Mr. HOWE said: Mr. President, when the Senate adjourned last evening I was endeav oring to show that not only did the POTUS recognize and exercise the power of the General Government to establish provisional governments for the seceded States, but that he recognized so absolute a control over them on the part of the Government of the U.S. that he did not recognize even the new governments organized through the intervention of his own governors as clothed with the attributes and rerogatives of States. I referred to the fact thiat a judge of probate in a county of Alabama had been dismissed by the order of the President from his Office, and that another man, not elected by the people. had been selected to discharge the duties of that office. There is another in stance. In Ncw Orleans, in March last, the people elected a man by the name of Monroe to be mayor of that city. General Canby, it seems, being in command there, thought he was not a fit man to discharge the duties of mayor of that city, and we learn by a dispatch da“ted NewOrleans, March 19, this fact: All the newly elected city officinls wereduly in stalled today with the exception of Mayor Monroe and Mr. Nixon. an alderman, whosefunctionshave beexecenptteiomnpsorarily suspendedas coming within the to pardon madeby President Johnson's proclamation. M. G mayor Rosseau has been installed protemporeby order of GeneralCanby.” Thus, in Alabama, judges elected by the people are set aside; in NewOrleans, mayors and aldermen of cities elected by the people are set aside; and these men were elected under the authority of these new constitutions and the laws enacted in accordance with these new constitutions! Sir, let me be distinctly understood. I am not complaining of the POTUS or of General Canby for settin aside Judge Semmes, or Mayor Monroe, or Al erinan Nixon. These are not isolated cases, but a great many others like unto them have hap Boned in other States of that portion of the nion. I am not complainin of these acts. I agree entirely with the Presicut, that Judge Semmes is not fit to discharge the duties of judge of probate. I have no doubt that Mr. ouroe is entirely unfit to act as mayor of the city of NewOrleans. What I wish to call attention to is this: that Judge Semmes is no more unfit for judge of probate than the people of that count are to elect a ndge of probate. When the POTUS finds that Judge Semmes is not fit for judge of probate, he gives the most conclusive testimony in the world that the people who elected Judge Semmes were not fit to made an election. There was no misunderstanding about who Judge Semmes was. They knew all about him. They elected him because be suited them. So of the election of Mr. Monroe. Mr. Monroe was satisfactory to the people of the city of NewOrleans, and therefore they chose him. In the judgment of the President, he was unfit for mayor: he had not been pardoned. The people of NewOrleans cared nothing for that fact. They would just as lief have a man to serve them who had not been pardoned as one who had; and, as far as that goes, I suspect I should agree very much with the people of NewOrleans. I do not think there is any great distinction to be made between those who are not pardoned and those who have been. I mention these facts for the other purpose of showing that the President does not regard these communities as States like the State of NewYork or like the State of Ohio. He would not attempt to do any of these things in either of those States or in any State which had held fast to the Union and never had dissolved its relations with the Union. And I cite them for the purpose of asking the question, how it happens that what the Presrdent could do without an act of Congress, congress could not do by an act of its own? It was argued, I recollect, by the Senfrom Perms vania SMr. Cowau] some time since that the presient had a peculiar gift, or n peculiar right, for doing these things because he was an executive officer. I understood the Senator to say that the POTUS went into SCarolina and Georgia and deposed Gov'ernors and Legislatures, and had the same right to do it that a sheriff would have had, or a marshal. perhaps he had as much right as a sheriff or a marshal. The Senator's arguinentput it upon the ground that these men were criminals discharging the functions of these offices down there, and that the President instead of arrest in them as criminals just deposed hem. I think the Senfrom Pennsylvania or any other lawyer can understand the vast difference between the 2 acts. But I think the Senfrom Pennsylvania will agree that neither of these 2 acts could be done by the President, or be done by a sheriTT, or a mar shal, simply because he chose to do it. The mere fact thata man is a criminal, or is deemed to be a criminal, gives no authority to a sherilf or a marshal to interfere with him. Before the sheriTT or the marshal is allowed to at his hand upon him and restrain him of his liberty, he must have the authority of the State or of the U.S. for doing it; he must have a writ, a precept, a written command in his possession issued by the supreme authority, directing him to do that very thing. Itinust be addressed to him, and must command him to do that very act, otherwise he cannot make the arrest. Nomarshal of the U.S. had any right to interfere with the Governor of SCarolina or with any member of her Legislature, simply because the had been traitors; but whena courtof the U.S., having jnrisdiction of that offense, saw fit to issue a warrant, addressed to' the marshal, directing him to make that arrest, then he could do it; not until then. The President could not do it at all. The President could not do it. if he had atruuk full of warrants. He cannot serve a writ. In order to serve writs he must be authorized by law to serve them. His duties are very different from those of a marshal. And when the writ is issued it. must be served by the olIicer to whom it is issued and by nobody else. Butthere is this great difference between what the President did and what the Senfrom Penns lvauin supposes he did. What the Senfrom Pennsylvania supposes he did Wns simpl to restrain the Governors of those States and tie other officers of their liberty. That was not all. That was but a small part. 110 restrained the whole people of the “State, ” as they call it, of their liberty. They had under their laws, and it is contended here they had under the Constitution of the U.S., the right to elect those men and to have their services. It was interfering less with the liberty of the indifiihiuls who were removed from oliice than the liberty of the people themselves. They chose to have those officers to serve them. The President said they should not have them. Thus it was that, without writ, without war rant, as I think, without authority of law, certainly without process in his hands, by a single clause of aproclaination, he not only arrested, that is to so took possession of, took into cus tody, accoring to the theory of the Senfrom Pennsylvania, every officer in each one of 11 States, but he actually took into cus tody the whole people of the State. That was a pqretty sweeping arrest, not often equaledl 0, Mr. President, the only authority in the world for doing these things is the fact that the people of those Stateshad themselves destroyed the only kind of government which the constitution of the U.S. will tolerate. What was in the place of those governments was an illegal, unconstitutional, criminal existence, and the President treated that criminal organization just as a sheriff or anybody else would treat any other person or any other party engaged upon a criminal enterprise. The law commands you not to interfere with the liberty of a citizen except you have due process of law for doing it. Still, if you are going along Pennsylvania. avenue and see a store about to be entered by a burglar, in spite of the constitution, in spite of the laws, you would not hesitate to take him by the collar, if you felt strong enough, and stop the commission of that crime. And so the President found a band of criminals before him. He brushed them out of the way. But if they were lawful tribunals of legal States, then instead of doin a good deed, as I insist he did, he committe a great wrong. But it has sometimes been said that he could be justified in doing these things because he was Commander in Chicfof the Army and the Navy, and that he did them in the exercise of what are called the war powers of the Government. Without stopping to consider whether more of the war poWEX‘S of the Government is Vested in the President than in the Congress of the U.S., I want to say that the proof seems conclusive that he did not assume to act in virt e of any such power whatever. War had ended when he deposed these governors and Legislatures. War had ended when the new Governors and new Legislatures were elected. War had ended when Judge Seinines was deposed; when Mayor Monroe was deposed. But ifI am mistaken on that ioint, if war had n of ended then, it did on subse qpently. I can prove that. I can bring proof that the President and his friends will not contradict, thatit ended in all the States butTexas. I find it certified in a proclamation, “ Done at the city of Washington the 2d day of April, in the year of our Lord, 1866, and of the independence of the U.S.A. the ninetieth” signed AndrewJohnson, and attested by William H. Seward, SecyState. That proclamation is introduced to the world by a series of whereases, occup ing a whole column and more of this daily paper the 12 tribes of whereases, start in, I believe, away back in 1861,5 years oigwhereases. One would think a pretty important proclamation ought to succeed such a for midable preamble as that. Let us read the proclamation: “Now. therefore” Because of all these things which have occupied a column and a half, or less“ Now. therefore.I. AndrewJohnson. POTUS.do hereby proclaim and declnro that the insurrectionwhich heretoforeexistedin the States of Georgia. SCarolina. Virginia. NCarolina, Tennessee.Alabama.Louisiana. Arkansas, Mississippi and Florida is at an end, and is hence forth to besoregarded." The insurrection is at an end, says the Pros ident; let the world henceforth so regard it. Well, what does that do? 'Hie insurrection being at an end, how is the face of things changed by that? Now will these States have the services of their officers? Now will they be remitted to the rights and prerogatives of States? Now will their elections be respected, their laws have full force, run, and be glorified? Something important everybody thought was going to happen after such a proclamation as that was issued. It seems that an agent of the Freedmen’s Bureau down in Georgia thought some great change must have been wrought by this proclamation in the face of political affairs, and he inquired what it meant is inquiry was referred to the Dept of War. He received this answer to it on the 9th of April: War DEPT, WASHINGTON, April 9.1866. Sin: The asst Commissioner of the Bureau of Refugees Freedmen. &c. for the State of Georgia having inquired whether the President's proclamation removesmartial law and stated that the dept commander does not feel authorized to arrest parties who have committed outrages on freed people or Union refugees the SecyWar. with the n provnl of the President directsme to in form you that the President‘s proclamation does not remove martial law or operatein any way upon the Freedmen’sBureau in the exercise of its legitimate Jurisdiction. it is not expedient, however, to resort to military tribunals in any case where justice can be attainedthrough the mediumof civil authority. E. D. TOWN Auralanl Adjutant General. Brovst Major General J. M. Erasmus, Augusta.Georgia. The insurrection is suppressed; peace has come; martial law, however, does not end in those communities; nothing is changed by it their rights are just what they were before, an the authority of the Government is just as absolute as it had been before; nay, this Judge Semmes was deposed after this proolamation issued, after the insurrection was suppressed, and was so declared by the President. Would the POTUS undertake to say that martial law existed or could exist in any State of the U.S. now, subsequent to his proclamation? The Constitution declares that “the privilege of the writ of habeascorpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Would the President venture to say ic had suspended the writ of habeascorpus when he had declared there was no longer any rebellion? I think not. He continues martial law there, because it is the only law that is reliable. He has nothing else, he has no set of Congress, and he cannot trust to the laws of those communities. He is perfectly right, in my judgment, in not trusting to those aws. But I think it would be a great deal better for him, a great deal better for those communities, a great deal better for the country if he would recommend to Congress here the passage of such laws as are suited to their condition. Sir, let. me call your attention to one little fact (I will not read the papers) illustrative of the great embarrassment attending this mode of governing great communities. The Legislutnre of the new State of Florida, I learn, enacted a law establishing a county criminal court, the principal business of which [judge to be to discipline the colored poulation of that State the freed people. hat statute declares a great many different olfenses, prescribes penalties for them; whipping is one of the penalties; the pillory is another of the penalties. The commissioner of fneedmeu’s affairs thought that whippings and pillories were not suitable penalties to be imposed on human beings. Accordingly he declared that such punishments should not be imposed on the freedmen who were subject to his jurisdiction. He appealed to the officer in command of the dept of Florida, General Foster, I think. General Foster issued an order from his headquarters directing that whenever a county court sentenced a negro to he whipped or to stand in the pillory he should be turned over to his headquarters, not be whipped, not to stand in the pillory, but when turned over to his headquanrters he should be set to work at the ball an chain so longa time for each blow to be inflicted, so long a time for each hour he was to stand in the pillory. That order was received by the Governor, and he issued, I believe, an order in conformity to that requiring all persons sentenced to stand in the illory or to be whipped to be turned over to is head quarters. Now, Mr. President, just look for a moment at the condition of a man sentenced to be whipped or to stand in the pillory in Florida. The judgment is not executed; but neither is it reversed. The defendantis sent to the head quarters of General Foster. Another punishlment which is provided for in no judgment in the world is inflicted upon him. The judgment in the count court stands uureversed. After he has got t rough with his service at the bull and chain, and has left General Foster’s head quarters, there is the judgment of the county criminal court to be executed. The only aid. as I see, that the negro is likely to get from this intervention of the oliicer in command is that the punishment of whipping or standing in the pillory is simply postponed, and in the end he receives a ouble punishment instead of a single punishment. If a provisional government was established for Florida by not of Congress, none of these things could appen. When Florida enacted a law which outraged the sense of public jusr ticc, Congress would do whatit does with every other Territory enacting such a law; the law would be set aside, and then there would be no jud cuts underit. Buthore, underthis mode of a ministering government, the law is allowed to stand; the tribunals of justice act upon it, try cases, pronounce jud ment, and the judgment is not allowed to e enforced, at least until another penalty deemed satisfactory to the officer in command is inflicted. Sir, I do sincerely think I am abundantly justified in making the proposition with which I set out, that if the power which I claimed in January last for Congress to provide provisional governments for those communities is not farnished by the Constitution, the President is more defenseless than any man who has ever undertaken to administer government for the U.S. Ifthat authority does not exist, how these acts are to be defended it is impossible for me to conceive. But, Mr. President, it is urged that however the plaii or the policy of the President may accord with the Constitution, it does accord exactly with the policy of his predecessor in officc. That is a point which my colleague has urged repeatedly with great force and with great earnestness. I desire to say now that there is no more similitude between the policy of President Johnson and the policy of ’resi dent Lincoln than there is between a blister of S anish flies and a poulticc ofcabbage leaves. 5 an hter.] “hat was the policy of Presient Lincoln, which this plan is said to resem ble? Recollect, sir, when Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation of the 8th of December, 1363, we were at war, and this proclamation of his was issued, not in the interest of our enemies in that war, but to injure our enemies and in the interest of our friends. Therefore it was that he proclaimed this: "And I do further proclaim. declare and main known. that whenever.in any of the Statesof Arkansas.Texas. Louisiana. Missussippi.Tennessee.Alis bama, Georgia. Florida. SCarolina and NCarolina.a nulnber of persons.not lessthanoneton, in number of the votes cast in such Stateat the pr ihdaevnintigsl election of the year of ourLord 1860e. ach taken the oath aforesaid and not having since violated it and being aqunlilied voter by the electionlaw of the State existing immediately before thesin callednotof secession. andexcludingnl others, shall recstablish a State government which fllnll he republican and in nowise contrni'ciiing Stilll oath such shall e recognized as the true wvtrniaent of the Slate and the Stateshall I‘Fflt’ th'(e.‘rmiinderthe benefitsof the constitutional provision which declares that the U.S shall guarantyto everyState in this Union n. RFG and shall protecteachof them against invasion: and on application of ‘the Legislaturc. Or the Executive.(when the Legislature cannot be convened.)againstdomes tic violence.‘" That, is what he said. There was in that proclamation the exercise of the some identical power which President Johnson exercised in 1865, and the exercise which I insisted ought to be exercised in January last by Congress; that is to say, the power to take the prerogatives of a State from the whole people of a State, and to do something else with them. President Lincoln preposed to take them from the whole body of the people and give them to a minority of the people, not less than one 10th. President Johnson, in 1865, took them from the whole body of the people, and gave them to a single individual. proposed to take them from the whole body oft e people in the State and give them to the people of the U.S. That is the dili‘erence between the 3 propositions. Look at the practicalo eration, owever, of the 2 plans. resident lincoln’s proclamation says to these people down there, ‘So many of you as will, now while the war is raging, turn your backs on the rebellion, become our friends, take an oath to stand by us, and to fight our enemies, we will take by the hand; we will organize you into a State; we will build up the boundary line of a State, as a wall between you and the rebels; we will exclude them from all power and vest all power in you.” That was President Lincoln's lan. He proposed to wrest the rerogatives o the State from the majority andato bestow them as a reward upon the minority who should then, when the rebellion was at the height of its power, desert it, defy it, and take an oath to resist it. President Johnson’s plan was promulgated on] after the power of the rebellion was utterly broken. Vhen majorities and minorities were alike read to swear fealty to the U.S. because they could not longer resist its power, then the President tendered pardon an the rerotives of the State to that very majority which had resisted while resistance was possible, and to whom the law secured nothing but the extreme penalty due to treason. President Lincoln hed up the prerogatives of the State as a reward to those who should desert the rebellion and help subdue it, while President Johnson, alter the rebellion is subdued by the boundless expenditure of blood and treasure, flings those same priceless preroatives to his prisoners of war. at there was another difference between the policy of President Lincoln and the policy of resident Johnson. President Lincoln says: “This proclamation is intendedto presentthepeople of the Stateswherein the national authority has been suspendedand loyal State governments have been luhverted amodein and by which the national authority and loyal State governmentsmay be reestablished within said States or in any of them: and while the modepresented is the beatthe Execu tivo can suggest with his presentimpressions. it must not he understoodthat no otherpossiblemodewould be acceptable." President Lincoln offers the best plan he can think of, but advertises that he is ready to accept a better one if others can devise it. President Johnson offers a plan immeasurably worse, and allows men to whose unboughtefforts he is indebted for the power he wieilds to be proscribed for no offense but believing that a better plan can be devised. Mr. President, here seems to be the issue: we invite the people of the U.S. to incorporate these just and necessary amendments into their Constitution, and we propose to sequestrate the claim to representation in Congress until these amendments be agreed to. The opponents of these amendments in vite the people of the States now represented to send Representatives here who will open these doors to the representatives of these rebellious communities at once, and whether the ending amendments be agreed to or not. That is the issue. I do not know what the decision is to be. I hear it said in theneyspnpers and elsewhere that 11Congress is commg here that will open these doors. Perhaps so. I see most elaborate efforts being made to bring such a Congress here. With what success it is to be attended I do not know. That remains to be seen. I see a great many individuals and a great many representatives sent here by the Union party to uphold the Union cause now aiding to their utmost in all that is thought to be required to secure such a Congress.