Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Speaker, if ambition begat treason; and if treason begat the rebellion; and if the rebellion beget reconstruction; and if reconstruction begat the amendment of the Constitution of the U.S and the measures which accompany it, now pending in Congress, it. may well be that the JtComReconstruction is only one of the several instruments rendered essential in perfecting, rather than the originator of, this series of acts in the great drama of events made necessary to save the nation and to restore it to homogeneous concord. It may well be, also, that these schemes are severally in dispensable to check the growth of the oi sonous shoots which are likely to spring mm the remaining roots of the so recently felled tree of treasonable planting. Be this as it may, they are fitting themes for the historian and perhaps for the legislator; but in what I have to say I shall allude to these subjects and the incidents connected with them so far only as in my judgment they may be pertinent in establishing the following affirmations: 1. The incidents connected with the revolt of the southern States have, in no respect, abridged the powers or the jurisdiction of the Government of the U.S. 2. These incidents have changed the relations of these States toward the General governhiiieut and they have affected some of their rights. 3. The relations thus changed and the rights thus affected can be restored to these States only by the legislative branch of the Government. 4. These relations and these rights should be restored as speedily as the interests of all the parties concerned will permit. l but are the facts? 11 of the U.S. passed ordinances of secession. They insisted that the more not of their passage absolved them from all allegiance to and effectually severed their relations with the General Government, and that thereby they were rendered sovereign and independent. This pretense was denied by the eucral Government, and their ordinances were pronounced utterly void. An appeal to arms was taken, a remorselesi war was waged, in the prosecution of which those States were overpowered and disarmed. They now propose to resume their former position under the government they sought to destroy. Hence the question which now divides Coneress and the country. In the discussion of this, inquire: 1. Did the passage of those ordinances, or the waging of this war, abridge any of the powers or the jurisdiction of the national government over these States? I aver that at the passage of these acts of secession and at the commencement of this war for all national purposes the General government had unquestioned jurisdiction over the entire territory and the inhabitants of these States severally. This jurisdiction grew out of a covenant, by virtue of which the cov enantees instituted the Government of the U.S. Under this covenant were vested rights of nearly a centurys growth; byits very terms was plighted faith as sacred as oaths can make; here also were obligations as imperative as is Christian duty. Nothing less, therefore, than mutual consent or successful revolution could annul its binding force. Neither of these is pretended. Necessarily, therefore, the powers and the jurisdiction of the General Government have been, and now are, as absolute and unbroken over every foot of the soil and over every person within the boundaries of these States as it was at the hour it was 1st established by our fathers. I here leave my 1st and preliminary to my 2nd affirmation I inquire7 What is a State? In the language of Bonvicr, it is “a body of persons unitel in one community for the defense of their rights." Or, as defined by Halleck, it is “a body politic, a society of men united together for mutual advantage and safety.” These authors define sovereign and inde“ eudent States. We have none such in our government. The original 13 colonies, after severing their relations with GreatBritain, entered into a “perpetual Union. ” This Union not meeting their expectations, afterward, and for the purpose of a more perfect Union, ” the on I: of these colonies, then States, framed an adopted the Constitution of the U.S. Thus the people, of their own volition, carved out of the then existing States and created the General Government. By this voluntary act each State passed under and became a subordinate part of a new Government, established expressly for national purposes. This new Government being clothed with certain definite powers, which were taken from, thereb of necessity lessened the powers of, these States. For national purposes this new Government is sovereign; for municipal purposes, the States are each sovereign; in all else they are subjects. Aggregated, the national and the State governments make a unit. It requires this aggregation to constitute complete sovereignty. They are a compound, in which the original and the new elements are clearly discernible, and yet, as chem ical affinities, they intermix, neutralize, and uni“te. As the body is one, and bath many members, and all the members of that one body being many, are one body, ” so it is in our Government. It must be obvious, then, that whosoever attributes absolute sovereignty to any State, or who in his reasoning applies the definitions I have cited, without restriction, when speaking of those States, will mislead himself as well as those who listen to him. But as far as the municipal organism of our States is involved, these definitions do apply; but in their relations to the General Government it must be evident they do not. Failing to discriminate in this, has led to much confusion. Some have supposed that the mere derangement of the organic relations of a State with the General Government destroyed it. Whereas, in truth, tltese relations may not only be deranged, but even suspended, and yet the State remain as perfect and as actuallyin the Union as if they were wholly undisturbed. But of this hereafter. 2. Have the incidents of the revolt of the southern States or has the consequent war changed the relations of these States toward the General Government or affected any of their rights 1 A State sustains the same relation to the entire members of the Union that one man does to the aggregate individuals of a State. One is a corporate the other a natural bein. Either of them, entirely alone, were indepeni ent. Connected with others, neither can claim this prerogative. As individuals, they each have duties to perform, obligations they cannot ignore, and rights which they may forfeit. The man Adam had a right to the tree of life. The man Payne had a right to natural life. The State of SCarolina had a right to be represented in the councils of the nation. By disobedience these rights were severally forfeited. Will anyone question this as to the individuals I have named? Why, then, is it not true of SCarolina? No loyal man will pretend that this State, during her armed hostilities against the General government, was entitled to a place in its councils. Why? Clearly by reason of her armed hostility. But this armed hostility rew out of an enmity which antedated it. These overt acts were an incident, not the cause, of this enmity. It is true these hostilities are at an end; but did they cease from choice or from necessity? If from necessity, it may well be that the enmity which prompted these acts still remains; in which event only her weapons, lier mode of warfare, may be changed and not her animus. My point is, this hostility was only an out growth of a settled enmity. If, then, this enmity remains, what hinders a similar outbreak at any moment? May a State violate its compact with the General Government and again resume it at will? SCarolina, of her own act, withdrew her Representatives from this Hall and then made war iipou the Government. May this Government exercise the privilege accorded the huinblest citizen, of holding an enemy in duress till he make some reparation or give sureties to keep the peace? Self preservation, if not self respect, requires this much. No prudent family permits its enemies to share in its councils or in its confidence. No properly organized Government intrusts its administration to those who purpose its overthrow. The alarming feature in our national affairs at this time, in my judgment, is that anyone dare entertain the proposition to admit traitors upon this floor. The man who stops to reason when tempted to sin is half consenting. The legislator who permits himself to negotiate with crime stau s on quicksand a step mayingulf him. But I am anticiplating; I therefore resume my subject. ake either of the authorities I have cited defining a State, and whether we contemplate SCarolina before, during, or since her revolt, as far as municipal organism is concerned, she comes within its spirit and letter. There never has been a time when she was not “a body of persons united together in one community for the defense of their rights.” It has ever been, and now is, “a body politic or a society of men united together for mutu advantage and safety.” Territory is essential; this remains as it ever has. persons are requisite, these exist now as they have at all times. Their union is aningre dient; that these persons are united for acoin mon intent is painfully a parent. Why, then, is not SCarolina a State? She is. She lacks nothing as far as municipal organism is involved; but as far as her relations with the national Government are concerned she lacks much. She is without a connectin link. This has been severed. She and her joint wron doers are off the track and badly damage; the need repairs, readjusting upon the rail, an connecting links. lhcy belong to the corporation; they are subject to its control, and they may be conled on immediately or they may be held for urther repairs. These repairs should be thorou h. Defects which are known to have produce their present wreck should be reme ied, and great precaution should be taken for future safety and securit. A mistake in this may imperil all. I go urther, and as an illustration aver: Adam and Payne were as really men but bad ones, after as they were before their disobedience. So SCarolina was as actually a State, but a rebellious one, after as she was before her rebellious acts. Adam still owed fealty and was as subect to the laws of his Maker as though he had never transgressed. Similar is the position of SCarolina. Sir, can a man or the inhabitants of any territory be within the jurisdiction of a government and subject to its laws and yet be alien? I can see how the exercise of this jurisdiction may be interru ted and the executipn of these laws suspende, but I cannotasreadily perceive how a State can be “blotted out” and yet all that goes to make it up remain. I now adopt and repeat the interrogatory of my colleague from NewYork, [Mr. RAYMOND] and inquire:. "If they “he rebel States were out of the Union. when did t cy becomeso? They were once States in the Union. If they were ont of the Union. it.was atsomespecifictime and by some specificact." This is a pertinent and a practical question. The honorable Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SHELLADARGER] whose logic and eloquence are irresistible, repeated the same interrogatory, and in reply to it, says: “In res cetfully answering him, [Mr. R.ii vi ionn.] let me as and answer some questions of similar legal aspect. What in civilWar is the specific act and time which changes in law an insurrcctionary party into a belligerciit? I unswerin the language of the Supreme Court, when in fact the rennin courseof justice is interrupted by revolt. rebellion or insurrection. so that the courts of )HSUCOcannot be kept open.” I do not perceive the force of this answer, for the honorable gentleman does not mean to at rm that the condition of things he de scribes carries a State out of the Union. If it does, secession is easy indeed. Insecurity to this ularmin extent would paralyze every arm, destroy al confidence, an render governments little else than nurseries of anarchy and bloodshed. The state of thingsno graphically described by the honorable gentleman should, as it did, constrain the Executive of the nation to exercise the duty devolving upon him under article 4,section 4,0 the Constitution this is all. Under this provision of the Constitution the POTUS did in voke the military arm of the nation. This arm, as wielded by GenlGrant and his brave comrades, suppressed the “revolt, ” dispersed the “insurgents, ” and these “insurrectionary States, ” with suspended rights, still remain in the Union subject to its control and amenable to its laws. The honorable gentleman, in further reply to my colleague, says:, “I answer him [Mr. RAYMOND]that it was that specificact which turned her citizens intotrnitors, took from her the loyal courts, statutes, constitution tribunals, Offices and Legislature and which filled them with knitors and kept them there and if the gentlemanstill desires the specific timewhen ithiip pened, it will answer all the purposes of my argument to reply. that it happened about 4 years beforethe time when he has told us it beforeshe did. to wit. surrendered." With an emphasis peculiar and very becoming the eloquent gentleman, he exclaimed: “ the destructiqn and superse durcof allloynl govpmmentand law in SCarolina was a fact. not a aw. aural}!l Does this meet the point of the interrogatory of my colleague? These incidents, announced with so much force by the honorable gentleman, are evidences of crime, nothing more, and nothing less. Crime does not change the status, only the relations of a State. The fact that the inhab itants of a State are guilty of treason and of tasurpation cannot carry it out of the Union; the fact does not absolve from, but it actually renders the actors amenable to law. The honorable gentleman well says, “ The destruction and supersedure of all loyal government and law in SCarolina was a net, not a law.” The argument proves too much. An alien cannot commit treason against the Government of the U.S.; a State cannot become alien by ordinance, by treason, nor yet by rebellion. Nothing less than successful revolution and the ability on the part of the malcon tents to maintain their independence, in spite of the Government against which they have rebelled, can invest them with alien rights; this only will justify any nation in recognizin the independence of such revolutionists, an nothing less than this can carr a State out of the Union. It is the power, the might of the rebellious subject which the sovereign cannot overcome, that severs all the ties which bound them, and clothes it with national robes. Ifa State is out of the Union, it is alien; if alien, then is.it independent. One view preserves, the other destroys the Union. Upon a careful examination I find no on thorities in conflict with the views I have now exressed. True, the very able and distinguished chairman of the ComAppropriat [Mr. Srevnxs] holds a counter view, at he founds it, as I understand him, upon authorities he cited in a recent speech. I have examined these authorities, and as I construe them, not even one of them sustains his peculiar view. For illustration, take the 1st citation from Vattcl: “When the particsin rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a certain portion of territory; have declaredtheir independence have castotfthoiralle g(iauntitl itciehsaavgea mosritztahneii1r f.oeardmrmeiress:ovheareveign c;otmhemweonrcledd 1pe4kVnllolw. ledlrcsthem as belligerents and the contest This is all true. But what kind of war? I answer, it is civilWar, the existence of which does not, as alleged by the honorable gentleman. “break all the ties that bonnd"the belligerents before its commencement. On the contrary, the continuance of these “ties” is absolutely indispensable to its existence. The moment these are severed civilWar must expire. In this event the war necessarily becomes public. But no one claims that we have had a public war and no one disputes but that we have had civilWar bloody, wicked, remorse lcss. Every fireside attests it; every house hold mourns its cruelty. No one denies that this war assumed such proortions that the insurgents were recognize as belligerents. But this by no means changes the status of these States. Their relations only are atfected. In the 1st relation, the insurgents are traitors, amenable to civil law, the penalty of which is death. In the 2nd relation, as belligerents they ese ape the rigor of the civil code. The fact that the insurgents in civilWar are recognized as belligerents is equivalent to saying, you are so swollen by numbers that from motives of humanity belligerent rights must be accorded to you. Why, sir, the circumstance that these mal contents were recognized as belligerents only, is proof conclusive that in the estimation of the nations of the earth these States are and ever have been in the Union and subject to its control; otherwise, with the strong and known desire on the part of man of them to do so, instead of recognizing them as belli rents merely, they would have acknowledge their independence. Wheaton alleges that"Until the revolution is consummated, while the civilWar involving the contest for the government continues, other States foreign Powers] may remain indifforentspectators of the controversy.stillcontin uing to treat tire ancient Government as sovereign and the Governmentdefacto us a societyentitled to the rights of war against its enemy." From this authority there can be no doubt that these “rights of war" apply to the party resisting the “ ancient Government” only during the contest for the supremacy. This being determined by a surrender of the malcontents, the reason for the application of these rights no longer existing, their application must cease also, and the contestants are necessarily remanded to the position of an offended sovereign and of an offending subject. I insist this is the true relation which now exists between the national Government and these rebellious States. I further insist that to restore these States to their normal relations without any restrictions is to make no distinction between virtue and vice. To restore them without prescribing any conditions is contrary to precedent, in conflict with analogy, repugnant to justice, in opposition to the spirit of the Baltimore plat form, the reeated and well known views of the present xecutive of the nation, his imme diate predecessor, and both branches of congress. The differences, therefore, which now exist among the loyal men of this country are only as to the detail. They are no more variant than were the views which divided the patriots who finally harmonized in establishing our present form of government after the rev, olutionary war. I cite one further authority. Wheaten, at page 40, says: “The habitual obedience of the members of any political societyto a superior authority must have once existed in order to constitute a State; but a taeumthpoorritayr.ysuspensionof that obedienceand of that in consequenceof civilWar, does not no may affectfor atimeits ordinary relations with other States." It seems to me this authorityis in point, and that my 2nd affirmation is established. 3. The relations of these States thus changed and the rights thus forfeited can be restored Only by the legislative branch of the Government. Provisions are or may be made for the restoration of the relations and therights of which I have s olren. B whom? Is it by the trespasser? 0; but it is by the being or the power against which the trespass was committed. These provisions are as old as they l are universal. Adam could not restore him I self, neither could Payne, nor can SCarolina. In no instance is this restoration a matter of right, but purely of grace. There cessarily extinguish the being of a State. although l it are conditionsrecedent. reentsnce is the door and good works the evidence of its sincerity. But who is to judge of this? In our Government sovereignty or the power of which I have spoken is in the people. Its exercise isintrusted to agents. The 1st of these enacts, the 2nd interprets, and the 3rd executes the law. They are 3, yctoue. Theyare one, yet 3. They each have an orbit. The departure of either from this imperils each as certainly as a like departure in any celestial body from its orbit imerils itself and others. They are counter chec s, breaks upon the governmental engine. If the legislative branch of the Government is hasty or unwise, the Executive stays its action, and enables it to take a “2nd sober thought.” If the executive errs, the legislature may by the concurrence of 2/3rds of its members correct the error. If the legislative and the executive branches unite in error, the judicial branch may remedy their joint mistake. These provisions are wise, and though they may he inconvenient or even abused in some instances, yet we cannot afford to abrogate them. If, therefore. the insurrectionary States have forfeited, or if any of their rights are suspended, the sovereign power of the Government alone can grant relief. But to which of its agents must they apply? Not to the judicial, for she only interprets; not to the Executive, for he only executes the law. There is but one remaining. Practically, therefore it is of but little moment whether we regard the governments of those States as dead, suspended, or only deranged. As a precedent, it may be otherwise. Equally unimportant is it whether we treat these States as in or as out of the Union; for in either view it requires the same interposition to reconstruct, restore, or to res urrect them. But we have authority in point. The powers and the duties of Congress under article 4,section 4,of the Constitution of the U.S. were examined and de fined by the SCOTUS in a controversy involving analogous principles in a case reported in 7 oward, 42. he mooted question rew out of the fact that within the State of RhdIsland 2 several State governments were organized. The real point to be determined was as to which of these was the true government. This question Congress had decided incidentally prior to its being raised in court. The court say: "Under this article of the Constitution it rests with Congress to decide what government is the establishedone in a State. For, as the U.S. guaranties to each a republican proveinnienl.Con, gress must necessarily ecide what government is establishedinastate before it candotsrinincwhcthar it is republican or not.", The power being unquestioned, the propriety of its exercise is all that remains. Mr. Speaker, if men were indifferent to the future political control of this Government; if the position of Executive of this nation were unsought; if the patronage within its gift were of no value; if selfishness had no place in political parties, the business of reconstruction were easy. There are so many stand points, the lust of power is so seductive, that patriots even need the prayers of the good. I invite gentlemen to the stand point where the controlling thought, the central idea, the settled purpose is, that loyal men, and they only, shall rule this nation; that loyal men, ang they only, shall fill its places of honor and of trust. If this is the Presidents stand point I am with him. If this is the congressional stand point, I am with it. If in this the executive and Congress agree, they should act in concert. I most cordially concur with the Pr“esIfident, that there be 5,000 men in Tennessee loyal to the ConstitutionJoyal to freedom, loyal tojnstico, tbese true and faithful men should control the work of reorganization and reformation absolutely." The more detail of reorganization is of but little consequence. But the crowning fact, the cardinal doctrine, that loyal men must and shall rule this nation, like the stone cut out of the mountain, shall increase until it fill! the entire himl. Sir, the inquiry as to what governments now exist in these States, is a matter wholly for Congress. It is not a usurpation, it is not caveted by Congress, but it devolves upon this branch of the Government. The exercise of this prerogative is not to prevent the restoration of these States, but to promote this object. Congress is only an agent. From the mar murmgs of some, one might well infer that Congress were the offending party, and that these traitors are innocent and persecuted patriots. 4. The relations and the rights of these States should be restored as speedily as the interests of the parties concerned will permit. Reconstruction is the natural fruit of the rebellion. If this fruit is bitter, attribute it to its wicked planting and more pernicious culture. The process of reconstruction involves such weighty interests that no desire, be it ever so worthy, for a speedy restoration of these States Wlll justify a sacrifice of these interests. The question, in my judgment, is not may, but to what extent shall, Congress interfere with the municipal affairs of these States? My reply is, to any extent that the common good may require. When these States were threatening the life of the nation no one doubted the right of the Government to defend itself. To this end it raised armies, fought battles, captured and disarmed their forces. Thiswas not that they were alien enemies, but for the reason they were rebellious subjects. Our Government did this for the same reason and by the some authority that the ministers of the law arrest criminals or suppress a riot. The right to do this exists at all times. Crime only gives occasion for its exercise. But for the rebellion the exercise of this right would have remained ine perative. The exercise of this power is incident to sovereignty. It was to secure these and kindred rights that the General Government was established. Vattel says: “A nation or a State hasa right to everythingthat can help to ward offimminent angernnd to keepat a distance whatever is capableof causing its ruin and this from the very samereasonthat establishes its right to the things necessaryto its preservation." More particularly, allow me to say, the 39th Congress of the U.S. is not acting for the present only, but also for coming ages. The General Government, the governmentnt of each State, no matter what its status, the citizens of each and their successors are interested in the business of reconstructing these States. 4 million human beings just emerging into the sunlight of freedom; the millions to whom the perpetuity of our Government has ever been a cherished object; the vast numbers enervated and corrupted by a system that degraded and then sought to de stroy our Government, and especially the loyal men of the rebellious States, are looking to this Congress in hope. Shall we disappoint or fail to protect them? Vattel asserts: " The body of a nation cannot abandon a province. 2.tOWn or evena single individual who is a part of it. Unless compelledto by necessity." Sir, there is a sublimity, yet a simplicity in truth. There is a conception so pure that all men do it reverence. There is a stand pointso elevated that no one fails to erceive the truth who occupies it. It is justw ere “justice and mercy meet and embrace.” The enforcement of law is not inhuman; the Government that chastens its erring is not an enemy of its subjects; the parent who enforces obedience is not unmerciful to his child; these are evidences of the faithful discharge of Christian duty. Mr. Speaker, there is, there never has been, any opposition to, no hatred of, the South. The opposition is to traitors, the hatred is of trea son; the object, to reform the 1st and to prevent a recurrence of the last. Is this exceedingly wicked? Ours is not a Government for the white, nor is it a Government for the black, but it is a Government for man. To legislate for any class, irrespective of another, is equally unjust and ruine us to both. The attempt to do this I I has drenched our land in blodd and filled it with sorrow. Sir, it is claimed that the inhabitants of these States recently in armed rebellion are repent ant. Where is the evidence? Do they manifest it by murdering Union men, by electing traitors to Offices of trust, or are we to believe it from their arrogance of manner and the assumptions of their press? The prodigal made no attempt to destroy, he only abandoned his fathers house; and after wasting his substance he proposed to return. What was his language? “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son; make me as one of thy hired servants.” There was evidence of contrition. Let these more than prodigal States manifest this spirit, and evidence their sincerity by approprinte alcts, and the “ fatted calf” will be c ocrfully s am. Suppose we were the conquered, and they the conucrors. What would they exact? Sir, should we receive these men, these cons irators, whose unwashed hands yet drip with the blood of our slain; they as well as their dese endants, our constitnents, and our posterity the universe of man would pronounce the 39th Congress of the U.S.A. as infamous as imbecile. Look at it. Our soldiers sacrificed home and all of its joys, turned their wives and their children over to the charities of the nation, and then they offered themselves upon the altar of their country. By this patriotic devotion they saved our Government from its enemies. In memory of this heroism, in lBWfli of this love of country, it is proposed to admit their unrepentant enemies into these sacred Halls to enact laws, and to make provisions for the protection and the subsistence of their widows and their orphans. In their agony, may not these insulted ones exclaim: "Had it pleastlHeaven To try me with affliction; had he rained All kinds of sores, and shamcs.on my barehead; Stccped me in poverty to the very lips; Given to captivity me and my utmost hopes: I should have found in somepart of my soul Adrop of patience: but (alas!) to make [mycountry] A fixed ii ure. for the timeof scorn To poQint iGs slow$unmoiving fiingerCat, Madden: my brain." Sir, I can never, I will never consent to admit any man as a peer upon this floor whose garments are crimsoned in patriot blood. I should fear the avenging thnn crbolts of an offended God. What! Shall we voluntarily surrender to traitors the citadel the defense of which has cost so much? Has victory reduced our government to the alarming condition that it must be administered by its enemies? If it has, then is victory disaster, patriotism a crime, and de votion to country calamitous indeed. These traitors could not take our on ital by force; we therefore yield it to them, that they may yet triumph. I would compel the rebellious inhabitants of these States to protect the loyal men within their borders. fwould require them to send loyal men to these Halls as representatives. I would have them understand, now and forever, that by reason of their criminal acts, no leader in this rebellion, no man who has been edu cated at the expense of the Government or who has ever held an office under it and then sought its overthrow, can ever hope to fill any position of trust, or exercise the elective franchise. I would impress upon each of these men the sentiments so well and so truthfully expressed by President Johnson, “That the traitor has ceased to be a citizen; and in joining the rebellion has become a public enemy. He forfeited his right to vote With loyal men when he renounced his citizenship, and sought to destroy our Government.H I would enforce these doctrins if it took an army of 2 million men. This being done, in my judgment, these traitors should still thank Almighty God and an indulgent Republic that their conditions are made so easy. What! When I have repulsed and disarmed the assassin, must I take the villain into my house and allow him to share in its control? There should be some discrimination between innocence and guilt, between loyalty and disloyalty. Is the punishment I suggest too severe? Listen to the POTUS On the 22d day of February, 1866 he declared, “I came into power under the onstitution of the country and by the a probation of the people and what did I findp? I found 8 million people who were in fact condemned under the law, and the penalty was death.” I inquire, how can they ese ape? By submitting to “ the situation;” by simply recognizing the rights of others. Mr. Speaker, there are others than these criminals who are entitled to a hearing. Ages of privation, centuries of wrong and oppression have rendered them weak. They, as well as the 8 million people now under the penalty of death, are asking to be heard. Are they entitled to a heari.v I Let us examine the position of each. The condition of one is self impose d; the sorrows of the other were wantonly inflicted. The 1st are trespassers; the last have been trespassed against. One is the dispoiler; the other the dispoiled. One class were made strong and powerfub by a be neficent Government; they used this power for its overthrow. The other class have been enfeebled and impoverished by that same government, and yet they sustained it in its hour of trial. One has been guilty of inexcusable ingratitnde, the other has been a living exemplification of that more than human prayer, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” One has been and now is a bitter, imslacable enemy; the other has been friendly nn er almost irresistible provocation to hate. Which, then, has the highest claim? The 1st committed treason against the Government of their own choice; a Government under which they had acquired wealth and power. The last have been loyal to that same Government, yet in its counsels they have never been heard, and under it they have been degraded and beg gared. One has fared sumptuously and been clothed in purple and linen; the other has lain at his gate wounded and sick and fed upon crumbs. I will not say one shall be “com forted” and the other “tormented.” I only refer to an ancient record supposed to be authoritative. But it is alleed the black man isi norant, unfit for citzensfii. Grant it. But who made him so? Who probed him of his earnings and then barred the school house? Unfitted for citizenship! He is guilty of no crime. He is not under the “penalty of death.” His rights have been nnustly withheld the others were forfeited by aw. He solicits the rights for which he has patiently waited and prayed for centuries. Yet, being denied them, he has obeyed the law, served his oppressors, and waited and prayed, and prayed and waited. The other imperiously demands the rights be forfeited under alaw in the enactment of which he participated, and he now insists he is cruelly wronged because these rights are not restored to him contrary to law and what is more deplorable still, these criminals, “these people under the penalty of death, " claim superiority, and with an impudence peculiar to unmixed wickedness, with an arrogance begotten of slavery, not only claim the right to play the tyrant over these ignorant, enfeebled and elp less black men, but with an effrontery unpar alleled in history, they ask that they may articipate in the duties and powers of admin 1stering the Government of the U.S.A. with honest and loyal white men. "I chargethee.fling away ambition; B that sin fell angels; how can man. then. The imageof his Maker, hope to win by t." Mr. Speaker, if I have succeeded in my purpose have shown 1. That neither the acts of secession nor the war have in any way abridged the powers or the jurisdiction of the General Government over the insurrectionary States. 2. That those States are still in the Union, but by reason of their criminal acts, they have forfeited the right of being represented in our national councils. 3. That the legislative branch of our government only can restore this right and relieve these States from their present isabilities. 4. That these disabilities should be removed and these States should be restored as speedily as the safety and the interests of the several parties concerned will permit. In conclusion, I remark, men die, principles never. The individual who orders his life and shapes his course for no purpose other than to secure the popular applause oftoday; the party that is actuated by no loftier impulses than expediency; the Government that ignores the cardinal principles of justice and truth, must expect an ignominious grave. Statesmen and ghilosophers pass away and they are forgotten. nt principles live on. In the ages when inscriptions which chronicle the fame of the wisest, no matter how dec ly engraven, shall have been entirel effaced), these principles, radiant as were they when the stars hymned their 1st song of praise, shall speed on, shall prosecute their work until the will” of the overeign of all shall “be done in earth as it is in heaven.”