tLlBlURYOFCUNIiRESS.j 
 
 
 f UNITED STATES OP^ A^IERICA. \ 
 
Rights of States to Representation! 
 
 B PEE C H 
 
 M. WEED, 
 
 OF CLIN Toiler. 
 
 ON THE R,iriSOIL.TJTIONS REIL.A.TIVE: TO 
 
 PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S 
 
 YETO OF THE FREEDMEN'S BUREAU BILL, 
 
 DeLIVEKJ£1> 
 
 IN 
 
 THE 
 
 Assembly, 
 
 March 
 
 6th, 
 
 18G6 
 
 
 \: 
 
 ■■;'.''•.:) 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 ALBANY: 
 
 
 
 
 
 ARGUS 
 
 COMPANY, P 
 
 ^"N'TETIS, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 18GG. 
 
 
 
 
 (VA^ 
 

speech: 
 
 In Assejibly, March 6, 1866. 
 
 The Chair announced the Special Order to be the following 
 Resolutions, offered by Mr. Tremain, which were read by the 
 Clerk : 
 
 Resolved, That in the judgment of this Assembly, Congress is clothsd with 
 full power to determine on what evidence of returning loyalty and obedience, 
 and on whai terms and conditions, intended to secure tlie future peace and wel- 
 fare of the nation, the States lately in rebellion shall be entitled to resume their 
 normal relations with the Federal Government, by the admission of their Sena- 
 tors and Representatives. , 
 
 Resolved, That the faith of the Nation, and especially that of the Union 
 party, is solemnly pledged to the freedom of the South, that their freedom shall 
 be secured and maintained by national authority whenever that shall be reqiii- 
 eife, and by such legislation as may be necessary and proper to accomplish that 
 object. 
 
 Resolved, That recognizing in President Johnson a statesman whose personal 
 sacrifices and patriotic c induct during the late civil war endeared him to the 
 loyal people of this country, and recognizing in the Union majority of Congress 
 a body of able and faithful defenders of constitutional liberty, as" well as true 
 representatives of the wishes of their constituents, the hope is ardently enter- 
 tained by this Assembly that, by conciliation, forbearance and mutual'conces- 
 sious, the differences of opinion existing between the President and Congress 
 may be harmonized, and by their joint labors and wisdom tlie great work of 
 restoring the American Union happily accomplished. 
 
 Resolved, That His Excellency the Governor is hereby respectfully requested 
 to transmit copies of the above resolutions to the President, and to our Senators 
 and Representatives in Congress. y 
 
 Mr. Faulkner offered the following as a substitute : 
 
 Strike out all after the word "Resolved," in the resolutions, and insert as 
 follows : 
 
 Resolved, That the Assembly of the State of New York approve of the action 
 of the President of the United States in vetoing the Freedmen's Bureau Bill. 
 
 .Resolved, That we desire the complete and speedy restoration of constitutional 
 and amicable relations between all the States of this Union, and the immediate 
 admission into Congress of Senators and Reprcbentatives constitutionally elected 
 from the States lately in rebellion. 
 
 Whereupon Mr. Weed spoke as follows : 
 
 Mr. Speaker — In speaking upon the resolutions before the 
 House, I shall endeavor to be brief as possible. The resolutions 
 are the text only, and the discussion has taken a wide scope, em- 
 bracing nearly the whole political horizon. Questions vital to the 
 existence of free government are in direct issue by the resolutions, 
 
as construed and explained by the gentleman from Alban}-. Qoes- 
 tions, some of which are apparent on their face, and some of which 
 are latent. In passing upon them, you pass iipoii the great questions 
 of the day. 
 
 If it were simply the diii'ereiicc between the wings of the domina)it 
 political party, I should not feel called upon {o sny a word, but it is 
 not — we are called upon, by indorsing them, to indorse, as a legisla- 
 tive body, all of the acts and principles of the majority in Congress, 
 including the. policy that disfranchises the Southern States, and 
 reduces them to a territorial existence. And we are also called upon 
 by them to censure the acts of the Chief Magistrate of the United 
 States. The gentleman from Albany says that it would have been 
 criminal for him not to have introduced this subject before this body. 
 I certainly think that, being before us, it would be criiainal in me not 
 to raise my voice to protest against it, and do all in my power to 
 stay such principles — principles that, if truly expressive of thq 
 sentiment of the majority of the electors of this (Juion, will sub- 
 vert the Constitution, and destroy the Grovernmont with as much 
 certaint_y as the accomplishment of secession. 
 
 Let us see, then, Mr. Speaker, Vv^hat these resv -utions are. The 
 first I will consider in connection with the third. The}' are cun- 
 ningly drawn. This one is developed by the third, as that one has 
 been construed, and as we shall see, hereafter. 
 
 The second is useless — no issue before the country upon it. The 
 faith of the whole people of the United States, not particular!}'- the 
 Republican part}', is solemnly pledged to every pei'son within its 
 broad limits, be he black or white, foreign or native born, and 
 pledged that their freedom shall be maintained, not secured, for it 
 is secured — all are free. The sentiment is the ^-c itiment of every 
 Democrat in the land. The amendment of the Constitution secured 
 to every black man the same freedom every white man enjoys. 
 It also secures in Congress the right to pass appropriate laws to 
 enf )rce those rights. (See second section of Constitutional Amend- 
 m<M!t. ) 
 
 This, then, is a dead issue, an issue ol the past, an issue upon 
 which there is no division of public sentiment iNorth or South, and 
 can only occupy place here for the purpose of making political 
 capital, and for the attempted aggrandizement of the Republican 
 party, not in any way affecting the great question of seli-govern- 
 ment and Constitutional rights at issue. It has vo business here — 
 we have heard enough about the Negro — he is free, let him remain 
 so forever. 
 
 The first clause of the third resolution praises the conduct of 
 Andrew Johnson during the war, and sympathizes with his sacrifices 
 — this is all. Does not the patriotic conduct of every officer and 
 soldier who left his home and fought for his country — made personal 
 sacrifices — endear him to every American citizen? Could you say 
 less for one of our brave soldiers? And is this all you intend to 
 
say for the President; do you not intend to indorse him as Presi- 
 dent of the United State?, or indorse liis official acts? Have you 
 no confidence in his statesmanship — in his honesty ? 
 
 Mr. Parker — May I ask the gentleman a question? 
 ' Mr. Weed — Certainly, sir. 
 
 Mr. Parker — Do you indorse the acts of President Johnson, as 
 President? 
 
 Mr. Weed — I will tell the gentleman bow I indorse the President, 
 and then if he is not satisfied with the answer, and desires to ask 
 me specifically, he can do so. 
 
 I, Mr. Speaker, who did not support him, go further. I, who 
 belong to a -party you frequently charge, upon the floor of this 
 House, and elsewhere, with disloyalty, hoping and believing I have 
 still the power to admire and support the patriot and statesman, 
 from whatever party he may come, find other acts of President 
 Johnson to indorse. I indorse his endeavors to restore to peace and 
 prosperity a distracted Union, an afflicted people. I indorse him in 
 these endeavors as a defender of the Constitution. I indorse him 
 as one of the few men who can and ha«, in refusing to sign the Freed- 
 men's Bureau Bill, resisted extraordinary powers conferred upon 
 him because unconstitutional and not in accordance with true Demo- 
 cratic principles. Do you indorse him in this regard ? Dare you 
 say 3"ou do not do so? This resolution does not indorse the Presi- 
 dent or his acts at all; it is taken together directly the reverse. 
 
 The indorsement of Congress is far different. It is broad, covers 
 every act of the "Union majority." W'hat is meant by the term 
 "Union majority?" Is Mr Eaymond, is Mr. Hale, is Senator Mor- 
 gan included in the term, or does it mean the majority of the Union 
 members in Congress ? It can be so construed, and was probably 
 so intended, as the gentlemen who offered the resolution cannot cer- 
 tainly approve the acts of ttiese men, feeling and believing as he 
 says he feels and believes. It,s language is peculiar compared with 
 the clause referring to President Johnson. 
 
 The first resolution, in the light 'of this, and of the comments and 
 construction given to it by the gentleman from Albany, takes the 
 broad ground "that it is right and proper for Congress to keep the 
 South without representation, just so long as they may see fit." 
 This is the unmistakable meaning. There is no limit to the time if 
 you acknowledge the power. It also means that we as a legislative 
 body fully indorse as just and proper all of the principles and pro- 
 visions of the Freedmen's Bureau Bill ; that we sustain Congress 
 and oppose the President on all the Constitutional questions so 
 vividly painted out in the veto message. 
 
 The gentleman says the Freedmen's Bureau Bill is a, dead issue, 
 is past. That he has refrained from referring to it in the resolutions. 
 Do not flatter yourselves that this is so. The resolutions do refer to 
 it. Thc3' do, and it is their plain intention to arraign you against 
 the President upon those questions, as Congress is to-day arraigned. 
 
6 
 
 Can you indorse a body of men as faithful defenders of Constitu- 
 tional liberty and the true representatives of the wishes of their 
 constituency, and not by that act refuse to indorse the President, 
 who says their acts, the ones you have especial reference to, are 
 unconstitutional and unjust. t -n • i • +i 
 
 IS'o Mr. Speaker, you charge home error to the President m the 
 very words. Are you, as a body, prepared to determine that the 
 President is wrong? That it is not he, instead of Congress who 
 ''faithfully defends your Constitution." In his message vetoing 
 the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, the President, among other delects, 
 points out the following: 
 
 "In those eleven Slates the bill subjects any white person who 
 may be charged with depriving any freedman of any civil rights or 
 immunities belonging to white persons to imprisonment or hne, 
 or both, without, however, defining any civil rights or immunities 
 which are thus to be secured to the freedmen by military law. i his 
 military iurisdiction also extends to all questions that may arise 
 respecting contracts. The agent who is thus to exercise the office 
 of a military judge, may be a stranger, entirely ignorant ot the laws 
 of the place, and exposed to the errors of judgment, to which all 
 men are liable. The exercise of power over which there is no legal 
 supervision, by so vast a number of agents as is contemplated by 
 the bill must, by the very nature of man, be attended by acts ot 
 caprice, injustice and passion. The trials, having their origin under 
 this bill, are to take place without the intervention of a jury, and 
 without any fixed rules of law or evidence. The rules, on which 
 offenses are to be heard and determined by the nnmerous agents, 
 are such rules and regulations as the President, through the War 
 Department, shall prescribe. No previous presentment is required, 
 noi any indictment, charging the commission of a crime against the 
 laws- ^but the trial must proceed on charges and specilications. 
 The punishment will be, not what the law declares but such as a 
 court-martial may think proper. And from these arbitrary tribunals 
 there lies no apjieal, no writ of error to any ot the courts, in which 
 the Constitution of the United States vests exclusively the judicial 
 power of the country; while the territory, and the class of actions 
 and offenses that are made subject to this measure are so extensive, 
 that the bill itself, should it become a law, will have no limitation 
 m point of time, but will form a part of the permanent legislation 
 of the country. I cannot reconcile a system of military jurisdiction 
 of this kind with the words of the Constitution, which declares that 
 ' no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infa- 
 mous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, 
 except in cases arising in the land or naval iorces, or in the miliiia 
 when in actual service m time of war or public danger; and that, 
 'm all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a 
 speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State or district 
 wherein the crime shall have been committed. 
 
7 
 
 " These safeguards, which the wisdom and ezperience of ages 
 taught our forefathers to establish as securities for the protection of 
 the innocent, the punishment of the guilty, and the equal adminis- 
 tration of justice, ara to be set aside, and for the sake of a more 
 vigorous interposition in behalf of justice, we are to take the risk 
 of the many acts of injustice that would of necessity follow from an 
 almost countless number of agents established in every parish or 
 county in. nearly a third of the States of the Union, over whose 
 decision there is to be no supervision or control by the Federal 
 courts. The power that would be thus placed in the hands of the 
 President is such as, in time of peace, ought never to be entrusted 
 to any one man." « 
 
 You determine all these questions against the President by adopt- 
 ing this resolution. As you can see, the Freedmen's Bureau liill, 
 aside from the question of representation, embodies positions that 
 are suicidal to free government, and that tend directly to subvert 
 the Constitution and the liberties of the people. I, as a Democratic 
 member of this body, protest against it, and wish to raise my voice 
 in sustaining the President in opposition to it. 
 
 This brings me to the question labored by the gentleman from 
 Albany, and which he claims is the "live issue" involved in the 
 resolutions. It is, as I have said, "that Congress has the constitu- 
 " tional power to prevent the admission to that body of the repre- 
 "gentatives of the States lately in rebellion, forever^ if they see fit." 
 Is this not a startling proposition? It is, nevertheless, the position. 
 This is the po-ition of the leaders in Congress — this is what the 
 resolution says — this is what the radical leaders in this House 
 assert. j 
 
 The President differs widely and entirely from these leaders, 
 and from the sentiments expressed in these resolutions, and before 
 discussing the constitutional power of Congress to keep out the 
 representatives of these States, let us, for a moment, inquire if Pres- 
 ident Johnson has changed his position on this question since his 
 advent to power, or since the commencement of the war; and 
 whether the majority in Congress have changed, and whether, in 
 this, they are true representatives of the wishes of their constituency. 
 
 The Crittenden Resolution passed' Congress in July, 1861. It 
 then embodied the sentiments of Congress, and of the whole people 
 of the North. It was as follows : 
 
 ^^ Resolved^ By the Ilouse of Representatives of the United States, 
 that the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the 
 country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt 
 against the Constitutional Government, and in arms around the 
 Capital; that in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all 
 feeling of mere passion, or resentment, will recollect only its duty to 
 the wliole country ; that this war is not waged on their part in any 
 spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or 
 for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights of 
 
8 
 
 established institutions in those States, but to defend and maintain 
 the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union with 
 all its dignity, equality and rights of the several States unimpaired; 
 and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to 
 cease." 
 
 President Johnson introduced them in the Senate. They passed 
 with only two votes against them in the House and five in the 
 Senate. Do they not agree with the President's sentiments to-day ? 
 Do they agree in any way with the sentiments of Mr. Stevens, and 
 those who act wdth him? No one can deny but that President 
 Johnson took the positions he now holds upon this question imme- 
 diately after Mr. Lincoln's death, and no one can truthfully assert 
 that he did not inherit those opinions and positions from Mr. LincoliL 
 Both by their proclamations and their acts took this distinct ground. 
 What did the people of this State do ? Did they indorse President 
 Johnson as these resolutions indorse him ? Did the Eepublican 
 party indorse him so ? No ! your Convention last year passed reso- 
 lutions. You all supported them. You insisted they w-ere the 
 sentiments of your party. 
 
 The third resolution fully indorses Andrew Johnson personally, 
 and the fourth is as follows : 
 
 '■^Eesolved^ That we approve, as eminently wise and just, the senti- 
 ments of kindness and confidence which President Johnson has 
 evinced towards those of the communities and individuals lately in 
 Rebellion, who accept the perpetuation of the Union and the per- 
 petual prohibition >of slavery, as the legitimate and irreversible 
 results of the war; that we approve the initial steps which he has 
 taken towards relax^pg the bonds of military authority in the 
 Southern States, and in restoring to their people full and complete 
 control over their local affairs, just as soon as may be found compati- 
 ble with the preservation of order, the maintenance of peace, the 
 exclusion of Slavery, and the fulfilment of the Constitutional obliga- 
 tions of the National authority, to 'guarantee to every State a 
 republican form of Government;' and that w'e confidently look 
 forward, under his wise and patriotic Administration, to the establish- 
 ment of more cordial relations, of greater mutual respect and of a 
 stronger interest in each others' welfare, between the Northei'n and 
 Southern States, than have hitherto prevailed ; and that in all the 
 measures he may adopt tending to the attainment of these just and 
 beneficent ends, we pledge him our cordial and hearty support." 
 
 They were in effect the Crittenden Resolutions. Did you mean 
 what you then said? Or were your leaders at this time trying, by a 
 false platform, to make capital against the Democratic party, who 
 had honestly and squarely indorsed President Johnson's Recon- 
 struction policy, as we do to day. 
 
 Nothing has transpired since that could change you so radically. 
 If the majority in Congress act to-day in harmony with the senti- 
 mcuts of your party leaders, then your platform, the one upon 
 
9 
 
 which every Republican member of this House was elected, was a 
 falsehood, was a cheat to deceive the people. You must take one 
 horn of this dilemma, or t!ie other. Either you carried the State, 
 and were elected upon a false platform, or you and the Union 
 majority from this Stale in Congress, are for political power, or some 
 other improper reason, misrepresenting your and their constituency. 
 
 There can be no question in my mind, Mr. Speaker, but that the 
 great majority of the people of the Northern States fully and 
 emphatically indorse President Johnson, and will show it by their 
 repudiation of those, who for selfish or misguided purposes stand 
 in the way of the speedy and peaceful solution of our national 
 troubles. 
 
 The Constitutional argument of the gentlemen (Mr, Ti'emain) 
 upon the power of Congress to exclude the representatives of the 
 States lately in rebellion,, was lengthy and able. It is a question 
 that has been ably discussed on both sides in Congress, and I think 
 that the positions of the gentleman have been fally answered there, 
 and could be here were I competent to the undertaking. My belief 
 in the justice and soundness of ray position, gives me confidence to 
 attempt the ausv.-cr. It is to be admitted that it is a new question, 
 and perhaps one not contemplated by the framers of the Constitu- 
 tion. Nevertheless we should go to that Constitution for the ])ower, 
 and not in such a case esercise any power not delegated to Congress 
 in that instrument. It has been contended that in time of rebellion, 
 to preserve the integrity of the Union, and the supremacy of the Gov- 
 ernment, extraordinary measures might be resorted to, extraordinary 
 powers exercised, not expressly contained in the Constitution. The 
 people of this country have not complained of the proper exercise 
 of this power, in cases of absolute necessity. 
 
 How do we stand now. Is it to preserve the Union and maintain 
 the supremacy of the Government, that the radical leaders claim 
 now to exercise these same powers and resort to these same meas- 
 ures. No it is the reverse. It is to 'prevent the restoration of the 
 Union, and to prevent the maintenance of the supremacy of the 
 whole Government. The rebellion is at an end. 
 
 The gentleman from Albany, however, asserts that it is still time 
 of war, and hence that all these powers may still be resorted to. 
 Resorted to for what purpose ? To prevent the restoration of the 
 Union. The argument is based upon the two pretenses : First, 
 That the States were, and are, as States, out of the Union. Sec- 
 ond. That we are now in a state of actual war with Tennessee and 
 the rest of the Southern States. To maintain the opposite of the 
 first proposition, we have waged what we supposed a successful war 
 for four years. We as a people have established the fact to the 
 world, that States not only could not go out of the Union, but could 
 not be taken out. Who dares say, to-day, that eleven States have 
 been blotted from our National emblem ? Yet, this is the result 
 of the position of the gentleman from Albany (Mr Tremain). Nor 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 are we, Mr. Speaker, in actual war. We are at peace, thank God, 
 tlirougliout the length and breadth of this lair land. What consti- 
 tutes war? Among nations a declaration of war may do it construct- 
 ively, but in a nation nothing but ictual marching of opposing 
 armies — nothing but resistance and the necessary ajiplication ot force 
 to overcome tliat resistance, can constitute war. Resistance to the 
 authority of the United States has, as we all know, entirely ceased. 
 All acknowledge the supremacy of the Constitution and the law. 
 Who then are we at war with? Who is contending against us? 
 The technical legal points taken by the advocates of exS^ting war, 
 that Congress has to make a treaty of peace ; has to declare the 
 war at an end; that soldiers are still in the field (acting in lieu of a 
 standing army) ; that soldiers vote — are all far-fetched, and an 
 enlijhtenetl people will not be deceived by such technicalities, 
 when it is as plain to evtry one as the noon-da}'' sun, that the war is 
 at an end, and is also as plain that it will not be begun again unless 
 began by men feeling as tlie leaders of the radicals fed. 
 
 It is apparent, then, that the Constitution must and should be 
 our guide in determining this question of representaticm. ^J'hat we 
 miist .only exercise the powers therein contained If so, what is 
 there in the Constitution or in the law of the land that would pre- 
 vent the admission of repi'csentatives elected from the several States 
 lately in rebellion, if elected in conformance with the organic law 
 of those States, and of the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 The States have so el-ected representatives. (U. S. Const., Art 1, 
 Ch. 2.) It is then claimed that they, to take their places in Congress, 
 need the authorit}^ of the United States first, having been declared 
 in rebellion. This proposition we deny; but, Uv the sake of the 
 argument, suppose it trae. That authority and consent has been 
 given. President Lincoln, by proclamation, July 8, 1^64, distinctly 
 proclaimed the mode of conforming with the law, and getting into 
 position again as States. The last clause of his message is as fol- 
 lows : "And that I am, and at all times shall be, prepared to give 
 the execution, aid and assistance to any such people (the people of 
 the Sonthern States), so soon as the military resistance to the United 
 States shall have been suppressed in any such State, and the people 
 thei'cof shall have sufficiently returned to their obedience to the 
 Constitution and the laws of the United States, in which cases mili- 
 tary governors will be appointed, with directions to proceed accord- 
 ing to the bill (referring to a bill providing the manner in which 
 those States could reorg:tnize)." 
 
 Pi-esident Lincoln and President Johnson, in pursuance of this 
 proclamation, and others of the .same nature, appointed Provisional 
 Governors, and provided for State Conventions and elections. They 
 were held. Governors and Legislatures were elected — elected in 
 strict conformance with the terms of the j)roclamation — the State 
 functions exercised l)y the several States, and senators and repre- 
 seutativesj elected to Congress by them. 
 
11 
 
 These men, constitutionally elected, and elected in pursuance of 
 the proclaiiijition of the Executive of the United States, now ask 
 admission, and ai'e refused by Congress. They have done more 
 than President Lincoln, or Conuress, in 1864, saw fit to exact, by the 
 adoption of t.ie amenihrient abolishing slavery; an act which was 
 recognized b}'' the United btates as an act of a sovereign State, and 
 so declared by proclamation. The Amnesty Pi'oclamution is another 
 evidence on the part of the Government, and it would seem a con- 
 clusive one. 
 
 Till' test oath is cited as a reason why these representatives 
 should not be admitted. I believe the test oath is unconstitutional, 
 and should be repealed; but, until repealed or declared unconstitu- 
 tional, it stands as the law of the land. It has no Ibrce as an argu- 
 ment here, except it is a protection against improper persons taking 
 seats, and, in that view, is a strong argument against the radicals. 
 Congi'css cannot raise that question until the members have been 
 admitted and refused to take the oath. To use a homely adage, 
 "It will be time enough to bid the d — 1 good morning when you 
 meet him." 
 
 The gentleman has cited Vattel and the decision of .fustice Grier, 
 of the Supreme- Court of the United States, to sustain his view, that 
 the}^ as belhgerents, lost all rights. The same positions were taken- 
 and authorities cited by Mr. Stevens in Congress, and were so' ably 
 and conclusively answered by Mr. Raymond, that I may be par- 
 doned lor reading from his remarks. He says: 
 
 "The gentleman from Pennsylvania cited a variety of legal 
 precedents and declai-ation of principle, nearly all of tliem, I believe, 
 drawn from the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court pro- 
 nounced bj' Justice Grier, in what are properly known as the Prize 
 Cases. Ills citations were all made for the purpose of proving that 
 these States were in a condition of public war — that they were 
 waging such a war as could only be waged by a separate and inde- 
 pend.eiit power. But a careful scrutiny of that decision will show 
 that it lends not the slightest countenance to such an inferenc?. 
 Gentlemen 'who hear me will doubtless recollect that the object of 
 the trial in those cases was 1o decide whether certain vessels, cap- 
 tured in trying to break the blockade, were lawful ])rize of war or 
 Lot; and the decision of this point turned on tiie question whether 
 the war then raging was such a contest as justified a resort to the 
 modes and usages of public war, of which bh)ckade was one. Jus- 
 tice Grier decided that h was — that, so flir as the purposes and 
 weapons of war were concerned, the two parties were belligerents, 
 and that the Govei-ninent might blockade the ports and capture 
 property within the lines of the district in rebellion, precisely as if 
 that district were an independent nation engaged in a i)ublic war. 
 But he said not one word which could assert or imply that it was an 
 independent nation — that it had a;eparate existence, or had gone 
 out of the sovereign jurisdiction of the Uuited States. Ou the con- 
 
12 
 
 trary, evervthing he said — the very ptissages quoted b}' the gentle- 
 man from Penusylvania, himself — imply and assert precisely the 
 opposite. He speaks of tbem, not as sovereign, but as claiming to 
 be sovereign ; not as being separate, but as trying to be separate 
 trom the United States. In this paragraph, quoted from that decis- 
 ion, for example — 
 
 Hence, in organizing this rebellion, they have acted a? States claiming to be 
 sovereign over all persons and property within their respective limits, ano assert- 
 ing a right to absolve their citizens from their allegiance la the Federal Govern- 
 ment. Several of these States have combined to form a new Confederacy, 
 claiming to be acknowledged by the world as a sovereign State. Their right to 
 do so is now being decided by wager of battle — 
 
 the Court asserts precisely the principle which I have already stated 
 • — that they were claiming independence, and that the validity of 
 their claim would depend wholly and entirely upon the decision 
 reached in the field of battle. The same misconstruction is trace- 
 able in all the legal citations made by the gentleman from Pennsyl- 
 vania. For example, he says : 
 
 Again, the Court say, what I have been astonished that anj- one should doubt: 
 
 ' The proclamation of blockade is itself official and conclusive evidence to the 
 Court that a state of war existed.' 
 
 Now, what was the legal result of such war ? 
 
 ' The conventions, the treaties, made with a nation are broken or annulled 
 by a war arising between the contracting parties.' — Vaitel, 372 ; Ualleck, 371, § 23. 
 
 " A blockade is evidence that a state of war exist:^ ; and a state of 
 war annuls all treaties between the contending parties. But does 
 this warrant the inference that the Constitution ol the United States, 
 which is not a treaty, was annulled, or its binding force in the least 
 degree impaired, by the war of rebellion? 
 
 *' But I will not go further in examining these citations. All they 
 show is that the Government, as against the rebels, and in waging 
 the war to suppress the rebellion, had the rights of belligerents, and 
 that the rides and laws of war might and must be applied to this 
 contest, although it was not a war between separate and independ- 
 ent Powers. How, then, can this decision possibly be made to 
 convey the idea that the parties to the v/ar were separate and inde- 
 pendent States? It proceeds throughout, and in every part, upon 
 precisely the opposite idea.'' 
 
 Mr. Speaker, the wager of battle was decided against them, and 
 their right to a claim of sovereign power, or an independent na ion, 
 was therefore defeated. They stand, therefore, in this regard, and 
 as to the relations with the Government, as though they never had 
 made such a claim at all. 
 
 It is claimed that in making peace with a belligerent power we 
 have the right to impose terms and conditions. This is true when 
 applied to foreign nations, but untrue when applied to the case at 
 bar. The only condition we can legally impose, and the only con- 
 dition we ever did impose, until after tlie peace -vas a fact, was 
 submission to the Constitution, and obedience to the laws of the 
 
13 
 
 United States. Is not this all that has been asked, from time to 
 time, and is it not complied with ? It is claimed, also, that Con_t}jress 
 has the right to go back of the election and inquire into the lo\alty 
 of tlie constituenc}'', to inquire into the hostile intent of the person 
 elected, and the constituency behind him. How long is this to last? 
 Is Congress to say for twenty years that the intent is hostile? ]\Iay 
 they deternr.inc a man's loyalty because he does not agree with them 
 in political sentiment? This can never be. This is not the mean- 
 ing of Sec. 5, Art. 1 of the Constitution. The majority in power 
 will, as they do to-day, decide all disloyal who do not politically 
 agree with them. If they will repudiate as disloyal the President of 
 the United States because he does not agree with them, what can 
 you expect in passing upon the intent and loyalty of those politically 
 opposed to them ? If you see such things in the green tree, what 
 will 3'ou see in the dry. 
 
 Again, a conclusive argument against the position taken, it seems 
 to me, is in the fact that senators did act, and legally and constitu- 
 tionally act, as senators for years after the State they represented 
 had pretended to secede. 
 
 Suppose a loyal, true man, from South Carolina, had been elected 
 Senator in 1860, and had taken his place, from time to time, in the 
 Senate, to this date — had resisted and repudiated the pretended 
 secession of his State — would not he have been entitled to his seat 
 and vote as much as though from New York? Can any one say 
 he would not have been ? Johnson himself was Senator from 
 Tennessee until March, 1862 — more than one year after the State 
 seceded — did any one question his seat? 
 
 If the pretended act of secession effected the States' status in the 
 Union at all, it must have taken effect when it passed. Yet no one. 
 Congress itselt, never questioned the right of any such member to his 
 seat and vote. This, it seems to me, to be a conclusive argument 
 against the position that these States, by the acts of secession, or by 
 any other act of theirs or of Congress, were disfranchised as States 
 in the Union. 
 
 It is clear then that both of their positions are unsound ; that the 
 States were never out of the Union, and that we are not at war ; 
 and also clear that if, after secession, it required .action on the part 
 of the authorities of the United States, that that action has been 
 taken; that the consent required given, and that those States are 
 entitled, in honor, in this view of the subject even, to immediiite 
 representation. The question of individual qualifications under the 
 Constitution to be determined in each individual case, the same as 
 the qualifications of those from an}^ other State. 
 
 The gentleman (Mr. Tremain) lays great stress upon the fact that 
 at the very next session of Congress after peace was declared, they 
 presented themselves for admission into Congress. This he turns 
 against them. The act of secession consisted in a withdi-awal from 
 Congress, denying the binding force of the Constitution of tho 
 
14 
 
 United States, and attempting to establish a new Government. 
 Thej now come back to the door of Congress defeated, repentant, 
 admitting llie binding force of the Constitution and agreeing to sup- 
 port it, and maintain the laws. In fact in every way repudiating 
 every act that was illegal, and yet this is used against them. We 
 have been fighting, as I have said, to compel the in to support the 
 Constitution and obey the laws. The true intent and meaning of 
 that Constitution is that every State should send its representatives 
 to Congress. They do .so. They, by doing so, evidence their repent- 
 ance and loyalty. Their declining to send representatives would 
 justly be construed against them ; and yet we find this thrown up 
 against them as though it were an offense. 
 
 Not satisfied with the argument of the questions upon their riierits, 
 we hear eloquent appeals to the baser passions of the North ; hate 
 and punishment are called to their aid ; political power and its loss 
 is brought to bear, and even the memory of the dead is invoked to 
 steel the heart of the citizens of the North against the returning 
 repentant States. 
 
 If there be a man who desires additional punishment henped upon 
 the South, as a people, I pity him from the bottom of m}^ soul. 
 What have they not suffered ? Where are they lo day ? Death 
 would have been a less punishm.ent to many than the punishment 
 they have received. As a community they are ruined, defeated, 
 subdued, repentant — would you ask more ? There may be individ- 
 ual cases tliat need punishment, and such should be punished ; but 
 a humane man, an honest man, one whose soul was not bigoted, one 
 who hoped for forgiveness in this world and in the world to come, 
 could not urge further punishment upon the people of the South, as 
 a people. 
 
 The gentleman (Sir. Tremain) referred with glowing period to 
 the Prodigal Son. He wished the South to be in the position of 
 that son in all respects. He installs himself in place of the brother 
 that remained at home, and wished his brother back as a servant 
 only. That son was like the radical leaders of to-day, amjered at 
 the' rejoicings upon the })rodigars return — offended because that 
 father received his erring son as our civil father would receive back 
 to the old home (the Union) the erring prodigals of our household. 
 The father then, like the Constitution now, had no servant's ))lace 
 to give his once loved son ; but the brother then, like the brother 
 now, feared to lose some of his power, some of his prerogatives, by 
 the prodigal's return. 
 
 Hate, too, is engendered. The same hate that swept us into the 
 war, is trying to keep us from the settlement of our ti-oubles. The 
 radicals hate the South to-day, as they have for year.^^. The hate 
 that made a hero and a martyr of John Brown, who, in his insane 
 endeavors to free the Negro, committed treason, is still rampant in 
 our land. And to-day, on every hand, we find it vented and poured 
 oat upon the head of President Johnson, who has dared to stand, 
 
7.0 
 
 for his country's sake, between that hate and its vengeance. And 
 we hear it from the leader in Congress, who holds up to the Presi- 
 dent the fate of Charles the First, and from the minister of the Gospel, 
 who prays that the President may be removed from earth. 
 
 But the great secret of the position taken by the radicals in ref- 
 erence to the admission of States, is their anxiety to retain political 
 power and place. Fearing the people, Ijnowing that when the surge 
 of rebellion has died away, they will not be sustained, they hope to 
 be able to keep out the Southern States until after another Presi- 
 dential election. This is the secret of their position. The gentle- 
 man (Mr. Tremain) says that the loss of patronage will fail to scatter 
 the Kepublican party. My fear is, not that loss of patronage will 
 scatter it, but that the retention of power and patronage will induce 
 the radicals, who control that party, ag-ain to deny those principles, 
 as in 1865, and attempt to make the people believe in them once 
 more. 
 
 The i;eport, flashed over the wires to-night, of the admission of 
 the representatives from Tenessee, is the first installment of that 
 system of change. 
 
 Mr. Pitts— Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? 
 
 Mr. Wked— Certainly, sir. 
 
 Mr. Pitts— Do you indorse the admission of Tennessee under tho 
 proposed^ resolutions of Mr. Bingham in Congress? 
 
 Mr. Weed — I indorse the admissi(m of Tennessee as she came 
 into the Union iifty years ago. I indorse the admission of her- 
 representatives as representatives of a sovereign State of this Union, 
 that has never been out of that Union since her admission by 
 Congress. (Applause) I care nothing for the vagaries of Mr. 
 Bingham, or any others. I only see the fact that she is the first of 
 the disfranchised States to be allowed that place which every State 
 must be allowed before this Union will be restored. 
 
 The spirit of the dead has been invoked to justify their positions. 
 I think differently of the noble dead. They fought and died for one 
 object. That object was the presei-vation of our glorious Union. 
 No such selfishness can be attributed to the noble defenders of our 
 Government that now sleep in their lonely graves. Could thev come 
 back to earth; could their invisable forms that hover around us now 
 speak, they would one and all saj^, we knew no party, no race, no 
 color. We died for our country. The Union is preserved. The 
 glorious Stars and Stripes under'which we fought, and for which we 
 died, floats from ocean to ocean, from Canada to Mexico, recognized 
 and revered by all ; and the Constitution is acknowledged as the 
 supreme law of the land upon every foot of the soil of our beloved 
 country. 
 
 Is it strange, then, that President Johnson should feel that those 
 of the majority in Congress who oppose the admission of Constitu- 
 tionally elected representatives from repentant States, are opposed 
 to their country ; are arrayed in antagonism to the Union, the Con- 
 
16 
 
 stitntion and tho laws; and if tliey persist {\ik1 succeed will subvert 
 niul destroy tliis Government as surely and eflectually as woidd 
 successful secession. Is he not justified in Lis opinion? I believe 
 the people will answer that he is. 
 
 Islr. Speaker, when time shall clear up the mist that now surrounds 
 the transactions of the past five years, in this, our country, and 
 impartial history shall detail the occurrences of those years, side by 
 side ill the roll of those who would sacrifice country for personal ^ 
 aggi-aiidizement. private passion and political power, will stand the 
 fii'e-eater ol the South who plunged his country into rebellion, and 
 the fanatic of the North who refused it returning peace ; each though 
 in a different sphere, his country's enemy. 
 
 I'lie discussion, Mr. Speaker, of the resolutions, of necessity 
 involved the discussion of the substitute, as they are antagonistic. 
 For these reasons, therefore, I am in favor of the substitute, and 
 should that be voted down, shall vote against thexresolutions offered 
 by the gentleman from Albany. 
 
i 
 
I 
 
J