Mr. DELANO. My recollection is that the gentleman, in his speech at Lancaster, said that our 1,000 millions of money might be made out of confiscation, and the money distributed in the way stated. But Iain now glad to know that the gentleman h abandoned, if he ever held to, the theory O “dead States and conquered provinces, ”and that he rejects the policy of a “General sweep” in confiseation. If we must have an confiscation, the less we have the better shall I be pleased. It is a relief to learn thata “general sweep” is not demanded. In the course of my argument, hereafter, I will endeavor to define what a State is, as we understand itin the U.S., not what it is as defined by Vattel or Grotius or other writers on the law of nations; for, in my judgment, there is a material difference thou 1h not an entire dissimilarity in the cases. T on, sir, I will endeavor to show that the late insurrection devolved upon the General Government the duty of preserving the State goveruuicntsin the insurrectionary districts. I will further attempt to show that the Federal Government accepted this duty and has performed it, thus fulfiling her constitutional engagement. Then, sir, I will insist that the legislation of Congress, the acts of the Executive, and of the Executive Depts, under the laws of congress, have uniformly, from the commencement to the close of the war, recognized the conflict as a war to save the States, not to destroy them and I will attempt to prove that these acts of recognition are final and conclusive in favor of the existence of the States, according to the decision of the SCOTUS, in the case of Luther vs. Borden, 7 Howard. wan r is A arms? In our complexsystem, and while speaking of a member of the Federal Union, I will ven ture to define it thus: a political organization, proceeding from the people, having a written constitution definin its powers, created for the purpose of establising law and order within certain fixed territorial limits, and having also a fixed and constitutional relation with other like States, whereby the Federal Union is established. Herc, mark it the State appears in a 2 fold capacity. h irst, as a political organization for local government. 2nd, as on into part of that greater Government, the U.S., which was created by our fathers in order to “establish uslicc, insure domestic tranquillity, provide or the common defense, promote the enernl welfare, and secure the lessings of liberty." Ench of these qualities or characteristics ought to be kept prominently before our minds in this discussion. because they must each be dealt with, each having been broughtunder the influence of the insurrection. We shall see, I think, that one of these nalities or characteristics may be assailed, an may suffer without necessarily destroying the existence of the other; because it is n. rule of hu manity, pervading all Christian civilization, that destruction shall stop when the necessity for it ceases. Having thus defined a State, and attempted, very briefly, to exhibit its twofold naturefiask what duty, if any did the late insurrection devolve upon the hederal Government? wnxr was run ncrv or run usirsn srxrns AFTERTar. INSURRFICTION coxuusesnt The 4th section of the 4th article of the Constitution of the U.S. provides that“The U.S shall guaranty to every State in this Union a RFG and shall protecteachof them against invasion." Inc. It is proposed by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, under this clause, to find authority for governin “ dead States, ” now no longer States, but 1crritories. Nothing to my mind seems more illogical, notto say absurd. lf dead, they are not States, and have no governments to be guarantied. lf Territories, held by conquest, at the will and mercy (forgive the word) of the conqueror, and you desire to convert them into States, then observe the 3rd section of the 4th article, and you will find explicit and undoubted authority to proceed“Now States may be admitted by the congress into the Union." Very slight attention to the history of the 4th section of the 4th article will, I think, sustain my view of the section. The framers of the Constitution intended to guard against the return of any State to an aristocratical, monarchieal, or any other form of government not republican. They also designed to guard the States against invasion and domestic violence. When it is remembered that at the close of the Revolution there were not wanting persons who thought republics insecure, unstable, and liable to degenerate into anarchy, it may be seen at a glance why the wisdom of those great men who devised our Constitution made it the duty of the Federal Government to guaranty, to secure, to each State a “RFG.” All the States were interested in having each State rest upon republican principles. Mr. Madison, in the 43rd number of the Federalist, while explaining this clause, ho"lds the following language: In a confederncy founded on republican principlos and composed of republican members.thesuper intending Government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system aauinst aristocratic or monarchical innovations. The more intimate the nature of such annion may bethe greater interest ohtahveert, he membersin the political institutions of cueb and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into should be substantially maintained.” Pursuing this subject, in the same letter, Mr. Madison says:. “Where else could the remedy be deposited than whoreit is deposited by the constitution?" and then, after answering some objections that might be urged against giving the General Government this right and power of guarantee, he uses the following language, which indicates that his mind was inspired witha vision of the emergencies and calamities through which the nation has passed. He says: "If the interposition of the General Government should not be needed the provision forsuohanevent will be a harmless superfluity only. But whocansay what experiments maybe produced by the caprice of particular States. by the ambition of outer rising caders or by the intrigues and influence of foreign Powers?". Upon this clause in the Constitution guarantying to each State a RFG Iain willing to rest all the powers exercised by the U.S. in crushin the late insurrection. The confederate States iad, prior to the rebellion,governments republican in form. These governments had been recognized by the General Government and they had received the sanction of the people. The insurrection sought to change these governments in their relations to the nion and to consoli date the insurgent States into a confederacy resting upon an aristocracy, odious in principle, repugnant to liberty, and shocking to bamanity! It was the duty of the Federal government to resist. and, if possible, to prevent the consummation of this nefarious, antirepublican scheme. She accepted this duty. She accepted it. in behalf of the loyal and nonrovolting States; but more than this, she accepted it in behalf of the loyal minorities that stilremained iu the insurgent States. The parent Government was not caf to the cry of this minorit, nor could she be. so long as she acknowledged the great duty imposed by the constitution. I am not without authority on this point, which, in certain quarters, commands more respect than it does from me. I therefore refer to the 129th section of volume one, Bishops Criminal Law, which says: “ When for any reason as for instance when a State has passed what is termed in l icsodays an ordinance of secession.there ceases to be within the State government under the Constitution of the U.S. the guarnntee mentioned in this section of the Constitution attaches and the U.S. be comes obligated to give thoStatea RFG." This opinion fully supports my construction of the clause in the Constitution under consideration, and hence I haVe quoted it, because I agree that it is right, except in so far as it as sorts that by an ordinance of secession “there ceases to be a government within the State under the Constitution of the U.S. ” This assertion is a fallacy, and I doubt if there can be found a lawyer in this House who will attempt to sustain it. Can an illegal and void ordinance car a State out of the Union? and what if this or inauce be followed by the organization of another government within such State? This new government is illegal, unconstitutional, and void, and the simple duty of the General Government in such cases is to sustain and guaranty the old, the legal, the republican government (previously existing and constitutionally create. Why, sir, there were once 2 conflicting governments in Rhode lsland the Dorr government, and the old and legal government, or one created under and by the old charter government, and the U.S., recognizing lier power and duty under the Constitution, interweed, and guarantied the rightful and legal government of RhdIsland; and this was done by the act of the POTUS, who, actin under powers conferred on him by an act of Congress, dated February 28, 1795, recognized the constitutional government, and took measures to call out the militia to support the law ful authority of the State. This act of the President was held by the Supreme Court as settling the question, which was the lawful government in the State; and thus was fulfilled, in that case, by the U.S., the duty of guarantying to RhodeIsland her rightful government. I may refer to this case again before closing, to exhibit its hearing upon another branch of the subject. have already shown that Mr. isliop admits the duty of the U.S. to guaranty to each State a RFG. Now, let us follow him a little further, and observe, understandingly, what he says. In section 132, volume one, he remarks:. “Except. therefore.for the clause gunrantying republican governments to the States.the U.S. might. if it chose.afler a State has committed what is called an act of secossion.” “legislate for it foreverto the exclusion of any subsequent State legislation. But the clause under consideration grovides that the U.S shall guaranty to the tats a RFG. Therefore, as soon as the guarantec is executed, the right of legislation whidl] the U.S. received from the defunct State government flows out to the new State government. All this I find. sir, in Bisho, side by side with the passages from this out or referred to by my honorable and learned colleague, [Mr. SuiLmasnusn] Here, sir, I find my theory fully sustained. 1st, that when the States seceded and set up new governments it was the constitutional duty of the U.S. to put down (he insurrection, restore the rightful authority, and thus guarant their republican governments. This the Federal Government has done. She has fully completed the work, thanks to our skillful generals and our brave volunteers; and whatevor may have been the condition of the insurgent States during the rebellion, now that it is crushed and the guarantee performed, according to Mr. Bishop the right of legislation which the U.S. received from the defunct States during the insurrectiOn flows into the new State governments. There, 511, it remains, reanimatiu, energizing that which had been suspende, not destroyed. There let it remain, giving power, authority supremacy, Within constitutional hmits, until the sunh ht, as well as the gentle dews and genial rains, shall cease to warm and render ruitful our mother earth. I I must again refer to Mr. Madison to show what might and ought to be done under this clause of the Constitution in behalf of minorities when efforts shall be made to destroy law ful State governments. He was answering supposed objections to the clause under consideration. See No. 48 of the Federalist. He said: “At 1st view. it might seem not to square with the republican theory to supposee ithe trhat amajority avenot the right or that a minorit will have the ifnogrcientothsisu.bavserintam government as Beust.tmucsotnb etiqueaalisfioend by the lessons of practice. Why maynot illicit combinationsbeformed aswell by a mium it l a State. cspecip ly a small State. as by a majority of a county or: district of the same State? and ifthe authority of the State ought, in the latter case.to protect the local magistracy.ought not the Federal authority in the former to supportthe State anihonty? and the author adds these significant words, that deserve to he remembered: "Besides. there are certain parts of the State constitutions which areso interwoven with the Federal Constitutionthata violent blow cannot be given to the one without communicating the woundto the other." It is clear that when the lawful State governments are assailed the duty of the U.S. is to interpose, and thus perform her obligation set down in the Constitution to "guaranty" to each State a RFG. She may interpose to put down a small rebellion, a local sedition about whisky in Pennsyl vania, or she mayinterposejn behalf ofasmall minority, and against a wide spread. gigantic combination and conspirhcy which. expanding in its proportions, spreads treason into half the Union and evokes an insurrection which, ein bracing half the States, threatens with alarming danger the nations life, and calls for war, distinct, open war, to crush it. In either case the object is the same to guaranty to each State its true republican government. pip rim uni ransrnrs aconrr Tm: burr or nuan AKTYIKG THR STATE Governments THE lNSUBRECTIOSARY DISTRICT, and HAS SHEPERFOHIED1T 7 The entire action of the Government is an affirmative answer to this question. But there is one prominent and important fact standing out in such bold relief in chalf of this proposition that I am compelled to direct the attention of the committee to it for a moment. On the 22d of Jul, 1861, the HoRep adopte what is called the Crit tendcn resolution. This resolution declared" That the present deplorabl ewar hasbeen forced upon the country by the disunionists of the southern Statesnow in revolt against the consiituiional government, and in arms around the capital; thatip this national emergency Congress. Banishing all feelingof mere passionor resenlmenl.will recollect only its duty to the whole country: that this war is not waxedon our part in any spirit of oppressinnnmrfor any purpose of conquestor subjugation.nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rightsor established institutionsof those States: but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution mnd to ireservethe Union with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several States uniirsiemiredth; at as soon as the soohicctsare accomplish the war ought to.cease.” This resolution passed the House by the an usual majority of 122 against two; and 2 days later the same resolution, offered in the Senate by the now POTUS, passed that body by a vote of 30 against live. This resolution is the solemn assertion of the U.S., by both branches of its Legislature, that the war was prosecuted, notto oppress, not to conquer, nor to subjugate, nor to overthrow, nor to interfere with the rights of the States. but to defend, maintain, ans preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States. Mr. Speaker, can anything be clearer than the truth of my proposition? Did not Congress hereby and herein declare that we accepted the war in order to make good the duty of guarantying the State governments with all their dig nity, equality, and rights unimpaired? Was this resolution a deliberate falsehood? Was it a solemn farce? Was it a legislative lie? Or was it a high and national manifesto to the world and to the insurgent people as to the purpose, object, and end for which the nation engaged in war? I shall blush for my country if she now renounces her solemn opinion, thus expressed, and crucifies State institutions which she undertook to save. I observe, sir, with no little astonishment that my honorable colleague {Min Sasunasaosn] voted for this resolution. will not pursue this proposition, but will upply. for a moment, principles to facts. The seceding States passed ordinances of secession. These were null. They formed new political organizations, which not bein recognized by the U.S. were illegn and void. Then they rose to arms and submitted the issue to the God of battles. The Federal Government, recognizing her rightful power and assuming her constitutional duty, accepted the challenge. girded on her armor, amiwent out in behalf of laws, constitutions, and the downtrodden minority in the insurgent States. The result of this fearful, long, and bloody arbitration is before the world. It is now history. and, sir, what is the ver dict of history thus written in blood I It is that the Union is saved; that the States are saved; and that we are today, as we ever have been, one. one nation, unsevered, undivided. This verdict, sir, has been vouchsafed us as a people by the power and mercy of Him who holds the stars in His aim, and who causes the wind to blow where it listeth. This verdict has been scaled by the blood of 300,000 martyrs for liberty. It has been rayed for by many mothers whose last son has en given to secure this blessing, and by many widows whose cheeks were furrowed by tears while offering up the prayer and shall we now, sir, deny the result? Is the flag of our country to be desecrated by taking from its folds 11 stars? I pray God, the breezes of heaven may never, never unfurl before my eyes the banner of my country with a single emblem of entire and perfect unity wanting upon its folds. Pause, then, and consider well before you say that any State is dead, and is no longer an integral part of this Union. It is a terrible conclusion, and dangerous to rech. It leads to fearful consequences. Sir, if the aut ors of this theory do not contemplate these harsh results, certain it is, if we adopt their reasonin, we start upon a road that lea s to the end I have pictured, and then, I fear, it will be too late to interrupt our course.