Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, when Paul stood there “in the midst of Mars hill, ” aneedy, perhaps a ragged, missionary, and told the indolent, idolatrous, and luxurious Athenians that God had “made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, ” do you believe he was playing the demagogue or not? When the Congress of 1776 assembled in Independence Hall, representing a constituency few in numbers, poor in resources, stron only in theirconvictions of right, and announced to the world that “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men;” and when the members of that Congress pledged their “lives, their fortunes, an their sacred honor” to maintain those assertions against the whole power of the British empire, do you really suppose they were talking for bunkum or not? Knd when the American people declared in their organic law that “ This constitution, and the lawsof the U.S. which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall bemade. under the authority of the U.S., shall bethe supremelaw of the land; and the judges in every State shall be boofund thereby. anything in the constitution or law! any State to the contrary notwithstanding” do you think they actually meant that, or did the mean that the constitution and laws of each State should be the supreme law of the land, an thing in the constitution or laws of the U.S. to the contrary notwithstanding? I have put these questions, because however generally we may assent to these propositions in our s cccht there are scarcely 3 theses in the whiole field of discussion more flatly denied practically than these 3. We do very generally admit Paul to have been a minister of the true religion, and yet if he had proclaimed in the Smithsonian Institute 6 years ago what he did in the Areopagus at Athens, he would have been driven out of the city. We do with our lips very generally assent to the doctrines of the DeclarIndep, and yet when the American autoda e kindles its hottest fires it is to roast some reckless radical who dares to assert the political equality of men. We cannot well deny that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, because the constitution says so, and we have sworn to support it; but practically we do seem to treat it much as if every law was en reme but that. I cannot now nffor the time to defend the teachings of the apostle or the doctrines of the Declaration. But if it will not annoy the senate, I would like to make a few remarks in vindication of the constitution of the U.S. In my judgment, Mr. President, it is time the American people adopted the constitution: We have, indeed, been takin the tincture for nearly a century. I am sure it as done us great good. I believe now we should try the subli mate, and I am confident it would care the nation. Hitherto we have taken the Constitution in a solution of the spirit of State rights. Let us now take it as it is sublimed and crystal }ilzed in the flames of the most gigantic war in sto. Thhy war, as we know, was designed to demonstrate that the will of each State was supreme and that the U.S. must defer to it. before the constitution was adopted such was the case precisely. The several States were sovereign, and for that very reason the Union formed between them was worthless. The congress of the confederation could enact laws, but as their laws were addressed to the States, and the States were sovereign, they would obey or not as they pleased. Said Mr. Sherman: “The complaints at presentare not that the views of Congressare unwise or unfaithful, but that their ppwers are insuficiont for the execution of their news.” Said Mr. Randolph, of Virginia: “The true questionis wbether we will adhereto the Federal plan or introduce the national plan. The insutheicncy of the former has been fully displayed by the trial already made.” The national plan was adopted. 13 weak and thriftless sovereignties were welded into one great and prosperous republic. It was not the purpose of the Convention to destroy the State governments, butto change their character, to strip them of sovereignty, and leave them no manner of authority to impede the execution of the national will. Hence it provides a national Legislature, to enact laws, not for the directionof states, but for the government of the people, whether within or Without any of the States; a national exeeutive, sworn to see those laws executed if they are constitution al, whether a State dislike them or not, and a national Judiciary, to determine whether they are constitutional or not. The President therefore, aptly says in his late messa e that “ the sovereignty of the States is the anguage of the Confederacy and not of the constitution.” But in the ConVention which framed the constitution there was a party opposed to depriving the States of their sovereign authority and since the adeption of the constitution, there has been a party in the country which has stoutly maintained that the States have not been deprived of their sovereignty. They in sist that unless each State can defy the authority of the Government the rights of the States are in imminent peril. They forget that it was the existence of this very power of defiance which imperiled all the States under the Confederation. And sir, there can be but little danger that the several States will be despoiled of their rights by a Government constituted like that of the U.S. The President rightly says that “the subjects that come unquestionably within its jurisdiction are so numerous that it must. ever naturally refuse to be embarrassed byquestions that lie beyond it.” Mr. Madison urged t iis same consideration in support of the national plan in the constitutional Convention. To my mind the States have another security against the eneroachments of the nationa Government even more reliable than this. It lies in the fact that the people who compose the several States make the Government of the U.S. It is not much to be apprehended that the creat ure will devour the creator. But the State rights party resemble a congregation of der vishes ancing before an idol their own hands have created and frantically imploring it not to destroy them and the Government often seems almost as nervous as that party. Like the elephant with its owner under its belly, the Government often seems so conscious of its own weight as to be afraid to move for fear it will crush its proprietor. Let the Government move. It will not destroy the States unless it betrays them. When true to itsotiice it is but the voice of the States. Is there danger that? the voice will slay the speaker? Mr. Madison declared in the constitutional Convention i “That in the 1st place there was less danger of eneroachmentfrom the General Government than from the State governments; and in the 2nd place. that the mischiefs from encroaehments would be less glad, if madeby the former than if madeby the lat. Who that has lived during the last 15 years will deny the correctness of that estimate? Yet, in spite of the terrible admenitions we have received against the liability to State eneroachments umld of the disastrous consequences resulting therefrom, there are those among us still who talk rapture usly of the priceless value of the States to the nation, who persist in estimating its grandeur by the number of States subject to its sway and who dwcll upon the idea of their “indestructibility” with something of that fond and reverent air with which we speak of the immortality of the soul. Sir, it is not the business of the national Government to sway States. That was the business of the old Confederation. It is the business of this Government to control people, and I estimate its strength asI estimate the strength of all other Powers, by the extent of its territor, hy the number, the wealth, the intelligence, an the loyalty of its people. I dissent entirely and altogether from the idea that a citizen is worth nothing to the nation unless he is included in the government of a State. I aver that a citizen of this District, that a citizen of Washington Territory, is worth as much to the nation, and adds as much to its strength and its greatness as a citizen of NewYork or of Massachusetts. If a citizen be loyal, he adds to the strength of the nation, equally whether he be in a State or Territory. If he be disloyal, he diminishes the strengthof the nation, whether he be in a State or “crritory, but not equally. The citizen of a State has more authority than the citizen of a Territory, and, therefore, if he be disloyal, he can do more injury in the former than in the latter position. Has anyone yet attempted to explain what principle that is which renders a State indestructible? Does anyone comprehend it? For myself, I do not. A State is a manufacture as much as a wagon is. It is not, indeed, made in the same way nor at the same shops. But it is nevertheless made, and npde by mortals. My friendfrom Nevada has just helped to make one. A. State can be made only by those who are permitted by the nation to make one, by those who are wiling to make it. But once made, we are told “a State can never die.” “ Once a State always a State, ” they shout and when a few years since, it was hinted that the rebellious States had committed suicide, politicians laughed the suggestion to scorn. Galileo, when condemned to renounce the heres of the earths motion, is said to “have made is abjuration with all the formality commonly attendin such proceedings. Clad in sackcloth and neeling, he swore upon the Gospels never again to teach the earths motion or the suns stabilit. Then rising from the ground, he exclaimed}: It doesmove, afterall. " and so I, rising as well as I can under this load of derision, cannot refrain from assurin the Senate that States can commit suicide an can die. History is butlittle more than agrave yard in which one reads the cpitaphs upon buried States. Sir, it is octical license and not sciencewhic talksof the immortality o poSltitaitceasl. Have the people of Nevada made an organization which they cannot unmake? If they refuse hereafter to choose Governors and legislators and judges and municipa1 officers, will the State survive that mere neg out? On the contrary, would it not be the imperative duty of cougress, in such an event, to resume the prerogatives you have just granted to that people, and provide a government to save the people from anarchy? Do you say the State is still theirs in contemplation of law, the 1111tional authority cannot enter upon its Sllcred domain, and if the people choose anarchy they must have it? So then, because of your passionate desire to (its a State to heaven you would let its people p unge in the other direction. There are those among us who seem really to believe that we have been fighting these terrible battles expressly to uphold the governments of the several States. I did not understand such to be the purpose of the war. If I had so understood itI shouldhave comprehended the significance of Earl Russells criticism. “I understand, ” said be, “how you may lead a horse to the brook, but I do not understand how you can make him drink.” As much as to say, “I know the U.S. may overcome resistance to its Government, but I do not see how the rebels can be made to maintain State governments.”, Mr. President, the constitution does not command any portion of the American people to maintain e organization of a State. Ill permits such organizations only. I repudiate the whole theory that there is any political necessity requiring the people of any district to be a State against their will. I stand upon the doctrine, and I want the American people to understand it that it is a high pohtica, privilege to be an American State. It is a privilege which California had to struggle hard to obtain; and I do not believe this nation would have voted $3,000,000,000 and sacrificed 200,000 lives to force upon SCarolina and her confederates privileges which were so reluctant] yielded to alifornia. For one, I would not have consented to sacrifice a man or a dollar for such a purpose. I understood the purpose of the war to be notto maintain the governments of the several rebellious States but to defend the Government of the U.S. As such I stood by its prosecution; as such I stand by its results. A State is a public corporation. It has lim ited powers otp government. The exercise of those powers by some one is necessary to the welfare of its citizens and therefore to the welfare of the nation. If it utterly refuses to exert them it defeats the purposes of its being, and the common welfare requires the nation to resume them. It is charged with duties also, and if it persistently disreard those, orwillfully persist in the excise o powers not intrusted to it, it may ther y forfeit its right to being, and the common welfare and the common safety may require the nation to resume its prerogatives. But it is not every neglect of duty nor every usurpation of power which will justify the resumption of the franchisee of a State. The constitution declares “ that no State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.” Butsupposethe Legislature of Massachusetts shouldpprovide by law that bank notes should be a tender in payment of debts. such an enactmentwould not justify the nation in denying to her a representation in Congress, or in depriving her of the functions really belon ng to a State. such a remedy is needless, an therefore unjustifiable. The courts could afford ample protection against such an act and no detriment could arise from it. But the constitution also declares that “no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation.” Suppose the State of Texas does nemtiate an alliance with Maximilian, by which s e englages to furnish a given number of troops, her whole military strength, indeed, to an ort him in his enterprise against the republic of Mexico? What is the remedy for that violation of the supreme law? You may say her people are not ound by the compact. But suppose they are consenting to it? suppose they demand it? Suppose they choose their Governor and Legislature for the express purpose of making it? Suppose her whole mi itin force is otheered and trained with the view of supporting the alliance? What is your remedy? You say the compact is illegal; so it is. You may say that. in law it is null, so indeed it is but in factit is none the less mischievous. If your courts could at "Jurisdiction of the compact they Would don t less declare it null and void. But how is a court to get jurisdiction of a contract against which neither party complains, but to which both parties are resolved to adhere? You may enact laws, perhaps, for punishin criminally State officers who shall thus otien against the supreme law; but when you have punished the officers you have not terminated the compact. You may picket with your army the whole border of exas to prevent the egress of troops or munitions of war; but can you prevent unarmed citizens from crossing the boundary of a State? and if you can, can your picketard tell whether the traveler he halts on the hue is from Texas or from NewYork? But suppose you could by sleepless vigilance and bean less expenditure prevent all the citizens of Texas from crossing into Mexico, that is not the mischief against which you have most to guard. It may not much harm the nation that citizens from Texas go into Mexico and shoot, or get shot; but it does harm the nation that the whole municipal authority of a State is lodged in tribunals pledged to the support of an alliance which the constitution forbi s, and to the rose cution of a design which may involve tenation in a foreign war. It does harm the nation that a people and government so compromised by a compact which the supreme law condemns should still be allowed to appoint representatives to participate in the enactment ofyourlaws, and to sit in tesecret councils of this Senate, to supervise treaties, perhaps which have been negotiated with Mexico herself. Is the Government of the U.S. helpless against such perils? I put another case.tains this provision: “The Sens&Reps before entioned, and the membersof the several State legislatures and all executive and judicial officers, both of the U.S and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or aflirmation to support this constitution.” That is the supreme law, as every part of the constitution is. The nation forbids that an art of the authority vested in the several States shall be wielded by any agent who is not bound by oath to support the authority of the nation. The constitution expressly exacts of the President that “ he shall take care that the lawa be faith fully executed.” and each incumbent thereof, before he enters upon the execution of his office, must solemn y swear that he will faith fully discharge that duty. He must then see that the Governor and every other officer in each State take the oath of allegiance to the national Government., How will he do it? How shall this law be enforced? The president has no methods or means for enforciii the laws but writs and armies. Marshals an major generals are his forces. But they are not forces in the use of which the President has an option. When the marshal can do the work there is no use for the major general. I mean to say, and I want it heard by all whom it may concern, that wherever the marshals of the U.S. can execute the writs of the U.S., there is no work for an army; and an army cannot actively be employed in the execution of municipal law. But when the marshal is resisted by force, force may be employed to overcome the resistance; so much force as is needed for that purposethe posse, if that will suthee; the Army, if that be necessary; the whole military resources of the nation and the whole enginery of war if the exigency requires them. But what writ will you employ to make the GOvernor of Virginia take the oath to support the constitution of the U.S., in case he is determined not to take it, and the people of Virginia are determined their officers shall not be bound by such oath? This question is not speculation. I remember, Mr. President, when you offered a resolution in the executive session of 1861 to expel a member of this Senate because he declared upon this floor that he owed no allegiance to the Government of the U.S. The resolution was opposed by a Senfrom Virginia. In the course of his remarks he went The constitution conon to explain how and why his allegiance was ledged to Virginia, and not to the U.S. I quote fiom his remarks the following:, “The oath of alleyiance in Virginia. to be taken by all thosewho areill mitted in anywayto aparticipa tio"n in the politics. power of the State is this: I declaremyse a citizen of the (hmpionwcalth of Virginia, and solemnly swearthat I will be faithful an true to the said Cemmonwealth and will so: on the constitution thereofso long as I continue o“aIciwtiizllen beoffathitehfsualme and true to the and Commonwealththnt is allegiance. Am I to be told by the Senator that we have a divided allegiance. thatwe can owa allegiance to 2 sovereigns? Am I to he told by the Senator that when I comehere as a reIp rosentative from a sovereign State I at otf myal o gianceand put on a new garb. a not to a ser ereign, but to u more agency?"Congressional Globe, iii3nd aemun 36th (bumcu, part two. page When, then, a State binds her officers by the most solemn oaths to allegiance to hersel, and forbids their taking the oathpreseribed by the U.S., what is you remed? Clearly, neither writs nor armies can so pya remedy. But cannot this law beenforce? Must we permit the municipal authority of Virginia to be administered y officers who persistently defy the constitution? Must we admit to the counsels of this Chamber Senators appointed by a Legislature who refuse to take an oath to support the constitution of the U.S.? Sir, we have been diligently taught from our youth up that the Government of the U.S. is a Government of delegated powers; that no power not delegated to it can be right fully exerted by it. I admit the doctrine. I have adhered to it all mylife, and I abide by it today. But I ask the countryto comprehend at last the extent of the powers which are delegated. Among the powers delegated to this Government are not only the power to levy taxes, to borrow money, to regullate commerce, to coin money, to establish PostOffices, to declare war, to make treaties and alliances, to raise armies and maintain navies, but there is also this other power: “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foragain: powers, and all other powers vestedby this Constitution in the Government of the U.S or in any Deptor officer thereof.” If, then, the supreme law commands the officers of a State to be bound by oath to support the constitution of the U.S., and if the resident be authorized to enforce that law, ow is authority for making any law necessary and proper for its enforcement? What coneeivable law is so necessary and proper for that purpose as a simple enactment, which declares that, since Virginia will not require her officers to take the oath prescribed to the officers of everyState, Virginia shall not be a State; since her people will not Elect officers who will take the cat of allegiance, this Government may appoint officers to administer her municipal affairs; since she has no Legislature whose members are qualified as the constitution prescribes, her Legislature shall not send mom to this Senate; since she abjures the oblivntions imposed upon her by the constitution, 5a shall forfeit the privileges conferred upon her by the constitution? Sir, I know of no remedy so complete as such alaw would afford, and therefore I can conceive of no law so necessary and so proper. But this, we are told, is in c act a dissolution of the Union by act of Congress. Dissolution of what Union? Dissolution of the Union of the States under a compact? We have had no such Union since 1787. Before that time we had just such a Union. But then we formed a “more perfect Union.” A more perfect union ofwhat? Of States? No, tbere could be no more perfect union of States than we had underthe onfederation. Butin 1787we formed a Union, not of States, under a compact, but of the people, under a Government. From that Union there is no withdrawal except when the citizen withdraws his allegiance, and the citizen can only withdraw his allegiance by withdrawing his domicil, not merely beyond 1866. 1657l the limits of a State, but beyond the limits of the U.S. The Union which the constitution ordained, and which I champion, is no close corporation, monopolized by a few States more or less. It is, on the contrary, a broad and national asso ciation of the people, coextensive with the boundaries of the Republic, and holding under its shelter the rudest hamlet on your remote frontier no less than this magnificent marble pile in which I now speak. But we are told that only States can appoint members of this Senate, and only the people of States can choose members of the other House, and that only States can appoint electors of President an VEEP. I admit it and it is argued that if there were no State governments there would soon be no Government of the U.S. I admit it and hence we are admenished that if we admit the destructibilitv of the State governments we do, in effect, admit the destruc tibility of the national Government. Unqestion ably. Who doubts that the people of the States can destroy this Government? The people of one State cannot destroy it. That, I think, SCarolina will admit. The people of 11 States cannot do it. That, lphope, is settled. But that the people of all the States can do it, I do not thin has ever been denied. The can destroy it, too, without 1st destroying themselves. Sir, is it not evident that if eve elector in Massachusetts should blew his brains out on a given day there would be no one left to choose her Governors and herLegislatures? and yet who would think of arguing that it was unconstitutional to affirm that an elector could commit suicide because it would argue the destructibility of a State? But the flag! We are pointed to the flag of the Union; we are impressively told that it bears 36 stars, and that it “declares, in more than words of living light, there are 36 States still in the nion;” and my colleague asked the other day, with much emphasis and fervor, if that was a truth or a “hypocritical, flauntimr lie.” Nay, Mr. President, the stars do not he; only my colleague, I think, fails to read them aright. If they asserted what m colleague seems to think they do they would not to lthe truth. But, in fact, they make no such assertion. Sir, it was a law of m fathers household that the name of every ch (1 born to him should be inscribed upon a certain page in the family Bible. It was notprovided thatwhen death removed one from the circle thename should be erased from the rewrd and so it happens that the Book, which is still extant, bears today the names of 8 brothers and sisters. But I know, sir, I know full well, that only 4 of us are now living. So Congress enacted in April, 1818, that upon the national flag there should be “ 20 stars, white, in a blue field, ” and “ that on the admission of every new State into the Union one star be added to the union of the flag.” It was not enacted that when any State should revolt a inst the authority of the nation, and inipious yraise its hand against its own life, a star should be dropped from the flag and so it happens that our flag, wherever it floats today, ashes 36 stars in the light. But they gleam there not in evidence that 36 States still exist, but that 36 States have been created. Sir, whatever may be thought of the right of Congress to strike SCarolina from the roll f States, I take it no one will seriously question the authority of Congress to strike one or all the stars from the flag; and what would then be the testimony of the flag? But the great argument it inst the doctrine of the destructibility of the Sfates is this: it is urged that the States cannot be destroyed, because the law forbids it. Every suicidal act is illegal, and is therefore null and void. Sir, I believe the laws of Connecticut forbid murder. But if some nearand dear friend of yours should be waylaid, and have his throat cut from ear to ear, and you should apply for letters of administration upon his estate, would you not be surprised after you had marshaled in the probate court the roofs of his death, to be gravely told by the judge, ” Sir, you are mistaken; your friend cannot be dead the law forbids murder. The cutting of your friends throat was clearl illegal, and therefore null and void?” If SCarolina had done nothing but adopt her ordinance of secession no one would have urged that she had thereby forfeited the prerogatives of a State. We would have been content to have the courts pass upon its validity, and they would have pronounced it invalid. But she did more. Having declared her independence of the U.S., she proceede to have her officers take an oath which bound them to resist the constitution instead of support it and when the local government had thus disqualified itself for the exercise of any authority whatever, it proceeded to usurp every power which the constitution denies to a State, and to abjure every duty which the constitution imposes upon a State and when she had thus revolutionized her local government she proceeded to crush out the Federal organs within her limits; to take possession of her forts; to convert her PostOffices to her own use; to shut up her customhouses; the judge of the U.S. district court pulle down the national flag frOm the courthouse and hoisted the pal metto flag in its place; the judge of the circuit court was excluded from the State, and I think has not since seen the State; marshals resigned, so that there was no oficer who could serve the writ of the U.S., and there was no Federal court in which the citizens of another State could collect a debt thatwas due, or recover a horse or a ship that was tortiously converted and then she planted her batteries opposite one of your own forts, garrisoned by a handful of your own troops, and for 48 hours hurled their iron ail upon the walls until they were said to resemble a honeycomb. I do not doubt but all this was illegal, but I could not readily admit it was all a nullity. If it was a nullity, what authority had this Government for planting the “swamp angel” off against Charleston and rainin its iron messengers upon the city, or for sening Sherman flaring through the State as if he were himself the angel of retribution 7 Sir, the awful truth is, these acts were not nullities, but were eat, unprovoked, unparalleled, atrocious crimes, by which every State oficial forfeited not only the franchise of his office but his life, and by which every citizen who articipated in that guilt forfeited not only his right to vote but his right to breathe. The President is please to say that by these acts “the States attempting to secede placed themselves in a condition where their vitality was impaired but not extinguished, their functions suspended but not destroyed.” I am, myself, quite unable to find any clause of the constitution which discriminates between those acts which impair the vitality of a State and those which extinguish it. Nor do I comprehend that principle of philosophy which admits that any form of life can be impaired and yet cannot be extin shed. With all deference, I should suppose that any form of vitality, in order to be sure against extinction, should be proof against deterioration. But I am not disposed to insist upon this criticism. Nor do think it worth while for the great Union party to divide upon the question whether the constitution requires us to say that the functions of a State in a given emergency are “sus pended” or “ destroyed.” Indeed, the suspension of the functions is sure death to a man or a State. But since their functions were suspended the question remains, for how long were they suspended? Were they suspenided during the pleasure of the several States, or during the pleasure of the U.S.? Certainly dur mg the pleasure of the U.S. lhat is already decided, at least by the executive Dept of this Government. In A nl last, General Johnston of the rebel arm ogered to surrender his whole army upon condition that the several districts might be allowed to resume the functions of States at once. But the Government then wisely and firmly said, “No; we do not propose to purchase the surrender of that arm nor sell the remission of those functions. but arm we propose to take, because it belongs to the I U.S. Those functions we will restore when we see on know how to use them.” Is it then the p ensure of the U.S. that these suspended functions be now restored? But, 1st, who shall answer that question? What Dept of the Government is charged with the duty of declaring from time to time the pleasure of the U.S.? No one pretends that the judicial Dept has this power. But there are those who or no that it is or the President to decide when these functions shall be restored, and that he has already decided it. I do not in self understand that the President has decide that question. If he had done so, I think he would not have withheld so important a fact from Congress when he made his annual communication upon “the state of the Union.” I have careful y read that wellcon sidered and able message. I find an une uiv local declaration that the functions of t ose States which attempted to secede haVe been suspended, but I find no intimation that they" have been restored and manifestly it is not within the urview of his official dut to restore them. this the province of the resident to execute the national will, not to expound it. He is placed in command of the Army and Navy, to enable him to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed, ” not that the be wisely made. With all that power in his and s he cannot rightfully so much as transfer an old musket from one citizen to another without the warrant of the U.S., tested by a judge, declaring the right of the claimant to have it. The President cannot fix the price to be paid for an acre of the public domain nor the duty to be paid upon the importation of a pound of tea. Is it that the people who withheld from tshuepliipmsaobmlertive the right to legislate upon such trifling concerns won (I authorize him to fix the terms upon which 8 million people, who had forfeited their lives by luv, 5 ould be organized into 11 States, of the Union? I am not only confident that this is the last power which the people would confer upon the executive Dept, but I am persuaded it is the lost power which the present Executive would consent to exert; an that not solely or mainly because of the unsuitableucss of his office for ascertaining the national will upon the question, but chiefly because of his personal relations to and his possible interest in the question to be deter mined. Do Senators comprehend what consequences result necessarily from restorin the functions of those States? It will add 58 members to the HoRep, more than one 4th of its present number. It adds 22 members to this Senate, nearly 1/2 its present number. The constitution designed the legislature to be independent. of the Executive. but what independence has that Legislature into which the Executive may at his pleasure pour so many votes? The Queen of GreatBritain has no such power over the Parliament of the realm. She may constitution ally add that number of votes to the Hause of Lords, but it is beyond the stretch of her vast grerogatives to add a vote to the Commons. at this is not all. Restoring the function of States to the people of those lately rebellious districts adds eig ty votes to the Electoral college which chooses the President and the VEEP suppose the present incumbent of the White House was ambitious of a reelection the supposition is in no wise derogatory to himthat is an ambition which becomes any distinguished citizen of the Republic, and no one better than himself. But suppose he were, as some aspirants for that exalted place have been, not overscrupulous as to the means by which he secured his election; who is so blind as not to see the terrible advantage which would be placed in his hands by conceding him the power to add to the vote of the Electoral College more than 1/3rd of its present number? A few years since we heard much of a set of follows in SanFranciseo who were designated as ballotbox staffers. But what ballotbox stealing ever known in SanFranciseo could parallel that which such a concession of owner to a candidate for the Presidency would legitimate? I make this comment because it is forced upon me by the attitude of those communities which are seeking at the hands of the President to restoration of the functions of States. Their professions of obligation, their profilers of support, are too conspicuous to pass unnoticed. To the inducements which they hold out as the price of prompt restoration, I understand that a somewhat distinguished citizen of NewYork has lately added a proffer of the support of the Democratic party of the existing States. That tender, however, I am bound to say, does not, in my judgment, amount to an attempt at bribery. [Laughter.] and that for these reasons: 1st, because the gentleman making the refer did not own what he tendered; 2nd, because the thin he tendered had no value in the market; and tired, because if it should come to have a value by the time the offer is to be redeemed, the legal presumption is the tender would be withdrawn. [Laughter] and I make this comment the more freely because from nothing I have seen or board have I been led to believe that the judgment of the President has been swayed a sin is hairs breadth by the seductive arts which have been practiced before him. I am happy in the belief today that if Congress will but discharge its duty as firmly, as dispassionately, and as conscientiously as the President has addressed himself to the discharge of his, the country is safe. To the legislative Dept there is deleted the responsibility of determining when these suspended functions shall be restored. To Congress it ought to be delegated, because its members coining more directly from the people, and from many different localities, are supposed to be better informed as to what is the popular will than any individual can be. To on ress it ought to be delegated, because its members have no personal interest in the decision of the question. The people of those revolting districts will have no more and no less influence upon the reelection of the members of these Houses whether the functions of States are restored to them or not. To congress this power is delegated by the express terms of the constitution. “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union, ” is the language of the 3rd section of the 4th article of the constitution. To Congress also the Supreme Court assigns this power by necessary imlication, if not by express adju dication, in e celebrated case of Luther vs. Ogden, reported in the 7th Howard, Supreme Court Reports, page 1. Then 2 distinct rival organizations claimed to be the government of RhdIsland. The question presented to the court was which of the 2 was the legitimate government. The court decided that the question was political and not judicial, and in the opinion o Chief Justice Taney I find the following conclusive words: “The 4th sectionof the4th prticle of the constitution of the U.S. provides that the U U.S shall guaranty to every Statein the Union a RFG and shall protect eachof them against invasion; and on the application of the Legislature or of the Executive whon the Legislature cannot be convened. against domestic we" once. Under this articl of the constitution it rests with Congressto decide what governmentis the establishod one in a State. For. as the U.S. guaranty to oach state a republican government. conrcssmust necessaril decide what government is established in the State cfore it can determine whethor it is republican or not and when the Sens&Reps of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union the authority of the governmentunder which they are appointed. as well as its republican character is recognizedby the proper constitutional authority and its decision s binding upon every other Dept of the Goverrimont and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal. It is true that the contestin this casedid not last long enough to bring the matter to this issue: and as no Senators or Representatives were elected under the authority of the government of which Mr. Dorr was the head. conarcss was not called upon to decide the controyersy. Yet thiy ifight to decide is placed there and not in the courts. If Congress, then, may rightfully determine which of 2 rival organizations is the legitimate government of an acknowledged State, d fortiorimust Congress decide when a particular organization is or is not the government of a State., Since, then, the responsibilit devolves upon Congress to decide whether the functions of States shall be now restored to those rebellious and lately belligerent communities, how shall we decide it? For one, I say no! I say no for all the reasons that could influence my decision of such a question and 1st, I say Congress ought not now to restore those suspende functions, because congress has not been asked to do so. The election of members to serve in this or the other House, issuing credentials to them, the presentation of such credentials here, is not an application to be restored to the status of States. such proceedings characterize acknowledged States like NewYork and Ohio States which have never forfeited their prerogatives. The fact of issuin such credentials as sumes that their functions adnot been suspended.We know they have been. The President declares they have been. I In April last be distincil y notified all rebeldom that they were suspended. Why do they not ask for restoration, present their constitution s, and show us what sort of institutions they propose to establish in place of those they recently placed under the protection of the confederacy 7 other communities, when they have soughtto enter the circle of American States, have asked permission to do so. Wisconsin asked for it. Until she obtained it she did not assume the right to choose members to represent her in Congress. It is useless to say this right was once conferred upon Louisiana and Mississippi. By rebellion they forfeited the right. In April they were no tified the forfeiture would be enforced. Until the forfeiture is remitted they have no right to choose members of this Senate. Until they have the right to choose Senators we ought not to consider the question whether they have chosen them, or whet erthose chosen have been regularly returned or are properly qualified. The simple truth is, the representatives o those revolting States left these Halls 5 years ago without the permission of the nation, and they now propose to come back without its permission. They defied the nation then to eep them in, they defy the nation now to keep them out. You remember in what mood they left here 5 years ago. One of them, in debate upon this floor, on the 7th of March, 1861, in reply to Mr. Douglas, spoke as follows: “Mr. President, I have tried to explain. several times. the position which I occupy. I am not officially informed that the State which representhere has aIbolihed the office of U.S. Senator. When am so advisedofficially, I shall ills at your desk that information and then if. after bemgso informed. you shall continile to call my name. I will answer. probably. if it suits my convenience; and ifI am called on to vote. I shall probably give my reasonsfor voting; and regarding this as a very respectable public meeting. continue my connection with it in that way. At present. though, I am not advised that Texas has withdrawu from the Union and am waiting those instructions. I said the other night it was very late and I hardly recollect it now. not hILVlhl I slept for some 48 hours, c ccpt when I could take a nap now and thenI sai. then. that in consequence ofyour having refused to recognize the secession of other States and continue to call the namqi of their SIenators whose official withdrawal had been uled here, supposedI should coptinue to attcpd the meetin of theSenate. If it suits my convenienceI certain y shall; if not. not.”