Mr. HOLMES. Mr. Chairman, in “swing:ing around the circle” the President is again brought face to face with the 39th Congress. Professing similar views upon the grave questions growing out of the war, owing their election to the same political party, it was anticipated that the President and the Republican or Union members of this Congress, when called upon to act officially, would be found acting in concert and harmony. Prior to the presidential election of 1864, the President had won the confidence of the Union party by the most lavish professions of loyalty and the most pointed denunciations of treason. With him no language was too strong to express his sentiments upon these subjects, and upon the question of reconstruction his creed was of the most radical stamp. Treason was to be made odious, traitors punished, impoverished, and banished from the ballot box and legislative council, while loyalty was to have exclusive control of the work of reorganizing the governments of the States in rebellion, and was to be reimbursed for all losses during the war from the confiscated Fo of wealthy traitors. From uncomfortable back seats the disloyal were to look on without interfering with the process of reconstruction. No wonder that, with such professions upon his lips, the }. were slow to believe that it was possible for their author to forget or repudiate them. The 1st session of this Congress had hardly commenced before it became apparent to a majority of the Union members of this body that there could be no harmonious action between them and the President unless they proved recreant to their principles; and the close of the session found them not only in conflict with him upon every important measure of legislation relating to the States lately in rebellion, but the power and patronage of the General Government were being wielded with all the energy that disappointed and enraged ambition could stimulate to weaken or destroy the confidence of the people in their representatives, upon the avowed and shameless principle that the public offices were “the bread and butter of the President, ” to be eaten only by those who would blindly follow him in his erratic course. The “congressional plan of reconstruction” and “the President's policy” were diametri cally opposed to each other, and were submitted to the people at the recent election for their approval or condemnation. Each had its advocates; each was fully canvassed before the people. The President in person discussed, explained, and illustrated, as few but him could illustrate, the internal and external workings of his “policy;” and after a patient hearin the verdict of the people has been. Everywhere has loyalty decided in favor of the “congressional plan, ” and against the “President's policy;” in favor of the power of congress and against the power of the President to control or prescribe the terms of reconstruction. Emphatic and overwhelming has been the verdict. The people have answered the question so arrogantly propounded to them, “Will you have AndrewJohnson for President or King?” and the waning seer of the Administration can read and profit by the response. In but 3 of the States that did not enact the rôle of secession can any claim be made that the “President's policy” has been sustained. Kentucky, that did not go through the form of secession, because she could better protect slavery in than out of the Union, and, failing in that, would be in a better condition to claim payment for her emancipated slaves; o Delaware, that sympathized with the rebellion, and Maryland, where the voice of loyalty has for the time been smothered and suppressed by returned and disfranchised rebels, alone sustain the President. But one of these Maryland contributed to his election; the other 2 cast their votes against him, as they had given their influence to the rebellion. other State that voted for Lincoln and Johnson sustains Congress and repudiates the President; and yet he has had the assurance, in a care fully prepared speech, to denounce this congress in such language as the following: er“nWmeenht, have seen hanging upon the verge of Goving as it were, a body calling itself and assum to be the Congressof the U.S., when it was, in fact, but a Congressof a part of the States; and we have seen such a Congress pretending to be for the Union when every single step it took was to perpetuate dissolution and to make disruption permanent.” What portion of the States, let me ask, does he and his “policy” represent?. When his administration commenced he had the same constituency and represented the same States as the Republican or Union members of Congress. Now, 21 of the 22 States that contributed to his election have repudiated him. The place made vacant in the Union ranks by the compulsory defection of Maryland has been filled by i. accession of NewJersey, entitled to an equal number of elect oral votes, so that 22 of the 25 States that participated in the election of President and VEEP in 1864, and casting? 12 out of an aggregate of 233 elect oral votes then given, condemn the “policy” of the President. In the light of these results may we not ask if there is. not another “body hanging on the verge of the Government calling itself and assuming to be the” POTUS, when, in fact, upon the theory above applied to Congress, it is the President of a part only of the States, and that a very small part if those only are included that support “my policy” and are entitled to representation in Congress? What a constituency is this! What a stand point from which to assail the 39th Congress as wanting in legality or popular support! No wonder the SecyTreasury is anxiously waiting for the “rehabilitation” of the States lately in rebellion, ostensibly for the purpose of regulating the disturbed and nervous finances of the country, but really to enable the Adminis tration, in theory if not in fact, to claim to represent as many States at least as there are Cabinet ministers. So overwhelming has been the defeat of the Administration, so thoroughly have the people become disgusted with the “President's pol icy, ” that the Democratic party, through one of its ablest Representatives on this floor, was forced to disown all connection with or respon sibility for the Administration, and to declare that the President was too heavy a load for any party to carry and expect to survive. Even John Tyler never sunk as low as this during his official term. He was flattered and caressed by the Democratic party so long as he had offices to bestow; and it was not until he again became a private citizen that he realized how thoroughly he had forfeited the confidence of all parties. But the head of this Adminis tration is not permitted to enjoy the hallucination that he has the confidence of any party, even during the continuance of his short andinglorious official career. The “ground swell” of public indignation followed fast upon the retreating footsteps of the presidential caravan; and the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. LeBooj but echoed the opinion of all candid and dis. interested men when he characterized the president as too heavy a burden for any party to carry. And when an Administration has become so obnoxious and impotent that the Democratic party is constrained to reject its proffered support and embrace, it must be poor indeed. }. as reached the loWestPoint indicated by any political thermometer yet invented. pu diated by the people, shunned by the Democratic party, the Administration party is but an association of political lepers, wandering out side of any responsible organization, and upon whom the ol. have written the word unclean in blazing capitals, so that the honest and upright of all parties may shun their demoralizing association. The President, in his assumed meekness, claims to be willing and anxious at all times to conform to and carry out the popular will. In the speech already referred to. says: “I acknowledge no superior except my God, the author of my existence, and the people of the U.S. The commands of the one I try to obey as best I can compatible with poor humanity. As to the other, in a political and representativesense, the high behests of the people have always been and ever will be respectedand obeyed by me.” And yet, in the face of the overwhelming popular verdict against him, he renews in his message the oft repeated recommendations of his “policy, ” insists that the governments of these States are entirely restored, and that it is the duty of Congress to admit them to representation here. The unrepresented States also revive and intensify the agitation of this subject by rejecting or refusing to accept the constitutional amendment, leaving Congress released from any implied pledge to adopt their governments and declare them entitled to representation if they had accepted the amendment and conformed their institutions, laws, and governments to its provisions. We may therefore begin this work denovo, and it is the duty of this Congress to review the whole subject, especially as the States most directly interested have shown a determination not to accept the very liberal terms proposed by this amendment. I do not speak of a ratification by these States of the constitutional amendment as an act that can have any influence whatever upon its adoption or rejection as a part of the organic law of the land. I regard their action upon this subject only in the light of evidence as to the existence of loyalty or?ii; in the people of these States. The question of its adoption as a part of the Constitution is to be decided by the States represented in Congress, and by those alone. It is apparent that these State organizations have been and will be used in all cases to defeat or prevent the acceptance of this amendment, and to prevent the realization by the loyal people of the fruits of victory, to which they are entitled by their success in the war. We may with propriety, then, inquire into the legitimacy of??. governments to see what claims they have for recognition by Congress. I will not go over the arguments on this subject so often adduced at the last session. It is sufficient to say that, agreeing with the President in the statement made in his proclamations appointing provisional governors, “that the rebellion had deprived the people of these States of all civil government, ” his subsequent proceedings to reorganize or reconstruct them find no warrant in the Constitution; and the fruits that they have produced are not such as appeal to the patriotism of the people for support, or to the well settled power of Congress over the subject for toleration or longer for bearance. On the other hand, from suffering and oppressed loyalty throughout these States, groan;ing under the most intolerant despotism and proscription, comes the earnest and persistent appeal that Congress will now speak the word that shall number these governments with the things that have been; that shall send them back to the prolific hot bed of treason in which they were generated, and in the interest of which they have been mainly administered, and shall recognize as the people of those States capable of establishing governments therein those only, without distinction of color, who were true to the Government in the time of its weakness and trial. While we might have winked at the gross lrtegularities in the reorganization of e States by the Executive or under his direction, or even have assented to and adopted them if they had been administered in the interest of freedom, no excuse can be given for such recognition when they are used to depress loyalty and exalt treason. The mandate of the Constitution, which requires the U.S. to guaranty to every State in the Union a RFG, contains ample authority for the overthrow of these governments and the erection of republican governments in their places, and it is time that its provisions were enforced. The great objection the constitutional amendment encountered in the loyal States was on account of its extreme liberality. The people are far in advance of their Representatives upon this subject, and would have sustained with equal unanimity more stringent terms. And yet these terms, mild as they are, are denounced by the reconstructed governors of some of these States as an insult to their people that requires only to be read to be rejected. The power of Congress to exact these or any other terms that may be deemed necessary having been affirmed by the j"by so large a majority, should be considered settled and not open to discussion. It is resjudicata, so far at least as this Congress is concerned. The Gentfrom Kentucky, [Mr. His IE, who appears here as counsel for the Adminis tration after its defense has been abandoned by the Democratic party, made a heroic attempt to justify and sustain the “President's policy.” Had his speech been brought down in point of time to the present generation, it might have been pertinent to the subject when the question was an open one and under discussion at the last session; but it is now too late, even if stripped of its antediluvian flavor, to be of benefitto his client, or to have the least influence upon the verdict already rendered. He is excusable, of course, because he was not present to hear the arguments and positions of the message, so often repeated on this floor at the last session, as often answered and refuted. He cannot now even secure an arrest of judgment in the case. He is like the lawyer who, on making a motion to set aside a judgment against his client in a criminal case, where the punishment was publicwhipping, was informed E. the court that the penalty had already been inflicted, and that if he succeeded in obtaining a new trial his client would undoubtedly be again convicted, and the court would be comelled to resentence him and increase the punishment, as it would be a 2nd conviction. He wisely concluded, under the circumstances, to waive his application for a new trial; and I commend his discretion to the consideration of the Gentfrom Kentucky and all others who are like minded. I shall regard the question of the power of Congress over this subject as settled, and ask that the judgment of the people be enforced. They have decided that, as a condition precedent to the admission of Representatives from the States lately in rebellion, each of them shall accept the terms presented in the constitutional amendment and conform their laws and governments, both in letter and spirit, in practice as well as theory, to those terms. This those States are refusing to do, and their refusal is made in the most offensive manner. Can we waive or modify these conditions? “One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.” The only change that can be made in them will be to increase their stringency. We must not dilute or waive, a single condition intended as “security for the future.” This much, at least, the people will require at our hands. If those terms and con: ditions are rejected, they will demand that we advance instead of retreat; that we do now what, with propriety, might have been done before. The governments that stand in the way of the acceptance of these conditions, and which have not even the shadows of regularity or popular approval, must be set aside and new ones organized in their places based upon impartial suffrage to trusted and confiding loyalty, and recognizing the equal rights of all men before the law. As fast, then, as these States, through their pretended Legislatures or otherwise, reject the constitutional amendment in a manner indicating a settled purpose to prevent its acceptance or adoption, or neglect promptly to accept its terms and conditions, it is, in my opinion, the duty of Congress to declare their governments usurpations, and pass an enabling act authorizing the loyal people only in those States, without distinction of color, to take the necessary measures to establish therein governments, republican in form, that shall be entitled to and shall receive the recognition, protection, and support contemplated by the Constitution. In this way only will treason be rendered power less, loyalty encouraged, and republican governments for those States established upon a firm and an enduring basis. If we do less than this we shall fail to meet the just expectations of the people, and shall receive, as we shall deserve, their censure and condemnation, and the condemnation of the friends of justice and impartial liberty through all coming time. Mr. obtained the floor, but yielded to rise Mr. MYERs, who moved that the comm ittee The motion was agreed to. So the committee rose; and The SPEAKer having resumed the chair, Mr. Upson reported that the ComWhole on the state of the Union, having had under consideration the President's annual message, had come to no resolution thereon. ENROLLEDJtResolution.