According to these positive words, “it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State.” But Congress can decide only through joint action. 4. The Constitution, also, by positive text, seems to place the question beyond doubt. There are express words, as we have already seen, declaring that “the United States shall guaranty to every State in the Union a republican form of government.” If these words stood alone, the case would be clear; but it becomes clearer still, when we revert to the other clause, by which it is provided that “the Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.” Now, since the guaranty is vested in the Government of the United States, it follows that Congress has the power for carrying it into execution. In Arkansas a republican government has been overthrown by rebellion. Congress must see that such government is restored; and to this end it has all needful power. Congress, and not the President, must decide when the restoration has taken place. 5. There is also the President’s Proclamation, which, by its very terms, necessarily implies the action of Congress. We have, first, the positive declaration that “whether members sent to Congress from any State shall be admitted to seats constitutionally rests exclusively with the respective Houses, and not to any extent with the Executive.” But the language of the Proclamation and of the accompanying message plainly assumes that the Rebel States have lost their original character as States of the Union. Thus in one place the President says that “the loyal State governments of several States have for a long time been _subverted_.” But if subverted, they no longer exist. In another place he proposes to “_reinaugurate_ loyal State governments.” But a proposition to _reinaugurate_ implies a new start. In another place he proposes to “_reëstablish_ a State government which shall be republican.” But we do not _reëstablish_ a government continuing to exist. In another place he proposes to “_set up_” a State government in the mode prescribed. But whatever requires to be set up is evidently down. In another place he considers how to guaranty and protect “a _revived_ State government.” But we revive only what is dead, or, at least, faint. There is still another place, where the President evidently looks to the possibility of a change of name, boundary, subdivisions, constitution, and general code of laws in the restored State. These are his identical words: “And it is suggested _as not improper_, that, in _constructing_ a loyal State government in any State, _the name of the State_, _the boundary_, the subdivisions, the constitution, and the general code of laws, as before the Rebellion, be maintained.” Thus the President does not insist that even the name and boundary of a State shall be preserved. He contents himself