Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio addressed the House. His speech will be published in the Appendix. Speech entitled, Freedmens Bureau Restoration of the Rebel States. February 1, 1866. The House having under consideration the bill to enlarget he powersof the Freedmens Bureau Mr. GARFIELD said: Mr. Speaker: The bill now before the House is one of a series of measures which it is the duty of this House to consider and act upon during the present session; and I shall, in the time allotted to me, take a wider range than the provisions of the bill itself would warrant, and discuss, in connection with it, the general question of the restoration of the States lately in rebellion. I shall try to examine the situation of national affairs resulting from the war; to determine, if possible, what ought to be done to bring the e public back. by the surest, safest, and shortest t, to the full prosperity of liberty and peace. This is the result earnestly desired by every patriotic citizen. How to reach it is the great problem we are called upon to solve. 0n the main points in the problem I believe there is far less difference of sentiment in this House than is generally supposed. Men differ for more in theory than in practice. It would be easy to find ten men who perfectly agree in recommending a given course of action. It would be difficult to find ten who would give the same reasons for that recommendation. If the members of this House could lay aside their theories and abstract definitions, and deliberate on questions of practical legislation, many apparent differences would at once disappear. The words and phrases we use exert a powerful influence on the opinions we form and the action which results. In inquiring into the legal stat!“ of the insur t States we are met at the threshold by 3 distinct theories, each of which has its advocates in this House. 1. That these States are now and have never ceased to be in the Union with all their right! unirn aired. 2. Ilhat they are out of the Union in fact and in law; that by their acts of secession and rebellion they are reduced to the condition of Territories, and that it rests with Congress to determine whether the “shall now or hereafter be admitted into the nion. 3. As hold h the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. RsYMotDlin his speech of day beibre yesterday, that whatever may have been the effect of the war upon them, “they have, under the Presidents guidance and action, resumed their functions of self government in the Union.” and we ought to accept them. Mr. Speaker, I am unable fully to agree with eithero thesepropositions, and I shall endeavor to point out what seems to me the error which has led to their adoption. 2 terms made use of in the debate on this subject seem to me to have caused much of the diversity of opiu ion. I allude to the word “ State, ” and the phrase “in the Union.” The word “State, ” as it has been used by gentlemenin this discussion. has 2 meanings, as perfectly distinct as though different words had been used to express them. The confusion arising from applying the same word to 2 different and dissimilar objects has had very much to do with the diverse conclusions which gentlemen have reached. They have given us the definition of a “ State" in the contemplation of public or international law, and have at once applied that definition, and the conclusions based upon it, to the States of the American Union and the effects of war upon them. Let us examine the 2 meanings of the word, and endeavor to keep them distinct in their application to the questions before us. Phillimore, the great English publicist, says: “ For all the purposesof international law a demone, imlas, State oolk)may be defined tobeapeoploper manentlyoccupyingafixud territory, boundto ct or by common laws, habits and customs into one ody politic. exercising.throughthe mediumof an organized government independent sovereignty an control overall persons and thingswithin its boun urics. capable of making war and peace, and of entering into all international relations with the other communities of the globe.” lhillinwre| International Law. vol. 1, sec.65. Substantially the same definition may be found in Grotlus, book one, chapter one, section 14; in Burlamaqui, volume 2, part one, chapter 4,section nine; and in Vattel, book one, chapter one. The primary point of agreement in all these authorities is that in contem plation of international law a State is absolutely sovereign, acknowledgin no superior on earth. In that sense the U.S. is a State, a sovereign State, just as GreatBritain, France, and Russia are States. But what is the meaning of the word State as applied to Ohio or Alabama? ls either of them aState in the sense of international law? They lack all the leading requisites of such a State. They are only the cographical subdivisions of a State; and thong endowed by the people of the U.S. with the rights of Ibea self government, yet in all their external rolatioh to their sovereignty is completely destroyed, being mered in the supreme Federal Government. (Ha lecks International Law, section 16, page 71.) hit) cannot make war; cannot conclude ce; cannot make a treaty with any foreign government, cannot even make a compact with her sister States; cannot regulate commerce; cannot coin money; and has no flag. These indis ensable attributes of sovereignty the State of Ohio does not possess, nor does any other State of the Union. We call them States for want of a better name. We call them States because the original 13 had been so desig nated before the Constitution was formed; but that Constitution destroyed all the sovereignty which those States were ever supposed to possess in reference to external affairs. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the five great gublicists, Grotius, Puffendorf, Bynkershoek, nrlamaqui, and Vattel, who have been so often quoted in this debate, and all of whom wrote more than a quarter of a centu, and some nearly 2 centuries, before our Constitution was formed, can hardly be quoted as 0d authorities in regard to the nature and l relationship s of the component States of the American nion. Even my colleague from the Columbus district, [Mr. Suzuanaocafl in his very able discussion of this question, spoke as though a State of this Union was the same as a State in the sense of international law, with certain qualities added. I think he must admit that nearly all the leading attributes of such a State are taken from it when it becomes a State of the Union. Several gentlemen, during this debate, have quoted the well known doctrine of international law, “that war annuls all existing compacts and treaties between belligerents;” and they have concluded, therefore, that our war has broken the Federal bond and dissolved the Union. This would be true, if the rebel States were States in the sense of international lawif our Government were not a sovereign nation, buIt only a league between sovereign States. oppose to this conclusion the unanswerable proposition that this is a nation; that the rebel States are not sovereign States, and therefore their failure to achieve independence was a failure to break the Federal bond to dissolve the Union. The word “State” which they discussed is no more applicable to Ohio than to Hamilton county. e States and counties of this Union are equally unknown to international law. There is another expression to which I have referred, and which is used in an equally am biguous manner. We have discussed the question here whether these insurgent States are in the Union. “ In the Union I” What do we mean by the phrase? In one sense, ever inch of soil we own is “in the Union.” The erritory of Utah is in the Union. 80 is every Territory of the West in the Union; that is, under its authority, subject to its right of eminent domain. On the other hand, when some gentlemen say these States are “in the Union, ” they mean to include all their relations, all their rights and privileges, which is quite another thing. From this ambiguity in the use of terms have arisen most of the differences of opinion on this subject. I would not be understood as saying that international law has nothing to do with the question before us. It has much to do with it. t furnished us with the rules of civilized nations in the conduct of war, the rights of bel li erents, the treatment of prisoners, the rules 0% surrender, cartel, and parole. Guided by the precepts of international law, we are enabled to understand the rights and duties of neu tral Powers and the legal results of successful war against domestic enemies and traitors. But when gentlemen note the doctrines of international law in re erence to sovereign nations, and apply them directly to the political status of the States of this Union, they lead us into error. In view of the peculiar character of our government I ask, in what condition has the war left the rebel States? Did they accomplish their own destruction? Did they break the bondswhich bound them to the Union? I an swer, they would have done both these things, if anything short of successful revolution could do it. It was not, as some gentlemeu hold, merely an insurrection of individuals. It was not, as most civilWars are, a war among the atoms, so to speak, flamin here and there, as fire breaks out in 100 places in a city. It was a war oforganized populisr masses, or as the Supreme Court, borrow ing the prophetic words of DeTocqueville, calls it, “a territorial civilWar, ” in which we granted them belligerent rights, and claimed for ourselves both belligerent and sovereign rights. We could pursue them with war as enemies, or try them by criminal law as citizens, and hang them as condemned traitors. I cannot agree with the distinguished Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. Rsruosnj when he holds that we are to deal with the rebels only as individuals. They struck at the Union through every instrumentality within reach. Through personal service in the army, and individual contributions of money; through voluntary as sociations to raise men and mone; through popular mass meetings to inflame the passions and develop all the power of their people: through township, county, and city corporations; through State conventions which framed new constitutions in order the more perfectly to sever the bonds which held them to the Union; and, to make a more powerful and effectual instrument with which to establish their rebel sovereignty, through State Legislatures, by laws levying taxes for the purchase of arms, ammunition, and all the materiel of war, in resolutions denouncing the pains and penalties of treason against all citizens who refused to pin their conspiracy; and final!. by a confederation of 11 States, consolidated into a central sovereign government de facto, which became the most absolute military despotism in ine dern history a despotism which inundated with its deluge of tyranny all State guarantees, all municipal privileges, and assumed absolute control of alFpersons and property within the limits of its territory. here was not a conceivable calamity which could have befallen us as a nation that they did not attempt, with all their power and in every avail able wa, to bring upon us. Individuals fought us as individuals, States as States fought us, and if a State can commit treason each of the sinful 11 committed it again and again. They utterly subverted the governments of their States, they broke ever oath by which they had bound themselves to tie Union, they let go their hold upon the Union and attempted to destroy it. That was the tie that bound them to the Uhion? For example, whatmude Alabama a State of the Union? Read the history of that transaction. When she had formed a constitution for her selfin obedience to the law of Congress, when Congress had approved that constitution as republicanin form the following act was passed by the Congress of the U.S., approved by“ the President, December 14, 1819: remlced by the Sennte and HoRep of the U.S.: in Congren assembledT.hat the state of Alabamashall beone and is hereby declared to beone. of the U.S.A., and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original Statesin all respects whatsoever. Now, Alabama may violate a law of Cong ress, but she cannot annul it. She may break it, but she cannot make it void, except by successful revolution. I. By another law of Congress, approved April 20, 1820, it was declared“Thnt all the laws of the U.S. not locally inapplicable shall be extendedto the State of Ala bama, and shall havethe same force and effect within the sameas elsewherein the U.S. ” congress extended our judiciary system over Alabama, dividing the State into judicial districts; and since that time, ear by year, congress has been covering Ala aiua with Federal legislation as with a net work of steel. Has A abama broken all these bonds? She has done all she could the break away from the Union, but she has not been able to destroy or render invalid one law of the Republic. Alabama let go of the Union but the Union did not let go ofAlabama. Wyehave held her through 4 years of war, and we hold her still. When she tried to break the Federal bonds we called out millions of men in order that not one jot or tittle should pass from these laws, but that all should be fuliilled. Let the stars ofheaven illustrate our constellation of States. When God launched the planets upon their celestial pathway He bound them all by the resistless power of attraction to the cen tral sun, around which they revolved in their appointed orbits. Each may be swept by storms, may be riven by lightnings, may be rocked by earthquakes, may be devastate by all the terrestrial forces and overwhelmed in ruin, but far away in the everlastin depths the sovereign sun holds the turbulent pFanet in its place. This earth may be overwhelmed until the high hills are covered by the sea; it may tremble with earthquakes miles below the soil, but it must still revolve in its a pointed orbit. So Alabama may overwhelm all) her municipal institutions in ruin, but she cannot annul the omni otent decrees of the sovereign people of the nion. She must be held forever in her orbit of obe dience and duty.