CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



171 



ristcnco of tlio States. The General Gov- 

 ernment i-; infinitely more dependent upon tlie 

 States than the States are upon tin- (iem-ral 



iimeiit. Why do I say BO? Honorable 

 members who have been engaged in this delate 



'> suppose that all the political questions 

 which can possibly arise, all the measures which 

 it may be necessary to adopt in order to secure 

 the prosperity and freedom of the people, are 

 with Congress. Thatisnotso. Not only is there 

 a largo mass of power necessary to be exerted 

 in order to secure prosperity and peace and 



< tion to the individual citizen, secured to 

 the States, but the far larger mass of power 

 belongs to the States. The whole subject of 

 contracts as between man and man, the mode 

 of disposing of personal property, the mode of 

 disposing of real estate, the mode of devising 

 real and personal estate, the law of marriage, 

 the judicial jurisdiction over these several sub- 

 jects of intimate concern to the interest of in- 

 dividual-!, is with the States. 



" Not only is the power of the Government 

 limited as far as regards its legislative depart- 

 ment, but it is equally limited in relation to its 

 judicial department; and we should in vain 

 search in that department of the Government 

 for any authority to adjudicate upon the infi- 

 nite variety of transactions which take place as 

 between man and man in the States. The Gov- 

 ernment deals with external affairs, with mat- 

 ters involving the interests of the States inter 

 .", with contracts entered into by the individ- 

 uals of the several States, and it confers all 

 measures of that description, and all judicial 

 power over controversies arising out of meas- 

 ures of that description, upon this Government, 

 but there it stops. Jurisdiction of all cases in 

 law and equity I cits the language literally, 

 certainly substantially arising under the Con- 

 stitution and laws of the United States and 

 treaties made in pursuance of their authority, 

 is conferred upon the judicial department of the 

 Government; but nothing else. Then what 

 is to become of the interest of the people of 

 the several States if they have no government 

 of their own ? Anarchy, unless (a proposition 

 which I propose to examine) as far as the par- 

 ticular crisis in which wo now are is concerned, 

 those States are reduced to the condition of 

 Territories; but assuming that they are now 

 States as contradistinguished from Territories, 

 then it follows that to the extent of the powers 

 remaining in the States, if they have no lot in 

 their execution, and you have no authority 

 to provide for them, they are in a condition of 

 anarchy. To use a favorite comparison of my 

 friend from Massachusetts, that h as plain as 

 the multiplication table. 



" If that be plain, what would seem to be the 

 consequence? That the Constitution never 

 contemplated that the States should cease to 

 exist, and it above all never could have con- 

 templated that the Government of the United 

 States, under any or all the powers conferred 

 upon it by the Constitution, was intended to 



possess under any state of circumstances the 

 power to put an end to a State; and y-t ; 

 are now ended, if they have ceased to 

 and are to bo treated as Territories, tin 

 provide that the Congress of the United State*, 

 or the Government of the United States, should 

 have the authority to assume over the people 

 of those States the right to legislate, and the 

 right to adjudicate upon matters expressly re- 

 served to the States and the people oif the 

 States, although such was -not the apparent 

 purpose, and although so far from being the 

 apparent purpose it was expressly disavowed, 

 and assume to themselves the authority to con- 

 vert this Government into a national, as con- 

 tradistinguished from a Federal Government. 



"I do not understand my friend from Maine 

 to go to the extent of denying that they are to 

 be considered as States now, but simply that 

 their relations as States to the Government 

 have terminated. The honorable member from 

 Massachusetts goes a step further, and he main- 

 tains, and did as far back as 1862, that the effect 

 of the rebellion as it then existed was to reduce 

 the States where it prevailed to a territorial 

 condition. I think when the honorable mem- 

 ber from Massachusetts announced that prop- 

 osition, it was said on the floor of the Senate 

 that perhaps he was the only member of the 

 body who would be found to support it ; and 

 yet, as the Senate will see in a moment, it is, 

 if I understand the position taken by most of 

 the Senators who have spoken on the other side 

 of the Chamber, the very ground now assumed. 

 It is said that war existed and the consequences 

 of war followed ; and as one of the consequences 

 of war was to put the enemy in the hands of 

 the conqueror, it necessarily follows that the 

 people of the South and the States of the South 

 are now at the footstool of the conqueror, bound 

 to take whatever condition he may think proper 

 to impose, bound by any legislation he may 

 think proper to adopt. What was the doctrine 

 of the honorable member from Massachusetts 

 not only announced once, but over and over 

 again repeated and maintained with all the 

 learning for which he is remarkable? On the 

 llth of February, 1862, that honorable member 

 submitted to the Senate resolutions 'declara- 

 tory of the relations between the United States 

 and the territory once occupied by certain 

 States, and now usurped by pretended govern- 

 ments without constitutional or legal right.' 

 (See ANNUAL CYCLOPEDIA, 1862 p. 345.) 



" Am I right or am I wrong in saying that 

 when that first resolution was submitted to the 

 judgment of this body it was said in debate 

 that it was exceedingly doubtful whether it 

 could receive the vote of any member of the 

 body except the mover? I am not sure that he 

 was not himself so well satisfied of it that he 

 did nothing more than have it referred, and 

 there it slept. Then, at that time, whatever 

 may be the judgment of Senators now, it could 

 not be asserted of the?e States that either by 

 abdication or forfeiture they had reduced the 



