under proper conditions. But the Constitution of the United States requires that no State shall be divided unless the assent of its Legislature be first obtained.

"I do not regard this proposed division of Virginia as having received that assent from the Legislature of the State which the Constitution requires. Here, however, is a question; and the question turns on whether the State of Virginia of which a Mr. Pierpont is Governor, is the lawful State or not. I do not believe that it is.

"This Pierpont State is an institution of very recent origin. It started into existence about two years ago, and is a spontaneous production of the soil. A number of individuals met at Wheeling, and, without any legal authority whatever, arranged a plan for a government. Several persons have since been holding themselves out as officials of this organization, including Pierpont, the Governor; but to what extent it executes the actual functions of a government does not satisfactorily appear.

"It is true, the President of the United States has recognized this as the actual State of Virginia; and acting upon his sanction, the Senate has admitted its senators into that body. But this is of no binding force upon us. On the contrary, if the President and Senate are wrong in so grave a matter, it is the more important that the House of Representatives should be right. The argument in favor of the validity of the Wheeling government is that the original State of Virginia fell into treason and became null and void, and caused a vacuum which could only be filled in this way. Now this is entirely unsatisfactory to me; for, in the first place, I do not see how a State can fall into treason; and secondly, if it should, what right Mr. Pierpont would have to assume the office of Governor over any other individual who might wish it. Where did the law come from which gave him his warrant? From a mob or a mass meeting? Neither mobs nor mass meetings make laws under our system. It seems to me that this presents a question of the utmost magnitude, as touching other matters than the one immediately under consideration. Eleven States have placed themselves in the same situation as Virginia; and in order to proceed toward them justly and properly, it is necessary to adopt correct legal principles at the outset. I have serious reason to believe that it is the intention of the President to encourage the formation of State organizations in all the seceded States. A policy seems about to be inaugurated, looking to an assumption of State powers by a few individnals, wherever a military or other encampment can be effected in any of the rebellious districts. The utter and flagrant unconstitutionality of this scheme I may say, its radically revolutionary character-ought to expose it to the reprobation of every loyal citizen and every member of this House. It aims at an utter subversion of our constitutional system." VOL. III.-20 A

Mr. Brown, of West Virginia, followed, for the purpose of showing the legitimacy of the Wheeling government: "Let us see how the fact was in Virginia, and we shall see how, upon the soundest principles of political philosophy, the government at Wheeling can be vindicated. The government at Richmond, and all the officers under the old government of Virginia, transferred themselves and attempted to transfer their people to a foreign organization. I need hardly detail the particulars of that act, as they must be fresh in the memory of every gentleman. They know that the functionaries at Richmond, immediately after they passed the ordinance of secession, which they were bound to submit to the people, did not wait for the people to act upon their so-called ordinance, but immediately entered into a treaty with the government at Montgomery, and the whole military and civil powers of the State were transferred, so far as they could transfer them, to that government.

"The loyal people of Virginia immediately, finding that their rulers, those to whom the legislative and executive powers had been intrusted, had betrayed them, and had ceased to be capable of exercising their prerogative, called, in all the loyal counties where they had permission to do so, mass meetings, which sent to Wheeling five hundred of as loyal and good men as live in any portion of the United States, not for immediate action, but for the purpose of consulting upon the emergency of the times.

"That convention merely organized and proposed a plan by which regular elections were to be held to fill the vacancies caused by the withdrawal of all disloyal representatives. A day was fixed and elections held, not within the boundaries of the proposed new State, but held throughout Virginia wherever loyal men chose to hold them, from one end of the commonwealth to the other, and the body thus elected assumed the legislative functions of the people."

Mr. Brown then proceeded to state that, in addition to the counties composing West Virginia, those of Fairfax and Alexandria were represented in this Legislature, so elected, but more than one half the counties of the original Virginia, were not at all represented, saying: "It is sufficient for me to say that they were invited to coöperate, and if they stayed away, it was their fault, not ours. They were invited to act, and, if they were loyal men, they ought to have acted with us. If they were disloyal, they should have no voice in the Legislature of Virginia, or in this body.'

He then read the following act adopted by this Legislature:

1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That the consent of the Legislature of Virginia be, and the same is hereby given to the formation and erection of the State, to include the counties of Hancock, Brooke, State of West Virginia within the jurisdiction of this Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, Marion, Monongalia, Preston, Taylor, Tyler, Pleasants, Ritchie, Doddridge, Harri

son, Wood, Jackson, Wirt, Roane, Calhoun, Gilmer, Barbour, Tucker, Lewis, Braxton, Upshur, Randolph, Mason, Putnam, Kanawha, Clay, Nicholas, Cabell, Wayne, Boone, Logan, Wyoming, Mercer, McDowell, Webster, Pocahontas, Fayette, Raleigh, Greenbrier, Monroe, Pendleton, Hardy, Hampshire, and Morgan, according to the boundaries and under the provisions set forth in the constitution for the said State of West Virginia and the schedule thereto annexed, proposed by the convention which assembled at Wheeling on the 26th day of November, 1861.

2. Be it further enacted, That the consent of the Legislature of Virginia be, and the same is hereby given that the counties of Berkeley, Jefferson, and Frederick shall be included in and form part of the State of West Virginia, whenever the voters of said counties shall ratify and assent to said constitution, at an election held for the purpose at such time and under such regulations as the commissioners named in the said schedule may prescribe.

3. Be it further enacted, That this act shall be transmitted by the executive to the senators and representatives of this commonwealth in Congress, together with a certified original of the said constitution and schedule, and the said senators and representatives are hereby requested to use their endeavors to obtain the consent of Congress to the admission of the State of West Virginia into the Union.

4. This act shall be in force from and after its pas

sage.

Mr. Colfax, of Indiana, urged that West Virginia was entitled to admission as a State, for the following reasons: "Two things are required by the Constitution of the United States for the admission of this new State: first, the assent of the Legislature of the State out of which it is to be formed; and secondly, the assent of Congress. The decision then turns to a great extent upon the question whether the Governor now acting as the Governor of Virginia, and residing at Wheeling, and the Legislature to which he communicates his messages, are really the Governor and Legislature of the loyal people of Virginia. I think they are, and that the history of events in Virginia will prove that fact.

"When, in February, 1861, the traitorous authorities of Virginia attempted to take that State out of the Union, the people of Western Virginia nobly resisted that conspiracy; and instead of joining with their fellow citizens in other parts of the State, they called together a convention elected by the loyalists of that region, and some other counties not included within the boundaries of the new State, and determined to stand, at every hazard and through every persecution, by the Union as it was. That convention, speaking the voice of all loyal Virginians, called all the members elect of the Legislature--chosen as they were on the day prescribed by their State constitution-who would take the oath of fealty to the Union, to meet at Wheeling; and thus a loyal Legislature, chosen in accordance with the constitution and laws of Virginia, assembled and was organized. This machinery of the State government had been abandoned by Governor Letcher and by the Legislature which participated with him in his treason. It having thus lapsed, the loyal people of Western Virginia took possession of this machinery, in

order that all the State might not be driven into this wicked rebellion.

"The next question is, has this loyal Legisla ture been recognized? There are facts enough in the action of the various branches of this Government to prove to us that they have, one and all, fully, and in various ways, recognized this as the only true and rightful government of Virginia."

Mr. Yeaman, of Kentucky, said: "Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to debate the question, bat prefer to avail myself of the kindness of the gentleman from Indiana to ask him a question. I understand the theory on which Virginia is now represented in this House and in the other wing of the Capitol to be this: that the ordinance of secession was null and void, and did not take the State out of the Union; that the government at Wheeling is not merely the de facto government, but is the legal government of the people of the State of Virginia, as she heretofore existed in the Union, and that if those disloyal people east of the mountains do not choose to avail themselves of that government, it is their own fault. Now, the question is, if Virginia is already in the Union, and is represented on this floor, and in the other end of the capitol, what need is there for another act to let her in again? If it is intended to divide the State, what fact takes her case out of the constitutional prohibition that no State shall be divided, and no new State shall be erected in the jurisdiction of another State, without the consent of the Legislature of that State?"

Mr. Colfax replied: "I will answer the gentleman from Kentucky with great pleasure. This is not Virginia that is being admitted into the Union. It is West Virginia, a different State. It does not embrace the whole territorial limits of Virginia, and I am glad to say that it does not even embrace all the loyal people of Virginia. It embraces only fortyeight counties. But there are people left in the old State of Virginia, in the Accomac district, along the Baltimore and Ohio railroad and fronting Washington City, that are loyal The loyal people thus remaining are not many, to be sure, as far as we know now; but I tr that in time they will be enough, with the power of the Government aiding them, to leaven the whole mass. These people, loyal as they are, are left with old Virginia; but what we propose to admit by this bill is a different State. It is West Virginia."

Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, opposed the measure, saying: "Sir, can any argument make stronger the case than the mere statement of the question? The Constitution sys you shall make no new State within the ju risdiction of another State without its easent. You are asked to make Western Vir ginia into a State. The Constitution requires that the State of which the new State Eas formed a part shall give her consent. Where is there room for doubt? If the Constitution

which we have sworn to support is to be the rule of our action, I ask you, in all calmness and all sobriety of feeling, is not the rule plain?

"There was a Virginia once by that simple name-a great name at one period of our history, and one of the original formers of the Constitution. She made it. She never was admitted into the Union; she formed it; she is a part of the original creation and being. Does she ask to be admitted? No. But a part of that State wishes now to be formed into a new State, and to be admitted into the Union as an independent State. Is not that so? Is there any ingenuity or any technicality which can change the face of the facts?

"You say that old Virginia no longer exists, and therefore can give no consent. Is there one man here who can be misled and blinded by such hypercriticism? We know the fact to be otherwise. We know that at this time old Virginia is in a state of rebellion, which we are endeavoring, by all the means in our power, to put an end to; a rebellion which once put an end to, will restore her to her constitutional place in the Union just as she existed before. You cannot admit a new State out of her boundaries without her consent, says the Constitution. That is the limit of your power, and that is enough to settle the question. You are appealed to and your power is invoked now to make this a new State. It seems to me that you cannot do it. I do not presume to argue with you on this question, because it seems to me that the very statement of it is an argument stronger than anything that I can urge. We have heard a great deal of imagination and of sympathy. That does not make constitutions. That does not sustain empires. It is not out of such stuff as that that the great, the majestic pillars have been reared that support the mighty fabric of this republic. This question is to return to you. Remember that! Look to the future. Is there a man here who does not contemplate the restoration of this Union, and the restoration of all these States to it? If Virginia were to-morrow to lay down the arms of her rebellion and to ask to be admitted into our councils, to be part of us, as she is by the Constitution to-day, to be actually what she is constitutionally, what could you say to her if you had created a new State out of her territory? What could you say to her? Do you believe that with the pride which ought to belong to one of the States of this Union, the State would agree to come back, not as she was, not with the boundaries she had, but cut up and divided and made into different States, to come back with circumscribed and diminished power as a State? Can you expect such a thing?"

Mr. Blair, of Virginia, now rose to say: "I take it, from the gentleman's argument, that he is not aware that the Legislature of Virginia has given its consent to the formation of this new State. It is probable, however, that he

does not recognize the government at Wheeling as the government of Virginia. If that Legislature be the Legislature of the State, and it has given its consent, then the whole people of Virginia have given their consent, and the constitutional requirement is fully met."

Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, in reply said: "This is one of the arguments to which I had a general allusion when I spoke of the strange arguments and fancies which had been employed upon this question. The gentleman's argument supposes that the government at Wheeling is the government of Virginia. Does he not know that the contrary is the fact? Do we not all, in point of fact, know the contrary? Do we not know that the Legislature of the old State of Virginia is sitting, for aught I know, at this very moment, in the city of Richmond, and has never discontinued its sessions there?

"What does it amount to but that here is an application to make a new State at the instance of the parties desiring to be made a new State, and nobody else consenting, and nobody else left to consent to it."

Mr. Blair, of Virginia, further said: "I would remind the gentleman from Kentucky, that there were counties besides those embraced within the boundaries of the proposed new State, represented in the Legislature of Virginia, that gave this consent. It was not composed exclusively of counties included in the new State; and if it was the Legislature of the State, it spoke the voice of the people of the whole State, and the constitutional requirement is complied with."

Mr. Crittenden, in reply, said: "Is the party applying for admission consenting to the admission. That is the whole of it. If that is not clear in itself, nothing that I can add to it will make it clearer."

Mr. Edwards, of New Hampshire, in favor of the bill said: "It seems to me that the only question that exists is the single one of whether the State of Virginia, by its legislature, has consented to the formation of this new State within its boundaries? The Constitution of the United States clearly contemplates the formation of a new State out of the territory of an existing State. Its language presupposes that a case of this kind would be likely to occur in the progress of the country, and therefore provides for it. This is the clear and admitted interpretation of that provision. That being the case, the only question now relating to the question of power is whether the State of Virginia, through her legislature, has consented to the formation of this State. On that subject I do not intend to go through the history of the proceedings in Virginia, eastern or western, but shall rest my vote on these grounds: first, that there was no legal legislature or government in Virginia after that govvernment put itself in the attitude of rebellion against the United States, and refused to conform to the constitutional provisions necessary

to constitute it a government, without which the legislature of a State can have no legal existence; secondly, that in the absence of any legal government in Virginia, a convention of the whole people of Virginia was called, which convention framed a government for the State, and that the legislative branch of the government thus established consented to this admission of Western Virginia as a State. If these premises are true, they certainly show the consent of Virginia, by her constituted authorities as created by that convention in the absence of any State government legally and constitutionally organized.

"But it is said that the whole State was not represented in the convention. To this it may be answered, it is enough if the whole people of the State were properly warned to be present. Notice, it is understood, was given to all. If all did not choose to be present and act, then the action of those who did assemble and act is just as legal and constitutional as if all had assembled and acted. If any notified were prevented from being present, it is not alleged that they were prevented by those who ask the creation of the new State and are to be comprised within its limits."

Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts, in opposition to the bill, said: "I affirm that nobody has given his consent to the division of the State of Virginia and the erection of a new State, who does not reside in the new State itself. When it must be admitted that there is nobody in Virginia, in that part which is left, that has consented, I submit that this question assumes a different form from that which gentlemen give it. It seems to me that this bill does not comply with the spirit of the Constitution. If the remaining portions of Virginia are under duress, and while under duress this claim of consent is made, it seems to me that it is a mere mockery of the Constitution."

Mr. Brown, of Virginia, replied: "I do not understand the gentleman from Massachusetts. Do I understand him to say that nobody representing counties outside of the new State gave consent to the formation of the new State? Is that what the gentleman means to assert?"

Mr. Dawes answered: "There is no use misunderstanding ourselves in this matter. It is true that a representative was picked up-I say it with all respect-in Fairfax, and that two or three gentlemen in other parts of the State were procured; but they protested that they did not pretend to represent the counties from which they hailed. So far as I know, I do not believe there is a single person representing any portion of that part of Virginia which is left, who ever consented to the erection and admission of this new State. Not one."

Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, followed, saying: "Sir, it is but mockery, in my judgment, to tell me that the Legislature of Virginia has ever consented to this division. There are two hundred thousand, out of a million and a quarter of people, who have participated in this

proceeding. They have held a convention, and they have elected a legislature in pursuance of a decree of that convention. Before all this was done the State had a regular organization, a constitution under which that corporation acted. By a convention of a large majority of the people of that State, they changed their constitution and changed their relations to the Federal Government from that of one of its members to that of secession from it. Now, I need not be told that that is treason. I know it. And it is treason in all the individuals who participated in it. But so far as the State nicipality or corporation was concerned, it was a valid act, and governed the State. Our Government does not act upon the State. The State, as a separate and distinct body, was the State of a majority of the people of Virginia, whether rebel or loyal, whether convicts or freemen. The majority of the people of Virginia was the State of Virginia, although individuals had committed treason.

"Now, to say that the legislature which called this seceding convention was not the legis lature of Virginia, is asserting that the les lature chosen by a vast majority of the peple of a State is not the legislature of that State. That is a doctrine which I can never assent to, I admit that the legislature were disloyal, they were still the disloyal and traitorous Legis lature of the State of Virginia; and the State, as a mere State, was bound by their acts. N so individuals. They are responsible to the General Government, and are responsible whether the State decrees treason or ret That being the Legislature of Virginia. Gover nor Letcher, elected by a majority of the votes of the people, is the Governor of Virginia-a traitor in rebellion, but a traitorous Governor of a traitorous State. Now, then, how bas that State ever given its consent to this di vision? A highly respectable but very small number of the citizens of Virginia-the people of West Virginia-assembled together, disip proved of the acts of the State of Virginia and with the utmost self-complacency called themselves Virginia. Now, is it not ridi-elous? Is not the very statement of the farts a ludicrous thing to look upon-although s very respectable gentleman, Governor Pier pont, was elected by them Governor of Virginia? He is a most excellent man, and I wish he were the Governor elected by the whole people of Virginia.

"The State of Virginia, therefore, has rever given its consent to this separation of the State. I desire to see it, and according to my prin ples operating at the present time, I can vete for its admission without any compunetion of conscience, but with some doubt about the policy of it. My principles are these: we know the fact that this and other States have declared that they are no longer members of this Union, and have made, not a mere inser rection, but have raised and organized an army and a power, which the governments of Europe

have recognized as a belligerent power. We ourselves, by what I consider a most unfortunate act, not well considered-declaring a blockade of their ports-have acknowledged them as a power. We cannot blockade our own ports. It is an absurdity. We blockade an enemy's ports. The very fact of declaring this blockade recognized them as a belligerent power, entitled to all the privileges and subject to all the rules of war, according to the law of nations.

"Now, then, sir, these rebellious States being a power, by the acknowledgment of European nations and of our own nation, subject and entitled to belligerent rights, they become subject to all the rules of war. I hold that the Constitution has no longer the least effect upon them. It is idle to tell me that the obligations of an instrument are binding on one party while they are repudiated by the other. It is one of the principles of law universal, and of justice as universal, that obligations, personal or national, must, in order to be binding, be mutual, and be equally acknowledged and admitted by all parties. Whenever that mutuality ceases to exist, it binds neither party. There is another principle just as universal; it is this: when parties become belligerent, in the technical sense of the word, the war between them abrogates all compacts, treaties, and constitutions which may have existed between them before the war commenced. If we go to war with England to-day, all our treaty stipulations are at an end, and none of them bind either of the parties. If peace is restored, it does not restore any of the obligations of either. There must be new treaties, new obligations entered into, before either of the parties is bound.

"Hence I hold that none of the States now in rebellion are entitled to the protection of the Constitution, and I am grieved when I hear those high in authority sometimes talking of the constitutional difficulties about enforcing measures against this belligerent power, and the next moment disregarding every vestige and semblance of the Constitution by acts which alone are arbitrary. I hope I do not differ with the executive in the views which I advocate. But I see the executive one day saying, "You shall not take the property of rebels to pay the debts which the rebels have brought upon the Northern States." Why? Because the Constitution is in the way. And the next day I see him appointing a military governor of Virginia, a military governor of Tennessee, and some other places. Where does he find anything in the Constitution to warrant that?

If he must look there alone for authority, then all these acts are flagrant usurpations, deserving the condemnation of the community. He must agree with me or else his acts are as absurd as they are unlawful: for I see him here and there ordering elections for members of Congress wherever he finds a little collection

of three or four consecutive plantations in the rebel States, in order that men may be sent in here to control the proceedings of this Congress, just as we sanctioned the election held by a few people at a little watering place at Fortress Monroe, by which we have here the very respectable and estimable member from that locality with us."

Mr. Ashley: "As I understand it, when the new State is admitted, Governor Pierpont is to move over into Alexandria and remain the Governor of the old State of Virginia; while the two senators who are now in the other end of the capitol, from Virginia, will, by the same proceeding, still remain the senators from that State."

Mr. Stevens: "Certainly. We shall have four senators, instead of two. I wish they would bring Mason back instead of one of them. But, sir, I understand that these proceedings all take place, not under any pretence of legal or constitutional right, but in virtue of the laws of war; and by the laws of nations these laws are just what we choose to make them, so that they are not inconsistent with humanity. I say, then, that we may admit West Virginia as a new State, not by virtue of any provision of the Constitution, but under our absolute power, which the laws of war give us in the circumstances in which we are placed. I shall vote for this bill upon that theory, and upon that alone; for I will not stultify myself by supposing that we have any warrant in the Constitution for this proceeding."

Mr. Segar, of Virginia, followed in opposition to the bill. He said: "I believe it is a fundamental maxim in our political system, dating as far back as the Declaration of Independence, that all government derives its authority from the consent of the governed; in other words, from that source of all legitimate power, the sovereign people. Now, sir, this bill is in the very teeth, in direct subversion of this cardinal principle of republican, popular government. This new State proposition has not received the sanction of the people upon whom the new government is to operate. Casting out of the calculation the whole rebel portion of the State, I propose to show that the consent of the northwestern people themselves has not been had. It is not founded on the consent even of the people whose government it is claimed to be, and who are to come within its rule. There has not been that general, close representation of the people included. within the limits of the proposed new State, which is absolutely necessary to impart legality to all governments among us. A very large portion of the people that were never represented at all, neither in the Legislature which called the convention that ordered a vote to be taken on the new State question, nor in the Wheeling Legislature, nor in the convention that framed the constitution of the proposed new State.

"Let us look to the facts. I find that of