the consequences of these doctrines, and from what they are pleased to call the assaults upon them of Union members of Congress, an like all new converts, especially those who have sinned longest and strongest, and who cannot trace their conversion to any mental conviction of sin, they manifest an extraordinary and very suspicious zeal in their defense. They tell us that these principles make the President an alien enemy, and is proper of the office he now holds, and that they convert the States lately in rebellion into foreign nations. We have seen strange things in our day, but none more strange than this newborn friend ship for the President and all men of the southern States. Had it manifested itself in the early stages of the rebellion it would have saved oceans of blood and millions of treasure. Had it come even when, as Governor of Tennessee, AndrewJohnson was endeavoring to protect the loyal men of that State from the rebel hordes that infested it, and secure to them the rights of electors under a free Government or even if it manifested itself now in favor of all 10 al men of the South without distinction of color. it might be less liable to suspicion if N than it is under the present circumstances. The friendship that denounced Governor Johnson as a tyrant and usurper, a labored for his political overthrow, and now awns around President Johnson; that strikes hands with unrepentant rebels and flutters loyal white men in the rebel States, while it turns its back upon, and shuts its against, the patient application for a recognition of his rights by the loyal colored man, is hardly worth possessing; an fever the time shall come when the President shall be reduced to the necessity of relying upon such friendship and support, he will be the most unfortunate and unfriended man that the sun ever shone on. May Heaven in its mercy save him an the nation from such deep disgrace and humiliation. But let me examine this question for a few minutes, and see what is the legitimate effect and extent of this doctrine, and whether the President and loyal people of the southern States need or require the services or protection of the party that has so magnanimously volunteered for their defense. The term public enemy does not necessarily imply an alien enemy. A public enemy may be either permanent or temporary; permanent when his hostility is supposed to continue during the war, and temporary when it is of shorter duration, and exists only in relation to the position or business which the party may occupy or be engaged in, and terminates when he ceases to occupy a hostile position or to can on abusiness that is prohibited by the rules of war. Permanent residents in, and persons owing allegiance to, a State at war are regarded as permanent enemies. At most, the hostile character thus acquired continues only during the war. It recedes before the permanent occupation of the territory of either State by the opposing army; and the parties that today without their consent are converted into public enemies, without any actual crime on their part, and because their Government or State is at war, may tomorrow be as suddenly changed into friends by being brought within the lines and under the jurisdiction of the op osing army. The seizure, condemnation, an confiscation of enemys property is confined, by modern usage, almost exclusively to maritime prizes, and such property on land as is particularly useful to e enemy in the prosecution of the war. The property on land of non-combatants is seldom taken or destroyed except in case of necessity, and not for gain. Slavery and cotton, the one the cause and the other the main reliance of the enemy for means to carry on the war against the Union, became the legitimate objects of destruction or capture. I, am not speaking here of those who in a civilWar are actually engaged in rebellion, but of those who are denominated enemies by reason of residence in or allegiance to the State in rebellion. As to the former, the right on the part of the sovereign Government to except any of them from amnesty and punish them for participation in the rebellion, although belligerent rights may have been conceded them, is unquestioned. (2Black, Vattel, 426.) As to the latter, the extent to which the disabilities of public enemies shall be enforced against them during the war rests with each belligerent. In the case of the Venice, 2 Wallace, 258, Chief Justice Chase, in delivering the opinion of the court, at page 274, says: " The States of Louisiana and Mississippi werewholly under reboldominion and all the peopleof each were enemiesof the State U.S. The rule which declares that war makes all the citizens or subjects of one belligerent enemiesof the voranient and of all the citizensorsubjectsof theother applies equally to civil and to international wars. Either belligerent tmemaytomryoodifythoer limit its operationsas to personsor other.but in the absenceof such mod ification o restrictiqn,;iidicial tribunals cannot disonnnnate in its application." Here we seethat either belligerent may modify or limit the operation of this rule as to the property, persons, or territory of the other. Vhat has been the policy of Congress on this subject during the war? I assert that from the corn Inencemv" of the war to the present time it the U.S. done by Congress to preserve their property has been the settled oli of Congress by legislation, to draw a roa line of distinction between loyal and disloyal people in the rebel States; that the former have been protected in person and property in every way that it could lie done with safety to the public interests; that as to them the term public enemy has been substantially obliterated, and that it has been entirelyi nored so far as property on land is concerned. Pardon me while I refer to some of the legislation where this disposition or policy is distinctly manifested. The act of July 18, 1861, authorizes the President by proclamation, to declare what States an parts of States are in insurrection, and provides that thereupon all commercial intercoursewith such States and parts of States shall cease. But it also provides that the president may license such trade as he shall think est. This provision was modified by section 9 of the act of July 2, 1864, and limitedto such trade only as should be necessar to supply the wants of “loyal persons” resiing in the insurrectionary States. The object of this law was to prohibit intercourse of a commercial nature with the States in rebellion, and at the same time to license or permit it so far as it was necessary to supply the wants of loyal citizens. The act of August 6, 1861, confiscates certain property used or permitted to be used in support of the rebellion, and liberates or frees all slaves so used by consent of their owners. The act of July 17, 1862, confiscates the property of persons and classes thereinmentioned, and who were engaged in the rebellion. The act of March 12, 1863, provides for the collection and sale of capture or abandoned property in the States in insurrection, the payment of the proceeds into the Treasury, and that the owner at any time within 2 years after the supression of the rebellion may have the proceedasthereof, upon roving that e has never aided the rebellion. his act is extended by section 3 of the act of July 2, 1864, so as to include all propertymentioned in the acts of July 13, 1861, and of July 17, 1862, commonly called the confiscation laws and by section 7 of the act of July 2, 1864, it is provided that no property seized or taken upon the inland waters of the U.S. by the naval forces thereof shall be regarded as maritime prize, but shall be delivered over to the properOfficer and sold as provided by the act of March 12, 1863, for the collection and sale of captured or abandoned prorty. We thus see, Mr. Speaker, by this reterence to some of the principal laws passed during the progress of the war that Congress has recognized in terms the loyal people in the insurrectionary States, permitted the legalizin of trade to supply their wants, and provid for the collection, preservation, and restoration to them of all property which had been abandoned by them or captured by the Army or N av of What else, I ask, could be or rights or satisfy them that they were not to be regarded or treated as public enemies of the Government? For the purpose of showing that I am light in thusregarding the effect of the legislation I have referred to, I read from the head notes to Mrs. Alexanders case, 2 Wallace, 404: “The principle that personal dispositions of the individual inhabitants of enemys conn as distinguished fromthoseof the enemyspeop e ener ally cannot in questions of capture he inquir into, applies in civilWars as in international, Hence all the people of any district that was in insurrection against the U.S. in the southern rebellion are to be regardedas enemies, except in so far as by action of the Government itself that relation may have beenchanged. “OurGovernment. byits act of CongrossofMarch 12. 18$, to provide for the collect on of abandonedpfop erty.Ate“doesmake distinction betweenthosewhom the rule of international law would class as enemies: and through forms which it prescribes, protects the rights of property of all personsin rebel regionswho during the rebellion have in fact maintained a loynl adhesionto the Government. The generalpolicy of our legislation during the rebellion having been to preservefor loyal ownersObllRQd by cirenrnstancesto remain in rebel Staten all property or its proceeds which has cometo the possessionof the Goveinment or its O cars.” This case, it will be seen, after asserting the strict rule of law in relation to public enemies and the power of the Government to modify it, holds that the act of March 12, 1863, has had that elfect, and that this has been the settled policy of the Government from the commencement of the rebellion. I am sorry to take from our political op onents any of their small stock in trade on this subject, but I am comJelled to say that no loyal person, black or white, in the States lately in insurrection, is now to be regarded as a public enemy of the U.S., and that the President, under the strictest construction of international law has never been a public enemy. The rebellion found him a Senator of the U.S. from the State of Tennessee, true to his trust when others failed, denouncing and opposing secession and all its attendant crimes. When as military governor he returned to Tennessee, and succeeded as few men could have done at that time in upholding and sustaining there the aiithority of the General Government, he was as truly and effectually in the service of the Government as though he had command of its armies in the field. For this he was de nounced as a tyrant and usurperby those who new claim to be his special friends and defend ers. The people whose Government he was then sustainin elevated him in spite of their Opposition an detraction to the position by virtue of which upon the death of the President he assumed the duties of the highest and most res nsible office in a republican government. he people under our Government are the court of last resort for the trial of all public men and public measures. They have passed upon his loyalty and fidelity during that fear ful struggle, and from that decision there is no appeal and as he values their continued support and approval as well as the verdict of impartial histo he will shun, as he would shun political dealh, an alliance with the men who now seek to do by flattery and simulated support what they failed to accomplish by do traction and unscrupulous opposition. e has successfully encountered their opposition. He cannot outlive their support. Much has been said in this discussion upon the question whether the States lately in reellion are States or Territories; whether they are in the Union or out of the Union? There is doubtless, to some extent, a difference of opinion between members of the Union party upon this subject. Much, however, of the apparent conflict of opinion arises from the use of different terms designed to express substantiall the same meaning. All agree that there has eea atime during the progress of the war when these States were not entitled to representation either in this or the other and higher branch of Congress; when no loyal State government was recognized in either of them by any Dept of the General Government. By some their condition at this time has been assumed to be out of the Union, or that they had relapsed into the condition of Territories.others claim that they were and still are in the Union, but that their rights to a greater or less extent have been forfeited by their participation in the rebellion; and others still that their functions have only been suspended and their vitality impaired. All these terms or expressions are intended to assert the fact that these States have not been in harmony with the General Government; and that they are not authorized to resume their relations with that Government and exercise all the rights of the States that did not participate in the rebellion until some power or authority outside of these States shall determine that their government, institutions, and people are again in harmony. with the Generaf) Government, and that they are entitled to share in its duties and responsi bilities and articipate again in the privileges it confers. The terms or language used to express this condition arepof little consequence so long as there is a general assent to the conclusions arrived at. it; President Lincoln, in the last speech he made, used this language in reference to the condition of these States: “We all agreethat the acceded States. socalled, are out of their properpractical relations with the Union, and that the sole object of the Government. civil and military in rega to those states is again to get them into that proper practical relation. Let us all join in (loin the acts necessaryto restoring the properpractice relations between those States and the Union, and each forever alter innocently indulge his own opinion, whether indoing theseacts he brought the States from without into the Union. 9r only gave them proper assistanee, theyneverhaving been out at it. Every one should cheerfully assent to this gatholic recommendation of the late President. For myself, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that States easily die or cease to exist. They may change their form of government, be submerged by strife and civilWar, their relations with surrounding States changed, and yet their identity preserved, and the Government of today be liable for the debts and obligations cre ated by its predecessor.(Phillimorc, vol. 1, pp. 147, 148; Lawrences Wheaten, 89, 40.) In relation to the States lately in insurrection, I do not believe that they have ever, during the rebellion, been out of the Union that they are dead in the Union, or that they have even slumbered for a single moment from the commencement of the war to the present time. Their State organizations have been constantly wielded with terrible effect against this government during the entire war. As States, they rebelled; as States, they did all in their power to sustain a rival government and to overthrow this; as States, they were overcome; and, as States, they still live, with all the possions that led them into the rebellion, mad dened and embittered by defeat, and using their State organizations to drive out or destroy eve person who was loyal to the Union in the our of its peril. That the may do all this and still retain and exercise all the rights of the loyal States; that the may send their representatives unbidden nn almost unchallenged again into the halls of the national Legislature, to resume the seats they polluted and disgraced by treason, with the right and privilege of legislating again for a Government they failed to destroy, is a proposition too monstrous to be stated or received with aprevel in any loyal community; and if adopted, would be offering a premium for treason, perjury, and crime. Those only who were engaged in the rebellion, and those who sympathized with it during its existence, can be guilty of promulgating such disloyal sentiments and opinions. Certain itis, no one connected with the late Administration, and I trust for the honor ofhumanity that no one connected with the presentAdministration, has ever indulged such a thought. The criminal cannot pronounce his own pardon and absolution. t must come from a higher and purer fountain. The Government that has been sinned against, and whose laws have been de fied and disregarded, is the only power that can prescribe the terms upon which forfeited rigPts can be restored or resumed. he power of the General Government, as the successful party in war, to dictate such terms and enforce such conditions as shall be just in relation to the reorganization of these State governments, can be readily justified by the law of nations. I read from Vattel, at page 388: " The whole right of the conqueror is derived from gustitiableself defense. He may. in the 1st place, O himself justice respecting the obieet wine had given rise to the war, and indemnify himself for the expense and daniiwcs he has sustained by it: he may, according to the exigency of the case, subieet the nation to punishment by way of example; O may even.if prudence so retfiiire, render her incapa bleof doing mischief with the sameeasein future.” I commend this quotation to all who insist that there is “nothing in the recognized or established code of international law which can punish a State as agState for any act it may perform, ” and to remind them that it is not upeonimon to find a State show of its sovereignty orpart of its possessions, its government modified and large sums of money exacted from it by way of indemnity and punishment for acts done as a State. But I do not seek to justify the Government by the law of nations in exacting from the rebel States such guarantees as I may think necessary before permitting them to resume their full relations with the General Government, and I disclaim an desire to see the doctrine of the conqueror an the conquered as recognized by those laws applied to them. But we may at least look to those laws so see what the civilized world regards as right and just in such cases, while ample power is found in my judgment, in the Constitution of the U.S. to enforce such of those principles as the safety and perpetuity of the Government imperiously demand. By section 4 of article 4 it is made the duty of the U.S. to guaranty to every State aRFG and by section 4 of article 1 Congress has power “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoingpow ers and all other powers vestedby this Constitution in the Government of the U.S., or in any Deptor officerthereof.” The governments in these States were entirely subverted, so far as fidelity to the Union, the Constitution, and national Government was concerned. Not a vestige of loyalty could be found in any oficial pdsition. To show how perfect and entire was the destruction of these governments, I read from the proclamation of the President, drawn up with great care and issued by him for the purpose of securin a reorganization of the government in each of these States. These proclamations not only announce the entire overthrow of all civil government therein, but claim that the power to reconstruct or reestablish them is contained in that portion of the Constitution whichenjoins upon the U.S. the duty to guaranty to every State a RFG: “ PROCLAXAHON. "Whereas thp 4th sectionof the 4th article of the Constitution of the U.S. declaresthat the U.S shall guaranty to every State in the union a RFG and shall protect each of them against inyasion and domestic violence: and whereas the POTUS is, by the Constitution, made Commander in Chief of the Army and Nav, nswell sschief encoutive officer of the U.S., and is bound by solemnoath faithfully to executethe officeof POTUS, and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed: and whereas the rebellion which has been wagedby a portion of the people of tbe U.S. against the proper] constituted authenties of the Government thereo, in the most Violent and revolting form, but whose or auiaedand armed forccs havqnowbeenalmostentire;v overcome, has in its revolutionary progress deprive the people of the State of, o a] civil government; and whereas it becomes necessary and proper to carry out and enforce the obligations of the U.S.to the people of, in securing them in the enjoyment of a RFG: Now, therefore.in obedience to the high and solemn duties imposed upon me by the Constitution of the U.S and for the purpose of enrvliling the loyal people of said State to organize a State government whereby justice may be established domestic tranquillity insured, and loyal citizens protected in all their rights of life liberty and property, I AndrewJohnson. POTUS an Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the U.S. do hereby appoint. revision governor of the State of, whose iity it shal beat the earliest practicable period to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper for convenin a convention composed of delegates to be chosen ythat portion of the peopleof said State who are loyal to the U.S and no others, for the purpose of altering or amending the constitution thercof, and With authority to exercise Within the limits of said State all the powers necessary and proper to enable such loyal people of the state of to restore said State to its constitutional relations to the Federal Government and to present such a republican form of State government as Wlll ontitle the State to the guarantoe of the U.S. therefor, and its people to protection by the U.S. against invasion, insurrection, and domestic violence: Provided, That in an election that may belierc after held for choosing delegates to any State convention as aforesaid, ripperson shall be qualified as an elector or shall be eligible as agnember of such convention, unless he shall have previously taken and subscribed the oath of nmnest, as set forth in the Presidents proclamation of i:i 29, 186 5a, pd is a voter qualitied IL! prescribed by the constitution and laws of the State of in force immediately before the day of 1861.the date of the socalled ordinance of secession. {ind the said convention when convened or the Legislature that may be thereafter assembled. will, prescribe the qualifications of electors and the eligibility of persons to hold office under the constitution an laws of the State. apower the pjcopleof the scvi rnlStittescomposing the Federal men have rightfully exercised from the origin of the Governmentto the presenttime." Under these proclamations the President and the officers appointed by him have gone forward in the process of reconstructing the State governments. Conventions have been called and held; constitutions altered and amended: members of the Legislatures and other State officers elected; Representatives and Senators chosen to represent the States in Congress; and during the entire time the right to determine when the officers thus elected should enter upon the da ties of their respective offices, to set aside elections, and also to set aside or disregard laws passed by some of these Legislatures, has been claimed and exercised by the President in the most direct and pointed manner. Although I see in the proceedings of the President in the reorganization of these State gavernmeats some of the dangers which the Gentfrom Pennsylvania who sits near me [Mia Winnians] has so vividly described, and though I may have desired that other qualifications for electors had been prescribed, I do not on the whole regret the course taken by the President, because it gave the people of those States the opportunity of showing to the world what they would do if again trusted with care stricted power. In no other way could they have shown so well their entire unfitness to be trusted at present with the sacred responsibilities and duties of a republican government. If trembling and shrinking loyalty in the person of colored menhad been crmitted to cometothe polls, it might have mo ified the exhibition of hatred for the freedmen, now so apparent and intense. Then we might have been deceived. Now there is no excuse for shutting our eyes against the evidence of disloyalty, so apparent that he that runs may read. The President has labored patriotically and earnestly, I doubt not. to bring about a better state of affairs, but his labors have not been blessed in a.very great degree. The seed he has scattered has fallen upon stony ground and has produced a very inconsiderable crop, if loyalty is to be the standard by which it is measured. In his annual message, at the opening of the present session of Congress, he sa“ys: The States attemptingto secedeplacedfhemsclvel in a situation where their vitality wasim aired, but not extinguished; their functions suspen ed, butuot destroyed." Who is to determine when these suspended functions and this impaired vitalit are restored? Has congress nothing to o with it exec t to pass, each House for itself, n on that eerti cates of election of members claiming seats in such House? The decision of thisquestion rests, in my judgment, with the law may n power, and requires the sanction and assento the entire lawmaking power of the Government. In no other wa can the role he Uniform. Separate and in ependent action m ht leave one rule prevailin in this House, another in the Senate, and still another with the executive Dept. These States are entitled to full and absolute recognition by each of these Depts of the Government, Or else they are not entitled to recognition by either, Ample power exists under the 8th section of article 1 of the Constitution of the U.S., above referred to, to pass any law necessary to carry ontand enforce the guarantee of a republican government to each State and to recognize such government when established and this can on y be done by legislation, and not by either Dept of the Government acting independently and alone. When shall these States he admitted to Representation on this floor and to all offier rights of loyal States? My simple answer is, whent eir governments are republican, their people loyal, and they send loyal men to represent them. There has been a time during this rebellion when no one will claim that they were entitled to representation here. They eertainly were not when fully represented by the action and con courage. sent of their respective Legislatures and nearly their entire population in the rebel congress. representation there was only one evidence of their disloyalty and unfitness for representation here. At the last session of the lhirty 8th Congress, this House without division passed a resolution declaring that they were not entitled to participate in the election of President and VEEP. Have the sentiments of the people of these States chhn edsince that vote was taken? Whae is the evience of such change and of their present loyalty? Do you point to the adoption by their Legislatures of the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery? Governor Humphreys, in his message, says it was forced upon them by Federal bayo nets. The plea of action under duress is already made in some quarters and a conditional ratification is attempted in others. Are we to assume that these Legislatures, elected as they were, represent a majority of the people of their vres ective States; and that they will not be entire y reudiated by the people and their acts declare usurpations? ho can assureus that these mushroom governments that have grown up in a night in the hot bed of executive influence can stand one hour of solar heat and light? Above all, who can satisfy us that there is a majority of loyal men in anyone of these States ready and willing and able to sustain a loyal government. A loyal people and a loyal government must exist in all cases as the foundation of the right to, representation. But it is as red, an with great force and by men whose opinions are entitled to consideration and respect, why not admit loyal men from these States who are claiming seats in this House? I hope the time is not distant when we shall find such a state of facts existing in some of these States as will justify their admission. No one can be more anxious than I am to see the time when we shall be honored by the presence as members of this House of some of the loyal men from those States. I know their trials, struggles, and sacrifices for the Union, and that their loyalty was unquestioned when secession and treason swept over their States and strong men bowed before the storm. I give them all honor for their fidelity and But there is a question of principle involved in the admission of representatives as loyal as the best of them that we must not over look. It is not merely loyal representatives that we want. but loyal constituencies behind them. Are the States they claim to represent loyal todav, and were they so when they were elected? have the loyal people of either of these States the power to sustain a State government without the aid of Federal bayoiiets? Can the live today in safety in either of these States i the U.S. Government with draws its protection? Is not hostility to the Government as wide spread and nuyieldiu as during the palmy days of the rebellion; an as soon as the U.S. Army is withdrawn will not the State governments pass into the hands of disloyal men who are waiting only for this last nd full recognition of their rights to wipe out, y unfriendly legislation or otherwise, every person, white as well as black, suspected of unconditional loyalty to the Genera government? The battle fields of those States are covered with the sacred ashes of men who left their homes in northern and loyal States and laid down their lives that this Government might be preserved, and with it the power to protect loyal men everywhere. In defense of that government, the ymarched down to the harvest of death side by side with loyal men from southern States, meeting a common enemy and finding a common grave. The sons and brothers of your constituents and mine, Mr. Speaker, are sleepin there the sleep that knows no waking. the sacrifice reguired was eat, but it was freely made. We bound the fillets around their temples and laid them upon the altar. Do not ask us, before the grass has grown upon the grave of the nations dead, to take a course that may compel us to repent the awful Sacrifice. You must not require it at our hands. We cannot afford to give up the control of this Government to rebels and rebel sympathizers to be used in crushing out loyal men. I fear if it is now surrendered that very soon we shall again hear from the loyal people in each of these States the Macedonian cry, “Come over and help us.” We have a higher duty to perform than merely to gratify political or personal friends here or elsewhere. We owe a duty to our country and the men who have laid their lives and treasure upon their countrys altar, that requires us to see that so much blood and treasure shall not be spent in vain. The presence of U.S. soldiers all over the South is conclusive evidence, if any were needed, that the Presidentdoes not believe that civil governments could be maintained without them. The report of Major General Carl Schnrz show; an entire want of loyalty in these States and Lieutenant GenlGrant, in his report made at the same time, says: “ I did notmoetanyone. eitherthoseholding places under the Government or citizens of the southern States, who think it practicable to withdraw theinili tary from the South at present. The white and the black mutually require the protectionof the General Government." The AttyGen of the U.S., in a letter sent to the Senate by the President on the 10th of January last, and which of course has the a proval of the President, says “a state of war still exists over the territory in rebellion, ” and that “ peaceful relations between the Governmentand the States have not been restored." It is only necessary, in addition, to refer to the infamous legislation enacted by the Legislatures of many of these reconstructed States, and the evidence taken before the JtCommee of Congress at the present session and recently reported to this case, to show how wide spread and universal is the feeling of hostility to the General Government in most if not all of these States. Who, under such circumstances, can consistently with hisduty to a loyal constituency vote to recognize as reconstructed, with the yight of representation in the national Legislature, States that, in addition to all this, select men to represent them who have distinguished themselves in the service of the rebellion, and who have held some of the highest offices in the government organized to secure its success? I cannot do it, and I am glad of an opportunity to say in this connection that no person, with my consent, shall ever hold office under the Government of the U.S. who has in any way voluntarily aided the rebelliop. Before admittin these States to a participation in the law maing power of the Government, we must, in the language of Vattel, above referred to, do ourselves justice and render them “incapable of doing mischief with the same ease in future.” We must do justice to the public creditor who has furnished the government the means to carry on this war and give him assurance doubly sure that come what may, the debt created for that purpose shall be paid to the “ uttermost farthing.” The debt created to aid the rebellion must be ren diated and with it the political heresies that engendered the war. representation and the ballot must go hand in and, and the fulfillment of the pledges to the freedmen made in the emancipation proclamation must be placed be 0nd any contingency. resident Johnson in his annual message says it is “ not too much to ask of these States that the should ratify the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery as a pledge of perpetual loyalty and peace.” If this may be required by the President, may not something be asked by Congress looking to the same object, “perpetual loyalty and peace?” Let me refer once more to Vattel on this subject. At page 391 he says: “ It has beenobserved that we may be obliged. if not externally. yet in conscience.an by the laws of equity, to restoreto a 3rd party the booty we have securedout of the hands of an enem who has taken it from him in an unjust war. Theo liation ismore certain and more extensivewith regnrito a people whom our enemyhasunjustly oppressed. For a people thus spoiledpf theirliberty never renounce the hope of recoveringit. 1 they have not voluntarily incorporatedthemselveswith thostate by which they, I have beensubdued. if they have not freely aidedhim in the war againstus, weccrtiiinly oughtsotouscour victory asnot merely to give them anew master.but.to brcaktheir chains. To deliver an o mrcssedpeople is anoble fruit ofvictory. Itisii vii usblendvan tagegained thus to acquirea faithful friend.". How beautifully the dictates of international law harmonize With our duty to the freedman. “To deliver an oppressed people isa noble fruit of victory.” These ieople are nominally free, but real y slaves. We must, in the language of the emancipation proclamation, “ recognize and maintain their freedom." This duty, repudiated elsewhere, appeals to us with a double power. Whatever others may do, we must neither hesitate nor turn back from its full performanee. By us it must neither be rtipu iated, evaded, or compromised. The right of these people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to protection of person and property, to equal and exact justice and privileges before the law, and in all courts and proceedings, inst be freely conceded and amily guarantied. When these things shall be O e, and the rebellion suppressed in factas well a name; when loyalty shall be the rule instead of the exception; when the States lately in rebellion shall recognize and enforce the great truths of the DeclarIndep, and guaranty to all their people, without distinction of race or color, the by essings and irivileges of free governments, then wilLour lovernment have reached the position designed for it by its founders; then Will it have fully entered upon that mission of beneficence and justice which is to regenerate a continent and bless the world and then, and not till then, can we truly say, it is well with us and well with our country.