Mr. TRUMBULL. Not at all; nor does it require any act of admission of Tennessee now. I am assuming no such position. If the Sen ator will listen to me, and I am ca able of making myself understood, he will no erstand my position. The State of Tennessee was once in the exercise of all its constitutional relations as one of the States of this Union. To that we all agree. At some period in 1861 the State government of the State of Tennessee was overthrown and another government was inaugu rated there, the members of which swore allegiance to some other government, not that of the U.S. While that condition of things existed in Tennessee there was no State government there, because the government set up in hostility to the U.S. was not a State government in the contemplation of the Constitution of the U.S. That I pre sume the Senator admits. There was therefore an time when the State authoritieswere usurped by enemies of the country, there was no organization there loyal to the country. Now, what I mean to say is, that before the State of Tennessee can be again in constitutional relations with this Government, there must be set up an organization loyal to the Government. Does anybody doubt that? Who is to determine whetherthat organization has been set up and whether it is a republican governmentnt? Suppose that in the new organization which is set upprinciples are adopted that are antirepublican. what then? The Constitution says that the U.S shall guaranty to every State in the Union a RFG. Who is to inqun e whether a RFG has been set up in Tennessee? Somebody must. Has the POTUS any authority to inquire? Where did he get it? Whence did he derive it? As Commander in Chief of the Army? A great deal of confusion has arisen in the minds of some men by confounding the powers of the POTUS with his powers as Commander in Chief of the Army. The have no connection with each other. The residentas President cannot draw to himself any of the powers belongin to a commander in chief, and the commander in chief or general cannot draw to himself any presidential powers when acting as the commauder in chief. It has been thought proper that the Constitution of the U.S shall designate who shall command our armies, and it says that the person who is President shall be commander of the armies. It would have been competent for the people in their Constitution to have said that the person who was Chief Justice of the SCOTUS should be the commander of the armies; and if the constitution had so prescribed, the Chief Justice would have had just as much power as commander in Chief of our armies as the President has in that capacity. As Commander in Chief he can draw no powers to himself in consequence of being resident. He is designated as Commander m Chief because he is the president, but he acts either in the one capacity or the other. Now, neither as President has the Constitution devolved upon the Executive authority to determine what is a RFG in a State, nor as Commander inhief of the armies has it devolved upon him any such authorit.