Mr. LANE, of Indiana. Mr. President, I need not assure you that I approach the investigation of the grave subjects now before the Senate with constraintand embarrassment. No graver subjects have ever been submitted for your deliberation. I have not been able to make that thorough reparation which the importance of the subject demands and which my profound respect for this high body under other circumstances would have prompted. I shall not be able to rise to the height of this great argument, yet I hope I feel and appreciate its dignity and importance. We approach the constitution of the U.S. upon a proposed amendment, and I feel the full force of the in junction of the Hebrew prophet, “Take the sandals from on" thy feet, tor the ound on which thou treadest is holy ground. I hope that on this occasion I shall be enabled to merge the artisan in the patriot. This Chamber is no tnrena for poitical gladiatorsbip. The great questions to which we new address ourselves invoke our most calm and careful consideration and deliberation. An Athenian orator was wont to invoke the heathen gods, before he addressed the people of Athens, to enable him to say nothing but what the people of Athens desired to hear. My most humble and fervent rayer upon this occasion is to the Christians God that I may say nothing which shall be unbecoming in a Senator of the U.S. to speak to his fellowSenators and to the people of the U.S. hat, then, are the grave considerations to which our attention is invited? I shall speak, in its order, of the present proposed constitutional amendment and of each of the pending modifications and amendments now before the body as a series of measures which form the congressional plan of restoration and reconstruction. But before I approach that subject it will be proper to look at the present condition of the States lately in rebellion. What is their condition? A portion of the people of the country and a portion of the Senate of the U.S. take the ound that the States lately in rebellion are stiH States in the Union, existing and subsisting States, and entitled to all their rights and privileges under the Constitution of the U.S. To Senators entertaining this opinion, I mean to address no argument. If they are at present existing States, the terms “restoration, ” “ reconstruction, “rehabilitation, ” and “ admission to representation, ” are idle and nnmeanin words. If I understand the position of those who advocate this doctrine, it is this: that no action upon the part of the President and no action upon the part of Congress is necessary to restore these States to their natural and constitutional relation to the U.S. How does that position agree with the present historic position of affairs in the country? For 4 years these rebel States have sought to overthrow and subvert the Government of the U.S. They have been unable to accomplish that object. The Government of the U.S. has triumphed over them in the assertion of its unity and ) nationality and the supremacy of its laws. We have been at war for our years. The war has temporarily ceased; at least, there is no conflict of arms; and the question now is, who have triumphed, the Government of the U.S or the rebels in arms? If you establish the proposition that the people of the U.S. have triumphed, the exercising the rights of war over a conquere population, have a right to dictate and ii: the terms of resto ration, and establish the relations which should exist hereafter between these rebel States, socalled, and the Government of the U.S. It seems to me that counsel has been dark ened on this subject in the statement of the question. A portion of the people and of the Senate believe that those States are yet in the Union; another portion believe that they are yet out of the Union; and the didiculty of deal gin with that question is that both are right and both are wrong. Territorially those States are in the Union; the communities in these rebel States are in the Union; their citizens are citizens of these U.S. Our national boundaries are fixed by treaties with GreatBritain, Spain, France, and Mexico, and all the territory comprised within these bounda ries belongs to the U.S.; ever citizen is a citizen of the U.S. but the practical question is, whether these citizens are now, at this time, in such a relation to the Government of the U.S. as to be entitled to participate in the legislation of the Republic. I take the ground that although, territorially, they are in the Union, although the Government by rebellion has lost no single power that it ever had to enforce the laws, to compel obedience, to appoint postmasters, judges, and marshals, to collect the revenue, and to carry on all the machinery of the General Government, these rebel States have abdicated and forfeited every right; they are no longer to be recognized as a governing power under the constitution of the U.S. But we are told that the action of the executive Dept has from the beginning recognized them as States, and that Congress has by various acts recognized their existence as States. I shall now proceed to show how president Lincoln and resident Johnson have regarded these rebel States. But before procceding to that question, let me say a we on another point. qWe are asked now to recognize as existing State governments the present organizations in the rebel States. If we can recognize any State organizations there at all it must be under one of 3 constitution s or instance, the constitution of the State of NCarolina prior to 1861, the beginning of the rebellion, required the election of a Governor, the election of State Officers, and fixed the qualification of voters. The people of NCarolina in their sovereign capacit met and overthrew, annihilated and subverte, the constitution existing prior to 1861, and ordained another constitution for the State of NCarolina. Then we cannot recognize the constitution existing prior to 1861. Can we recognize the constitution formed by the rebel authorities in 1861? Clearly not. They repudiated the authority of the U.S., and formed their institutions in accordance with the constitution of the rebel confederacy; and that act was null and void. We cannot, therefore, recognize the State of NCarolina as existing under the constitution prior to 1861, or under the rebel constitution that subverted it. Then the simple question comes back, can we recognize the present constitution of NCarolina as republican in form and as a voluntary emanation from the people of NCarolina, who alone have a right to form their constitution? If the present State organization, under their existing constitution, cannot be recognized, then clearl no constitution exists in the State of NCarolina making that people a State under the Government of the U.S. What ste s have heretofore been taken by the U.S. for the purpose of restoring these States to their constitutional relations to the General Government? Mr. Lincoln, in 1863, issued his proclamation for the organization of the States of Louisiana and Arkansas, stating that where loyal citizens to the number of one 10th of the loyal voters of the States, who had taken the amnesty oath prescribed by him, should at together and form a State government, so or as the Executive was concerned he should recognize such organizations as the States of Louisiana and Arkansas. You will recollect that under that proclamation of the President State constitutions were formed and State organizations perfected in Louisiana and Arkansas. You will recollect the further fact that when their members a plied for admission here the Congress of the U.S. refused such admission, refused to indorse that policy of the POTUS sceiiin a restoration of these States to the Union. So the question was left when the present Chief Magistrate of the U.S. became president. He, by his proclamation, issued 1st, I believe, in the case of NCarolina, directed that provisional governments should be instituted in these rebel States. In Order to deter mine the validity of that organization in NCarolina we must look necessarily at the authority of the President for its inauguration. The resident, in his proclamation, bases his authority to issue that proclamation ii on 2 clauses of the constitution of the U.S. The 1st clause is that which declares that the President shall be CommanderinChief of the Army and Navy of the U.S. He, under that provision, doubtless, in a time of war, had a right to appoint a governor for each of the different Depts in the rebel States; he had a right to apoint a military officer there to command; or, itphe chose, I doubt not he had the authority to appoint a provisional governor but it was all under the military power; all under the provision of the constitution making him CommanderinChief of the Army and Navy. How long does that military power exist? Clearly, during the existence of the war. With the termination of the war the power ceases. Upon the subject of the Presidents plan of restoration I have only this to say: that upon the death of Mr. Lincoln, and the suppresson of the rebellion, he found these rebe States without the benefit of civil law, in a state of anarchy and confusion. the confederacy having been overthrown and no constitutional authority having taken its place, it was temporarily his duty to preserve the peace and protect the Union men in those States; and I have no fault to find with the manner in which he has songht to execute this high duty. But the very fact that he has appointed a provisional governor for one or all of the rebel States is sufficient for my argument. It shows that the President himself regarded the civil authority in those States as having been utterly overthrown, abdicated, and annihilated; and although I regret to differ with my distinguished friendfrom Wisconsin, mr Doourri. i:] and to obliterate or dim the light of one single star that so gloriously blazciis upon 0c r meteor flag of beauty and of glory, yet. I have to remind him that when this proclamation was issued, the President did not regard these rebel States as in the Union under the constitution. If these rebel States constituted stars on your flag, they were as the lost Pleiades gone darkling through s ince, unobservant to any humaneye. They con(1not be detected by the mightiest telescopic power that the judiciary of the country has ever been able to bring to bear 1: on them. They were not only out of the Lnion, but they were substantially and to all intents and purposes out of existence; and so the President must have, regarded them in his proclamation. Suppose they were present, subsisting, existing States under the constitution, what rights had they? They had a right, 1st, to form their Own constitution without outward pressure; they had a right to elect their Governor. The 1st act of the President was to appoint them a governor. The constitution ertisting in NCarolina prior to 1861, fixed the qualification of voters the constitution under the rebel authority in NCarolina fixed the qualifications of voters. The President then exercised the power, as I have no doubt he had the right under the war power, to apoint for them a provisional governor, in wtheh they were never consalted, for whom they never voted; and be fixed also the qualification of their voters. Was that a power derived by the President from the war power? Clearl not. The war power deals with a conflict o arms, the march o armies, the “supremacy of the nationality as resresented by the Army and Navy of the U.S. t has no reference to the inauouration of a civil government, or lb the administration of local, municipal, or civil laws. But the President in his proclamation draws authority from another provision of the constitution of the U.S., and what is that? v"Theprovision that it shall be the duty of the POTUS to see that the lawsare faithfully executed. What lawa? Evidently the laws of the U.S., the laws of Congress, the treaty stipulations of the Government, so far as they are to be carried out by congressional legislation. These are the laws that the President is bound to enforce under the constitution, and no other laws. He has no right to interfere with the local administration of justice in the several States. He has no authority to interfere with the rights of descent and distribution of estates, of ordinary contracts, of the punishment of crimes under the State laws. e is simply bound to see that the laws of the U.S. are faithfullyex eciited. What law of the U.S or what constitutional provision, made it the duty of the President to appoint provisional governors? Clearly he had the power only, as ommanderiuCliiefof the Army and Navy of the U.S.; and under that authority he has appointed provisional governors. Under thatpower he has inaugurated State govern m ents. Under that power alone these State Vernments have an existence. I contendthat e power of the POTUS over this subject ceased the moment the war ceased, and certainly ceaSed the moment that the Congress of the U.S. convened. Who has the power under the constitution of the U.S. to determine in reference to the status and condition of these States? But 1st it is perhaps necessary to determine what underthe constitution is a State. A State, in public law, is thus defined by Chancellor Kent: “A State. in the meaning of public law is a complete necsmelfm suundiitcy icfnotrbthoedydoeffepnesresoonf stuhnent rerdiglhogg. e” ther This is the description of a State under the public law and as recognized by the laws of nations, and is applicable to the U.S. as a State, and is not a iplicable to any single State under the constitution of the U.S. They have not the rights of sovereignty; they may not declare war; they may not negotiate peace they may not enterinto foreign alliances; they may not do 1,000things that sovereign and independent States may do. Then the term “ State” in public law characterizes the position simily of the Government of the U.S. That is the government of oue State as recognized by the laws of nations. The States under our constitution are essentially and entirely ilicient things. Their whole power is derived from the constitution, and must be exercised under the constitution, and the moment they reudiate their allegiance to the Government an trample upon the requirements of the constitution that very moment the cease to be States under the constitution, an never having been States by virtue of public law they have no entit an no existence. It seems to me, then, thatt e mere definition of a State under public law and a State under the laws of the U.S. is sufficient to answer this whole argument. But lest 1 may be suspected of unfairness I will read further: “A State, in the meaning of public law, is a coin pleto or sellsufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defenseof their rights. It hasatfairs and interests; it deliberates and becomes a moral person, having understanding and will, and is susceptibleof obligations and laws.” such is the definition of a State as defined by the distinguished Senfrom Wisconsin. Then I contend that these are not States; and et, with an impudence without parallel in the istoiy of the world, audwith an insolence unknown before, these pretended States come here and claim to be represented in the congress of the U.S.; and their claims are echoed by their sympathiiers here and elsewhere. For 4 years they have sought to ovorturn the Government; they have brought upon. the country this terrible war, involving an expense of $3,000,000,000, and involving the loss of more than half a million of your brave, martyred soldiers, who now sleep the sleep of death, victims of this terrible rebellion; and at the end of 4 years they come here, without penitence, without contrition, without. works meet for repentance, and demand under the constitution the right to representationl These 6 million rebels in the South claim the right not only to represent themselves, but to represent 4 million loyal men whom they have disfranchised, in the councils of the nation and the distinguished Senfrom Wisconsin, in the close of his speech saidI qnote his words: “Mr. President. Inasmuch as the people of the South had no causefor the commencement of the rebellion. let us becareful not to furnish them with one for the justification of similar attemptsin the future by forcing upon them taxation without representation. placing them where they can avail themselvesof the precedent sanctified by this struggle of our revolutionary fathers. Though they have been confessedly in the wrong and have committed a great crime, let us not violate our own sense of justice by heaping upon them the very outrages which justified the colonies in resistanceto a similar e xcrcise of power on the part of GreatBritain.” Here, then, is the close of the argument of the distinguished Senfrom Wisconsin. Hitherto, he admits, they have had no cause for rebellion; but the argument is, that if we refuse now to admit them upon equal terms as sovereign States, they will have the same right to rebel against our authority that the 13 colonies Sad to rebel against the tyranny of GreatBritain. The preposition is monstrous. What is it? Have we arrived at a point in the history of this country when these people have a right to demand recognition as sovereign States, a right to participate in the Government of the country? Less than 12 months ago mighty armies in hostile array were drawn up belore Richmond and in different. portions of the confedeiacy to contest the supremacy of the national authority. The green grass has not yet had time to grow upon the graves of your illustrious and mart red dead; the wail of the widow is yet heard in the land; the tear of the orphan ct falls; less than 12 months since the hired emissary of the rebellion struck down the President in the capital of the nation, and we are told at this time if we refuse representation to these people we give them cause for rebellion; and they are compared to our fathers who resisted British oppression, and that we should “ conciliate, ” and get further, that we should “compromise.” what has ever been accomplished by conciliation and by compromise? I shall refer to that in asub sequent portion of my remarks. We are yet called upon to conciliatd and to compromise! Let it be known now and forever, let it be recorded irihistory so that the waters of another deluge can never effacc it, that this triumph of the nation was a triumph of arms, a triumph of force; that we owe nothing to the magna niinity of the rebels arrayed against the government. Not one single ste have we ever taken for the suppression of this rebellion looking to conciliation which has ever for one moment weakened them or strengthened us. The withdrawal of the proclamations of Frement and Hunter iving freedom to the slaves of rebels, the deay of President Lincolns proclamation of emancipation, these acts were attributed to our fears and weakness, not to our strength and inagiianiinity. But, Mr. President, various plans of reconstruction are now proposed. 1 have referred to the plan of the POTUS It is said he left the qualification of electors and the right of suffrage to the States because it properly belonged to the States. I grant you that under my construction of the Constitution, it belongs to the States having a right to exercise it, not having forfeited their rits by rebellion, but I deny t iat these rebel States are in any such condition. What are the constitutional provisions upon the subject of suffra“ge? 1st The times, places and manner of holding clect ons for Sens&Reps shall be prescribed in eachState by the cgislnture thereof: but the congremmayat anytime, y laiv, make or alter such re:ulations exccptasto the place of choosing Senators.” The President in his proclamation takes it for granted that it is right and proper to leave this whole question to the determination of the States, and I agree with him so far as the loyal States, who have never forfeited their richts by rebellion, are concerned butl contend ere are no States in these rebellious districts having a right to exercise any such authority. Then there is another provision of the constitution that the electors in each State to vote for members of Congress shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature. Then there is still another rand guarantee in the Constitution, that the oveinment of the U.S shall guaranty to each State in this Union a RFG. Now, I suppose that in the formation of that constitution, its framers and authors intended that, in the 1st place, these States should have a right to regulate the right of suffrage, but that. right was to be limited and modified by the Congress of the U.S. whenever that limitation and modification was necessary to insure a RFG. That I suppose is the truth. I But, Mr. President, letting the past effort of the POTUS to reorganize these rebel States go by without making war upon it, I have simply this to shy: if the POTUS had a right to regulate suffrage at all he had a right to specify every condition under which sulfr e should be exercised. In his proclamation, he as disfranchised 14 classes of persons, all numerous, who were to have noright to vote, and who were voters under the constitution of NCarolina, and this exclusion was clearly right under the circumstances; and if the President had a right to say that a rebel under certain circumstances should not vote, he Certainly had a right. to say that a loyal man under all circumstances should vote. I make no war, as 1 before remarked, upon the Presidents plan of reconstruction if I understand what that plan is. If by the presidents plan of reorganization you simply mean that we approve what the President under the necessities of the case has done With a view to the reorganization of the rebel States, I have only this to say: that I find fault With nothing in the proclamations providing for a provisional government in NCarolina, an the other States lately in rebellion, except the right granted in those proclamations tor rebels to vote and the disfranchisement of loyal people. As far as possible, for purposes of convenience, I would recognize the present Statetions, I would recognize the present state orgaonuiznadaries. But if the residents plan means that we shall now, here and toda, open wide the doors for the admission to these rebel representatives into Congress, then I am against it; I am opposed to it; they cannot be admitted at present with benefit to themselves or safety to the nation, and the resurrection trump sha l sound the summons of these rebels to the Generaljudgment before my voice or vote shall surn mon them to these Halls. [Applause in the galleries.] I have seen no evience that the resident desires the immediate admission of rebel representatives.