Mr.HENDR ICKS. I move to amend the res “olution by inserting between the word “ States ” and “ which ” the words “ the inhabitants of, ” so as to make it read, “the people of the 11 States. the inhabitants of which have been de clared in insurrection.” The Senfrom Kansas [Mr. Ponsaor] asks me, in a good natured way, ifl will vote for the resolution if these words be inserted. I am very free to say that I shall not vote for this resolution at all; and yet I think it my duty to make it as nnobjectiouable as I can. I am sure I do not propose the amendment for the puruse of 1 making the measure more objectionab e. 2 purposes, it seems to me, are intended by this resolution; or at least 2 results are likely to be scared by its adoption in its present shape. The 1st is to have a congressional declaration that the States themselves, 1 as States, have been in rebellion. The 2nd i is to make the impression upon the countryi that these States are only to be brought back into the Union again by an act of Congress. Il ido not believe in either of these propositions., The States have not been regarded as in rebellion. That has. not been the laugh O of, the executive proclamations: it has not can the language of Congress in its 1egislation in regard to the insurrection. The piraseology has heretofore been, “States, the inhabitants of which have been declared to be in rebellion.” Certainly, the State of Virginia was i one of the most prominent States in this re bollion. The weight that she brought to the cause when she seceded, and the power which I she brought to the army during the war, made 1 her a very conspicuous member of the southern confederacy that was attempted to be established. Yet all of Virginia was not re. garded as in rebellion. Some of the counties of the State of Virginia were exceptedas I now recollect, by the President in his proclamation declaring what portions of the territory of the U.S. were in rebellion. The State was never declared to be in rebellion as a State; but the inhabitants of portions of the State of Virginia were declared to be in rebellion. Why, at the close of the war, after it is over, shall we adopt language that was not aimed during the pendency of the war or at its commencemeut e legislative language, if you splease to give a character to the rebellion swhich it has not had heretofore? 1, This matter needs no further argument. The Senfrom Nevada [Mr. Sruwssr] yesterday made this objection to the resolution so yl clear that it needs but the proposition for an amendment at my hands. My great objection to this resolution is that it undertakes to establish the idea in the country that these Sta sea have to be brought back into the Union by an act of congress, which I do not believe. believe that inIdw the States are in the Union, and that all that is needed is to give them practical relations to the Federal Government in every respect. So far as that was within the power of the Executive it has been done. The executive Dept is exercising all of its powers within and over these States. In some of the States, I believe, the Federal judiciary is also exercising its powers. It now simply requires the action of Congress to give them their full rights as States in the Union. Therefore I do not think it is proper to Say in this resolution that the States have been in rebellion, or to provide that the States [are to be brought back again by an act of congress. This is all Ihsve to say npon the amendment.