Mr. LEBLOND. Mr. Speaker, the history of the country for the past 4 years is too well known to even justify a recapitulation as preliminary to the remarks I propose to submit. It is fraught with shame as well as glory, and may only be recalled to show the consistency of parties and men upon passing events. Some gentlemen recurto the bloody ast with apparent feelings of gratification, an recount the deeds of carnage as if every brave that fell brought joy but no grief. I would, ifl could, obliterate every event of the fearful struggle, and leave it a blank in the histor of a great people. It is true that that perio has brought to the surface men who without it would never have been known; but it has swept away a corresponding number who stood high in the confidence of the American people. What has been gained upon the one hand has been lost upon the other. For the purpose o removing the cause of irritation that chafes the feelings of one portion of our ieople, we could well afford to forego the glory claimed by the other portion as conquerors. Silence and magnanimity are the surest safeguards against a recurrence of acts that have proven unfortunate, whereas the taunts of the victor feed the spirit of discon tent, and fan it into new and more sanguinar outbreaks. The nation at this time needs sue wise and conciliator statesmanship as will establish its unity an restore its original pros perity. The task is Herculean, but it can be done, and well done; not by physical force, for that has done all that was required, and perhaps more than was necessary. It meta similar force, and overcame it; there it should end and statesmanship begin. Victors may tyraiinize over an inferior and imbecilcracc, but not over equals, not over any part of the American people who have been, in days gone by, associated with them in deeds of valor and acts of civil polity that have given glory and renown to the American name. Harsh and oppressive measures never heal the wounded spirit nor arouse the attachment that inspires patriotism, but fosters the rancor and nourishes the bitter hatred that sooner or later must promote the very evil against which such measures are aimed. The Fenian movement is an illustration of this truth, and furnishes an example for the statesman and food for the reflecting mind. From generation to generation this feeling is hands down, from sire to Bon, intensified by its transmission, till time and circumstances mature such events that the" oppressed With wings Swifter than meditation or the thoughts of love. May sweepto their revenge." Unity may be thus secured; but it is the delusive unity of force, the unity that ceases with the force itself. It is the conquerors union; the union of superior force; the union that compels the weak to submit to the strong; a union that requires strength, but does not give it the union of master and slave. This is no union laid in the interest or affection of a whole nation. The people are not vieing with each other for the common good. One put is struggling to neutralize the efforts of the other. Neither concord, strength, nor ros poiity are thus promoted: A people who have enjoyed the blessings of afree government, and know its advantages, cannot and will not long submit to the domination of the oppressor. “Equal and exacL jiistice to a 1 men” has ever been a cardinal principle in this Government, and one in which the people of all sections have been too thoroughly taught to tamely submit to injustice. The people thus taught will never be content with fewer privileges than their neighbors, and the wise statesman will see that no invidious distinction is drawn between different sections or different classes of the saine people in one common country. But it is claimed by many, too many, that war justifies radical and permanent changes in our social and political system. Conetitutions are suspended, if not destroyed; laws are but cobwebs; and great fundamental truths are, pending and after the war, mere fictions. For instance, a grave Senator, [Mr. SUM xna] who is the acknowledged leader of the present revolutionary party, and has attained that eminence by offering more revolutionary measures, and saying more for the colored man and less for the white man than any of his party, in a speech delivered in the Senate, asserted that “whatever was necessary to preserve the Government was constitutional. An infraction dfthe Constitution for the sake of the Union may be excusable on the ground of devotion; but he who would violate that instrument and claim the breach itself to be constitutional, is either a fanatic or amadman, and in either case a dangerous leader and a much worse constitutional lawyer. The same idea has been advanced upon this floor, and with great a arent sincerity, by one of my colleagues, GARFIELD] But this may be accounted or by the fact that the versatile gentleman in question made a specialityof the hicher law” in his younger days, and has since divided his time between martial law and politics; consequentlyhe is not expected to be very roficiciit in municipa1 or constitutional law. f this doctrine should attain in this Government, life, liberty, and property could have no guarantees for the future, and the whole form and theory of our political system would be as changeable as the seasons. What would be constitutional today would be unconstitutional tomorrow, if the party in power but will it. It is in fact a substitution of the will of an irresponsible majority for the written ConstitutIion. have alluded to this marvelous doctrine, not that I have any fears that the American people in time of profound eace Iwill ever indorse it, but as a specimen of the inanyhere sics of the day urged upon the people for sinister and party purposes. But if this were the only heresy emanating from high and responsible sources, it might be treated with indifference and passed over as an idiosynerasy; but, sir, they have become too numerous and of too uniform a tendency to go unnoticed by the American people. They tend to disunion and, worse than disunion, a total overthrow of our system of government. The time is most opportune to give success to such monstrosities. We are just emerging from a most fmrful and sanguinar struggle for nationality, which has left the pubic mind in a chaotic state with regard to the many newissues constantly arising; and gentlemen here, instead of being actuate by a high sense of duty to the Union and the whole nion, seem to forget that there is anything more of the Union than is represented here upon this floor, and that there is a higher and more binding allegiance than their alegiance to part; other duties to rform than hose for pure y partisan ends. while upon this subject let me recur to the able speech of the great head center of radicalism in this House, made in the 38 h Congress, where he says: “ Mandi!!! w my judgment they ought never to be recognized as capable of noting: in the Union, or being counted a svalid States, until the Constitution shall have beenso amendedas to secure perpetual mcend;, enc to the party of the Union. “I they should grant theright of suffrage to persons of color I think there would always be ninn white men enough in the South, aided by the blacks to divide the representationand thus continue the e publican ase endancy.” However much I may differ with the honor able gentleman in his revolutionary schemes, I cannot but admire his boldness (as I admire that of Catilinc) in asserting his doctrines. He adheres to his party with a zeal worthy of a bet ter.cause. Party is the Alpha and Omega with him, and all things else are but 2ndary considerations. Let us look at some of the doctrines enun iated by this gentleman, and follow them to their logical conclusions. On the 10th of March, in his great “ lioax” speech, he says: "I argued from this stiite of facts that the people and stateswithin the jurisdiction of the confederate government had severed their for inerconnception with the U.S and broken the ties which bound them together. Not justly or legally. but in fact; that the U.S. had conquered this formidable power and as their conqueror had a right to dispose of them astheydeemed or their own interest always duly regarding the law of nations." and in support of this theory he cites Vattel as follows: " CivilWar breaks the bandsof society and government." “They stand precisely in the same predicament as 2 nations who engage in a contest." The State is dissolved, and the war between the 2 parties stands on the same ground in every respect as a war between diEerent nations." and then says: “ Now, sir. this, without multiplying authorities. makes out my main substantive proposition, from which all the others are corollaries." He holds the connection of the southern States With the Union is severed, and that they are of necessity out of the Union; that they are subjugated provinces, and the conqueror may dispose of their territory and people as may be deemed proper; in short, that they have become Territories, and are to be treated as such, requiringan enabling act to bring them again in the Union as States. Now, let us seeif he has sustained his “ substantive reposition from which all the others are core lanes.” They all hinge upon the correctness or fallacy of his proposition, and if he fails upon this proposition all the others fall to the ground, of course, and it is useless to follow up his theory further. I call the attention of the gentleman to the point: Ideny that vattel has laid down the doctrine in the sense in which the gentleman has quoted him. Vattel uses the following language: “A civilWar breaks the bands of society and government, or at least suspendstheir force and c ect; it produces in the nation 2 independent parties, who consider each other as enemies, and acknowledge no common judge. Theso 2 arties mult therefora be consideredasthenceforwar constituting, at least foratinio.two separate bodies: 2 distinct societies. They stand, therefore.in precisely the same predicament as 2 nations who cameo in acontest and being unable to cometo an agreement have recourse to arms." I 0“ It will be observed that the lingieinan has only quoted so much as in his juayinent would made out his “substantive proposition, H and omitted the balance. Why he as done so is too aplparent. If he had quoted the paragraph in fu the public would see that Vattel held that the bands of society were either broken or suspended for a time. l suspended, then our position is vmdicated; but if broken, then his substantive proposition” is sustained, and the point is gained upon which he can defend his vicious and revolutionary measures, if international law is at all applicable where you have a written constitution that is supreme. Nowhere has Vattel asserted that civilWar absolutely dissolves the relation of the rebellious Statesto the Federal Union. The relations are only suspended “for a time, ” and so soon as the cause of the suspension is removed the former relations at once attac i. (And in this connection, let me say that Vattel died i, long before this Government was formed, and his law can only apply where there is no writ ten constitution in conflict with it.) such is the theory of the Constitution and such the declared policy of the Government at the beginning of the war and during its contin quance. The Constitution and laws follow our flag throughout the length and breadth of our domain, and as the contendin hosts are driven back the Constitution with al its guarantees gives protection to the person, property, and rights of the non-combatants with iin our lines. This theory is correct, just, and humane, and its effect most salutary. It preserves intact the unity of the States; it protects the liberty and property of the citizen wherever found; it encoura cs love of our institutions, and does away with t 10 complication and injustice consequent upon the theory of “ dead States.” By the theory of the gentleman, if a bare majority of the people of a State should resolve to resist the Federal authority, and should resist it. but for one day only, or even an hour, that State whose people thus resisted would be out of the Union or dead, and could not again be recognized as a State in the Union, till an enabling act was passed by Congress, giving it vitality. The idea that a mere attempt to revolutionize should forever destroy the preexisting relations of the States is hardly worthy of serious consideration and what is worse than all is that this loyal minority, which lacks but one of being a majority, should be taxed without representation, and legislated for without a voice in the laws they are required to obey. Mr. Speaker, it would be an easy task to prove by the “boys in blue, ” by men of all parties, by congressional enactment, that the sole object of the war was to preserve the Union and not to destry it; to enforce the laws, and not to abrogate them; to protect and defend the loyal, and not to subjugate them. It was to prevent the people of those States from doing what we are now told has been done from destroying the Union. 2 years ago, a man who had the boldness to assert the right of a State to withdraw from the Federal Union, would have been denounced by the whole abolition halanx as a traitor to his count. To even enounce the policy of the late resident was constructive treason butnow men can denounce the present Chief Executive as a traitor and a sympathizer with Davis, and even hold out inducements for his assassination, and that is loyalty to the Union. Who, sir, does not remember the day when a my then colleague (Mr. Long) made hiss eech upon this floor in favor of the right of the tales to withdraw from the Union, and in condem nation of the policy of the Administration? Itwas a scene long to be remembered. Our honorable Speaker with eager haste left his high position and came upon the floor for the purpose of preferring charges against my colon no, and demanded his eXpulsion from this Ha l and the House, I Will not say with indecent haste, but with unusual haste began his trial, which ended in his censure. What more, I ask, was claimed by my colleague as a right than is now asserted as an existing fact by those who were foremost in his censure? What a change has come over the spirit of their dreams. The insurrection is put down; the supremacy of the Federal authority is vindicated in every part of the territory in rebellion; the military power of the revolted race is overthrown, the hostile armies are disbanded, and their arms are in the hands of the victors; their soldiers have scattered to their homes, and are engaged in the peaceful avocations of life. The confederate government faded away with the dissolving armies, and each constituent State is now, organized, under Federal authority, and in full exercise of its functions as a State. The have elected their Senators and lic iicsentatives to Congress under Federal law, and are here now knocking at the door for admission. They are met at the threshold by the distinguished Gentfrom Pennsylvania, and told, “No, no: you are from dead States from Territories which are not entitled to representation till we give them life. You have torn your constitutional States into atoms, and built on their ruins fabrics of a totally different character. Dead men cannot raise themselves; dead States cannot restore their own existence as it was.” Mr. Speaker, imagine Hon. Mr. Stokes, of Tennessee, who periled his life in defense of the Union, with his colleagues, all of whom were elected under the Constitution and laws of the U.S., aiproaching the main entrance to this Hall, where they are met by Mr. Stevens, at the head of the Sliellabargers Aslileys, Conklings, and all the NewEngland del“eation, and denied admission. ut, " they say, “we are loyal, and have been elected by the qualified electors of our State, and are entitle to our seats under the Constitution.” Ouivenerable friend replies that there is no suc“h State in this Union. “ What has become of it?" It is dead dead by the attempt to secede, as my Vattel says.” “But we were told that the war was to preserve the Union and enforce the laws; and Mr“. Lincoln said: Lest thereshould bosomeuneasinessin the minds of candid men as to what is to be the courseof the Government toward the southern States after the rebellion shall have beensup resse d, the Executive deemsit proper to say it will O his purposethan, us ever.rto heguided by the Constitution and laws. lIc desires to rese rvo the government that it may be administers for all us it was administered by the menwhomadeit. Loyal citizensevery where have a right to claim this of the Government, and the Government has no right to withhold or neglectit. “And we believed him, and fought under the stars and stripes for that purpose." “The war is now over, and things have changed since then." “But not to change our rights, and we will ent“er.” Back, back! have no rights." “Then all our devotion to the Union but makes us alien enemies and the loss of blood and “ treasureto save the iiion is nseless waste.” Be quiet, gentlemen, be quiet. We can only thus continue the Republican ase endency." This colloquy, Mr. Speaker, is but a recapitulation of what, has already transpired, and yet the chief actors in this scene claim to be loyal, and stigmatize those who are for the Union, and the whole Union, as sympathizers with rebels disiiiiionists. What, sir, is more ridiculous, what more unjust, what more antiAmerican? Judge, soldiers, for what you fought union or disunion. Mr. Speaker, I now propose to show that the true theory upon this subject is not to be found in Vattel or any other author upon international law, but in thatgreat American authority, the Constitution, which is paramount to all law. It is the rock ii on which our Government rests, and the government is a model vgithout a parallel. Mr. Madison has truly said that i s "The compound Government of the U.S. wrgijout a.model, and to be explained by itself, not by n litudes or analogies." In that instrument is found the power of preservation of: the Government, without doing violence to a gingilq State, or resorting to international law. I maintain now, as inwlormer speech upon this floor, that a State once.l" thls Union is always in except by successfulrenllmionAnd when I assert that as a fundamentalI Prlndple in our Government, I only reiterate “that was the almost unquestioned doctrine of and the people of the adhering Statesoasis “ess i am aware that the people of the rebellio States: together with the nbolitionists oft 9 North, claimed the right of nullilication and s eel ism"? You are alien enemies, and apt the unanimity with which the Nor t resisted reattempt must forever settle thatquestion. our organic law had not provided remedy Y l whereby an insurrection or rebellion might be put down and the unity of the States preserved, then I admit that we would have to resort to the publicists to determine how far revolution af ected the relation of the State to the F federal Government. We need not look further than the Constitution to find ample power vested in the Federal Government to repel invasion, foreign or domestic, and to suppress insurrection or rebellion. Section 8, article 1, provides that Congress shall have power “ to raise and support armies, ” and “to provide and maintain a navy.” Under this powerwe raise our standing Army and maintain our Navy, among other things, to repel foreign invasion and protect our commerce on the high seas. This poweris all that is necessary in ordinary times and upon ordinary occasions. But in the same article and section is to be found this further ant: “Con gress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, supress insurrection, and repel invasion.” T as is a power coded by the States to the Federal Government for the purpose of enabling it to enforce and execute its laws over the people of each and every State of the Union, to suppress insurrection whenever and wherever it mig it arise, and to repel invasion from whatever source it might come. I hope it will not be thought discourteous in me or in an manner reflecting upon the wisdom of this flouse, to say that the framers of that Constitution evinced more wisdom and foresight than is justly attributable to this House. They foresaw the events we have just passed through nearly 3 quarters of a century in advance, and clothed Congress and the Federal head with ample and complete power to suppress the most gi ntic insurrection known to the civilized worl. If this grant of power means anything it is that the status of the States in the Federal Union shall forever be preserved and this extensive power is given to compel submission by the people of the States to the Constitution and aws. This provision has direct reference to the States; or no one will contend that the people of one Government can rebel against another and this power, above all others, is the most essential to preserve our nationality; for without it there is no warrant to enforce the laws over any State or part of a.State where they refuse to obey. It is in fact the cohesive power of the Government. But, sir, while you find ample power to create, protect, and preserve a State, there is none to destroy or unmake, and he who searches will search in rain. You will also find that States are created out of Territories; but Territories out of States, never. We see, too, that the Constitution contemplates the possibility of rebellion or insurrection, but nowhere is it provided that thereby the State whose people are in rebellion shall lose its identity as a State in the Union and become a, ferritory. such a provision would have defeated the plain intent and object of the Constitution, e purpose for which the States united them on and delegated this authority to keep thei ither as a family, as a nation, by which weiare destined to become great among the nations of the earth, and without which we would be weak and contemptible. If this is not the object of that provision of the Constitution, then this power is worse than useless. Mr. Speaker, as another argument that the rebellious States are out of the Union, and the people thereof not entitled to representation it is said that belligerent rights were accorded to them. Now, sir, the Constitution bein silent upon this subject, such a measure would be dictated by humanity itself in order to soften the hor rors of war, which are in their mildest form appallin. In this connection it is only to be regrette that we had then and still have at the head of the War Dept a Nero, who, cruel as the dogs of Corinth, gor ed upon human flesh and gore; who icfus to carry H out the cartel and save the lives of the 1000s and tens of 1,000s who were perishing at A ndersonville. At all times during the war it was the declared policy of the Government that it waged no war of conquest or subyugation; that its sole object was the maintenance of the Union, the preservation of the Constitution, and the enforcement of the laws. So said Congress; so said Mr. Lincoln in his messages and lamations groc; and so said the present hief Executive on the 13th June, in his proclamation declaring the insurrection in the State of Tennessee to be ended and again, in his proclamation of the 2d April, 1866, where he says: “And whereas the HoRep, on the 22dday of July, 186la, dopted a resolution in words followmg, namely: “Resolved, by the HoRep of the Gmgren of the U.S., That the present de plornblo civilWar has been forced upon. the country by the disunionists of the southern tates. now in revolt against the constitutionalGovernment, and in arms around the Capgtol; that in this national emergencyCongress, banishing ull feelings of more passionor resentment will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged on our part in any spirit of oppression. nor for any purpose ofconquest or subjugation, nor purpose ofover throwing or interfering With the rights or established institutions of those states, but to maintain and de fend the su reniacy of the Constitution: and to proserve the nion with all its dignity equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soonasthoseobjectsare accomplished, the war ought to cease. “And whereas the Senate of the U.S. on the 23thday of July. 186la, dopteda resolution in the words following. to wit: Rewlved, That the presentdeplorable civilWar has beenforcedupon the country by the disunionists of the southern States.now in revolt.against the constitutional Government, and in armsaround the Cap itol; that in this national emergency, Congress.han ishing all feeling of more passion or resentment.will recollectonly its dut to the wlJOlQfQllnllY: that this war is not prosecute on our part in any spirit of oppression, nor tor any purpose oftion, conquestor subjuga nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or establishedinstitutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws madein pursuance thereof and topreservethe Union Withall the dignily, equality, and rights of the severalStatesuiiiin aired: that as soon as these objects are accomplised the war ought to cease. "And whereas these resolntions, thoughnoticin t or concurrent in form. are substantially identical, and as such may bercgnrded as haviag expressed those nse of Congressupon the subjectto which they relate: "And whereas by my proclamation of the 13thday ofJunc last the insurrection in the State of Tennessee wasdeclared to have been suppressed.the authority of the U.S. thereinto benndisputed, and such U.S. officersashad beenduly coin missionedto be in the undisputed exercise of their official functions; and whereas there now exists no organizedarmedresistanceof misguided citisens or othersto the authority of the U.S., in the States of Georgia. SCarolina: Virginia NCarolina, Tennessee. Alabama. Louisiana. Ar ansas. Mississippi and Florida and the laws can be sustaauitnheodr itayn, d Stactnefoorrcc Fdedtehrearle, ianndbythtehe people of saidl Statesare well and loyally disposed, and have conformed or will conform in their legislation to the condition of within srowincout of the Bmflll(lmol 1l l0 the Constitution of the U.S. prohibiting slaveryWithin the limits and jurisdiction of the U.S.; and whereas, in view of the beforerecited premises, it is the manifest determination of the American people that no State. of its own Will. has the right or the power to go out of or separateitself from or beseparated from the Anicrican Union and that therefore each State ought to remain and constitute an integral part of the U.S. " Both Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Johnson have at all times been uniform in their messages and roclamations in trentingthose States as States in the Union, and the people only in revolt. They have at ll times considered the war as being waged or the sole porpose of putting down the rebellion and enforcing the laws. This idea pervaded every Dept of government u to a very recent period, and none understood it more, perfectly than the Army and Navy, with the ir Ommttlldeirlll Clllel, the President. Ever battle fought, every city taken, was for that purpose and no other. Grant, Sherman, Thomas, and Farragut, speakingin the name and by the authority of the Commander inChief, everywhere asserted it; but none more eloquently, accuratcl r, and constitutionall than did the gallant Farragut in his deman: for the surrender of NewOrleans, addressed to the mayor of that city, as follows: “I camehere to reduce NewOrleans to obedience to the laws and to vindicate the offendedmajesty of the Government. The rights of personsand property shall besecured. I thereforedemand the unqua ified surrenderof the city and that the emblem of sovereigntyof the U.S. hehoisted upon the city hall. mint, and customhouse, by meridian this day and all emblemsof sovereigntyother than those of the U.S. must be removed from all public buildings from that hour." The Army carried out in good faith what had been the declared policy of the Government and the American people, and what alone could be their mission under the Constitution and laws of Congress. Congress passed sundry laws and resolutions defining the status of the States and the attitude of the General Government; and in none have they treated the States as out of the Union, or the inhabitants as alien enemies. The very 1st act passed which authorized the President to proc aim rebellion treated the States as States In the Union: "Then and in such caseit may and shall be lawful for the President by proclamation to declare that the inhabitants of such State or States, or any section or part thereof where such insurrection exists, are in a state of insurrection against the U.S and thereupon all commercial intercourse by and between the same and the citizens thereof, and the citisens of the rest of the U.S shall cease and beunlaw {nL sonlong as such condition of hostility shall conlane. The act of June 7, 1862, which prevides for the purchasing of lands sold for taxes in insurrectionary districts, uses this language: “Until the said rebellion and insurrection in said Stateshall beput down, and the civil authority of the U.S. established, and until the people of said State shall elect a Legislature and State officers, who shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the U.S. to be announcedby the proclamation of the President." By the act of March, 1862, apportioning Representatives among the several States, the southern States are treated precisely as the northern States, having each its due share of representation allotted toit and these precedents may be multiplied to an indefinite extent. Till the present session of Congress assembled, after the rebellion vanished, all our legislation looked to but one result, the restoration of the Union as it was. But, sir, why argue these propositions 7 They are among the cardinal principles of this government, thoroughly understood, and always carried out, except when personal interest, partisan feeling, or spoils of Office intervene. While the booming of hostile guns rattled the windows of the very Capitol, and the dome itself tre"mbled at The mufiled trend of 1,000s, " none could be found on that side of the House who was not willing to sacrifice even the constitution to preserve the Union, enforce the laws, and restore peace and tranquility. But now, when the dread legions of the South are driven back, decimated and crushed, when the clash of arms echoes faintly through the vista of time, now, when the triumph of the Union is complete for the 1st time, the doctrine of dead States, dissevered Union, nlien enemies, subjngated province s, and enabling acts is gravely advanced and considered. Vattcl, Grotius, and Rutherford have hitherto been but ornaments to the well furnished law library, or used only to teach the student the principlea that govern separate nations in their intercourse. But now these tprimitive authorities are brought forward an perverted to displace and overthrow the organic law of the land, the fundamental principles of the Government and where these authors, misquoted, misconstrued, and misapplied, fail to furnish a pretext, and where the violation of the Constitution is too flagrant, you can see the Jacobins viejng with one other to gain the Speakers recognition, to introduce some constitutional amendment deifying the negro at the expense of the white man: This spirit has already bmught before the American congress upwards of 37 proposed constitutional amendments, and quite as many bills, all tending to the same end, and yet the come. Where shall this Jacobmism cease? When shall party fealty yield to country and constitutional liberty? Time, the great disposer of events, a wise, just, and magnanimous people, and an overruling Providence must determine. FINANCIAL POLICY 0! THE COUNTRY.