the act, the consequences of a state of war. Congress alone under our Constitution has the power to declare war, and therefore Congress alone is to define what shall be a condition of war with any of our own States. In fact, there may be a war of our own States against the Government, as we have experienced sadly, and of course, therefore, there may be a war of the Government against them. I say Congress is to declare when that condition of circumstances exists; and Congress did it in the act of 1861.

I dislike the proposition contained in this House resolution, because by it Congress undertakes to exercise the power of declaring now, and in relation to a pending election, that the votes of particular States, by name, shall not be counted, because those States are in a condition of insurrection. I dislike to undertake to legislate for a State by name particularly, as I have before stated to the Senate. I want a general law on the subject. The act of 1861 was a general law by which all States were subjected to its operation in the same contingency. It seems to me that Congress, who defined in the act of 1861 what should be a condition of things which would put the inhabitants of a State in a state of insurrection against the Government, can alone define and decide upon that condition of things which shall restore a State to its allegiance. The decision must be by the same body, the same power. I know in relation to foreign nations that if we have a war with them declared by Congress, the President, with the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate, may make a treaty of peace; but even in that case, there is the intervention and the exercise of power by one branch of Congress, the legislative department. But it seems that some gentlemen imagine that when we have made a law declaring the circumstances and contingencies which shall create a condition of insurrection and war on the part of States against the General Government, that condition may cease by the decision of the Executive, without any intervention of the power which created it. That does not seem to me to be 80. A treaty of peace cannot be made with the insurrectionary States. The President cannot negotiate a treaty of peace with Mr. Davis or anybody in the South. No such treaty can ever come before the Senate. If you treat with them, you acknowledge their power as a nation; you acknowledge them as an independent power. No such treaty ever can be made. The declaration made by the act of 1861, which the Supreme Court of the United States has decided amounted to a declaration of war, was an act of the Legislature; and inasmuch as the treaty-making power cannot make a treaty of peace in this case, I think the legislative power should be exercised in declaring the restoration of the condition of peace, in declaring when, in the judgment of Congress, we have reached a cessation of the condition of insurrection. Congress has power to put an end to the old condition, or both Houses by receiving members from those States decide in effect that the condition of war has ceased; but, in the mean time, until that does take place, I think the people in such a State should not be exercising the powers of the inhabitants of an independent State of the Union.

I propose to do this thing by the exercise of the same power which created the existing condition of affairs in the act of 1861. I wish by the law to state the condition, and to let Congress decide upon the condition of things which will restore the States to their former relations. That should be done by the two branches of Congress, either by the passage of a law or the admission of members. That seems to me to be untying the knot in the manner in which it was tied.

For these reasons, and because I want the law to be a general law like other laws for all States in the same contingencies, I prefer the amendment which I have presented. The suggestion of the honorable Senator from Illinois, that the President might declare a State to be in a condition of insurrection in order to prevent her voting for President, is to me too distant, too improbable, too extravagant a supposition for anybody to present it as an argument.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I desire to ask the Senator from Vermont a question, and before doing so I will make a statement. It is my purpose to recognize the State government of Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and to vote for

the reception of the Senators from those States whenever they present themselves. Suppose we adopt the amendment of the Senator from Vermont to-day, and Senators from those three States present themselves to-morrow for reception here, and the members of the other House present themselves to that House, is there anything in this amendment to preclude such action? Will the reception of those Senators and Representatives reinstate those States in the Union as they were before they rebelled?

Mr. COLLAMER. The gentleman has put this question very candidly and he is entitled to as much of an answer as I am prepared to make. The adoption of my amendment would in no way in my estimation embarrass the question which the gentleman puts, or any action which Congress might take upon it. To be sure it would do what it says, shut out the electoral votes which have been cast in any of these States heretofore in the interim; that is all.

I will say, further, that in deciding upon receiving Senators from any State which has been in a condition of insurrection, I do not think it is necessary that there should be a law like that which is ordinarily passed, called an "enabling act," to enable a Territory to form a State government. I do not think it needs any new law of Congress to enable the people of any one of

States which are in insurrection to lay down the

arms, go home, and submit to the operations of the General Government, reorganize their State government, and present their Representatives for admission here. I say it requires no previous law of Congress to enable them to do that. Indeed we have decided repeatedly in Congress that it needs no enabling act to enable a Territory to form a State government. If they do meet in convention, and do form a State constitution, republican in its form, and actually elect their members and Senators under it, Congress has recognized such States and received those Senators and members elected before any act was passed on the subject by Congress. No doubt in my mind the same thing may be done here. If we are satisfied that the reorganization is substantial and abiding, that it has been fairly made, and that it will answer the ends of reorganization, undoubtedly we may admit, by our act here, the Senators, and the other House may admit the Representatives, without any previous action of Congress about it. I think the gentleman has my whole answer.

Mr. POWELL. Allow me to ask the Senator a question. If the Senate were to admit the Senators from those States, and the other House should admit their Representatives, then would the electoral votes be counted in elections held hereafter unless Congress should pass a law preventing it?

Mr. COLLAMER. Certainly. And I have put in my amendment the very words that they shall not cast electoral votes until either their condition of rebellion has been declared to cease by virtue of a law of Congress, or their members are admitted to seats in both branches of Congress. Mr. POWELL. I was not aware that the latter provision was in the amendment.

Mr. COLLAMER. I have made that modification.

Mr. POWELL. Was it proposed to-day?
Mr. COLLAMER. Yes, sir.

Mr. POWELL. I was not aware of it.

Mr. COLLAMER. I am free to acknowledge that I prefer the proposition in this form so that this law, when passed, shall stand consistently with the laws we have heretofore enacted. And I wish it to stand in a shape requiring that the members shall have been admitted in both Houses. I do not want a quarrel and controversy got up by a possible supposition of the two Houses differing on the question.

Mr. POMEROY. I do not yet understand the Senator from Vermont to have answered the question whether he would receive members from States declared to be in insurrection, and admit them here unless there was a previous act of Congress or proclamation of the President removing the restriction. Would he receive Senators while there was non-intercourse between the States they represented and the other States?

Mr. COLLAMER. I thought I had answered that, and I think if I had been listened to attentively it would be found that I had answered. Mr. POMEROY. I listened attentively.

Mr. COLLAMER. I resembled the case, for it is the nearest parallel I can make, to the case of a Territory which organized a State government and sent representatives here.

Mr. POMEROY. There is no non-intercourse proclaimed with Territories.

Mr. COLLAMER. That makes no difference as to this point. Here we have prevented commercial intercourse because of the existence of a state of war. Though the people of a Territory had no right to elect a Senator when they did elect him in the case I have mentioned, and though they had no right at that time to elect members to Congress, yet if they did make a constitution and did make those elections, and Congress afterward by law ratify what they have done, it is all well enough. Just so here; though these States have not by any previous legislation of Congress been declared to be out of the condition of insurrection, yet if they are so in point of fact, and it turns out that they have regularly reorganized a loyal State government under the United States and made elections accordingly, and Congress on examination become satisfied of that, find that to be true, and that the government they have formed will answer all the purposes of a State government and can be perpetuated, and Congress then admits their representatives, that is the end of it. My amendment is that when their representatives are admitted by the two Houses their electoral votes shall be received.

Mr. COWAN. I should like to know, after we authorize the President by proclamation to cut off all commercial intercourse with the rebellious States, whether the President himself, without any further act of Congress, cannot restore that commercial intercouse; whether, as fast as the rebellion disappears before the advance of our armies, this intercourse is not restored in the same proportion? I think the honorable Senator's view of it involves a non sequitur. Because we have authorized the President to cut off intercourse with these States, it does not follow that it will require another law to restore it. It restores itself, of itself, the moment the rebellion has been put down. It comes back of itself; it is the natural condition which was disturbed and deranged by this abnormal state of affairs which the rebellion introduced; it is not necessary that there should be any further legislation in order to bring it back to the healthful and ordinary condition.

Mr. JOHNSON. When I was up before I had not the act of July, 1861, before me, to which my friend from Vermont has referred. I have it now, and I think it will be found entirely inconsistent with the proposition which his amendment includes: I understand his amendment to be that no votes, either cast now or cast hereafter for electors of President and Vice President, are to be counted until either Congress shall by law declare that the States are to be considered as States in the Union, or until both branches of Congress shall have received the representatives who may have been elected by the inhabitants of such States. The proclamation to which my friend refers is the proclamation which the President was authorized to issue under the authority of the fifth section of the act of July 13, 1861.

A majority of the Supreme Court decided that war existed between the United States and the rebellious States just as efficiently before the act of July 13, 1861, was passed, as afterward. The only difference between the judges was whether it was to be considered as existing until the act of July 13 was passed; but the court decided that it would have been perfectly immaterial whether the act of July 13 had been passed at all; and the majority who held that opinion said that after the act of 13th of July was passed there could be no doubt of the question, because that act recognized a state of war. The minority of the court was of opinion that until the act of July 13 was passed, it was to be considered merely as an insurrection, not affecting at all the political relation existing between the States in rebellion and the rest of the States. The act of July 13, in the section which alone applies to the case, merely says:

"That whenever the President, in pursuance of the provisions of the second section of the act entitled 'An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions, and to repeal the act now in force for that purpose,' approved February 28, 1795, shall have called forth the militia to suppress combinations against the laws of the United States,

and to cause the laws to be duly executed, and the insurgents shall have failed to disperse by the time directed by the President, and when said insurgents claim to act under the authority of any State or States, and such claim is not disclaimed or repudiated by the persons exercising the functions of government in such State or States, or in the part or parts thereof in which said combination exists, nor such insurrection suppressed by said State or States, then and in such case it may and shall be lawful for the President by proclamation to declare that the inhabitants of such State, or any section or part thereof, where such insurrection exists, are in a state of insurrection against the United States; and thereupon all commercial intercourse by and between the same and the citizens thereof and the citizens of the rest of the United States shall cease and be unlawful.”

How long? Until Congress shall declare that the condition of hostility no longer exists, or until the President shall declare that it no longer exists? No, but

"Shall cease and be unlawful so long as such condition of hostility shall continue."

So that, looking to the mere words of the act, and looking to the constitutional authority of Congress, and consequently the duty of Congress, the moment the insurrection ends, or, to use the language of the act, the moment the hostility ceases, then the commercial intercourse begins again, and that beginning, the State is back in the Union for all purposes. Now, therefore, the only question is, (as that act does not provide that the state of hostilities is to continue until Congress shall, by some act thereafter, declare that such hostilities have terminated,) whether the act itself, with reference to the provisions contained in the fifth section, does not expire upon the happening of the contingency of the cessation of hostilities. How would that be in a certain state of things that can well be imagined?

That act was passed on the 13th of July. The President, sometime in August, issued a procla- | mation stating that these States were in a state of insurrection. Suppose soon after that, Congress having adjourned and not being in session, every man in each one of these States so declared to be in hostility to the United States had laid down his arms, ceased to carry on any hostile proceeding against the United States, would they not be entitled to the benefit of the Constitution of the United States until Congress should meet in the following month of December and by act of Congress declare hostilities to have terminated, or until the two branches should have received the members?

I submit-of course with due deference, because my friend from Vermont entertains a different opinion that the moment that in point of fact hostilities have ended, the rebellion is at an end; and the moment the rebellion is at an end the States are back. My friend tells us, and tells us very properly, that in the case of an international war once properly commenced, it cannot be terminated by any treaty which does not receive the sanction of the Senate of the United States. This is all true enough, but the war may terminate long before any treaty is made.

Suppose that during the last war with England she had withdrawn all her armies, had pronounced her determination through her Parliament that as far as she was concerned she wished to be considered at peace with the United States, would not the war in point of fact have terminated, although there was no treaty of peace? The Constitution provides that Congress shall declare war. Suppose they do not declare war, may not war exist in the absence of a declaration? Certainly it may. That the courts have decided over and over again. And if war can commence by the happening of hostilities in point of fact, and be accepted by the President in defending the nation under his authority to see that the constitution and laws are faithfully executed, why cannot the war be terminated in point of fact, even an international war? But in relation to a war of this description, as I stated just now, there can be no doubt on that point. Congress has no constitutional right to carry on a war against States. If my friend will look at the decision in the prize cases he will find that the majority and minority both admitted that there is not in Congress or in any department of the Government any power to declare war as against a State. It is not provided for in the Constitution. The whole authority that Congress have on the subject, is under the power to suppress insurrection. Whether in suppressing insurrection the insurrection may culminate to such a point as to amount to war in

once.

the meaning of the prize law, is another question; || willing to do that. He has said that more than but so far as the declaration of war is concerned, there is no authority at all in Congress, or in any other department of the Government, legislative or executive, to declare war against a State.

Suppose, further, that they are willing-I am dealing in speculation, but I believe to a certain extent it is right-suppose they are willing to say, "We assent in coming back to the Union to be governed by any constitutional amendment which may be now in progress, or which may be started hereafter, abolishing slavery throughout the United States;" and the President says, (for no treaty is necessary,)"I agree; I am warring against you now exclusively under the authority of the act of the 13th of July, 1861. I agree to that; if you will throw down your arms and express a willingness to abide by the decision of the courts on all questions of doubt in relation to the continuance of slavery, if you will not claim the right to have restored to slavery those who have en

and you are willing to stand by any constitutional amendment upon that subject which may be adopted by the required number of States, come back, come back, for I have no right to carry on the war further; the war ends of itself." It would be, in my view, upon the part of the President murder if he authorized a single man to be shot upon the field of battle or otherwise after such a state of things as that should arise.

Then what is the authority, the sole authority? To call out the militia and the forces of the United States to put down insurrection. How long does that last? Only so long as that insurrection continues. That must be very clear. How was it with what is called the whisky insurrection? It did not go to the extent that the courts or the President would have been authorized to say that a state of war existed between Pennsylvania and the United States. Congress did not declare that the insurrection was at an end; nothing like it. The President declared it. It ended itself. The insurrectionists laid down their arms, expressed willingness to yield obedience to the authority ofjoyed even for a moment the blessings of freedom, the United States, and that ended the insurrection and disbanded our forces, and that happen- | ing, the State of Pennsylvania, every part of it, stood exactly in the relation, for all purposes, in which the State and every part of it stood before the insurrection was commenced. There is in the Constitution no power to declare war against the State of Tennessee, (to take a single case,) and nobody, I suppose, will say that there is. The Constitution never contemplated such a contingency. It was proposed in the Convention, but it was objected to upon the ground that a provision of that description would place the United States in their relation to the State against which war was declared as a foreign nation for all purposes, and carry the State out of the Union. The answer was that all that was necessary to have accomplished what could be accomplished by giving to Congress the authority to declare war against a State, was to make each citizen of the United States amenable to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and to empower the Government to put down insurrection.

That being my view, I maintain, I repeat it again, (with great respect for the opposite opinion entertained by the honorable member from Vermont,) that if these men were to throw down their arms to-morrow they would be in the Union, and we have no authority to keep them out. The authority to keep them out now is because of the insurrection, and because of our authority by force of arms to put down that insurrection; but, the insurrection terminating, they stand as they stood before.

Mr. CLARK. I suppose the Senator would not insist that this vote should be counted even if they did throw down their arms.

Mr. JOHNSON. Not at all; by no manner of

means.

Suppose and no doubt that will be a condition if we are to have peace, and I pray to God we may have it-these gentlemen should say further that there is one condition which must be understood between us. Suppose they should say (and I believe it is true of some of them) they have honestly believed that the right of secession exists. Gentlemen are not to forget that upon that question some of the best minds in the country, North and South, have held different opinions. Many of them have entertained that opinion. I think it is a terrible heresy, as the result has proved, a most pestilent heresy, a destructive heresy, but it was earnestly entertained. The President of the United States himself, when he was in Congress in 1845 or 1846, if he meant what his words stated, entertained it. Some of the leading presses of the country at the North have entertained it. I mention it not for the purpose of giving it any little support that it might possibly derive from any opinion of my own upon it, or weakening it by the expression of an adverse opinion, an opinion which I have sincerely entertained from the time I was capable of thinking; but I cannot be blind to the fact that some of the best men of the South, patriotic men, were of that opinion; and the inhabitants of the South to a great extent, and particularly the young and ardent who thought they were the salt of the earth, because of the existence of the institution of slavery, and that there could be no civilization without it, have been made to believe that the doctrine was a sound one. They have seen their error. God knows they ought to have seen it. They see it now in its recognition in their own constitution. They are threatened now with destruction, with dissolution, because they have incor

Now, Mr. President, a singular state of things is existing at the very moment I am speaking. The President of the United States, under the authority of the act of 1861, has declared these States in a state of insurrection, and we have hundreds of thousands of men upon the field of battle. What is said to be the case? Officially or unofficially he sends or authorizes to go to Rich-porated that doctrine in their constitution. They

mond a very respectable gentleman, as it is supposed to ascertain upon what terms this war can terminate, or, to state it in different words, on what terms or conditions this insurrection can terminate. He goes. He is said to have returned. While there he had an interview with these rebel authorities. He returns. He goes back again in a Government vessel. Did he, after his return and before he went back to Richmond, have an interview with the President of the United States? If so, what was the result of that interview? We do not know, but we may have our speculations about it. Suppose that in that interview, acting under an express authority from the confederate authorities, he informed the President of the United States that they are willing to lay down their arms now, and come back into the Union at once; that they are willing to admit that slavery is either actually abolished by force of his proclamation, or that it has been abolished to the extent that your armies have gone and you have got actual physical possession of the negro; and that they are willing to leave the question of the effect of the proclamation over such portion of the slaves as have not come within the possession of the military authorities of the United States to be passed upon by the courts. The President, it is said, is

see-and God be praised that they have been made to see it-that the resolution of the country is so perfect, and the devotion to the Union is so absolute, that, happen what will, we of the loyal States mean to prosecute the war to the end until the insurrection is put down, which has no other foundation in point of law than the assumed right of secession.

Now, suppose that these commissioners who are said to be with the President-Stephens, who denounced secession, and predicted almost in words what the South has suffered; Hunter, who never was a party to it; Campbell, of the Supreme Court, who, I know, whatever his opinions may have been when he was at the bar of Alabama, after he came to be a member of the Supreme Court, and it was his duty to study the decisions of that tribunal to make himself fit to discharge its eminent duties, and after he became eminently capable, thought it was the vilest heresy that ever entered into the imagination of man, but was carried away by circumstances surrounding him -suppose they come and say to the President, and say to us, "We know that the whole thing has been wrong; we see the horrors which have resulted from it. To say nothing of the consequences to the North, which are comparatively

trifling, we cannot look upon our own fields, our own States, and our own homes, without feeling that we have committed the error of our lives, and sinned against the God of justice, whose judgment it has been to visit us with these horrors. We see it all; we know that we have been led astray by a few master-spirits; but we feel in honor bound to stand by them. We ask, therefore, a general amnesty; pardon all.' Suppose the President says, and he has a right to say it under the authority with which he is clothed, the pardoning power-these men being offenders against their duties as citizens, and having committed treason, he has the power to pardon them -suppose he says, "I pardon all." He issues the amnesty proclamation to-morrow, announces that the rebellion is ended, the insurrection terminated, and upon terms honorable to the United States. The plea upon which it rested for its justification constitutionally is withdrawn..They confess it has no foundation. They are back. Can you say that he has not the authority to do so? We have not the authority; it belongs to him; and it is for him to decide when he will exercise it. He turns to the act of 13th July, 1861, and he finds that the termination of his power to use the Navy and Army of the United States and the militia of the United States to put down the insurrection is the termination of the insurrection, and he comes back to the seat of Government and announces to the constituted authorities of Congress and the country that the war is over. What are we to say? It is not necessary to consult us; I mean in point of law. The manner of doing this is quite another thing. I have my own opinion about that. I do not choose to express it here.

But suppose he comes back and issues a proclamation such as I have indicated-and God grant that he may, provided the terms be honorable and fair-and communicates the facts to Congress, what are you going to do? Why, Senators, what happened the other day? It was shown that notwithstanding the arts of the traitor and the demagogue, no length of time will be sufficient to exclude from the bosom of Americans the affection which they hold toward each other and toward their country. These commissioners it was known had left Richmond on their way here upon some mission of peace. They first went through the lines of their troops. How did they go through? || Amidst the huzzas and gladdened shouts of the thousands and thousands of men who are there in battle array against the opposite foe. They passed their lines; and we are told by the Richmond press that the moment the news reached the Army of the United States, the soldiers cheered universally until each man grew hoarse. Cheered for what on either side? Cheered because they saw, as they thought, that the war which had made them enemies was about to terminate; that the ancient brotherhood was to be restored; that they should no more meet each other in battle-array, or in the grasp of death, to do all they could to murder each other; but that the time was approaching when they could embrace each other as brethren and as American citizens.

Mr. CONNESS. Will the Senator permit me to ask him a question?

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly.

Mr. CONNESS. How does the Senator know but that the southern army, so called, cheered because they believed that those commissioners were going to arrange the terms for their independence, as they term it? And how does the Senator know but that our Army cheered because they believed the commissioners were going to acknowledge the power of the Union and the supremacy of our flag?

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know. I think I have already stated that I do not know anything about it. But how does the honorable member know that they did not? If both sides cheered, the probability is that they were cheering for the same purpose. But let me answer the honorable member. The southern soldiers, and particularly the officers, are not so besotted as to believe that this war is to terminate by the recognition of their independence, particularly at this time. The armies of the Union and the navies of the Union are triumphant everywhere. Victory perches upon our standard in every battle-field and upon every naval encounter, and these men know that.

Jefferson Davis, or those in authority, never would have authorized commissioners except under an authority to yield their asserted independence and to recognize the continuing integrity of the Union.

Mr. HOWARD. If the Senator will permit

me

Mr, JOHNSON. I would rather not be interrupted now.

Mr. HOWARD. Very well; I merely rose to ask the Senator a question for information. Mr. JOHNSON. I have only a word or two more to say.

Mr. CONNESS. I ask the Senator's pardon for having interrupted him.

Mr. JOHNSON. Not at all. I am perfectly willing that either of the gentlemen should rise and put any question to me, and I only objected to the honorable member from Michigan because I was about to close. I will not postpone any question put to me for any length of time.

But suppose we do not know for what they were cheering. Have we any right to suppose that the fact is not as I have stated? Is it so improbable that no sane man could suppose they were cheering for such a thing?

Mr. COLLAMER. Perhaps they were cheering at the idea that they would be able to go home in peace.

Mr. JOHNSON. I have no doubt about that. I refer to this, Mr. President, simply for the purpose of showing that no matter what has happened in the past, no matter how bitterly we have felt toward the South, if we have felt bitterly toward the South, and no matter how bitterly they have felt toward us, as certainly they have, all the indications are that they have seen the error of their ways; and if, having come to that conclusion, they throw down their arms, and the President declares by his proclamation of amnesty that they are all pardoned, and announces to the country that the war is at an end, you may pass as many acts of Congress to raise troops to carry on the war as you please, and you will not get a man. The hearts of the people would rebel at carrying on an unnecessary conflict with those who have stood shoulder to shoulder with us in some of the most trying periods of our history, carrying with us the standard of the Union upon every battle-field contributing to our glory, and sharing with us in that glory. They never will consent, and God forbid that they should, to carry on the war a moment after, in point of fact, obedience has been yielded by these men, criminal or mistaken, and the authority of the Union re stored everywhere throughout the country, and the flag floating upon every place on which the flag could properly float.

I have been led into this discussion by my desire to meet the authority of the honorable member from Vermont, and nobody yields to it with more pleasure than I do, who seems to contend that this war must go on until the insurrection is declared to be terminated by Congress, or until Senators and Representatives have been received in the Senate and House of Representatives under the act of July 13, 1861, because, by my interpretation of that act, the President has no power to carry on the war an hour after he is satisfied that the hostility which authorized him to employ the Army and Navy has terminated. Once terminated, for all the consequences he is responsible to the country.

Mr. COLLAMER. Mr. PresidentMr. HENDRICKS. Would you rather speak to-morrow?

Mr. SHERMAN. Let us take a recess. Mr. COLLAMER. I do not want to come back here to-night.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Well, we will adjourn

until to-morrow.

Mr. COLLAMER. If any gentleman wishes to move an adjournment I will give way.

Mr. COWAN. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I hope not. I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 22, nays 21; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Van Winkle, Wilkinson, and Wright-22.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Clark, Conness, Farwell, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Powell, Sherman, Stewart, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, and Wilson-21. ABSENT-Messrs. Carlile, Foot, Harding, Hicks, MeDougall, Richardson, Riddle, and Saulsbury-8. So the motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

FRIDAY, February 3, 1865.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. W. H. CHANNING. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

MARRIAGES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Mr. PRICE, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill in relation to marriages in the District of Columbia; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia.

MESSAGE FROM THE Senate.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. HICKEY, its Chief Clerk, informed the House that the Senate insist upon its amendments to the bill (H. R. No. 621) making appropriations for the support of the Military Academy for the year ending 30th June, 1866, and agree to the conference asked by the House upon the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoint Messrs. HowE, HARRIS, and HENDRICKS as the committee on the part of the Senate.

Also, that the Senate insist upon its amendment to the bill (H. R. No. 709) to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the fiscal year ending 30th June, 1865, and agree to the conference asked by the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and have appointed Messrs. CLARK, GRIMES, and RIDDLE, as the committee on the part of the Senate.

COMMITTEES OF CONFERENCE.

The SPEAKER appointed Messrs. STEVENS, PENDLETON, and MORRILL, members of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the deficiency bill.

The SPEAKER also appointed Mr. BLAINE, Mr. MALLORY, and Mr. ORTH, members of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Military Academy bill.

PRIVATE BILLS.

The SPEAKER. This being private bill day, the first business is the consideration of the bills reported from the Committee of the Whole on Friday last.

Mr. HALE. I demand the previous question upon all the bills reported from the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HOLMAN. I trust my friend from Pennsylvania will confine his demand to each bill as it comes up.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana may demand a separate vote upon each bill, or he may insist that the demand for the previous question shall be confined to each bill.

Mr. HOLMAN. I insist upon that.

The House then proceeded to act upon the bills reported from the Committee of the Whole on Friday last, as follows:

RELIEF OF CERTAIN FRIENDLY INDIANS. An act (S. No. 225) for the relief of certain friendly Indians of the Sioux nation in Minne

sota.

Mr. HALE. Upon that bill I demand the previous question.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put; and under the operation thereof the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, It was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. HALE moved that the vote by which the bill was passed be reconsidered; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

PAYMENT FOR INDIAN RESERVATIONS.

A bill (H. R. No. 62) to provide for the payment of the value of certain lands and improvements of private citizens, appropriated by the United States for Indian reservations in the Territory of Washington.

do not know the nature of. It may be a very improper petition to come here. I think the Senator ought certainly to look into it, for the rule requires that the Senator presenting a petition shall state briefly what the petition is. I know nothing about this petition; but when a Senator rises in his place and states that he presents a petition that he does not know the nature of, I think the Senate ought not to receive it.

Dickerson, of the city of New York. Mr. Dickerson is known by reputation to some members of this body. He induced Mr. Paul S. Forbes, or at any rate Mr. Paul S. Forbes entered into a contract with the Government by which he agreed to build the steamer Idaho for the sum of $600,000, Mr. Dickerson being engineer, and putting in his kind of boilers, and his kind of cutoff, and his kind of engines. Mr. Forbes agreed by that contract to build a certain description of

Mr. TRUMBULL. I raise the question of its reception, and object to its reception until the Senator shall be able to state what this petition is.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Illinois objects to the reception of this petition, and the question will be on its reception.

Mr. POMEROY. I desire to say that I did not know the bearing of the petition on the great question which agitates the country. I have read portions of the petition, enough to see what it is about. I did not mean to tell the Senate that I had not read it. I have looked it over.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I desire to offer a resolution this morning which involves a question of instruction to the Secretary, and I hope the Senator will allow me to do that before taking up the bill.

Mr. GRIMES. I do not think this resolution will take a moment, and I would not ask for its present consideration if it had not been lying in my desk for ten days.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I am sure the Senator will not object to my resolution.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the consideration of the joint resolution reported by the Senator from Iowa at this time? There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the joint resolution, which authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to pay to Paul S. Forbes, of the city of New York, the sum of $250,000 in addition to the sums heretofore paid, to apply on his account of the date of May 22, 1863, for building a steam screw sloop-of-war, the same being an advance payment on the contract to aid in the completion of the vessel; but no part of this sum is to be paid without the assent, in writing, of the sureties of Mr. Forbes, and nothing in this resolution is to be so construed as in any manner to affect or vary the contract except as to the time of making the payment.

Mr. HALE. Is there any report accompanying that resolution?

The VICE PRESIDENT.

aware that there is.

The Chair is not

Mr. GRIMES. There is not.

Mr. HALE. I should like to know the reason why there is to be a departure from the contract in this case. The Senate refused by a decided vote at the last session to make any change in the contracts for several vessels, and especially in the case of the Puritan and Dictator. There must be some very particular circumstance about this one, I presume.

Mr. GRIMES. It will be remembered that two or three years ago there was a great deal of clamor because of the lack of speed, as it was said, in our naval vessels. Among other persons who believed that there ought to be greater speed attained by the vessels purchased or built by the United States was a gentleman of the name of

teen knots an hour. Since the time of his entering into that contract the expense of material and labor, and so on, have greatly increased. He has come before Congress and asked Congress to absolve him from his contract, and pay him several hundred thousand dollars more than he agreed to build the vessel for, and to absolve him also from his obligation to attain the speed of fifteen knots an hour.

The Committee on Naval Affairs refused to do this, but they have agreed that, whereas under his contract for $600,000 he can only receive up to this time $300,000, which he has received, there shall be advanced to him, with the assent of his sureties, the sum of $200,000 to enable him to go on and complete the vessel.

The committee are perfectly well advised that if the vessel is completed, even if she should turn out to be a failure, the hull and the engines as old iron will be worth as much as the amount that has already been advanced and the amount proposed by this resolution to be advanced; and if she attains the speed that Mr. Forbes and Mr. Dickerson imagine she may still attain, though they wish to be absolved from their obligation to give her that amount of speed, she will be worth a large amount more of money.

The sole purpose of the resolution is to save Mr. Forbes from the necessity of being compelled to sacrifice a large amount of his own individual money in order to make an advance to go on to complete the ship; and under no possible circumstance, as the Committee on Naval Affairs are satisfied, and as the Department is satisfied, can anybody be injured. It is a mere advance of a portion of the expense of building, which according to the terms of the contract cannot be paid until the vessel is delivered to the Government and attains the speed of fifteen knots an hour.

I think there is no analogy between this case and the cases that were under consideration at the last session of Congress. It stipulates that this money shall not be received except with the assent in writing of the sureties of Mr. Forbes, and that in no particular shall the receipt of this money or the passage of this resolution be considered as interfering with that contract except so far as relates to this advance payment.

The joint resolution was reported to the Senate, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMEndments.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I offer the following resolution of instruction to the Secretary, which ought to be acted upon at once:

Resolved, That the article of amendment proposed by Congress to be added to the Constitution of the United States respecting the extinction of slavery therein, having been inadvertently presented to the President for his approval, it is hereby declared that such approval was unnecessary to give effect to the action of Congress in proposing said amendment, inconsistent with the former practice in refer

ence to all amendments to the Constitution heretofore adopted, and being inadvertently done, should not constitute a precedent for the future; and the Secretary is hereby instructed not to communicate the notice of the approval of said proposed amendment by the President to the House of Representatives.

If the Senate will allow me to make a statement of the practice, if there shall then be any objection to the consideration of the resolution, it may go over.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the consideration of this resolution at the present time?

Mr. SHERMAN. I think it had better go over until to-morrow.

Mr. DIXON. I think it had better go over to another day.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Does the Senator from Connecticut object to my statement being made? Mr. DIXON. The resolution must be received to allow the statement to be made.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I have already stated that I will consent that it shall go over after the statement is made.

Mr. DIXON. If that can be done without the resolution being received, I have no objection; otherwise I have objection.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the consideration of the resolution?

Mr. DIXON. I think the resolution will give rise to debate, and it had better go over.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Objection being made, it must necessarily go over under the rules. THREE-FOURTHIS' VOTE OF RATIFICATION.

Mr. SUMNER. I send to the Chair resolutions which I ask to have read and printed. I shall call them up at a future day.

The resolutions were read, as follows: Concurrent resolutions declaring the rule in ascertaining the three fourths of the several States required in the ratification of a constitutional amendment:

Whereas Congress, by a vote of two thirds of both Houses, has proposed an amendment to the Constitution prohibitIng slavery throughout the United States, which, according to the existing requirement of the Constitution, will be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States; and whereas in the present condition of the country, with certain States in arms against the national Government, it becomes necessary to determine what number of States constitutes the three fourths required by the Constitution: Therefore,

Resolved by the Senate, (the House of Representatives concurring,) That the rule followed in ascertaining the two thirds of both Houses proposing the amendment to the Constitution should be followed in ascertaining the three fourths of the several States ratifying the amendment; that, as in the first case, the two thirds are founded on the simple fact of representation in the two Houses, so in the second case the three fourths must be founded on the simple fact of representation in the Government of the country and the support thereof; and that any other rule establishes one basis for the proposition of the amendment and another for its ratification, placing one on a simple fact and the other on a claim of right, while it also recognizes the power of rebels in arms to interpose a veto upon the national Government in one of its highest functions.

Resolved, That all acts, executive and legislative, in pur suance of the Constitution, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, are valid to all intents and purposes throughout the United States, although certain rebel States fail to participate therein, and that the same rule is equally applicable to an amendment of the Coustitution.

Resolved, That the amendment of the Constitution, prohibiting slavery throughout the United States will be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution, whenever ratified by three fourths of the States, de facto, exercising the powers and prerogatives of the United States under the Constitution thereof.

Resolved, That any other rule requiring the participation of the rebel States, while illogical and unreasonable, is dangerous in its consequences, inasmuch as all recent presidential proclamations, including that of emancipation, also all the recent acts of Congress, ineluding those creating the national debt and establishing a national currency, and also all recent treaties, including the treaty with Great Britain for the extinction of the slave trade, have been made, enacted, or ratified, respectively, without any participation of the rebel States.

Resolved, That any other rule must tend to postpone the great day when the prohibition of slavery will be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution of the United States; but the rule herewith declared will assure the immediate ratification of the prohibition, and the consummation of the national desires.

The resolutions were ordered to be printed. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I move that the resolutions be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SUMNER. I ask that they now lie on the table. I propose to call them up and make a motion in regard to them at a future day.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. They ought to go to the committee.

Mr. SUMNER. I ask that they now lie on the

table.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion to lay on the table takes precedence of that to commit. The resolutions were ordered to lie on the table. ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the consideration of the resolution?

which I think there will be no objection when it is read. It is Senate bill No. 403, to amend the act for the encouragement of immigration. I move to postpone all prior orders, with a view to take up that bill.

Mr. WILSON. I hope it will not be done.