Mr. HOWARD. That is by no means the question. The question is, not whether there be any necessity for granting such a power to the President.butwhetherit has been granted. I assert that Congress have never granted any such power to the President as to declare that eace in all its forms and in all its relations has been restored to the insurrectionary districts. Congress have taken good care to reserve to themselves this authority. I remind the Senate of the fact that the statute I allude to was drawn by the hand of one of the most cautious, circums ect, and profound constitutional lawyers of the country, Mr. Collanier, of Vermont. He carefully abstained from inserting any clause in that statute authorizing the President to declare that peace was restored. But the messa e assumes that it is within the constitutions competency of the President to make peace with the insurrectionary States. It assumes this without the slightest recognition in any of its pages or paragraphs of the power or duty of congress to legislate on this most important subject. In fact, the message ignores completely Congress and its authority, and treats the Executive as the only source of power over the conquered States. It does not consult or offer to consult Congress at all on the subject of reconstruction, and takes as lit tle pains to refer this subject or any branch of it to Congress, as if there was no congress; but with singular coolness asks the 2 Houses to judge, each for themselves, of the elections, returns, and qualifications of their own members. I will refer to the message itself. After stating that he had pursued a certain process in attempting to restore the rebel States to the Union, that he had done this thing, that, and the other, the President says: " The amendmentto the constitution beingadopted it would remain for the States, whose power has been solong in abeynnceJo resumetheir placesin the 2 branches of the national Legislature, and thereby complete the work of restoration.” and this is all he as s of the power of the Congress of the U.S. to legislate or in any way to act upon the question of the readmission of the insurrectionary States into Congress. It is a plain and undisguised as sumption that he, and he alone, has imparted to them the legal right to be again represented in Congress. To make this certain he adds: " Here it is for you, fellowcitizonsof the Senate, and for you. fellow citizens of the HoRep. to judge, eachof you for yourselves, of the elections, returns, and qualifications of your own members." Sir, had the seceding States been out of the Union for 4 ears without war, had not a blow been struck nor a soldier marched against them, and had they seen fit to come back into the Union quietly, peacefully, and of their own accord, the message could not have been more silent as to the effect of the war upon their condition. On the part of the POTUS the claim is put forth that he, and he only, has the right to resort to the measures necessary for the reconstruction of the States, and he has assumed, solely in Virtue of the executive authority, to appoint provisional governors, without sanction of law for there is no law nor a art of a law that authorizes him to appoint them to impart to them power to convoke conventions and to give to those conventions certain power over the reformation of State constitutions, power to enact laws, power to call to ether Legislatures, and, in short, to cover 518 whole field of State legislation; and after having done all this he very coolly and very condese endingly says to Congress, “It now remains for you, gentlemen of the Senate, and for you, gentlemen of the HoRep, toJudge”of what? Of the fitness of the States for readmission? No, sir. To judge of anything else? No, sir; but simply and solely to judge of the elections and qualifications of the Sens&Reps that may have been elected from these States thus reconstructed under the executive decree. There is a complete denial on the part of the Executive of any authority in Congress to interfere, to intermeddle, or to regulate in any manner whatever the internal concerns of the insurrectionary States, or to take any step with regard to their internal policy or their internal legislation. To show that I am not incorrect in this, and in order that the country may be made aware of what the President has actually done under this high claim of power, I beg to call the attention of Senators to the circular letter addressed by Mr. Johnson soon after the cessation of actual hostilities to the various provisional governors of the insurrectionary States. 1 have here the commission which he issued to his numerous provisional governors. He, the POTUS, as sumes, of his own motion, without authority of Congress, without calling together Congress, or in any way consulting or proposing to consult them, to issue to each of pthese provisional governors this imerial commission. assuming to grant full legislaive authority over the conquered States. After recitin in very laborious phrase the fact that he is POTUS, that he is Commander inChief of the Army and Navy, and adding what is not contained in the Constitution or the laws of the land, that he also is “ chief civil executive officer of the U.S., ” he says: "Now therefore, in obedience to the high and solemn uties imposed upon me by the Constitution of the U.S. "I call the attention of the especial friends of the President to this singular language, and I shall ask them to explain it before this discussion ceases “Now therefore.in obedience to the bitch and solemn duticsi posedupon me by the Constitution of the U.S., and for the purpose of enabling the loyal people of said State to organize a State government. whereby Justice may be established, domestictranquillity insured, and loyal citizens protected in all their rights of life liberty and property, I. AndrewJohnson, POTUS, and Commander in Chiefof the Army and Navy of the U.S., do hereby appoint A B [this is directed to Governor Holden] provisional governor of the State of NCarolina, whose duty it shall be. at the earliest practicable period. to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper for convening a convention composed of delegatesto be chosen by that portion of the people of said Statewho are loyal to the U.S and no otherg, for the purpose of altering or amending the constitution limthitesreoofsf, and State, authority twoeerxs necesssary and proper to enable such loyal people of the State of NCarolina to restoresaid State to its constitutional relations to the Federal Government, and to present such}; republican form of State government as Will entitle t ie State to the guarantee of the U.S. therefor and its people to protection, bayn the U.S. against invasion. insurrec The authority conveyed by this commission is perfectly plenary, perfectly boundless in its scopeand extent “ authority to exercise within the limits of said State all the powers necessary and proper to enable such loyal people to restore said State to its constitutional relations to the Federal Government.” Now, sir, I ask, under what clause of the Constitution of the U.S. is it that the President derives this boundless and undefined authority he has thus assumed to impart to his provisional governor? I assert that no such power is granted by the Constitution. There is nothing of the kind in it. As well might the POTUS, in case of a conquest by the armies of the U.S. of a foreign country in the prosecution of a foreign war, assume to a point a provisional governor and give him ull power to call together a convention of the conquered people, to authorize that convention to trame a constitution for that people, to authorize them to elect a legislative iiody to enact laws, and, indeed, to launch and put in motion the whole machinery of civil government in a foreign land conquered by our arms, and to impart to the community thus framed and fashioned the right to he represented in the 2 Houses of Congress as one of the States of the Union, as to assume to give his provisional governors in the insurrectionary district the like authority. Understand me, Mr. President; I do not assert that there was no necessity in the rebel States to make some provision against anarchy and for the preservation of order. I do not assert that a conquered people is to be left entirely to the results of war. anarchy, blood shed, and private rapine. The laws of war and the laws of nations provide for the res ervation of order and protection of private rights; and the general in the field is bound to afford this protection. That is by no means the question. The question is, what power has the POTUS over the subject of legislation in the conquered country? only legislative authority in the land whose duty it is to see to it that loyal governments are established, or does it belon to Congress? That is the point. I maintain hat the power belongs to Congress, and to Congress alone. How was the necessity produced of any interference of this kind on the part of the U.S.? How has it happened that provisional governors became necessar? It was by the results of war. Who carriet on the war? Was it the President? Who raised the Army? Who armed, clothed, disci lined, Officered, drilled them? Congress, an not the President. Sir, this claim of legislative authority on the part of the President, a claim perfectly distinct and outspoken so far as he is concerned, is, in my judgment, one of the most enormous usurpations of the power of Congress ever attempted; and if the Congress oflthe U.S. at this moment, the most momentous in the history of this Government, shall wink at the assumption, if they shall not stand up in their places here and manfully and resolutely assert their constitutional power over the whole subject, I look forward to the time Has the POTUS this most important power? Is he the when the will of the Executive of this nation shall become the law of the land, and the authority of Congress dwindle in feebleness and finally become lost in desuetude and contempt. What, sir, was the plain duty of the President on the cessation ofactual hostilitiesin the spring of 1865? The Constitution provides that the President shall, upon extraordinary occasions, convoke Congress for the purpose of takin their advice and enabling them to pass such acts of legislation as may be required. Sir, has there ever been any occasion in our past history, is it likely that another occasion will arise in our future history, more imperiously calling upon the Executive to convoke congress an submit the whole matter to their judgment than that occasion? We had been engaged in one of the most blood and fero cious wars known in history. At least 11 millions of the people of the U.S. had been for 4 years waging a relentless, wicked, rebellious war against the Government. The loyal States had sent to the field uncounted myriads of their sons to combat the enemy. There was scarcel a plantation from the Lakes to the Gulf of eXico, scarcely a stream of water throughout the length and breadth of the land whose banks had not been dyed with the blood of the faithful or of the rebellious. More than 1/2 the geographical extent of our territory lying east of the ltocky mountains had been in the acknowledged possession of the rebellion. We had sacrifice untold millions of dollars in the prosecution of the war to uphold the authority of the Constitution, and there was hardly a household throughout the loyal North in which there were not tears of lamentation over the loss of some dear one who had bravely gone to the field and sacrificed his life under the folds of the old flag. At the l North we were divided by political parties. 1 We had in our midst a party who had openly declared against the further prosecution of the war and pronounced it a fai are, a party who for long anxious months were on the very eve of takin up arms also against the Government an acting as the allies of the rebels. The whole country, from center to circumference, was convulsed and thrown almost into anarchy by these great and perilous events. Our relations with foreign Powers had also become greatly entangled, and there was never an occasion when it was so necessary to call Congress together, take their advice, and appeal to them for properlegislation; and yet Mr. Johnson, acting know not under whose advice. assumed to himself the whole task of restoring what he calls peace, and of reconstructing the rebel States, without convocation of the repre sentatives of the States and the people, in utter disregard of their authority or the measures of I legislation which they might think demanded by the public safety. 1 complain of this course of conduct on the part of the Executive because I believe it to eausurpation of the authority which pertains, not to him, but to Congress; and here is the gist of the controversy: here is the bone of contention. Mr. Johnson, backed by certain advisers, says to the country and to Congress, “The executive power is sufficientin the prem ises; the executive power has recreated and reconstructed the States; you, gentlemen of congress, have nothing to do with this subject; vou have no power ofTegislation over it; I, the Executive, I, AndrewJohnson. assume to my self the authority of declaring when a State is restored to the Union and when it is entitled to readmission by its Sens&Reps into the Halls of Congress.” This is the point. The policy of Mr. Johnson was lainly announced in his opening message. e had, forsooth, reconstructed the States, and he says to us, in very condese ending terms, “ It belongs to you now, gentlemen of either House, to judge merely of the qualifications of the members who shall be sent to you by my reconstructed States!” Now, Mr. President, I come to the question of what was the policy of President Lincoln and here I desire the particular attention the apologists of this great stretch of executive power. That I do not err in soing it is claimed in behalf of Mr. Johnson that he is but pursuing the some policy pursued by Mr. Lincoln, the following extract will sufficiently prove. In his 22d of February speech, already amousvat home and abroad, and in which Mr. Johnson undertook to develop his policy and to enlogize it, he said: “The very policy which I am pursuing pursued now was under his [Mr. Lincolns] administration, and wasbeing pursuedby him w onthat inse rutable Providence saw fit to removehim, I trust, to a better world than this." “The very policy which I am pursuing, ” is the language of President Johnson. Again, the honorable SecyState, in the speech he made at the CooperInstitute in NewYork on the same evening, speaking of the same subject, used the following equally emphatic language: “And it is the same plan that Abraham lincoln projected before he was removed from hmhi trust, the same one that AndrewJohnson was executing for him in Tennessee." That policy, sir, here asserted to be the same as that of Mr. Lincoln, is immediate readmission to Congress, without delay, without secu rities, without condition; and it is based upon this monstrous assumption, to which I have already alluded, that it is competent for the Executive to reconstruct the insurrectionary States; that it is for him and not for Congress to impart political power and legislative capa city to the people oi2 the insurrectionary States. Now, sir, I assertthat Mr. Lincoln neveradopted any such principle, and I stand here in my feebleway to vindicate the memory of that great and good man from such an aspersion upon his character. Mr. Lincoln, in his proclamation of the 8th of December, 1863, after declaring that he should recognize as the true government of the insurrectionary States the one which should be constituted according to the provisions of each of his proclamation, proceeds to use the following cautious and significant language, which seems to have been entirely overlooked or forgotten by the advocates of the immediate restoration policy: “ To avoid misunderstanding. it may be proper to say that this proclamation. so farms it relatesto State golavteerngmoveenrtnsm. Has ntsohroafveereanllco the State ilsewbhecereninm loayinal tained and for thesamereason"That is, to avoid misunderstanding "it may be proper to further sag that whether members sent to Congress from any State shall be admitted to seats constitutionally rests exclusively with the respect iyo Houses and not to any extent with the Executive! Here is Mr. Lincolns protest against his own authority so to construct an insurrection aryi State as to import to it the right of electing and sending members of the Senate and HoRep. He refused to recognize as within himself any such authority. He de nied it in the most guarded language of which he was capable. Is that the doctrine of President Johnson today? Does he deny that to him pertains the power of imparting political rights to the insurrectionary States in such a way as to enable them legally and constitutionally to electSens&Reps? No, sir. He asserts it; and he asserts that this having been dene by virtue of his imperial do crees, all that remains for Congress to do is to pass, each House for itself, upon the naked, arren question of the sufficiency, the regularity, or formality or informality of the mere fiertificates of election which may be brought ere. He has assumed to enable the insurrection ary States to elect Sens&Reps to come to these Halls and participate in our legislation and this is the great point of controversy between us, the assumption on his part to interfere in the legislation of Congress and the denial of that authority on our part. such is the gist of the controversy. “ My pol icy” means immediate readmission into the 2 Houses of Congress in the persons of the Sens&Reps e acted by these reconstructed rebellious States without qualification, without condition, and without taking securit against a recurrence of the war. Mr. lincoln never adopted any such principle, but he denied it. He wase areful, in order to avoid any misunderstanding on this most delicate question, so to express himself in his proclamation as to leave no ground of controversy or disputation. He asserts that the right ofreadinission belongs exclusively to Congress, and not to any extent to the Executive. That is not, however, “ my policy, ” nor the doctrine of the advocates of “my policy." Mr. President, allusion has been made to what is known as the dying s cech of President Lincoln. Even that has conquoted on this floor in support of the pretensions of the Executive. Sir, this doctrine receives no support from the dying speech of Abraham Lincoln. On the contrary it receives fiom that s eech a most stern and decisive rebuke. On that occasion President Lincoln said: “As a general rule I abstain from reading the reports of attacks upon myself. wishing not to be provoked by that to which I cannot properlyoffer an answer. In spite of this precaution, however. it comes to my knowledge that I am much censured from somesupposedagencyin settingup and seeking Itno sustain the newState government of Louisiana. this I have done just so much as, and no more than. the public knows.“ A phrase in its tone and style entirely Lincolnian. "In the annual messageof December, 1863, and accompanying proclamation. I presented a ilnn of reconstruction, (as the phrase got s.)which promised. if adopted by any State, should be acceptable to and sustained by the executive government of the nation. I distinctly stated that this was not the onlycplnnwhich mighteiossibly be acceptable: but I also istlnctly proteste that the Executive clarinet] no right to anywhen or whether membersshould be admitted to seatsin Congressfrom such States. A full, solemn, plump disclaimer on the part of President Lincoln of the exercise of that assumed power which I am now combatting, the power asserted at present by President Johnson of the right of the rebel States to readmission into Congress.