er was wiser in this respect. His theory that the
rebellious States should be reduced to a Territorial condition was in
harmony with the views that were embodied in the resolutions. At the
time, however, they did not receive the support of all the members of
the Republican Party.

Mr. Stevens maintained the doctrine that the rebel States were
conquered States and wholly subject to the power of the conqueror.
In his view their previous condition as States in the Union had no
value. But Mr. Stevens was never troubled by the absence of logic or
argument. In the case of the rebel States he intended to assert power
enough to meet the exigency and he was free of all fear as to the
judgement of posterity. When he had formed a purpose he looked only
to the end. If he could command the adequate means he left all
questions of logic and ethics to other minds and to future times.

Others maintained that the theory that the States were in a Territorial
condition or that they had ceased to exist as States, was an admission
of the doctrine of secession. Mr. Lincoln in his last public address
cut clear of all theories and resolved the situation into a simple
statement of a fact to which all were compelled to assent: "We all
agree, that the seceded States so-called, are out of their proper
practical relations with the Union." On this basis Congress finally
acted, but during the process and progress of reconstruction the
military authority was absolute, and local and individual powers were
completely subordinated to the authority of the General Government.

COUNTING THE ELECTORAL VOTES

In 1865 and 1869, questions were raised when the electoral votes were
counted, that gave rise to debates in the House of Representatives and
on one occasion subsequently in the Senate. In the House, Francis
Thomas of Maryland and Samuel Shellabarger of Ohio took part. Both
were able men. Thomas had the qualities of an orator but he spoke so
infrequently that his power was not generally appreciated. On that
occasion he spoke exceedingly well, but the attendance was small, an
evening session having been assigned for debate upon that subject.
Mr. Shellabarger was logical and effective but he was destitute of
imagination utterly. At the bar since his retirement from politics he
has enjoyed a large practice, but, unfortunately, as it appears to me,
he has preserved the style of speaking which he acquired upon the
stump and in Congress. A ski