Mr. RAYMOND. Very well. Then I did misunderstand the gentleman, but the same objection applies to the other point. If we are obliged to remove these “despotisms” at the South it must be done by some act, by some law which the country will accept as legitimate, as constitutional, as appropriate to the occasion.. Now, sir, I do not say posi tively that the bill now before the House will not beo in that sense and for that purpose; but I do say, if I may judge from the exPressions of opinion which I hear all round me on this floor, exPressions of individual opinion of members themselves, it will not command that hearty approval which will lead to those great results, against the action of the other depts of the Government, which are expected from it. I do not wish to make any argument now against the Present bill. I have already said Iall desire to say on that point. But I do say that if we pass it by a 2/3rds majority it will not have, and cannot be expected to have, that support from other quarters it ought to have to accomplish the objects it is designed to reach. Gentlemen may say if the President de‘clines or refuses to enforce it he will subject himself to impeachment. Very possibly. That depends, entirely on the manner in which he may do it. There are many ways of making a law ine perative without subjecting himself to such construction and such punishment as that. But I agree entirely with the Gentfrom Massachusetts {Mr. BANKs] that it is for our interest, it is for the interest of the country, for the welfare of the whole Union, and especially for the welfare of the loyal part of the Union, that in what we propose to do, looking to the reconstruction of the rebel States, looking to the destruction of rebel despotism there, it is important to the last degree that we should have the cooperation of all the branches of the Government. I think gentlemen on this floor will not dispute the desirableness of that, however they may doubt its feasibility. Now, sir, unless this proposition can command that cooperation it will be of little value. Standing by itself simply as a law upon the statute book if will amount to nothing. Unless gentlemen upon this floor are satisfied that this bill is a proper remedy for the evils which exist in the southern States; unless they are satisfied that it is so certain to be operative and effective, and to obtain the result desired as to make all other H.P. needless, I think they would do well to consider the possibility of Presenting something that will cover the ground more completely than this bill does, and thus secure a more general assent from the country at large. I acknowledge the necessity of doing something, and the necessity of something effective. I would be glad to see something done which the President would approve, or in default of that something which he could not oppose without rendering himself liable to impeachment. It is doubtful whether the country would sustain the impeachment of the President upon anything now before it. I believe it would not. When we propose the impeachment of the President we must consider that we have to deal with facts, and not vague declaration. We cannot assert that because the country is disturbed and because the country holds the President responsible for that disturbance therefore the country demands his impeachment and removal. What has he done? You say he has violated his oath and refused to execute the law. But you must point to the instances where he has refused to enforce the law. What specific in stance can you put your finger upon in which he has been called upon to protect the rights of citizens in the southern States and has refused to do so? It is not enough to deal in vague accusation; you have to frame a bill of specific and definite charges, embracing details of his refusal to perform specific functions imposed upon him by law. We may frame a bill, possibly we may devise a law, which if he refuses to execute it may enable us to hold him to his proper responsibility; but this bill will not do it, because it imposes upon him no duty whatever. I desire, moreover, to see some bill introduced which, while providing for the proper exercise of military authority for the Preservation of peace, shall also contain some provision for the organization of civil governments in these southern States. This bill does nothing of the sort. It does not even for shadow any such provision. The Gentfrom Ohio said the other day that he would not support this bill if he did not regard it as merely preliminary to others which would provide civil authority for those States. Where are those other bills, and what are they? How do we know what civil rights will be provided by those bills, which this bill is to protect, unless we have the whole programme before us?