Mr. STEVENS. I have no right to tell the secrets of the Executive. [Lau ter.] But we know perfectly well that the president has nothing to do With this matter. The passage of this amendment by a 2/3rds vote of both Houses of Congress will carry it before the State Legislatures for ratification without regard to the approval or disapproval of the President. It is true that the constitutional amendment for the abolition of slavery was, after its assnge by both Houses of Congress, sent inadvertently to President Lincoln for his signature. But although he signed it because he approved it, yet, acting with the sagacity and t ie modesty which were so characteristic of him, he sent to Congress a message stating that that body, in sendinghim that JtResolution for approval, had done what the constitution did not require. We shall not trouble president Jeh. on by sending him this amendment if it should be passed by Congress, because it is not necessary to submit it. to him for his approval. As I said before, I do notintend to refer particularly to the able, elaborate, and eloquent s cech of my friendfrom NewYork, [Mr. IAYMOND] because that speech had, to a great extent, no connection whatever with this question, except, possibly, so far as the status of the States may be affected by this amendment. He still persists in saying that the seceded States are, and alwa shave been, in the Union; that the constitution would not allow them to go out. He took the same ground before. I had undertaken to prove that they were out of the Union, not by our consent. but by operation of law. I had stated that they formed the confederate government as States; that they had raised large armies; that they had done what no State could constitution ally do, issued letters of marue which were recognized by us and the civilized world. There is no doubt, sir, that for 3 years we acknowledged that rebel government as a belligerent, as did the whole civilized world. But whether we so acknowledged the rebels or not, the law of natiens declares that when they had established a government, and maintained themselves for a stiflicient length of time to rise above the position of mere murderers or insurrectionists, they became belligerents; and it does not makea particle of difference whether the parent Government recognizes them as belligerents. In this case, however, the acknowledgment of our own Government and the wellsettled doctrine of the law of nations combined in conceding to the States in rebellion this position. The gentleman cannot deny this state of facts; and yet he reiterates the octrinc, ” once a State always a State.” May I be pardoned for reading a paragraph from Vattel? “ When n nation becomes divided into 2 parties absolutely independent and no lemzer acknowledging a common in erior. the State is dissolved and the war between tie 2 parties stands on the same ground in every respect as a public war between two different nations.” Again, I read: “The conventions the treaties, made with a nation are broken or annulled by a war arising between the contracting parties.” This is the doctrine of Vattel as well as of Grotius and Rutherford and Puffendorf. The Gentfrom NewYork denies it. I admit the weight of the gentlemans authont; but I am not willing that all those sages of the law, clad in the anoply of ages, and fortified by the opinion of the civilized world, should be broken down and annihilated by the single arm of my friendfrom NewYork, however powerful he may be in assault and cunning in efense. One word as to another portion of the gentlemans speech. I could not but admire (an admiration mingled with wonder) the amiability of temper, the tenderness of heart, the gen: erosity of feeling, which must have promted some of the closm sentences of the exce lent and able speech deivered by the gentleman on. last Monday. His words were these: “The gigantic contest is at an end. The courage and devotion on either side which madeit so terrible and so long. no longer owe a divided duty. but have becomethe common property of the american name. the priceless Po5805810o!)f the American Republic. through all time to come. The dead of the contending hosts sleep beneath the soil of a common country, under their common flag. Their hostilitics nrcliushed and they are the dead of the nation forevermoro.” Sir, much more than amiable, much more than religious must be the sentiment that would prompt any man to say that “the courage and devotion” which so long withstood our arms, prolonging the terrible conflict of war, and sacrificing the lives of 1,000s of loyal men, are hereafter to be the common boast of the nation, “the priceless possession of the American Republic through all tiilie to come;” that it is the pride of our country so many infamous rebels were so ferocious in their murders. Sir, we are to consider these dead on both sides as the dead of the nation, the common deadl and so I suppose we are to raise monuments beside the monuments toReynolds and others to be erected in the cemetery on the battlefield of Gettysburg; we must therebuild high the monumental marble for men like Barksdale, whom I have seen in this Hall draw their bowieknives on the Representative of the people; men who died upon the battlefield of Gettysburg in arms against the Government, and where they now lie buried in ditches “ unwept, unhonored, and unsung!” They are, I suppose, to be raised and put into the forefront raolis of the nation, and we are to call them through all time as the dead of the nation 1 Sir, was there ever blasphemy before like this? Who was it burnt the temple of Ephesus? Who was it imitated the thunder ofJoveI All that was poor compared with this blasphemy. I say if the loyal dead who are thus associated with the traitors who murdered them, put by the gentleman on the same footing with them, and are to be treated as the “common dead of the nation”I say, sir, if they could have heard the gentleman they would have broken the ceremenfs of the tomb and stalked forth and haunted him until his eyeballs were scared.