Mr. HISE. Mr. Chairman, before I resume my argument, I beg leave to make a few suggestions for the benefit of the reporters. The report which has already been made of my remarks on Monday last, is incorrect in a few unimportant particulars. For instance, I used the name “Pinckney” in the plural, “Pinck neys;” for there were 2 Pinckneys in the Federal Convention from SCarolina, and in speaking of the representation in that convention from Georgia, I used the word “Few” instead of the word “Fee, ” I did not say as reported, that I did not desire to be elected, but that I did not seek or desire the nomination. In other places conjunctions have been inserted which were not used by me, and occasionally some few words have been omitted which I did use. However, I have no reason to complain of the report, for it is generally correct. I would also remark for the benefit of the reporters, that the ripest scholar in belles let: tres and philology, in the heat and haste of extemporaneous debate, may and will commit errors and blunders, both in style and gram. mar. if I should do so, it would not be intentional, and I hope that such a report may be made of my remarks today as not to convict me of such blunders. Mr. Chairman, when I closed my remarks on Monday last, I was discussing the theoret ical views of the 2 political schools of this country, which had their origin, as I then remarked, at the time of the origin of the government, I ondeavored briefly to define the principles of the school to which I belorg, in which I have been educated, and which all my subsequent reading and experience have confirmed in my mind, as the only true and correct theory of our Government. This Government I assumed to be a Government exclusively of States; that it can be only a Government of States, and that the Government provided by the Constitution for States o; govern anything but States. I deny the right of the Government of the U.S., through all its depts and by all its governmental machinery, under the Constitution of the U.S., legitimate ly to govern any people, to rule and control by laws or the execution of laws, any people living outside of the boundaries and territory of the States in the Union, or such as may thereafter be admitted into the Union. At the same time that I plant myself impreg nably as I have done upon that position, I admit that in progress of time, even very early in the history of our Government, the U.S. being the grantee of large bodies of lands and territory unsettled, except perhaps by hostile tribes of Indians, when those i. began to be occupied, settled upon, and owned and possessed by large bodies of people, the Congress of the U.S. did assume the power of instituting and providing territorial governments for the people inhabiting the public domain. The title to these lands had been acquired 1st by deeds of cession from the various States, and also by treaties with foreign Powers, as in the case of Florida and Louisiana. That power, thus originally usurped, according to my deliberate judgment and opinion, has been practiced upon, and there has been a continuous exercise of that power from the time the 1st territorial government was made, which I think was in what is now the State of Ohio. It is not a matter material with reference to the argument which was the 1st. The power has been exercised repeatedly from that day to this, the Congress of the U.S. as suming and exercising 1st, the power of instituting absolute governments for those people. It provided fundamental laws for them, fixing o regulating therein the mode and manner of their government, usually, I believe, retaining in the hands of the executive government of the U.S. the power of appointment of their executive and judicial officers, and retaining in Congress the authority to revise and repeal their local territorial legislation. The Government of the U.S. usually supported the territorial government, paying the Governor and the other executive officers, and also paying the judges, appeals being allowed from the decisions of the territorial courts to the U.S. Supreme Court, as the laws of the territorial Legislature were subjected to the revision of {. the Congress of the States. Now, I say that this exercise of power by the Government of the U.S. was origin ally, in my opinion, usurped without authority. This has been denied, however, by the latitudinarian school of politicians, who claim that this Government is a popular Government, who insist that its powers are only limited and controlled by the extent of its ability to carry its acts into effect by majorities. Where do they find the warrant for the exercise of this power? I have not known any public man of much character, any man having much respect for his reputation, to hazard an opinion that this power is derived from any other source than that provision of the Constitution which declares that Congress shall have power “to dispose of and.all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property belonging to the U.S. ”.I repeat, that I have no recollection of any public man of much repute in this country, any man who has occupied high public station, either in the judicial or legislative dept of the Federal Government, that has contended that this power can be derived from any other source than the provision of the Constitution to which I have referred. The interpretation thus given is, in my judgment, totally unauthorized. The fatal error of that interpretation is made manifest by the use of 2 phrases in the provision referred to: 1st, the phrase “dispose of, ” and 2nd, the phrase “other property.” The language, in my view, furnishes under all reasonable rules of interpretation the most convincing ground for the inference that the authority granted under that clause was intended to reach no further than to give to the Congress of the U.S. the authority to dispose of their property, real, personal, and mixed, and to make all the rules and regulations necessary for the purpose of bringing it ket, into mar keeping it, owning it, and disposing of it. The word “territory” used in that clause of the Constitution is used in the sense of property held by the U.S., real property, not personal; and immediately in connection with the term “territory” occurs the phrase “other, property belonging to the U.S.” Now, I elaborate this point, not for the purpose of combating or changing the uniform practice of the Government, if I had the power or influence to do so, in regard to the organization of governments for the Territories I mean for the people inhabiting or occupying the public domain. Let that matter pass. such legislation had its origin in usurpation, without constitutional authority. But it has grown into precedent by repeated practice, and let it stand. But this does not deprive me and the men of my political school of the right still to contend and show from the character of our Government and institutions that the Government of the U.S. is legitimately, under the Federal Constitution, a Commonwealth of States and States alone; that its governmental authority has but this extent and is thus necessarily limited. Now, when I gain this point, I gain every thing. if I make this point clear, then the acts of this Congress by jyou have deprived 1st 11 and now ten States of their right of representation upon the floor of Congress, are unauthorized; are in usurpation of the rights of the States and sanctioned neither by law, logic, nor sound principle. Even concede that you have the right to make territorial governments using the word “territorial” because the government so made is for the people inhabiting territory belonging to the U.S. suppose you have, does it follow you have the right to establish political institutions of government and rule people inhabiting territory that does not belong to you? Does it follow, either in law or reason, that your have the power or authority to make territorial governments, and to rule and control and govern, through the instrumentality of your President, Congress, and judges, a people who never were in any State of the Union; a people who were never upon the territory of the U.S., but who are entirely beyond any State in the U.S., and outside of the boundary and jurisdiction, therefore, both of the States and of the Federal Government? Why, sir, if you have this authority to govern people without their being represented here, suppose you try your hands upon the West India Islands, Cuba, Jamaica, sandomingo, and Porto Rico. Suppose you try your hands upon Mexico and the States of British North America, and see whether or not you are willing to pledge yourself not only to shstain your power over a people not represented, but your ability to make territorial governments over the whole of North America, including the adjacent isl. ands. Now, sir, you have as much authority to extend territorial governments over the people of Cuba, over the States of Mexico, Central america, and British North America, as you have of extending a territorial, arbitrary government over the people of the States not reptesented. You do not admit that these States are out of the Union. If they are out of the Union then you have no right to govern them. If they are in the Union then they are in as States, and as States have a right to their proportion of representation in the Lower House of Congress and their right to equal representation upon the floor of the U.S. senate. therwise, there is no constitutional power and authority to govern them; none whatever. Now, the school of politicians to which I belong have usually been in a majority in the Congress of the U.S. from its origin up to the year 1860. It has seldom been the case until the last 6 years that there has been a majority in both branches of Congress of those politicians of the latitudinarian school, the owhich favors the enlargement of the powers of the Government contrary to its plain import. That school has seldom ever been in a majority in both branches of Congress at the same time since the origin of the Government. You succeeded in setting up in the progress of time some 2 or 3 Administrations of the Government that held these views and represented the latitudinarian party, but either one or the other branch of the American Congress until within the last 6 years was against that party; so that the views i.expressed of the nature and character of the U.S. as being confederate instead of consolidated in form have been sustained by the American people from the adoption of the Government until when you commenced the inauguration of a military despotism over this country. The elder Adams, one of our 1st Presidents, and Alexander Hamilton, in the Convention were the founders of one school. Mr. Madison, of the Federal Convention, and Mr. Jefferson, the 3rd President, were considered as the founders of the other. Now I do not find from one distinguished man ofour own political school an expression of opinion on a public theater, where the party could be held responsible for his views, a deliberate expression of his opinion, that this is a popular Government and its powers are coextensive with the will of existing majorities. You cannot find it; this is a Government of States; not only does the history of the times prove it by showing they were independent sovereign States before the Government was formed, but it is proved by the Constitution itself. It was made the States. The States were to be represented equally in the Senate regardless of their geographical extent, of size, or amount of population. The principle was declared and the mode prescribed in the Constitution itself whereby the States should be represented in the lower branches of Congress, but they were still the representatives of States. The POTUS was to be selected by the States. Each and all are required by the fundamental and irrepealable law, the constitution of the U.S., to select their representation in the Electoral College for the purpose of electing a President and VEEP if any candidate fail to receive a majority there then the election comes into this House, where it is to be decided by States, each State only having one vote, to be cast by the majority of its delegation, and a majority of all the States necessary to a phoice. Not only is it the fact that the machinery of the Federal Government has been provided by States; that its functionaries represent the States; that it gives to the States the power of electing the Chief Magistrate; but the Constitution itself proves most conclusively that the States were to continue to exist with all their retained powers in the Federal Union, and that the ends and purposes for which the Government of the States was established could well be subserved without interference with the independent governmental character of the States. It was never intended to interfere with the authority and rights of the States as such. They were to rule themselves within their own bor ders to all intents and purposes, so that they assumed no granted power and exercised none. prohibited to them. They had the right to adopt their own criminal and civil codes, to regulate by their own laws their own internal concerns in every particular in regard to crimes and punishments, civil rights, the transmission of real estate by purchase or descent, the mode of distribution of personal estates, the relation of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and, if you please, master and slave; all the duties and obligations pertaining to the various civil offices, of executors, administrators, and trustees. All these powers are retained by the States, with the reserved power to each State for itself to control its own policy in regard to manufactures, agriculture, and commerce within its own borders. Now, look at the character of the Federal Government. It may raise an army. The States have no right to create armies or raise troops in time of peace. The Federal government may build and support a navy. The States are inhibited from doing it. The Eed eral Government may make treaties with foreign Powers. The States are prohibited from doing it, and even from making compacts with each other. But all authority over their internal concerns in regard to the rights of property and of person are retained by the States except so far as they may be expressly granted to the Federal Government. The whole object and purpose was that the Federal Government should have control of our foreign commerce, our foreign relations; should have the power to make war, in conducting which the States were to unite all their energies and powers; and should have the authority to coin money, to impose taxes, and to borrow money, &c. It is easy, were it not for the tendency of ambitious men when in power to magnify and extend that power beyond its legitimate limit, it is easy for this Congress and for the Government of the U.S. in all its depts to trace and pursue the plain line of demarkation or distinction between the powers and juris diction of the Federal Government and that retained by the States. An infallible clue to a just and true interpretation of the Constitution of the U.S. in regard to the powers thereby granted by the States is to understand the objects and purposes to be promoted and attained by the Government it creates. These objects were to make war and peace as a unit, to control and conduct our foreign affairs and relations, to regulate our commerce with foreign Powers, between the States and the Indian tribes, to keep perpetual free trade and peace between the States. Let the government of the Union, in the exercise of its powers, then, confine itself to the accomplishment of these purposes, carefully avoiding any invasion of the retained powers of the States, and the Union may be indefinitely extended and forever maintained. Now, there is no more devoted friend and advocate than I am of the maintenance and preservation of the present union of the States, and not only of the States already included therein, but of other States that may be here after legitimately annexed or admitted into this Union. I wish to see the Union enlarged until it shall comprise the whole continent of North America, distributed and divided into States, each one reserving to itself and maintaining the right of controlling its own affairs within its own limits and exercising its own reserved rights. A most important result would be secured by this union of States. Free trade between them would be established over the whole continent, and however much the powers of the General Government might be prostituted to embarrass our commerce with the world, and thus promote sectional aggrandizement and antagonism, we should have the consolation at least of knowing that it was beyond the power of that Government, through its power of indirect taxation or otherwise, ever to disturb free commercial intercourse or trade between all the States of the Union. But you deny that they are States. Well, sir, if a man will deny a solemn truth staring him right in the face; if a man will deny what the records of your own Congress prove; if a man will deny what is plainly stated in the Constitution of the U.S.; if a man will deny the fact that Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas were in part the framers of the Constitution, and that they are members of the Union created by that Constitution; if a man will deny these things, how can you demonstrate anything to him? These States, through their delegates to the Federal Convention, assisted in framing the Constitution, and they, by their several State conventions, adopted and ratified it. The other States now denied their due representation in Congress were each, by solemn compacts in the form of i and irrepealable legislation, passed and adopted by the legislative authorities of both the governments of the Union and of the said States, severally admitted into the Union, where they stand now and must forever remain unless severed by a successful revolution. There are certain truths so palpable and self evident that the mere statement of them is sufficient to prove them. There are certain mathematical and logical truths that no one will multiply words in attempting to prove. Who will attempt to prove that 2 parallel straight lines drawn out to an indefinite length will never meet? Who would attempt to prove by a demonstration of language that the arts of the circumference of a circle are equi from the center, or that 2 straight lines drawn through the center of a circle at right angles to each other would divide it into 4 equal parts? There are self evident truths in logic as in mathematics that need only to be stated to command assent. I say that these are States. They were States in the Union, and bound by the Constitution of the U.S and its laws, under the Federal compact. It was because the people who inhabited these States attempted forcibly to prevent the constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it from being enforced within their borders, that you made war upon them; you ravaged their country; you murdered many of their people; you burned and destroyed their property, and overrun them with armies that were permitted more latitude in their operations than, in my judgment, was ever permitted to armies in any war ever conducted by a civilized power. This has been done, and it was done upon what pretext and for what purpose? It was to enforce the Constitution and laws upon these people. The States were attempting to secede and you said they should not secede. As States they could not secede. The Constitution of the U.S. declares that its provisions and all laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State of the Union to the contrary notwithstanding; thus making it utterly impossible as a matter of law that any State could ever get out of the Union. No State can get out of the Union by law, whetherin the form of legislative enactment or by any ordinanee or decree of a convention. Then if they could not get out lawfully, have they got out in any other way? There is another way by which, perhaps, omight get r out, and that would be by successful revolution, by their resisting successfully by force the enforcement of the Constitution and laws of the U.S. over them. If they should succeed in resisting the power attempting to coerce them into the Union they might get out of the Union and from under the Constitution, and their getting out might be acquiesced in. But the revolution attempted has not succeeded. They have failed to get out, and being lawfully in all their ordinances and decrees, whether by conventions or through their Legislatures, were entire nullities; because that they are nullities is evident from the fact that the Constitution of the U.S. has made itself and the laws made in pursuance of it the supreme law, of all the States. If, then, they are not out by law, how are they out? And if they are not out, then you cannot govern them without their being represented in Congress. If they are not out, then the Constitution provides that Virginia, NCarolina, SCarolina, and Georgia shall have certain representation in the 1st Congress; and not only that, but that they should thereafter be entitled to their proportion of representatives in subsequent congresses of the U.S. The Constitution provides for the ascertainment of the entire number of Representatives, and that number is to be apportioned among the States by a given ratio. That ratio is to be adopted by the Congress of the U.S., and then the number of Representatives of each State being thus ascertained, they have a constitutional right to come in here and be represented, and you cannot deny that right unless you do so by a flagrant violation of the Constitution, which virtually ejects those States from the Union. I have stated, sir, and I state again, that there is no warrant of law for the assumption and that no judicial mind can assume for a moment that any civil act, any act of legislation, any act in the shape of a decree or ordinance of any public body of the States by which they attempted to break their connection with the other States, was anything but a nullity. It is especially ordained that the Constitution and laws of the U.S shall be supreme over every State in the Union. These States are not out of the Union by law; they are not out by force. Theirs was an unsuccessful revolution. And if they are not out by force, then they are in the Union. The Constitution is the chart, it is the special power of attorney under which the States are united together. For, sir, I assimilate this Constitution very much to a special, as distinguished from a general, power of attorney. It is special because the powers of the agents and functionaries of the Government therein provided for are limited and defined; and being so limited and defined the power is special, not general. This power of attorney was signed by all the States then in the Union, and it has been signed by each State that has subsequently come in, and each agreed with the others that neither shall ever be deprived of its just representation in this House and its equal representation in the Senate of the U.S. How, then, is it that you can overthrow the Constitution and revolutionize this Government? You are here as the agents of your various States; you represent your various States in this Congress as States. And do you, gentlemen, representing the great, gigan tic, powerful State of NewYork, admit that a majority can at any time or under any circumstances, while you are willing to remain in the Union, deprive you, by a resolution of this body or by an act of Congress, of your representation in the Senate and in the HoRep in Congress? The great States of NewYork and Pennsylvania, with a ring in the nose of each and cord attached, led by NewEngland, are giving in to the long determined and settled policy of the North to prevent the extension to the South and West of representative power in Congress, and are being driven on by the party lash, wielded and brandished by a Boston junto, who move and inspire the dominant majority in both the Senate and HoRep. This deplorable state of things cannot last; it is impossible for such patent and barefaced violations of the Constitution and the laws, of the eternal principles of right and justice, to last. It must have an end, and a disastrous end speedily I apprehend, if this reckless career is not arrested. I feel a deep interest and an j. anxious solicitude this subject, because I want no more revolution, I want no more war; I not only want the States now in the Union to remain there, but I want all the balance of the continent that is worth annexing to come in and to have our Union to be coextensive with the continent of North America; not extended by violence and war, not by force upon the inhabitants of adja cent countries, but by the legitimate annexation of new States. I hold, therefore, that we ought to look not only to the present but to the future. Yet you are here adopting a system of policy to deprive these States of their representation in congress for no higher or nobler purpose than that of preserving your party predominance. Nothing else can be at the bottom of it. Hu manity cannot promptit; patriotism cannot in spire it; love F.?and hope of its preservation cannot possibly justify it; because all these forbid it. Sound patriotism would say: “admit the representatives from those States;” common humanity and justice would say, “ad mit them;” the best policy and interest of the whole country would say, “admit them;” the Constitution and laws imperatively demand that we should admit them. They are in the Union and you cannot lawfully put their representation out of this House; it is their portion of the instrumentality and machinery by which they and other portions of the Union are to be governed. Yet, for the mere sake of preserving your party predominance, and for no other or higher motive that I can conceive of you are trying to do that which is contrary to the best interest of all sections. In my judgment, your course for exclusion and disunion is against sound policy, expediency, law, justice, and grossly violative of the Constitution. Call see lio higher or better motive by which the men are influenced who do this monstrous wrong always giving them credit for ordinary sagacity than the mere preservation of their present party predominance; as though this Government was made for the mere preservation of party ascendency and the promotion of party interests; as though this Government should be ruled through its legislative branch by men other than those of sound patriotism. The attempt to rule arbitrarily and by military power, the attempt to o: exclude States of this from their just share of representation in Congress, can only proceed from the brains of mere partisans and politicians, the spawn and filth produced by the boiling of the political caldron and which by a law of fermentation always arises to the surface. That cal dron has been stirred up and boiling for the last 6 or 7 years, by reason of which inferior men, unpatriotic men, men who are not sound statesmen, but mere politicians, have been foisted into power, and are now ruling through the dominant party, in such manner and with such purposes as must inevitably result, if not checked in time, in the destruction of the governments of the States, the overthrow of all the guarantees in our constitutions, State and Federal, for the preservation of the rights and liberties of the citizens, and the establishment of a despotic Government, upheld by a mer cenary standing army, and taxing, governing, and controlling the whole country, regardless of constitutional restraints. But why is it you do not want these people represented 7 Do you pretend to deny that those southern States have furnished in time past some of the most patriotic and illus trious men who have taken part in the councils of the Government. Before and during the Revolution and since, those States have sent to our public councils men of the highest patriotism and the soundest public spirit. Are you afraid of the influence that will be exerted by the men they will send here, if they be allowed their constitutional right of representation in these Halls. The talent, energy, and virtue of the men they would send here would be such as to command the respect of the nation and perhaps to influence materially and wisely the policy of the Government in the promotion of its best interests, both foreign and domestic, and for the conservation of the rights of their own States and the liberties of their own people. Again, not only do vou refuse to these States their constitutional share of representation for no higher reason that I can conceive of than the one I have stated, but you go still further. Not only do you attempt to control these people without representation, without warrantor authority of law, but you establish over them a military despotism. You refuse to allow them to participate in the Government, nor will you allow them to govern themselves in their own internal concerns. There has been introduced here a bill (which I have but cursorily examined) to overthrow and demolish these State governments alto gether, taking away all the authority of the States to govern themselves, to control their own domestic interests, to regulate the franchise or suffrage to foist upon those States a government to be enforced by congressional power; and the President is to be ordered to usethe military and naval forces of the country to overthrow the existing State governments and to impose upon them other governments in their stead, and in which demolition and substitution they have no choice but submission. This would imply a deliberate purpose to surrender those State governments into the hands of the negroes, disfranchising the white population and enfranchising the slaves that formerly belonged to them. This is the policy indicated by measures already adopted and by measures which seem to be contemplated. In addition to this, my northern friends are engaged in another work of mischief and destruction which, if it prevails, will actually subvert the character of the Government, which will sweep away all the guaranties for the main tenance of the rights and powers of the States, giving to a single dept of the Governmententire control, regardless of constitutional restraints. The predominance of the Republican party of the North in both branches of Congress is such that they seem to have become fiercely aggressive upon the executive dept of the Government, and seem disposed to disregard altogether the division and distribution of power among the several depts of the Government, as laid down in the Constitution. We know that outside of these Halls they have threatened to depose the head of the executive dept by impeachment, for no cause known to the Constitution or laws, for nothing except acts which, in my humble opinion, prove him to be an honest, patriotic, and devoted friend of constitutional liberty. I do not deny, nay, I admit, that AndrewJohnson, both before and since he became POTUS, has done and said things which are so entirely in conflict with what I regard as sound political doctrine, so opposed to the principles to which he himself adhered in the earlier part of his public career, that I cannot and never shall approve Iof them. I will not specify the things to which now refer. But it will be observed that those opinions and acts of the President officially pronounced and performed by him within 6 years past which the judgment of his former political friends condemn are approved heart ily, no doubt, by his present political enemies. Those acts of.Johnson for which, if for anything, he ought to have been impeached, according to the views of those who think with me, are the very things which are virtues in the estimation of the gentlemen on the other side. Now, when President Johnson has become alive to the necessity of preserving constitutional government, when i. has become satisfied that usurpations of power has been practiced and unconstitutional laws been enacted by the present Congress, and now seeks to interpose with his veto power to protect the Constitution and save the liberties of the people, gentlemen on the other side propose to impeach him. here are things in his presidential career for which I admire him, and which induce me to overlook many things he has said and done during the last 6 years. Now, sir, your party predominance it seems will be endangered if you allow these States to remain in the Union; that if you allow them representation in Congress it will endanger your party predominance; that these $540,000,000 of public treasure in that state of the case would not be monopolized by you; that you want all of the patronage in all the depts of the Government, and that you are not in favor of any division of it whatever. You fear that patronage would be endangered unless you should in substance overthrow, prostrate, and destroy the executive dept of the Government by impeachment of the President. It appears by the various movements which have been made that the object is to deprive the Executive of his power. You propose to take away his power, his absolute, uncontrol lable power of appointment, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. You propose to take away his power of removal of public officers except exercised with the consent of the Senate. At present, as Congress is constituted, you have as large a majority in the U.S. Senate as here and can rely upon the Senate that no man shall receive an appointment unless he be a Radical, and that no officer being a Radical shall be removed. If the nomination be made of a man not a Radical in furtherance of the measures and purposes you have in contemplation, he would be rejected by the Senate. If a man thus rejected be appointed aIfgain it is to be a high crime and misdemeanor. a man already in office is of your faith and polities he is not to be removed without the concurrence of the Senate. So that in the matter of removals and appointments it seems to me to be the design and purpose to destroy in substance the power of the Executive over the subject of patronage; and also as you have 2/3rds majority to make the conservative principle contained in our Constitution utterly useless and powerless. It seems to be your design and purpose to carry all of your measures, constitutional or unconstitutional, so as to absorball the powers of all the other depts of the Government in the hands of Congress, and thus remove all the checks and balances intended in the very frame work and structure of the Government to prevent usurpations. he . The gentleman's hour has expired.