Mr. DUMONT. Mr. Speaker, asman snppose that the powers of congress to dea with the rebel States according to their demerits, and the deeds done in the body depend upon the question whethera State can go out of the Union or forfeit by crime the rights appertaining to a loyal State, I propose at the beginning of my remarks to occupy a brief period with these inquiries. It is quite clear that SCarolina, for example, since her rebellion has not been in the Union in the sense that Indiana is in the Union, or out of the Union in the sense that Yucatan or Ecuador is. Whether her condition has been and is territorial, colonial, provincial, or what not, is immaterial, provided any of the2nditionswonld place her under the jurisdiction and control of Congress until a sin invested with the rights she has forfeitef. When so reinstated, on gress of course has no powers except such as she has over loyal States under the Constitution. Under the Constitution powers not delegated to the Government are reserved to the States, and that is why a hostile and rebellious State has no business to participate in the Government of the Union. As well might we confide our blessed religion and the sacred Book upon which it is founded, the Christians guide and compass, bulwark and hope, to the keeping of a set of shameless and blatant infidels. We do not confide the lamb to the wolf. I have heard the question asked: is not a State and a State organization one and the same thing as truly as mans body and hisphysical organization are one and the same, so that the State organizationbein destroyed the Stateitselfisdestroyed? Those who entertain this theory call it being out of the Union, though the territory of the State and the people are still subject to the jurisdiction of the federal Government. When the principles of life depart we say the man is den, and when dead we say he has gone to another world, though the body is still present with us; and why may we not say of a State, when its government has been overthrown, its living principles subverted, gone to fliuders and brofien to fragments. that it is out of the Union? We may not say it, we are told, because the soil of the State is still here, the people are still here, and the 2 constitute the tube. Might it not as well be said that the man has not one to another world because his body is stil here and he has left his harm and his children behind him? Who can name the author that has laid down the doctrine of the perpetuity of a State like that of the immortality of the soul? Does not the history of the world prove such a doctrine is false? Do not the experience of man and all that has been said and written teach a different lesson? “ The cloudwapped towers.the gorfipouspalaces, ho solemn temples the great 319 o itse lf. Yea. all which it inherit shall dissolve and like this insubstantial pageant faded. Leave not a wreck behind." “The grass withers and the flowers fade, the word of our God alone endureth forever." The republic of today is the despotism of tomorrow. The pages of history are rife withl the rise, decline, and fall of States and empires, fabrics which have crumbled before the corroding tooth of time. The formation of a State is of man; all that is of man is erishable. Within my short recollection one of the rebel States has passed through various mutations. It was 1st one of the States of the republic of Mexico, then by a successful revolution it the members of this case that in this last became itself an independent republic; then the treaty of annexation it became one of the U.S.A.; and nmin its pedigree back and tracing its lineage the other way, in the ase ending line, we find it was once a part of Spain; and before the Spanish conquest, and in the days of the Montezumas, a art, perhaps, of the Aztec republic. I think it belonged once to France and was part of Louisiana, purchased by the U.S. with that territory and avain traded off to Spain, and what it is now od only knows. I once saw acou let, supposed to be written by an emigrant to those parts: "When everyother land rejectsus, We pack our kit and goto I exas. I presume if the author of this piece of sublimity has not been hun, or met some such untimely fate, he might the able to solve the question. I think, in the case of Texas at least, we must hold that a State cannot go out, at least cannot go out for good, and bid us afinal and everlastin farewell, though it may be au dacious enoue: to 0awhoring after strange ods for a time. We cannot afford to" lose exas; it cost too much money. It cost us $10,000,000 at the beginning, not counting the cost of the Mexican war nor the money and blood expended in whipping her out of her recent rebellion. They are a jolly set of boys down in Texas; at least they were a few years ago, when I was among them on a temporary visit. To illustrate: I was at a hotel in the town of Gonzales; I think it was in the year of grace, that is, A. D. 1800. It was at a time when wonderful tales were told in regard to Indian barbarities. While there a wellressed and good looking gentleman, who was called captain, came in and said that 20 white families, men, women, and children, had been mur dered, a day or 2 before, at a point some 40 or 50 miles distant, by the Camanche Indians, and that he was raising a company of brave and determined men to go in pursuit. There was at the time quite a crowd in the room to whom he related what I “ have repeated. Now, ” says one of the roup, using agood deal of profanity that I will not repeat, lest it should grate harshly on ears polite, “ on dont come that giraffe over this crowd. ont we know what youre after? Its plunder, horses anything that you can steal and confiscate. I think well all join your company and go snooks; yes, were all in, every last one of us. To the victors belong the spiles. Well name our company the 40 Thieves. I think I see us all a comin back to the white settlements, every feller a leadin of a boss and breaking down with plunder, but nary Injun seal. John A. Murrill, that old thief and counterfiaiter, is dead. He used to kidnap niggers; and now the devil has kidna pod him. If he had not gone up the spout, he should be our chaplain; well be mighty apt to need praying for afore we get back. We must hunt up a chaplain; a company of brave and determined men without oncmig tbecome demoralized.” At this point the laugh came in, in which the whole crowd, the catain included, participated; but I no ticed that he was stung, that the arrow had sped to its object, that he at least did not rel ish the joke; but I heard no more of the exedition. The massacre was of course all a fabrication all a humbug; the Indians had killed nobody. I thought this a good piece of badinage, bating the profanity and levity. It broke up an expedition that had, I apprehend, but little relish of salvation in it, and I was therefore inclined to make some allowance for the hard words. Uncle Toby, you recollect, Mr. Speaker, swore too, and yet we are told by the pious and exemplary Sterne that because it was in a good cause and with good intentions, on afit occasion, and under sufficient provocation, that the accusing spirit that flew up to heavens chancery with the oath blushed as he gave it in; and that the recording angel, as he wrote it down, dropped a.tear upon the word and blotted it out forever. We must hold on to Texas, I think, Mr. Speaker. They were, at the time of which I speakl a set of free and easy, gay and festive boys, I confess; still, I kind 0 liked them, and think that under the benign and chastening influences of free institutions, free schools, free Bibles, and freedom, the willbe good and useful citizens after awhile. e must, by all means, hold on to them in a kind of probationary state for a time, and take them in as full members when the signs in the zodiac are right. It is a poor plan, Mr. Speaker, to digress from an argument to tell a story. It breaks the thread of a discourse. I have almost for gotten at what point of my argument I ate ped aside for that fpoolishpurpose. I believe fwas talking about States going out, and saying that some say it can be done, some that it cannot, while still others say that while we are not compelled to treat a rebel State as out of the Union, yet we are at liberty to do so by the right of conquest if we see proper, kee them out as long as we please, and readmit them as soon as we please. On these various points I heard an argument the other day between Gentlemen of conflicting political tenets, and as it lets in a little daylight on the subect I will reeat it. It ran thus: says one," he South said they had gone out. You said they had not and could not, and now you say they did, and cannot come in.” The other replied, “You said that war was disunion. The war came, the most terrible and bloody on record. You passed ordinances of secession, struck down the flag, trampled it under foot, and now you say there has been no disunion. We did not say you could not go out that would have been foolish we said you could not legally go out; nor do we say you cannot come back, but we do say that as you went out contrary to law, in violation of your allegiance, and for the most wicked purposes, stamping the dust from your feet as you eft, and have put the Union to the painful necessity of whipping treason out of you, you cannot come in unti you are invited, and you will not be invited until Congress is satisfied that the hostility that prompted you to the deed of wickedness has been eradicated. The Union will not trifle about the thing. Going out and coming in costs too much. If we keep you out in the cold while it may teach you sense enough to stay i when you got in, and conduct yourselves decently and civilly when in. Mr. Speaker, many suppose this question so profoun that it is somewhat presumptuous for the smdll fry to pitch in. Fpro ose to live up to my privileges. I have hear our minister say that is what all good Christians ought to do, and if so, it will not hurt a sinner It may be that the question is deeperthan plummet ever sounde, but I do not believe it. It does not seem so to me. Yet I may be in the condition of the lunatic. I may be the one who is laborin under the de lusion and not those who regnr the subject as so profound and for aught I know they may have the majority on me. “ What are you doing here 2” said avisitor toa lunatic. “I thought, ” replied he, “everybody mad; everybody thought me mad; they had the majority on me, and here I am confined in a mad house.” It seems to me that disnnion is to be disunited; the ligaments that bind together broken, and I am not proared to say that in point of fact it may not be one, though it be contrary to law. Let us not confound the right with the fact, and conclude that because a man has not the right to do a thing he cannot in fact do it. Would to God it were so; crime would be wiped out and our wicked and sinful world would become a aradise. But we know it is not so; that the egal prohibition does not always prevent the crime. Keep these ideas, the right and the fact, separate and there is no confusion. Nor does it follow that because a li ament may be broken it cannot be mende; because it may be cut asunder it cannot be reunited. It may be mended, and I hold it the duty of Congress to hasten slowly and unite the dissevered ties to do it as se on as it may be done with rudeuce and safety but I want no rush or in ecent haste in the matter. " Fools rush in where angelsfear to tread." t.a It is easy to manifest more mock magnanimity than wisdom to exhibit more courage than conduct. Pruence is sometimes the better part of valor. It is of prime importance that what we do in the premises may e don in such way that it will stand the test of time, redound to the welfare and ha ) iness of man, the peretuity of our blessed. nion, and the glory vo God. But I am not quite through with this knotty point about which I have been talking. I do not want to run it into the ground, but would pursue it yet a little further. It is certainly geographically true that SCarolina, after she wentout of the Union, so to speak, was precisely where she was before she went out; and after she came back into the Union, was precisely where she was before she came back. She is where she always was; that is to say, when she went out of the Union she did not pick herself up bodyaccously, walk off, and 10 onto in some distant part of the earth or in some other hemisphere. In seeking for SCarolina at any time, during the war or since, you would find her located just where she was before the war, between the ver same parallels of latitude and longitude. the soil of SCarolina was within the exterior lines of the Union before the war, and as there has been no land slide down in that region, and as a State cannot pick itself up and walk off like a land terra in, nor be located like a land warrant on the est vacant land that can be found, I presume SCarolina is stillwithin the limits of the Union, and has never been out. In this respect, then, it is certainly true that a State cannot go out of the Union. It is also manifestly true that a State cannot O out of the Union in such we as to release erself from her duties and obligations. There is no such thing as legal secession any more than there is such a thin as legal larceny or pious villainy. An individual may forfeit the rights belongin to an honest man by crime, but I apprehend e cannot sanctify crime by committin it, release himself from his duties and obligations, or discharge himself fronf liability to punishment; and so a State may by rebelion orfeit the rights appertaining to a loyal State, but cannot by crime release herself at her own 0tion from her duties and obligations, nor avoi the penalties that follow the ootsteps of the transgressor. The rule that the way of the transgressor is hard is Gods law of the universe, as inexorable as the decrees of fate, and as steadfast as the everlasting hills. It applies to States and individuals. None is above or below it. It is, I reeat, strictly true that a State cannot O out of the Union in such way as to release erself from her duties and obligations, provided the government secs proper to enforce them. It is the rights of the Government that remain unim paired, not the rights of the rebelling States; their rights are not rights at all; only such privileges as the conqueror may see proper to accord as a boon. The saying that a State rebelling is released from none of her duties or obligations, is a very different thing from saying that a State by re belling incurs no disabilities. A State does incur disabilities; they cannot be enumerated; they are coextensive with all the rights she possessed before her fall. She ceases by her crime to be, a body politic, and will be utterly unable to resume her lest functions until her conqueror sees proper to breathe into her the breath of life. Before these States rebelled they were apart of the Government, but the moment they raise their parricidal hand against it they of course cease to be any part of it. It is absurd to say that a Government will or can resist itself and be its own antagonist. A State must keep step to the music of the Union, or it is, as Mr. Lincoln said, “out of practical relations to the Union, ” and in a governing sense no part of the Union. The hand that is raised agmnst It is alien to it. The elements of a Gowmment must be in harmony, but antagonisms do mt harmonize. In a Government of the people bo “part O State that would ruin, destroy, and pull down the fest, and is uilty of the attempt, ceases opsofacto with the hostile act to beany part of the governing element. It may have been one of the sovereigns, but is, when it hits a hostile hand, but a malefactor. Did you ever hear of a Government sending its emissaries to foreign Governments to intriue for its own subversion? That is what the U.S. did, provided the confederate States were part of our Government after they attempted to secede; but I say that at that very instant they ceased to have any right to participate in the governmentInft of the country and were no part of it. it is not so, we surely have within our selves the seeds of dissolution; if it is not so, the Union is already gone, the death rattle already in her throat. It will not belong before a Government hostile to itself, composed of antagonisms, becomes a felt: de see. A despotism would be a better government, for a espotism isaunit, and is not guilty of self destruction and when, pray, does a State whose power has thus departed again become fthe Government? As soon as she ceases to strike, or at such time thereafter as the parent Government may deem it safe to permit? Not as soon as she ceases to strike, or she may still be hostile; not at her own option for she may desire to become again part of the Government in order to destroy it, to accomplish by insidious and stealthy means what she failed to accomplish by arms. I think the only answer is, “At such time as the government deems it. safe to permit, and by Legislation so declare, ” and not before. Any other conclusion would lead to the absurdity that a State may fight the Federal Government today, be a part of the Federal Government to mor row, and allied and consorting with its enemies, striking at its vitals, and doing all in its power to overturn and subvert it the next day. What name but anarchy, rampant and flagrant anarchy, over which the fallen spirits and incarnate devils might hold a nbilee, would you give to such a state of a airs as this? A little hell in the family all the time! Oh, whataglorious Government that would he! Freedoms soil beneath our feet! and freedoms banner streaming oer us! The home of the free, and the hope of the brave! Mexico, poor, distracted, unfortunate Mex ico, might gaze upon us and consider herself in a happy condition! But this is a digression. It is plain to my mind that there is not as much real as seeming difference between those who assert that a State cannot go out of the Union and those who contend that a State can. The one sees plainly enough that a.State cannot legally go, ought not to go, ought not by her Own crimes to release and discharge herself from the duties and obligations due to the Federal Government, and that she does not and cannot do it by an unsuccessful rebellion, and that the General Government loses no hold that she may see proper to enforce; and he is keen to swear that a State cannot go out of the Union. The other sees that while a State cannot discharge herself from duty or release herself from her obligations, or ese ape the punishment due to crime, or break the links that bind her to the arent. Government so that they may not be W9l( ed, that still she may incur disabilities and forfeitures so great that she ceases to be part of the Government, and is only a art of the governed; he sees that such a State is like a cororation that has forfeited its charter, lost its franchises, and is dead until touched by a recreating hand, until the breath of life is again imparted, until the forfeiture is remitted, and the franchise restored; and seeing this. his opinion is that a State can 9 out of the Union, and he is willin to bet is bottom dollar on his judgment. till, he does not mean that the hills or the valleys have been disturbed or jostled out of their ancient moorings, or that the rivers have ceased to flow in their accustomed channels or that the State has gone off in atangent and alighted [beyond humanitys reach, on the distant mar gin of the universe. nor that the General government has lost any rights that she may see proper to assert and be able to maintain against the State. He holds that the State has no rights as a member of the Union or against the federal Government, has ceased to be any part of the Government, and is only a part of the governed. That is what he calls being out of the Union, though it is true that those who have no right to participate in the Government, and are but a part oft legoverned, may be and are in the territorial limits of the U.S. such have a name to live while dead in trespasses and sins. If in the Union their man good has departed; they are emase ulated and but political eunuchs. Their duty is to obey and not direct, to submit and not control, and Congress alone has the power to speak their sins for given and set their captive souls at liberty; that is, admit them into the Union. Who will dare question the power of Congress to inquire before admitting the rebel States into Congress whether they are proper custodians of the civil rights of the people, and fit to be trusted as part of the governing power of the country not only fit to govern themselves, but to help govern the rest of the nation; whether communities yet turbulent, yet wedded to ine qualit and wron, injustice and oppression shall e admitte toequal participation on the floors of Congress, or ept in a state of probation, for the benefit of their education, until they are, in some degree at least, toned down and ine llified? If their object in getting into Congress is not to preserve and perpetuate the Union, but to disrupt and destroy it, to play into the hands of some hostile Power, is it not the duty of congress to keep them out? Would they in that case be fit to hel us govern the nation and rule the land? Wou d it not be confidin the lamb to the tender mercies of the wolf? leare told that when the wicked rule the nations mourn. How long will aGovernmentstand ruled by those hostile to its principles, and who wouldrejoice to see it subverted Do we intrust the navigation of a ship to those who would gladly excite the crew to mutiny or scuttle the vesse l? and if it is not certainly known whether that is their disposition or not, is it not wise to wait and see? We know that such were at one time their feelings. Let us be sure they are not still before we give them the helm. It is said that they have laid down their arms, submitted to the Government, and relying alone upon their prayers and their tears, now humbly and peni tently beg to be permitted to resume their alle giance, come back into the Union, and be good citizens. That is one we of stating it, but let it be borne in mind an never forgotten, that in a Government like ours a State in the Union is psrt of the ruling and governing principle. hen that is kept in mind it will appear that the request is not so humble after all; that it is a demand to come in and help us rule and govern the nation, to come in and aid in making the laws; to come and take their seats on the supreme bench and participate in expounding the laws they hate and detest; to go into the Cabinet and aid in executing the laws that they but yesterday set at defiance and trampled under foot; to help us safely keep our treasure, which they would be glad to see applied to the payment of the confe erate debt or sunk in the liottom of the ocean; to help possess our forts, dock yards, and arsenals, and navigate our Navy, all of.which they would be glad to see enveloped in flames and reduced to ashes; and above all help command our Army that has so recently given them such aterrible floing; in short, to be clothed with all the privileges and powers they lost by their rebellion. There is not, I tell you, so much sackcloth and ashes about this thing, nor as great a flood of penitential tears as might at 1st blush appear. Admitting them back into the Union, it is plain, is conferring upon them power, putting weap ons, and dead y weapons at that, into their hands, and they know it. Why not gratify them at once? At what more suspicious flme could they be reinstated I on the supreme bench than when their leader is being tried, or on ht to be tried, for treason, the validity of configscation laws adjudicated the new condition of our freedmen settled, and prize cases under the blockade determined? A rogue feels secure when the judge who tries him is one of his gang and a good share of the jury his accomplices. Would it not be a nice thing just at this time to dilute, adulteratc, and debauch our Supreme Court by such an accession; and above all, would it not be perfectly charming to invite these people to send their Sens&Reps to Congress to unite with their northern allies in involving us in a foreign war, in repudiating the national debt, or addin the confederate debt to it, in repealing the laws granting pensions to our living disabled soldiers, and to the wrdows and orphan children of those who are dead, and perchance to insert the names of their own traitors on our pension rolls, and tax our people to pay them? How wrong it is not to admit SCarolina, at once in order that the constitutional amendments now pending may be defeated! If admitted she would aid in their defeat in 2 ways. 1st, she would vote against them; and 2nd. she must be counte as one of the States, and the amendment must be ratified by 3/4ths of the States, counting her in as one. Do not we know that the national debt in curred to put down the rebellion is a stench in the nostrils of a reconstructed rebel and his northern allies? How long had Peirpoint inhaled the atmos phere ofltichmond before he had the assurance to come to Washington and declare in profane and indecent language that the South would never consent tobe taxed to aid in the payment of the national debt? I would not do him in justice, but such is the report. If Mr. Clarke, our able Comptroller of the Currency, could with difficulty silence his clamor, may we not expect to hear a great deal of that kind of talk when the Senate and House are full of reconstructed rebels and their northern allies? Do we want to make such slang potential and give it vitality and power so that it may bud and blossom and ripen into legislation. so that our victories may prove like Billys cake, which was sweet in the mouth but bitter in the belly? I do not, I freely confess, and I shall vote against. it until I am satisfied that the apprehended dangers have passed away or been provided against by adequate guarantees. It is said that we must not be too distrustfnl, that a word of a sort is enough among gentlemen; that we must take these folks at their word, must take their promises to be faithful to the Union without any other guarantees. It seems to me to be too slender a reliance. What if they break their promises? Who will be in danger then? It is easy to leap intoa pit, but to get out, theres the rub. “ In this the task, the mighty labor lies." There is a bear story that touches remotely on the folly of incurring too much risk. The story is nothing, but the lesson it teaches is good. This is the story: 2 American citizens of African descent, named Cato and Sambo, started on a bear hunt. Who ever saw a negro who did not worship with the ardor of a lover at the shrine of Nimrod? It is all pretense, it is plain, but to get a gun on his shoulder is his style of apeing the gentleman; cause why? Slaves are not permitted to bear arms. A gun proves that he is no longer a slave. They got upon the trail of a bear and followed her back track until they saw that she had emerged from the trunk of a hol low and prostrate tree. They concluded at once that her cubs were probably in the tree and it was agreed that Cato should go in and bring them out, that Sambo should stand sentinel to keep the old hear at bay in case she made her appearance. Very soon after Cato had rone in the old bear did come, and outflanking the sentinel darted into the hole. Sambo seeing there was mischief ahead unless something was done quickly, seized her by the tail with a terrible p, and braced himself bock at an angle of 45 degrees. Cato, aprehensive that something was wrong, but not nowing what, called out, “ Hello, Sambol What darky the hole?” call attention to the sublime rely given by this nulettered African, this dark s iuned child of a downtrodden race. Words are powerless to express the thing bet ter: “ If tail holt break, Cato, youll very soon find out what darky the hole." I leave the lesson taught by this story to those who have with enough to divine it, and hasten on, as my time is limited. What harm can the rebel States do, provided their people are still hostile to the nion, if the sion d now be released from all restraint an taken back into full fellowship? What control have we of them now that would in that case be lost? What conditions precedent can we now demand and exact that we could not then? What securities and guarantees is it now in our power to obtain that would in that case be beyond our reach? Under the constitution all powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States. With the reserved power belonging to a State the Federal Government has no right to intermeddle. In these regards a State that has remained loyal and forfeited none of her franchises may claim immunity from interference, and if her rights are invaded may politely tell the parent Government to attend to her own business; people sometimes get rich by it. It is not so with the Territories. Congress has legislated and may legislate for them, or may grant legislative powers to the people, in which case their legislation may immediately go into etfect, or may be made to depend for its validity upon the consent and sanction of congress. Congress has frequently annulled the acts of Territorial Assemblies. Congress has frequently legislated and may legislate directly for a Territory without the intervention of any Territorial Assembly at all. Congress has almost uniformly specified the conditions upon which a Territory might become a State and be admitted intothe Union. congress has always taken upon itself the privilege to scan closely the constitution of a State applying lor admission, to determine whether its provisions were republican, to the end if they w found not to be the State might be rejected. The Governor, SecyState, judges, and many of the officers of a Territory are appointed by the President; but he has no such power in a State. It is easy to see that the powers of the President and of Congress are almost unlimited in a Territory up to the time when it becomes a State of the Union, and that then they are confined within very narrow bounds. If it is desirable that congress or the President should exercise authority, impose terms, annex conditions, or take jurisdiction, it is as important that it should be one while it constitutionally may be done, as to strike when the iron is hot or to make lniy while the sun shines. He who fails to control his child when he legally may will not be at to control him when be legally may not. 1Y0 who parts with his property without taking security at the time he may demand it, will not be likely to get security after the properl has passed beyond his reach and the pure user become insolvent. To wait till a State is admitted before demanding guarantees, that she may set us at defiance, is worse folly than locking the stable after the horse is gone, or gendin for the doctor after the patient is dead. But it is said that the rebel States are not Territories. Well, they may not be, but do they not bear a nearer resemblance to a Territory than to a State of the Union? We shall see in the sequel. when the manner in which our President has dealt with them is brought up in mar tial array; and it may be well here to say that though a Territory is not a State yet it is in the U.S.A., within the jurisdiction of the Government and part of the governed and is not that the status of these rebellious communities, and will they not continue to reinaiu in that status until readmitted by Congress? In this connection it will be borne in mind that our President is a Democrat, a strict constructionist, a State rights man in the just and reasonable interpretation of that term, and would be guilty of no usurpation of power. The lawmaking power is the highest and most sacred attribute of a State. A State that cannot make and unmake its own laws within cbnstitutional limits without the interference of outsiders is no State at all. A law of one of the States of the Union not in conflict with the Constitution can only be annulled or repealed by the power that made it, and President Johnson would sooner cut off his right arm than to issue a proclamation declarin Indiana or Pennsylvania to be in a state of dissolution, without constitution or laws, and commanding the people to meet in convention, make a new constitution, and reinaugurate civil government. “Thats his style” of giving the rebel States a bit of his mind, and letting them know his opinion and tellin them what he wants them to do. Look at his NCarolina proclamation, wherein he tells the people they are deprived of all civil government, and goes on and intimates to them what to do. It is as the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SHELLABARGER] sai, a carefully prepared state paper, issued under the attest of the SecyState, and the language of which has been 7 times repeated in that many different proclamations, as applied to that many different States. I will not read the body of these proclamations, but this is the preamble: " Whereas the rebellion which has been waged by a portion of the peopleof the U.S. against the properly constituted authorities of the Government thereof. in the most violentand revolting form, but whose organized and armed forces have now been almost entirely overcome, has, in its rovolutionar srogrgss, doprivgd the people of the State of NCarolina of all civil government." Is this the stuff the Union is made of? States deprived of all civil government! States without government! I thought a State, to be in the Union must not only have a government, but a republican government, at that. Thatis my reading of the Constitution. Have I read it to so little purpose as to be mistaken? Is not the Federal Unibn bound to guaranty to all the States a republican government? If so, how can a State without any kind of government be a part of the Federal Union? It is a solecism I am ashamed to combat in the hear in of reasoning men. TJnder the Constitution, the States of the Union, elect their own Governors. There is no such thing in that instrument as a provisional governor; the term cannot be found, much less the power. Still [am not doubtin the war power in a revolted State. But won d not a President have a happy time in appointing 9. Governor for Pennsylvania or Indiana? and why may he not appoint a Governor for In (liana as well as for SCarolina or mississippi? Because the Constitution is in force in the former, and has been overthrown in the latter; the former is a State of the Union, the latter disorganized communities within the territorial limits of the U.S. The powers that appropriately belong to a State of the Union are no boon; they are absolute rights, subject only to forfeiture for crime. Within the powers that pertain to States of the Union, they legislate according to their own will and pleasure. The history of our Government from its foundation affords not a single instance of out side dictation. It is sacred and hallowed ggound, subject to no profanation from the resident down to the humblest citizen. There never was a moment when the people would not have regarded such a thing, if submitted to, as the death knell of liberty. If attempted today a storm of indignation would sweep the land before which no mortal man could stand and yet our God fearing, law abiding and power distrusting President quietly goes down, so to speak, into Dixie, and says to this gallant and noble race of men, these lords of creation, who bow the knee to none but God, and whose motto he knows to be, death before dishonor, that they have by the war been de prived of all civil government; that their laws and constitutions have all been overthrown, are null and void and of no effect, and that they have no government. He tells the governors elects by the people to stand aside, that a Governor cannot live longer than the government, and he hurls them aside as uncere moniously as a boy slings a hen from her nest that attempts to sit without O gs, and without halfos muc resistance. Audie appoints what have been called, appropriately enough, provisional governors, and having thus disposed of their governors and appointed his own, instructs them to disregard all existing State laws and constitutions and to begin de novo, call conventions and make new ones; reconstruct from the grouudu. Nay, I am proud to say that he does not stop at that, that he does not hesitate to tell them in unmistakable language what laws and ordinances it would be agreeable to him if the would adopt; it would increase their chances of being admitted into Congress, and of being permitted to take their places in the Government of the country. The very recital of the conditions precedent by him at various times laid down and he never laid down one that was not right in the sight of God and man gladdens the heart, and is enough to make an honest man, a patriot, fatten on the short ribs, though they would in the almy days of the chivalry of the land have evoed a tempest. “They must repeal their ordinances of secession; they must repudiate the confederate debt; they must adopt a consititution of freedom and ratify the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery; they must secure the freedom of the slave by iist laws, permit him to testify as awitness, and when wronged or doing wrong to sue and be sued." and when all this and perhaps more that I do not recollect is done, they then may stand some chance of getting into the Union. For be it from me to complain of this dictation, as the Democrats used to style.it. I think it was all right. If there is any complaint to he made against the President it is that he did not go quite far enou h; but God bless him for what he did do, and cad him onward iuthe pathway of wisdom and justice. Let us not be acrime nious or speak as though we had slaked our thirst at the fountains of bitterness. He has been faithful in the past, and he will not, I feel sure, be faithlcss now. In this way the President has accomplished much that may be happily consummated by congress; but, disuiseit as you may, it was because these States ind not the control of their own affairs that he has been enabled to accomplish any of these things. But for this he would have had no propelling power. They would have snapped their fingers in his teeth and laughed him to scorn. As it is, they have submitted to the drawing of eye teeth, but have still been unable to stifle the agonized roans. The good we have already accompli could not.have been attained, would have Y en utterly beyond our reach, had these Statesbefore that time been admitted back into the Union in such wa as to stand as if they had never rebelled. all the world knows that in that case they would have made no concessions. Our strength and their weakness lay in the fact that they had for felted their rights as members of the Union, and that that forfeiture had not yet been remitted. But for that we would have been scorn fully told that they had no favors to ask at our hands. We are indebted to this “forfeiture, ” hangin over them as a rod of terror, for every inch of ground we have gained, and I would still keep them out awhile in the belief that they may possibly be stimulated to do right by the hope of thereb getting in. Much good has been accoinplishe(, but as I think much that 18 desirable yet remains unaccomplished, Ifor 011" am not Willing yet.to let u. It would be but w slumber in the lap of Delifiih to wake of our strength, and to find ourselves bound hand and foot and in the hands of the Philis tines. If these States were back in the Union, or under no disabilities, how could we put them upon terms? Is it within the province of congress or the Executive to search the legislation of the loyal States, and if anything shall be found that is wrong; not fit to be there, to coerce its repeal? What manner of coercion could be resorted to? Who is wise enough to tell how the thing could be accomplished? We all know that it could not be accomplished, and that any such attempt would be justly regarded as an act of usuration. Why? Because these States are in the nion. They have incurred no forfeitures; they are under no disabilities; they are in no sense in a territorial condition; and within their appropriate sphere they are wholly independent otPEongress and the Executive. Is it to be wondered that the rebel States want to place themselves in a condition wherein they will be equally independent of control, and in the mean time to make as few concessions as possible, so that when reinstated and in a congition to defy the Government they will not find that they are bereft of power? and is it to be wondered that those who know what it has cost to put down this rebellion demur and think that this thing should not be hastily done; that the world was not made in a day; that there is luck in leisure, and that we should plod our Way carefully, hasten slowly, and know of a truth before any rebel State is rebaptized into the Union that the seeds of treason have been fully eradicated, and that she has iveu all reasonable and necessary guarantees or her future good behavior? Some gentlemen seem to be anxious to hear within this Hall the crack of the plantation whip and to havea manifestation of plantation manners as in days ofother years; and as sure as God lives theywillbeabundantly gratifiedifthe policy of letting in the rebel States without guarantees shall prevail. I am opposed to it. It will prove unwise, ruine us, an disastrous; and I stand here to raise my voice against it. What we may do cannot be undone, let us not, therefore, be guilty of the folly of him who marriesin a hurry and reents at leisure. A mistake in the matter is atal; let, therefore, what we have suffered in the past illuminate our pathway in the present. I entertain no feeling of revenge against this deluded people. I would exact nothinfiwithamere viewto umiliation. I would do noting that is merely vexations. I would exact no conditionrccedeut that I did not regard vital to the all fruition of our victory and the future safety of the Union. Ven cance belongs not to man. In the hands of imto whom alone it belongs let it be left. Related to these questions and connected with these inquiries is another, whether a person may renounce and abjure his citizenship, though it may not be in the power of a State to “go out.” Men are now nocking at the doors of Congress for admission as members of this body who not only renounced and abjured all alle hire and fidelity to the Government of the nitt States, but who took an oath of allegiance to hostile power and united with that hostile government to overthrow the Union, and whose hands are still crimson and whose garments are still soakin and reeking with the load shed in the wiekc attempt, and we are told that Congress is acting badil;rand violating the Constitution in keeping them out, and telling them to wait yet alittle while. Of course these remarks do not apply to all who new demand admission. I am ha py to say that Tennessee has sent a different c pass of men, and itmay be that there is here and there one from some Iother State who comes here with clean hands. am for admitting Tennessee on reasonable tQlmsof comliance, and shall be for admitting "filo r States IOm time to time who can come 5. as equitable a claim as Tennessee, and araugttlfthey do not come upzto the full stand wnubluxs time of applying will submit to reaI trms. lain tor le mg every tub stand I on its own bottom, eve State on its own mer its, and do not hold to the belief at all that the admission of a State that comes with just claims is any concession to a State still remaining contumncious. The States come inseparately; they bade us good by separately and must come back separately. I am not only for discrimi nating between the States, but between the men who come here for admission. If a State is simple enough to send a man here who cannot take the iron clad oath that on and I and all of us had to take, Mr. Speaker, he shall not come in by my vote, no matter what State he comes from. The Tennessee members can, I am informed, take that oath. It is my happiness to be personally acquainted with 3 of them, and to know that to AndrewJohnson and to such as them to their lasting honor be it spokenare we indebted for what we find commendable in the State of Tennessee. Steadfast and true they and he stood by the Union in its darkest hour. These men took me by the hand and stood by me when I marche into Tennessee, when I had command of their capital, and I am glad that Tennessee stands in such an attitude thatI can now take them by the hand. How different the claim of those who so recentl renounced and abjured all alleance to the nion. The Constitution of the bU.S. declares that no person shall be 0.Rep Representative who has not been 7 years, and no person a Senator who has not been 9 years, a citizen of the U.S. These words do not mean at some time in their lives a citizen of the U.S. for the length of time indicated, but they mean a citizen of the U.S. for that length of time immediately preceding and u to the time the seat is claimed. What could mortal man do to renounce his citizenship that these men have not done? In what way could they incur that forfeiture if the way adopted is inadequate? We are bringing men into our courthouses daily and permitting them by oath to renounce allegiance to the Government wherein they were born. Can allegiance be renounced, or is this all mockery? and when we admit these foreigners to the rights of citizenship, on taking the oath of allegiance to us and renouncin it as to all other potentates and Powers, an especially the po tentate and Power that claime his allegiance, we do not institute any inquiry whether the particular Government renounced was legitimate or illegitimate a Government in law or only a Government in fact before accepting the oath and opening our doors, but we take the more senSible view, that if the applicant for the rights of citizenship has rendered trib ute to an thought himself a citizen of another Government, de jure or defacto, that is enough to justify us in requiring the oath, and as litt e security as any government, no matter how liberal, ought to demand. We have been pursuing this policy for 70 or 80 years. It is rather late in the day to say now that a citizen cannot expatriate himself. If he cannot we have been plundering other nations of their subjects in a remorseless manner during all this time, and have a mountain of guilt upon our shoulders. The reason of a law is its life blood, as well as a clue to its interpretation. Why were the clauses to which I have referred inserted in the Constitution? Was it that foreign, unfriendly, and hostile elements might be kept out of our legislative halls, and the lawmaking business confined to friends? Was it that we preferred the genuine to the spurious and bogus? Was that the object in requiring the 7 and the nine year citizenship? Who can see any other? and are we not violating the spirit, intent, and meaning of those clauses by admitting those who have so lately given every evidence of the most deadly hostility and undying hate? We are taught that some who persecuted the Christians, stoned the prophets, and drank the blood of the saints, afterward became flaming evangelists; but we have no such miraculous conversiqns nowadays, and the atoning grace of the blessed Redeemer furnishes the only exception to the general rule, that we may Judge what a man is by what he recently was; and if so, what signifies the oath as to what these men will do or will not do in the future? Do we turn trausgressors loose upon the community upon oaths for the future, or do we iunish them for the past? Our fitthers framed these clauses cthe length of citizenship, to give Congress the right to look to the antecedents of an applicant as to citizenship, because they believed that the best test of friendship; not that it was by any means infallible, but the best general rule that could be adopted to secure the purity of the body and the safety of the Commonwealth. It was for that reason that time was made as of the essence of the contract, as the lawyers would phrase it. 7 years a citizen at any time Will not fill the bill, will not come up to the requirements of the Constitution. It must be immediately preceding and up to the time when admission is de manded. If he is not at that time a citizen, and been such continuously without a moments intermission, he is but an intruder. He who for an instant ceases to be a citizen is as if he never had been a citizen. He is again at the starting point. All will know, of course, that the Constitution in using the term citizen uses it in its legal meaning, and not as s nonymoua with inhabitant or resident. He who becomes a citizen and lives 7 years thereafter in the U.S., then goes to another Government, and whether a Government in law or only in fact is immaterial, and there on oath renounces his allegiance to us and swears fealt to his new soverei, is not upon after war returnin to the U.S. a citizen thereof, nor e igible to a seat in Congress, though he has, in point of fact, at some time in his life been for 7 years a.citizen of the U.S and ct everybody knows that it would be safer to e him in so instanti than a bloody handed traitor. Now, if I am right, howlong have these candidates from SCarolina, for instance, been citizens of the U.S.? 7 years? Nay, hardly that many weeks and as all the clauses in the constitution are to me alike sacred until amended or repealed, I must say to those States that before they can get into Congress by my 00.1! they must not only as States come up to all reasonable requirements, but must send men here who are loyal, can take the iron clad oath, and on the score of citizenship come up to the constitutional standard. I am done. CONDITION 01 THE TREASURY.