Mr. COWAN. I decline to yield further I do not want any more interpolations. I think everybody will understand me when I get through, and it not I do not know that I can make myself any p niner. There is the source of the authority. I do not say that was a better plan than the other plan. I have no quarrel about that. It was within the option of the President to take either of these plans. He hudn right to arrest these people; he had a.right to allow them to go at urge on their parole, or, in other words, he had a right to admit them to bail, if you please. in that behalf; and he had a right to establish officers there to support the trust until the cororators the citizens of the States. could come mck and resume their functions and elect new otheers true and faithful to their trust., Mr. Johnson chose the latter of these courses. Where was the necessity for quarreling with it? Where did the quarrcl come from? The southern people did not comlain of it. No body ever heard Governor etcher, of Virginia, or Governor Brown, of Georgia, or any other southern man complain of it. but the complaint comes from our side. It comes from some of the people of the North who claim for themselves to be, par excellence, Union men. They are the men who quarrel with the action of the President in this behalf, and they quarreled with Mr. Lincoln from the very outstart upon the same principle. They passed a bill, which, I believe, authorized Mr. lincoln to do what he was doing, or pretty nearly that, and he ocketed it. That was their support of Mr. rincoln; and then, just in the t ick of the election, in the very thick of the canvass, some of these excessive party men, some of these men who stand by the Union party at all hazards, as long as it has a big majorit at its back, issued a protest charging Mr. Lincoln with beinga usurperand a tyrant because he had pocketed this bill of theirs which they had passed, showing their plan by which the thing was to be done. I met a Dutchman in my State during that canvass, and he told me he had just been at a republican convention, and he had heard one of these protestants make a speech, of course in favor of the Republican nominees. “Well, ” said I, “what did he say?” “Well.” he said, “he was very hard on the President for about an hour, and then he ot better.” That was the kind of speech in which Mr. Lincoln was sup: ported; the fore end of it, about an hour, was taken to abuse him for his usurpation and his tyranny in attempting to sustain and support these southern corporations for the benefit of their citizens; and then the last part of it was a ttle better, not so bad. he honorable Senfrom Michigan asks triumphantly, apparently and indeed words seem to have so little meaning here that anything may be asked and nothing may be an swered satisfactorily where has the President power under the Constitution to confer political rights upon anybody? Nobody ever contended that the President conferred political rights upon anyone; and I go further, and fling it back into the teeth of the advocates of this doctrine, that Congress cannot confer o litical rights upon anybody. What right as Congress to confer political rights upon the citizens of States? Thank God, the citizens of States hold their title by a higher one than Congress can confer. Ihey derive their rights from the fact that they are States, free, independent States, bound only by their constitutional obligations. i have heard about as much balderdash here on the subject of State rights as I ever heard in my life; but have the States no rights? s any man mad enough to pretend that States have lost all their rights because a few citizens claimed a right of secession, which never was a State right, and which, if it is a right, is a right to travel over a bargain you have made, and to break a law which you yourself assisted in the making of. The rightof secession which has been claimed as a State right never was a State right; but the right to saywho shall wield political power in a State is a State right. States have rights tolmaketheir own laws for the purpose of administering justice between their own citizens, and this General Government has no right to interfere in any way. States have their rights under the Constitution just as well as the (reneral Government has rights over the States under the Constitution. Then I say the President never pretended that he could confer political rights upon either the rebel States or the loyal States, or upon the people of one or the other; but what he did pretend to do was to stand over these people while they revained their lost rights, rights which they had Iost in this war of grebellion; rights which had been in abeyance in that storm which swe t Over the country. He stood there the faithfu guardian of the public weal, in order that they might come bacii and regain that which had been attempted to be taken from them. Wns that conferring political rights? What did the rebellion destroy? Did it destroy the States? Did it destroy the rights of the people as States? Did it repeal the Constitution? did it repeal the laws? If it did not, then what did it do? If it had succeeded, as the gentleman as s, it might have done all that; but it would have succeeded not in virtue of law but in spite of it. It would have succeeded as a revolution, not as a legal right of secession. Then the suppression of terebellion if we are honest, if we are true, if we intend to stand upon the ground upon which we started out, restored the statu quo ante bellum. That is all. Itjust brought everything to the place of diverence, to the point of departure. Vhat has the resident done? Attempted to bring it back there. This Government has 3 Depts, an executive, alegislative and ajudicial. These 3 Depts are distinct and independent of each other; coordinate. The President, the Executive of this Government, acknowledges the relations of these Statesto the Union. The SCOTUS, the est jndicial tribunal of the land, the otherhighay opened its dockets and recognized the relations of these States and their citizens to the Union. The 3rd Dept, Congress, has refused. Why? Because the honorable Senfrom Michigan and certain other honor able Senators say it is not safe to admit them. Although in the bitterest war that ever Was waged, in the greatest conflict of arms that the modern world at least has witnessed, we have been their vanquishers, we have compelled them to submission; although we have a population 3 times as many as theirs, and a representation 2 or 3 times as great as theirs, it is not safe to admit them! Would it not have been much more prudent to have taken Democratic advice at the outstart, if that is so? The Democrats said, “ Why make war? Do not make war; if you do you will embroil and you will embitter this contest so that it never will be safe to admit them.” Why did we make war? Because we believed that Y Not at all. We made the war because we believed that men were governed by common sense, that they were actuated by motives of common interest, and that it would be perfectly safe to admit them the moment the rebellion wa. but down. That is why we made the war and that is why we avowed the purpose. But times have changed, the tables are turned. Now, that party which was foremost in making the war, foremost in declaring its purpose, is fore most to declare that the war was a failure and that this thing cannot be done, and avows here openly again upon the floor of the Senate, and by a member of that committee who has aright to know, who has taken the testimony and selected the witnesses, I have no doubt, to prove it, that that people are utterly unfit to be restored to their rights, and that it is utterly unsafe that they should come back into the Union. Now, sir, if that is true, that is the most formidable declaration of disunion thatI have ever heard; and that establishes disunion as a fact. I think no man I know of is mad enough to suppose that ydu can maintain a Union at the point of the bayonet. The honorable Senfrom Michigan does not pretend that thatis union. That may be conquest, but it is not union. He has adopted another very strange theory. He says that in the committee of 15 it has been shown beyond all peratlventure that the constituencies of these men are disloyal; whether the men themselves are loyal or disloyal, whether they be traitors or whether they be true, is of no consequence; their constituencies are inherently and essentially disloyal; and then, although he talks of nonsequiturs, he turns around and triumphantly asks, what are they here in Congress for but to carry out the treasonable will of their constituents? If ever there was a nonsequitur in the world, that is one. I care not whether m constitquents be treasonable or not treasonable, I am nothere to commit treason for them. No man is bound to yield to any such unlawful desire I or further any such unlawful design of his constituents as that would involve. the honorable Senator has spoken of the SecyState. Sir, I should think the patriotism of that man on ht not to be impugned ere. I think common eceucy, common respect for the character of a man whose history belongs to the world and to this age, who is known in both hemispheres, and sympathy even for the wounds that disfigure him, ought to entitle him at least in this Senate to a fair consideration, and that he should not be subjected here to misrepresentation and to the imputation of impropermotives. It so happens that the honorable SecyState, whether wisely as the Senfrom Miehi an or unwisely according to the lights that e may have before him. holds that tie President is right in this matter. Hon. William H. Seward, a name, I venture to say, as high and as proud as any that will grace the Valhalla ofAmerican heroes in the future, agrees with the President; and William H. Seward disagrees with the honor able Senfrom Michigan and then Thermopyla: is invoked, Leonidas and his Spartans are told into the pass, and the honorable Senfrom Michigan is there in front of them! What for? To oppose Mr. Seward and Mr. Sewards perfect rehabilitation. Mr. President, the American people are not going to be frightened out otptheir propriety about that. I think, and I believe it cannot be disputed, that if there is one voice in this land potential upon thisquestion, poten tial for prudence, otential or moderation, potential for humanity generally, it is the voice of William H. Seward, and as many ofyour new recruits, as many of your new zealots as you can hatch out of the hot bed of these tur bulent times may come here and attempt to assail his motives and his designs, the American people, nevertheless, will remember him, and abide his counsel, or I am very much mistaken. William H. Seward has given evidence, evidencesuch I may say as none of these modern zealots have given he has given it as well as the POTUS that he is in fa vor of the country, and the whole country; that he is in favor of the freedom of the people, the whole people, not simply the freedom of the negro, but the freedom of the whole people; that he is in favor of giving to the American people their rights, and they can very readily believe that he will not adopt the conquering theory of the honorable Senfrom Michigan. No man has ever heard him cry we victia. Mr. President, this themeis exhaustless; this subject has no limits, it can have none save in the Constitution and the laws. There is no reconstruction, there is no plan of reconstruction except that which is involved in obedience of the laws; and the man who supposes there is a hope of it is, in my judgment, still more mistaken than the man who now asserts that the Union is gone, and gone irreparably, from the hearts of the southern people. In either event this doctrine is disunion: in either event this doctrine shuts the door of hope. Mr. President, I do not believe, I cannot believe, I will not believe now, standing over the graves of 2 or 300,000 American citizens fallen in the strife of the Union, that there can be no Union. What conceivable, what possible interest has any man to disseminate this doctrine among our people? Why is it that men go aboutfrom day to ay trumpeting the untitness of the southern people for a Union, and yet calling themselves Iinion men? Who has made the people of the North believe that this breach has been so widened, thatthis gulf is so impassable, that we never can be friends a in With our southern brothers? Who is it that does it? Are they Union men, I ask? In the case of a quarrel between 2 men, what kind of a union friend would he be who would go from the one to the other and say, “He hates you, he hates you in the very innermost recesses of his heart, " and then go to the other and say, “ He would stab you behind if he had achance?” Would that I be to make union. reconciliation. between these I parties? and who does this thing? It is not, the President. who does it. lt is not Mr. Seward who does it. It is not the Army who does it. It is not the Navy who does it. Who does do it? I will tell you, Mr. President, it is a faction in power here, tasting the sweets of power, enjoying its exercise, and they tell you that these people are unfit to come in; and why? Because, come in as they may, there can be no reconciliation with them. That is disunion again. What was said the other day in the House which sits at the other end of this Cap itol? “Without some measure like a reconstruction measure, when we come back again these Halls will be filled with yelling rebels and hissing copperheads.” What then is to be done? Usurp, grasp poweryourselves, remodel the Constitution, remodel the laws, so that the few, not the many, can hold on to power. We may just as well come to it 1st as last; that is exactly what it means. Are you afraid the Democrats willget the power? If you are. that is disunion. A man who is afraid of the other party coming in, and who believes that that other party will destroy the Government, is a disunion man, because he believes that which is fatal to the very foundation of the fabric. 1 do not believe it, and I never did believe it. Much as I might belong to one of the great parties of the country, I never believed that the other would destroy the Governmentifit came into power. I believed it would not, and that is why I was in fav0r of this Government. That is the difference between us and most other Governments. In a monarchical form of government the people are not trusted; one party will not trust the other, and they set up an intermediate man and attempt to scaffold him around in such a way as to preventa collision. We formed this Government upon the basis that either of the great parties of the country was safe to intrust it witii. You say that if the Union is restored and on give the people of the South their rights they will come in and they will join the Democrats, and then the Democrats will have a majorit over the Republicans. Suppose it be so; am perfectly willing, if we save the Union. I will execute a release of all my right for office, not only today, but in all time to come, if anybody will just insure the Unionence and harmony. Itrust everybody woul. I think there is no man so infatuated, personally and apart from his party ties and party connections but would be willing to do the same thing. I do not believe a word of it, and I tell you that if the southern States were represented here tomorrow and came back an joined themselves with the Democrats of the North, they would meet with just the same resistance precisely from them that the now meet from the Republicans if they should attempt any further secession; and wh? Just because it is as much the interest of one party in the North as it is the interest of the other party to preserve the Union, and nobody but a man who is desirous of making mise hief and desirous of fomenting discord would ever take any other view of it. They may have different plans and different policies, but the great end and object of both is to preserve the Government, and what is more and what is better, to preserve themselves and their fortunes and their fami lies, and to preserve a prospect for their children. I am a Republican; and I am a Republican because I believe that; and I would as soon undertake to commit personal suicide or another kind of suicide as to go out and prose among my fellow citizens that 1/2 of them were utterly diabolical and utterly corru t and desirous of overturning the whole oft is fair fabric of liberty under which we lived so long and so ha pily. What is it but a proclamation of political suicide? I do not believe a word of it; and however much I might lament the contingency of a party opposed to me getting into power, however much I might suppose it won d affect in a small way the interests of my State or of my section yet I am willing to bow to the behests of the penile in that behalf. I await the action oft eir constitutional majority exressed through the constitutional forms; and teman who is unwilling to do that and unwilling to trust it is a secessionist, and belongs to precisely the same school of secession as that which flourished in 1860. That was secession. Had an body invaded the rights of secession ists? ail anybody trenched upon the rights of the southern States? No; but the secession ists said, “Although you have elected your President by constitutional means and through the medium of a constitutional majority, yet we have a right to anticipate you.” nticipate what? Anticipate whatthe honorable Senfrom Michigan anticipates and what every man who has no faith in the country and no faith in its institutions a prehends. “We anticipate, ” said they, that your President will not be a constitutional President; that your party will not bea constitutional art. It has got the Abolitionists in it, and they have said that the Constitution is a convenant with death and a league with hell, and they will abolitionize the whole country; they will destroy sla very; they will do this, that, and the other thing;" and what then? “We will get out before they come.” That was secession. They would not trust the Republican party; that was it. Now, we are told you cannot trust the Democratic party; you cannot trust either of the pfllliCS with the southern fraction of the Union in its place in the legislative Halls of the country. What are we going to do? Instead of standing upon the Constitution and the laws, for which we made the war, and standing there honestly, as brave men should, we have now a scheme to make a new Constitution and new laws. Is not this the same thing precisely that the secessionists said in the winter 0t 1861? Did they not say we must have new constitutions, we must have new laws, we must have the Constitution amended here, and the Constitution amended there? Why? because they aprehended difficulties. ow, in the process of time, in the revolutions of the wheel of fortune, the very extreme northern radical party find themselves in the position of the secessionists, distrusting the Constitution, distrusting the law, distrustmg the people, apprehending some difficulty; and that 18to be mended by new constitutions and new laws and new guarantees. That is the word, I believe. That is a very fashionable word now. Mr. President, how absurd is all this. suppose that we pass these bills requiring new guarantees and imposing new conditions. Of course, as they do not now exist in the constitution and in the laws, they are to be proposed to the southern States for their accept ance, and if you make a proposal to anyone for his acceptance, in that is involved the right that he has to refuse, if he chooses. I put it to honorable Senators. suppose today you make your proposal to South arolina to accept your new constitution and your new series of laws, and suppose she refuses. What then? What are you goin to do? suppose the whole 11 refuse; what then? how are you going to make them do it? I agree, if they will all take up guns and attempt to shoot you, you might take up a whole parcel of guns and shoot a great many of them, and compel them to lay down their guns; but you cannot make them accept your proposition. Then, if you cannot compel it except by war, and you cannot compel it by war. unless they make war by way of resistance, what are you going to do? Just nothing. Then you have your trouble for your pains, and you will enjoy the delightful satisfaction of being backed down and backed out by those whom you proclaim to be con(tiered people, and whom you proclaim, upon the floor of the Senate, you hold by the point of the bayonet. Sir, self respect for this Government, self respect for the American people, self respect for our institutions and laws ail forbid it. We have no terms to offer, we ought to have no preposals to make, except this: obey the constitution and the laws. That we can compel them to do, but you cannot compel them to adopt new propositions and give new guarantees; and l should say that we have no right to do it, unless this Governmeutis to be entirely changed in its nature, in the nature of its machinery, and in the rights which are to be conferred upon it; and if it is, in Gods name, why not et us know it? If there is to be no such thing as State rights, if this is to be a consolidated Government, an actual de acto Government, administering the laws an justice among the people as the State governments now administer them, wh not bring in that reposition and let us see it, let us meet it? f, however, it is to be such a Government as the one we have been proud of so long, let us preserve it; and instead of trying to patch it and mend it and change it and pervert it for a mere temporar political purpose, let us all stand by it pron ly and strongi), and hand it down to our children with the same injunction H with which we received it from our fathers, and then we shall have fulfilled our duties and we shall have performed the functions of American citizens.