310 



CONGRESS, U. S. 



with a government. The Constitution of the 

 United States assumes that when it compels 

 Congress to guarantee a government. The 

 Supreme Court of the United States assumed 

 that, when, in the case of Fisher and Walton, 

 they said if a military government he estab- 

 lished in a State it would he the duty of the 

 United States to abrogate and remove it. The 

 rebel government in Arkansas is a military 

 government, and therefore not a republican 

 government, and the United States is now en- 

 gaged in removing it. When it is removed 

 there will be no government in point of fact, 

 as there is none in point of law. To-day the 

 condition of Arkansas I take to be this : her 

 political privileges depend upon her organiza- 

 tion of a State government, and not upon the 

 fact of her being a State. Without her Legis- 

 lature there are no electors ; there is nobody 

 entitled under the Constitution of the United 

 States to vote for members of Congress. She 

 is in the condition where Tennessee was under 

 the administration, I believe, of General Wash- 

 ington. Tennessee was admitted into the Union 

 without the scratch of the pen of a constitution. 

 It was a State without a State government. 

 When Tennessee organized her State govern- 

 ment, that was recognized by Congress. When 

 .Arkansas shall organize a State government, 

 that will be recognized by Congress and the 

 President. Until that condition precedent rep- 

 resentation upon this floor does not exist." 



The order to proceed according to the bill is therefore 

 "lerely at the will of the rebel States ; and they have the op- 

 Jon to reject it, accept the proclamation of the 8th of De- 

 C' Tiber, and demand the President's recognition ! 



Mark the contrast! The bill requires a majority, the 

 proclamation is satisfied with one-tenth : the bill requires 

 one oath, the proclamation another; the bill ascertains voters 

 by registering, the proclamation by guess; the bill exacts 

 adherence to existing territorial limits, the proclamation 

 admits of others; the bill governs the rebel States Inj Ian; 

 equalizing all before it, the proclamation commits them to 

 the lawless discretion of Military Governors and Provost 

 Marshals ; the bill forbids electors for President, the procla- 

 mation and defeat of the bill threaten us with civil -war for 

 the admission or exclusion of such votes ; the bill exacted 

 exclusion of dangerous enemies from power and the relief of 

 the nation from the rebel debt, and the prohibition of slavery 

 forever, so that the suppression of the rebellion will double 

 our resources to bear or pay the national debt, free the 

 masses from the old domination of the rebel leaders, and 

 eradicate the cause of the war; the proclamation secures 

 neither of these guaranties. 



It is silent respecting the rebel debt and the political ex- 

 clusion of rebel leaders ; leaving slavery exactly where it was 

 by law at the outbreak of the rebellion, and adds no guaianty 

 even of the freedom of the slaves he undertook to manumit. 



It is summed up in an illegal oath, without sanction, and 

 therefore void. 



The oath is to support all proclamations of the President, 

 during the rebellion, having reference to slaves. 



Any government is to be accepted at the hands of one- 

 tenth of the people not contravening that oath. 



Now that oath neither secures the abolition of slavery, nor 

 adds any security to the freedom of the slaves the President 

 declared free. 



It does not secure the abolition of slavery ; for the procla- 

 mation of freedom merely professed to free certain slaves 

 while It recognized the institution. 



Every constitution of the rebel States at the outbreak of 

 the rebellion may be adopted without the change of a letter: 

 for none of them contravene that proclamation ; none of 

 them establish slavery. 



It adds no security to thp freedom of the slaves; for their 

 title is the proclamation of freedom. 



If it be unconstitutional, an oath to support it is void. 

 Whether constitutional or not, the oath is without authority 

 of law, and therefore void. 



Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, said : " Ar- 

 kansas is now under a military governor, and 

 I want to know whether any State under tho 

 authority of a military governor and general 

 can enact any civil laws which will be binding. 

 And I refer in this connection to California, in 

 reference to which it was decided by the 

 Supreme Court that while the military law ex- 

 isted the military governor and general could 

 authorize no civil law, and that therefore the 

 law in reference to revenue was void." 



Mr. Harding, of Kentucky, asked Mr. Davis 

 " Whether, in his judgment, the State of Ar- 

 kansas is in, or out of the Union ? " 



Mr. Davis replied : " I will say that, in my 

 judgment, it is in the Union ; in the Union so 

 far that we are bound to see that nothing which 

 has the form without the substance of a gov- 

 ernment shall control her citizens ; so far in 

 the Union that we are responsible that she shall 

 be governed according to republican laws ; so 

 far in the Union that the loyal men of Arkansas 

 cannot be governed by traitors Avho call them- 

 selves the Legislature of Arkansas. We are 

 bound to protect them." 



Mr. Boutwell, of Massachusetts, expressed 

 his opinion in these words: "I Avish to say 

 that, understanding as I do from the remark 

 of the gentleman from Maryland, that he in- 

 tends by his motion only to lay these creden- 

 tials upon the table until the great question as 

 to the political condition of Arkansas is settled, 



If it be valid and observed, it exacts no enactment by the 

 State, either in law or constitution, to add a State guaranty 

 to the proclamation title ; and the right of a slave to freedom 

 is an open question before the State courts on the relative 

 authority of the State law and the proclamation. 



If the oath binds the one-tenth who take it, it is not exacted 

 of the other nine-tenths who succeed to the control of the 

 State government, so that it is annulled instantly by the act 

 of recognition. 



What the State courts would say of the proclamation, who 

 can doubt ? 



But the master would not go into court he would seize 

 his slaves. 



What the Supreme Court would say, who can tell ? 



When and how is the question to get there ? 



No habeas corpus lies for him in a United States Court ; 

 and the President defeated with this bill the extension of 

 that writ to his case. 



Such are the fruits of this rash and fatal act of the Presi- 

 dent a blow at the friends of his Administration, at the 

 rights of humanity, and at the principles of Republican Gov- 

 ernment. 



The President has greatly presumed on the forbearance 

 which the supporters of his Administration have so long 

 practised, in view of the arduous conflict in which we are 

 engaged, and the reckless ferocity of our political opponents. 



But he must understand that our support is of a cause and 

 not of a man ; that the authority of Congress is paramount 

 and must be respected ; that the whole body of the Union 

 men of Congress will not submit to be impeached by him of 

 rash and unconstitutional legislation; and if he wishes our 

 support, he must confine himself to his Executive duties to 

 obey and execute, not make the laws to suppress by arms 

 armed rebellion, and leave political reorganization to Con- 

 gress. 



If the supporters of the Government fail to insist on this, 

 they become responsible for the usurpations which they fail 

 to rebuke, and are justly liable to the indignation of the peo- 

 ple whose rights and security, committed to their keeping, 

 they sacrifice. 



Let them consider the remedy of these usurpations, and, 

 having found it, fearlessly execute it. 



B. F. WADE, 

 Chairman Senate Committee. 



H. WINTER DAVIS, 

 Chairman Committee House of Represent- 

 atives on the Rebellious States. 



