Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, my principle is to support AndrewJohnson when he is right and to op se him when he is wrong, and that is the principle upon which I practice in relation to all Presidents and all parties and all administrations; but I will proceed. How can Congress of the conqueror of the southern States? Is Congress clothed by the Constitution with any military power? Not a particle. It is invested with the power to declare war, but not to declare war against a State or any portion of the people of the U.S., but only against foreign nations. such is the plain meaning of the Constitution and the ruling of the Supreme Court. That position is conceded by all American statesmen. The war power of Congress has no a pliea cation whatever to the suppression o insurrection or rebellion, except merely to exercise the legislative power to raise and support armies, to provide a Navy, and to call forth the militia and to raise the necessary supplies to enable the President to suppress the insui rection and see that the laws are faithfully executed. That fulfills the whole power and duty of Congress in the suppression of insurrection and rebellion; the consummation of the work belongs to the President, and not by the authority of Congress, but the Constitution. Iconcede that when the U.S. is invaded, when a State or a portion of the people are in a state of insurrection, when ore is such domestic violence in a State as requires the protection of the U.S., to decide when the state of facts amount to either of those conditions does not appertain to the President as “Commander in Chief, ” and is nowhere given to him by the Constitution; yet he is invested with that high discretionary power. How, then, does he get it? By the act of Congress. 1st, by the act of 1793; 2nd, by the act of 1795; and lastly, by the act of July, 1861, in the section which I have read. Whence the authority of Congress to invest the President with this power? Here it is in these few words of the Constitution: “ Congress shall havepowerto makeall laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitutionin the Governmentof the U.S or any Dept or officerthereof." Mr. President, these provisions of the constitution and of the laws of Congress have been before the Supreme Court, and have been construed by the final arbiters, organized by the Constitution, after the maturest consideration. I will refer, 1st, to the case of Martin vs. Mot ley, 12 Wheaten. It came ii to the Supreme Court from the State of NewpYork. The President had made a call on the Governor of that State for a militia force. Martin had been enrolled and ordered by the proper military authority to report at the place of rendezvous, but failed. the powers of the President, the duties of subordinate military officers to obey his orders, and the effect upon the militiamen, all arose asquestions in the ease, and the court, in the opinion, say: " If we look at the language of the act of1'195e.very conclusiondrawn from the nature of the power itself is strongly fortified. The words are, 'iv eucmr the U.S shall be invaded or be in imminent of invasion. the" it shall be lawful for til! President, the"to call forthsuchnumber of the miltia. & 'c.p, p, he may JUd‘B necessaryto repel swll invasion. That is a quotation from the kw. the reasoning of the court: “ The poweritself is confided to the Exefllliv}!0f the Union, to him who is. by the Constitution. llm Comiiinnder in Chief of the militia wben Milled into the actualserviee of the U.S., ’wnflfledubyll; is to take carethatt c laws be faithful! executed and whoseresponsibiity for an honest lichm‘lloOf his official obligationsls secured by the hiuhest sanetions. he is necessarilyconstituted the judi!" 0" "I; existence of the exigency in the 1st instance.an is Ifbound to act accordingto his belief of the file ts. He doessoact.anddecidestocall forth the militia. his orders for the purpose are in strict conformity with the provisions of the law and it would seemto follow as a necessary consequence that 0V0?! oct donc by a subordinate officer.in Jbelllonce to BHOh orders is equally iustifiable. Th5 low contemhlfl M that, under such circumstances, arilers shall be more to carry the power into effectJmd It ("mnOLthew fore, bea correet inference tha M'Wother DONORbil 8 aiust right to disobeythem. he law does not provide for any appealfrom th Uudgmentof the President or for any right in nibordmete officers to review his decision and in effect defeat it. Whenever astatute givesadiscrctiouflf)’POW" [,0 {my person. 30 be exercisedby himuponhis own opinion of certain facts, it is asound rule of construction that the stat ute constitutes him the sole and exclusive Judge of the existenceof thosefacts. And in the present ease weare all of opinion th' t such is the true construction of the act of 1735. this no answer that such a power may be abused for there is no powerwhieh is not susceptibleof abuse." In precise accordance to the judgmentof the Supreme Court in that case was its ruling in the case of Luther vs. Borden, which arose out of the Dorr rebellion in RhdIsland. I will read one or 2 short passages from that opinion. Speaking of the act of 1795, the court say: “By this net, the power of deeidin whether the exigeneyhad arisen ugon WhiCll the governmentof the U.S. is ound to interfere, i s giycn to the President. He is to act upon the application of the Legislature or of the Executive." That is, when there is domestic violence in a State, as was the case then in RhdIsland. “ And consequentlyhe must determinewhat body of men constitute the Legislature, and who is the Governor, beforehe can set." This principle, as the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] said some time ago, in relation to another matter, runs in several directions. It is an important principle. It has a multiform application; and it may receive other and more important applications in the course of events. I do not know that it will. I hope there will be no necesSit for it. If there should be, have no knowledge that it. will be exercised, although it ought, and might be with the plainest sanction of the Constitution, and the highest considerations of duty and patriotism operating upon the President. "The fact that both parties claim the right to the government cannot alter the case, for both‘eanpot Seentitled to it. If there is an armed conflict, like the one ofwhich Wearespeaking, it is a case of do mcstic violence, and oneof the parties must he in insurrection against the lawful government. And the Presidentmust, of necessity. Ecide which is the government, and which party is unlawfully arrayed againstit, before hecan perform the duty imposed upon him by the act of Congress." What was the decision of the President in that case? He decided that the old charter government of RhdIsland was the true and legitimate government of the State; that the Governor, under that charter government, was the true and legitimate executive Chief Magis trate of that State. He decided that the Dorr government was s urious; that the election of Door under it, an every attempt to set up and organize a government under teDorr coast: line istution in the State of RhdIsland was illegal, unconstitutional, void, a wrong, and an outrage upon the existing government, and authorized the existing government to put it and all of its supporters down by force of arms. The President in that ease did not interfere by the actual march of troops into RhdIsland, but he declared his purpose to do so, and thattion declara induced tie insurgents and the Dorrites to submit. Here is what the court say on flat point: 'lTheinterferenceof the President, therefore, by mmune in his determination.was as effectualas if the iiilitin. ad assembledunder his orders. And it I 0m! be equally authoritative. For certainly up "Mk", f the U.S., with a knowledgeof this decisioi" 1Tb!“ he had determined to interfere sim P 3'“Will have been justified in recognizingthe eppoBIDEDart yas th lawful government:or in treat mB "3WYOHKdeersand insur cutsthe odicersof the Bwoavseprrnempaeruetd which the President had recognized and to support by an armed force." liere is' auother point stated in this 0 inion which carries a truth, a principle with it,0 which I have an application to made presently: “In the caseof foreign nations, the Government peknowlodged by the President is alwaysrecognised in the courtsofJustice. And this principle has been aoppthlieedUbnyiotnh.e” act of Congress to the sovereign States Let‘gentlemen ponder alittle upon the principle involved in that Ian age. In relation to foreign countries, we al know, as the uniform practice and histo. of the Government, that whenever the Presint recognizes an existing defacto foreign Government, the congress and the courts, and all the authorities of the U.S., in obedience or in confor mity, at least, to the acknowledgment by the President, recognize the existence of the some government. And the court says, “this principle has been applied by the act of congress to the sovereign States of the Union.” ere is the very pomt decided, that when a State is acknowledged by the President it will then be recognized by the courts the act of 1795vesting that power in the President. This opinion, in remarkingu on the provision of the act of 1795, which was tesubject of the main question in the case of Martin vs. Mott, says: “ The power given to the President in each case is the same "That is, in relation to invasions, insurrections, or domestic violence“.witb this differeneeonlyI that it cannot be exeroisedby him in the latter case except upon the application of the Legislatureor Executive of the State. The case above mentioned arose out of a call made by the Presidentby Virtueof the power conferred on him by “ the 1st clause; and the court said that‘ lienevera statute givesa discretionar power to any person to be exercised by him upon is own toiponinion ef eertain facts, it is a sound rule of construc that the statute constituteshim the sole and exclusivoJuds'eof the existence of those facts.’" There is no appeal from his judgment; there is no correction of it; there can be no revision of it; it is the law and the fact of the case; and it must be so received by all, not only by military officers who are exercising power in subordination to him as “ Common er in Chief, ” but by Congress and by the courts; and such has been the uniform practice of the entire Government and all its officers. The op"inion proceeds: It is asouudrule of construction that the statute constituteshim the sole and exclusive jud o of the existence of those facts.’ The facts that me 0 upthe easeupon which he is to act bymoving the armed forcesof the U.S." What I have read from the Constitution, the laws of Congress, and the decisions of the Supreme Court, establish these propositions: that in 1861 it was the power, right, and duty of the President to decide whether, in any locali of the U.S., by reason of unlow jul obstructions, combinations, or assem blages of persons, ” orinsnrrection or rebellion inst the authority of the Government of the U.S., it was “im practiceble to enforce, by the ordinary course 0 judicial proceedin s, die laws of the U.S.;n and that his decision of this point is final, and concludes Congress and all the depts and officers of the Government. an all the people of the U.S. The enforcement of the execution of the laws in the places where the obstructions existed had become a military operation; and all that Congress had the power to do, and which it was its hi best duty to perform, was to furnish the Presient with the men and the mone to enable him to take care that the laws be uly executed. That could only be done by the removal, the cessation, the non-existence of further resistance and obstruction. When the work was thus completed, whether by the vol untary submission of the insurgents, or their suppression by force of arms, the office of the President in the important matter was fulfilled; military operations and military expenses in it were to terminate, and Congress was under no obligation to vote more men and more money to put down an insurrection, arebellion which no onger had existence, or for the enforcement of the execution of the laws to which there was no longer either resistance or obstruction. But there was a necessity for some power, some officer of the Government to, declare when the insurrection was suppressed. There is such a power and such an officer to execute it; and who is he? The Constitution had been attacked by an armed resistAnce to the execution of the laws, and an attempt to set up an independent power and government within the U.S. It is made the duty of the President, by the Constitution, to the best of his ability to preserve, protect, and defend that Constitution, and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed throu bout the U.S. To give him the a ility to perform those important trusts he is made by the constitution the permanent Commander in Chiet of the whole military force of the U.S. The law intrusts him with the sole, exclusive and unappealable power to decide when an where there is an insurrection or an armed resistance to the execution of the laws; and the Constitution and the law authorize him to move the whole military force to suppress the insurrection, to stiflegal resistance or obstruction to the due execution of the laws. He is to determine upon and conduct every movement and operation to that end, and to continue them until it is effected. Not Congress, but the President, in fact and of necessity, is the functionary to know and declare when the work has been ended, and then to withdraw the military forces. Congress cannot know when it is done, but he knows because it is being done under his orders, and he is in constant communication with those who are in the performance of it. Congress might not be, as it was not, in session when the late rebellion terminated biitthe Senfrom Michigan says it was the duty of the Presidentio convene Congress. It might be that a large number of the members of Congress were not then chosen. And for what purpose is Congress to be convened? That it might be idformed by the President that he had suppressed the rebellion by the operations of the Army; or that it had terminated by the voluntary submission of the insurgents; and that it might authorize him to withdraw and disband the forces, and sto the heavy expenditure of public money when here was no onger any armed resistance in existence or threatened, but, on the contrary, all was submission, obedience, and peace. Could any proposition be more absurd and unsound? No, sir. The President is the constitutional and legal organ to decide and declare when the insurrection begins, how long it continues, and when it ends; and it is the duty of all the other depts and officers of Government to accept and act upon the particular state of the affair according to his decision and judgment upon it. But the Senfrom Michigan announces that the southern States and people, in consequence of their rebellion, have ceased to be States, and have forfeited all their rights as States and American citizens. That Congress is their conqueror, and holds them this day in the condition of a conquered people, and has the right so to hold them until the interests and the will of the conquerors will allow them to reconstruct the States that revolted and re admit them as States into the Union; that this whole business of the recstablishment of relations between these States and the Government of the U.S. is a congressional affair exclusively, with which the President has nothing to do; and that “ his policy " of reconstruction is nothing but arrant and audacious usurpation of power, an infringement of the rights and powers of Congress, to which it ought not and cannot submit without deg raation. A most lofty and imperial pretension, trul, made for Congress by the Senfrom Miclyi iganl And where is its warrant? Not in the Constitution. If it be there, will some of the Websters, the Kents, and the Storys of the majority in this body refer me to the provision, that I may read it and be instructs? But hcither the Senator, nor any of his coadjutors in support of this measure, can find any support for this most extravagant claim of power or Congress in the Constitution. Indeed, he deigus not to place it on so humble a footing, but in swelling phrase claims it for Congress, as the conqueror of those States, and by the laws of war. If there be any right to the a pellation of conqueror in the suppression of the rebellion it would appertain to the President rather than to Congress. But there was no war, no conquest, no bel ligerent rights in this great and terrible civil strife, accordin to the sense in which those terms are foun in publicists and the laws of nations. The 2 atter are not named in the Constitution, and as between the U.S and the States, in its meaning, spirit, and scope, they have no covert existence there. The term “war” is found in the Constitution, but with no reference to a conflict between the U.S and any of the States or any portion of the people. It refers only to contests of arms with foreign nations, and such has been the construction of the Supreme Court and of every American statesman. by the letter, meaning, and spirit of the Constitution, as expounded by all this high authority, Congress cannot declare war against a State or any portion of the people of the U.S. Certainl ', no State can make war against the U.S., and have belligerent rights. It is not war in the sense in which the term is used in international law and as it is ado ted by our Constitution. Between the U.S and the people or the States lately in rebellion there was, then, no war, no belligerent rights on either side. What was it and what law a plied to and governed it? Upon the part of t ie revolted States and people it was an armed resistance to the authority and laws of the U.S., a great insurrection, thou by not pervading all nor a majority of the States. It was just such an affair as the men who made the Constitution contemplated might occur, and for which they made provision in it. the rovided that the constitution, and laws vo congress made in pursuance of it, should be the supreme law of the land; that all oliicers, both Federal and State, should take an oath to support;it that the President, before entering upon the execution of his office, should take an oath, to the best of his ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution; that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed; that congress should have power to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain nuvics, to evy taxes, and borrow money without limit, if need be, to the utmost capacity of the U.S. to provide for calling forth the entire militia of the States to put down the insurrection, and should make all laws which might be necessary and proper or to give full effect to the powers which) 1Y1 dent should, by his own unquestioned and unquestionable will, as “ Commander in Chief, ” move this vast array of military power, land and naval to suppress the insurrection, to reinstate the authority of the U.S., and to enforce the due execution of their laws whenever and wherever they might be resisted or obstructed. In the late great exigeuce that was all that was needful to be done, all that the Government and authorities of the U.S. were authorized by the Constitution to do. The wisdom and efficiency of the whole provision has been illustrated by the perfect military suppression of the stu endous insurrection, by e universality an completeness of the submission of the insurgents, by their true and general quiescence, beyond all par allel after such a profound and impassioned upheaving. But there was a possible national disorder, so deep and so pervasive, but so improbable and so utterly remediless, for which, if it ever should come into being, the wise and far seein men who framed the Constitution attempted to provide no remedy. When the General Government should become continuously so perverted and oppressive in its administration as to have caused fixed discontent and hostility to it throughout the U.S. when a majority of the State Legislatures would no longer choose Senators in ougress; when they would no longer direct the manner in which the presidential electors of their respective States should be appointed; when a majority of the peeple of a majority of the States 5 ould refuse to elect a Legislature to direct the manner in which their presidential electors shall be appointed, or should themselves have refused to choose such electors, the members of the Convention well knew that the political malady would have reached an extremity when it would be irremediable; and they did not attempt the vain task of prescribing a remedy. They tacit ly conceded that the Government which they were about founding would then cease to be, and that the country and its destinies must be submitted to God and the people, and that reconstruction in some form, unseen unknown to them, must come. But until that final catas trophe all was to be for the support, the defense, the preservation, and vindication of the Constitution and system of government which they had fashioned. The possible condition of the country, as I have depicted it, is thus adverted to by Mr. Madison, in the 43rd number of the feder"alist: Should it beasked.what is theredressfor aninsur rection pervadingall the States and comprising the superiorit of all the force.though not a constitutional right? the answer must be. that such a case. as it wouldbe without the compassof human reme (1105s.o it is fortunately not within the compassof human probability: and that it is a sufficient recommendation of the Federal Constitution, that itdimin ishes the risk of calamity for which no possible constitution canprovide a.cure." Mr. President, we often hear it asserted that the Government of the U.S. was made to be peretual; that it has all the rights of self defense; that the national life must be preserved. All such language is inappro priate, and expresses ideas not fitted to our country and Government. The Constitution does not expressly provide for its dissolution, but it does impliedly. The same power which made it may at any time terminate its existence in any mode it may will. In the 45th number of the Federalist, Mr. Madison says: "The State governmentsmay be regarded asconstituent and essential partsof the Fe cral Government while the latter is nowiseessentialto the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the StateLegislatures.the President 21' tbp U.S. cannot be electedat all. The SenateWill beelectedabsolutely and exclusively by the StateLegislatures." The members of the Convention knew as have enumerated; and that the Presi, much of the Constitution and the Government which they formed, its structure in all its parts, and its weaknesses. as any of their successors. They knew full well that if a majority of the States and of the peeple of those States persistently determined not to choose Senators or presidential electors or Representatives in Congress, that the Government was thereby brought to an end. They made no provision to avert that consequence. The Constitution expressly provides that each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Sens&Reps to which the State may be entitled in Congress; that those electors shall vote for President, and the person having the greatest number of votes shall be President, if such number he a majority of the whole number of electors apointed; and if no person have such ma'ority, then from the ersous having the big est number, not exceeding 3 on the list of those voted for, the HoRep, voting by States and by ballot, shall choose the President. If all the States should appoint electors, and the majority of them should refuse to vote at all for President, that officer could not be elected, and consequently the Government would be broughtto an end. Again, if all the electors should vote for President and no person should receive a majority of the whole number appointed, and the election should thus be devolved on the HoRep, votiu by States, and the majority of the States s uld refuse to vote, or voting, to vote for the same person, there could be no presidential election, and in that wa the government would be brought to a dea lock. In all these and other ways the men who made the Government knew it could be term inated, and they devised no means to avoid it. Their purpose was that it should give liberty and security to the people, and for its strengt and permanence s on d win and rest upon their confidence and attachment; that when it became perverted, corrupt, and oppress ive, and the people could no longer consent to its continuance, they should have several modes of bringing it to a close. It has no principle or power of self pep etuation. It has no right of self defense. Al its depts and officers are bound to support, protect, and defend it; but it is by the use of the powers and means with which they are intrusted by the Constitution and the laws; and they cannot resort to others without usurpation and crime. A Government or being possessed of the right of self defense may seize and use all means within its reach so far as the may be necessary to enable it to repel attac s upon it, from whatever quarter they may come. The powers of the Government of the U.S. spring from no such source, and are commensurate with no such principle. They arise wholly from a written Constitution, and exist only to the extent that it, by its language, confers them. The phrase “national life” is also incorrect, untruthful, and delusive. Life is the state of an organized being in which its natural powers and functions are self operating and continue its existence. If the States were to ceaseto exist there could be no continuance of a President and Senate for the nation, and all the organ ism, the very being of the nation, so imperfect as to be visible, would at once come to dissolution. The national or Federal Government and Union and the States and their governments are essential parts of the same system; but the being. the life of the latter, wou d continue even if the former were destroyed; but if the latter were to perish the former would die with them. But “ national life, " “loyalty, ” and “disloyalty” with us in latter years are only “catch words" intended to deceive and mislead. Political loyalty in the U.S. means fidelity to the Constitution and laws, support of those in office, so far as they perform their duties in accordance with them; sympathy and cooperation with all true friends of the Constitution and laws; the maintenance of the division of political sovereignty and power between the General Government and the States as it is made by the Constitution, to the former all that is conferred on it, and to the latter all that is reserved to them by the Constitution; and resisting all assaults upon these principles whether they may proceed from foreign or domestic enemies, private citizens, or men in office and power. This is the only true standard of American loyalty, and men are loyal or disloynl as their words and acts conform to or depart from it. But, sir, when the President has, by the agency of the military forces of which he is Commander in Chief, occupied the portions of country where the insurrection had been made and suppressed it, whatis next to be done? If the Icongovernments have been overthrown or disorganized, the Commander in Chicf, by his subordinates, must, ad interim, organize a quasi government to prevent crime and to protect persons and property until the government of the States can be reorganized and put into operation. But this military governmentarise! from the exigency and necessity of the occasion and with that it passes away and is supersede by theState governments. What else is the President to do? He is to give his counsel, aid, and protection to the people of the State in their efforts to reorganize their government by electing and instaling their Governor, members of the Legislature, and judges. ‘And what is to be done to reestablish relations between the State and the Government of the U.S., and what depts and officers are to do it? The President is to not 1st. He issues his proclamation announcing that the insurrection is suppressed. He appoints district attorneys, marshals, postmasters, collectors of customs and internal taxes for the State, and he recstablilshes the mails, collects the public revenue and takes care that the laws of the U.S. are executed in them; and this is what I understand he has done in relation to the rebel States this is his policy. Then the judicial dept takes up the matter. The Supreme Court looks over its docket, and finds upon it cases from the States lately in rebellion. It knows and concedes the fact that the rebellion has been suppressed; the President by his public proclamation has so informed it and the country. It then proceeds toacknowledge those States latel in rebellion as present existing members of the U.S., and in conformity to the Constitution and laws of Congress orders the cases brought from them up to this court before the insurrection, and any during its continuance, to be set down for hearing, which could not be done unless the localities from whence they come were existing States and in the Union. During the entire period of the insurrection there were members of the Supreme Court, resident of States actively engaged in the rebellion until it was put down, and who had been assigned to circuits constituted of the rebel States; and they formed part of the court at each term, just as the judges resident in and whose circuits were formed of States which the rebellion never reached. But a few days since an application was made to Justice Nelson, of the Sn reine Court, for a writ of habeascorpus on be half of a prisoner confined in one of the penitentiaries of the Suite of NewYork. On the return of the writ, and the bringing up the prisoner before the judgi, it appeared that since the insurrection had on suppressed he, a citizen of SCarolina, had been tried by a military commission on a charge of murder, found guilty, and condemned for a long period to confinement in the penitentiary, where he was held under said judgment. The learned judge ruled that SCarolina was a State of the U.S., in the Union, and possessed of, or entitled to, all the rights and powers of a State; that the trial of the prisoner ibr the crime of murder belonged properly and exclusively to the authorities of that State; and that the judgment of the military commission was void and of no effect; and the judge ordered the prisoner to be discharged. But, Mr. President, what have been the action and decisions of the Senate on questions dependent upon the fact whether the States in which the rebellion existed were States in the:UDlOIl? Before the extra session of Congress in l8til Virginia had passed her ordinance of secession, and was then the chief power.of the rebellion. 'Her State government ensting at the beginnin of the insurrection had been dissolved, an mostof its officers had renounced the Government of the U.S and adhered to the southern confederacy. A new State government was organized by her loyal citizens who were in a small minority; 2 gentlemen, Messrs. Willey and Carlile, were cho senby the new Legislature to be the Senators of Virginia, and the new Governor, Peirpoint, gave them his commission under the great seal of the State as Senators of that ancient commonwealth. Thoseefentlemen brought their credentials and ask to be admitted as senators from the State of Virginia. The President, then Senator] ohnson, himself representing the rebel State of Tennessee, presented their cre dentials to the Senate and moved that they be permitted to take the oath and their seats as euators. This was opposed by Mr. Bayard, who moved that their credentials be referred to the ComJudiciary; but this was strenuousl resisted by Senators Johnson, collamer, Ha e, Trumbull, and others. I will read passages from some of their speeches, and 1st, of Senator Johnson: “Now. sir we have the credentials hero fair on their face. They pur art to be the credentials of Senators electe byt 0 old Commonwealthof Virginia. signed by a person purporting to be th governor 0 Virginia and under the great seal of the State. This appears to befair! But Senatorssay. ‘Oh. well: but we know this is not the Legislature of Virginia; there is another Legislature and there is another man who is Governor.‘ Well. if you are con]: nowlcodugteside of these credentials to rely on the which you have of the condition of thin s in the state of Virginia. then you know that the olld Governor of Virginia and the old Legislatureare in rebellion against the countr. They are rebelsand traitors in armsagainstthe government and are not to berecognisedas the governmentof Virginia. but are to berecognizedas enemiesand traitors. whom the whole power of thisGovernment is now at forth to subdueand bring into obedienceto the constitution and the laws; and I wouldtoGod thatthepower was usedto bring themto obedience1” Senator Collamer said: “There aretwo difficultieswhich are suggestedin this case. 1st. it is said that this is a certificate coming from a new governmentof Virginia. a new organisation separated from the rest of the State. but actin for the State as a State. This is in the nature 0 ajudicial proceeding' we are nowjudgin of the qualificationsof our more crs. It is not at a] an uncommon thing in our highest tribunals that points arisein the investigation of caseswherethe court areconstrainedto say ‘that is a political question; with that the courts avenothing to do.’ For instance. whether a foreign Government recently commencedhas become an independent people. whetherin court it is to be treate and considered as a: nation is not a point on which the court can decide. That is a political question; and if the excentivehead of the Government has received ministers from that power.recognised it as a power on earth the courts cannot go into the questionwhether he did it right or did it wrong. It is a matter of political action and the political power is what settles it and wecannotexamineinto it any more. "In analoiy to that in this judicial rocceding C mustwe not governed by the act thatt cgovernmentof Virginia that has executed these papers and sent them to us is recognized by our Executive ‘2 The have called on him or militia and have receive militia from him. He recognizesthem as the governmentof Virginia. It is a political question; it is settled. There is no occasion for our inquiring further into that. We as:1 Judicial bodyon this question have nothing to dowith that. Here is the 1:00 Min: of that State recognizedby the Executive of this Government: there is the end of that subject. Whether a courseof proceedingsmight be instituted nrnon us topull on our Executive to knowwhether he di this rightfully or not is alt/089mm a different affair. The are definitethe ovcynment recognised by us. We aveno moreto do With “‘31 ” All the Republican Senators who entered Into the debate, including the chadflmui of the ComJudiciary, [ML sustained the views of Messrs. JoThRnUsoMnBULaLn, 3 Collamer, and when the Senate came to vote on the motion to refer the credentials of Messrs. Willey and Carlile to the ComJudiciary for investigation, and a report upon the facts and principles involved, there were, in favor of the motion: Bayard, Bright, Polk, Powell and Sanlsbury. Against it:. Immediately upon this over whelming vote, and without further question, Messrs. Willey and Carlile were permitted to be sworn, and took their seats as Senators from the old Commonwealth of Virginia. In this matter the Senate was sitting and acting as a court and was adjudging of the “elections, returns, andqualifications of its own members;" and what points did it decide and sustain? 1. That notwithstanding the State of Virginia had passed an ordinance of secession and was in the condition of armed and active insurrection against the U.S., still she was one of the U.S and in the Union. 2. That this great question was nota judicial, but a political question; and as the Senate, in its connection with the matter, was a quasi court, it could take no cognizance of this political question; but only of judicial questions. connected with the elections, returns, andqualifications of the applicants as Senators from irginia. 8. That the President is the proper officer and power to decide that politica question. 4. That be having decided it affirmatively, the Senate and all the depts and officers of the Government were ound by his decision, and must act upon the fact that Virginia was one of the U.S. 5. That Messrs. Willey and Carlile having the proper returns or evidence of their election in the commission of the Governor under the great seal of the State, were entitled "ma fade to their seats; that they were to e admitted to them at once; and all question of their right to hold them must be afterward examined by the Senate through the medium of its committee, and be judiciall decided by it. The Senfrom Michigan EMr. Hownn] has announced to the Senate that he was not then a member of this body; that if he had been, he would have voted against the admission of Messrs. Willey and Carlile as Senators from the State of Virginia. He may now think so; but I am inclined to the belief that he would not have taken that position alone and have broken the unanimit of his party upon that question. But West Wirginia was agor ward admitted as a new State into the Union, and Senator Willey residing in and being chosen one of the Senators from it, a senatorial vacancy occurred in the old State of Virginia; and while the most of her territory was still occupied by the rebels in arms, the body calling itself her Legislature chose Mr. Bowden as a Senator to fill the vacancy. He appeared, claimed his seat, and was permitted by the Senate to take it; and the Senfrom Michigan intervened no objection. But he says that the precedentof admitting Senators from States in rebellion had been made in the case of Messrs. Wille and Curlile, and he yielded and acknowledged the authonity of that prece dent. This course of the Senator was very reasonable and proper, because that precedent was sustained by tename and authority of that eminent jurist and statesman and pure and elevated patriot, the late Senator Colla mer, upon whom the Senator a few days since expressed in this Chamber a high but most just pancgyric. If the Senfrom Michigan, in the case of Mr. Bowden, conceded the authority of the single precedent in the admission together of Senators Willey and Carlile, and chose to give the high authority of his name to another in the case of Mr. fiewden, when the rebels were still fiercely continuing their insurrection; now, one year after it has been thorough] suppressed, by the surrender of all their armies, and the unconditional submission and obedience of the whole people of the States that were in insurrection to the laws and authority of the U.S., with what consistency or reason can the Senfrom Michigan o pose the admission of senators from those States? But, Mr. President, both Houses of congress, including the Senfrom Michigan, have admitted, in the vest and most important form, that all the rebel States, notwithstanding they were making a cat struggle in arms for their separation angrindepeuence, were States in the Union, by the passage of the law of 1862 apportioning representation among all the States according to the census of 1860, in which each of the rebel States are named, and its proper number of Representatives given to it by the same rule and in similar language as is applied to the States unaffected by the rebellion. Again, all those States voted for the adoption of the amendment to the Constitution, by which slavery was abolished throughout the U.S.; and with the approval of the Government and all its depts and officers, and also of the entire people. their votes were counted in favor of its adotion. And the very amendment now repose, by its spe cific language, is required, to be referred for acee tance or rejection to the States lately in rebellion. In the face of the resume which I have made, is it not passing strange that any Senator, or anyintelligent man, should hold to the position that by their ordinances of secession and abandonment of the Union by their governments, and as a consequence of armed resistance to the authority and laws of the U.S. by the governments and people of those States, they ceased to be States of the Union, and forfeited all their rights, political, civil, and personal, under the Constitution; that the termination of the war and their unconditional submission and adherence to the U.S., left them in the condition of a conquered country and people, with their governments utterly dissolved; that Congress or the POTUS become possessed of all the powers and rights of a conqueror over them; that they could be held in that condition at the pleasure of the conqueror, and could become States again only by Songress passing an enabling act and read mitting them into the Union as States, subject to such terms and conditions as it might choose to impose upon them? All this is revolting heresy, and at war with our Constitution, its letter and spirit, and our whole political system. I have said that an insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. is not treated by our Constitution as a war, but as a great domestic disorder; and the pewerto meet it, with which the Government is invested, is in the nature of the police power. Police in its large sense, according to Blackstone, is the internal regulation and government of a kingdom or State, and all the military power of a State is the final reserve of its police power. In the U.S. the militia of all the States is expressly made so, by congress being empowered to provide for calling Igorth the militia (without any limit) to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. Whcn a riot is suppressed by the local police power no change in the order of things is proneed. There may be an insurrection against the government and laws of a city, as has occurred in Baltimore and NewYork. The insur enu may overthrow the city government and cm inate it for days. It may require the extraordinary reserves of the police power to be intervened to suppress the outbreak; but when that is done, no destruction or revolution or change of the city government has taken place; its organism and powers have been obstructed in their operation, but they remain perfect in their existence; and so soon as the obstruction is removed they resume their authority, and have their effect as though there had been no interruption. When there was domestic violence in RhdIsland, caused by Dorr's rebellion against the State, the power of the U.S. was invoked for its protection. If the rebel government had overthrown the legitimate government and driven all its officers from e State before the U.S. had acted in the matter, and afterward their military power had subdued the insurgents and occupie the State, it would only have been for the restoration of the deposed government to its authority in the State, and no measure would have been necessary to effect that; but it would have taken place at once s ontane ously upon the detruSion of the robe government. "he U.S. would have been the victor, but. not the conqueror, and would have had none of the power or rights of a conqueror. Their arm would have been there in the performance o a special service, a duty enjomed by the Constitution, solely for the protection of [{hdIsland and to reinstate her government; it would have had no authority to not further, and there could be no other legitimate consequence of its action. So where there is insurrection or rebellion against the U.S., although both the people and the governments of States may have embarked in it, the duty, business, and authority of the government of the U.S. is to suppress it, nothing more. That is all that the Constitution authorizes to be done in the case, and when that is eifected the only consequences are that the Constitution, laws, and authority of the U.S. are reinstated; the States, their governments and people, that were in voivetf in the revolt, are reduced to obedience to them; the Federal and State governments resume all their powers, and the eo 10 all their rights, except. those of which the law may have deprive them; and things move on in the same relations as before the disturbance. The only objects and ends of the power to suppress insurrections and rebellions are to support, protect, and preserve the General and State governments; to defend and perpetuate the union of the States under the Constitution; to oppose and arrest revolution, notto make it, and to hold the States in the Union, not to put them out of it. All this can be done only y the armies of the U.S. marching into the States in rebellion, and subduing the rebels; and the proposition that the successful iise of the means which the Constitution authorizes for no other purpose than to avert those consequences, and which defeated the rebels in their great efforts to effectthem, should of itself produce them, is a monstrous absurdity. No, Mr. President, a State once admitted into the Union is there in perpetuity unless displaced by revolution, by force ofarms, or in some other form. The State cannot take herself out, nor can the Government of the U.S., or both together, effect that by any arrangement. There may be a rebellion so formidable as to dominate a State and hold possession of it, and suppress the authority and laws of the U.S. in it for a time; a State may be invaded and occupied by a foreign enemy, and a hostile government established in it for years; but in either state of case she remains all the time, dejure, one of the U.S., a State in the Union: and on the’su pression of the rebellion, or the expulsion of the foreign enemy, by the power and effect of the Constitution and the inherent capabilities of the State. all her rights, powers, and functions would resume their operation; and the relations between her and the U.S. would be I re'estabiished. There would have been no dissolution of the State, and there would be no need and could not be any reconstruction of it. A large part of the State of Maine whtaken possession of by the armies of Grea Britain in the war of 1812, and a foreign government established over it; and upon the withdrawal of that army the suspended authority and laws of Maine resumed their operation without any legislation, State or national. congress has the power to admit a new State into the Union once, and that is all the power.it has in relation to the admission of States. It CtllnHOt eject and readmit States, either new or o d. The only rehabilitation of the States lately in rebellion that is needed, or that is consistent with the Constitution, is, for the U.S., by the different depts of its government. to fulfill their appropriate duties to them. That has already been done by the executive and judicial depts; the legislative only continues to be contumacious; and what has it omitted to do to make cemplete and perfect the relations between those States and the U.S.? The Constitution and laws of congress provide that each one of those States shall have a certain number of members in the HoRep of Congress, and the Constitution further declares: “The Senate of the U.S shall be composed of 2 Senators from each State.chosenby the Legislature thereof." rite. Those States, 6 months since, respectively elected their Sens&Reps, who, early in the session, appeared with their credentials and asked of their respective Houses to be admitted as members, and their admission would have completed the reestablilshment of relations between those States and the U.S and their government. The Constitution makes each House of congress “ the judge of the elections, returns, and uaiiiications of its otvn members;” and an t orizes it to punish its members for disorderly behavior, and1 with the concurrence of 2/3rds to ex01 a member. But it confers no power on tchouses separately, or on congress, to exscinda State for any cause from all representation in it; and yet by what they term a concurrent resolution, which no person contends to have any constitutional or legal validity, they have ostracized the 11 States lately in rebellion by refusing to admit wholly their Sens&Reps, however loyal they may have been to the U.S. throughout the rebellion. They thus mutilate Congress by cutting off 22 Senators and 61 Representatives, and exclude 11 States from taking any part in the government. But the Constitution is mandatory, that every State shall have 2 Senators, and a number of Representatives in proportion to their population. As a retext to evade or defy tiis vital principle, that majority at the beginning of this session assumed the position that those States by their rebellion lia ceased to be States in the Union, and “onbeing subjudgated by the armies of the U.S. had been reduced to the condition of a country conquered by them, and were, therefore, not entitled to have representatives in congress or take any art in the Government. This most extraor inary position was never taken until long after the rebels had made unconditional submission to the Government and laws of the U.S. It has not a vestige of authority or sanction in the Constitution, and is in opposition to the frequent and unbroken legislation of Congress to December last, and of every measure, proclamation, and utterance of the Executive, and every act of the judiciary touching those States from the breaking out of the rebellion. Congress stands concluded on that question by having levied a direct tax on those States and apportioned representation to them 00 lllOlfolM thcllt‘Oto them, or the United nomine as States in the Union, by invo several acts passed while the rebellion was ragin. This puissant majority of the 2 Houses sens forth its imperial edict that the people of those States are not sufficiently loyal to be readmitted as States into the Union and to take part in the Government; that they must improve their loyait by submitting to a probation before it. Will a low them to come back and have any share in governing themselves. But it most graciously informs them that if they will amend their constitutions, by introducing an article giving suffrage to the negro, it would receive that as evidence of their perfect loyalty, and readmit them as States into the Union upon that article as a fundamental and unalterable condition, and their Sens&Reps should be permitted to take their seats. But whether it would respect or obliterate State lines as they had existed, whether it would permit the reorganization of 11, or would dictate a half dozen, or what number of States out of that disorganized portion of the territory of the U.S., that dom inating majority has not yet spoken. Was there ever asserted before in the whole world such an unauthorized and impudent pretension? The 1st I ever heard of the rebel States having abdicated or forfeited their rights, and being no longer States in the Union, was in February, 1862, when the Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] offered in the Senate a series of resolutions asserting that theor. If there was another Senator who accorde with this doctrine, there was then no utterance of it in the Senate. I have become somewhat acquainted with that Senator's dominating idi0synerasy, and [regarded the propositions stated in his resolutions only as some of his characteristic vagaries. Hotvever, a few days afterward I presented a series of resolutions, which I regarr‘ed as the neaation of his, and which I stated at the timel intended as a counterbiast. I will read those offered by myself: “1. Resolved.That the Constitution of the U.S. is the fundamental law of the Government and the powers established and granted mnd as pointed out and vestedby it. the limitations and restrictions which it imposes upon the legislative. executive, and judicial depts and the States and the rights. privileges and liberties whichitassurestothe peopleof the U.S and theStatesrespects ivel. are fixed, permanent and immutable through all the phases 0 prnc‘cand war. until changedby tiic power and in the mode prescribedby the constitution itself: and they cannot be abrogated.re stricted. enlarged or differently npqlortioned or ve“stedby any other poweror in any at or mode. 2. 1feaolnml, That between the Government and the citizen the obligation of protection and obedience form mutual rights anrtobiiaations; and to enubio everycitizento crt‘orm is obligationsof ohedlvnce and loyalty to the Government it should give him reasonab o protectionand security in such perlorin anee;an whon the Governuienttnilgin thatrespect, for it tn hold the citizen to becriminal in not performingjiil dutiesof loyalty andobediencewould be unjust, inh u an Landan outrage upon thisalo of Christian civi isplion. "3. 1320010, hatifnny powers of the Constitution or Government of the U.S., or of theStates or any rights.privileg immunities and liberties of the people of the U.S or the States.are or may hereafter be suspended by the existenceof this war or byan promulgation of martial law, or by the suspension upon 0t10writ of hulmuico us. immediately the termination of the war Sufipowers, rights. privileges, immunities and liberties Would he resumed and would have force and offectas though th"ey had not beensus ended. 4. [temp/ErrT], hat t 10 duty of Congress to guaranty to everyState a RFG.to protect each of them against invasion and on the application of the Legislature.0r Executive thereof, against domestic violence and to enforce the authority. Constitution and lawsof the U.S.in nil the States are constitutional obligations which flbldO all times and circumstances. “5. Itmolvml.That no Statecan.by any vote of so eessien or by rebellion against the authority, Constitution and laws of the U.S., or byanyother act, iilidicate her rights or obligations under that Constitution or thoselaws, or llbSOlVCflQI'Clllll0 from Itates from their obligation to guarantyto such State a RFG and to protect her people bycnusiii tiieduc enforcementwit tin herTerritories of thenut orily, Constitution, andlawsoi the U.S. "6. Remind. That there cannot be any forfeitureo confiscation of the rights of person or property 0 any citizen of the U.S. who is loyal and obedient to the authority thereof or of any person whatsoever unlcss for aets which the law haspreviouslydeclaredtobecriminal and for the punishmentofwhichit hasprOVidedsuch forfeiture or confiscation. 7.Resolved, That it is the duty of the U.S. to subdueand punish the existin rebellion by force of arms and civil trials in the s ortest practicable teiimsivee, alynd With the least eostto the peoplo, but sodo and thoroughlyiis to impressupon the present and future generations. as a great truth, that rebellion. Except for grievous oppression of Government.will bring upon the rebels incomparably more of evil than obedienceto the Constitution and the laws. “8. Resolved, That the U.S. Government should march their armies into all the insurgent States, and romptly put down the military power which they ave urrayed against it, and give protection and securityto the loyal men thereof.to enable them to reconstruct their legitimate State governments, and bring themand the people back to the Union and to obedience and duty under the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. bearingthe swordin onehandand the olive branchin theothor and while inflicting on the guilty leaders condign and exemplary punishment, granting amnesty and obliv ion to the comparativelyinnocent masses: and ifthe people of any State cannot or Will not reconstruct their State governmentand return to loyalty and duty, Congress should provnlen government forsuch State asa Territory of the UU.S., securing to trhigeha.ogplethereof their appropriate constitutional Constitution and laws What is the principal object of the majority of the 2 cases of Congress in plaing this bold and desperate political game? They are in power and are resolved to hazard everything to hold on to it. They have told us in both Houses, and their papers have echoed it1,000 times, that for 3/4ths of the period since the adoption of the Constitution thb southern States had had os session of the Government, and controlle its power, patronage, and operations. They reasoned with themselves thus: if the late slave States, with a population of 12, 240, 500, when the free States have but a small fraction under 20,000,000, and with one 4th less of Representatives in Congress and not so many presidential electors by a 5th, could hold possession of the General Governmentthrce 4ths of the time, what chance will therebe for us if the freeing of their slaves is allowed to have the effect of adding 13 to their Representatives, and the same numberto their presidential electors? The South will be as one man against us, and uniting with the copperheads in the other States, we shall be e'ected from power with no hope of a return. c can prevent our overthrow only by a great augmentation of our political power, for which we have 2 resources. Our friends dominate in all the Territories. It is true they have each only a population amounting to about one 5th of the ratio of a Represaitative, but neverthe less we must erect them into new States. It is true they would be of the English rotten borough system, but still they each would have one Representative and 2 Senators and 3 presidential electors. We want the iu creased power that they would give us, and we are eutitlhd to it by the highest law which we know or acknowledge the law of party necessity and our own self prescriation in office. This general counsel was probably continued: but our main hope and reliance must be upon the negro vote, and we must devise some mode by which to give to freedmen the right of suffrage. To us they owe their freedom, and they know and are grateful for it; let us place in their hands the great lever of politica power, suffrage, and we will put them under obligations that will bind them to us at least for this eneration. Re'enforced by the vote of the freedmen, we can carry the next presidential and congressional elections, and secure to our selves the continuance of power, its offices and rich spoils. We have, too, that piece of cun ningly devised machinery, the Freedmen’s Bus renu; that is of itselfagovernment; our convenient collateral; by our management of it we can keep n distrust and hostility between the black andp white races in the southern states; we can get possession of the freedmon. “19 only laborers in cotton iiclds, which will give us, also, necessarily, the possession of those fields; and, with the aid of our friends and accomplices, the officers and agents of the Freedmen’s Bureau, and their supporting military police, we will be the cotton kings, and control the political power of the southern States. This is a compend of the schemes and policy of the radicals, and explains why the country cannot have union, peace, and the reinstatement of the Constitution, and laws, and the admission of the southern States to their rightful power in the Government though the war has been so long over. The Sens&Reps of those States admitted, and the radicals would be in the minority in Congress, and be 'soonexiled forever from office and plun der. Their cry for justice and protection to the freedman is a most hollow pretext of ambition and selfishness under the guise of justice and humanity. Their scheme is not characterized by wisdom, even in the councils of wickedness; but it is pte'emiuently novel, darin, unpatriotic, and reckless of justice, law, an the Constitution. The admission as States into the Union of Territories with not more population than a single county should have to maintain its local government and institutions; the excission of the 11 southern States from the Government of the U.S.; the expulsion of Senator Stockton, of NewJersey, from this body; the organization and proposed enlar ement of the freedmen’s Bureau; the civil rights bill; the formation of a novel and anom alous cabal to devise in its secret conclaves most important and unprecedented measures to be registered and passed by the 2 Houses the character of the measures which it reported and recommended to Congress; the submission by the majorityof the most important questions of polio and constitutional law toa secret cau cus, an their a reement that every man would ignore the concfusions of his own judgment and conscience where they might diii'er from the decisions of the caucus, and, regardless of all conflict with the Constitution, and all sacrifice of the public good, they would support its decisions it isdifficult to believe, that in this early aeof our country, so near to the stead fast and stainless virtue of our fathers, a party should in the presence of the American people deliberate y acce t such a horrible ro gramme and live a ay; but it is impossible that it can survive long i Mr. President, to see scores of “ tinkers " in ignorance, conceit, and frenzy dashing at the Constitution, disadjusting its admirable har mony, mutilating it of some of its most valueble and vital principles, and raging to deform it with their vicious cruditics, it brings up the idea of a herd of bulls breaking into 8. china store of matchless beauty and value, tramping around, and disorganizing and befonling eve thing which they did not break and demolis. The Constitution of the U.S. is the consummation of all statesmanship. Never before or since it was formed was there employed so large an aggregate of ability, expe rience, and virtue in founding a Government. It was to be made for 13 independent sovereign States, and the great objects to be secured by it were liberty, empire, and strength. The States had each for ltSBlFfl.perfect government, and their Articles of Confederation for the union and defense of all had proved wholly inefficient. The State governments were preserved, and all sovereignty and political power, but what was delegated by the Constitution to the common Government, was retained by the States respectively; and each one was left in the excl nsive possession of the power to govern and control its own people and affairs, so far as they were local to the State; and the affairs of the common Government, of the States, and the people of the different States, in their relations with foreign nations and each other, were in trusted to the common Government. ltwos a mixed Government in some of its features national, in some Federal, and in others blended, and a few were uni ue. Its powers were care fully arranged into t ree general classes, legislative, executive, and judicial, and each assigned to a separate and conrdinate magistracy, and their connections with each other were adjusted with great skill, to make them mutual checks and balances and prevent their encroachments on the rights and iberties of the people and the powers of each other. Without reading the masterly and lumine us analysis which Mr. Madison, in the 49th number of the Federalist, gives of in the extent, nature, classification, and divismn of its powers, and the sources from whence they are derived, I will present to the Senate his closing summary: “The proposed constitution, therefore, evenwhen testevby the rules laid down by its antagonists.is, in str.ctness, neither a national nor a Federal constituton, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is Federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powersof Governmentare drawn it is partly Federal and partlypational; in the operation oft ose powers it is national, not Federal; in the extentoft em, again, it is Federal, notnotional; andfinally, in the authentative modeofintroducing amendmepts. it is neitherwholly Federalnor wholly national.’ Mr. President, to eradicate or change mate rially one of the important principles of this complicated piece of olical machinery is a very grave business, and the effects in marring its symmetry and perverting its operations can only be known by time and experience. It may, however, always he certainly assumed that they will prove greater and more mischiev ous than they were intended or even anticipated to be. If there is any human institution which ought to fix permanently the affections, confidence, and veneration of the American people, it is the Constitution made for them by the wisest and most virtuous statesmen that have ever lived in the tide of time. It is not, cannot be free from imperfections; but what seem often to many persons to be imperfections are not; they are frequently excellencics. The remedy of a seeming or even real defect may prove to be a greater one; it may even introduce several. When the Constitution is re touched, the movement should be made by able, patriotic, and ure men, who are further qualified for the iificult and important work by the study of its principles and the close observations of its practice workings forlongycars, and at a time when the public mind is profoundly composed. Just at the close of the eat civilWar, when the people are all divided in their judgment as to the constitutionality, justice, and wisdom of the policy upon which the party in power have conducted it; when another great party out of power believe that the whole country have been wronged by frequent infractions of the Constitution, and the usurpation of vast powers for most sinister purposes by those having possession of the Government: and that they particularly have been outraged and oppressed by a wanton and tyrannous exercise of this usurped authority, and are exasperated by a keen sense of their wrongs, and a burning desire for satisfaction; when the ruling party itself is torn by a conflict between its majority in the 2 Houses of Congress and the President and their friends and partisans; and when it is menaced with defeat and ejection from power at the next general election, and its chiefs and leaders only want to know what mains promise to give them success, and are ready to adopt them, however desperate and proiligate they may be; at a time when those chiefs and leaders dominate, not only in coness, but in the Legislatures of all the free r States, and their desire for the continuance of their power is so intense, so exorbitant, so imure that they would sacrifice every claim of justice to individuals, the wisest measures of policy for the whole country, and the most‘val uable principles of the Constitution to achieve their ends; at such a time, surely there should be no changes or intermeddling with the constitution. If the States were all fully represented in Congress every sound head and heart would shrink from the idea of attempting, at this time, any alteration of the Constitution. But for a less number than a ma'ority of the 2 Houses of Congress to decide to change essentially the Constitution, and to prelude the work by the unconstitutional exclusion of all the Sens&Reps from the 11 States which are especially and so greatl wronged by the re osed amen ments, and a l of which would e efeated by the presence of their representation, is scan alone and shocking to the last degree. The condemnation of this iniquitous work by the people of the U.S. is certain, and will he speedy. But the work has commenced, and in the spirit and manner that might be expected. A reposition to amend the Constitution must he initiated in Congress and receive the vote of 2/3rds of both Houses to authorize Congress to submit it to the States; and it is with Congress to require the States to act upon it either by their Legislatures or their conventions chosen for that purpose; and it must receive the vote of 3/4ths of the States to become a part of the Constitution. such are the guards with which the Constitution is fortified against all hasty innovation, and by such lar c majorities of the 2 Houses of Congress an the States, it was intended to secure also the sanction of a large majority of the people. hat constitutes the 2 Houses of congress, the vote of 2/3rds of both of which 15 required to pass a proposed amendment of the Constitution? "The Senateof the U.S shallbecom osed of 2 SenatorsfromeachState, chosenbythe exis laburesthereof.” And each State is entitled to Representatives upon an apportionment made among them, upon the basis of their population, by act of congress. And, “Each Houseshall be the judge of the elections. returns, and qualificationsof its own members, and a majority of each House shall constitutea quorum to do business: but a smallernumber may adjourn from day to day, ” ke, The question arose soon after the adoption of the Constitution, in each House, what number of its members were necessary to form a quorum to do business; and it hasbeen often and uniformly decided by them that a majority of the whole number of each, as organized by the Constitution and law of Congress, and no less number, formed a quorum to do business. There being new 36 States, the Constitution fixes the number of the present Senate to be 72; and a quorum to do business is a majority, which cannot be less than 36, and it wquld take that number of Senators even to consider a proposition to amend the Constitution; but to pass it, the Constitution requires not 2/3rds of a quo rum but 2/3rds of the Senate. 36 Senators being a uorum, the Constitution never intended and does not authorize 25 of its members either to pass a proposed amendment or to overrule the firesideut’s veto of an act of conress; but requires a majority of the Senate, t irty 6 Senators, to do both these grave and responsible acts. The Senate in May, 1864, long after the senators from the 11 States had withdrawn, under the great stress of the war, passed a resolution in these words: “Rewind, That a quorum of the Senate consists of a majority of the Senatorsduly chosen." The vote on this resolution was yeas 26, nays 12. 2 years before, a resolution of the same purport was offered in the Senate, but it was 0.posed with great ability by the late senator cot and Senator Fosrim and the Senate then manifested so decided an indisposition to pass it that it was not pressed to a vote. When the Legislature of any State of the U.S. have elected a man to the senate, he is “duly chosen;” and according to the decision in the case of the 2 Senators from WestVirginia, Messrs. Willey and Carlile, if a person present himself to the Senate with his return of election in form, it is primafacie evidence of his due election, and he is entitled to be admitted to his seat; and all questions impugning his right to it, even the act of his having been du y chosen, can only be inquired into by the Senate after his admission. As stated in the debate on that occasion, the unbroken practice has been in conformity with that position; and of man cases and precedents there is not one in conictwith it. So that according to the provision of the Constitution, the precedent set in the case of Messrs. Willey and Carlile, and the resolution of 1864, every man who has been elected a Senfrom a State lately in rebellion, by its Legislature, and who has the return of his election in due form, is entitled prime facts to membership, and should be permitted to be sworn and to take his seat. ll of the 11 rebel States by their Legislatures have chosen 2 Senators; but if they were admitted the radicals, instead of having 2/3rds, would bgin a minority and could not pass one of their unconstitutional acts, much ess a reposition to amend the Constitution. It therefore became a necessity, a dire necessity with them, that the should trample under foot the provisions an principles of the Constitution, and of the laws which they had passed, and their own precedents and resolution and that from Radicalism they should proceed to revolution. Hence at the very be nning of the session they organized their revdTutionary tribunal, the committee of 15. Then they take u the extravagant position of the Senfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER] and boldly assert that the States lately in rebellion have ceased each to be one of the U.S., and therefore have no right to send Sens&Reps to Congress. But whether their dissolution as States took place when their ordinances ofsecession were respectively made, or when they appeared in insurrection against the U.S., or when their armies surrendered to Grant and Sheridan, or when they dissolved their confederate governments, and submitted to all the terms and conditions imposed upon them, and acknowledged unconditional o edience to the Constitution and laws, these revolutionists have not informed the country. They do not refer to the Constitution to sustain this extravagant position because there is no warrant for it ticre. They claim for themselves, as the Congress, the results of the achievements of the armies of the U.S., operating legitimately under the Constitution to suppress insurrection, as inuring to them, the conquerors of the southern States and people, under the laws of war. The Senfrom Michigan, [Mr. Howannd in the tone and manner of a conqueror, defiantly asserts this claim for Congress and refers the Senfrom Pennsylvania [him CowsN] to all the precedents in Grecian and Roman history to support the claim. In my opinion, it is one of the most fruitful causes of the errors of our legislators that they go outside of the pale of the Constitution into other Governments to search uppowers for that of the U.S. It has no powers but what were conferred by the Constitution, and all of them are either expressly enumerated or are embodied in the clause that gives to Congress the power to pass all laws which are necessary and proper to carry into execution the powers express y given to it or some dept or officer of rt. No power or principle of any other Government is art of ours, unless it be embodied or ado teal)by the language of the Constitution; an no implication can establish a power in the Government in hostility to or inconsistent with any, express provision of the Constitution. As the principles of our religion are to be learned from the Bible, so the powers of our Government are to be known by recurrence to the Constitution. Whatever is not found in those sources is to be rejected as heretical. With us domestic war is not for conquest but suppression; it is not for the subversion of the Constitution and laws of the rebels but their maintenance, State as well as the Federal. It is simply to preserve the Union, to vindicate the authority of the U.S., to save from destruction our entire system of government, Federal and State, to comcl obedience and put things in the same order they were, that the Constitution authorizes the inte position of military power. That the succcss of this power should break up the relations of the rebel States with the U.S and dissolve their governments which it had prevented the rebels from effecting, is a monstrous solccism. The statesmen who formed the Constitution founded it upon the States, and one of their cardinal objects was to preserve them. They were uilty of no such folly as providing for their dissolution or the forfeiture of any of their rights or powers, or punitive consequences to them in any form or for any cause. All the punishment which it authorizes is to be visited upon persons, individuals; and they who “ levy war against the U.S., or adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, " commit treason and are subject to be punished as traitors, whether they act under the authority of the State governments or irrespective of, them. The Constitution makes no classes or discriminations among those who thus make war against the U.S. The highest and only allegiance of every citizen is due to the U.S. as to all matters intrusted by the Constitution to the General Government; as to all reserved to the States his highest and only allc iunce is due to his State. All allegiance is divided between the General and State Governments, and either has no rightful claim to a particle of what belongs to the other from any citizen. All men in arms against the U.S. may be met and opposed by its armies, and in the conflict may be rightfully shot down. '1' his is not war in the sense in which this term is used in the Constitution. Butin every contest of arms, in every operation of the armies, both sides are bound to the strictest observance of all the humane laws and usages adopted by Christian nations to mitigate the horrors 0' war. Until the revolution be consummated by success neither party has any belligerent rights. There is no sovereignty lost, there are no rov emments dissolved or forfeited, or laws a regated; there is no territory acuired by conguest; there are no titles or rights to property destroyed or permanently changed. As armies move from places their cpower and military rights go with them, an civil law and the state of things ante occupatione mz'litare are reproduced spontaneously. All captives and other persons who have committed treason are subject to trial and punishment, but by the civil courts, and with all the rights and in the mode prescribed by the Constitution, and liable to no other pains, penalties, or punishment than have been previously declared bylaw. This is American rberty, and when the question comes to me, which will you take, the Union of the States without the liberty, or the liberty without the Union, and I must accept the one or the other, I answer, give me the liberty and let the Union erish! But I have a hope that both may yet 0 saved., Mr. President, it seems plain to my mind that the majority have become utterly regard less of the good, present and future, of the country, an have determined to sacrifice its institutions and liberties in their desperate struggle to continue themselves in power. will not estimate the large amount of both which they tram led down in the freedmen’l Bureau and civi rights bill, and other measures of legislation. I will not stop to consider the numerous other amendments of the constitution which have been proposed in the 2 Houses, but will proceed to the examination of the one now before the Senate. This proposition is in the form of a Jtresolution proposing to amend the Constitution by adding another article consisting of 5 sections, and has been passed by the House and sent to the Senate for its action. I will read it: ArticLeSECTION 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridgp the privileges or immunitiesof citizens of the U.S.; nor shall any deprive any person of life liberty State or property without due processpf law; nor any to any person rllhlll its Jurisdiction the equal protection of the aws. Sac. 2. Representatives shall beapportioned among the several States. which may be included within this Union. accordingto their respective numbers. counting the whole number of personsin esch Stato. excluding Indians not taxed. at wheneyerin any State the elective franchise shall be deniedto any portion of its malecitizensnot lessthan 21 years of age or in spy way abridged.exceptfor participation in rebellion or other crime. the basisof representation in such State shall be rednced inthe proortion which the number of such malecitizens sha l bearto the whole number of male citizens not lessthan 21 earsof o. 850.3. Until the 4t do of uiy in the year 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhoro to the late insurrection.giving it aid and comfort shall be excluded fromtheright to vote for representativesin Congress and for electorsfor President and VEEP. Sec. 4. Neither the U.S. nor any State shall assumeor pay any debt or obligation already incprred, or which may hereafterbe incurred. in aid of insurrection or of war against the U.S., or any claim for compensation for loss of involuntary service or labor. SEC. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce. By ti appropriato legislation, the provisions of this a o c. The 1st objection I make to the measure is that each of the 5 sections relates to adifferent subject, and yet all are submitted as a single reposition. The people might wish to vote or some of them and against others; and they should be presented in such form as to give an opportunity to vote separately on each. But for some object that right has been withheld, and they required to vote for all or against all of them together. 2nd ly, no considerable portion of the people have manifested any desire to have these changes made in the Constitution. This proposition has originated with partisan leaders not to improve the fundamental law of our government, but as a strategic movement in party politics. It is the right of the people that these propo5ed changes should be submitted to them, but it was preetermined that this should not be done, because those very leaders knew that the would be rejected. If they had intended to eal fairly by the people in so grave a matter, the resolution would have required the proposed changes to be submitted to conventions, to be chosen for the purpose of considering them, orto their Legisatures, to be elected next after its passage. This course would not have delayed the action of any State 12 months, and the most of them not 6 months; and there was no occasion for such great haste in the important business of determining whether so important an innovation of the Constitution should be made. But the present Legislatures of all the States not involved in the rebellion had been elected, and in the old free States as long back as 18 months. In these latter States the Legislatures are known to be intensely radical and to be willing to do blindly the bidding of their leaders in Congress. They were elected before the rebels had submitted and in the very acme of the war excitement, before there was any presentation or public discussion of these lproposed changes of the Constitution or of the principles involved in them; and they are not fair representatives of the people of their respective States on the question of the merits of this proposition. But the considerations which render it improper for those Legislatures to decide this great matter determined the radicals in Congress to submit it to them and them only. But the Senate has amended the 1st section of the proposed amendment, and it now reads: All personsbornin the U.S and subject to the jurisdiction are oitizens of the U.S.andof the Stateswherein theyreside. No State shall make or enforceanylaw which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the U.S.nor shall any State deprive any person of lifeI liberty or propertywithout due processof law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The real and only object of the 1st provision of this section, which the Senate has added to it, is to make no roes citizens, to prothe civil rights bill, and give them a more p ausible, if not a valid, claim to its provisions, and to press them forward to a ful community of civil and political rights with the white race, for which its authors are strugglin and mean to continue to struggle. Except or the negro there is no occasion for it, as all persons of every other race born in the U.S., and subject to their jurisdiction, by the operation an effect of the Constitution are citizens. This principle has never been controverted. l The next provision of this section, “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens.of the U.S.” is unnecessary, because that matter is provided for in article 4, section 2, of the Constitution: “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." This provision comprehends the same principle in better and broader language. The next liranch, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, ” is objectionable, because in 'relation to her own citizens it belongs to each State exclusively, as being of her own reserved sovereignty and rights, to regulate that matter. It is also unnecessary, because every State constitution contains such a provision, and the vrights which it is intends to secure are regarded by all as a most important portion of American liberty, and there is no danger of, the removal of the defenses which the States have thrown around them. To the remaining branch, which is, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, ” each of these objections apply with equal and conclusive force. The 2nd section, which purports to establish the basis of representation in Congress, is couched in language that is carefully ambigu ous, and was evidently intended to 0 score its meaning. It begins by adopting the American idea that representation among the States should be apportioned accordin to their numbers or population; but provides that when ever in any StateThs elective franchiseshall not be denied to any portion of its male citizens not lessthan 21 yearsof age or in anyway abridged, exceptfor participation in rebellion or other crime. the basis of representationin such State shall be reducedin the proortion which the number of such male citizens sba l bearto the whole number of male citizensnot less than 21 yearsof age. The provisions of the Constitution should be clear and concise, and irrespective of the vicionsness of the principle this prosition should be rejected or uncertainty an prolixity. Its true meaning was intended to be difficult to be reached, but when understood it is a measure which shrinks from the responsibility of openly forcing negro suffrage upon the late slave States, but attempts bIy a great penalty to coerce them to accept it. he radica majority well know the deep if not unalterable opposition of the white race in those States to negroes votin, and that by their constitutions and laws that right is withheld from the whole race. In the late free States the negro population is so small that whether they vote or not is a matter of no political consequence, and could, if allowed, take place to such a very limited extent as would not excite a general or intense opposition among the white population. I will give a table of the aggregate numbers of both the white and negro races in some of the States according to tecensus of 1860: SCarolina. WEhLitMes. Blacks 2.0 Mississippi, NewHampshire 53 Georgia. Vermont Alabama Virginia. Massachusetts. Tennessee" Indiana. Is anyone so green as to believe that, if the condition of the old free States and of the lately slave States named in this list was reversed, as to white and black population, that asingle one of the free States would now he advocating negro suffrage? If he would have the vestige of a doubt upon that question, and would only remember that but 5 of them, notwithstanding the small mimimum of negro population of each, have allowed suffrage to negroes, he would doubt no longer. According to the tables of 1860 there are, in the old free States, of the black race a total of 215,962, while in the late slave States there are 4, 214, 800. The former, if inhabiting one locality, would be less than the ratio for 2 Representatives, but the fraction would be large enough to secure two; while the latter would furnish the ratio for 33 Representatives, and have a fraction over; but. the negro population in the free States is so small in the aggregate and is scattered so sparsely over 20 States as not to be available for a particle of political power. In those States it never did control a single local election, and a combination of circumstances is very improbable that ever will enable it to be felt in any election. It is of no importance, practicalf. in them whether or not the negroes vote.:1 the slave States this matter is widely different. In 2 of them the negro population preponderates largely over the white. In several others their relative strength is less disproportionate than what has long existed between the free and the slave States, in the aggregate; and in all it is large enough to be aformidable element of political power, and is sufficiently concentrated), locally, to be available and effect ive. The natural antagonism between the 2 races is irrepressible and an equality of rights and power between them, withoutinterminable strife, is impossible. One or the other must have the mastery. 'The God of nature has 'ven it to the white man, and he has asserted it from the beginning and will to the end. This effort of people who have no negroes living among them to force other people. with whom they dwell in such formidable numbers, to concede to them equality of' civil and political rights, whet her successful or not, will have no other result than to nggrnvate the war between the races in the southern States, and is made only to get the control of the negro there to made him the instrument to subserve the most selfish and sinister purposes. The position that this provision is intended to strengthen the sectional radical party at the expense of the southern States, by coercing them to bestow suffrage upon the negro, or with holding from them a] representation upon that population, is as certain as though it was so exressed in the plainest language. Population is rst made the basis of representation, which comprehends all residents, whites, negroes, mu lattoes, and foreigners, whether naturalized or not; and having made all negroes citizens, and they not being allowed to vote in an of the late slave States, in them the basis 0 representation is to be reduced in the proportion in which the male negroes over 21 years of n e resident in them bearto the aggregate nuin er of their white citizens and those negroes added together. In plain and honest Samaria. j language this provision'wonld read: “ Repre This new section is subject to a number of one consolidated Government. No proposi sentatives sha I be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers; but the negro poulation in the States where it is not allowe the right of suffrage, shall be deducted so long as it is withheld from them; and when that right is conceded to its negro population in any State it shall be estimated With its other population in up portioning Representatives.’ This is the be est of the radicals to the late slave States, “ confer upon your negro population the right of suffrage to augment our power and for our benefit, and unless you do this we will reduce your representation in Congress and your presidential electors in proportion to the number of that population.H " here is the pretext of a justification for thus reducing the power of the slave States about in this form: they made the rebellion and ought not to have their crime rewarded by having the unre presented portion of their late slaves as an additional element of political war. But to this it might be responded, The people of the slave States did not alone make the rebellion; the free States and their people helped it along most effectively. whatever crime they committed in that affair they have suffered for it grieviously in other respects besides the emancipation of all their slaves. The manner of their humiliation and punishment is enough to satisfy every claim 0 justice and sound po 'cy, without stripping from them an important portion of their constitutional power in the Government. They have already accepted what was not demanded by justice or policy, and as much as true manhood can or.” But the hollowness of this pretext was exhibited partially by the radical majority voting down the proposition of the Senfrom Indiana, [AInpHsrvnaiexs] that 3/5th s of the negro population should be computed in the apportionment of representation. Next to population, Mr. President, the most just and proper basis of representation would e voters. his principle has man friends in Congress, and has been earnestly advocated by some of them. But it does not suit NewEngland, because there the female population preponderates considerably over the male, and the adoption of that principle of representation would curtail the representation in Congress of those States 2 or 3; and with characteristic address, her men in the 2 Houses have caused that proposition to be put on the shelf. Whoever else may lose, NewEngland always wins. The 3rd section, proposing to punis “all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, givin it aid and comfort, ” by forfeiting their right to vote for Representatives in Congress and electors for resident and VEEP at the next election, has been stricken out by the unanimous vote of the Senate. An amendment of the Constitution that was intended and that could have no other effect than to enable the radical party to carry the next congressional and presidential elections, and which, when they were over, was to expire by its own limitation, was too absurd to receive the support of a majority of the rad icals of the Senate, notwithstanding it had been passed by their friends of the House. “ King Caucus” required that it should be expnnged, and every radical obeyed the command of the king. But they introduce in its stead another section, not so ridiculous, but in substance and import more objectionable. I willread it: SIC. 3. Thnt no person shall bea Senator or representative in conress or elector of President and VEEP or hed any office.civil or military under a U.S or under any State. who, having previously taken an oath. As a mombor of Congress or as an officer of the U.S or as a member of anmy State Legislature or as an executive or judicial 0 corofariy State. to support the Constitution of the U.S shall have engagedin insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemiesthereof. But Congress may. by a votloipyt 2/3rd s of each Home. remove such disvery grave objections; I will proceed to state some of them. It is in the nature of both a bill of attainder and an expostfacto law. Our highest courts have decided that all laws which declare a person to be guilty of afelony, or which make a forfeiture of personal or property rights, are in the nature of bills of attainder. The same authority has also ruled many times over that all laws which make any act penal that was not so at the time of its commission, or which changes, increases, or adds another punishment than what had been provided for crimes before they were committed, are expostfacto laws; and they have adjudged all laws of both those classes to be void and of no effect, because they are in contravention of the clause of the Constitution which says, No bill of attainder or expostfacto law shall be passed.” It is the incorporation of a crim ina judgment against a multitude and an expostfacto law in the Constitution. It is also unconstitutional, because it violates the fundamental principle of our Government, so clear] and well stated in the 4th resolution of the Chicago convention which nominated Mr. Lincoln for the Presidency, that each State has the exclusive right “to order and control its own domestic institutions." This amendment, in providing a punishment for certain oliicers of the States for an imputed violation of their oaths to support the Constitution of the U.S., conflicts with that principle. And it is unconstitutional because it isrcgards the partition of the powers of the General Government into legislative, executive, and judicial and the as signment of the 1st to congress the 2nd to the President, and the thi to the courts. In the matters I have stated, the proposed amendment violates the Constitution, and makes another continuing breach of it “ in the clause, Congress may, by a vote of 2/3rds of each House, remove such disability;” the whole ar doning power of the Government being 0 an executive nature and vested in the President. My proposition, that the proosed alterations of the Constitution because of their confliction with it, if even adopted according to the form of amendin it, would be void, may seem a solecism an unsound. I proposeto examine that point. The mode of maing alterations of the Constitution is provided for in these words: " The Congress.whenever 2/3rds of both Houses shall deem it necessary shall proposeamendmentsto this Constitution, or on the application of the Legislatures of 2/3rds of the several States shall call a convention for proposing amendments which in either case shall bevalid to all intentsan purposes. as part of this Constitution.when ratified by the L0 zis atures of 3/4ths of the several States or by conventions in 3/4ths thereof.as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposedby the Congress." The power of Congress in the premises is special and limited, the whole extent of it being to propose amendments to the Constitution by the action of 2/3rds of both Houses. The States and the peOple have no more important reserved rights than that such propositions shall be magic by no less a majority than 2/3rds of both houses; and that under the guise of amendments, propositions which would subvert or revolutionize or change the essential nature of the Constitution and Government cannot be made. The true and legitimate meaning of the word “amendment” is “ alteration for the better, ” “reformation.” Without insisting that‘pro osed amendments of the Constitution should e such as would make it better, or reform it in some feature, it is certainly true that a proposition to make the President a hereditary monarch, Senators to continue in office for life, and members of the House for 7 years, could not be legitimately made under this power to propose amendments; nor could a proposition to break up and dissolve the States and their governments, and to organize the U.S. intotion which would be in palpable conflict with and that would certainly operate to change the essential nature and character of the Government formed by the Constitution, or to subvert some of its great and distinguishing principles, could be made by Congress to the States under a power to propose amendments. The framers o the Constitution did not intend to invest, and have notin fact conferred on Congress the power to initiate alterations of it which would revolutionize the Government formed by it. Therefore, all such propositions to change the constitution, even if made by 2/3rds of both Houses of afull Congress, and ratified by 3/4ths of the States, being outside of the pale of their authority, would not become parts of the Constitution, and would have no validity whatever. If they were acquiesced in and took effect, a revolution, bloodless, butnevertheless a revolution, would have ensued. Mr. President, I have already attempted, and I think successfully, to show that Congress, as the 2 Houses are now organized, bein mutilated by the exclusion of the Senators an Representatives from 11 States by the arbi trary acts of the members who assume to be the 2 Houses; for the absence of the requi site majority of 2/3rds thus produced could not propose even proper and legitimate amendments to the Constitution. But the ending propositionZ which assaults so many otp its ear inal and vital principles that it would inaug urate a tgreat change in the very order and nature 0 Our Government, being initiated by this fragmentar Congress, acting as n. revolutionary assembly; it requires extraordinary boldness to maintain that such a proposition made by 2/3rds of such a Congress, even if ratified by the Legislatures of 3/4ths of the States, would have any validity. The entire polity of the U.S. forms the most complexpolitical system that ever existed, consisting of State governments and General Government, States and U.S., and all sovereignty divided between them. The States were 1st each a sovereignty having its own separate government, an possessed of liberty; and they had formed a league for the purposes of common defense and security against foreign aggression. Experience had proved that the States had conflicting interests which caused antagonistical laws and regulations, and must end in mutual collisions and wars; and that their league was wholly insufficient to secure the ends for which it had been formed. The Constitution was designed to apply these needs, and created a nation and a national Government strong enough to give security against foreign attacks and internal disorders without endangering the liberties of the people. The General Government was conceived by and organized upon the States, and to protect and perpetuate them was one of its chief objects. They delegated to it only such powers as were necessary and proper to enable it to marfiige and control the general alfairs intrusted to it. All other powers. except a few withheld both from it and the State governments, were reserved to the States respectively and to the people. The division and allotment of political sovereignty and the adjustment of the relations between the U.S and the States was awork of the greatest importance and difficulty, and taxed to the utmost all the resources of as great men as the world has ever produced, whose minds were enriched by deep reading in the political history of ancient and modern times, by having had free and self governed communities as their common inheritance, by many years of thorough mental culture and ripe experience in public affairs, and a patriotism as pure and loyalty as ever graced any heroic age. such men were the founders of our government, and they created and organized it and made its law by a written Constitution. That Constitution is the gathered wisdom of all previous political exerience and statesmanship, and has until this degenerate day commanded the confidence and veneration of the people of the U.S., and instructed the minds and ins ired the hopes of every in formed lover of h erty throu bout the world. The intelligence and virtue o the people ive to it the principle of life thus sustaine by them, it would make their liberties and happiness perpetual; that withdrawn, it becomes a lifeless, soulless Utopian creation. Shades of Washington, Hamilton, and Mad isonl how does the eagerness of 3 score ignorant, selfish, frenzied demagogues in one Congress, each with a proposttion to mar, deform, disadjust, and disorganize your great and harmonious work with their VlClOllBand revolting crudities impress you? What are {aour hopes of the future of our country? Mr. President, Montesquieu, Blackstone, and all our own great jurists have ivritten that the concentration of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of Government in one man or body of men makes a perfect despotism. Cortainly the radical majority in the 2 Houses have made persevering and audacious efforts to concentrate in Congress a large amount of those powers. All free Governments should make every effort to avoid war, and especially civilWar, because all wars are unfriendly and civilWars are often fatal to popular libert. The powers of a Government are unavoidab y augmented and energized during war, and then there is generallyau accord between the legislative and executive branches, produced by the active presence of a common danger and a mutual effort to avert it, that makes the chief executive officer the instrument to give effect to their common policy and purposes. Power is the great corrupter of man, and the engrossment of so much of it in the executive in time of war as is inevitable, or as an ambitious and able man can so easily grasp, often causes him to form projects destructive of popular rights. Then the most danger to them is to be a re hended from the executive and it shouladIbe the most attentively watched by the people. But it is not so in the U.S. when peace has returned. Generally men clothed with power desire to increase it, and between those to whom it is parted out in the same Government there is a disposition to encroach on each other and absorb more than belongs to them. When they are not harmonized by resisting some common attack, this rivalry always exists, and a state of peace develops it, and often to an extent to reduce serious disorder in the Government. mm the nature and organization of the legislative branch its force is more efficient than that of the others; it feels this superiority, and is consequently most prone, not only to iminge upon them, but to grasp powers which I. e peop e have not confided to their Government. I will read from the Federalist several as sages bearing on this point. In No.48, which treats of the division of the powers of Government into depts, and which was written by Mr. Madison, are these passages: “It is agreed on all sidesthat the powersproperly belonging to one of the depts. ought not to be directl and completely administered by either of the other depts. It is equally evident that neither of them ought to possess direct] or indirectly, an oi'crrul in influenceover the others in the administration of t icir respective powers. It will not bedenied that power is of an encroachingna ture and it passing cunht to be effectually restrained from the limits assigned to it. "Will it be sufficient to mark with precision the boundariesof those depts in the constitution of the Government and trust to these parchment bar roirepresraiognaoinesatstshuere esncroaching spirit of ower. But usthatthoctiicanyoft in provision has beengreatlyovoi'rated and that some moreade unto defense is indispensally necessaryforthe more ccblo against the more powerful members of the Government. The legislative dept is every where extending the splicrcofits activity anddrawing all power into its iinpeiuonsvortex. The tovuudorosf our Republic hnvase much merit for the Wisdomwhich they have displayed that no task cup be less pleasing than that of pointingontthe errors into which they have fallen. A respectfor truth. however, obliges us to remark that they seem never for a moment to have turned their eyesfrom the danger to liberty from the overgrown and all grasping prerogative of an hereditary magistrate, supportedand fortified by an hereditary branch of the cgislative authority. They seem nevertohaverecol lected the danger from legislative usurpations.which, by assembling all power lll the same hands. must lead to the same tyranny asis threatenedby execu tiv“e usurations. Prerogative evsornment where numerous and extensive are placedin the handsof an hereditary monarch the executive dept is very justl regardedasthe sourceof danger and watched with all the jealousy which a seal for liberty oughtto inspire. in a democracy.where a multitude o people exorcise the legislativp functions, and are continually exposed. y their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures. to the ambitionsintrigues of their executive magistrates. t r unny may well be apprehended in some favorn 10 emergency. to start u i nthe shine quarter. But in a representative republic. Where the executive iuag istracyis carefully limited. both in the extent and duration of its ‘power and where the lciiislative power is exercise by an Assemblywhich is inspired y a supposed influence over the people. with an intrepid confidencein its own strenzzth.which is suftle iently numerous to fccl all the passions which actupte a multitude and yet not so numerousas to be incapablq of pursuing theolnccts of its passions by meanswbichreasonprescribes.it is againsttheenter prising ambition of this ilopartinent that the people ought to indulge all their Jealousiesand exhaustall their precautions. "The legislative dept fierives a superiority in uni Government from other circumstanccs. its constitutional owrs being at once more extensive and less susceptibleof precise.lmlm, it can with greater facili mask under compleated and indirect mons ureg the encroachment!which it makes on the co ordinate depts. It snotun freqnently a quection of real nicoty lp legisativo bodieswhether the operation of a particular measure will or will not extendbeyond he legislative sphere. 0n the other side. the executive power being restrained within a narrower compass, and being more simple in its nature. Leasnsdutnhcee Jurtdaiicnia. pryrobJcecints godfesucsruibrpedabtiyolnabnyd meiathrkesr of these depts would immediately be tija and defeat themselves. Nor is this all has the logicative dept alone has access to the pockets of the people and has in some constitutionsfull discretion and in all prevailing influence over the pecuniary rewardsof thosewho fill the other depts. And enoe is thus createdin the latter which gives greater facility toencroachmoutsof the former." This remarkable paper shows how thoroughly the writer had considered the Constitution and his perfect comprehension of the mode inwhich the Government proposed to organize would work. With c benefit of observation and experience to this day he could not have depicted more forcibl and truly the aggressions of congress upon the other depts, and rticu arl the executive; and with what condence an audacity it is assailing the rent principles of the Constitution, without which popular liberty cannot be preserved.Mr. President, in our country loyalty is not fidelity to a King or a President or Congress, or to the men who administer the Government, but to the Constitution. It requires the proper support, of the Government of the U.S and of the States and their governments, for they are parts of the system which the Constitution has built up, and it throws its aegis equally over them. Its claim upon every citizen is to sustain every officer of the government in the constitutional and legal discharge of his duties, and to oppose him in every departure from that rule, and above allto repel every aggression upon the Constitution. But, Mr. President, since the insurrection broke out, the position that the States have no sovereignty has been often and boldly assumed both in and out of the Senate. It is indee coming to be believed that the States are creations of the Federal Constitution, that they exist in complete subordination to and by the sufferance ot the Government of the U.S. I think it is time that this dangerous and growing heres should be correcte, and I will produce amp e authority to refute it. The 10th amendment to the Constitution is of itself sufficient to settle this question: “ The powersnot delegatedto the U.S.by the Constitution.nor irohlbited by it to the States. are reserved to the States respectively or to the people." Full and complete sovereignty 'coni rehends every political power, so that when there is a do of l partition and division of political powers between 2 Governments, the political sovereignty is divided between them. All legislative, executiveI and judicial powers are parts of the ag egate of political sovereignty; and for a definite and correct conception of the extent of this political sovereignty that the Constitution confers upon the U.S., and that is retained under it by the States, I wul read from No. 33 of the Federalist, written by Hamilton: po“lIiftnicnaulmsobeeier tyo.f political societies enter into alurizer the laws'which the latter may enact pursuantto the powers intrusted to it by its constitution must peccssarilnbo supreme over those socicties and theindividua ofwhoni theynreconiposod. It would otherwise be u more treaty. Dependent on the good faith of the parties and not a government' which is only another word for political power and supremacy. But it Will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursu a ntto its constitutional powers.but which are invii SlQnB of the residuiiry authorities of thesmallersocieties.irill become the supreme law of the land. Those Will be merely acts of usurpation and will deserve to be treated as such." Mr. Madison, in No. 52, when treating of the Senate, says: “In the spirit. it may be remarked that the equal voto allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States and an instrumentfor proservmg that residuary sovereignty.So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than the small States; Since they are not less solicitous to guard. by everypossible expedient. against an improper consolidation of the Statesinto onesimple re u w. 'Auother advantage accruingfrom this ingredient of the Senate is the additional impediment it must prove against improper actsof legislation. No law or resolution can now be passedwith at the concurrence.iii st, of a minority of the peoople and then of a majority of the States." This authority is not only directly in favor of the reserve State sovereignty and rights, but also impliedly, yet strongly, in its position that a majority of the whole number of the members of leach House, is necessary to pass laws and resolutions; a majority of the people and the States could not be represented) by a less number of the 2 Houses. Hamilton, in No. 17 of the Federalist, page 76, says: “Commerce finance negotiation and war. seemto comrchend all the objects which have charms for mi sgovunod by that passion ambition; arid all the powers neccfipry to these obiocts puglit. in the 1st instance.to e lodged in the national depository. The administration of H'IYILB‘JQSHOG between citizensof the {lame State the suporvigion of agriculture, and of ot on concerns of a similar nature; all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation. can never be desirable camofrngsncral i isdiotian. It istlig rei'oroim probable that there a ould exist a dlSlHt ‘lllfillin the federal councils to usurp the powers With which they are connected. the; On page'77 the same writer says: "There is ono transcendent advantage belonging to tbe provinceoftho State governments which alone lulliccs to planet the matter in acl e. ai urtismishictpry light: I mean he ordi ary administration of crim inal and civil justice. powerful. is. of all others.H the most the most u i versal and most attractive source of popular obe ienceand attachment. this this which, being the immediate and visible guardian of life and property, having its‘bennfita and its to: rors in constantnotwit before the public eye.regulating all those persona interestsa ndfamiliar concerns to which the sensibilities of individuals are more immediatelyawake.contributes.morethan anyother circumstance to impressupon the minds of pla affection.esteem, and reverence toward the eme vernment. This great cement of society which in“ diffuse itself almost wholly through the channels of the State governments.inde ndent of all other cauges or influence would insure then iso decided an empire over their respective citizens asto render them at all times a complete counterporso and not iinfreqncn dangerousrivals to the power of the Union." Again, Hamilton, in No. 23 of the Federal ist, page 104, says, speaking of the powers pro. posed to be conferred on the Government of the' U.S. by the Constitution: "Tho principal purposes to be answered by union are these: the common defenseof the members; the preservation of the publ c peace as well against in teruul convulsions as c crnal attacks; the regulation of commercewith Olber nations and between the States; the superintendent 0of oiir interoouise, political and commercial.With foreign countries. The same, No. 33, on page 144, says: “If the Federal Governmentshould overpassthe just bounds of its authority and make a ty cal. useof its powers.the people whose creature it is. mustap eal to the standard they have formed and takes uc me:suresto redressthe injury doneto the Constitutipnas the exigcucy may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light. Must always be determined b thenature of the powers upon which it is founded. upposethat by some forced construction of its authority which, indeed, cannot easily beimagined the federal Legislature should attempt to vary the lawof descent in any State.would it not be evident in makingsuch anattempt, it had exceeded its Jurisdiction and in fringedupon that of the State? Suppose, again. that upona retensoof an interference With its revenue it shou] undertake to abrogutea land tax imposed by the authority of a State would not it be equally evident that this wasan inynsion of that concurrent jurisdietion in respect to this species of tax which the constitution plainly supposes to emt in the State governments" In the same number of the Federalist, page 145, is this passage: “Though a law. therefore.laying ata; for the use of the U.S. wouldbe supremein its nature. and could not be legally opposedor controlled.yet a law abrogating or preventingthe collection of a tax laid by the authority of a.State(unlessupon imports and exports) would not be the supreme law of the land.but a usurpation of a powernot grantedby the Constitution." Mr. Madison wrote No. 39, and on page 178 it says: "But if the Government be national with regard to the operation of its powers(acting indiVidually and personally on all citisouscomposingthe nation) it changesits aspect again whenwe contemplateit in relation to the extentof its powers.The idea of a national Government involves in it not only an authority over the individual citizen. but an in cfinite suprempey over all person sand things.so far as, they are objects of lawul government. Among a people consolidated into one nation this supremacy is completely vestedin the national Legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes it is vested partly in the genera and partly in the municipal Legislatures. In the formercaseall local authorities are subordinated to thesupreme.andmay becontrolled. Directed or abolished by it at p leasurc. In the latter the local or municipal authoritiesform distinct and independent parties of the supremacy. nomoresubject. within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to those within its own sphere.In thisrelation. then. The proposed Government cannot be deemed a national one.sinceitsjurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only and leaves to the several Statesa residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the 2 jurisdictions the tribunal which is ultimately to decide is to be established under the General Government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made uccording to the rules of the Constitution.” This authority is surely sufficient to refute the position that the States have no sovereignty. Mr. President, the radicals have a definite policy, which is palpable to the whole country. ts paramount object is their continuance in office and power, and the chief means, negro suffrage, new States to be formed of Territories having but a modicum of population rotten borough States and to exclude the southern States from all participation in the Government as long as practicable, but air all hazards until after the next congressional and presidential elections. Their machinery is a paetnal howl for justice and protection to “t e loyal citizens of African descent, ” Freedmen’s Bureau, civil rights bill, negro suffrage to be urged in every form, the members from the southern States to be excluded from Congress, tinkering with the Constitution, all constitutional right that is possible to be withheld from the southern people, and they to be oppressed and harassed in every mode by the omnipresent Freedmen’s Bureau, to goad them to speeches, newspaper ublications, and‘acts of indiscrction an vio once, for the purpose of having a pretext to continue over them a military and civil regime that outrages every pi iucip e of constitutional law, right, and liberty. But this terrible game is about being “played out.” Let gentlemen take notice! that it is the deliberate, firm, and unalterable purpose of the American people that every loyal Senator and Representative of the southern States to the next Congress shall be admitted to his seat, and that every southern State shall vote in the next presidential election, and that the candidate who receives a majority of the electoral votes of all the States shall fill that office. I, sir, am for the maintenance of the inviolability of the Constitution, and the prompt redress and re aration of eve infraction of it. I wish the U.S and the States each to be in the undisturbed possession and exercise of all the sovereignty and powers which it accords to them, no more no less, and so of eve dept of the Government. I am thel defender of the Government of the U.S., of the States, of any dept or officer that maybe unjustly assailed; and when their position is changed to that of the aggress or, I then become an opponent. On this general principle I have heretofore endeavored to act 1'. roug iout my humble political career, and in the future I will not swerve from it, come what may to me. I voted against