Mr. LeBLOND. Mr. Speaker, Ohio has no nominating convention to come off on next Wednesday, as the gentleman {Mr. BRANDA GEE] has who has just taken his seat. Therefore, even though otherwise I might be so disposed, I shall not indulge in any high sounding declamation; but simply Present my views in a brief form, disconnected as they must be, in reference to this bill. Sir, the bill was Presented here at the close of the session yesterday; it has been printed and laid on our tables at noon today; and now the decree has gone forth from the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, {Mr. STEvens] that tomorrow at one o'clock we are by a solemn act to declare that all the results of the late war are for naught and that this Union is dismembered, forever dissolved. I feel, sir, that the passage of this bill is the death knell of civil liberty, not only here but everywhere. Sad as the thought may be it is too true that almost the last hope of a once free people, that liberty is secure here, is fast passing away. The bill under consideration proposes to establish nothing more and nothing less than a military despotism. That is not only the tendency but the probable object of much of our legislation. What does the bill provide? The preamble declares: Whereas the pretended State governments of the lCaaterolsine ac, alled confederate States of Virginia, North bama, LouSiosiuatnhaC, aFlroorlandaa, Texas Georgia, Mississippi, Ala and Arkansas were set up without the authority of Congress and without the sanction of the people; and whereas said pretended governments afford no adequate protection for life or property, but countenance and encourage lawlessnessand crime; and whereas it is necessary that W.” and good orders hould be enforced in socalled States until loyal and republican State governments can be legally established: Therefore. Sir, that rests, I suppose, upon the theory of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, that the power of this Government rests in the people, and that the Congress of the U.S. is the people, and therefore the Congress of the U.S. is all powerful and can establish any form of government that it may deem E.though the Constitution exPressly proibits it. It is upon the theory of the Gentfrom NewYork, {Mr. RAYMond, who edified not only this House but the American people a short time ago by the exhibition of a new constitution, a new fundamental law for this Government, a law fixed in the imagination of men alone. This is the law which he claims is higher than the written Constitution of the U.S. Well, sir, this doctrine of a “higher law” is no new doctrine in this country. This doctrine is the root and foundation of all our troubles and is indirectly the cause of all the expenditure of treasure and blood to which we have been subjected. The preamble of this bill does not embrace a single truth. Let us look for a moment at the status of these States, their relation to the Federal Government. And here permit me to say I differ with some gentlemen on this side of the House, as well as gentlemen on the other side. I maintain now, as I have ever maintained, that the State organizations of those States lately in rebellion never were broken up from the foundation of their State governments to the Present time. All the “acts and declarations” of those who were engaged in the rebellion never destroyed a single State government. Their local governments were ept up othe rebellion. The executive, legislative, and judicial functions of each State continued in full operation during that period. According to my recollection, not a single State changed her constitution during the rebellion; and the only change made since the close of the war is the one making their respect: ive organic acts conform to the constitutional amendment submitted by Congress. But suppose, sir, amendments had been made according to the rules Prescribed by their constitutions, if the amendments were not in conflict with the Constitution of the U.S., would be good and binding upon the people. The amendment would be just as binding as if made in time of peace. No one, I apprehend, will contend that the adjudication op a claim between individuals during the rebellion and while the State was acting under the confederate government is void. To do so would make confusion worse confounded. Sir, their State organizations were not broken up; their relations to the U.S. were only suspended. To assert, as the preamble does, that they have no real governments is to admit that the declaration of secession did carry them out of the Union and destroy their State governments. It is an admission of the right of secession, either reserved by the States or exPressed in the Constitution. It is an admission but few believe and a less number willing to admit. It has been repeatedly affirmed upon this floor and by all parties that a State once in the Union always in except she dissolves her relations by successful war. Then, sir, I maintain that these States are States within the Union; that they have never been out of the Union; neither have they overthrown their State governments. When the war ceased they took their position in the Union which they occupied before they rebelled, with all their rights as States, leaving the citizens subject to the laws, punishing them for violations. This, sir, is no new idea. Let me say here in this connection that Lieutenant General W, T. Sherman has exhibited more statesmanship and a better appreciation of our form of government than the majority of this Congress. He comprehended the whole subject in the articles of capitulation with the confederate General Johnston. He enunciated the true doctrine, and if it had been followed by the President and Congress we would today have peace and harmony. There would no necessity for enabling acts or revolutionary schemes such as we now have under consideration., Peace, happiness, and prosperity would pervade all parts of this Union. It was all that was required, all that could be demanded under the Constitution and laws, all that was necessary to produce not only a unity of States but a unity of hearts. But we are told by gentlemen here, whenever they rise for the purpose of speaking upon almost any subject, that the POTUS is guilty of usurpation; that the POTUS has exercised unwarrantable jurisdiction in the appointment of provisional governors for these southern States. Sir, I agree that that was wrong. I am not here for the purpose of vindicating the POTUS in the exercise of a power which I believe he did not possess. I do not think he ever had that power; and I think it was a grave error on his part to exercise the power of appointing those provisional governors. a In exercising that power, however, he was only carrying out to some extent the plan adopted by his predecessor in appointing provisional governors. I say the President had no power to do it; but I am not oto say, and will not say, that the President did not act in good faith, and with the conviction that it was the best thing to be done, and that under existing circumstances it was necessary. I do not for one moment believe that he acted criminally or with corrupt motives; but that he acted with the very best motives possible, looking to the final restoration of the whole Union. But, sir, I nevertheless believe it to have been a grave error. But, here sir, is the rock upon which we lit. If these States were not out of the nion, and if they kept up their State organizations till the close of the war, then, sir, neither the President nor Congress had any power to interfere with them. e officers in position were placed there by the people, and none but the people who placed them there could remove them, and that only in pursuance of law. Again I affirm that their State governments were not broken up. Their representatives should have been received upon this floor unless they were excluded by reason of some prohibition Prescribed in the Constitution or laws of the U.S. But, sir, to the bill. The last provision of the preamble says: And whereas said pretended governmentsafford no adequate protection for life or property, but countenanceand encouragelawlessnessand crime. Now, sir, who could j. that perfect peace would prevail throughout those States as soon as the war ended?. It was in the na ture of things there would be lawless conduct on the part of many, citizens. That certain gentlemen desire difficulties to exist, in the South in order that they may base legislation upon it, in order to carry out certain designs, I have no doubt. But that there is and has been less disturbance than could be expected under the circumstances is true. The civil authorities there have been using the power they have to keep down this lawlessness and to punish men for the commission of offenses. And if this Congress would only give them full power to exercise all of their functions we would have order and peace much sooner than by the plan now proposed to disturb and destroy their governments. It must be remembered that 4 million slaves were set free who were before under the control of their masters. They knew no law except as it was given to them by their masters. Now they act for themselves, and too frequently act upon suggestions from the Freedmen's Bureau, with a view to furnish sensational articles are so frequently read from the Clerk's desk. The 1st section goes upon the supposition that they are not States. It divides these ten States into military depts. The 2nd section provides, not that the POTUS, who is Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy, and made so by the Constitution, should not appoint the military commandants, but that the general in command should take jurisdiction and appoint all these officers. I ask gentlemen what will you do with that provision in the Constitution which declares the POTUS to be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the U.S.? This is almost a precise copy of the bill introduced in the Senate by Mr. WILLIAMs. In that bill it was provided that the POTUS should make these appoint.ments. He had some regard in that bill for the constitutional power of the President. He was willing to carry out that provision of Constitution. But this ComReconstruction this maelstrom committee, which swallows up everything that is good and gives out everything that is evil reports this bill taking away all of the power from the POTUS, and confers that power upon the commanding general, in defiance of the exPress provision of the Constitution to which I have referred. And although this 2nd section strikes down that provision of the Constitution, yet the magnanimity of the chairman of that committee could not extend further than to allow us a few hours of debate on a proposition so important and so vital.. He would not agree to fix a day when this bill should come up, so that gentlemen could collect their thoughts on the subject. Isuo on the other side they have adopted the higher law doctrine, so ably discussed by the Gentfrom NewYork, and need no reflection. That simple change, sir, if there were no other reason, ought to destroy this bill, ought to prevent its passage..But that is not the worst provision in the bill. After appointing these military commanders in the several districts, giving them complete and exclusive jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters, the 3rd section contains a provision unparalleled in legislation, that these military commanders, may confer power upon the civil tribunals of the State to try certain offenses; that is, may confer upon a judge elected by the people or appointed by. POTUS power to try a case of indebtedness between A and by if they think proper:, Whoever heard of such a mon. strosity as this? Whoever heard of such a stretch of power on the part of Congress? The Constitution provides j." ". I, n enjoy all criminal prosecutions the accused shall the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of grime the State and district wherein the haye shall have been committed, which district shall beenF.ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confrontedwith the witnessesagainst him; to have compulsoryE. for obtaining witnesses in his sha to have the assistanceof counsel for Instead of permitting the party to be tried by a jury selected within the district, to be tried by a judge appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, or a judge elected by the people, before he can be tried before a." thus raised it is required he shall go before this military commander and ask him whether he will grant his permission. You deny him the right of jury. You, deny that the accused shall be confronted with witnesses as the Constitution guarantees. This military commander is to call around him a court martial, and call the person there for trial i. no power to employ an attorney to defen lin. This, sir, is the legislation you propose; this is the proposition you submit for the reconstruction of your disorganized States, as you term them. Sir, it is a blow at the very principles of civil liberty; it is striking down the right of trial by jury; it is establishing military tribunals to try cases in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution of the U.S. Now, sir, I appeal to gentlemen to pause before they run into this kind of legislation, to look at the consequences, to reflect upon what is to be the final result upon this legislation. Not content with doing all this, not content with denying to these people the right of trial by jury and of being rePresented by counsel, you propose to tie up the hands of the civil courts in all these States, and say they shall not issue a writ of habeascorpus where a party has a meritorious case unless he 1st gets the consent of your military tribunals. You thus strip a man of all possible remedy of redress; you deny to him the courts that have been cre ated by yourself and in full operation. I have thus briefly alluded to the provisions of this bill. I have said more than I intended to say when I rose. The time given for the examination of this bill is so limited that no man can, on the brief examination allowed, Present his views as he would desire. But, sir, there is enough to be seen upon a mere glance at the bill to lead every man who is not actu ated by political or party considerations to go against it and save the Constitution of his country. The provisions of this bill strike down every important provision in your Constitution. You have already inaugurated enough here to destroy any Government that was ever founded. You have already prepared your articles of impeachment. The decree, I believe, has gone forth, and the impeachment must and will take place. If you have not yet issued the decree informal caucus, you have caucussed enough among yourselves to know what the result is to be. And yet the chairman of the Comjudiciary to give us any light on the question. Now, sir, you impeach the POTUS, paralyze the arm of the Supreme Court, and P the judiciary generally. You have been, and are now, declaring to your selves that this Congress is all powerful as the rePresentative of the people. Wo. have you left to the American people to vindicate their rights?. You have left nothing to them but quiet submission to your usurpation of power; or it is nothing but usurpation on the part of Congress to take these powers upon itself in contravention of the Constitution. When you do that there is nothing left, I repeat, but quiet submission to your tyranny, or a resort to arms on the part of the American people to defend themselves. Now, sir, I do not predict anything. I do not desire war; but as one American citizen I do H. war to cowardly submission and total estruction of the fundamental principles of our Government. Sir, the unity of these States was attempted to be destroyed by war and failed; it is now sought to be destroyed by legislative usurpation; and in my honest conviction nothing but the strong arm of the American people, wielded upon the bloody battle field] ever restore civil liberty to the American people again. We are drifting to monarchy. It will come unless the people take this matter in hand, and stop this progress that is being made in that downward road, and restore this shattered Government upon the basis upon which it was originally founded. I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague, {Mr. FINck]