Mr. GARFIELD. Of course I desire to quote my colleague correctly, for I agree.with him, and note imto strengthen my position, that the rebel States have not severed the Federal bond, but have utterly demolished their municipal governments. Now, let us inquire how the surrender of the military power of the rebellion affected the legal condition of those States. When the rebellion collapsed, and the last armed man of the confederacy surrendered to our forces, Iatfirm that there was not in one of those States a single government that we did or could recognize. here was not in one of those States, from governor down to constable, a single man whom we could recognize as authorized to exercise any official function whatever. They had formed gpvernments alien and hostile to the Union. 0t only had their officers taken no oaths to support the Constitution of the U.S., but they had heaped oath upon oath to destroyit. I go further. I hold that there were in those States no constitutions of any binding force and effect; none that we could recognize. A constitution, in this case, can mean nothing less than a constitution of government. A constitution must constitute something or it is no constitution. When we speak of the constitution of Alabama we mean the constitution of the government. of Alabama. When the rebels surrendered there remained no constitution in Alabama, becausethere remained no government. Those States reverted into our hands by victo rious war, with every municipal right and every municipal authority utter y ans completely swept away. Whose duty was it to assume the control of them under such circumstances? In the 1st instance it was the duty of the POTUS Congress was not then in session. Military resistance to the armies of the Union had ceased, and the laws of war pervaded every inch of the conquered territory. I apeal to the highest authorities in international law, as quoted by Hallcclr, chapter 32, section one: " The right of onebelligerent to occupy and govern the territory of the enemywhile in its military possession is one of the incidents of war and flows directly from the right to conquer. We thereforedo not look to the constitution or political institutions of the conquerorfor authority to establishament govern for the territory of the enemyin his possession. during its military occupation. nor for the rules by which the powersof such governmentare regulated and limited. such authority and such rules are de rived directly from the lawsof war. asestablishedby the usagept the world, and confirmedby the writings of publicists iiihd the decisions of courts in fine, from the law of nations. But when the connest is made complete in whatsoever mode, the rightto govern the acquired territory follows as the inevit able consequenceof the right of acquisition and the character. form, and powersof the governmentes tablished over such conqueredterritory are determined by the constitution and laws of the State which acquiresit, or with which it is incorporated. atory (government ilisttaarbylioshcceudpoavteiornamn aeneexmeyresi steearlrli the powers given by the laws ofwar to the conqueror over thopODtglfllOda, nd is subJectto all the restrictions which that code imposes. It is of little consequence whether such government be oalled a military or civil government: its character is the some, and RIheas government aiumthpoorsiet by the same law; sine fewithaer.racnasdesiot far as it concerns the inhabitants of such territory or the rest of the world. Those laws alone determine the legality or illegality of its acts. But the conquering Statemay.of its own will, whetherexpressedin its constitution or in its laws impose restrictions additional to those established by the usageofnations, conferring upon the inhabitants of the territory so sotercicutplyied, privilegesand rights to which they are not on led by the laws of war: and if such government O military occupation violate theseadditional restrictionsso ini osed, it is power accountable to the which establishe it. but not to the rest of the world.”. Again, chapter 33, section 16, in applying the laws of war to our Government, he says: “The POTUScanmakeno treaty Without the concurrenceof 2/3rds of the Senate and his authority over ceded territory. though derived from the law of nations is limited by the Constitution and subordinate to the laws of Congress. It. however, is well settledbythe Supreme Court that asconstitutional Coinmander in Chicf ho is isedto author toriuaeivil or military government for the conquered territory during the war, and that whensuch ttchrerietxoirsyt inis government U.S. as a conquest. as a so established docsnoteea so matterof courseor asa consequenceof the restoration of peace;that, on the contrary such governments risulehgtfully tecsoonthtienruweids after the peace and until but that the President mayvirtuallydissolve this government bywithdrawing the officers who administer it: providedhe does not therebyneglecthis constitutional obligation. “to take care that the laws befaithfully executed. “So long as that governmenteontinues.with the expressor implied sanction of the President. it represents the sovereigntyof the U.S., and has the legal authority to enforce and execute the laws which extend over such territory. Congressmay at any time put an endto this government of the conquered territory, and organize a newone or it may permit the people of such territory toform a constitution and mit it asa newStateinto the Union." It was decided by the SCOTUS, in reference to the Mexican war, that“On the conquest of a country the President may establish a provisional government, which moyordnin laws and institute a udicial system, which Wlll continue in forceafter the war and until modifiedbythe direct legislation of Congressor by the territorial goggnment established by its authority." 9Howard, 1). From these authorities and from the facts in the case it is evident: 1. That, by conquest the U.S. obtained comp ete contro of the rebel territory. 2. That every vestige of municipal authority in those States was, by secession, rebellion, and the conquest of the rebellion, utterly de stroyed. 3. That the state of war did not terminate with the actual cessation of hostilities, but that under the laws of war it was the duty of the President, as Commander in Chief, to establish governments over the conquered people of the insurgent States, which governments, no matter what may be their form, are really military governments, deriving their sole power from the President. 4. That the governments thus established are valid while the state of war continues and until Congress acts in the case. 5. That it belongs exclusively to the legislative authority of the Government to deter mine the political status of the insurgent States, either by adopting the governments the President has established, or by permitting the people to form others, Congress. The President might have sent a major general or any other military officer to govern each one of the rebel States. But he chose to consalt the people and allow them to adopt a form of government so nearly resembling civil government that they might the more easily come back to their places y and by. But it was none the less a military government for that reason. On any other round the whole course of the President would have been an unwarrantable usurpation. Now, holding 1st that the President had full authority in the matter, I ask, how long does his authority last? It is clearly settled y the authorities to which I have referred that his authority lasts until congress speaks. So long as Congress is silent, the governments established by the President will remain. It is now time, Mr. Speaker, that Congress should make its declaration of policy and principle in reference to these governments. Let us not quarrel with the past. Let us not endanger the future because the Presidents policy in the past has not been all we could de sire. Iii one important particular I wishithad been different. When he appealed to the people of the South to cooperate with him in establishing his military governments I greatly regret that he did not up cal to all the loyal people. I regret that lie did not recognize the rights and consult the wishes of those loyal millions who were made free and made citizens also by the events of the war. What he did he had a subject to the approva of But. let that ass. right to do; what remains to be done is for Congress and the President in their legislative capacity to determine. Our rights in this direction are as ample as the rights of conquest. What are they? I read from Woolsey, page 231, the latest utterance of public law, may c with direct reference to our war: “When an internal war breaks out the Government must determine whether the municipal or international code, in wholeor in part, shall be adopted. In general the relation of the attics ought to be nearly those of ordinary war which humanity demands and will be. because otherwisethe law of retaliation will be applied. Municipal law may be enforced with less in the way of pecuniary than of personal penalties; fines or coufiscations may be tenacious in strengthening the Government and de from rebellion. If slaves, as among us, form a part of the property o lthe rebels, since slavery is local and the law of nations knows of no such thing. The advancing military power of the Government may set them free and use and protect them. And inde if force overthrow: the local laws on which slavery rests they become free of course. The same rules of war are required in such a war as in any other, the same ways of fighting the same treatment ot prisoners of combatants of non-combatants and of private property by the army where it passes. So also nntural justice emnnds tho same veracity and faithfulness which are binding in the intercourse of all moral beings. “Nations thus treating rebels by no means concede thereby that they form a State or that they are defaclosueh. There is a difference between belligerents and belligerent States which has been too much overlooked. When a war ends to the disadvantage of the insurgents municipal law may clinch the nail which war as driven, may hang, after legal process instead of shooting and confiscate the whole instead of plundering a part. But a wise and civilized nation will pxcrcise only so much of this legal vengeance as the interests of lasting peace imperiously demand." these capacious powers are in our hands. How shall we use them? I agree with my friendfrom Connecticut [Mr. DEHIND] that we need not apply the strictissimum jar to these conquere people. Weshould do nothing incousistent with the spirit and genius of our institutions. We should do nothing for revenge, but every thing tor security; nothing for the past, every thin for the presentand the future. Indemnity for the past we can never obtain. The 400,000 graves in which sleep our fathers and brothers, murdered by rebellion, will keep their sacred trust till the angel of the resurrection bids the dead come forth. The tears, the sorrow, the unutterableanguish ofbroken hearts can never be atoned for. We turn from that sad but glorious past, and demand such securities for the future as can never be destroyed and 1st, we must recognize in all our action the stu endons facts of the war. In the very. crisis O our fate God brought us face to face with the alarming truth that we must lose our own freedom or grant it to the slave. In the extremity of our distress we called upon the black man to help us save the lte pubic, and amid the very thunder of battle, we umdeacov enant with him, sealed both with his blood and ours, and witnessed by Jehovah, that when the nation was redeemed, he should be free and share with us the glories and blessings of freedom. In the solemn words of the great roclamation of emancipation, we not only dec ared the slaves forever ree, but we pled d the faith of the nation “to maintain their freedom”mark the words, “ to maintain their freedom." The Omniscientwitness will a pear in judgment a inst us if we do not fulfill that covenant. have we done it? Have we given freedom to the black man? Whatis freedom? Is it a mere negation; the bare privilege of not being chained, bought and sold, braned and scourged? If this be all, then freedom is a bitter mockery, a cruel delusion, and it may well be questioned whether slavery were not better. oz." But liberty is no negation. It is a substan tive, tangible reality. It is the realization of those imerishable truths of the Declaration that all men are created equal, ” that the sanction of all just government is “the consent of the governed.” Can these truths be realized unti each man has a right to be heard on all matters relating to himself?Mr. Speaker. we did more than merel to break off the chains of the slaves. The a polition of slavery added 4 million citizens to the Re. public. By the decision otthe Supreme Court, y the decision of the AttyGen, by the decision of all the Depts of our (Tbvernment, those men made free are, by the act of freedom, made citizens. As another has said, the must be “ 4 million disfranchised, disarm, untaught, landless, thriftloae; nonproducing, non-consuming, degraded men, or our million laud holding, industrious, arms bearing, and voting population. Choose between the 2 I” If they are to be disfranchised, if they are to have no voice in determining the conditions under which they are to live and labor, what hosle have they for the future? It will rest wi their late masters, whose treason they aided to thwart, to determine whether negroes shall be permitted to hold property, to enjoy the benefits of education, to enforce contracts, to have access to the courts of justice in short, to enjoy any of those rights which give vitality and value to freedom. Who can fail to foresee the ruin and misery that await this race to whom the vision of freedom has been presented only to be withdrawn, leaving them without even the aid which the masters selfish, commercial interest in their life and service for merly afforded them 2 Will these he roes, re membering the battle fields on which nearly 200,000 of their number have so bravely fought, and many 1,000s have hero ically died, submit to oppression as tamely and peaceablyas in the da 8oiislavery? Under such conditions there cool he no peace, no security, no prosperity. The spirit of slavery is still among us; it must be utterly destroyed before we shall be safe. I remember an incident in the history of the eastern church, as recorded by Gibbon, volume 2, chapter 28, which illus trates the power which slavery has exercised among us. The Christians of that day under the lead of the ophilus undertook to destroy the heathen temples. Gibbon says: “Theophilus proceededto demolish the templeof Scijapis Without any other difficulties than those which he found in the weightand solidity of the may terials, buttheseobstaclesprovedsoipsuperablethat he was obli edto leave the foundationsand to content himsel Withreducing the edificeitself to a heap of rubbish, a part of which was soon afterward cleared owe to make roomfor a church.erectedin honor of the" hristian martyrs. The colossal statueof Ser iis wasinvolved in the ruin of h15t empleand religion. A great number of platesof different metals.artificially joined together composedthem esticfigureof the city, whotouehe on either side O walls of the sanctuary; The as pect of Serapis.his sittin posture and the scepter. whichhe bore.in his left and Were extremelysimilarto the ordinary representationsof Ju iter. He was distinguished from Jupiter by the askct or bushel. which was placed on his head.arid by the emblematic monster which he heldin his right and, ttahielsh.ewadhiacnhd bodyof a serpent hrnnching into 3 were again terminated by the triple headsofa dog. alion and awolf. It wasconfidently affirmed that if any impious hand should dare to violate thomlfilESty of the God the heavensand earth would instant y return to their original chaos. An intrepid soldier. animated by zeal and armed with a wh80 battle nu ascended the ladder, and oyeu the Christian multitude expectedwith someanXiety the event.of the combat. Ile aimed a vigorous ltroko against the cheek of Scrapis; the check fell to the Ground; the thunderwasstill Silent and both the heavens and the eartheontinuedto reservetheir accustomedorder an tran uillity. e victorious soldier repeated his by ows.t O hu O idol was over wn arid brokenin pieces and the limbs of Sara pis were ignpminiously dragged through the streets ofAlexnn ria. His man led carcass was burnt in the amphitheateramid the s outs of the populace, and many personsattributedtheir conversion to this discoveryof the impotenceof their tutelary deity." So slaver sat in our national Capitol. Its huge bulk ii led the temple of our liberty, touching it from side to side. Mr. Lincoln, on the 1st of January, 1863, struck it on the cheek, and the faithlcss and unbelieving among as expected to see the fabric of our institutions dissolve into chaos because their idol had fallen. He struck it again; Congress and the States repeated the blow, and its unsightly carcass lies rotting in our streets. The sun shines in the heavens brighter than before. Let us remove the carcass and leave not a vestige of the mon ster. We shall never have done that, until we have dared to come up to the spirit of the Pil grim covenant of 1620, and declare that all men shall be consulted in regard to the disosition of their lives, liberty, and propert. he Pil grim fathers proceeded on the doctrine that every man was supposed to know best what he wanted, and ha the right to a voice in the disposition of himself. Is this Congress brave enough and virtuous enough to apply that principle to ever citizen, whatever he the color of his skin? he spirit of our Government demands that there s iall be no did id, horizontal strata running across our politica society, through which some classes of citizens may never pass up to the surface; but it shall be rather like the ocean where every drop can seek the surface and listen in the sun. Until we are true enough an brave enough to declare that in this country the humblest, the lowest, the meanest of our citizens shall iiotbe revented from passing to the highest place he is worthy to attain, we shall never realize freedom in all its glorious meanings. I do not expect we can realize this result immediately. t may be impossible to realize it very soon; but let us keep our eyes fixed in that direction, and march toward that goal. There is a 2nd great fact which we must recognize, namely, that the 7 million white men, lately in rebellion, now stand waiting to have their case adjudged to have it determined what their status shall be in this government. Shall they be held under military power; shall they be governed by de uties appointed by the Executive or shall they again resume the functions of self government in the Union are some of the questions growing out of this 2nd fact. I will proceed to state, in a few words, what seems to me necessary for the practical settlement of this question. In view of the events of the war, and the peculiar and novel situation of the parties and interests concerned; in view of the powers conferred upon us by the Constitution and the laws of war; and in view of the solemn obligations which restupon us to maintain the freedom, securit, and peace of all the citizens of the Repubic, I inquire, what practical measures can we adopt best cal culated to reach the desired result? It appears to me, sir, that we should take action in regard to persons and in regard to States. i1reference to persons, we must see to it that hereafter, personal liberty and personal rights are place in the keeping of the nation; that the right to life, liberty, an property shall be guarantied to the citizen in reality as the now are in the words of the Constitution, an no longer left to the caprice of mobs or the contingencies of local legislation. If our constitution does not now afford all the powers necessar to that end, we must ask the people to a (1them. We must give full force and effect to the provision that “no citizen shall be deprived of ifc, liberty or property without due process of law.” ie must make it as true in fact as it is in law, that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." We must make American citizenshipthe shield that protects every citizen, on every foot of our soil. The bill now before the Honse is one of the means for reaching this desirable result. What shall be done with the States latel in rebellion? How shall we discharge our duty toward them? I shall hail with 0y the day when they shall all be again in their places loyally obedient and fully represented by loyal men. Are they now entitled to admission? Are they worthy of so great confidence? To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the primafacic evidence is against them; the burden of proof rests on each of them to show whether they are fit again to enter the Federal circle in full communion of privileges. We are sitting asa general court of the nation. The are to appear at the bar of the Republic an show cause why they should be brought in. I say the burden of proof is upon their shoulders. When we knew them last they were hurling the lightnings of War against us; they were starving ourprisouers of war in their dungeons; they were burning our towns; they were hating the Union above all things, and were bound by bloody oaths to de stroy it. Thus stood the case when Congress adjourned ten months ago. They must give as proof, strong as Holy Writ, that they have washed their hands and are worthy again to be trusted. No rumors of change Will sat isfy me. No Del liic oracle, telling beautiful tales of peace and jrestoration; no gentle declarations like those we hear from the other side of this Chamber, that the people of the South “have accepted the results of the war, " will suffice. I know they have accepted the results of war as Buckner accepted them at Fort Don elson;"as Pemberton accepted them at Vicks burg; as Lee accepted them last April in Vir um. I hasten to say, Mr. Speaker, thatI do not expect 7 million men to change their heartsto love what they hated and hate what they loved 0n the issue of a battle. Nor are we set up. as npidge over their beliefs, their loves, or their hatreds. Our duty is to demand that before we admit them they shall give us sufficient assurance that, whatever they may think, believe, or wish, their actions in the future shall be such as loyal men can approve. What have they done to give us that assurance? I hold in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a proclamation issued a few days since by Benjamin G. Humphreys, late a general in the rebel army now the military governor of Mississip i, which will illustrate the spirit in which it is csired to administer the affairs of reorganized Missis sippi. He says: "Whereas section 6 of an act of the Legislature of the State of Mississippi. entitled An act authorizing theissuanceoftreasurynotes as advance upon cot ton.agprovedDecember19.1861, provides thatwhen over the presentblockade of the ports of the confeder gte States shall be removed.whic shall bedetermined y, the proclamation of the Governor declaring the fact. the Governor shall by said reclamation.ro quiro all personsto whom advance may have been made to deliver the numberof bales of cottonupon which they havereceivedan advance. in accordance with theirrespectivereceipts.within 90 daysfrom the dateof said proclamation: "Now, therefore. I Benjamin G. Humphrcys.Governor of the State of Mississippi. by virtue of the authority vested in meby the constitution and laws of said State.do herebyproclaim that the blockade of the portsof the confederate Stateshasbeenremoved; and I do requireall personsto whom advances have beenmade to deliver the number of holes of cotton upon which they have received an advance.in acoordancowiththeir respective receiptson file in the auditors office, Within 90 daysfrom the data of this proclamation.” Now, what does that mean? That he recognizes as valid the acts of the Legislature of the late rebel State of Mississip iand of the confederate States, and bases is proclamation thereon. This proclamation only reached as a few da s ago and yet there are members of this House who ask us to admit the Representatives of Mississippi at once. Now.Mr. Speaker, in the neighboring State of Virginia a law has lately been passed which declares certain negroes vagrants, and provides that as a eiialty they may be sold into slavery. MfljOl General Terry, on the With of Jan uary, issued his military order nullifying that law. Is that a civil n{iovernment in which the military authorities rogate the laws? Are the men who make such laws worthy of our confidence? I say again, the case is against them, the burden of proof is on their should ders. They must purge themselves before I can consentto let them in. How stands the case in Tennessee, the least treasonable of all 1 In a letter addressed to yourself, Mr. Speaker, under dateof: January 16, 1866, after p ending for the admisSion of the delegation from that State, Governor Brownlow says:. “Standing upon a different footing altogether. it does not followthat.ifflicTennesseeans are admitted theRepresentativesfrom otherStateslately in rebellion musteomein also. Not a mansouthof Tonnes soo should be admitted until those statesmanifestloss of the spirit of rebellion and elect a moreloyal set of men and men who can take the congressionaltest oa“thIf.which but fewof those elected can do. the removal of the federaltroopsfrpnjiTennesseemust necessarily follow upon the admission of our congressional delegationto t air sents.why.then and in thatease, the loyal menof Tennessee beg to be Without Representative sin Congress. But our members can be admitted and a military forcq retaine sufficient to govern and controlthe rebellious. I tell you and through on.all whom it mayconcern.thatwith out.a law to isfrnuohiso rebels and a force to carry out the provisions of that law, thisStatewill pass into the handsof the rebels"and a terrible state of affairs is bound to follow. Union men will be driven from theState, forcedto sacrificewhat they have, and seek homes elsewhere and yet Tennessee is in a much better conditionthan anyof the other revolted States, and affordsa stronger loyal population. “Those who supposethe South is roconstructed, and that her peoplecheerfully accept the resultsof the war, are icarful ly deceived. The whole South is full of thespirit of rebellion, and the peoplearegrowing more bitter and insolent everyday. Rebel newspapers arespringingup all overtheSouth, and speaking out in terms of bitterness and reproach against the Government of the U.S. These paiers lead the people, and at the same time reflect t on sentimentsand feelings. Of the 21 paers in Tennessee 14 aredecidedly rebel, outspoken and undisguised. some of themproteadiu to acquiesce ionce thuerri exgisting state of atfairs. In all the vacancies in our Legislature. Oven with our franchise law in jorce, rebels are invariably returned, and in some instances rebel officers, limping from wounds receivedin battle fighting againstthe U.S. forces; and yetI tell you that Tennessee is in a better condition than any other revolted State. “Others will give you a more favorable account. I cannotin justice to myself and the truth. I think I know the southern people. I have lived 58 yearsin theSouth of choice, and 2 at the North of necessity." In view of thesefacts we await further proofs. But, sir, there is a duty laid upon us by the Constitution. That duty is declared in these words: “ The U.S shall guaranty to every State in this Union a RFG.” What does that mean? Read the 21st and 43rd numbers of the Federalist, and you will understand what the fathers of the Constitution meant when they at that clause in our organic law. With wonderful foresight, amounting almost to prophecy, they appear to have foresecnjust sue a contingency as the one that has arisen. Madison sai that an insurrection might arise too powerful to be suppressed by the local authorities, and Congress must have authority to put it down and to see that no usurping government shall be erected on the ruins of a State. What is a RFG? When these States were admitted into the Union, there was not one of them in which one 10th of the citizens were disfranchised. I will read a few words from one of the ablest men that ever stood upon this floor, that man so untimely dead, so sad y and lately removed from among us, whose words were like flaming swords, an who was intellectually one of the greatest and most gallant of men Henry Winter Davis. He is here describing the conditions of a republican Government, and after premisin that at the formation of the Constitution all the States but 3 admitted free colored persons as citizens, he so s: “In Virginia there was but one free colored man to 36 of the population; in SCarolina one to 77; in Georgia one to 128, " and so on; showing that there were not more than one 10th of the adult males in any State disfranchised and now, says he, we are asked to reco we as republican such despotism as the following: "In NCarolina 631.000 citizens will ostracize $1,000; in Virginia. 619,00O citizen isll ostracizefi33,000 citizens; in Alabama, 596,000 citizens will ostracize 4 5,0000 citizens; i L0uisiana, 357,0000 iti1.ens will ostra cue 300,0000 1tilenisn: Mississippi, 353000 citizens will ostracize 486,000 citizens: in SCarolina, 291,000 citizens will ostracize 411.00coitizens." We are asked to guaranty all these as republican governments! Gentlemen upon the other side of the House ask us to let such shame less despotisms as these be represented here as repubican States. I venture to assert that a more monstrous proposition was never before made to an American congress. Iani thereforein favorof the amendment to the Constitution that passed the other day to reform the basis of representation. Iconld have wished that it had been more thorough and searchin in its terms. ltook it as the best we could get; butIsay here, before this House, that I will never, so long as I have any voice in political affairs, rest satisfied until the way is opened by which these citinens, so soon as the are worthy, sIhwalilll benolitfted lo the full rights O citizenshi. be factions in my action here. If I cannot today get all I desire, I will try again tomorrow, securing all that can be obtained today. But so long as I have any voice or vote here, they shall aid in giving the suffrage to every citizen qualified, by intelligence, to exercise it.Mr. Speaker, I know of nothing more dangerous to a Republic than to put into its very midst 4 million people stri ped of every at tribute of citizenship, robbe of the right of representation but bound to pay taxes to the Government. If they can endure it, we cannot. The murderer is to be pitied more than the mur dered man; the robber more than the robbed and we who defraud 4 million citizens of their rights are injuring ourselves vastly more than weare inuring the lack man whom we rob. {Here the ammer fell.]