Mr. MAYNARD. It willobe very gratifying to the loyal Union people of this country to hear the gentlemen from Indiana [Mr. NIBLACKJ say that there is a way by which men who are guilty of treason can be tried and punished, because a great many of them are ast coming to the conclusion that there is no means by which treason can be brought to trial much less punished. Most of us are aware that from the beginnin of this struggle there has been a school of lega polities which assumed that every measuretaken. this Government for the suppression of the rebellion was in violation of the Constitution, a usurpation, and illegal and void. I need not refer to the speeches that appear in the debates of this House and the debates at the other end of the Capitol. I willmention no names; I merely state the general fact. And I will state further, as my opinion and belief, that if that school of polities was right; if those opinions shall be established by judicial decisions to have been the law of this land, then it would have been better to have allowed our flag to trail irrecoverably in the dust under the walls of Fort Sumter; to have let this government go into the limbo of lost and forgotten things, never more to be heard of; for the government which does not possess within itself the power of self preservation against rebellion, treason, and insurrection is in fact no Government. But to return to my friendfrom Illinois, [Mr. WAshbursk, who intimates that he can find no remedy for the evils I havementioned. It strikes me that for the case he has specified there is a very simple remedy. I understand his constitquent is held under the authority of what as sumes to be for the time being the government of Mississippi. As I understand, the effect of the rebellion asserted not only by the President now in office, but by his predecessor, and by various acts of Congress was to deprive the people of that State of the civil government which they had before the war, of all civil government, and it devolves upon the U.S. to guaranty to the people of that State civil government. The Supreme Court more than 20 years ago declared, as I understand the decision pronounced by the late Chief Justice, that it is the office of Congress to execute this guarantee, and that before Congress can guaranty a RFG in a particular case it is necessary to examine it and see whether it is such a one as in its opinion ought to be guarantied. If this be a specimen of the government of Mississippi, I think we have at our command a very short method of disposing of it setting it aside and establishing another one that will recognize the rights of citizens of the U.S. I will not elaborate these views. I did not rise for that purpose nor for the purpose of making a speech, but simply to present the written statement which has been read. At some future time if I can have the ear of the House, I may take occasion to extend these views somewhat more in detail. But it does seem to me that we are not driven to any extreme position anything that will i.the ordinary sense of the country; that we are not driven to the extreme of regarding these States as no longer members of the Union or of regarding them simply as Territories held by right of conquest. It appears to me that we may reach a solution o difficulty by regarding them simply as States that for the time being are without civil government, States not in function, States whose statal powers are in abeyance, or if I may use an expression of the President, “in a condition of suspended animation;” and adopting this view we can go to work and see that the governments of those States shall be reorganized on such a basis as in our judgment is adequate to the exigency of the times and consistent with the present state of affairs. This strikes me as a simple proposition, and one which there is certainly ability enough in this House, as displayed upon "many other questions, to carry out, and that without much delay or inconvenience.