Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the subject now agitating the public mind is the reconstruction of the late rebel States governments. In consideringit, we are met at the threshold with the question, have these States, by reason of the conduct and acts of aportion of their citizens, been thereby placed without the Union? and are they now In a territorial condition, and in consequence under the control of Congress, as in the case of Territories not formed into States? It is proper, in examining this matter, that we lay asi e all bitterness of spirit, and seek to do that which is best for the good of the country. There is no occasion to dwell upon or reproduce the sorrowsof the past. If. as is contended, these States are out of the Union, then they have become a nonde script community, without. law or order. I atfirm that these States have never been out of the Union. To so the have is to admit the doctrine of the righto secession, and assert that we now hold them by force of arms. We have been fighting for nothing except to deny and prevent the exercise of the right of secession. This right could only beal owed by the consent of the States in the Union; and if not agreed to, then it must be obtained by force, which, until successful, is rebellion, being while in doubt by one side held to be rebellion, and by the other revolution; but failing in success, the rights and positions remain as before the war commence. The fact that a mnjorit of the people was in a state of insurrection oes not carry with it a forfeiture of the State privileges and immunities which are the right of those who remain loyal. President Johnson has stated this doctrine in the most simple and conclusive manner, when he asserte in his message that a State cannot commit treason, but that individuals can commit treason and subject themselves to punishment, but cannot entail punishment upon those who have remained loyal and innocent. NO one ever heard of an indictmentagainst a State, city, or even a corporation for treason, murder, felony, or any other similar offensc. Shays insurrection ” in Massachusetts occurred under the Articles of Confederation, and before the adoption of the Federal constitution and we have in our history but one analogous case, to with “the western insurrection” in the year 1794, which was organized by citizens of the western counties of Pennsylvania, the western part of Virginia, (now a part of WestVirginia) and the Northwestern Territory (now the State of Ohio.) They werein rebellion. generalWashington proceeded against them, and when they so mitted, the soil was again placed under their control, and their people were restored to all their civil rights. The late rebellion and the western insurrection do not differ one jot except in the magnitude of the numbers engaged. do not rely alone upon this precedent. I propose to show that the Republican party, who new claim to have the entire control of the terms of the readjustment of these vexed questions between the several State authorities and the Federal Government, have by their own acts and the legislation they have adopted deliberately established that these States have never been out of the Union, and they have been permitted to exercise the highest powers granted in the constitution, on the assumption that they were part of the Union. Let us examine the record of Tennessee. A majority of the people of that State voted to approve the actof secession. Notwithstanding. AndrewJohnson remained in the Senate of the U.S. as a Senfrom that State for a long period of time after the secession ordinance was approved by the people and yet no one in or out of the Senate ever calledinquestion his right to a seat in that body, thereby admitting that Tennessee was a State in the Union and had a right of representation in Congress. Article 2 section one, clause 4,of the Constitution declares that No personexec ta naturalborn citizen or a citizen of the U.S. at the time of the adoptionof this constitution, shall be eligible to the o cc of President.” Article 12 of the amendments adopted September 25, 1804, provides that “ No person constitution ally ineligible to the oillee of Prestdentshull beeligible to that of VEEP ” The Republican national convention convened to nominate candidates for President and VEEP was held in the city of Bal timore in June, 1864. Every delegate in that convention who voted to place AndrewJohnson in nomination as the cpublican candidate for VEEP recognized and solemnly declared that Tennessee was a State in the Union, that AndrewJohnson was a citizen of that State, and by virtue of that political right and that alone was eligible to the othee of VEEP That convention, after argument and deliberation, deter mined by a decided vote to admit delegates from the States of Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arkansas, with all the privileges as equals in every respect with other delegates, an the delegates from those States voted and assisted in the nomination of candidates and the settlement of the platform of principles; and thus the convention clearly acknowle edthat those States were then a portion of the Union. This was done in full response to the requirement embraced in the terms of the constitution heretofore quoted. Every State convention which ratified that nomination made the same declaration to the world. Every qualified voter throu bout the U.S. who voted the Lincoln and Johnson electoral ticket in his respective State reaf firmed this fact. On the 7th day of December, 1864, the day on which the electors voted in the respective States, AndrewJohnson was a citizen of tennessee and of no other State. It follows. then, that if Tennessee was not a State in the Union on that day, that AndrewJohnson was not a citizen of the U.S., and not eligible to the Office to which he was subsequently elected. This is one of the many absurdities to which gentlemen are driven who maintain that the rebel States are no portion of the Union. On the 18th day of February, 1866, a joint convention of the 2 Houses of Congress was held “for the purpose of opening, determining, and declaring the votes for the offices of Presrdent and VEEP for the term of 4 years, commencing on the 4th of March next ensuing.” and after o ening and counting the votes, Vice presient Hamlin, in the most solemn discharge of his duty, and without objection from any, saidi “ Wherefore. I do declare that Abraham Lincoln of the State of Illinois. having receiveda majority of the whole number of electoral votes is duly elected POTUS for 4 cars. commencin: on the 4 the fMurch. 1865 and that AndrewJohnson, of the State of Tenncmco. having received a majority of the whole number of electoral votes for VEEP is duly elected VEEP for four years. Commencing on the 4thday of March. 1803 U Thus, declaring Tennessee to be a State in the men. Further, on the 4th day of March, 1865, AndrewJohnson was inaugurated VEEP, claiming to he and was declared to be a citizen of the State of tennessee. The ratification of the ordinance of secession of Tennessee by a majority of the voters of that State was announce by Governor Harris on the 24th of June, 1861. On the 2d day of december, 1861, Horace Maynard presented himself at the bar of the 37th Congress as a member from the State of Tennessee, was qualified and took his seat. On the 23d of Jan uary, 1862, Mr. Clements was qualified; and on the 25thofJanuary, 1863, Mr. ridges appeared and was qualified. All these from the State of Tennessee. These gentlemen remained as sit ting members until the expiration of the 37th congress March 4 1863. I would like to know the difference in the condition and the status of Tennessee at the dates I have named (all after the date of the secession ordinance) and Tennessee, as we find her today. There is none, and none can be stated. As if to make the position of the Republican party more glaring and bare in its inconsistency, the same gentleman, (Mr. Maynard, ), who was qualified in December, 1861, and held his seat until March, 1863, now presents himself with similar credentials from the same district and people, and is at this time refused admission by this House. It is impossible to escape from these free will expressions and constitutional acts. If ever there was a question upon which the Republican party was collective y and individually committed, it is this which they now seek to avoid. The 38th Congress passed an act, which was approved and signe by President Lincoln, entitled “An act to change the place of holding the circuit and district courts of the U.S. for the district of West Tennessee, and for other purposes.” This law was to has alive the powers of the U.S. court in the State o Tennessee, and for its removal to Memphis. The existence of Tennessee as a State was thereby fully acknowledged. The most important and conclusrve proof of the soundness of the doctrine I have stated is to be found in the recognition of WestVirginia as a newly erected State in the Union. Before I proceed to examine the provisions of the federal constitution upon the subject of the admission of new States and the a mission of WestVirginia as an independent State in the Union, I will recapitulate some of the antecedents of that act. A convention, professing to represent the whole State of old irginia, in April, 1861, determined to secede from the Union, and submitted their decision to a vote of the people of that State. The State authorities decided that a majority of the people had affirmed the act of secession. I do not enter into the accuracy of that vote, although I believe a majority of the people of Virginia was at that time opposed to secession. The people of the western counties of Virginia were With great unanimit loyal and o posed to secession. A portion of what may be called East Virginia agreed in sentiment with the people of WestVirginia. These people very properly determine to treat this act of secession as a nullity, elected n Governor and a Legislature. T hev organized and constituted what is called the fPieipoint governmeut" ofVirginia. It has been held that the “Pierpoiut government” was legally constituted, and I believe, does not deend upon whether they had the allegiance o a majority of the people or not. They were the only loyal people in the State, and if the rest chose to disfrauchise themselves, they could not expatriate that portion of. the people who were true in their fidelity to the constitution of the Federal Government. This principle is illustrated every day; the legality of an election never can depend upon the number of votes cast, and if a majority refuse to vote it does not impugn the validity of an election. The people of WestVirginia, in June, 1861, pe titioned the Pierpoint Legislature to be formed and erected into a new and independent State. That Legislature, in August, 1861, granted the petition, and the Congress of the U.S., and Abraham Lincoln, POTUS, 9. proved of and ratified these iroceedings, an erected the western part of Virginia into a new State called WestVirginia, whiieh was thus organized. All the Federal Officers were duly appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. She sent her 3 liep Representatives to this House, and they or their successors now occupy seats without cavil or doubt. The Senators duly elected by the Legislature of WestVirginia were admitted into the Senate of the U.S., and they or their successors also occupy seats. Before I proceed to take the constitutional view of the subject I beg leave to state a fact antecedent in date but important to the question I have under consideration. The State of Virginia, before the erection of the new State of WestVirginia, and after the socalled secession of Virginia, sent Representatives to this House, Messrs. Segar, pton, Car lile, Brown, and Whale who were admitted to seats on this floor. The 2 former came from the eastern part of Virginia. The Pier wint Legislature elected 2 Senators, Messrs. illey and enrlile, in place of Messrs. Mason and Hunter. They appeared, were qualified, and occupied their seats to the end of their respective terms of Office. The same action was had during 1861, 1862, and 1863 in reference to representatives from the States of Tennessee and J Louisiana., The constitution of the U.S. provides in the 4th article, section 3, as follows: “New States may be admittedby the Congress into thisUnion; butnonewStatoshallbeformed orderected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of 2 or more States or parts of Stateswithout the consent of the Legislatures gt" the States concerned. as well as of the congress. This is the most potential power vested in Congress which relates to the internal concerns of the Union. The erection of Vermont into a new State out of NewHampshire, Kentucky out of Virginia, Tennessee out of NCarolina, Mississippi and Alabama out of SCarolina and Geor gia, and Maine out of Massachusetts, show that it is a power which has always been exercised with great care and after the most mature deliberation. Apply these selfevident principles to the formation of WestVirginia, and it establishes that Virginia after the vote of secession remained what Virginia was before the act, a free and independent State in the Union, competent to code a portion of her territory to be erected into a new State; that Congress, when they confirmed the erection of WestVirginia, recognized without limitation the power of Virginia to cede and the power of WestVirginia to become a new State; that WestVirginia stands at this day in the Union upon the same basis that Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missis sippi, Alabama, and Maine occupy, and ifyou deny the right of old Virginia to grant the territo and of WestVirginia to become a free and independent State, you must deny the right of all the others which have been formed out of the 13 colonial States. The process of formation has been literally the same in each of the cases. The constitutional principles I have asserted are fully sustained by a report of the ComJudiciary of this Hibuse, upon the transfer of Jefferson and Berkeley counties from Virginia to WestVirginia. The report is based upon the constitutional declarations, that Virginia ivas a State in the Union at the time of the act of secession, has been so during the period of the late rebellion, is so now, and that there is no power in the Government to deprive it of its sovereignty as a State in the Union. On page 7 of that report the committee state: “It is perfectly clear to your committee that congresshas no power to institute pny measures or proceedingsto change the boundariesof adjacentStates, or to transfer territory from one to another. The States alone can make any changes in their bound aries or transfer territory from one to another, and Congress has no power over the subject except to ratify what the may do: and eertainly the power to ratify implies t a power to refuseto ratify.” I ask the members of this House to be guided, by the report of the ComJudiciary; be i consistent, and when Virginia or any other former rebel State seeks representation in this Congress by loyal men to grant such representation:. I know of no higher law in the country than the exposition of the constitution by the SCOTUS. A reference to the decisions of that court settles beyond all controversy the doctrine which I am now endeavoring to support. In volume 2nd of the decisions of that court, reported by J. W. Wal place, is to be found the case of the Circassian. This case was an a colfrom the decision of the district court tofp e southern district of Florida. Its merits depended upon a proclamation of Mr. Lincoln, issued April 19, 1861, and all the facts of the case occurred subsequent to the act of secession by the State of Florida. The court entertained jurisdiction of the case, and thus declared that Florida remained a part of and was in fact within the Union. ibis is the deliberate judgment of Chief Justice Chase and his associate judges. The same principle was again recognize to the State of Florida in the cases of the Andromeda, the Venice and the Beagorry. Again, this principle was held in the case of Harvey vs. Tyler whiich is an appeal from the district court of the U.S. for the western district of Virginia. Justice Miller deliv ered the opinion of the court and fully recognized the code of Virginia as in force, and thus established that Virginia was in the Union and had always been during the pendency of the case which embraces the entire period of the rebellion. This is one of the most important opinions ever delivered on the subject of titles to lands by that court, the facts and merits of which are well known to the members on this floor from the State of WestVirginia. The judgment is not founded upon any ffibulous case, but where large interests were actually at stake. The opinions of individuals are brought here to overturn the solemn and deliberate decision of the supreme judicial authority of this land. It is left to this House to determine which shall have the most weight. I have selected the cases specified from the last volume of the decisions o that court. Many others could be cited upon the same point, but time and labor prevent. Mr. Lincoln before his death made all the appropriate appointments of Federal and district judges, marshals, assessors, and collect ors of revenue and other officers in the States of Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, NCarolina, and other rebel States where ever the authority of the Government of the U.S. could be reestablished within them. Mr. Johnson since his accession to the Presidency has done the same and the senate of the U.S. have confirmed these uppointments. The SCOTUS have recognized all these appoint ”ments and acts whenever they have come under their judicial notice. The Government of the U.S. is divided into 3 distinct Depts, each independent of the other the executive, the legislaive, and the judicial. I have established by the record that each branch have in various ways and at different times affirmed that the rebel States have been without interruption and still are an integral part of the Union. Throughout the whole period of Mr. Lincolns administration, be uniformly promulgated one settled plan, that whenever the South should lay down their arms and snrrender to the Government they would be received, back; and almost the last public act of his, prior to his atrocious and fiendlike assassination, was to offer terms of peace, which, if they had been accepted, would now find these States fully represented in this House. he not of Congress of March 12, 1863, protects the property of loyal citizens in the rebel States who have not given aid and comfort to the rebellion, and allows them 2 years after the suppression of the rebellion to recover their property. It is impossible to suppose that congross would pass an actto protect the property of loyal citizens, and at the same time deprive them of their dearest political rights, one of which is representation in this House., Mr. Lincoln, in his 3rd annual message, December 8 1863, in discussing the reconstruction of the Union, expressed himself in the tol lowing words: "In someStates the elements for resumption seem ready for action, but ycinain inactive upmgntly for wa and toopfta ra l iiiir puint, a plan of action. lljflhe lll the plan o Brather than B thatofA? An if and B should agree, how shall they know but the General government herewill reicct their lanl gy the HIOSHGme lhUOIl a lgannisyrescptpd ace cmas to ying pom, mwi glvti$1ugiwye " ffllro1flll advance will not be rejected cre.” The proclamation alluded to accompanied the message and is known as the “amnesty proclamation, ” and bears even date With the niessage quoted from. In this paperPresident Lincoln made a clear distinction between the States, as States, and the indivrdnals within those States who had committed treason against the U.S. These individuals he proposed to pardon upon certain conditions, With a limitation, howeyer as to certain other persons therein described. I quote: "Therefore I Abraham Lincoln, POTUS, do proclaim, declare, and make known to all persons who have directly, or by implication. Piiaurftticcrip eaxteced pintetdh, etheaxtisatifnu rpearedlloionpis, ehxecreeptgarsnhnetreed to them and to eachof them, with reatora on of all "Kill 8 of property.” Then follow the conditions of such pardon, when he sets further forth “And I do further proclaim, declare, and make know. That whcnever in any of the States of Arkansas. exus. Louisirina, hllreie lfiiplll, fennrssoo, 41n bemli, Georgia, Virginia, Florida, SCarolina, and NCarolina, a number of personsJiot less than 1/10th in number of the votes cast in such State lit the presidentinl election. A D 160. each having taken tbeogith 5fOf6!" llllll(nl ot buying since jointed it. imd being a qualified voter by the elec s oiociinlallweds of estirte existing iminedintcly before the shall reestnaobtl isohf aa. cSeteastseigonov, aenrdnmexecultuding all others. republican and in novnec contravenwinhgich shall be such shall be recoized as the true coversnamideonattho, the State and the State shall receive there undef bbnollts the of the constitutional provision which doc ares ltlh]att. isth U.S. scaanafllorgmua0rgngtoyvteornemveernyt State bull protect each of the m against invasion; and onlllication of the Legislature, or the Executive, (dwomoensttihce Leslclature cannot be convened) “alnlt Violence.” Under the provisions of this proclamation the State governments of wisdom; an Arkan sfis were reestablished, and have continued ever since. The difference now on then being, that at the time: specified Mr. Lincoln hed that one tooth was sufficiept, if loyal and oath bound and now the entire popution are in like manner loyal and ready to subscribe to such oat. Mr. Lincoln ever continued to treat 2 of these States as in the Union, and so declared in his proclamationof the 8th day of July, 1864, giving his reasons for failing to Slgllan act entitled “ An act to aranty to certain States whose governments have been usurped or overthrown a RFG, ” passed Ju 2, 1864 with this further declaration, that c should recognize the others in like manner as soon as they laid down their arms and conformed with the terms of his proclamation of that date. I give the words of his proclamation of July 8, 1 64:. of"No. thercforc, I Abraham Lincoln, President ntohwon, tnhitacti, LwSlhnitlecs (lo proclaim, declare, and make am (as I was in December last, when by proclamation l proponnded a plan for ros toilrls, ioton"beuinnper eXpibalryedeo. bmymqi. ttfoerdmtoalanayppsirnegvlael polfanth oisf restoration; and while I rim also unpreparedto declare that the free btnte constitutions and govern iomnii stia. asnl ready al obpeted and installed in Arkansas and thereby set aside u nrlhold for naught, who have repelling and discouraging the loyal citizens set up the some"asto furl or effort or to declare a constitutional competency in Congress to lalnbeomlishfllyslhaovpeirnyln Stutes, but am at the sume time amendment nbo aunhdmgesx raeveclrinygthtrhoaut abocuotntshtietuntaiotine anl may be adopted, nevertheless I umI satisfied with the system to rrestoration contained in the bill asone very i irorwr plan (or the loyal people of any State choosing to adopt it and that I am and at all time! llmll bo, Drllmrvl olive the executive aid and us alstunce to an suc, people, so Soon as the military pXrOofiSlleNdlllilnlQtoaOnty U.S shall have beensup such te, and the people thereof:hull have sutheient returned to their obedience to he Constitution an laws of the U.S., in which d irceuestcio snmsitloitaprryocegeodvaecrncoorrdsyinilgl tobteheahni 1o. i"nted The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Sammie] during the present session, in an elaborate speec, said: government Abtuetm maybe in the union as a subject of by miscondpet lorfeit its right as a part of the governing power. The gentleman differs from my colleague from Pennsylvania, [ML SrnVENS] who is more consistent in his doctrine when be maintained that the southern States are a conquered people, and without arlalus as States in the Union. The doctrine of the learned Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] amounts to this, that the 11 rebel States are in or out of the Union just as we please, and according as it suits our whim and on rice. His doctrine has not, as might apfpear, the merit of novelt. It is a paraphrase of the odious doctrine of nu lification as adopted by the convention of SCarolina in 1882, which declared that SCarolina had the right to be in the Union or out of the Union, just as she pleased, and that she could declaretbat she was bound or not by the laws of the U.S. as she might determine. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SHELLABABern] has informed us “that he who 5 cuks on legal questions must talk well or not talk at all.” This, sir, is a truism applicable to all questions before the House; an notwithstanding the admenition delivered, I shall proceed to examine the cases which he has noted, and show that they are either totally irre evant, or negative the principle be was endeavoring to support. The 1st case to which he has referred is that of Penhallow et al. vs. Deane, 3 Dallas, page 54. It is a long and tedious case, determined upon facts and decisions prior to the adoption of the Federal constitution, and could not apply to the question of the right of a State to secede. The judge, Iredell, in (lgclivering the opinion entered into a lengthy discussion of the rights of the people collectively and individually under an absolute monarchy, a limited monarchy, and a republic. The learned judge could not have dreamed of or foreseen the present position of the South, and if he did it was (is extrajudicial as the Dred Scott decision is alleged to be. The gentleman, however, has selected a sin lo sentence from the opinion of Judge Iredell. In 3 Dallas, 93, that court says: “A distinction is taken at bar between of the people of a State. It ate and is capable of comprclicnding. by a distinction am not public. a State forming u. re (speaking of it as in moral person) I mean do not the legislature of the State, the Erccutive of the State or lboiudiciiiry. but all the citizens which composethe State, and are, if I may so oxiircssmy scllf, tggtcgraplarts of it, all together forming a body Po 1 If an inference, however, could be drawn favorably to the argument, the succeeding sentonne of the opinion immediately dispels it, when he says: “But in a republic, all the citizens as such are equals, and no citizen can rightfully exercise any authority over another but in virtue of a power consatuittuhtoirointya, lly given by the whole community, and such when exercised, is in client an act of the whole community which formssuch bodypolitic.” This“ citation reminds me of the couplet, Commentatorshave in Humor sought More than Homer ever thought.” The next case is Luther vs. Borden ct 01., 7 Howard, ago 1. Thisease arises out of Dorrs rebelion in 1842, and decides that when there are 2 opposiii r governments set up in a State the Federal jut iciary will recognize the decision of the State judiciary as to which is the true representative of the people. It has no reference to secession, and in my view no opinion of the court in this case can be made to bear upon the secession of the southern States. A uother authority relied upon is what is called the prize cases, reported in 2 Black page 635. these cases have been frequentl referred to by gentlemen in this House, but at o risk of repe tition I will look into them, so asto make my argument plain and conclusive in this direction. hese cases arose out of captures by our Navy of vessels attempting to violate the blockade of the southern ports and export cotton to Euro c, which trade gave aid and comfort to the soculled confederate government. Justice Grier deliv ered an elaborate opinion, entering into a discussion of maritime rights. He, however, reduces the case to a single point, and says it is immaterial whether the ship and cargo belong to a loyal citizen, a rebel traitor, or an ally. The ground of seizure is the illegal traflic or the breach of the blockade. But lest it might be inferred that these southern States so in rebellion were no part of the Union, he says in another part of the opinion: “By the constitution flongrces alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot de clure war against a State or cuyniiinber of States by virtue of any clause in the COllstltllllOD. ”Pagt, Thus the decision of the present Supreme Court oflthe U.S. asserlsin an explicit manner that neither Congress, the judiciary, the President, nor any other authority in this Governmentcau declare wnr against one or more States. The citizens of a State may rebolund be punished, butthe States remain intact within the Union. Another case cited, and the lnstI shall notice, is that of Mrs. Alexanders cotton, reported in 2 Wallace, page 417. She was the owner of 72 bales of cotton, which were seized by the naval forces of the U.S. She was a rebel, had assisted in erecting a rebel fort, and in many ways aided the rebellion. Cotton, as the court says, was an element of the war, and was relied upon by the socalled comfederate government. That government had protected this very cotton from conllugration no a reward, and also to enable her to export it. The court decided that it was forfeited to the U.S. But the court gave her the privileges if she could prove her loyalty and show 110 complicity with the rebel government, that she might come in and under the act of Congress of 12th March, 1863, at any time within 2 years, and receive the proceeds of her property which had been seized and sold by order of the court. The decisions of the SCOTUS, as far as I am able to hear or read, fully acquiesce in the principle, that any loyal citizen who had done no not to aid or assist the rebellion, or who has not voluntarily permitted his property to be used by the rebel authorities, remains a citizen of the U.S. with the same rights and privileges which he had before the commencement of the rebellion, that he is now a citizen of the U.S., and is entitled to all the rights of life, liberty, and property uarantied by the Federal constitution, o which representation on thin floor is one. SinceI had prepared the remarks heretofore submitted the POTUS has communicated to the senatea correspondence between himself and ChiefJustice Chase, which requires my attention because the answer of the Chief Justice is at variance with the statements I have made. On the 2d of October, 1865, the President wrote to the ChicfJustice that it might become necessary that the Government should prose onto some for high crimes and misdemeanors committed against the U.S. in the dis trict of Virginia, and inquires whether he or either of his associates Will hold a court there during the autumn or winter. On the 12th of October, 1865, Mr. Chase an swers that, he refuses to comply with the request; luggeststlmt a military court would answer the purposes, and concludes by saying that he shall wait “ until Congress shall have had an opportunity to consider and act on the whole subject.” The meaning of the answer is that the Chief Justice prefers a military court to the highest civil tribunal of the country, and that the trial by jury is dependent ii on the opinion ofu minority in Congress, an not upon the eulorcement of the constitution and the laws through the judiciary of the country. I should not, however, have noticed this correspondence but for the following remark made by the Chief Justice: “The SupremeCourt has hitherto declined to consider crisesbrought bpture it by appeal or writ o error from Ciltllltor district courts in the rebel portion of our country. ", This is at total variance with the record. In the prize cases reported in 2 Black. page 681), they were apmale from the Federal district courts of Massachusetts, NewYork, and Flor ida. The case of the Brilliante was an appeal from the Federal district court of Florida, and no discrimination was made between that case and the others. In 2 Wallace page 135, the SCOTUS, at the December term, 1864, entertained an a pool from the district court of the southern (istrict of Florida, in the case of Ciroassian. This case was argued and the opinion was delivered by the Chief Justice, affirming the judgment of the court below, condemning the ship and cargo as a lawful prize. The same court entertained an up 1from the district court of the southern district of Florida, in the case of the Venice, and the opinion of the court was delivered by the Chief Justice, affirming the decree of the court below, restoring the ship and cargo to their owners. In the cases of the Biagorry and and romeda, 2 Wallace, the court entertained similar appeals and pronounced the final decrees. The case of Harvey vs, Tyler was an ejectment commenced before the rebellion begun in the Federal court of the western district of Virginia, and was a decision upon a writ of error; this was during December, 1864. Without fear of successful contradiction I insert: 1. That the constitution of the U.S. was for a perpetual Union without limitation 85 to time; and that the 11 rebel States had no right to secede from and deny their allegiance to that constitution and Union. 821. That the conventions of the States which adopted the acts of secession respectively exercised powers which they had voluntarily surren dered to the General Government, and are conuently null and void. lad. That the individuals who thus seceded, and those who aided and abetted them by force in this secession, are in their own properpersons liable for the acts and otfeuses they have thus committed against the constitution of the U.S and the laws thereunder; that these individuals are liable to the executive and ju dicial Depts of the Governmentwhere the exclusive power rests to pardon or to punish. 4. That the citizens and inhabitants of the rebel States who remained faithful to the Union retain their rights and privileges in the same manner as though they had not been interfered with. They cannot be impaired nor taken from them by any power, and therefore those States remained as they were at the beginning and during the rebellion. in the Union. There is no distinction as to the rebel States. All of them stand upon the same footin in their relations to the Union. They diflor only as to the order of dates in their respective acts of accession. Before I conclude, I wish to place this subject in one more aspect. The question now before the House is not the re. eal of the test oath. We have all taken it, an at present no new member can be admitted without taking it. The issue to be decided is, whether loyal citizens of the southern States shall enjoy the rights of representation on this floor by loyal Representatives. There is no principle in a republican Government more lllllVEXSiL ly acknowledged than that taxation and representation are the correlatives of each other. The imposition of the ship tax cost Charles I his crown and his head. The imposition of the stamp tax and tea duty, cost the mother country the 13 colonies. In both instances the impost was trifling, but it involved avprinciple which was sacred and in violate. iv e are now imposing upon these loyal citizens all the taxes, duties and burdens common to every part of our country. We are daily receiving revenue from them, and we are all anticipating the products of their soil to aid and assist us in meeting the expenses of and demands upon the General Government. Yet we refuse them representation on the floor of this I tell the majority here thatsuoh a course is too odious and unjust to continue an I length oftime, and the sooner they abandon it the better for themselves and the country at large. Having clearly established in my argument that those States are in the Union, I shall briefly advert, before concluding, to a practical view of the subject as it relates to the future, one which we ought to consider and reflect upon. I assert that the cultivation and productions of the South are necessary to the payment of the public debt. At no distant time the truth oft is fact will be undisputed. Every dnvthat the reconstruction of the rebel States is delayed the more is the ability of our keeping the public faith put in jeopardy. With an adjustment of their labor system, which can best bemade successful by experience among and with themselves, tie South can aid materially in the payment of the national indebtedness, to an extent, as I consider, of one 4th, if not 1/3rd. Are the people of the North to continue to have this vast sum unnecessarily taken from their hard earnings? Yet such will be the inevitable result. Looking, therefore, at this question financially and being anxious for all the relief we can o tnin from our present heavy taxation, I consider that reconstruction should be immediate. It is man ifest that the people of the southern States do not desire to, nor could they if disposed, make further resistance. Our best guarantee is that their lives and their happiness and prosperity 08. 111 people are directly involved for good or for eVl. The productions of the South are absolute] essential to our properbalance in trade with foreign countries, and a resumption of specie payments cannot with entire safety take place until foreign exchange shall be in our uvor. In this mode the exportation of specie will be revealed and in all probability a crisis averted. The prosperity of the NewEngland, the middle, and the western States alike is vitally at issue. If the better feeling of generosity to a fallen foe has no place in your minds, then selfinterest should rompt the action 1 have indicated. The inaucial reconstruction is as important to the welfare of the whole people as t ie geo nphical and political reconstruction of the Slates. It is as the right hand is to the left. Holding the sentiments and believing that the people of the South have been and are now will inr to comply with every requirement suggested byIrcsidents Lincoln nndJohnson, I shall vote for full restoration of the Union by admitting the southern States to a representation on this floor, and I shall vote against any proposition which shall hinder or deay the consummation of so great a national blessing. LAW or TREASON.