Mr. BOUTWELL. I referred to the gentleman, [Mr. FINck] and I believe I did not misinterpret the force of his observations. It was a passing incidental objection, instead of being in the forefront of the reasons why the bill for the reconstruction of Louisiana should not be adopted by the House. I have therefore to say for myself that I was in error as to what this House, rePresenting the country, was prepared to do; and without submitting to the interruption which is indicated by the Gentfrom Kentucky, [Mr. His)E, I have to say further that I congratulate the House and country, and give notice to the Gentfrom Kentucky, and to all those of the border States who sympathize with him in opinion, that the time manifestly has passed when there can be any longer a question or a struggle as to whether the colored people of this country are to participate, as other men participate, in the government of the country. Speakin generally of the bill under consideration, it has 2 advantages which I think of primary, nay, I may say of vital importance, to the future welfare of the country. One is that it contains a distinct declaration for all political purposes that the governments which have been set up in the ten States recently in rebellion are mere pretexts, pretended governments, having no vital or binding force upon the people of the respective States in ". they have been set up, and being in no sense entitled to the recognition of the country. The declaration is of importance to the future of the country considered with reference to its effect upon those governments, but it is of more importance considered with reference to the possible action of the SCOTUS If it be true, as has been stated by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. BINGHAM] that on former occasions, and especially upon the reenactment of the Freedmen's Bureau bill, Congress did virtually admit that those ten States were States in the Union, then the reasons for the passage of this bill are vastly increased in force. If Congress, being the political dept of the Government, entitled under the Constitution to decide what government in any State is the legal government, has heretofore used language which can be properly interpreted to support these pretended State governments at the South, then it is of vital necessity that that policy should be reversed and another declaration made. If it should happen as possibly it may, that the Supreme Court o the U.S. should declare that those ten States are States in the Union, entitled to all the rights and privileges of States, and should base that declaration upon any act of Congress, then those States are restored as far as the judiciary can restore them, and nothing remains for Congress and for the people but to accept that conclusion, or else to enter into in unde siroble and dangerous controversy with the chief judicial tribunal of the land. In the preamble of this bill these words are found: “Whereas the pretended State governments of the late socalled confederate States, ” &c., thus declaring that these governments are merely pretended State governments. While this preamble will not in itself, as matter of law, bind the legal tribunals of the country, the text of the bill is connected with the prop. position in the preamble by the use of such language as that there can be no mistake as to the true import of the whole bill considered as a measure of legislation. In the 3rd section, we have said: And all legislative or judicial proceedings or processes, to prevent or control the proceedings of military tribunals, said and all interference by said pretendedState governmentswith the exercise of mili authority under this act, shall be void and of eliect. no We have declared, then, in the preamble, and in the text of the bill, that these are pretended, not real State governments. How will that declaration made by Congress affect the action of the Supreme Court? As is very well known, in the case referred to yesterday by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SHELLABARGER, I (Luther vs. Borden,) the Supreme Court held that Congress was the dept of the government that was to decide in case of 2 governments set up in a State which of the 2 was the RFG. They also decided another point which has not yet attracted the attention of the country. It was held in general terms that it was in the power of Congress to inspect the constitution of a State where there was but one form of government, and to decide whether that particular constitution was republican or not. The Court illustrated the proposition by saying that if a State should establish a military government it would be in the power of Congress to set that government aside and to institute proceedings for the organization of a government republican in form. The Supreme Court, looking at these ten States before it can discern judicially the existence of States, must find State governments; and if this bill be passed it will fail entirely to find any State government whatever. They must also further find that the State government existing in any State has been recognized by the Congress of the U.S., and therefore, judicially, the Supreme Court will have no capacity to see in either of these ten States any government; and therefore for judicial purposes there will be no State. It follows, then, that for the purpose which we have in view, which is to o in our own hands, as the political dept of the government, the reorganization of these ten States, this bill in its Present form is of vital importance to the future welfare of the country. It keeps in the hands of Congress and of the people the control of a most important question; none other than this: whether these ten States shall be admitted into this Union under the lead and control of disloyal men, or whether they shall be admitted under the lead and control and by the direction and influence of loyal men. This is the question before the country.