In thus declaring an unhesitating preference for Congressional governments, I am obviously sustained by reason.  But there is positive authority on this identical question.  I refer to the recorded opinion of Chancellor Kent, as follows:—­

“Though the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, and declares him Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the United States, these powers must necessarily be subordinate to the legislative power in Congress.  It would appear to me to be the policy or true construction of this simple and general grant of power to the President, not to suffer it to interfere with those specific powers of Congress which are more safely deposited in the legislative department, and that the powers thus assumed by the President do not belong to him, but to Congress."[13]

Such is the weighty testimony of this illustrious master with regard to the assumption of power by the President, in 1847, over the Mexican ports in our possession.  It will be found in the latest edition of his “Commentaries” published during the author’s life.  Of course, it is equally applicable to the recent assumptions within our own territory.  His judgment is clear in favor of Congressional governments.

Of course, in ordinary times, and under ordinary circumstances, neither system of government would be valid.  A State, in the full enjoyment of its rights, would spurn a military governor or a Congressional governor.  It would insist that its governor should be neither military nor Congressional, but such as its own people chose to elect; and nobody would question this right.  The President does not think of sending a military governor to New York; nor does Congress think of establishing a provisional government in that State.  It is only with regard to the Rebel States that this question arises.  The occasion, then, for the exercise of this extraordinary power is found in the Rebellion.  Without the Rebellion, there would be no talk of any governor, whether military or Congressional.

STATE RIGHTS.

And here it becomes important to consider the operation of the Rebellion in opening the way to this question.  To this end we must understand the relations between the States and the National Government, under the Constitution of the United States.  As I approach this question of singular delicacy, let me say on the threshold, that for all those rights of the States which are consistent with the peace, security, and permanence of the Union, according to the objects grandly announced in the Preamble of the Constitution, I am the strenuous advocate, at all times and places.  Never through any word or act of mine shall those rights be impaired; nor shall any of those other rights be called in question by which the States are held in harmonious relations as well with each other as with the Union.  But while thus strenuous for all that justly belongs to the States, I cannot concede to them immunities inconsistent with that Constitution which is the supreme law of the land; nor can I admit the impeccability of States.