Mr. SMITH (whose remarks will be published in the Appendix) next addressed the committee. He had not concluded his remarks, when, at the expiration of an hour, the hammer fell. Reconstruction. SPEECH OF HON. G. CLAY SMITH, January 19, 1866. The Housebeingin the ComWhole on the state of the Union. Mr. SMITH said: Mr. Chairman: I am apprised of the interest felt by the American people upon the subject of what is known as the “reconstruction of the States lately in rebellion." It is well that so Excess of much interest is felt, and that the country is fully alive to a proper settlement of those great questions upon which so much of our future eace and prosperity depends. “The price of iberty is eternal vigilance, ” was the wise and instructive sentiment of a great and good man of the Republic; and our iberties have been so nearly destroyed of late, requiring so much blood and treasure to maintain them, it well becomes us to act with caution, great deliberation, and “make haste slowly. We must, without criminution and recrimination, reason with one another, come to wise and just conclusions, if we can, that the greatest amount of hap iness, freedom, and peace may be secured in a l time to come to the greatest number of our people. The war is over; no more are armed forces marshaling the fields, contending in mortal combat, and increasin in blacker shades the sorrow and mourningo our homes; no more are we called upon to make heavy drafts upon the country to [ill the armies of the nation, no more to make heav appropriations of millions upon millions of dollars to cart on war. While it lasted, our countrymen lied around the flu, and were willing to give all that the Repubic might live; and future history will record in beautiful and everlasting words the sublime conduct of our citizen soldiers and our loyal men and women in that great struggle for liberty and human freedom. twas awful, severe, and sublimely terrific; the blood was made to grow cold in the veins as the lightning brought us tidings Of the bloody and continuous bulllcs of 40 days and 40 nights in the Wilderness; of Spottsylvauia, Chancellorsville, Gettysbur, Shiloh, Donel sou, Chickamanga, and 100 more of equal desperation. The heart sickened and many grew wear, but we knew for what we were fighting, too courage, and went on. We. whipped, we conquered; and today no armed rebel is in the field no one to resist the eu forcement of the law, the integrity or dignity of the Government. Our tactics are now to be cliun ed. We have done all we could with arms; the aw, principle, jlasiice, and right must command, and we must O e. Iywill be pardoned for making allusion to a few familiar points so well known to this House and the country, but they are necessary to my purpose, and will be important in the process of my argument. We denounced secession as a heresy, as unwarranted by the Colistitution, or any idea entertained by those who made it, or assisted in. the organization of the Government. We believed in and declared the right of co ercion; that is, the right to fight and whip and bring backto obediencethat portion of the insurrectionary people of the rebellious States. We believed that slavery was one of the great, indeed, the prime cause, of the rebellion, and that we had a right to remove that cause to prevent future irritation and trouble. We believed that this was intended to be a free Government, and one Government, with supreme and national powers overall its subjects, State and individua, and that no small or in different rtion of the people North or South had a rightto undertake its overthrow or de struction. Hence. for this and the other questions I have suggested, we went to war. If secession was a heresy, and there was no power under the Constitution for these States to withdraw from the Union and establish another and independent government, then the Government had a legal and moral right to do what I suggested in the 2nd place, to coerce those who attempted the secession or with drnwal. I hold to the position of the President, and one I have always maintained, thatno iSYalcis, or ever has been, out of the Union. It was impessible, under the organization and ideas of the character of this Government, for such a thing as a withdrawal of States from the Union as was attempted by the 11 southern Coin rnonwcalths, to occur, and such an attempt was madness on their part, and could do nothing else than invite resistance on our part. They asserted, we denied the principle. A war of words and ideas for 30 years had been an successful as to conclusion. upon this subject, and required a war of 4 years with arms to settle it, and it has been settled we hope for ever. It has been maintained by the one side that secession was wrong, that treason would be punished, and agreed and submitted to by the other. There is no one, Mr. Chairman, who has a more perfect nbhorrence of the crime of secession and treason, and the cruelties and Wrongs of those engaged in the late rebellion, than myself. I cannot recur to what has passed without I: shudder, and my heart is made to mourn when I look through the 4 years just past and bring to mind what our noble and daring soldiers bore on the field, in battle, in hos )itals and prisons. My mind wanders through the vast regions of this country where the clanking of arms was so lately heard, and I see all around 100s and 1,000s of new made graves; by each oueI would nose and drop a tear of sorrow and gratitu e, and a proper for the departed brave, and the loved ones left behind. l ask, why is all this misery, woe, and death? and every where, by the side of every grave, in sight of every prison, in full view of every gallows, and every place of death, the solemn and awful answer comes back to me, {herewasno cause I It was a cruel, wicked, and unholy war against the life of the Republic; and justice demands full and complete retribution, and the Government owes it to itselfto be true to its departed patriots, and teach all men of the nation that treason is a crime and must be punished. I am not here to defend but to condemn those who brought on and prosecuted that unholy war. I am not now, however, called upon to be judge or juror in the case of anyone man, or number of lending conspirators. It was my inclination and pleasure, during the war, to use my best efforts to suppress the rebellion, and while in Congress to vote for men and money to vigorously prosecute the war to a successful and peaceful termination. But, as I re marked a moment ago, the war is over; there is not an armed rebel in all the land; the armies of the rebellion have surrendered to the arms of the Union, and we have accomplished what we undertook to do, the overthrow of the rebellion and the prevention of a separate and independent southern confederacy. The opposition to the Government was large and power ful, composed of the greater proportion of the people in those 11 States; but, sir, I assert that there still remained, and are there now, a large number of good and loyal men who never of their own free choice abandoned their love of the Reyublic, or hated that flag the emblem of their and our liberties. I hold to the doctrine that whatever number of citizens, whether large or small, in anyone of those States, or all of them who had never given in to rebellion, and longedfor the appearance of the flag of their country, were entitled to, ought to have had, and, thank Godl did, receive after a long and desperate battle the protection of the Government, whereby they could reas sert their freedom, their social, religious, and political rights under the Constitution. These people lived in separate geographical territories called States. With municipallationsconforming. however, in every particreuguor to the national Constitution and laws: by force on the part of a portion of the inhabitants of these States the civil authority of the States was suspended as they related to or were controlled by tbe supreme law of the land. This suspension or interrution of national authority over these States for ouryears (during the war) has led some to the belief that they were out of the Union, and are out now, and not entitled to an of the rights of States as such in the Union. whiy, sir, we declared they were in the Union, and that Weintended to keepthemin the Union. 1866.] 49 new to runeonoanssronii. We foughtfour ycarsto keep them in the Union; and now that the war is over, and the jurisdiction of the national Constitution extends all over those States, and after so much sacrifice of blood and treasure, shall it he said, shall it be claimed by any truly loyal man that they are notin the Union, States, and States for all practical purposes a part of the nations life, body, and soul? Secession being wrong, unwarrantable, and violative of the Constitution, it seems strange to me that any Union man, especially a public man, one who has been in Longress, with a record all the way long, through five years past, directly and positively opposed to the doctrine, should now be found maintaining the position. When I came into Congress from the field, December, 1883, I found but one man in this Hall as I now remember, who in anywise favored theiden that the 11 southern States then in rebellion were a foreign power, an alien enemy, and out of the Union. That was the distinguished Gentfrom Pennsylvania, (Mr. Srsvsxs. I see no difference in his position to day from that held by him in the fall of 1863. But stran e, “passin strange” to me, there are othersoft at date, an those who were not members then, but now who seem to espouse his doctrine, and go hand in hand with him in the idea that these States are or were foreign pow ers, in war against the Government, and are now conquered provinces, and before they can get back into the Union must be remodeled. reno vated, madeover, and be admitted as new States, and not otherwise. I will, following the we ampleofa distinguished gentleman on this floor, inquire, what is a State? That is, what is aState as considered and recognized by the American people, within their own jurisdiction, and a State as understood and commented upon by distinguishedjurists and writers on international law? The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Snsnnansn on] quotes from Grotius these words: "The law, especiallythat of nations, is in theStato, asthesoul is in that of the humanbody; forthat [the soul]beingtaken away, it causesto hoa State." Now, I ask if this great writer, in framing thesewords, or this idgea, had in his mind the component parts of a nation, a Government, a State, or the whole State, Government, and justion? The words are true, and I adopt them, for they but too plainly meet my demands. The law, to the nation, the Government, the State, is precisely to that State, or nation, or Government just what the soul is to the human body. Destroy the soul, and the body dies. Destroy the law, the Constitution, and our Government, our nation, our State dies. But, I ask, have the Constitution or the laws been overthrown or destro d? Not at all. The Republic, the nation, the Government, the State, the Constitution, the laws, still live and survive in that very region lately in rebellion in those component parts of the Government which we chose to de nominate States. The same writer says upon this very subject, “A morbid body is still a body, and ya State, though dreadfully diseased, is still a political being.” As the human body may be great] and painfully diseased, and still live, althoug requiring many years of care, of treatment, and expense to bring it up again to a perfect stand er of health, vigor, and manhood, so may the body politic, the State, be diseased and live, and again, by proper nurture and judicious lelation, be brought up to perfect political hea th, power, and prosper 1?. But, sir, if we were to accept the position of the Gentfrom Ohio, Mr. Snuunaauosn] I will remind him that rotius declares “a State, though it may commit some act of aggression or injustice, does not thereby lose its political capacity.” The combinations of bad and lawless men, or communities, although they may overawe the ra mainder of the inhabitants, even the minority, do not become thereby a State, in that they effect the capaci of the State, by which all its political rights are orever destroyed, leaving themonly to be revived by the will and consent of the sovereign. Is it to be said or admitted at this late day that because a lawless, insurrectionary, and rebellious people, by force of arms, over ran, took possession of, and controlled the civil affairs of these States for a while, that therefore th are out of the Union, and they are as States obliterated from the listof states making up this great national Union? It is, I am sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, as serted that such is the fact, and that because of the very act of usurpation of power by the in surgents they cease to be entitled to Just consideration or representation as States. Let us see, sir, if the rule holds good in fact and as to the recognized action of Congress during the war. NCarolina was overrun her civil government changed by the rebels. SCarolina was occupied by armed force, resisting the laws and authority of the Government, and changed her civil government. Also Tennessee, the home oft O POTUS, and herlatvs and civil government were altered; and so with many other of the southern States. So, therefore, we must conclude that several States did so act as to become foreign Powers, and all their people belligerent! and public enemies; and the overthrow of the rebellious armed forces, by which these things were done, does not alter their political or civil status in any way whatever from that occupied by them during the war. Let us carry the example a little further, and see how the rule works. Kentucky was also overrun by a rebel army, and with the exception of 2 cities on the extreme northern bor der. the entire territory her capital, towns, cities, forts, arsenals, and people were under this very force, which hed the 11 other States. A rebel governor was inaugurated at the capital of the State a Legislature was convened in the State, an elected senators to the confederate congress; members were sent to the lower house of that congreks, and all Was done which they conceived necessary to make Kentucky one of their confederacy. Yet, sir, Kentucky has never been one moment without a representation in the Congress of the U.S. These acts of lawlessness were done contrary to the will of a large number of her citizens, and while they were comelled to submit, they never consented. Will it esaid, therefore. that Kentucky stands in the relation of a rebellions State to the Government, and not entitled to civil and political rights as a State of the Union? I presume not. Yet I will re mark that it was not the people of who drove the Kentucky rebels out ot that, State, by which she was enabled to resume her rightful auth0rity, but it was the army of the Union, the men who were commissioned to go forward with their guns and swords and restore the peace and unity of the nation; the very same army which followed Grant to Ridtmond, and brought Lee and his soldiers to a surrender; the same armv which followed Sherman in his “grand mare to the sea, ” and brought back into the fold of the Union the other 11 States, just as they did Kentucky in the beginning of their march upon the frontier of the rebellion. Likewise Missouri was overrun, and large portions of her territory were constantly in the possession of the enemy, and a rebel governor was using ever effort to make her a part and parcel of the conederacy. Maryland and Pennsylvania also and in Missouri, Kentucky, ary land, and even Pennsylvania, were found 100s and 1,000s of people who rejoiced at their coming and mourned with deepened sor row at their unhappy departure. But, sir these, States did not become public enemies of the Re I public, and yet there was a “ multitude of people united together" in each State “ by a common interest and common law, to which they l submitted with one accord.” Now, then, shall we say that these Stateslastmentioned are in the Union with all the rights and privileges belonging to any other State, and these other States, which were in somewhat. similar condition only differing as to time and number of people engulfed against the government, are not entitled also as States in the Union to privileges and rights which were guarantied by the national Constitution? Congresl will make a strange record if this question is not answered properly and to the effectthat no State has ever been out of the Union and could get out in but one of 2 ways: 1st, lwill say, by the consent of 3/4ths of the States, and 2nd ly, by a successful revolution for separate independence. I proeeed further sir, in maintenance of mysition, to recite the manner in which these States 0t into the Union and 1st to that of Kentuc, which was admitted by an act of congress approved February 4, 1791, which declares that Kentucky “ shall be received and admitted into this Union as a new and entire member of the U.S.A., ” and by an act of February 25, 1791, was allowed 2 representatives in Congress besides her 2 Senators. June 1, 1796, the following act was passed by Congress: Whereasby the acceptanceof the deed of cession of the state of NCarolina, Congress areboundto lay out into one or moreStates the territory thereby codedto the U.S.: "Be it IHIHINNI.(ha. That the whole of the territory ceded to the U.S.by the State of NCarolina shall beone State, and the same is herebyde claredmbe one of the U.S.0 I am erica, onan O mil footingwith the original Statesin all respects whiateVer by the nameand title at the state of Pen. essco. That, until the next generalcensus, thesaid State of Tennesscoshall be entitled to oneRepresent atlvo in the HoRepof the U.S.: and in all respects.as far as they may be applicable, the laws of the U.S shall extend to and haveforce in the State of Tennessee, in the snmtrmunnerasif that State hadoriginallybeeu one of the U.S. " The State of Louisiana was admitted as one of the States of the U.S., with all the privileges and rights of the other States, by an act approved April 8, 1812. So I go on with Ohio, admitted November 29, 1802; Indiana, December 11, 1816; Mississippi, December 10, 1817; Illinois, December 3, 1818 Alabama, December 14, 1819; Maine, March 15, 1820, Missouri, Au st. 10, 1821; Arkansas, June 15, 1836; Michigan, January 7, 1837; Florida, March 8, 1845; Texas, December 29, 1846; Iowa, December 28, 1846; Wisconsin, March 3, 1847; California, September J, 1850; minnesota, May 11, 1858; Oregon, February 14, 1859; Kansas, January 29, 1861; WestVirginia, December 27, 1562, and Nevada at the last session of Congress. There is an act for each one of these States similar in provisions to those l have already quoted and each and even one of those laws are on your statute book to ay untouched, not modified and not repealed. They are the law of the land, binding and absolutely compul sor so far as we or the people are concerned, an brand as false and utterly untenable the doctrine of State suicide or annihilation. lussert and declare most positively the truth fulness of the position assumed by some, but denied and booted at by others, “that once a State always a State;" and there is no authority or power which can prevent it being a State for all civil and political purposes, save in the 2 instances I before mentioned, by successful revolution or the consent of 3/4ths of the States. In support of what I have here assumed, let me call your attention to the action of Congress in the WestVirginia case. The Constitution eXpressly declares, article 4,section 3: "New Statesmaybe admitted by the Congress into this Union. but no new State shall be formed orderectedwithin the jurisdiction ofany other State, nor any Statebe forlned by the junction of 2 or more States, or parts of States, Withoutthe consent of the Legislaturesotthe States concerned as well asof the Congress.” WestVirginia was admitted, as I have observed, December 27, 1862. How and by what process? The Wheeling convention, which met 1mmediately after the ordinance of secession passed by the Richmond convention. adopted an ordinance August 20, 1861, providing or the formation of a new State out of a portion of the State of Virginia, and provided for the election of members of another convention to assemble, coming from those counties setapart to compose the new State, which met and adopted a constitution and other measures for the organization and establishment of the new State, which was approved bg the people on the 3d day of May, 1862. An act of the legislature of Virinia was passed May 13, 1862, consenting to the erection of a new State out of that portion of the State lying westward. including about half of the entire territory of the State; and an act was passed by Congress on the 18th day of December, 1862, providing for the admission of the State of WestVirginia upon the amendment of the constitution prohibiting slavery, which was done, and by a proclamation of the President became a State of the Union on an equal footingwith the other States. for the admission of this new State, a very interesting debate was held in this House. There were Representatives from both sections of the old State of Virginia. Those from Virginia among the most prominent, Mr. Segar, oppose the separation and establishment of this new State; but he found his opponents on the other sido, who out battled him and succeeded in their purpose. The question was raised, and fully and ably discussed, that the requirements of the Constitution had not been fulfilled: that the war and the occupancy of the State of Virginia by alar and powerful rebel. army had prevented the people of that State expressinga full and free opinion on the subject, and that the Legislature and conventions of Wheeling were not authorized to act. upon this point allow me to read from the speec of my distiished friendfrom Ohio, [Mr. BlNGlIAM] Speaking of the ordinance of secession and the rights of the people under the Constitution in the State of Virginia as a member of the Union, he declared th“e ordinance void and of no effect, and said: Thanh God! such is the wisdom.scope and effect of the Federal Constitution, that though linnd wins with hand to overthrow the rights of the loyal autnority in q State.the humblest itizen who is true to his foalty is securein his rights as a citizon of the federnl Republic under the Guarantees of the Constitution. derpile the conapiracu against him by the majority in his own State."