Mr. ERR. Mr. Speaker, it is surely safe to assume that our country has known no hour, since the o anization and establishment of our matchlcss form of Government, when its circumstances demanded in its Representatives a higher order of statesmanship, or a more unselfish devotion to those great principles of our system which stand like beaconlights against dangerous boundaries, inviting the embarrassed manner to safer paths. Desiring to keep these lights in view, and confessing with sincere car nestness my lack ofboth ability and experience, I beg leave to submit a few reflections upon some of the solemn questions that demand nppropriate action at our hands and I shall endeavor to do this in a spirit unshaded by the impulses of partisan feelings. The true relations of the several States to the Union have always presented problems of great interest and considerable difficulty for determi nation by one or another of the Depts of the Government. But now for the 1st time we are compelled to confront questions resulting from the temporary suspension of the constitutional relations between the U.S and some of the States. This suspension was the result of a state of war between the legitimate Government and the States thatattempted to secede therefrom. It is conceded by most men, and is declared by the highest judicial tribunal in the Union, that during that state of war the respective parties toit sustained to each other the relations of belligerents. At the threshold, therefore, it becomes material to in guire what is meant by a state of belligerency. 11its primary signification, it means a state of war. It implies an issue, asserted on the one side and denied on the other, and submitted for decision to the solemn arbitrament of arms. The recognition of the existence of war, the tacit or express admission of belligerent rights by the legitimate Government, concedes nothing inconsistent with its claim of sovereignty over the revolted people and territory. It oes not even concede the existence of a Government defacto. But if it did, it would not at all impair the force of my argument, because the very term defacto implies a spurious Government, without rightful existence, as contra distinguished from a Government dejars, of right, or having rightful existence. It simply admits the verity of existing facts; and thereupon certain wellestablished principles of international law and the laws of war become operative between the contestants. to limit their rights and powers pending the strife, and regulate the manner of conduct in the bloody arbitration. It involves no admission of separate nationalit or independence to the revolted States. On the contrary, it is the most solemn denial of all such claims. Nationality or independence is the very issue to be tried, and for the rightful Government to admit it would be worse than absurd, and suicidal. These belligerent rivhts are recognized of necessit in the interest of civilization and humanity. I or without them would be such a mode of mutual destruction and carnage as has not disgraced any civilized nation for many centuries. Var is that abnormal, convulsive condition of society, the culmination of human passions, which snatches the scepter from the hand of civil power, and substitutes for a time the laws of force for those of reason and choice. But, in the wise providence of God, the desire of selfpreservation ultimately subordinates to itself the impulse for mutual destruction, and war becomes a tem orary condition; and all its usages, rules, and laws, are likewise temporary. By Governments, maintained for the aggrandizement of the rulers, war may be prosecuted to destroy, and conquest and indiscriminate confiscation or appropriation of property may be the results. at in Governments based upon the will of the people, and administered in the interest of republican liberty, war is prosecuted by the legitimate Government, not to destroy nor for conquest, but to protect and preserve; not to deny, but to maintain and support the right of selfgovernment; not to consolidate or centralize power, but to maintain and enforce the law; not to take the lives of States, but to preserve them, 1 with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired.” These principles have always been avowed and never repudiated by the organs ofour Government during the lato war. They are also approved and promulgated by the most respectable writers on such subjects. The only righteous end of any war is just and honorable peace, and, in such a Government as ours, if war become necessary to suppress insurrection or rebellion, its ultimate purpose cannot be enlarged beyond that of a national war. It is limited to the vindication of the rightful authority of the Government. Its office is done when obedience to the law is secured, for such obedience is the highest aim of war; stub obedience is peace. It. indicates a confusion of ideas to speak of a number of people or a State in rebellion, as an independent belligerent. It is an inversion of the order of cause and effect. Independence is the result for the attainment ofwhic the rebels have assumed an attitude of belligerency. But belligerency is not independence, and is never alloivedto determine the civil relations of States. The only code established by belligerency is that which regulates the conduct of war. It ceases to have any field of jurisdiction as soon as war ends and peace begins. When the temple of war is closed, the code of war is sealed and laid aside to await the renewal of human strife. The learned annotator of our greatest text book on international law, Mr. Lawrence, says: “The reco ition of belligerent rights in a colony or portion o a State in revolt from or opposition to the metropolis is not to be confounded with the acknowledgment of the absolute indeiondence of, suoh province or colony.” Wheaten, Meniatimial w, D. Judge Sprague, of Massachusetts, one of our most upright and learned Federal prize in his judges, opinion in the case of the Amy “ar wick, illustrates the same idea in the following“ clear and forcible language: It has been so posed that if the Government have the rights of n. bel igerent then. after the rebellion is suppressed. it will have the rights of conquest; that a State and its inhabitants may be permanently divested of all political privileges and treatedas foreign territory acquired by arm. This is an error. a grave and dan crous error. Belltflffml rtghln cannot be exercise wherethereflrBno belligerenls. Cpnquest of a foreign country gives absolute and unlimited sovereign rights. Butpo nation evermakcs such a conquest of its own territory. If a hostile power, either from million! or million, nation. takes possession and holds absolute dominion over any portion of its territory, and the nation, by force of arms. expels or overthrows tho c nem and suppresses hostilities, it acquiresno newtitle. but merely regains ths possession of which, it had been temporaril, deprived. The nation acquires no pew sovereignt. but merely maintains its previous rights. "Law eporter, June, 2. p. 498. President Woolsey of Yale colle e, in his work on international law, publishe in 1864, at page 231, uses the followmg Just expres SlOllSZ “The same rules of war are required in such a war [ciwl war] asin any other: the somewaysof fighting. the same treatment of prisoners, of combatants. of non-combatants and of private property by the army where it passes; so also natural llSllCOdemands the sameveracity and faithfulness which are bindin in the intercourse of all moral beings. Nations t us treating rebels. by no means concede thereby that they form a State, or that the are de faclo such. There is a difference between belligerents and belligerent States which has been too much overlooked.” Every just conclusion or inference of law arisingout of the opinion of Justice Grier, in the prize cases in 2 lacks Reports, is in exact harmony with these authorities. The court in these cases merely recognizes the fact that a state of war exists, and has been declared to exist by the executive Dept of the Government, and thence rightfully deduces the right of the Government to resort to a blockade as a means of warfare, and to make prizes of vessels that attempt, after due notice, to disre gard that blockade. The judge says: "The laws of war, as established among nations, havetheir foundation r nreason, and all tend to miti gate the cruelties and miseries produced by the scourge ofwur. Hence the iarties to a civilWar usual] concede to each other belligerent rights. They exchange prisoners, and adopt the other courtosies and rules commonto publicpr national wars.” “By the Constitution Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declan war against a State, or my] number of Slater, by 03mmof any claimsm Ilie constitution. The Constitution conforson the President the whole executive soilwlifeur. llyHeexiescubtoeudn. ”d to take care that the laws be "It is not necessary that the independenceof the revolted pl0V lI!06or State be acknpwledged in order to constitute it a partybelli erentin aivar according to the law anatomy219g: I Rmrta, pp. 668, m. He also says that in or nizing the rebellion the seceding States acte as States, claiming to be sovereign over all persons and property within their respective limits, and asserting a right to absolve their citizens from their superior allegiance to the Federal Government, and that their right to do so was then being decided by wager of battle. But that we er has been decided against them, and the right is therefore denied. Judge Grier says that Congress has no constitutional right to declare war against an State or States of the Union. Unless the U.S. is a confederation of States, as contra distinguished from a general government formed by the people of all the States, and unless each State in the confederation is an independent nation, then his position is logical and undeni able. No Government can declare war against its own subjects. Its whole duty is to enforce submission and obedience to law and to its rightful supremacy. The dut of the Executive is to see that the laws be bhaithfully executed, and of Congress to give him ever needed and rightful facility for the accomplishment of that end; and if in the prosecution thereof a state of war ensue, and belligerency be recognized as resulting therefrom, then the Executive and Congress are certainly at liberty to resort to all the means rendered necessary or expedient and lawful by those conditions. But the moment the resistance to the law is over come, and its supremacy is recognized and obe dience restored on the part of the rebels, the former relations between the U.S and the States which had attempted to secede survive and become operative again. In the language of Judge Sprague: “The nation acquires no new sovereignty but merely maintains its previous rights. "land any other theory would be “agrnve and dangerous error. “Under our Governmeutthe right of sovereignty over any portion of a State is given and limited by the constitution and will be the same after the warusit was before it.” But the relations of the people lately in arms, in rebellion against the Government, would be quite another thing. The punishments of violated duty and outraged law would continue suspended over them individually which must he suffered in their bodies or estates, or both, unless they are relieved therefrom by the clemency of the Executive or the Government. These questions, however, I do not propose now to discuss. If the country accepm the theory of the honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS] and others on this floor and elsewhere of like opinions with him, that the people and States of the South actually succeeded by their rebellion in effecting in legal contemplation such a complete severance of their former constitutional relations to the Federal Government as that, upon the suppression of their wicked rebellion those relations do not survive and become operative again, then it should also accept the logical and lawful results of that theory, the “radical consequences" so much deprecated by Judge Sprague. What are those results? They may be briefly stated to be: 1. That the war was not prosecuted for the restoration of the Union, or to the end that the seceding States might survive the conflict as members of the Union, but in fact was rose cuterl for the conquest of independent States, notwithstanding the almost dai y repeated declarations of our Government to the contrary, addressed to the people of the whole country, both North and Sout i, and to foreign nations, and made in the most solemn forms of executive messages and proclamations, laws of congress, and military proclamations and orders, from the commencement of the war to this present hour, including the proclamation of the SecyState announcing the abolition of slavery by constitutional amendment adopted by 3/4ths of all the States. 2. That those constitutional relations having been completely severed, secession then became an accomplished fact, and the socalled confederate States an independent nation, and their citizens aliens and foreigners, not rebels and traitors liable to be punished under the municipal law for their crimes, and the Federal Government did not suppress the rebellion but conquered the confederate States, and now holds them as conquered territory, subject to the absolute control and disposition of the U.S., uncontrolled by any laws or coustitutions. 3. That secession having become an accomplished fact, the confederate States became a nation, and therefore possessed the right and power inherent in every nation to contract debts which are valid and binding upon its people, and as the conquest of one nation by unother does not cancel the debts of the conquered nation, the public debts of the confederate States, and of the several States in the confederac became the debts of the U.S., an so far as they are held by the citizens of foreign nations, they cannot be repudiated by the U.S. without dishonor and giving cause of war. Mr. Wheatou says that, in case of conquest of one nation by an other: As to public debts, whether ducto or from the revolutionized State. amere clinii c in the form of Government or in the personof the ruler does not affect their obligation. [he debts being contracted in the name of the State, by its authorized agents, for its public use, the nation continueshable for them. not withstanding the change in its internal constitution. The newGovernmentsucceeds to the fiscal rights and is bound to fulfill the fiscal obligations of the former government. It becomesentitled to the public domain and other property of the State and is bound to pay its debts previously contracted. ”lVhcalonaInter national Law, p. 52. The country cannot accept theories hearing such fruits as these; it will prefer to hold fast to the better doctrines of the late President on this subject, and of every Dept and otheer of the Government heretofore, and of Congress as declared in its numerous resolutions deelar atory of the purposes of the war, and of every officer and soldier in the Army and Navy of the U.S., and of the present Executive all based upon the principle that the seceding States were never, in fact or law, out of the Union, but only engaged in a treasonable and sauguinary but unsuccessful effort to get out. The rebels said, in their madness, that they had in fact severed their relations and obligations to the Federal Government, but the latter ucver admitted such a result, but claimed, on the contrary, that they had in truth only succeeded in taking their lte Representatives out of Congress and making a by goody war in a cruel and wicked attempt to establish their independence of the Union. Congress during the war never ceased to treat them as States in the Union. It enacted laws which try their terms embraced all the States in rebellion. It apportioned Representatives to all the States by their respective names on the basis of the census of 1860. It levied direct taxes upon all the States by name whether in rebellion or not. All its general laws are designed to operate alike in all the States. Its system ofinternalreveriue apliesi alike to all the States, and it has neirer been admitted or holden that the failure to use the prescribed stamps in the rebellious States was not attended with the same legal results there as in the loyal States. In all our intercourse with foreign nations the rebellious States have been claimed to be in the Union. subject to its laws, and, when they would abandon resistance thereto and return to their obedience, entitled to its benefits and to resume all their civil and political relations with it. These relations were only suspended for the time bein by the existing state of war. The pretende government called the “confederate States” had no legal existence; it was a myth, a dream, never vitalized, never realized. It was not that governmentthat we were fighting, but the actual, living, and material obstacles in the sha e of armies and all the enginery of war, which were interposed by the people of the rebel States between us and the enforcement of the laws. This doctrine was never supposed to lead to the absurd conclusion that all the rebel armies were mere bands of organized murderers, until it became the design of some in the country to prevent the restoration of the Union, to the e nd that they might the better gratify a thirst for canoe and impose conditions inadmissible under any correct theory of the contest, and secure certain partisan advantages in the countrty. When resistance to the rightful authority o government becomes the joint act of great numbers of persons, and assumes the forms and instruments of war, and can only be overcome by the use of the like forms and instruments, it should be treated as war, and, by the common consent of civilized nations an of approved writers on the laws of nations and of war, it is so treated. Let one citation on this point suffice. Vuttel says: “Whenever. therefore, a numerous body of men think they have a right to resist the sovereign, and feel themselvesin a condition ton pool to the sword, the war oughtto be carried on by tge contonding parties in thesamemanner as by 2 different nations.” He admits, however, that “A rince. of acrucl and arbitrary disposition. will immediatcl pronounce that the lawsof war werenot madefor reols, for whom no punishment can be too severe.” But he invokes an appeal tomore sober reason, and says we should “ Recolloct that all of tho sovereigns rights arede rived from thoseof the Stateor of civil society. from the trust proposed in him. from the obligation he lies under of watching over the welfare of the nation. of rocuring her greatesth upiness. of maintainiu or ELJUSUQC, d pound. in her boundaries.” at kl, pp. 4. The teachings of public law are therefore in harmony with the true interpretation and the requirements of our constitution. The obligations and duties of the Federal and State Governments in all their relations to each other are reciprocal, and the neglect of them by the one does not relieve the other from its duty to observe them. Indeed, throughout the whole contest no other motive principle was ever uppealed to or avowed on our part but the desire to meet and discharge these obligations and duties. The views of Judge Sprague and of Vattcl, although written under widely different circumstances and in different ages, could not well have been made more applicable to the condition of our country. The force of these principles cannot be impaired by any funcifu definitions of the word State, either in its general or constitutional sense. Some attempts of that kind, with which this House has been entertained, have exhib ited more cunning than candor. it is assumed by the honorable Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SHELLADARGER] that a State “is a multitude of people united together by a common interest an common laws, to which they submit with one accord.” This definition is noted from Burlamaqui, and was written by him in reference to nations generally, and is now made to define a State in this Union. What does this definition require? Does it require that every citizen of each State shall submit “with one accord” to the laws of that State, and that his disobedience shall cause the destruction of the State? Ifso, how long could any State on earth exist? If the perpetuity of States is thus at the mercy of every citizen, it would require a political millennium to preserve it. Does it mean that the disobedience of the Federal laws by any citizens of a State, or even by the Legislature of a State, works the destruction of such State, or severs its relations to the Union? If so. Our Federal Government is indeed a rope of sand. It lacks the 1st element of the power of selfpreservntion the right to treat every act of its citizens, or of its component States, designed to sever their obligations to it, as void and of no effect and its existence is maintained by a feeble thread. If this definition is to be accepted as acanon of constitutional construction. then it must be conceded that many of the now “loyal” States have often been out of their properrelations and appropriate orbits, and that the Union has been several times dissolved, because many citizens in those States have always been habitually disobedient of certain laws of the U.S., and many State Legislatures have enacted laws that have been judicially held to be unconstitutional and void, and have by State legislation practically nullified within their States a solemn requirement of the constitution. But, strange as it may appear, those States were never supposed on that account to have ceased to be States in active vital relations with the Union, or to have “ abdicated" or “forfeited” their State existence, or dissolved the Union. They were never taken charge of by Congress for the purpose of teaching them obedience, or to secure guarantees against disobedience. But such citizens were treated as individual offenders, and such enactments were held to be void, although they were practically operative in these States. Then it is claimed by the same honorable gentleman that in order to constitute a State of our Union, 1st, “its citizens must owe, acknowledge, and render supreme and habitual allegiance and obedience to the constitution, lows, and treaties of the U.S. in all Federal matters;” and 2nd, “all the members of the State Legislatures, and its executive and judicial officers, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the U.S.;” and 3rd, it must have been admitted into the Union; and 4th, have thus become entitled as a State to participate in the control of the Federal Government. Now, as a statement of the duties of citizens and States toward the Union, this is excellent doctrine, and I indorse it; but as a definition of a State I am unable to erceive its propriety, although most emphotically assured by the honorable gentleman that “no one who can read the constitution will deny that each State in this Union must have every one of these properties before it can commence to exist in the Union, because the constitution so declares.” I have searched in vain for such a declaration in the Constitution. Nor can I find any provisions in that glorious bond of government which, taken separately or together, justify any such conclusions or utlord any rational or logical ground for such an assumption. It would poorly commend the wisdom of its framers if it were there. It would require many things to be done by the State and its citizens as conditions recedent to its existence which can only be one after its creation as a State. The State must exist before its citizens can owe allegiance or render obedience to the Federal Government as citizens of the State. The State must exist before it can have a Legislature, or judges, or a Governor who can swear fidelity to the Constitution. Then the constitution says: “The ratification of the conventions of 9 States shall besutheient for the establishment of this constitution between the Statesso ratifying the same.” There is nothing in this provision about conditions precedent. When new States are admitted into this Union the only requirement as conditions precedent are that the people of a prescribed territory shall makc and adoptn constitution republican in form; and when these things have been done and duly certified to the president, he by proclamation announces the creation of a State. Then, and not before, its duties and obligations as a State in the Union and those of its citizens attach. It is thenceforth a member and its citizens are subjects of an inde structible Union. The acts of such State in its corpomte capacity, which are in violation of the Federal constitution, are simply void. Suppose its Legislature and its judges and Governor should refuse or fail to take the constitutional oath of office, or should take the oath and then violate it by the enactment of on unconstitutional law, or by a like decision of its courts, or by a like act of its Governor, which have too often been done in both sections of the Union. Would these things take the State out of vital relations with the nion? Would they work a dissolution of the Union? Or make dead States? Surely not. The Government would merely vindicate its authority by its appropriate officers and tribunals. The principle and legal results would be the some whether the rightful authority of the Government were thus resisted by officers or citizens of the State; by 100, 1000, or 100,000. If the resistance could not be over come by the ordinary agencies of civil power, then the Government would be equally bound to use other appropriate menus to vindicate and ree stnblish its authority. But such vindication can result in no enlar ement of the powers of the Government. T o constitution is still the supreme law. If the people of any of the States have dropped out of their official relations with it, it is their duty, by their own voluntary acts, in accordance with their own laws, to resume those relations. With the right understanding of these practical questions the abstract definition of a State has but little to do. The ideas of the publicists on these subjects have but little relation to such a system of States and government as that of our American Union. The highest authority and safest guide for us on these questions is the constitution itself. We may say, in the langunge of a distinguished publicist, that a State is, ” in its most enlarged sense, a selfsufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defense of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners.” Or we may say, in the language of another, that “ in a more limited sense, the word State expresses merely the positive or actual organization of the legislntive and judicial pow ers.” In other wor s, in one case, the State is made nearly synonymous with the pen le, and in the other with the Government. but none of these propositions can control the obvious intention of the constitution, that the States should continue perpetually as compo nent. parts of the Union, with the perfect and gunrantied right of local selfgovernment, in subordination to the rightful authority of the Federal Government. It is substantially assumed by the same honorable gentleman that the closing of the southern ports during the war was a regulation of commerce in the constitutional sense of that expression, and that those ports could not have been closed if those States had the rights of States in the Union. But it is a mere perversion of terms to call:1blockade a regulation of commerce. The blockade was merel the exercise of a belligerent right by the federal Government as a war measure, a means to suppress the rebellion. The Supreme Court say, in the prize cases. that “one belligerent engaged in actual war has a right to blockade the ports of the other, ” and that, ” to create this and other belligerent rights, as against neutrals, it is not necessary that the party claiming them should be at war with a separate and independent Power. The parties to a civilWarare in the same predicament as 2 nations who engage in a contest and have recourse to arms.” 1 he block ade was declared as a means of crippling the powerof the rebellion. It in no way recognized the independence of the States whose ports were blockaded, or impaired their equal rights in the Union upon the restoration of peace. If it did, then the President or congress could now, in time of profound peace, declare a valid blockade of the same ports, or Congress might now, in the adjustment of tar iffs, give preferences to the ports of other States over:hose of the States lately in rebellion. But he would be a bold advocate of confusion and revolution who would maintain the right too): ercise such powers now. I answer the honor able gentleman on these points by reference again to the decision of Judge Sprague in the case of the Amy Warwick, which commends itself alike by its sterling common sense, patriotic fidelity to the Constltution, and entire consistency with the principles of public law. But, lest these doctrines of the practical in dependence of the southern confederacy, ot the suicide of the rebel States, of the forfeiture of their rights as States, and of their corporate existence, or of whatever else it may be called, may not be entirely satisfactory to all, it is suggested that, if these rebel States are still in the lnion, in a state of suspended animation, then, under the authority of the provision of the constitution that “the U.S shall guaranty to every State in this Union a RFG.” they may be taken into asort of national “p by the Federal Gov1866. 62lernment, and constitutions formed for, or die Stated to. them, that shall be republican in form. This doctrine would, certainlv, be a very desirableone to the advocates of it if they were in trusted with the duty of making those constitutions. But let us inquire briefly into the proper construction of that provision in our Constitution. What does it mean? It may be 1st observed, that this important provision is based upon the recognition of several principles of vital importance to the success and harmony of our system of government. It requires that the States to be dealt with under this power must be “ States in this Union, ” and not foreign States, or States out of the Union, which are to be clothed in RFGs by Congress and then brought into the Union. If the latter kind of States desire admission into the Union, the duty of Congress is derived from the grant of power to admit new States. It also requires that every State in this Union shall be entitled to have and maintain a separate State government, based on the right of l the people to govern themselves through public organs of a representative character, chosen by themselves. otherwise, their government would not be republican in form or substance. It supposes that as the guarantee is of perpetual obligation, the Union and the States uar aiitied shall also be peretual, and that therefore no State has any rightor power, by suicide, forfeiture, or otherwise. to destroy its RFG, its Statehood in the Union, or sever its connection with the Union. The States, in contemplation of law and of the constitution, must continue to exist as States, and must exercise their rightof selfgovernment so far only in subordination to the Federal Government us their powers are limited by the constitution of the U.S. The great object of this provision is to secure neral harmony of fundamental principles of government between the Union and States of which it is composed. It is not designed to secure a system of government in each State in which the local administration shall be exactly the same in form or principle as that in every other State. How much or how little power shall be imparted to the State government by the people of the State, what restrictions shall be imposed upon it, how many Depts there shall be. what shall be the duties of each Dept, whether the Legislature shall cousist of one or 2 branches, what shall be the official names of the profiieers, and all other matters relating to the internal affairs of the State, io its essential right of local self government, are left by the constitution of the U.S. to the sole determination of the people of the State, except in the few particu ars in which powers are withheld from the States and the people by the Federal constitution. That this provision does not imply a necessity for any 1 precise form or uniform arrangement of State governments is rendered clear beyond doubt by the historical fact, that when it was adopted l there were no 2 States in the Union whose State constitutions and forms of government did not differ in numerous and very important respects. Indeed, the State of Connecticut continned to exist under the royal charter, without any constitution in the American sense, until 1818, and the State of RhdIsland until a still more recent period. It is, if possible, still more clear that this guarantee was not intended by its authors, or by the States or people, to secure a uniform rule or basis of suffrage in the several States as a necessary element in a " RFG.” such genera suffrage as then prevailed in the States was, no don t, considered an indispensable part of the republican system of government intended to be established in this countrv, but the contemporaneous regulations in the different States on the subject of suffrage were so diverse, both in extent and principle, as to render incontrovertible the conclusion that it was the intention of all parties, makers and people and States alike. that all matters pertaining to the basis of suffrage ! should be left to the exclusive control of the States respectively. What, t n, does this guarantee mean? Can we do better than to consult the fathers, the makers and earliest expounders of the Constitution, for an answer to this inquiry? Alexander Hamilton, in the 21st number of the Federalist, says: The ine rdinate pride of State importance bas suggested to some minds an objection to the principle of a guarantee in the Federal Government as invo v im: an officious interference in the domestic concerns of the members. A scruple of this kind would deprive as of one of the principal advantagesto be expected from union, and can only flow from a misap rehension of the nature of the provision itself. t could be no impediment to the reforms of the State constitutions by a majority of the people in a legal and peaccable mode. This right would remain undiminished. The guarantee could only operate against changesto be effectedby violence. Toward the prevention of calamities of this kind too many checks cannot be irovided. Agni" nntee the national authority would be as mpeb directe against the usurpations of rulers as against the ferments and outragesof faction and sedition in the community.” James Madison, in the 43rd number of the Federalist, says: It may possibly be asked whether it may not become a pretext for alterations in the State governments, without the concurrenceof the States themselves. It may be answered that. if the General Government should inte iose byvirtue of this constitutioniil authorit, it will be of course bound to pursue the authority. at the authority extendsnofurther than to riguaranteeof a RFG, irhich supposesa pree riaLIN Government of the form which is to be mmruntie. AS long. therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the States they are guarantied by the Federal constitution. Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the Federal guarantee for the latter. The only restriction imposedon them is that they shall not exchangerepub icon for antirepublican constitution s.” Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the constitution, quoting these opinions of Hamil to"n and Madison, says: The Federalist hasspoken with somuchforceand propriety upon this subject that. it. supersedes all further reasoning.” Now, these expOsitions seem eminently reasonable and just, they are certainly worthy of the very highest respect, and then they have the singular merit of suggesting aninterpretation that is in every respect practical an consistent with the great merican principle of local selfgovernment. They do not permit the Federal Government to embark upon a wild sea of experiment, or to depart from the safe anchorage of fundamental principle. They assign to the Federal Government the high duty of external protection, and leave to the people of the States the inalienable right of internal self Control. They give to the Federal Government no license or color of right to go into any State and assume the contro or maria ement of any of the domestic concerns or relations of the people of such State. These constitute the appropriate, peculiar, and exclusive subjects of State control; and they cannot be wisely or safely intrusted to any other. The States in these matters cannot be legally or constitution ally superseded by any “bureau” of the Federal Government. In other words, that provision amounts only to a guarantee by the U.S. to the States of governments already established in the States respectively which are republican in form, and imposes upon the U.S. an obligation to protect the States in the enjoyment of such established governments against the wicked efforts of all enemies, either from within or without the States, by violence to ovorth row or usurp or chan of them. Both authority and reason concur in this interpretation. It is in beautiful harmony with the doctrine of the reciprocal obligations arising out of our complex system of government between the Union and the States. It is also entirely consistent with every practical construction of it by our Government either before or during the rebellion. There appears, therefore, to be no respectable color of authority under the provision in question for Congress to assume the guardianship of the States lately in rebellion, either as soon ignore their continued statehood in the Union, or to govern them as dependencies or coloy nies o Congress, by agents and officers, niili tarv or civil, appointed by Congress. It affords still less countenance to the fatal doctrine that Congress may dictate forms of government to those States. That doctrine repudiates the most vital principle of our system of government that the people are to be regarded as thesole original source of all political authority, that all legitimate government must rest upon their will. Ifa despotism or a permanent Military government were established in an State by internal or external enemies, it would be the duty of Congress to overthrow it, because violative of every essential principle of republican government. But it would not, therefore, bel come the duty of Congress to frame and utin force another government in such State, or, as Mr. Madison says, the guarantee supposes a presssting government, republican in form, which, on the overthrow of such despotism or military government, merely resumes its sway over the State. If a new government is to be made, and not an old one revived, the people of the State must make it, not congress. If there be 2 hostile parties in the State, the President or Congress may interpose to maintaine rder until the people can reconstruct their own government upon a republican basis. Here is to be foun one of the strong foundation principlesu on which the present executive rests is elective and beneficent policy of restoration, by which he has already accomplished so many results alike surprising and encouraging to the count and to the friends of our Government throng out the world. But the honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania attempts to destroy this foundation by the citation of an obiter dictum from the opinion of the late distinguished and excellent Chief Justice in the case of Luther vs. Borden, (7 Howard, page 1.) He is the some excellent Chief Justice whom the honorable gentleman informs the country he is afraid has been “damned to everlasting fire and the honorable Gentfrom Ohio cites the same dic tum, and also an opinion from 1 Bishop on Criminal Law, in section 133, to the same effect, which rests upon no other authority than that dictum. The quotation is: “Under this article of the constitution [the one above cited] it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State. For, as the U.S. guaranty to each Staten. republican government, Congress must nce essaril decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not.” This opinion of the Chief Justice was not called for by any question in the case decided by him. It is not incorporated into the statement of the decided points in the case by the reporter. To determine the appropriateness of it, as a passing comment by the judge, we must look into the facts of the case itsel. The case was a common action of trespass for an lawfully entering another mans house to arrest him for alleged crime. It arose in 1842 and was commenced in the State of RhdIsland. The person making the arrest was acting under the authority of the established government of that State under its royal charter. The person arrested was claiming some authority under the new government of that State alleged to have been established by the people under the leadership of Thomas W. Dorr. The case therefore supposes 2 separate governments claiming to Save lawful existence in the same State at the same time. Which was the legitimate government was the question to be settled in the case by the court. It was decided by the State court of RhdIsland, and aflirmed by the SCOTUS, to be the ol charter government. Does any such 1 state of facts exist now? Is Congress called upon new to determine which of 2 governments in any southern State is the legitimate one? Do 2 delegations from anyone State ask admission to Congress as representatives of 2 separate State governments quered nation, “eighties 0las territory, orto. l in that State? There is no such case. The 6authority, therefore, has no weight. it is not in. consistent with the action or policy of the president toward the southern States. I believe 2 senatorial delegations do ask admission to the other end of the Capitol from the State of Louis iana, but both claim to represent the same State under the same State constitution and government. I believe also that one gentleman, not of the regular delegation to this House, from that State asks admission here as a delegate from the Territory of Louisiana, and is said to base his claim chiefly upon the suffrages of African citizens of that State. This hardly resents a case to which the remarks of Chief Justice Taney in the RhdIsland case are applicable. o law of Congress is needed to determine which set of Senators should be admitted to the Senate from the State of Louisiana. That question is referred by the constitution of the U.S. to the exclusive adjudication of the Senate itself. “Each House shall be the judge of the elections. returns, and qualifications of its own members.” It is due to the whole country, and especially to the States in question, that each branch of this congress should assert its own dignity and resume the exercise of its own functions in this particular, and receive and consider and decide or itself the applications of Representatives for admission to it from southern States. another course can only work injustice, mischie, and strife. It may be further remarked, in connection with the case of Luther against Borden, that Congress never did decide which of the 2 governments in RhdIsland was the legitimate one; but the POTUS did, and the court in that case so that he was fully authorized so to decide, an that his decision washinding upon the court. The present Executive was met by no such embarrassment. There has never ceased to be a government in every southern State that, in the sense of the framers of our constitution, was “republican in form, ” except in so far as they attempted, by changes in their constitution s, to deny the rightful authority of the Federal Government. But the administration of those governments was usiir edduring the rebellion. liat usurpation has won completely overthrown and aban doned. Most of those governments are again committed to the contro and administration of officers chosen according to their owa requirements. The interposition of the Executive has been such only as seemed to him to be necessary to enable the people to effect the reorganizations of their former rightful governments. He has also urged the adeption by them of certain measures which were necessary to insure more harmonious submission by the people of those States to proper Federal authorit. No patriot, North or South, should comp ain on account of such recommendations, nor with hold from the people of those States great praise for the prompt and cheerful manner in which they have adopted them. It may also be observed in connection with the same case, and as illustrating the true interpretation of the provision guaranting to the States governments “republican in form, ”that the government in RhdIsland, held by the President in 1842, and by the Supreme Court in 1848, to be “ republican in form, and, therefore, as good as ie U.S. was bound to guaranty to that State, was the same government organized and maintained under the charter granted in 1663 by Charles H to the “ Governor and Company of the English Colony of RhdIsland and Providence Plantations in NewEngland in America, ” and that, underthat republican government, in 1842, no man was entitled to vote unless he was a freeholder, an owner of land. That State must needs have been divided into small sections to give many citizens a chance to become qualifie to vote. It was not thought then that RhdIsland needed to be reconstructed by Congress. The constitution of that State now requires that the right of suffrage shall only be exercised by persons owning real estate worth $184 each, or having an equivalent rental value. It is maintained by the honorable Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SPAMHING] that Congress acquires such powers to take charge of the States lately in rebellion as are necessar to enable it to accomplish the ends desire by him, from the last clause of the 8th section of the 1st article of the constitution, which recites, after the preceding enumeration of the powers of Congress: “And to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powersvestedbythis Constitution in the Government of the U.S., or in any Deptor officer thereof.” Mr. Speaker, there are but few provisions in our constitution that have heretofore chal lenged more elaborate and profound examination, either by courts or statesmen, than the one just note; and I supposed thut a conelnsion had been reached, alire obligatory upon the courts and Congress, and satisfactory to the people. That conclusion, expressed in the language of Justice Story, is that " The plain import of the clause is, that Congress shall have all the incidental and instrumental powers necessary and proger to carry into execution all the express powers. t Inuither enlarges any power SDGCIU granted. nor 151thgrant Or any new owe!“ to Congress but it is merely adeclaration fort e removal of all uncertainty. that the meansof carryin into execution those otherwise granted are include in the grant. Whenever, therefore. a question arises concerning the constitutionality of a particulnr power the 1st question is, whether the power he expressed in the constitution. If it. hc. The question is decided. If it benot expressed, the noxt inquiry must be whether it is properly an incident to an express power and necessary to its execution. If it be. then it may be exercisedbyCorircss: if not, Congress cannot exercise it. "Slory on I (, bnstilulion. sce. 1243., This opinion is substantially concurred in by no less competent and distinguished personages than Alexander Hamilton, (Federalist, No. 33) James Madison, (Federalist, No. 44) Thomas Jetferson, and James Monroe, and nearly every other statesman of past times in our country. I think the country will be content with this construction, so deliberately given, and by such unselfish patriots, and will not suffer itself long to banker after the exercise of ungranted power for the purpose of prolonging an estrangement that appea s so loudly for the healing counsels of peace and union. The power sought by the honorable gentleman must find a more substan tial foundation than the one on which he has seen fit to rest it. It should have an abiding place in some express grant of power, or should arise by a fair and just implication from such a grant. If there had been any such in the constitution, it is fair topresume that that learned gentleman would have cited it. It is not there. twould be extraordinary, indeed, if it were. It would be a most dangerous power to reose anywhere except in the collective body of the people. It is asked in reference to the States ate y in rebellion “Wlicre does the constitution of the U.S. lodge the power to prescribe an effective remedy for this impaired vitality, and to restore to healty action thesesuspendedfunctions2" I would answer that, so far as external aid is required, it should come from the President, in the form of amnesty, with such exceptions and qualifications as the future and permanent welfare of the country demand; but after these things are done, the physician who is invested with the constitutional right and natural ca ia city to (prescribe an elfective remedy for this impaire vitality, and to restore to healthy action these suspended functions is the people of those States respective]. Their riglhi to selfgovernment was not sacriced by their attempted separation from the Union, except so far as they may be individually deprived thereof by conviction of crime. That right has not become the property of Congress. It belongs to the people and Congress is not even their guardian in matters of local State government. those States are either in the Union or out of it. If they are only half in, for the purpose of being governed by Congress, they might as well e entirel out, for there would then be no more difficulty in governing them by Congress; be sides, if they were entirely out, as is boldly claimed bY the honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania[Mr. STEVESS] and others, there would then be less dispute about the right of Congress to govern them. But Mr. Lincoln. in his 1st inaugural, said: “In contemplationof universal law, and ofthp Cons stitution, the union of the Statesis uerpetual. “And, It follows from theseviewsthat no State, upon its own more motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; aha:lrpsolvesand ordinancestothat cficct are legally 01 and the present Executive as. s the same thing, and is acting, in the discharge of his solemn duties, consistently therewith. The honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. SrnVENS] assumes that those States are Out of the Union, and can only come in as new States, and the honorable Genemaii from Ohio, [ML BINGHAM] “for the sake of the ament, ” assum that the position of the lux ecutive that they are still in the Union is correct, but both gentlemen and their followers strike hands in their determination to keep them out of Congress, and not recognize them as vitalized and acting members of the Union until certain constitutional amendments can be adopted by the other States and put into o ration as the supreme law of the land; and, in other words, a new constitution, a new federal Government, can be formed, without their cooperation or consent, into which, and into obedience to which, they shall afterward be compelled to come. It strikes me that would be reconstructing the Union with a vengeance. We will change the constitution to suit our views; we will change the qualifications for members of Congress so that no man who participated in the rebellion shall ever be eligible to a seat in the Senate or House: we will change the basis of representation in Congress so that none but voters shall be counted; we will give Congress the right to impose duties on exports from States so that we can tax the cotton raised in the South at the rate of $100,000,000 perannum or more; we will give to Congress the right to legislate for and control the negro population of the States in their relations and intercourse with the white population; we will give to Congress the right to make uniform the civil rights of the people of all the States, so that under the cover of that right it. may regulate the right of suffrage in the States, and there by contro the States themselves, and revolutionize and centralize the Government; we will, by way of anticipation, insert into the constitution exress prohibitions upon the States and the people against doing any mean or wicked things in the future; and then, all these things done, we will not invite the southern States to come into the Union and enjoy with us this new order of things, but we will make them comein; and then we will boast of our glorious system of selfgovernment, and claim that all rightful government rests upon the consent of the governed. " Mr. Speaker, it is not in this way that the 9 of free government can be illustrated; that enduring peace can be secured; that national prosperity can be reestablished; that fra ternal intercourse between the sections of our country can be restored; that confidence and content can be brought back to the people of the South; that the may ignant elements of discord can be kc t out of our national councils, or that the bleeding wounds of our country and our countrymen can be healed. such policy, in my humble judment, if the power to enforce it were clear beyond doubt, would be most unwise and suicidal.” It is excellent To have a giants strength; but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant.” Mr. Speaker, so far as the President is comcorned, beg leave to say that I only know him as the chief Executive of the Union. I do not enjoy his confidence or that of any gentleman in his Administration, so far as I am advised. I only know that in the discharge of the important nties committed to me, under the Guidance of my own judgment and conscience, enlight ened somewhat by the wisdom and examples of the past, I am compelled to choose between the policy adopted y the Executive for the the 366. restoration of the Union and that advocated by the majority on this floor and to approve the former, because I believe it to be rightand consistent with the supreme law and the highest good of the country. I think those States should Ee crmitted to resume their connection with the pUnion. Their Representatives should be admitted to Congress if they come here with the requisite “qualifications ” under the Constitution. which should be determined by each House for itself, and not by either or both for the other. It need not be expected that they will always send here men of sound discretion, of prudent self possession, whose conduct will always be unexceptionable. Nor will the do so any more if they are kept out for an in efinite number of years. No section of our country has ever attained such excellence in its rere lentation here, nor will it ever, until the high noon of a political millennium yet only dreamed of by the Utopian. In free Governments, the highest good is only realized as the fruit of the freest conflict of Opinions, of truth with error. Out of such contests, truth always gains the ultimate and lasting victory. But by every day that these States are kept out of their properrelations to the Union, the chances for a speedy restoration of sentiments of confidence, sympa thy, good will, and genuinenationality, which are above all things desirable. will be dimin ished, and ultimate success made more difficult. I deprecate, as alike dangerous to the peace and happiness of our country and subversive of the true and most conservative principles of our Government. that fatal policy which would erect in this Capitol a great consolidation and contralization of power. In to judgment, there is not to be found in the pat way of either the Union or the States to the perfection of human government so great adunger as this. It threat ens a system of constantly recurring eneroachments by the Federal Government upon the cherished principle of local selfgovernment. The continual demand for more power to be conferred upon the General Government should alarm every patriot in the land. The General Government was not created to administer the local, private, or personal interests of the people. lat is ill adapted to the discharge of such duties. The duties imposed on it are chiefly external, general, international. It was intended by the fathers to cherish and protect, not to war upon, the vital principle of selfgoverning communitiesStates, counties, townships, and citieswhich are the only competent and safe guardians of that great mass of power which presides over the administration of the daily affairs and fireside interests of society. This power will always be best administered the nearer the power itself, and the agents by which it works, are brought to the people to be affected by it and the more direct y its agents are made answerable to them. This intimate relation between power, its agents, and the people, constitutes the only school in which the capacity for selfgovernment can he developed, and that feeling of deep, abiding, active,personal responsibility in the citizen cultivated and strengthened which is so necessary to fit him at once to appreciate and to protect both the general and the local governments. It is only y the freest operation of this principle that that individuality can he acquired by the citizen and imparted by him to the State which is necessary to develop and preserve the highest interests and greatest good of both. The surest guarantee for the perpetuity, prosperity, and uppiness of our country can be found in the faithful observance by both the Federal and State Governments of the respective limitations upon their power and the faithful discharge by each of its appropriate duties without interference with the other, which is but yielding obe dience to that great principle of local selfgovernment which constitutes the chief kernel of eternal truth which has borne such beneficent fruit to our country in the past. In the eager search after radical power on which to erect Federal bureaus and other machinery for the control by Congress of the domestic affairs of the States, it is claimed to be found in the lust amendment of the Constitution, which reads as follows: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have cen duly convitted shallexist within the U.S.mr any PlflLOsubject to tllcirjurisdiction.” "SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforcethis article by appropriate legislation.” It is claimed that the last clause grants power to Congress not only to prevent the ree nslavement of the negro, but to assume the special control of him, and to take him out of the control of the States of whose population he is a part, in order to secure to him at least all civil rights that are enjoyed by the white people, and, as claimed by some, to secureto him equal political rights with the white men, both as a citizen of the State and of the U.S. I deny this construction as being most untenable upon every rational principle of constitutional interpretation. The States by the adoption of this amendment certainly did not mean to surrender to Congress their cherished right of exclusive government over their own citizens in all matters of domestic concern. They only intended bythis amendment to abolish slavery and forever prevent its reie stablishment in any part of the country. Its great object is to prevent the acquisition by man of propertv in his fellowman in such manner as to enable him to extort from the latter involuntary service. such legislation only is authorized by this amendment as is necessary to prevent these things. This purposeis plain, and requires but a slight effort ofion est reflection to understand it. The 2nd clause, in my judgment. adds nothing to the power given to Congress by the 1st. lhis view is sustained by every approved interpretation of analogous provisions in the constitution. Here I refer again to section 1243 of Storys Commentaries on that instrument, already cited by me. Slavery was a domestic relation, not a public relation. It was a relation between in gividnals which gave to one of them the power to control the will and conduct of the other. The severance of that relation puts an end to slave, and was the beneficent object of this amendment. But the regulation of the ordinary civil relations of the negro to the society in which he lives, by the enactment of laws of a local and merely municipal character to control his contracts, and bestow upon him civil privileges having no necessary connection with his personal freedom, are wholly unauthorized by any warrant in any part of the constitution and any attempt to do such things will be simply revolutionary of the most valuable principles of our Government, and cannot fail sooner or later to lead to the establishment of a cen tralized and consolidated Government but little better than a despotism. I now come to the consideration more in detail of the bill now pending before the House, for the extension of the powers of the freedmens Bureau. It involves principles of the gravest importance. that should receive the most careful and deliberate attention by every member of this House. I oppose the bill because it proposes, as it now stands on our files, to create an perpetuate in this country an institution or a bureau as permanent in every respect, as allpervading in every respect, as any other Dept of the Government of the U.S. It proposes not as heretofore to confine this Freedmens Bureau to the States lately in rebellion, but to extend it to all the States wherever you may find freedmen or refugees: in other words, the future jurisdiction of this bureau is to he coex tensive with the Union itself. Now, sir, it seems to me when Congress undertakes by this kind of law to take the guard ianship of an entire class of peopleon itself, and constitute them the war s of the Federal Government, and constitute the Federal Government the special guardian and protector and comptroller of that class, it undertakes to do something for which there can be found in our constitution no shadow of warrant. Therefore I am opposed to this bill. I take it to be the duty of a faithful Representative here, both as a good citizen of the country and as a sworn officer of the Government, to consider, when a proposition of this sort is submitted to him, whether Congress possesses the power which the measure proposes to exercise. Applying that rule to this bill, I feel compelled to say, after most diligent search through the constitution of the country, and applying to that a liberal rule of interpretation, I am unable to find any shadow of authority, any single line or warrant for any such exercise of power as this bill proposes. It will not be pretended this power is found in any express grant of the constitution. From what express power can it be fairly implied? I know of none. Why should congress undertake to control, to govern, to edu cate, to feed, to procure homes and farms, for freedmen and refugees any more than for any other class of citizens of this country whose necessities might be as great, and who appeal as strongly to the sympathies of members of this House and to the whole country? The attempt to exercise so radical a power as this cannot fail to excite in the minds of the people of this country a wellgrounded fear that there exists here a settled and deliberate and wicked purpose on the part of Congress, to a very great extent, to disregard the limitations upon its own power contained in the constitution, and subvert the essential and fundamental principles of that Government by their legislation here and attempt to build u in this country an institution, under the in uence and patronage of the Federal Government, which has no other purpose and can accomplish no other end than to gratify the wild whims and crotchets of a reckless fanaticism. The people who are proposed to be controlled by this bill are as much citizens of the States where they live as any other class of citizens. They constitute as mm: a part of the poulation of the States where they reside as we o of the States we represent; just as much as any other class of men in the country do. Why, then, should we single them out and make them the special beneficiaries of congressional protection? They are free men. They need no guardianship but the fostering care of their own local State governments. Now, I will invite attention for a little while to the details of this bill; and in this connection I invite correction frpm the honorable Gentfrom Massachusetts, Mr. Emory] if I make any statement not authorized by the bill. This bill proposes to create a permanent bureau for the control of freedmen and refu ccs, at the head of which there shall be a Commissioner with a salary of $3.000; the country may be divided into a number of sub districts not. to exceed 12; and there may be appointed a number of asst commissioners who shall not exceed the number of districts, with a salary for each of $2, 600; to the chief Commissioner there may be assigned by the SecyWar ten clerks, the salaries of whomI am unable from the bill to determine. Each of the asst commissioners may have 3 clerks with a compensation that shall not exceed $1,000. Then the entire country from Texas to Maine, and from SCarolina to Oregon, may be divided into sub districts, which shall consist each of a county or parish. For each of these sub districts. which possibly may be equal in number to the whole number of counties and parishes in the Union, there may be assigned one or more sub agents with a salary of from $500 to $1,200 perannum, according to the amount of service rendered by them respect ively, and to each of those sub agents, if necessary in the opinion of the Commissioner, there may be assigned one clerk, at an annual salary not exceeding $1,000 each. Now, Mr. Speaker, that involves the creation of a small army of it cuts and commissioners, whosejurisdiction and control shall pervade the whole country, shall extend into every State, into every congressional district, into every county, into every township and city of this broad Union, provided only that they can find some freedmen or refugees upon whom to exercise their jurisdiction. I submit that before a measure of this kind should be adopted, we should reflect most carefully upon what we are doing. We should remember that this country is now almost crushed into the very earth with its accumulated burden of public debt, of State debts of county debts, of city debts, of town; ship debts, ofindividual debts. We should bear in mind that we may impose upon the people of this country by this kind of latitudiuarian and most dun erous legislation a burden that is too heavy to be home, and against which the day may come when the epic, as one man, will fee themselves calle upon to protest in such a manner us forever to overthrow that kind of legislation and condemn to merited reproach those who favor it. This bill, taken in connection with the report of the present Commissioner of the bureau, proposes to require at the hands of Congress an appropriation of nearly 12 million dollars. at 18 almost equal to the annual expense of our entire Government during the 1st 2 or 3 Administrations. They propose in addition to that very great outla to authorize the officers of the Government who shall have more or less connection with the administration of this bureau to expend unlimited sumsof money. In this connection I invite attention to the 3rd section of the bill, which authorizes the SecyWar, in his own discretion, without being restrained by any limitation upon its exercise, by any safeguards of any kind, to expend in be half of these freedmen and refugees such supplies of provisions, clothing, fuel, medical stores, and transportation as shall be necessary from time to time for their protection and to advance their interests. Where is the limit upon the exercise of that great power by that o cer? There is none. hIe may charter railroads to transport them for place to place. He may do for them what they, and they alone, should do for themselves. It may be said that he is actin under the obligation ofan oath of office, an that he stands in high position, and is surrounded therefore by all those motives which ordinarily prompt honorable men to discharge in a properway and within properlimits their otiicial duties. But let me call the attention of this House to the fact that in the practical administration of the atIairs of this Government in its various depts there is not always that nice regard or the proprieties of official action that ought always to c aracterize public otheials. I need not at this day invite attention to the fact that even high Government officers may err. They may suffer their judgment to be warped or contro led by their feelings. They may suffer themselves to be led astray from the strict path of official duty by partisan feelings. I do not know what the present officers might do, but I do say that the danger of their oing it is at least great enough to justify us, whose duty it is, to surround them wrth such guards and lim itations as will prevent its occurrence. Taking that section, then, as it reads, I submit that it is within the power of the SecyWar, in addition to the $12,000,000 that the Commissioner asks for now, to exend $12,000,000 moreay, 20, 30, 100 millions more, uponthis same class of men, women, and children. Then let me invite attention to the provision of the 4th section of this act. It isproposed to set aside a certainportion of the puble lands in the States of Floridu, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, not exceeding in the number of acres 3 millions, for the exclusive use of the freedmen and ref u es. It is made the duty of the Commissioner woshall control this bureau, under certain limitations and regulations, to assign these public lands in quantities of 40 acres to the use and occupancy of those freedmen and refugees. Now, so far as that appropriation is concerned, I will not question the propriety or justice of it, although the manner of its execution is very defective. I am in favor of allowing these people to acquire land in the country, an to become owners of homesteads, justae much as any other class of men, and upon just the same toms as: any other class of men in the country. I am in, favor, upon principle, of allowing every man 5 in the country to become a landowner. The people of this country will thus become better i citizens; they will acquire a more direct and active interest in the Government, and will necessarily become more intelligent and orderly citizens, and better men. But thissection does not sto here. Itproposes to go further, and to make the Commissioner 1 of the bureau, under the Federal Government, a sort of grand landlord of all these freedmen and refugees who shall see fit, for the time being, to squat upon these public lands. In other words, these public lands are notto be assigned to these free men and refugees as purchases merely, but antecedent to the time when they are expected to become ableto purchase them, the are to be allowed to rent the lands of the federal Government, and become tenant of the Government, and to pay accrtain prescribed rate of rent for the use of the lands. Now, I would like to know, and I should certainly be grateful to the honorable Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Euor] if he would inform me, where it is in the constitution that the power is vested to create this kind of Dept in the Federal Government, to make this Government a landlord, to make this Government a great proprietor for the purpose of cultivating its own public domain. I can find no such power anywhere nor have I heard any gentleman here undertake to point out where it is to be found. But, Mr. Speaker, I am more especially cpposed to this bill on account of the provisions of the 5th section, which I will now read: That the occupants of land under Major GenlSherman ss ccial fieldorder, dnted at Savannah. Jun unry 16, 180), are hereby confirmedin their possession for the period of 3 care from the dnu –ofsnid order and no person shall edisturbed in or ousted from said possessionduring said 3 cars unless u. sci tlement shall be made with sin occupant by the owner satisfactory to tho Commissioner of the freedmens Bureau.