Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. President, I look upon this resolution as very important at this time. If the POTUS had no authority of law or under the Constitution to appoint provisional governors for the States lately in rebellion, then all action under those governors falls. There have been no governments established over those States if their inception itself was illegal. I desire that the ComJudiciary should make an early report upon this point. It is due to the President and it is due to the country that it shall be settled, and settled at an early day. I am not a lawyer, and am hardly competent to decide for myself whether there was any such authority. We know, sir, that when AndrewJohnson, through the bullet of J. Wilkes Booth, became POTUS, the rebels had laid down their arms; that all the rebel States were held by military power; and under this military power AndrewJohnson had a right to appoint military governors, not only for every one of the States lately in rebellion, but for every city, had he seen fit so to do. The laws of war are as well understood as written constitutions or the laws of peace.. regulate and govern and control all civilized nations. When Mr. Lincoln desired to create a government in Tennessee he appointed AndrewJohnson a brigadier general in the Army of the U.S., and as Brigadier General An drew Johnson, of the Army of the U.S., he appointed him military governor of the State of Tennessee. That he had a right to do as Commander in Chief of the Army. But, sir, it is another and a different thing to appoint a provisional governor. I believe that is an office unknown to the Constitution or to the laws of our Government, an office which, in my judgment, he had no authority to create. Those governors were not sent before us for confirmation; nor would it have made them any more governors if we had confirmed them, because the Senate and AndrewJohnson together could not have created an office. If there was no authority of law for it, then it required the HoRep and the Senate and AndrewJohnson united, having 1st enacted a law creating the office, before the officer could be thus appointed. Under the laws of war, as I have said, he had a right to hold these States by military power and force. Those laws of war have been changed from age to age. They are arbitrary. They are simply the will of the conqueror. Under the laws of war in ancient times pris oners of war were remorselessly put to death, but those laws from age to age became modified. But, sir, as late as the year 1866, and as late as the month of July in the year 1866, the laws of war empowered the conqueror to lev all the expenses of the war upon the conquered. When Prussia conquered Austria she not only took from Austria what Provinces she desired, but she actually compelled Austria to pay 30 million florins for the expenses of the war. When Prussia annexed Frankfort on the Main she made Frankfort pay for the expense of conquering her, in coin. Under the laws of war the conquered must submit to the will of the conqueror; and the U.S. had a perfect right to make these rebels pay the whole expense incurred by this Government in putting down the rebellion under the laws of war. If AndrewJohnson, in violation of law, in violation of the Constitution, and without authority under the laws of war, has assumed willfully a power that did not belong to him but which belonged to Congress, then I do not hesitate to say and I say it with all deliberation that for that one act, and that alone, AndrewJohnson should be impeached. I say it as one of his judges. If he is guilty I say it understanding the force of what I say for this one act of usurpation, if it was without authority of law, or under the Constitution, or under the laws of war, then, sir, he should be impeached. A judge on the bench has a right to say, “If that man is guilty of murder he ought to be hanged; if the other man is. guilty stealing he should be sent to the State's rison.” A judge has a right to say that; and f have a right to say that if AndrewJohnson is guilty of this high usurpation of which he has been charged, he ought to be impeached for that one act, and that alone. But, Mr. President, there are other high allegations made against AndrewJohnson, acting POTUS It is alleged I know not whether the allegation be true or false, but it is alleged that AndrewJohnson delivered over property seized from rebels, the railroad rolling stock throughout the South, without authority of law, to those rebel railroad organizations It is alleged again that the railroad rolling stock that was sent from the North to the South, amounting to many million dollars, was, without authority of law and in violation of law, and by the exPress orders of AndrewJohnson, sold on a credit to those rebel railroad organizations. If this allegation be true, then I say AndrewJohnson had as much right to put his hand into the Treasury of the U.S and take out so many million dollars as he had to sell that rolling stock to those rebel railroads on a credit, and for that act of usurpation, I say, if he be guilty, he should be impeached and removed. Sir, this is a Government of law, and the President is the mere Executive to carry out the law. It is his sworn duty to obey and execute the law, and if he fails in that duty he is amenable to the law the same as any other individual in the U.S. It is alleged again, I know not whether the allegation be true or false, but it is alleged that AndrewJohnson, without authority of law, and in violation of law ordered the col. lection of the direct tax levied upon the rebel States to be stopped. I. know not whether this be true or false. The allegation is made and if it be true that in violation of law and against law he ordered this thing done, then for that act AndrewJohnson should be impeached and removed. It is likewise alleged that AndrewJohnson has acted in direct violation of the provision of the Constitution which says:. He [the President] shall have power, by with the advice and consent and of the Senate, to treaties, provided make 2/3rds of the SenatorsPresent congur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of bassadors, the Senate shall appoint, em otherpublic ministers and consuls, judges 9f the Supreme Court, and all other officers of U.S. whose appointments are not hertehine otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.” The Constitution has appointed his advisers. The Senate of the U.S. must advise as well as consent. The Constitution so declares. It is alleged that in direct violation of this clause of the Constitution he not only has not advised with the Senate, but he has appointed men deliberately who have been rejected by the Senate. fi. it wilf be claimed that this has been done before, and that for it he has a precedent. It is true that in 2 or 3 instances General Jackson did reappoint men who had once been rejected by the Senate, and I do not hesitate to say that for that act of usurpation General Jackson should have been impeached by the Congress of the U.S. But, sir, I will pass that over and come to another allegation that is yet more starth ng. It is alleged I know not whether it be true or false but it is alleged that AndrewJohnson made appointments during the recess of the Senate by removing the incumbents, and dur. ING the late long session of Congress did not send their names to the Senate at all, but on the adjournment of the Senate, without consulting the Senate, and in direct violation of the Constitution and of his oath of office, ru appointed those men, never having sent their names to the Senate at all. I know not whether that allegation be true or false; but if it be true I say AndrewJohnson should be im eached for that one act and that alone. Sir, if the Congress of the U.S. permit such a violation of the Constitution as that to o unpunished the Congress of So the U.S. should never meet again. The English Parliament for 100s of years has watched with zealous and jealous care all encroachment of the kingly power upon the Constitution of England. oany British minister been guilty of anyone of the acts which are alleged to have been committed by AndrewJohnson he would have been impeached for anyone of them. Mr. President, much has been said both in this body and before the people of the country about the plan of the President. I should like to ask any member of this body what right the President has to have a plan outside of the laws of Congress. The President has a right to advise Congress what plan it shall, adopt; so has every individual in the U.S. the same right. If Congress sees fit to adopt the plan of the President, well and good; it becomes the plan of the nation; and if Congress sees fit to adopt the plan of John Jones, who by petition advises Congress to adopt it, then John Jones's plan becomes the oof the Government. But, sir, if Congress declines to accept the plan of John Jones or of AndrewJohnson, (it is perfectly immaterial which,) then the plan to the ground; and John Jones has the same right to proclaim to the nttion that his plan is to be carried out as Andro y Johnson has that his plan is to be carried out: they have been both rejected by the lawmaking power. Sir, I have heard enough of this Presidential plan. What right has AndrewJohnson to a plan that has been rejected by Congress? He has no more right than my horse. The plan has been rejected: it is ended, and I want to hear no more of the President's plan. Let the POTUS obey the laws. If he do not obey the laws let him do it at his F. But, sir, there is a kind of timidity and dread that we, in executing our constitutional powers, shall bring some dreadful calamity upon this great nation. Mr. President, this nation has come victorious out of the most terriblerebellion that the world has ever seen. It has fought Jeff. Davis for 4 years, sustained by the inhabitants of the rebel States; it has conquered the rebellion; and now, sir, what fearful calamity could be brought upon this nation by our exercising our constitutional rights? Mr. President, the removal by impeachment of a man who has violated the Constitution and who ought to be removed I care not whether he be POTUS, or occupies the chair which you so ably fill, or what position he occupies would produce about the same amount of excitement in the country that the removal of the customhouse officer in the city of NewYork would occasion, and not any In Ore. This people has decreed, and that decree has been registered on high, that this nation shall stand; and no man, and no set and no combination of men, I care not whether it be headed by JeffersonDavis or AndrewJohnson or any other living man, can overthrow it. It has withstood every assault, and it will stand against every assault that will ever be made upon it. I hope, Mr. President, that the resolution will be adopted.