Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, the discussion upon the amendment offered by the honorable Senfrom Illinois [Mr. 1RUMBULL] now under consideration has taken so wide a range as almost to induce the belief that certain gentlemenwho have spoken have become oblivious of the subject matter of discussion. This liberality having been extended by the Presiding Officer to others, I trust I sha 1 not fall under the censure of any gentleman if I avail myself of it also. I cannot, therefore, assure the Senate that in what I am about to say I shall confine myself very strictly to the amendment under consideration. Mr. President, ithas been declared during this discussion and on numerous other occasions both in the Senate and out, that the so calle polic of the POTUS, who olds his Office, under the Constitution, by reason of the death of President Lincoln is but the same policy enunciated and attempted to be carried out by the latter; and we have been told by the honorable Senfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. DOOLITTLE] and the honorable Senfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. COWAN] in very energetic and emphatic tones, that this policy isteidentical policy of Mr. Lincoln in regard to the reconstruction of the rebel States. i take issue with those Senators upon this question effect. I deny that the policy of President Johnson is identically the policy of President Lincoln upon that most grave and important subject; and I shall show, or at least endeavor to show, in my feeble way, that the 2 lines of policy, that of Mr. Lincoln and that of Mr. Jo nson, are in point of principle as wide apart as the poles; that while on the part of President Johnson there is an assertion of the absolute power of the Executive to interfere in the manner he has interfered for the restoration of the rebel States, while it is asserted in his behalf that he has this omnipotent power, and that it does not belong to Congress, Mr. Lincoln always, in his most solemn proclamations and acts, disclaimed that power and was ever careful to protest that he, as the executive branch of the Government, possessed no real power on the subject of the readmission of the rebel States into Congress. Let us recall a part of the history of the times and endeavor to see the exact pesition oceu ied by Mr. Lincoln touching the power of congress and his own power over the question of the readmission of Sens&Reps from the rebel States into Congress. But before lcome to that, let us, if it be possible, ascertain what this policy of Mr. Johnson actually is. Let us entertain clear ideas upon the subject, and ascertain what is the real essence, the gist of the controversy now existing between him and Congress. The best an nouncement of the policy of Mr. Johnson upon the subject of reconstruction is of course to be found in the most solemn paperhe ever signed, and that is his message at the opening of the present session of Congress. I have read that message with care, and studied it carefully and repeatedly, and so has the country. If there be any document in existence that is well comprehended both in Congress and out of it, it is that document. The followin is a brief synop sis of the views of the President contained in that paper. It assumes and asserts the powerin the president to appoint provisional governors of the rebel States, to give them authority to call conventions, and to reestablish civil gOvernments in them. This it claims as an exccutivepower, a power derived under the Constitution, apower which he has exercised; but, sir, a power which in my judgment exists for him in no part of the Constitution. In this document he claims the right to reorganize civil governments as and for State governments in the rebel States, with all the powers, rights, and privileges of States of and in the iiion. In short, he claims the power, as the Executive of the U.S., to make peace with the States once in insurrection. Sir, under what clause of the Constitution does the President find the power to proclaim and reestablishence, after a state of war has intervened, whet erwith aforeign country withwhich we may happ en to be at war, or a State or district declare by Congress to be in insurrection? He has not the power under the Constitution to make war, and for the same reason he has no power under the Constitution to make peace; an Congress has never in any statute given him any authority whatever to declare peace even in regard to the rebel States. Gentlemen will look in vain for any such authority. In the act of 1861 the President was authorized to declare certain States in insurrection; but, sir, Congress never gave to him any power to declare the insurrection to be at an end, much less to declare the insuirectionary districts again restored to the status they occupied before the war, or to declare that peace in the full constitutional sense of the term has been restored.