Mr. SAULSBURY. I do not wish to go beyond the limits of proriety in discussin this question, and I shoal not say a word ha it not been for some of the extraordinary and alarming principles avowed here today. The honorable Senfrom Massachusetts who has introduced this bill, having relation upon its face entirely to the States which are denominated “States lately in rebellion, ” has expressed the opinion that Congress has the power by its legislation to enter my State and to legislate for my people and for the people of Maryland and for the people of other States which it is not pretended have ever been in revolt; and we are now told that this power is to be deQ rived from the closin paragraph of the act for the amendment of the constitution. I wish the country to note the fact that when that proposed amendment was before this body there was no Senator then, according to my recollection, that avowed this doctrine. Gentlemen told us that they simply wished to amend the constitution so as to get clear of slaver, but no Senator then, according to. my recolectiou, stated to the country that it was meant under this latter clause of that act to give to the General Government the powers of a consolidated Government, to wipe out the States of this Union from existence, and to vest in Congress the power to legislate for the States. I know, sir, that it. was said by a distinguished modern patriot in NewYorkthat the old Union should not exist, but they meant to tear down the old house and build up a new one; but not even he avowed, nor did any other man, while the subeet was under discussion, that it was intende to confer upon Congress, by the passage of that act, power to enter the States and legislate for the people of the States. Sir, has it come to this, that simply because there has been a revolt in the southern States, and that revolt has been suppressed, we are to forget the lessons of the sat, disregard all the experience of the past, althe teachings of the past, and now to blot out entirely our former system of government, and in an insane effort to elevate the African race to the dignity of the white race, to destroy all the rights guar untied to us by our own State constitution s?Mr. President, I know that some of us who scented danger in the distance were charged by the public ress and otherwise with bein" disunionists; ut. the legislation proposed an the legislation which is to be carrie through Congress, if it shall be carried through congress, gives evidence to the country who in fact are the real disuniouists of the lan and now, sir, before I sit down allow me to ask this question, why should there be such an anxiety to press upon and degmde the southern people now that the war is over I The history of the world does not show an example where there has been such a sudden and universal acquieseence in the change of the relations of any people to a Government as has been recently exhibited in these southern States. They appealed to arms for the assertion of what they thOIZfhl or said they thought were their rights; the ecison has been against them. Point me, if you can, to the example in history where any peo10, from the institution of civil government to this present hour have so generally and so sudden y acquiesced in the changed relations which the war has produced. There is no such example. They are chargedstill with being “ disloyal.” That is a word that I do not know the meaning of when applied to a RFG, and I do not wish ever to know the meaning of it. It has no proper place in a republican dictionary as applied to a republican overument. I have met many gentlemen from the South, and I have yet to hear the 1st man of them who is not earnestly anxious that his State should assume its former relations to the General Government. There has been perfect acquiescence in everything which the POTUS has demanded, and certain] he has made very great demands in deed. e has asked them to ratify the constitutional amendment. They have done it. He has asked them to abolish slavery. They have done it and yet, sir, although there is not a article of resistance from the Potomac to the i0 Grands, or from the Ohio to the Gulf of Mexico, although peace reigns throughout the whole land, we are still told that the rebellion exists. How? Is there any war going on? Is there any opposition to the exercise of the Federal authority? Rebellion is an act. The honorable Senfrom Massachusetts says the President proclaimed that these States were in rebellion. Suppose he did; if the President who made that roclamation were alive today and could continue to live and exercise power for 1,000years, could he continue the rebellion simply because he had issued a proclamation that was still in existence unrevoked by him? Has it come to this, that the fact of the existence of a rebellion is to depend on the word of a President? I thought that rebellion meant resistance to authority, that it meant conflict; but no, the doctrine now is that the President having once said that. a rebellion exists, that rebellion continues to exist forever unless the President says it shall ccnsel. Sir, such is not the judgment of the people of this country. Everybody knows that war has ceased, and the rebellion as it is called has ceased. Your judges have so decided. It was so decided only yesterday in one of the courts of this country. What, sir, the presidents proclamation to be the evidence of the existence of a rebellion! Verily, during the last 4 or 5 years we have had wonderful examples of presidential power; but I never dreamed that that power was so omnipotent that he could create a rebellion by proclamation and continue it for all time by proclamation. But, air, on the question immediately before the Senate I wish to say that I am in favor of "the proposed reference to the ComJudiciary, because if it be true that it was the intention of the framers of the constitutional amendment to give such a power as is now claimed to Congress, and if this bill is meant to carry out that assumed power, I should like to have the judgment of the ComJudiciary on that subject. It is contrary to what the SecyState telegraphed to the provisional goveruor of SCarolina. It is contrary, as we all know, to the spirit and intention of the Presidents message and hisuni form declarations and here I will take occasion to say that while I did not support AndrewJohnson for the Vice Presidency of the U.S. yet as far as he conducts the Government in accordance with the constitution of the U.S., recognizing the States of this Union as composing the Union, recognizing the rights at those States as political communities, I will give him a cordial support in eve proper measure of his administration; where e is wron I will oppose him.