Mr. LeBlOND. Mr. Speaker, some days ago, after the honorable Gentfrom Maryland [Mr. Haunts] had concluded his very able speech in which he asserted the right. of secession and that the States lately in rebellion were out of the Union and required an enabling act before they could be represented in congross, I deemed it proper as a Democrat to repudiate the doctrine he enunciated. In doin so I said that the Democratic party differe from him as well as from the honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] and his coadiutors. I said substantially that we held, before, during and since the war, that a State once in the Union is always in, unless. the bonds were broken by successful revolution. On last Friday the honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Srsvss's] rose to a personal explanation growing out. of my remarks. It is difficult to determine whether the object of that explanation was to sugar coat his offensive doctrine that it might be more easily taken by the people, or to relieve himself of a surplus of venom against the President which had accumulated during his brief illness. If the latter, I trust he has found relief, without, I am sure, doing the least injury to the Executive; but if the tormer, then he has added one more testimonial to the truth that an error needs constant support to make it believed by the people, while truth carries with it its own conviction to the heart of every man. On the 4th of dccember, 1862, the Gentfrom Pennsylvania introduced into Congress a series of resolutions, the 1st of which reads as follows: “Remlced. That this Union must be and remain one and indivisible forever." It will be remembered that at that time all the States had passed their ordinances of secession, armies were organized, and battles had been fought. If, then, their "' declarations” carried them out, they were out before the honorable gentleman resolved that this Union “ must remain one and indivisible for ever.” If he meant that their acts of war carried them out. then I say that their armies had not been overthrown, and there were better reasons for saying that the Union was dissolved than to say it now when they are completely disarmed. The “Union must remain 'one and indirisible forever, ” said the distinguished gentleman; and now, when the rebellion is overthrown, he says that the Union is severed and shall so remain until the sovereign will of his party decrees otherwise. But the lilpnorable gentleman says in his explanation that “Because I have declared that the confederate Stateshadb the irncts and declarations placed themselvesoutsi o the Union (at our election)gentlemen have assertedthat it admitted the right of secession. He is a v crystupid man who cannot“discern petween the existence of a crime and its justification. Sir, if these States are out of the Union they are out b the force of their ordinances ofsecession, and, not by their acts of war, for in the latter they were finally unsuccessful. If out by their ordinances it must be because they had the reserved right to go out, and the Gentfrom Maryland [Mr. Haunts] and the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [MI Srsvsss] are right in asserting that they are out. A State acts through its representatives, and the representatives are circumscribed in their action by the constitution and laws of the State and the U.S. The State constitution and laws are at all times subordinate to the Constitution and laws of the Federal government. If then the representatives of these States exercised rightful authority in the passage of their ordinances of secession they are out by their declarations. But, sir, the party to which I have the honor to belong holds the converse of the proposition to be true. They had no authority to pass any ordinance of secession, and not having ny authority under the Federal Constitution or in the reserved rights of the States, those ordinances were a nullity, and leaves the Union, in the language of the Gentfrom Penu sylvania [Mr. S'rsvsxsfin his more patriotic days, “one and indivisible forever.” Buttho gentleman says “he is a very stupid man who cannot discern between the existence of a crime and its justification." I grant it, and he must be more than stupid who will day after day assert that a State, a corporation, a thing without a soul, without a mind, without locomotion, can commit a crime and must be punished. Treason is the highest of crimes in all Governments; but who except the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Srsvsxs] ever ‘heard of a State committing treason? Imagine the honorable gentleman acting as ajudge in the trial of the State of Virginia for treason. Grave, sedate, and dignified as he is, he sits upon the judicial bench surrounded by the sheriff, baililfs clerk, and a cordon of motley witnesses. Ife directs the sheriff to bring in the State of Virginia for trial upon an indictment for treason. How long, think you, Mr. Speaker, would the venerable judge wait for inanimate, soulless, speechless lfirginia to come before the bar of the court to plead to the indictment? All admit treason to be a crime; but it can only be committed by individuals, not by corporations, not by States. All those who voluntarily took part in the rebellion are guilty of treason, and may be indicted, tried, and convicted, and there are none so stupid as not to be able to discern between the existence of the crime in an individual and its justification. But he who can conceive the idea that a State can commit the overt act of treason can “ see what is not to be seen.” The idea that a State can commit trea son is an absurdity, and will require at the hands of the venerable Gentfrom Pennsylvania daily personal explanations. Now, sir, let us draw a nrallcl, and I have done. The onorable Gentfrom Maryland [Mr. HARRIS] says the southern States are out of the Union by the exercise of their reserved rights, and the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. S'rsvsxs] says they are out of the Union by their “acts” and “declarations.” The for mer says they have no right of representation, being out of the Union by virtue of the exercise of their reserved rights. The latter says they are out of the Union by their acts and declarations and are not entitled to representation. The former says that before t icy are entitled to representation they must be admitted into the Union. the latter says that they must be admitted into the Union by an enabling set before they are entitled to representation. I leave the public to determine the difference in effect, if any exist, between those 2 cutle men. We believe that the ordinances o secession were nullities, and that the States were never out of the Union. The laws of the federal Government were for a time suspended, but now the are enforced over every foot of territory an the people are entitled to imme diate representation. LEAVB OF ABSENCE.