Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, as I am the only Representative that the young, growing, and interesting State of Oregon has on this floor, I feel it my dntfy to ask the indulgence of the House whilc submit the views I entertain on the great subject now under consideration. After the most careful investigation I have been able to give the matter, and all I have heard on it, I am constrained to believe that the whole difficulty in the way of disposing of the case grows out of the want of a correct knowledge of the relation the States lately in rebellion now sustain to the General Government. Are they in the Union or out ofit? If in, in what sense? When a physi cian is called to minister to the welfare of a atient, in order that he may act beneficially he must.understand the nature of the disease and what has caused it. So Congress can never act wisely and successfully in the work of reconstruction until we understand the exact status of the States lately in rebellion against the General Government and what caused the present condition of things. In order that we may have a correct idea of the existing condition of those States, let us inquire what constitutes a State; let us analyze the comosition of a State. There are 4 entities t matenter into the organism of every State. Take away anyone of them, and the State ceases to exist as such. 1st, there must, be territory; 2nd, there must be inhabitants; 3rd, there must be a constitution and laws; 4th, there must be the necessar officers to carry these laws into execution. ‘hese are all essential to the existence ofaState, and ifyou remove one the State ceases. Is not this true? In the next place, let us inquire how a State becomes a member of the Union: 1st, it, must present a constitution and laws in har mony with the Constitution and laws of the U.S.; 2nd, the inhabitants of such Territory must express their desire for such Union through the proper channel; 3rd, the consent of Congress must be given in a formal set. Is not this also true? In the next place, let us inquire what are the consequences ofsuch a union. 1st, the new States assume certain obligations and the general Government is relieved of certain duties and responsibilities; the new State acquires certain rights and privileges, and the General Government yields certain rights and prerogatives the general result is, that the Federal Government has parted with just as much authority as the new State has gained by the union. The new State now stands upon an “ equal footing” with the original States. But let it not be supposed that the General Government surrendered all her rights and prerogatives in such new State; for from it. It still retains the power to lay duties and collect taxes; to regulate commerce among the States; to regulate the currency; to establish PostOffices, &c.; Congress still retains these and other enumerated powersin all the States. Let us next inquire what are the results of a rebellion against the General Government by one or more of the States of the Union: 1st, the States rebelling and throwing oif the constitution and laws of the U.S., and making war against them, forfeit all the rights and privileges they acuired by coming into the nion; 2nd, al these forfeited rights and privileges naturally and necessarily revert back to the source from which they came the General Government. These conclusions are so natural and philosophical that I think no man will dispute them. Those rebel States staked all the rights that they held by the consent of the General Government at the commencement of the rebellion for the chance of what they could obtain by force; and being conquered, they justly and rightfully lost all. Now, sir, at the time of the surrender of Lee’s army, in what condition do we find them? 1866. 314 5. emine As organized'States, enjoyin all the rights and privileges of States that had never rebelled? have t cy constitutions and laws that the general Government is bound to respect? Nothing of the kind, sir. Did these conquered provinces still have the right to hold an treat men and women as slaves? Did Virginians still have the right to make merchandise of their own sons and daughters, as formerly? Did the POTUS recognize the existence of their corps of State officers? No, sir; President Johnson recognized the existence of neither governor, judge, nor marshal among them, but rightfully and properly ignored an rejected the idea of a State officer in all rebel dom, and went to work and appointed temporary officers to act for the time being. The moment these States fired the 1st gun against the flag of the Union their State governments tumbled into nonentity; and if the rebellion had been squclched in 4 months instead of 4 years the results as to their State governments would have been the same. Now, sir, can a State government exist 4 ears without an officer to execute its laws? If It can, how many years can it not exist without officers? Then, sir, if the position taken at the outset be correct, that a State cannot exist without officers to execute its laws, I have demon strated that there was no State government in an of those Territories at the close of the rebellion; and as a matter of course they were not then in the Union as States, nor are they yet in the Union as such. I know that the question arises here, “What became of the rights of those who remained loyal in those Territories if their rights as States were all forfeited?” I answer, their natural rights remain, but their political rights for the time being all went down with their governments. This is their misfortune, and not the fault of the General Government. Now, Mr. Speaker, it a pears to me that the status of these socalled States is perfectly clear. As States they are out of the Union, having lost some of the cssential clements of a State, and also having forfeited all their rights as such; but as Territories they are in the 'Union. Gentlemen on the other side of the House claim that if these Territories are not in the Union as States, than the Union is dissolved. This assertion is ridiculously absurd. Did not the Union once exist with but 9 States, and afterwards with 13? Now, sir, if it then existed with these numbers can it not now exist with 23 States? The loyal States did not prosecute the war for the purpose of sustaining State governments. Ask the tens of 1000s of patriot soldiers who left wives and children that they loved dear r thanlife and went into the swamps and fens o the southern States, foughtupon 100 battle fields and languished in prisons and camps, what they made this terrible sacrifice fort; would they answer, “to sustain State govnments?” No, sir; not a bit of It. What did they care whether the tyrannical government of SCarolina, or the barbarous goverment of Virginia was sustained or not? They fought for no such paltry purpose; but they did fig t, and the heroes who now fill honored graves died, to sustain national authority n all those territories. That is what the iv" was waged to sustain, not State governme its. I ask gentlemen on the other side of the Hall if that was a failure. Is any part U.S. territory now under a n government? No, thank Godl the and stripes, surmounted by the American of ‘oil the U.S. ever owned. The general Government holds and exercises all m prerogatives now that it held in those States. et'ore the rebellion and also all forfeited by hem. The rebels have all they acquired by the rebellion and all the General Government has conceded to them since its suppression, and no more. In view of the foregoing facts in reference to those States lately in rebellion, I arrive at the 0, now wave triumphantly over every foot. following conclusions: 1st, that they are not l in the Union as States. 2nd, that they are in it as Territories. 3rd, that rebels have no rights except those conceded to them since their subjugation. 4th, that Congress may rightfully and lawfully dispose of all those territories as she thinks proper, under 2 restrictions, namely: 1st, must secure to all that may be organized into States a “RFG;” 2nd, must respect the private rights of the loyal inhabitants. 5th, rebels have no just grounds for complaints while their lives are spared to them, as they staked rights, property, and life itself upon the chances of war and lost all. 6th, that congress has a perfect right to admit them or any of them to the enjoyment of State privileges now, at some future period, or never, as she may judge best calculated to promote the general welfare. Now, Mr. Speaker, whether these statements and conclusions are all correct or not, they are the honest convictions of my heart, and I believe them true as certainl as I believe that God lives; consequently, shall vote most heartily and cheerfully for the proposed amendment to the Constitution.