Mr. SHERMAN of Ohio proceeded to address the Senate. [His speec will be published in the Appendix.] Speech entitled Representation of Southern States. February 26, 1866, On the concurrent resolutionof the House to therepresentation of oertan states. Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, the immediate question before the Senate is upon the resolution of the HoRep, passed on the 21st instant, declaring that no Senator or Representative shall be admitted into either branch of congress from any of the 11 States which have been declared to be in insurrection until Congress shall have de clared such State entitled to such representation. This question, together with the reasons stated in the resolution for its passage, the circumstances under which it is pressed in congress, and the many pending propositious of a kindred character now on our table, induces me to follow the example so often set in the Senate, and to discuss all these kindred propositions now while I have the floor. I shalldo so as clearly and as brieflyas possible, in the order in which they will probab y present themselves for our vote and 1st as to this resolution. If the meaning of the resolution is that as a matter of convenience in the discharge of our duties the Sens&Reps ought to act in concert with each other in legislating upon and in discussing all propositions.affecting the right of States to representation, surely it is a reasonable proposition. We have already acted in concert at the beginning of this session by creating a JtCommee as an or an of both bodies to confer with each other an to communicate to each House separately their deliberations. We have often liefore recognized the propriety of acting through JtCommees on questions of cat importance, when the concurrence of bothHouses is needed, " and when a free conference will probably tend to producenn a recment. Therefore, if this is the purpose of this resolution, it is a very simple and lain one and obviously defensible. But, Mr. President, this resolution goes further. It asserts, and it was intended to assert, that with Congress, and with Congress alone, rests the duty of defining when a State once declared to be in insurrection shall be admitted to representation in this and the other House of congress. This is a proposition of constitutiona law; and on this point I am glad to say that there has been no difference of opinion among us until this session of Congress. This question ha been 3 times decided ine the Senate. It has been decided by the unanimous report of our ComJudiciary. It has not been controverted in this body until within a very few days, or until during the present session of Congress. At the last sessmn a unanimous report was made from the ComJudiciary, composed of some of the ablest lawyers in the Senate, in which this doctrine is, in my judgment, more clearly and distinctly expressed than in the resolution now before us. I cannot sce why anyone who gave his deliberate judgment to that proposition can oppose this. The honorable Senfrom Maine read aportion of this report on Friday, but it will bear repetition, an I will now read it: “The persons in possession of the local authorities in Louisiana having rebelled against the authority of the U.S.os, and her inhabitants having been declared to be in estate ofinsurrcction in pursuance of a law passed by the 2 Houses of Congress, your committee deem it improper for this body to admit to seats Senators from Louisiana, till bu mmcjoint actionof both Houses there shall be some recognihlmo an existing State governmenateting in harmonywit the Government of the U.S and recognizing its authority." If this is law, how can any Senator vote against the pending proposition unless it is for reasons not involving the merits of that proposition? But this is not the only case, for I find that this very question was made, and by a vote of the Senate was definitely decided, and it was made so distinctly that no Senator could have voted for the proposition I am now about to read without understanding its full purport and effIetet. Will be remembered that a bill came to the Senate, passed by the HoRep guarantying to the seceded States a RFG, commonly known as the whade and Davis bill. It was antagonized here by various propositions, and among the rest by a proposition offered by the honorable Senfrom Missouri, [Mr. BROWK] That bill contained many sections intended to re. vide a mode by which these 11 States might, when the rebellion was suppressed within their limits, be restored to their old places in the Union. The proposition offered by Mr. Bnown, as a substitute for the bill, I will now read; and I invite the attention of Senators to the distinct assertion of the very doctrine that is proclaimed in "this resolution: That whentheinhabitants of anystate have been declared in a state of insurrection against the U.S. by plroolamation of the President t, by forceand virtue pt c not entitled An act to provide for the collection of duties oningorts, an for other poses, approved July I3, I 1, theyshall be, an orchy coloredto be, men able of castingany vote for electorsof President or icePOTUS, or of electing Senators or Representatives in Congress, until said insurrection in said State is suppressedor abandoned, and said inhabitants have iI Ieturned to their obedience to the Government of the in Then mark these words“nor until such returnin obedienceshall be declared by proclamation of the president, iuued byvirtueof an acto "Conm us, hmqfier tobepaued, authorizing the Um"? This proposition was introduced in antagonism to the proposition then before the Senate, as a substitute or it, to cover the whole ground, and I am told was framed by our fellow senator now dead, Judge Collamer. After debate it was adopted as a substitute by the close vote of 17 one to 16 nays. Among the yeas were every democratic member of this Senate nud some of the Republicans. All thenays were Union. Senators, friends of the original bill, includin many classed as radicals. I give the vote in all: "Yams Messrs. Brown, Carlile, Cowan Davis, Doolittle Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks. ohnson, Lane of Indiana, Medougall, Powell Richardson, Riddle, Saulsbury, Trumbull, and Van Winkle l7. “Nara Messrs. Chandler, Clark, Conness.Halo, Harlan, Lane, of Kansas. Morgnu, Morrill Pomeroy. Ramsey, Sherman. Spraguo, Sumner, Wade, Wilkinson and Wilson 16. It may be said that these gentlemen voted for this proposition for the purpose of defeating a more offensive one; and itf e vote rested here that would be a reasonable explanation. But in order to point the significance of this vote the honorable Senfrom Illinois, the chairman of the ComJudiciary, [Mr. Tnuusmmd called attention to the importance of the question and said he wanted a definite vote upon this proposition by itself. He stated its importance, the effect of the principle involved, and asked for the yeas&nays on the passage of the bill as amended, in order, as he said, to ascertain the judgment of the Senate upon this distinct proposition. The bill then contained nothing at what I have read to you, and the vote was taken by yeas&nays, and stood as follows: “Yuri Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Conness Doo little, Grimos.Harlan. Harris, Henderson.Jo nson. Mr. Lane of Indiana. Lane of Kansas, Medongal, Mor 1to their Old place in the Union, Congress has an, Poincroy. Ramsey. Riddle, Sherman.Sprnguc. l umner, TenEyck. Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Wilkinson, and Wilson 26. “Nays Messrs Davis, Powell, and Saulsbury S." So that by this deliberate vote, after debate after the attention of the Senate had been called to the importance of the proposition by the ju dicial organ of this body, at a time when there was no excitement and no party feeling here on this proposition, the doctrine we are discussing was asserted by an almost unanimous vote of the Senate. It seems to me that with this declaration of the opinion of the Senate before us, made when it was not influenced by party feeling or party excitement, we ought not to doubt the correctness of the pending resolution, not near so strong in its tenor or langua c. It ought not to be resisted by anyone wh0 thus committed the Senate to that proposition against a measure that would have organized a system to reconstruct the seceding States. But, Mr. President, I need not depend upon the vote of the Senate or upon the authorities. because I think, if you test this proposition by the simplest principles of constitutional law there can a pear no doubt that Congress has the sole and ) exclusive power over this subject. The Constitution of the U.S. gives to the POTUS no legislative power except as a part of the lawmaking power. He is an executive officer, with no legislative power exec t that which he exercises in connection witi us. The Constitution of the U.S. confers upon Congress not only the power to raise and support armies, to appropriate money therefor, and to provide and maintain a navy, at"To make rules for the governmentand regulation of the land and naval forces." and among the residuary powers conferred upon Congress is that important one “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper forcarrying into execution the foregoingpow ers, and all other powersvestedb this Constitution in the Government of the U.S., or in any Deptor officer thereof.” Thercfore, where a power is conferred upon the President, and the legislative power is accessaryin order to carry that power into effect, Congress alone possesses the power to arm the Executive with the necessary authority to execute the laws. Upon conus alone rests all the iesiduary powers; an therefore it is that the power of Congress follows our flag wherever it floats. Our flag may go round the world, to South America, to Italy, to China; it may go into any foreign country as it did in Mexico; it may go into the southern States subduing a rebellion, and wherever it goes the legislative power of congress goes With it. It regulates and governs the Army, and the President has nothing to do but to execute the will of congress and the Constitution of the U.S. It seems, therefore, testing it by reason, that this power must rest in Congress. The doctrine is very strongly stated by Story, in his Commentarieson the Constitution, in very much the language I have used; and he says, in speaking of the powers of Congress, that the juris diction an power of the Government of the U.S. follow our flag or our Army into a foreign country, and Congress may make rules and regulations for the government of the Army of the U.S. in a forei u country as well as in our own, and it is the duty of, the President to execute them. It is true that, in the absence of rules and regulations prescribed by Congress the President may make such reg ntions as are absolutely necessary for the government of the Arm wherever it is, but it is only as a part of his duty to execute the general laws. If Congress chooses to step in and prescribe the mode and manner in which these powers shall be exercised, he is bound by his oath to observe such rules and regulations. I conclude, therefore, that as Congress has de clared 11 States to be in a state of insurrection, as it is necessary now to pass some plan or law by which these States may be restored the undoubted legislative power to prescribe the terms, conditions, and tests by which their loyalty and obedience to the law may be adjudged. rrunsser or rsis arsoturiou. But, Mr. President and I say it with great deference to the committee who reported it I do not believe the bare assertion of this power tends to remote the object stated by the resolution itsel. The object of this resolution is stated to be to close agitation upon a question which seems likely to disturb the action of the Government, as well as to quiet the uncertainty Viiich is agitating the minds of the people of the 11 States which have been declared to be in a state of insurrection. If this resolution would tend to promote these great objects, I would vote for it much more cheerfully than I will; but I regard it as amere straw in a storm, thrown in at an ine pportune moment; the mere assertion of a naked right which has never yet been disputed, and never can be successfully; a mere assertion of a right that we have over and over again asserte. The only doubt I ever had about the resolution was the wisdom of introducing it and assing it under the previous question in one House ata moment when there was undue or unusual excitement in the public mind. My idea is that the true way to assert this power is to exercise it, and that it was only necessary for congress to exercise that wer in order to meet lthese complicated ilficulties. This resolution does not provide for the contingencies that have happened. Let me state the case. Suppose the 2 Houses of Congress cannot agree upon a plan of re construction, as it is very obvious we shall have dilficulty in doing. Opposition here is already developed to the constitutional amendment as part of the plan agreed upon, in quarters at least to me unexpected, and it is very doubtful whether we can agree by the requisite majority upon this leading idea of a change of the Constitution. Supposri the 2 Houses of Congress cannot agree with each other, what then? Must these 11 States stand in their present isolated condition beyond the pale of civil law until the 2 Houses can agree upon some proposition I Again, suppose that Congress will not agree with the President, as actually occurred in the passage of the Wade and Davis bill. We sent to President Lincoln our plan of reconstruction. He declined to approve it. There was a diTTerencobetween Congress and the President. Up to this hour we never have exercised our power to regulate the mode and manner of ringing these States back into the Union. Suppose this dillerence exists between the various apartments of the lawmaking power and no law should be passed on the subject, is it intended by this resolution to assert that no rep Representatives from these 11 States shall come back here, and that the power of each House to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members shall not be exercised until by force or in some other way we can be compe led to agree? Must these States be de prived of all representation here until a forced verdict is drawn out of Congress with the assent of the President? Not at all. I have no doubt of the power of congress to pass any law it can on the subject, but know very well that if Congress fails to pass a law after a reasonable time, either House can and will exercise its undoubted power to admit Sens&Reps on the floor of congress. If we fail to pass aplan of reconstruction at the present session of Congress, this resolution will not prevent either House of congross from hereafter exercising its undoubted power to pass upon the claim of anyone who comes here at this bar demanding a seat as a Senator of the U.S. Therefore I say that the measure proposed does not meet the real difficulty in the case. What we want is a plan of actign by which these States may, upon such terms an conditions as are consistent with the public safety, come back into this Union. rria WADB DAVISBILL. Mr. President, in my judgment the real dif ficulty in this wholematter has been the unfor tunate failure of the executive and legislative branches of the Government to agree upon a plan of reconstruction. If at the last session we had provided a law, reasonable in itself, proper in its provisions, by which these States might have been guided in their efforts to come back into the Union, that would have been an end of this controversy; but uhfortuniitely (and I am not here either to arraign the living or the dead) there was a failure to agree. Earlier in this war, during the 37th Congress, a gentleman now in his rave, and whose eulo was so fitly pronounce the other day in the HoRep by his colleague here, Henry Winter Davis, prepared a bill to meet this exigenc. He was not then a member of congress. e brought that bill to me. It was a bifirto guaranty to each State a RFG. The provisions of the bill pointed out a lan by which these States, then declared by on ess to be in a state of insurrection, might, whon that insurrection was subdued or abandoned, come back freely and voluntarily into the Union. It provided for representation; it provided fort O election of a convention and a Leoislature, and the election of Senators and memers of Congress. It was a complete guarantee to the people within the States upon certain conditions to come back into the Union. The provisions and tests by which to judge when the state of insurrection had ceased and determined were prescribed. I introduced that bill here at the request of Mr. Davis. It was referred to the ComJudiciary. It was not acted upon by them. I suppose they thought it remature. Afterward Mr. Davis came into the hirty 8th Congress as a member of the HoRep. Anion the 1st acts performed by him after takin is sent was the introduction of this same bill, ramed by him and introduced by me into the Senate, in the HoRep. It was introduced by him on the 16th December, 1863. It was debated in the HoRep and passed by a very decided vote, and it was sent to the Senate. Its history I have already in part stated. It was re ported to the Senate favorably; but in place of it was substituted the proposition I have already read, offered by the Senfrom missouri, which was adopted in the Senate. It was sent back to the House; a committee of conference was a pointed and the result was the reporting to the Senate and the House of what was called the Wade and Davis bill. That bill was debated and finally passed upon the report of the committee of Conferenee. It went to the President; he did not approve it. I hays before me a proclamation issued by the President on the 8th of July, 1864, in which it is recited: “ Whereas at the late session Congresspassed a bill to guaranty to certain States, whose governments have been usur ador overthrown a republicanfonn of goverument aco votwhichishercuntoannexed: and whereas the said bill was presentedtothe POTUSfor onehour beforethe vinedie ournmentofsaid session and was not signed by im; and whereas the snid bill oontains, among other things, a plan for restoring the States in rebellion totheir proper practical re is approval less thanation in the Union, which plan expresses the sense of Congress upon that subject, and which plan it is now thoughtlit to lay before the people lor their consider, athtieornefore, I Abraham Lincoln. POTUS, do proclaim, declare, and make known, that while I am (as I was in Decemberlast. when byproclamation I propounded a plan torresto ration) unpre ared, by a formalapproval of this bill, to be infleXib y committed to any single plan of res toration: and while I am nlso unpreparedto declare that the free Stats constitutions and governments already adopted and installed in Arkansas and Louisiann shall be set aside and held for naught, thereby repelling and discouraging the loyal citilcns who have set up the same as to further effort or to de clare a constitutional competencyin Congress to abolish slavery in States, but am at the some time sincerely hoping and expectingthat a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery through out the nation may be adopted.” He then goes on and gives his reasons for not approving this plan; nor does he entirely disapprove of it, but he said it was one of numerous plans which might be adopted.