Mr. HOWE. Just now it is not in the order of my remarks, and I may fo t it when I come to the point where I would rim to have the information. I think it is not diffient, however, to a prehend what disposition I would make of them. But the Senfrom Maryland next proceeds to argue that those States cannot be destroyed, and that their prerogatives cannot be destroyed, because a great deal of our legislation still recognizes them as States, and he goes on to cite statute after statute which he inststs recognizes those communities as existing States. I am bound to say that upon this point he made a very strong case; but I do not think he made so strong a case as he might have made. If he had prosecuted his inquiries still further he would have found, not only the statutes which he has cited here, but he would have found other statutes upon our lawbooks which expressly and explicitly declare that the most of those communities are States; that Arkansas is a State; that Texas is a State; that Louisiana Mississip i, and Alabama are States. If he had gone further in the investigation he would have ascertained that 2 years ago, I think, or 3 years ago, I myself voted to admit representatives from Arkansas upon this floor upon the ground that our statutes still declared Arkansas to be a State, and I thought the Senate of the U.S. could not ignore that statute. But, sir, I propose legislation; that is what this resolution calls for; and you cannot bar the exercise of the legislative powers of congress simpl by an act of legislation. If our statuteboo 5 up to this year contained noting but statutes proclaiming Arkansas to bea State, that of itself would not prevent this Congress from enactinga law declaring that Arkansas was not a State and creating a provisional government for it. There might o rights vested under those acts which we ought not, and perhaps could not, take away; but all the rights which those acts have conferred upon those communities, I say, they have themselves abjured, and there is nothing left but our bare declaration which recognizes them as States. I thought that the Senate, in passing upon the question of the admission of Senators lrom these States, ought not have ignored those statutes; but I said then that Congress could repeal them, and congress ought to repeal them, in my judgent; I think so still; and upon that ground voted to admit those representatives from Arkansas u n this floor. believe the Senfrom Maryland voted to exclude them. If he held Arkansas to be a State, I would be curious to know upon what ground he could justify his vote to exclude them from this Senate. f the constitution gives to a State any right whatever, it is a right to be represented in this body by 2 representatives. It is a right given to every State. Wherever you find anAmerican State, it has the right to send 2 representatives to this Senate. The Senate is composed of 2 members from each State, chosen by the Legislatures of the different States. If the Senator said then, or says now, that Arkansas was then a State, I cannot conceive upon what ground he can justif his vote excluding her representatives. What reason was there 2 Perhaps all the people of Arkansas did not participate in the election of the Legislature which chose those Senators. Why did they not rticipate in it? Because they would not; because they were in rebellion. The Senators chosen represented, nobody doubted, the loyal people of the State of Arkansas. What reason was there, therefore, for excluding those aSen stars from their seats here, except that they did not represent the men who wereg hting against the flag of the U.S.? Igthought that that smallportion of Arkansas ought notto be treated as the State of Arkansas, and I thought the Legislature ought to relieve the Senate, to relieve the HoRep, to relieve the President, to relieve every branch and agen cy of the Government from the necessity of resspectm that smallportion of the people as the State o Arkansas; but until we were relieved I did not think I was authorized to ignore these statutes; so I voted for their admission and so upon the same ground precisely I. voted to count the electora vote given by arkansas and Louisiana and Tennessee in the choice of President and VEEP. I thought if they were States they had the right to vote for POTUS If a State has not the right to vote for President what right has she? f that right he not unequivocally conferred by the constitution, there is no right given to a State and yet, I think, the Senfrom Maryland voted to deny each of those communities the right to vote for president and VEEP. I do not concede that all the statutes cited by the Senfrom Maryland recognize those communities as States by any manner of mcans. Some of them I think doz especially some of those cited from the legislation of 186land 1862. But the Senator parades one argument before the Senate that seemed tome not quite sincere. However, I ought not to say that he did not mean it to be sincere. Hc parades a proclamation issued by the POTUS in 1861, in which under the instruction of an act of Congress, the people were invited to (pray for the reestablishment of law, order, an peace throughout the whole extent of our country, and because the people were invited, in 1861, by the POTUS to (pray for the reestablishment of law, order, an peace throughout the whole extent of our country, he thinks the congress of the U.S. is precluded from insisting that those men who were destroying the eace and order of the country had forfeited the prerogatives which, under the constitution, are given only to loyal States. I believe that prayer was otfered u sincerely and I believe it has been answered. the Almighty has aided us in bringing the country so far toward peace; in bringing the country to peace if we have it. The war is ended, was ended months since; order has not yet come, but order is within our reach. If we are only as brave and as honest as the Armv has been if we whose business it is to see order, to invoke order, are only as firm as were those men whose business it was to command peace, the work will be completed. I think those rayers were answered. I think if the Almight ever aided any country He has aided this. o did not, to be sure, raise up children out of the stones unto the Republic, but He did enable us to raise almost 200,000 children out of things for the Republic, and they served the Republic in bringing about this peace. Having answered our prayers in that most signal manner, I do not think we ought to fling the victory back in His face, or trample down the children He raised up for our use into the dust again. But, sir, there is another difficulty in the way of this resolution suggested by the Senfrom Maryland. There is a statute on your books which authorizes the judges of the Supreme Court to partition the country into judicial cir cuits and to allot the judges of the courtto those several circuits, and they have done it, and having apportioned these lately rebellious districts into circuits in accordance with the provisions of those laws, the Senator thinks we must regard them as States because only States are included in such circuits. Why, sir, they have been in such circuits ever since the war commenced; they have been. included under these allotments in such circuits. NO courts have been held there. It is not absolutely essential, I take it, to the existence of the Government that courts should be held there. They are held in no Territories; the are held nowhere except where there are exasting States which allow them to be held; and yet no law is violated by us, no law is disregarded by us; it is their fault that the judges have not been allowed to go there. The tenure of the judges is not affected by the fact that they cannot hold circuits. They still continue to be judges of the Supreme Court, whether they ever take their seat on the beach of a circuit court, or try a case at msi pnus in their lives or not; and it is only the Supreme Court which is created by the constitution. The other courts are the creatures of law. The Senator says that district judges have been appointed for some of these districts, and he accuses me ofhaving voted for their confirmation. 1 really meant say that I never did vote for the confirmation of oneof those judges. I should be very sorry, however, to have it proved upon me. A great many confirmations have been made, I suppose. while I was sitting in my sent here, and which I must be considered as having voted for, and yet to which I never did give any intelligent assent; and I never did give an intelligent assent to the confirmation of a judge of a district court within anyone of these districts. I never meant that a judge should be confirmed to anyone of those districts without raising a question upon them. But the fact that such appointments have been made and have been confirmed is no embarrassment to the Legislature. These courts themselves are the creatures of the Legislature. The Senator an s that their terms exist during life or good behavior. I think they will not outlast the courts in which they are commissioned and Congress can abolish today or tomorrow, if it sees fit to do so, every one of those districts, and the terms of every one of those judges would expire upon the approval of the act by the President. The Senator next takes exception to a proposition of mine, which I stated almost as much as a physiological truth as a constitutional one, that the suspension of the functions of a man or of a State was death. He contrOverts the truth of that proposition. It is so unimportant to the argument of this question that I should let the controversy drop as it stands but for his having cited an authority against it. He finds in the decisions of the SCOTUS what he considers and what he lays before the Senate as an authority contradicting this proposition; and what is that? During a war between this country and GreatBritain our enemies took possession of the eastern part of the State of Maine and held possession Ofit. The Supreme Court said that during the time they held possession of it the authority of the GOvernment of the U.S. was suspended in that portion of the State; and yet he finds as a fact that after the power of the enemy was with drawn, after they evacuated Cas tine and all the country to the east of Castine, there was no legislation required to reannex the eastern portion of Maine to the U.S. The case does not seem to me to be precisely in point. I neVer supposed that the paralysis of a limb, the imposition of external force upon anyone of the faculties or organs of a man, or of a political community, would necessarily result in death. The proposition which I made was a proposition which drew from the message of the POTUS, that the funetions of these States were suspended not one of them, but all of them and that was true; they were. There was nota single function of a State in action; there was not volition there; there was not even the desire to be a State. Everything which goes to make up the identity of a Statowas gone, except that there were people and land there; but every power that they exerted, every authority they claimed, was in direct defiance of the constitution of the U.S. Mr. President, it seems to me that among lawyers this question of power ought not to be a controverted point. It seems to me that by one little sim lie consideration it ought to be placed beyon dispute. Let as test it. We all admit everybody saysthat every Dept of this Government of the U.S., the Congress, the President, the courts, and every Dept of the government of the States, is limited and circumscribed by a supreme law. What do we medn by that? We mean that whenever anyone of these agencies, anyone of these tribunals exerts a power which is out side the limits prescribed to it by the Constitution, that act is null and void. Whoever does it gets no protection in doing it. There is some other Dept of Government which can administer the proper correction. A State. the constitution says, cannot make anything but gold and silver a tenderin the payment of debts; but suppose the Legislature of a State declares bank bills to be a legal tender; that act is null and void, and the judicial power of the U.S. can declare it so and can correct the operation of the act. The POTUS is given the ardoning power, the power to iardon crimin s. Suppose congress underta as to portion a man who is convicted of murder, or of treason, or of counterfeiting, after he is sentenced by the courts, or before he is sentenced; would the act of congress granting that pardon be a good plea in Sir; or if enacted after the man had been convicted, would it prevent the POTUS from executing that sentence upon the criminal? Clearl not. The POTUS as certain powers given to him. Suppose he exercises powers which are given to some other Dept of the Government; suppose he undertakes to enact a law ofany kind is any other Dept of the Government bound to respect that as a law? Clearly not; because he has no legislative powers. The authority conferred upon a State by the constitution is limited, is circumscribed. l hen ever they act within those limits their acts are to be respected; they are just as much the law of the land, to be respected by all the U.S., as any law passed by the Congress of the U.S., within the purview of the constitution of the U.S.; but when they step outside of it, whatever they do is void. Suppose this Congress does organize a provision government for SCarolina. If it is not a government then the Legislature that we set up have no right to enact any laws; the Governor whom we uppoint has no right to execute those laws; the judges can do nothing; they are trespasscrs; everything that is done under their authority is null and void; it is a mere trespass; and t lecitizen who is interfered with by their authority may have his action before the courts for redress. Anybody who under takes to act by the authority of an illegal tribunal is without protection. Sup so we set up this provisiona government, anglihey enact a law which is claimed to interfere with the rights of some citizen there; suppose he brings an action in the courts averring that the act was done without authority; what will be the judgment of the courts in such a case? Will they undertake to say that that government which we authorized to be set up there as a provisional government is not a government? hat was precisely the case that was raised in RhdIsland. There was an not done, a house broken into and entered by the command of those who claimed to be the government of the State of RhdIsland. ho defendant claimed that another organization constituted the government of RhdIsland. He brought his action which was to try the legality of that government under which the act was done. t came here to the SCOTUS. They sai, “That is a political question; we cannot try it; the Congress of the U.S. are and must be the judges of what is the government of a State; they are charged with the duty of sustaining and maintaining those governments, and they must have the right to decide what is and what is not the government.” If, therefore, the provisional government which you organize for SCarolina or for Georgia is illegal and unconstitution al, you see there is no possible redress for it; the courts say it is for Congress to determine finally and conclusively what shall be the government for those people in the South, as much as it is for the courts to determine what is the law in a particular case as between citizen and citizen. But, Mr. President, I wish to detain the senate for a few moments while I make a brief ref erence to the remarks submitted by my colleague. He also concludes that the authority, the exercise of which I invoke, on the part of Congress to organize provisional governments for these communities does not exist. His 1st reason is that it is not in harmony with that plan of reconstruction which he calls the Lincoln Jolinson plan; and the 2nd reason is that it is in harmony with that plan of reconstruction which he calls the Sumner plan. I regret that my colleague is apt in his seat at the present time. There were some observations contained in his speech to which I thought I ought to reply, considering them as of a personal character. I thought it a little remarkableand I will say it although he is not in his seatthat when he was speaking upon a resolution which I had the honor to submit to the Senate m self, and apparentlyin reply to a speech I made myself, and while he ocen ied, I think, between 3 and 4 hours in tediscussion of that resolution, he did not but once in that whole time allude to it without couplin me with the Senfrom Massachusetts, [ll Mr. SUMNER] Whenever he referred to anything touching the resolution, or the position presented by the resolution, it was “ the position of the Senfrom Massachusetts and my colleague, ” to use the language which was employed in that speech. It did not seem to me that that was entirely in good taste, and as he has now resumed his seat, beg leave to say that I thought I could have demanded rather different treatment from his courtesy. I did not see any sort of necessity, I did not see any sort of propriety in the effort to couple me constantl throughout. that speech with the Senfrom Myassachusetts. He knows very well that in the State of Wisconsin, which I have the honor in part to represent, I sustain a very good character, and I1 really do not think he ought to have attempted to break it down by fastening upon me any such associations, [Innghten] but however, I think if the Senfrom Massachusetts can stand iIt, can. Sir, if I could not demand this immunity from his courtesy, I think I could from his sense of justice. It has happened to him to know very well indeed in the course of the last ten years that I am not in the habit of advocating views because other gentlemen maintain them, but only because I believe in them myself. If it was my business, if it was my habit to defend opinions because others avouched them, and not because I believed them, I should not nn dertake to peddle the opinions of the Senfrom Massachusetts; I should enter into the employ of the Presidentat once, because it pays better. such is not my habit. I introduced that resolution and I do not think my colleague will find it copied from anybody elsebecause I believed it stated the political truth which is to solve the difficulties now surrounding the country; and I advocated it as well as I could in aspeech, which I do not think my colleague will find to have been copied from the Congressional Globe or any other publication, because it was the argument that occurred to me, and I believed it. But, sir, as to the matter of fact whether this resolution is the Lincoln and Johnson theory or the Sumner theory, the Senfrom Massachusetts has not yet, I regret to say, indorsed that resolution, nor anything that I said in support of it; and I suppose the Senfrom lassachusetts will claim the right, which under the constitution, as I understand it, belongs to every Senator on this floor, to speak for himself. If it should hereafter happen to receive his in dorsoment, it will be very gratifying to me. If I should findse gat I had given utterance on this floor to one timent which is approved by the Senfrom Massachusetts, it will be only a small compensation for the great number of living sentiments to which I have listened from the Senfrom Massachusetts, and which are bound to live long after my colleague and my self shall have passed from this stage of existsence. While, therefore, Mr. President, I see no war rant in fact for the assertion of my colleague that this is the theory of the Senfrom Massachusetts, I deny that he is authorized to say that it is opposed to what he calls the Lincoln and Johnson policy. There are in that preamble and resolution just 4 simple propositions. 3 of them are stated in the preamble byway of postulates. One of them is, that the functions of these States are suspended. I took that literally and rerbntim from the message of the POTUS The 2nd is, that the time for restoring them has not yet arrived. Idid not take that literally from the POTUS He has not said it, but he has not aflirmed to the contrary, nor has my colleague; and giventure to say that neither the POTUS, nor my colleague, nor any man who calls himself the suporter of the POTUS, will venture to stand here before the American people and say that the time has come for at once restoring to the people of those districts the prerogatives and the functions of States. I wait yet to hear the 1st man assert that proposition. My colleague himself only says dint he thinks we should call them States and begin to see whether we will let them not as States; that we should call them States now and then see how far it will do to trust them to exercise the prerogatives of States; take up the cases of their Representatives and act. upon them, one by one, with as much deliberation as we lease. Sir, I want to say for myself that if the congress of the U.S shall deter mine that these are States, I shall revert to the constitution of the U.S. as to what they have a right to do. When you have declared their c iarncter as States, when that is their established condition, I shall say, for one they have a right to send Senators here and Representatives to the other House, and to participate in the election of your President and VEEP, because the constitution says so. The 3rd proposition contained in this preamble is, that military governments, under which the people in those States socalled have been ever since their armies surrendered, are unfit for the government of American society. That proposition I drew directly from the message of the POTUS I supported it by an argument quoted at length, ver atim, from his message. The 4th proposition stands in the resolution itself, audit is but the natural, and, as it seemed to me, the inevitable deduction from the others. If the functions of those States are suspended, if the time has not yet come for restoring them, and if military governments are unsuited for their control, I sec no alter native for us but to organize provisional governments for them. I think, therefore, Iit" were dissed to look about for some man to stand go father for this little resolutionof mine, I might honestly and fairly claim that the POTUS should act in that capacity. But I am not in search of a god father: the resolution is before the Senate; it is for them to act upon; and when they have acted upon it, is to be sent to the House for their action. Unless the Congress of the U.S. will stand godfather for it, let it dro, as it on ht. Iwant it sanctioned by nobody else. o other tribunal known to thr constitution and laws can give it any sanction. Mr. President, the speech submitted by mycolleague contains a great number of points upon which I should like to comment, but it would not answer to occupy the time of the Senate for that purpose. Some of them, however, I mustmention. Considering that he is the Representative of the Union part, I thought it very unfortunate that he should have taunted the Senate and the Congress of the U.S. with the passage of a resolution which he quotes from the legislation of 1861. He says that imgediately after our humiliating reverse at Bull on: na“tIine ntsh, at hour of defeat, when humbledbefore the and beforethe supremeRuler of the world. Clonmicss, almost unanimously in both Houses, deo fl"lL“ That this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquestor subjugation. nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states. but to defend and maintain the supremacyof the constitution and all lawsmadein pnr sunnce thereof and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rightsof the scveral Statesun impaired: that assoon as these objects are accomplished the war ought. to ccaso. " He says that resolution was adopted in the hour of defeat and in the hour of national lin miliation. as if Congress. had they deliberated a little longer till they survived the humiliation of that Bull Run disaster, would have refused to pass such a resolution as that; and the intimation is that now, proving victorious instead of defeated, we see fit to disregard it and set it aside alto ether. Sir, do we not all know what the palpable fact was? The 1st months of this war, I am sorry to say the 1st years of this war, were spent in the vain, idle, and hopeless effort to put down the rebellion after a fashion which would enable us to make believe that there never had been any rebellion. We were trying, not to overcome ourenemies, but tojust hold them still; and this resolution was the deliberate exression of the Congress of the U.S. at that time. We were then prosecuting the war, all the time holding out to our enemies terms of reconciliation, of conciliation, and of peace. Why, sir, for the 1st year of the war our very bayonets carried laurels upon them; we thought softly. When this resolution was adopted, I believe we were all on what is called the 60day paper; we were goingto put down the insurrection in just about 60 ays, and then we were going to make believe there never had been any insurrection. Of course it was not then the purpose of the Government, it was not the purpose of those who adopted this resolution, to interfere with those political organizations which were called States; not to interfere with their institutions, not to interfere even with the existence of slavery within them, not to interfere with any of their laws. We did then propose this resolution. We proposed it for the purpose of apealing to the inagnanimity of the people down there to lay down their arms and not to prosecute that insurrectionary attempt to the bitter end of the bitterest of wars. But we found in the course of months, whatI think wise and sagacious men foresaw in the very outset of these hostilities, that all these efforts at conciliation, at reconciliation, were vain. We found that there was only one way of obtaining peace with these enemies of the people of the U.S., and that was by whipping them; and when your armies were organized and oificered and maneuvered ii on that system of tactics, peace began to slibw itself, and not till then. But I do not think it was exactly right to in timate that the American Congress was insincere or dishonest when it adopted that resolution, or that it is faithless to that resolution now when a different policy is suggested to it. The doctrines of that resolution were departed from longngo. Then we declared that at thattime we did not propose to interfere with the institution of slavery. We did interfere with the institution of slavery several years ago, and the institution of slavery has ceased tqexist. Was that a violation of this point resolution which was passed in 1861? Why, sir, the American people, taking the power out of our hands, superseding its Congress, decreed of themselves, that in spite of this resolution and of all the local laws in those districts, slavery should cease to exist. We were. going to preserve the States with all their dignity and rights unimpaired. How well we have persevere in that policy I shall have occasion to remark hereafter. But, Mr. President, my colleague differs not only from myself in his views of what should be done at the present time, but he differs very materially, as is evident, from the Senfrom Marylan. The Senfrom Maryland insists that these communities were always States; that we were prosecuting the war simplyto disarm the insurgents in them, and that, when that object was accomplished, there the States stood with their organizations complete; that Magrath was Governor of SCarolina; that the men who were elected Sens&Reps to her Legislature were the Legislature of that State; that the judges a pointed by that government still exercised the judicial powers of the State; there was the State complete, with its complete organizations intact. That is the theory of the Senfrom Maryland. The theory of my colleague is that we, somehow or 0t er, notwithstanding SCarolina was always a State, did get the right or the power not merely to disarm the insurgents but to overthrow those political organizations. I have been utterly unable to understand from what clause of the constitution my colleague derives that authority. We not only disarmed the insur gents in SCarolina, but we deposed her Governors, we dismissed her Legislatures, we vacated the seats of all her judges. That has been done. My colleague says it is all right; the Senfrom Maryland says it is all wrong. I agree with my colleague that it is right, but not right if SCarolina is a State; right only because SCarolina had forfeited all the prerogatives and all the rights which belong to a State. My colleague thinks that the President had this power by virtue of the authority vested in him by the laws of the land to make peace. There have been a great many things done in the progress of this war, in the exercise of what were called the war powers of the Government, which I thought a little peculiar; some of which I could hardly undertake to defend under the constitution of the U.S. I have not been distressed about them, for they were all done for good purposes; and if they were illegal, I knew the time would come whon redress could be administered, and I thought that redress would come when the war ended, and the war would not last forever. But, sir, the worst of all these things bears no comparison to what has been done in the exercise of what in colleague calls the peace powers of the President. A citizen of Ohio who had represented a district of that State in the Congress of the UniStates, after he had ceased to represent that district, was arrested by military authority, placed before a military commission, and tried upon some charges or other, and convicted upon those charges. He claimed that it was a tyrannical usurpation of power, an arbitrary act, a gross violation of the constitution of the U.S. Whether it was so or not I will not undertake to say. But what has been done in SCarolina, what has been done in Missis sip i and Alabama, under what my colleague cal s the peace powers? Not only have citizens, those who were never in the armies of the U.S., nor any other army, been ar rested time and again and been tried before military commissions, but military commissions have been trying private causes, trespasses, actions of debt, actions of assumpsit, and administering justice between man and man. Not only have they been doing this, but the judges and justices a pointed by the people of SCarolina for the very purpose of exercising this authority have been summarily dispossessed of their othees and placed entirely to one side. Not only that, but Legislatures elected by the people of SCarolinato make laws have cen dispersed, and new Legislatures have been set a in their stead; Governors have been depose and other Governors placed in their stead, and this under the exercise of peace powers. My colleague says that the President had to judge when to disband the Army, and in order to know whether it was safe to disbaud any portion of the Army he had to make some little investigation in those communiti s, to see how they felt, and he ventured upon ese acts by way of feeling their pulse, investigating the state of public feeling and public sentiment down there. He admits it was a little peculiar that he should appoint agents there and call them provisional governors, but they were only deputies of the President. If the President, the CommanderinChicf of the Army, had gone there himself and done these very things, he argues that nobody would have objected to the constitutionality of them. Sir, I venture to say I would have objected to the constitutionality of them, if SCarolina is to be considered a State of the American Union. If SCarolina is a State, that is what Wisconsin is; that is what Ohio is. The President is indeed commanderiuChief of the Army and Navy, but he is no more CommanderinChief of the Army in SCarolina than he is in Wisconsin. What he can do in one State as Commander inChief he can do in another. If he can depose a legal, constitutional Governor in one State he can do it another. I do not see why he cannot. I make no complaint of the president for doing these things in SCarolina. He did not remove n Governor of a constitutional State; he removed a criminal from exercising acts of authority under powers deleted to him by criminals. Not only that, but laws passed by these Legislatures have been set aside over and over a in. I make no complaint of it. I believe it was right to set them aside, because I believe there was no community there which had the right to, make laws; they were all criminals. In point of fact, Mr. President, the issue between myself on the one side, and the Senfrom Maryland and my colleague on the other, is just this: there were certain laws which once recognized SCarolina, Alabama, and mississippi to be States. Under those laws, those people had the right to elect Governors and choose legislatures. SCarolina elected a man byt e name of Mo th for Governor of that State. The Senfrom Maryland insists that we were prosecuting this war to make Ms. grath the Governor of SCarolina and to obey the constitution of the U.S.; that that is the law that we were trying to enforce in the prosecution of this war. I think it was another law that we were tryiu to enforcH law enacted on the 30th of Apri, 1790, the 1st section of which declares: “That if any personor personsowing allegiance to the U.S.A shall levy war against them, or shall adhereto their enemies. giving them aid and comfort within the U.S or elsewhere, and shall thereof beconvictedmn confessionin open court, or on the testimony of 2 witnessestothesame overt act of the treasonwhereofheor the shallstmd indicted. such person or persons shall e adjudged guilty of treasonagainstt a U.S., and shall suticrdeath.” I think we were prosecuting this war in order to enforce that law against Governor Magrath, against every one of the Representatives in their Legislature, against all their judges. It does not follow, because we have the power to do it, that therefore we should execute the law. We were prosecuting the war that we might be an nbled to execute this law if we chose to do it. The President can remit these men from the penalties of this law if he pleases. If he does not, that is a law to be executed, and that is one of the laws to enable us to execute which we were prosecuting this war. Under the pen alties of that statute were included not only every agent of what you call the State of SCarolina during the existence of the war, but almost every citizen within the State of SCarolina. The law condemned every one of them to death. When they were disarmed it rested within the discretion of the Government of the U.S. to say whether this law should be enforced or not. We had only to carry out this law, enacted in 1790, and what would have happened to what you call the State of SCarolina? Not only the Governor, every Representative, and every other municipal agentwould have been executed, but every citizen who had incurred this guilt of treason would have been executed. When you had executed every officer and every man, I take it the State of SCarolina and its functions would have been suspended in more senses than one. I conceive that that would have been the end of the State of SCarolina; or if it would not, or if SCarolina would have survived that, where would it have been? What would have been its condition?Mr. President, upon one pointan issue is made between my colleague an myself, and that is upon the question whether it is safe now to restore the prerogatives of States to the people of those communities. My colleague does not exactly assert that it is safe now to do it, but he does say that those people have surrendered, not merely their armies. but their cause. I wish I could believe that; but the fact is it is not true; and I wish to submit to the Senate, not all the evidence that I have before me, but a few extracts from it, to show that it is not true. Mr. Brownlow, or Governor Brownlow, of Tennessee, one of those districts for which the character of States is claimed, but; few days since 1866. 443 I read from the National Union of the 10th in stantused this language: “ I can only sayby way of admenition and encouragement to the colored friends, attend your schools, learn to read the word of God, and then learn to love and practice it and by way of caution and advice. I admenish you be mild an temperatein your habit aInd spirit and your conduet ll)Wflrd tlJ6IWlllto;eOPl9. adVise as a friend loving the institution on desiring the prosperity of what you have undertaken. I advise the teachers, male and female, to be exceedingly prudent and eautious, and do nothing offensive to"tYhoeuprmedaoyminantparty here. think it a littlevstraugethat I give such counsel. 1 do it becauseif General Thomas were to take away hissoldiers and pull up stakesand leave here, youwould not he allowed to occupythis school room a week: and if General Thomas and his military forceswere to go away and leave us, this Legislature, at the head of which I am placed, would be broken up by a mob in 48 ours. That is the testimony of one who has been chosen the Governor ofonc of these States, as gentlemen insist upon terming them, and in which my colleague says they have surrendered their whole cause. He tells his constituents and tells the U.S. that if the military forces belongin to the U.S. were withdrawn, the Legislature of that State would be broken up in 48 hours. A committee calling themselves the central committee of Tennessee, in a memorial addressed to the ComReconstruction, which has found its way into the newspapers, use this language: “The designsof the Great secessionmajority of tennesseemay have been changed by the eventsof the war, and somayhave beentheir opinions of theirown strength, and of the strengthof the Government but unlessyour memorialists greatly misunderstand them, their sentiments. sympathies, and passions remain unchan ed. They we come peace because they are disable from meingwar: they submi the cause they can no longer resist; they accept results they cannot reject and profess loyalty becausethey havea halter around their necks. They recognize the abolition of slavery because they seeit before them as s. fact: but they sayit was accomplishedby gross violations of the constitution that the negro is free only in foot, but notin law, or of right.” But, Mr. President I think I can convince you more satisfactorily of the extent to which they have surrendered their cause by reading to you some extracts from a series of chapters drawn by a commission appointed in Florida for the purpose of revising their code. At the head of that commission I find the name of Mr. Du out who is the chief justice of Florida if glorida has a chief justice. Acting n on the assumption that slavery was destroyed, they conceived that it was necessary to make some changes in their code regulating the colored population of that district. The commission reported ten chapters for that purpose. I have them all before me. They create 1st a county criminal court, and to that court they give jurisdiction in cases of "Asssiilt, assaultand batte, assault with intent to kill, riot, affray, larceny, rob ery, arson, burglary, malicious mischief, iagruncy and all misdemeanors, and all offensesagainst religion, charity, morality and decency.” That is the jurisdiction of that county crim inal court. One of the sections declares "That in all caseswhere a fine, penalty, or forfeit ure is or may be provided or inflicted by any statute of this State, as the punishmentfor anyoffensebythe court organized by this act, the person upon whom such fine, penalty, or forfeituremay beimposed, may for the nonpaymentthereof be put to such labor as the county commissionersof the county in which such fine, penalty, or forfeiture was imposed. may direct, and shall bealloyed such compensationfor his labor, in reduction of his fineorforfeiture asmaybe reason able and Just, spd he shall not he held to such labor fora longer period than shall benecessaryto pay and satisfy the fine, forfeiture, and penalty so imposed;or the said county commissionersmay hire out, at public outery, the said party to any person who will take him for the shortesttime and pay the line, forfeiture and penalty asimposed.” The next section provides: “That all fines, forfeitures, and penalties imposed upon an person by the county criminal court organ ised by t isacts, hall be paidinto the conntytreasury, pnd all legitimate expensesattending a prosecution in thesaid court shall be prowded for an paid outcf said treasury; and the compensation of Jurors and witnessescalled to testify on the part of the prosecution shall be attheoption and discretiop of the board of county commissionersof the respectivecounties.” What is the purpose of these clauses? They explain it. they say that before the abolition of slavery there was an excellent tribunal. Their language is “Heretofore there existed in each household s. tribunal peculiar] adapted to the investigation and punishment oft o great majority of mine r offenses to the commissionof which this class of  population was addicted.” That is, the class of population made free by the act of emancipation.” With the destruction of the institution of negro slavery, that tribunal has becomepxtinct and hence the necessityof erecting another in its stead and of making such modificationsin purlegislation as shall give fudlefficiencyto our criminal code.” Which means briefly this: that when slavery existed, the head of each family was a government for all the slaves belonging to that fumil; he did his own whipping, administered his own corrections; he made his own laws. That institution having been destroyed and slavery ended, each county is to have u superin tendent, what they calla county criminal court, to do the whipping and administer the correction for the whole county. They are to be tried beforejuiors; they are to be convicted of these offenses upon the testimony of witnesses; but those witnesses and those jurors are to depend for their compensation upon the liberality of the county commissioners in the county which administers this justice. Another bill declares " That wheneverin the criminal laws of this State, heretoforeenacted, the punishment of the offense is limited to fine and imprisonment or to fine or imprisonment, thereshall e superaddedasan alternative, the punishmentofsuindingin the pillory for one hour, or whip in, not exceeding 39 stripes gin the bore no, or both, at the discretion of the ury. Now, here are some of the offenses declared: “That the severancefrom the freeholdof any agricultural production or fixture or any part thereof and the felonioustakin and earrying awaythe same, shall be deemedand hed to be larceny, and be punished as such. That if any p son shall excite an insurrection or sedition amonga yportion orclass of thopopulatien of this State or shall attempt by writing, speaking, or by any ot or means, to excite such insurrection or sedition, the personor personsso offending BlHIll be deemedto be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall sufferdeath.” There are 2 provisions creating criminal offenses. One makes it larceny to cut a twig from an apple tree or from any other kind of tree and to carry it off. Removing anything of the kind from anything which is a fixture upon the soil is larceny. The next section makes it an offense punishable with death to incite insurrection or sedition among any pertion orclass of the poulation. That is an excellent law. That is a law which ought to have existed there it great many years ago. That is a law which ought to be enacted by the Congress of the U.S. this very session for the government of the people of the U.S. That is a law which if it had wasted a few years ago and had been executed would have saved the people of the U.S. from the horrors of this war through which we have waded, and would have sent to the gallows most, if not all, the men who propose this sort of legislation for the government of the freed population of Florida at the present time. “Wherever nes are imposed as penalties, standing in the pillory an whipping may be substituted, ” the commissioners repose; why? They explain in this report. hey so it will not do to deads white men by punisment; it makes ba citizens of them, therefore you must not make them stand in. the pillory, you must not whip them; but it Will not do to rest it on fines as a punishment for the colored population, because they are poor, a great many of them, and they cannot pay these fines, and therefore it only punishes e State, it only punishes the county; it does not punish the colored individual or freedman. hat is the arguments so that, in addition to imposing fines which are to be collected from their estates, if they have any, and which, if they have not, are to be collected by selling their services at auction to the highest bidder, there is superadded the provision that if the fine cannot be collected in either of these modes, they may be put in the pillory or be whipped. How are these penalties graduated? Te8th section of this bill declares “ That if any person shall, in the night time, break and enter into any houseor building not the subject 9f burglary, or shsll, in the day time, break and enter into any mansion or other house, with intent to commit a felony, he shall, ii on conviction, be punished by a line not exceeding 1,1X)0 and imprisonmentnot exceeding 6 months, or by standing in the pillory for one hour, or by whipping, not exceeding 39 stripes or by ot hw iping and standing in the pillory, at thadiseretion of the Jury.” 1,000 dollarsl That sells a negro for his life. It Will take him his lifetime to work out that 1,000 dollars. The 10th section declares “ That everytrespassupon the propertyof another, committedWith a malicious and mischievous intent, the punishmentfor which is not provided for by law, shall be deemedand held to be on not of mulicious mischief, and the partyguiltyof the some, his niders and iibettors, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding 81,000, and imprisonment not exceedingsix muiiths, orby standing in the pillory for one hour, or by whipping, not exceeding 39 stripes or by both whi wing and standingin o pillory, at the discretion o thoiury.” Going across a piece of pasture ground, traveling through a forest belonging to an individual, cutting a twig from a standing tree, anything which amounts to atrespass willfully done may be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, which line may be collected by selling the services of the man until he can work outthe fine; and yet we are told this community has up given its whole cause, surrendered everyting, and is only providing for the natureof the community and its good order. ere is another prowsion: “Thntif nnynegro. miilnttn, or otherpersonofcolor shall intrude himselfinto anyreligious or other public assemblyof white persons, or into any railroad car or other public vehicleseta art for the exclusive accommodation of white people, he shall be deemedto bee guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conViction shall e sentencedtostandin the pillory for onehour, or be whi ped not exceeding 39 stripes, or both, at the discretion of the Jury.” Recollect that this county criminal court is given jurisdiction of all offenses against reli gion, charity, morality, and decency. Provide this court for the punishment of offenses against religion, and then by this other chapter in the same code close the houses of worship against the admission of the negro; make him submit to the precepts of religion and deny to him all religious instruction; that is the effect of the 2 provisions standing together! Another bill is to be entitled, “An act in relation to the contracts of persons of color:” It provides that contracts are to be in writing, and "That when any, person of color shall enter into n contractus aforesai, to serve as a laborer for a year or any other specified term, on any farm or plantation in thisStste. if he shall refuse or neglect to perform the stipulations cfhis contract by Willful disobedience of orders, wanton impudence, or disrespectto his employer or his authorized agent, failure or refusal to perform the work assignedto him, idleness, or abnn onment of the premises or the employment of the party with whom the contract was made, he or she shall be liable, upon the complaint of his cin ploycr, or his agent, madeunder dath beforean justice of the peace of the county, to be arrested and tried before the criminal court of the county, and upon conviction shall be subject to all the pains and penaltiesprescribedfor the punishment of vagrancy.” Recollect, Mr. President, these are laws provided for the control of a population made free by your laws, but who we are told are very ignorant and degraded and debased. They say the must have the right to make contracts for their labor, and here is a tribunal created for the express purpose of not only making these parties specifically perform the contracts, but of enforcing personsl respect toward the employer and 2 agent of the employer on the part of theseignornnt and degraded men during the term for whichthe contract is made. The county courtis to make ignorance respect ful, to punish men who have never been taught what is respect or what is the want of it, or any disrespect, for a breach of good manners, for a want of politeness; to punish the lowest class of population, they say, that crusts on this continent. This is the sort of legislation propesed in that district of Florida which we are told is the farthest advanced in the way of repentance and reconstruction. Mr. President, I cannot weary the Senate with reading more from these provisions. The whole ten c a tors are crow edWith instruction and crowed with admenition. Here are ten chapters proposed for the government of this freed population in the district of Florida, bristling With eiialties for all manner of conduct, from burg nay and robbery down to abrcach of politeness an of on uettel The most of the penalties, as I have before remarked, are limited to a fine of $1,000. Every such perillty involves a sale of the dehnquent for his whole life, for it could not be worked out short of his whole life. Now, sir, what kind of men are these for whose government and guidance and control these most formidable provisions are made? Are they really savages, barbarians, men plunging into all sorts of excesses. men whose hands are raised against the wellbeing of society and against eve interest of society? Are these the men? I will tell you what kind of men they are, and I read it from the report of the same commission which has framed these bills. They say: " Where. in all the recordsof the put docshistory present such an instanceof steadfast devotion, u n wsicrin attachment and constancy. as was exhib ited by the slaves of the South throughout the fear fnl contestthat hasust ended? The country invaded. homes desolated. the master absent in the army or forced to seek safety in flight and to leavo the mistrcss and her helpless infants unprotected. with every incitement to insubordination and instigation to rs pine and murder; no instance of insurrection and scarcely one of voluntary (lcsetion. has been recorded. This constancy and fnithfnlncm on the part of the late slaves. whilo it has astonished Europe and stamped with falsehood the rsving s of the heartless abolitionists. will forever common them to the kindness and forbearance of their former masters.” This is the way they are commended to the kindness and forbearance of their former masters. Laws enacted which punish enminally a man who does not take his at of at the right time laws providing to punish a free man who is guilty of whatever a count criminal court shall call an act of disrespect “They the masters]will do all in their power to promote iis welfare and to encouragcand securehis Moral and mental improvement.” such as shutting up the houses of worship a inst him, and forbi ding him to enter on pain o bein arraigned and tried before the county criminn court.” While they confine him to his uppropriatosphero of social and political inferiority. they will endeavor to stimulate him to all legitimate effortsat advancement and by the exercise of kindness und justice toward him, teach him to value and appreciate the new condition in which he is placed.” I do not like the school at which they propose to place him!.” If. after all, their honest efforts shall prove unavailing and this 4 mi hem:of the human family. but recently dragged up from barbarisrn and through the intlnence of southern masters elevated to the Marin of Christian men and women shall be doomed by the inscrutable behest of a mysterious Brovidence to follow in the footsteps of the fastfading aborigines of this continent: and when the last man of the race lhnll be standing upon the crumbling brink of a pen pies. tftVE, it will o some compensation to the dependants of the southern master to catch the grateful and benignant recognition of this representative man. as he points his withered finger to the author of his min and exclaims. Thou didst it. " These provisions, from which I have read to yo some extracts, are provided not for the guidance and control of savages and barbarians; they are provided for the control of men whom this very commission boast have been elevated to the status of Christian men and women; they are the ones who are to be excluded from the houses of worship; they are the ones who are to be punished criminally if they do not exhibit every mark of respect to their employer, or to his authorized agent, which the county criminal court thinks is due from a colored man to a man who is not colored!Mr. President, I am occupying too much time. The naked truth, the palpable truth, is we must not shut our eyes to it these men have not surrendered their cause. This committee memorializing the ComReconstruction tell the truth when they say the sentiments and opinions and purposes of that people are unchanged. We must therefore furnish protection for this class of population and for that other class of their population to which I alluded the other day, the class which is not black but which is almost equally as unfortunate by reason of having been loyal. Sir, it was but a few days since that a lad whom I know to be a daughter of a man formerly a resident of Charleston, SCarolina, and whose name is known and honored throughout the whole Union where loyalty is honored, told me that soon after the bombardment of Fort Sumter she had to leave Charleston because of her known devotion to the flag of the nation. During her absence her whole estate, which was in the hands of trustees, Was sold for a sum utterly inadequate to its purchase, and the price paid in the money of that confederate government which was not recognized as a valid government either by the U.S.A or by any Government in the known world; and we propose to leave all such cases of confiscation in factfor that is a case of confiscation unredrcssed, to recognize the existence of these political organizations which are in the hands of the very class of men enacting and enforcing such laws as I have just instanced. Nay, Mr. President, it is an act of criminal disregard to both the men we have made free and to the men we commanded to be loyal, which this Government cannot venture upon with safety to itself. However much we may declaim about the sanctity of the States and about the greatness of the Government resulting from the States. I must conclude by asserting what I said before, that Iestimate the greatness of this country not by the number of organized States within it, but by the number of people obedient to its command. When, therefore, gentlemen meet me with the assertion that there gre 36 or 46 States in the Union, I answer them by saying that I stand on the proposition that there are 30 million people in the Union. It is for us and not for them to say whether they shall be organized into 36 or 56 or 76 States. The Senfrom Maryland insisted the other day that we must not recognize the possibility of the people of a State destroying their own government, because one State after another might do it until there was but one State left, and that he assumes. would be an unconstitutional condition of things. Sir, I deny it. It is entirely within the limits of possibility that 35 out of 36 States might enact ordinances of secession, might put their local authority into the hands of tribunals sworn, as were the agents of SCarolina and of Mississippi, not to up hold the constitution of the U.S., but to resist it, and still there be a vast majority of the people of the U.S. loyal to the flag and obedientto the Union. There would be but one community, in my judgment, which could elect Sens&Reps to Can ress in that contingency; but I stand here on say that if there was but one State, if the State of RhdIsland alone was the only political organization which lisd a legislature sworn to support the constitution of the U.S. RhdIsland could send 2 Senators here and 2 Representatives to the other House, and she would rightfully command the allegiance, and her laws would demand the obedience, of every citizen within the U.S.; and it does by no manner of means follow that "shewould not be able to enforce the authority of the U.S. It does by no manner of menus follow that there would not be a number of loyal people, in spite of the action of their local government, in each of the States which Would rally pround the flag and enforce obedience to its aws.Mr. President, I have stated as well as I could the reasons which induce me to believe most firmly that if we recommit the powers of the States to those people today, the rights and the I dearest interests oftiiese 2 classes of men, one I of which we have made free and the other of which we have found loyal, will be utterly disregarded and trampled upon. I conclude by saying that the Congress of the U.S. if it means to secure loyalty hereafter, or if it means to secure respect for its supremacy or for its laws hereafter, must not and cannot restore the functions of States to these pe is until they have secured ample and comp ete fiamntees that the rights. the political rights, of th these classes of people shall be respected. I submit this resolution with these remarks and hope it will go to the ComReconstruction.