Mr. MILLER. Of Pennsylvania Speech entitled Reconstruction. February 13, 1867, On the bill (H.R.No. 1143) to provide for the more efficient government of the insurrectionary States. Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration is one of grave importance and has been attacked with great severity. It contains 5 sections. The 1st divides the ten late insurrectionary States, to wit, Virginia, NCarolina, SCarolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas, into 5 military districts, to be subject to military authority—Virginia to constitute the 1st, North and SCarolina the 2nd, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida the 3rd, Mississippi and Arkansas the 4th, and Louisiana and Texas the 5th district. The 2nd section designates what officers shall be assigned to the command of the districts. The 3rd section provides: That it shall be the duty of eachofficer assigned as aforesaid to protect all persons in the rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of the public peaceand criminals, and to this end he may allow local civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and to try offenders, or when in judgment his it may be necessary for the trial of ers, offend he shall have power to organize military commissions or tribunals for that anything in the constitution and laws of the socalled States to the contrary notwithstanding; and all legislative or judicial proceedings, or process to prevent, or control the proceedings of said military tribunals, and all interference by said pretended State governments with the exerciseof military authority under this act, shall be void and of no effect. The 4th section provides when and in what manner writs of habeascorpus may issue, and the 5th and last section provides — That no sentence of any military commission or tribunal hereby authorized, affecting the life or liberty of any person, shall be executed, until it is ap;. " by the officer in command of the district, and laws and regulationsfor the government of the army shall not be affected by this act, except so far as they conflict with its provisions. The main argument urged against the passage of this bill is that the law is unconstitutional—that the said ten late rebellious States have organized governments, and therefore no power exists in Congress to extend over them martial law to take the place of the civil law. I admit, Mr. Speaker, that this extraor dinary power should only be exercised in extreme cases. It is, however, a universal rule among all civilized nations that, when the civil law is not strong enough to afford ample protection, the more powerful, to wit, that of martial, must be resorted to, and it is evident that these ten States present a case demanding such extreme measures. The civil governments of which we hear so much were not established by the action of Congress, but under the auspices of AndrewJohnson, the present Executive, without any authority delegated to him for that purpose. These pretended governments do not afford adequate protection to the persons and property of the loyal people resident therein, hence the necessity of a more stringent procedure. Is there anything in the Constitution of the U.S., adopted by the Convention on the 17th of September, 1787, and ratified in 1789, vesting in the executive alone the establishment of governments in these States? In that instrument it is declared — “That the Constitution and the laws of the U.S., which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land; and that the judges of every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to contrary notwithstanding.” the Who, then, can make the laws? Not the executive, as he possesses only the power to give or withhold his assent when bills are presented to him. The answer is indicated by the constitution, and that is, it rests with Congress to pass laws, and if the Executive interpose the veto power, such bills can, notwithstanding such veto, become laws if the same shall be passed by a 2/3rd vote in each House; thus showing clearly that the Executive alone had no power under the Constitution to under take to reconstruct these ten rebel States by establishing civil governments therein, and his acts in that matter were usurpation. Then the question recurs, have Congress under the Constitution, power to, pass the bill under consideration? The 4th section of said Constitution provides that — “The U.S shall guaranty to every State in the Union a RFG.” This injunction vests in Congress plenary power to use all measures necessary to accom plish such a result. These ten States are in a peculiar position. Having rebelled against the Government of which they are a part and attempted to set up one independent to that of the U.S., they by that act suspended their operation as State governments, and are amenable to the General Government, which they attempted to destroy, for their conduct; and it is incumbent upon the U.S. to secure to the citizens of those States a RFG. But as it is evident from the disposition manifested by the majority of those residing therein that they are not in a proper mood to be governed by the civil laws, hence the necessity of employing for the present more powerful means. It is said, Mr. Speaker, that if they are to be considered as States then we have no power to extend over them in time of peace martial law. In answer to that I have to say that although the open rebellion in arms has been subdued, still the people therein who participated in the rebellion yet show in their actions a rebellious spirit, and it must be borne in mind that the Constitution expressly declares that to “every State” a RFG shall be guarantied, showing eyi dently that the patriots who framed that in strument contemplated that a contingency might arise that would require the exercise of extraordinary power. In order to sustain this bill on constitutional grounds it is not necessary to argue the doctrine promulgated by some, that in consequence of the rebellion, these States must be considered as territories or conquered provinces. Sir, I hold to no such theory. They are States, and called such by the Constitution; but, as I have said, by rebelling they have suspended their governmental organization, and in order to enable them to stand in proper position with the States that remained loyal they must submit to such regulations as Congress may prescribe. This bill is not intended as a permanent arrangement, but only to secure the rights of all persons residing in those States until a civil government can be organized upon the basis of a republican form, which will be as soon as a loyal spirit is manifested by those who were in rebellion. If, as contended for by some, Congress possessed no power to extend such laws over the late insurrectionary States, then the nation would be unable to maintain its nationality, or, as asserted by a high official under the administration of James Buchanan, though no authority exists in the Constitution for a State to secede, but in case an attempt was made there was no power to coerce. I am happy to say that such infamous doctrine is not taught by the Constitution nor sustained by any precedents, and no true loyal citizen ever did, and I trust never will, maintain such an absurd idea. Then, Mr. Speaker, as to the necessity and constitutionality of the bill under consideration I upon mature deliberation have no doubt; and its provisions, if faithfully carried out, will surely asten the restoration of those States to full political rights, so as to give them a representation in Congress, and on this point I will add that this bill, or a similar one, is asked for by the loyal citizens resident therein. I am somewhat surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the arguments of some of the gentlemen on this side of the House. The honorable Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. BANKs finds fault because the bill does not provide a mode of restoration. Whether an amendment of that kind may be offered in the Senate I of course cannot say; that, however, is a subsequent consideration, but suffice it to say that stern justice demands speedy action in order to afford adequate protection, and there is no time to cavil; let us do one thing at a time. This bill has been agreed upon by the Reconstruction Committee, composed of members from each House. If, as the gentleman seems to fear, the President does not appoint competent officers and fully carry out the provisions of the bill, he will be amenable to the nation, and I have no doubt will be dealt with by Congress as justice may demand; nor do I see what the disposition made by Alexander the Great when he conquered a Province, of which the gentleman spoke, has to do with these rebellious States. The loyal people, I have no doubt, will take care of the Government. The honorable Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. DAvis] also interposes objections to the bill, and one remark made by him I must confess struck me with astonishment. After speaking of supposed sin cerity of rebels, he said: “St. Paul was sincere and conscientiouswhen he persecuted the saints, and Lee I doubt not was sin cere when he cast his lot with the confederacy attempted and the overthrow of the Government.” Though the Apostle Paul when he perse cuted the saints, owing to his training in strict conformity to the sect to which he was attached prior to his conversion, may have thought he was doing God's service, is that any apology or palliation for Lee when he turned traitor against his country? He was educated in the military school of the U.S and instructed in all the arts of war, and, being aid to General Scott, he became acquainted with all the plans of Qur Government to suppress rebellion, and being thus indebted to the o ted States for his education and information so as to give him superior military skill, he turned against his country, joined the rebellion, and used all the training and information imparted to him by the Government he had sworn to maintain, to destroy this Republic and he caused to be slain 1000s upon 1000s of loyal soldiers, and the land to be filled with widows and orphans., Sir, ought a man of that kind be eulogized? No punishment is too severe for him, and it is a disgrace to the nation that he should escape condign punish ment. There is no excuse or palliation for his conduct, and I look upon his crime as infamous, and such as ought not permit him to enjoy the blessings of this Republic; and it would have been a credit to the nation if such leading rebels had been disposed of by military commission, It is useless, Mr. Speaker, to undertake to answer the arguments of the gentlemen on the Democratic side of this House, as they all oppose any reconstruction, but favor the admission of Representatives from those ten insurrectionary States without any guaranty whatever for their future conduct, and desire that they should retain their present pretended State governments, for which they claim to have the sanction of Andrew. the POTUS. This, sir, never will be allowed as long as we have a loyal Congress who stand up for a safe and secure Government. I trust this bill will pass without any further delay, so that the people in those States may have adequate security for their persons and property, and the disloyal element be kept in subjection. [from APPENDIX.]