Mr. TRUMBULL. I move to suspend all other business for the purpose of proceeding with this. It will take but a moment.

Mr. CHANDLER. I hope the special order will be taken up, and then it can be laid aside informally while this discussion is going on.

Mr. TRUMBULL. This discussion will take but a short time; I ask, therefore, that the special order be laid aside informally until this subject is disposed of.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will regard that as the order of the Senate unless there be objection. The Chair hears no objection.

Mr. TRUMBULL. A number of resolutions have been passed by the Senate at former sessions, and at this session, calling upon the Departments for information; and there has been exhibited within a year or two what I have never known before, a second resolution reiterating the first and inquiring why the first resolution has not been answered. I think it is quite time that the resolutions of the Senate of the United States should be replied to by the respective Departments of this Government. If they are unable to furnish the information directed to be given, let them say so; but time and again this disrespect-I can call it by no other name-has been manifested to the resolutions of the Congress of the United States and to its different branches, and it is a growing thing. When a resolution has passed this body making a call upon a Department, it is not for the officer called upon to give the information to give it or not, in his discretion, or to reply to the resolution or not. If the information is improper to be given, let him state an excuse for not giving it. If he cannot give it, let him so inform the body. But, sir, the resolutions of the Senate are treated with inattention, and time and again a second resolution has been brought in here to elicit the information called for by a former resolution. Not only this, sir, but we have several acts of Congress-three of them are recited in this resoJution-directing in positive terms that certain officers of the Government shall make reports within a certain time, which are to be laid before the country, which Congress has been in the habit of laying before the country, and which the country is anxious to see. The reports of our Army officers of operations of the Army, at the last session of Congress, we directed to be furnished before the opening of this session; and by an act of Congress which passed both Houses, and was approved by the President, we directed our Joint Committee on Printing to see that they were edited, and that the parts that were supposed to be of interest to the country should be brought together and published, and they were directed to be ready for an inspection at the meeting of Congress. The Army Register, more interesting in this period of war than at any other time in the history of the Government, has not been published since April, 1863, nearly two years, and yet there is a positive law requiring its publication annually.

Now, this resolution proposes to direct the Committee on Printing to inquire into the causes of these delays. If it is impossible to make these publications let us know it. But, sir, it is idle for the Congress of the United States to sit here and pass laws and then have no attention paid to them. I should have no objection to the amendment suggested by the Senator from lowa if it was appropriate to this resolution. His amendment calls on the Secretary of War to know why a report giving the pay received by different Army officers has not been published within the last two or three years as required by a former act of Congress. This resolution is directed to the Committee on Printing, (whose business it was to have edited the reports from the War Department and laid them before the country,) instructing that committee to inquire into the causes of these delays; and I hope, sir, that after making this inquiry they will submit a report accompanied by a bill (unless there is a good excuse for these delays) that shall hereafter enforce obedience on the part of the executive officers to the acts of Congress.

The resolution was agreed to.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.

On motion of Mr. SUMNER, it was Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to communicate to the Senate, if not incompatible with the public interest, any information in his possession

showing the practical operation of the tenth article of the treaty of Washington of the 9th of August, 1842, and the expediency of giving her Britannic Majesty's Government the notice required for the termination of such article.

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS.

On motion of Mr. GRIMES, an amendment which he will hereafter offer to the bill in relation to the payment of claims for French spoliations prior to 1801, was received informally and ordered to be printed.

COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The special order of the day is the bill (H.R. No.307) to regulate commerce among the several States, which is now before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole. It will be read at length.

The Secretary read the bill, which proposes to enact that every railroad company in the United States whose road is operated by steam, its successors and assigns, shall be authorized to carry upon and over its road,connections, boats, bridges, and ferries, all freight, property, mails, passengers, troops, and Government supplies on their way from any State to another State, and to receive compensation therefor.

Mr. CHANDLER. I do not propose, Mr. President, to occupy the time of the Senate in advocating the passage of this bill. It was passed by the House of Representatives by an almost unanimous vote at the last session. During the last days of that session, it will be remembered by the Senators who were then present, I pressed very hard for a vote of the Senate upon it; but it was so late, and there was so much discussion provoked by the bill, that it had to go by. It is a bill that will be noticed as very general in its terms and general in its character. It simply opens all the railroads of the United States to the use of the Government and of the people of the United States. It makes them mail routes, and entitles them to carry freight, property, passengers, troops, supplies for the Government, &c., from one State to another State.

The Constitution says:

"Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States."

Congress has been in the habit, from the organization of the Government, of establishing post routes, and making all common roads that are required for mail purposes post roads; and this bill substantially makes all railroads post roads.

The bill is so eminently just, and right, and proper, that I had supposed it would pass this body almost without a dissenting voice or a dissenting vote; but I am informed that it is not only general but local in its operation, that it interferes with the rights of a great railroad monopoly in the State of New Jersey, and that that is the reason for its present introduction and passage. Well, sir, admitting that to be true, it simply shows that there is a necessity for such a measure in that particular case. The State of New Jersey, as I am informed, has chartered a great corporation, and given it the exclusive right of transit through that State. If that be so, I deny the right of the State of New Jersey to pass any such law. I am informed that the State of New Jersey exacts tribute from every passenger passing through that State. I deny the right of the State of New Jersey to levy that tribute upon the citizens of other States passing through that State. It interferes with the free commercial communication between the States. The State of New Jersey has no right to levy a tribute either upon passengers or upon freight passing through her limits.

If the State of New Jersey has a right to levy a small tribute upon either passengers or freight passing through that State, she has a right to levy a large tribute; and if she has a right to levy a large tribute, she has a right to prohibit their passing absolutely if she, in the exercise of her sovereignty, sees fit thus to prohibit it. No man would claim that the State of New Jersey possessed that right; probably she would not attempt to exercise it; but it is a well-known fact that she. has exercised the right of levying a tribute for years, and this monopoly has been grinding upon the people of the United States, grinding upon every man who has had occasion to pass from the great capital of the nation to the actual capital of the nation. No man passes from here to New

York to-day without paying a tribute to the State of New Jersey; a tribute which I claim is unconstitutional and wrong. It is a trammel upon the commerce between these two points.

Besides, sir, the State of New Jersey has never claimed that she possessed that right. It is true she has a law under which she has exercised that power; but in that very law she says by the sixth section of the act:

"That whenever any other railroad or roads for the transportation of passengers and freight between New York and Philadelphia across this State shall be constructed and established for that purpose under or by virtue of any law of this State or the United States authorizing or recognizing said road, then and in that case the said dividends shall no longer be payable to the State, and the said stock shall be transferred to the company by the treasurer of this State."

This monopoly, it would seem by this, has paid a bonus to the State of New Jersey, which bonus is to revert to the company the moment the Congress of the United States exercises its constitutional right to control commerce upon this route. As I said before, I do not propose at this time to occupy the attention of the Senate in advocating this bill. It is so eminently just and right and proper that I believe it will pass this body by almost a unanimous vote, and I shall simply ask for a vote of the body upon the bill.

Mr. SAULSBURY. Mr. President, although a member of the Committee on Commerce, I was not present when this bill received the favorable report of that committee. I shall not discuss its merits to-day, or perhaps on any other occasion; but I wish it to be distinctly understood that the bill would not have received my sanction if I had been present at the time it met the approval of that committee. I care nothing about the rival interests of corporations in the State of New Jersey, or in any other part of the country; but I have yet to learn that it is within the constitutional competency of Congress to interfere in any mode or manner with the vested rights of corporations holding their charter under State law, to enlarge their franchises or to limit their authority. It is on that distinct constitutional ground, the utter want of authority in Congress to pass such a measure as this, that I base my objection; but I will not argue the question; I merely state my position.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If no amendment be proposed, the bill will be reported to the Sen

ate.

Mr. TEN EYCK. Mr. President, I have been led to understand that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] expected to address the Senate upon this bill. This is a bill of the utmost importance, I will say while upon the floor, not only to the State of New Jersey, which I have the honor in part to represent, (it having been specially referred to by the Senator from Michigan as being designed to relieve the public from a very obnoxious and injurious charter by reason of which a company in my State levies tribute upon the citizens of the United States, which of course is a matter of vast importance to us,) but it involves questions of the utmost importance, in which the citizens of every State in this Union are interested, one striking at the rights of property in its various ramifications, involving not only an interest of perhaps hundreds of millions, but even the question of sovereignty and of power in the States themselves. It is a bill of so much importance, in which the interests of the citizens of this whole country are concerned, that I should suppose before it would be put upon its final passage it would receive some attention by members of this Senate, especially, too, upon the constitutional question involved. I myself may perhaps, before it is finally disposed of, have occasion to say a few words in relation to the topics that have been referred to by the Senator from Michigan; but not having expected to be called upon to-day, and understanding that other Senators intended to address this body, and seeing that the Senator who has been alluded to is now in his seat, I will abstain from making any further remarks at the present time.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I stated to the honorable member from Michigan, the other day, that I did desire to discuss the question, which seems to be an important one, involved in this bill, and that I thought I should be able to do so to-day; but I am very hoarse, and should

not be able to do justice to myself, and, what is more important and material, I should not be able to assist the Senate, if I was capable of assisting them at all, in the deliberations on the question. Unless there is some immediate cause for the passage of the bill to-day, I ask the indulgence of the Senate until the day after to-morrow, by which time I suppose I shall be able to address the Senate without any irksomeness to myself.or to them.

Mr. CHANDLER. Certainly, sir. I move, then, that the bill be postponed to and made the special order of the day for Thursday next at one o'clock.

The motion was agreed to, two thirds of the Senate concurring therein.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the Speaker of the House had signed an enrolled bill (H. R. No. 458) for the relief of George Mowrey; and it was signed by the Vice President.

INTERCOURSE WITH INSURRECTIONARY STATES.

Mr. COLLAMER. Mr. President, there seems to be a little lull in the business now, and I desire to take advantage of it to have leave to introduce a bill of which no previous notice has been given.

By unanimous consent, leave was given to introduce a bill (S. No. 398) to repeal the eighth section of an act entitled "An act in addition to the several acts concerning commercial intercourse between loyal and insurrectionary States, and to provide for the collection of captured and abandoned property, and the prevention of frauds in States declared in insurrection," approved July 2, 1864; and it was read twice by its title.

Mr. COLLAMER. Mr. President, it has never been my fortune during the time I have been a member of this body to present a subject that I regard as of so much importance as this. However it may strike other Senators, I am entirely convinced in my own mind that unless this bill or such a one as this in effect be passed, we never shall subdue this insurrection, it never can be ended, it never will be ended. And now, sir, I think I have stated enough to show gentlemen that I, for one at least, regard it as the most important measure on which I have ever had occasion to speak in the Senate. Certainly nothing can be of greater importance to us than that we end this rebellion, suppress this insurrection, and that somewhat speedily; and I think this bill is absolutely necessary to the doing of that.

Mr. President, there are some laws of war which are inherent in the very nature of war. Some of these rules are incapable of being violated; others may be violated, but it cannot be done with impunity. Many of these rules, derived from adjudicated cases, have become settled laws of nations as the laws of war; but there are others that are laws of war by the force of war itself. One of the latter is this, that it is utterly impossible to carry on war with a people and carry on commercial intercourse with that people at the same time. It never was done on earth, and it never can be done on earth while the laws of nature and of God re

main as they are. It is an unnatural attempt at connection; it is an illegitimate relationship; it is an illicit intercourse; and it never can produce anything but deformities and abortions.

As a part of the law of nations, a manifestation of this principle is that every contract made between subjects and citizens of belligerent Powers in time of war is void, absolutely voi. So, too, a belligerent can never collect in the courts of the opposite party a debt due him. What is the reason? Is the debt destroyed by the war? Not at all; but the courts will not render a judgment for it, for the reason that if it were collected the effect would be to carry money to the enemy's country and place it in their control to use it for carrying on the war, as a sinew of war. If a vessel be taken at sea, which belongs in whole or in part to the enemy, it is forfeited, it is prize of war; and even if a citizen of ours, a good and loyal citizen, domiciliated in the enemy's country, having nothing to do with the war, owns the vessel, still that vessel is to be condemned for the very same reason I have already given. It cannot be surrendered to him or the money value of it paid to him, because the result of that would be to carry money and means into the enemy's country.

I have had from time to time occasion to intimate my opinion-not, perhaps, of any consequence on account of the source from which it came that all sorts of devices of getting along with this war are but devices, and will never answer any good purpose. I do not believe that carrying on the war with balloons, which was tried at one time, amounted to anything. I do not believe that carrying it on with general proclamations fired at the enemy amounted to anything. I do not believe you will ever subdue them, because you think you can destroy them by the smell of gunpowder, and that firing off a great quantity of it at a time will come to anything. All such devices to get along in a manner different from that recognized and allowed by the well-known laws of war will be abortions.

Now, Mr. President, what is the section which I propose to have repealed? I will read it, but before doing so I wish to give a short summary of how we came to it.

In 1861 it was found necessary, in order to prosecute this war, that it should have given to it locality. Men were in the insurgent army in the southern States, and people were carrying them supplies from New York openly. The declaration was that they were going to trade with loyal people in the South, and the effect was of course to carry all supplies into the reach of the enemy. There was no possibility of enforcing the blockade, or doing anything, indeed, that made war with any effect, until we gave locality to the theater of war; and therefore it was provided in one of the sections of the law of July 13, 1861, that whenever the people of a State of the Union were in a state of insurrection, and professed to act under the authority of the State, and those exercising authority under the State did not disclaim it or suppress it, then, and in that case, the President by proclamation should declare the people of that State to be in a state of insurrection, and thereupon all commercial intercourse with them should cease, and all articles of merchandise, goods, and chattels, vehicles, and vessels in which they were carried to or from the enemy's country, should be forfeited to the United States. That produced a clear and distinct condition of war, and the Supreme Court in the prize cases unanimously decided that when that law was passed a state of war existed in all its relations.

But, sir, if all commercial intercourse was to cease, there came a difficulty upon the mind in this respect: what shall be done with those towns and cities which we may subdue and of which we may take possession? Shall no intercourse be holden with them? Shall commercial intercourse continue to be broken off and forever cease with those people? If so, how are they to be supplied, how are they to be fed, how are they to be subsisted? In that condition of things resort was had to a consideration of the laws of war in modern times. According to the modern laws of war, it has been held that the Power which declares war may modify that declaration in relation to intercourse with particular places for particular purposes. That has been done in Europe occasionally during the last fifty years. Therefore there was inserted in the act of 1861 a provision that the President of the United States might, in his discretion, and under regulations from the Treasury Department, permit intercourse in such articles and with such places and by such persons as the public service may require. The reason that provision was inserted in the law was because the President, having no power to declare war, of course had no authority to modify that war, except only as it should be given to him by the war-declaring power, Congress. There can be no doubt that I am correct in saying that those who had to do with the making of that law distinctly understood that provision to have been inserted for the purpose I have stated-not to get supplies from the enemy, not to buy their produce and pay them money to relieve them, but merely to sustain the people of that part of the country of which we should have taken actual military possession.

But, sir, the provision did not receive construction and execution in that sense. I need not here go over what regulations were made, altered, and changed by the Treasury Department, and allowed and approved by the President; but this I will say, licenses were granted, under what favoritisms I know not, from time to time to individ- I

uals to trade upon the Mississippi for the purpose of getting cotton; and the effect was, I will not say that all the officers of that army were thereby corrupted, but it is certain their characters very severely suffered. Upon the whole the best informatioh we can get of it is that so far from the acquisition of the Mississippi by us, obtained by much of skill and blood and treasure, resulting in benefit to our country and to our cause, it has after all resulted in furnishing support to the enemy and relief to them infinitely more than it has been of advantage to us. I think I shall be able to show this before 1 conclude, by statements from those who know the facts by observation and experience. Things went on until last summer, when a bill was prepared and reported for the purpose of putting an end to the business, to stop that sort of trade. One section of that bill was:

"That so much of section five of the act of 13th of July, 1861, aforesaid, as authorizes the President, in his discretion, to license or permit commercial relations in any State or section, the inhabitants of which are declared in a state of insurrection, is hereby repealed, except so far as may be necessary to authorize supplying the necessitics of loyal persons residing in insurrectionary States, within the lines of actual occupation by the military forces of the United States, as indicated by published order of the commanding general of the department or district so occupied."

There was a bringing of that provision of the act of 1861 to some practical purpose, to the purpose for which it was made. All other species of intercourse were then to be stopped, and the President was to have no power to license it after that. Whether any licenses have been granted since then I do not know, but I have seen an order from the Treasury Department which to me looks strange and extraordinary, limiting the operation of the licenses, implying that they were in existence and force; and I am informed that licenses to individuals have actually been granted since that act was passed on the 2d of July last, but of that I have no certain knowledge. At any rate, under that section of the act which I have just now read very considerable effect was given in Louisiana and on the Mississippi generally to the stopping of this trade.

At the time that bill was reported, the gentleman having it in charge, the honorable Senator from Maine [Mr. MORRILL] did me the honor to consult me in relation to that section, and as I understood, it was professedly to be the end of the trade, especially in cotton, corrupting in all its influences and dangerous in all its effects. So understanding the matter I was very much surprised and astonished to learn by a proclamation of the President that Congress had actually passed a law for trading by the Government with the I impeople of that country for their produce. I mediately went to the honorable Senator who had had the bill in charge, and I learned from him that he did not know that such a provision was there. But the section which I propose by this bill to repeal was in that law; how it came there, I know not; no doubt it was on the report of the committee, and it was passed in the hurry of the close of the session. That section I will now read; and one thing you will observe, how utterly it is at war with what I have just read, and how utterly it must defeat all the purposes for which the bill was passed. It is section eight, which I propose by this bill to repeal, in these words:

"SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President, to authorize agents to purchase for the United States any products of States declared in insurrection, at such places therein as shall be designated by him, at such prices as shall be agreed on with the seller, not exceeding the market value thereof at the place of delivery, nor exceeding three fourths of the market value thereof in the city of New York at the latest quotations known to the agent purchasing: Provided, That no part of the purchase money for any products so purchased shall be paid, or agreed to be paid, out of any other fund than that arising from property sold as captured or abandoned, or purchased and sold under the provisions of this act. All property so purchased shall be forwarded for sale at such place or places as shall be designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, and the moneys arising therefrom, after payment of the purchase money and the other expenses connected therewith, shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States; and the accounts of all moneys so received and paid shall be rendered to and audited by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury."

I believe in the month of December came the executive order, a copy of which I have here, directing, under the regulations which the Secretary of the Treasury had made, the agents appointed to go down there and execute this law

and make these purchases; and by those regulations and by that executive order, the people of that country, the whole of them, not the loyal people merely, but all the people who have any control of any productions for sale, are authorized to come into the places designated in the order and offer them there for sale, and they are to have safe-conduct in so doing; and whenever they get to those places, the purchasing agent is to give them a permit to bring the property in there so that he may buy it. The places designated are of course those within our control. I do not remember the names of all of them, but New Orleans is one, Beaufort is one, Memphis is one, Pensacola is one, and there are others.

Of course the effect is to admit to these places in our military possession all the people of that country, and to allow them free intercourse to and from these places, if they have any property of this kind to sell. I suppose they have all got something to sell; every man has a little cotton at least; so that you open your camps entirely to these people. In the next place, they are to bring their products there under a permit. To whom will the permit go? Here is another opportunity for favoritism. It is to go to such persons as the purchasing agent shall allow. Whom he will favor with them I do not know; who are to have the advantages of them I do not know; but this I know, that the whole of that country is covered over with Jews and cotton speculators who would deceive, if it was possible, the very elect, and who will contrive by all possible means to accomplish their purposes. They are the persons who will have the control of this trade; they are the persons who will have the favor of the purchasing agents.

Now, I ask, how is it possible that any general in command of your forces in these places, say at New Orleans for example, can carry on his military expeditions into the enemy's country with those very enemies coming and going and carrying all the information they choose to carry directly to the camps of the opposing forces? When I say the thing is impossible, it needs nothing but to state it to show that it is utterly impossible.

Then, Mr. President, we are to have on a larger scale, and much more extensively carried on over the whole cotton country, the very trading and dealing with the enemy which we had before upon the river Mississippi. Was not that a source of corruption to your Army, to your officers, and to the people? So much so that you repealed the law authorizing it in this very act, repealed the clause which allowed the granting of licenses; and yet by this action you opened the door to an infinitely more extensive system of licenses.

But besides its corrupting influence and effect, and its direct interference with the prosecution of military enterprises, there is another thing. What have you laid a blockade for? Why was a blockade declared? The blockade is not needed to prevent neutral nations from carrying contraband of war, munitions, arms, equipments, powder, &c. Neutral vessels cannot carry those articles to a belligerent Power; they are liable to be seized, if they do so, without any blockade. A blockade is not made merely to keep military supplies out of the enemy's country, because neutrals have no business to carry them, and we have a right to seize and condemn them for doing so, even if

there be no blockade. The blockade is made to prevent their trading in matters which are not contraband of war; to stop all trade with the enemy, not so much for the purpose of preventing the carrying of supplies to them as it is to prevent neutrals buying their produce, paying them money for it, and thus enabling them to go on with their efforts and advance their prosperity. By the laws of blockade, if the country declaring the blockade permits intercourse by its own people with the country whose ports are declared to be blockaded the blockade ends. I can show that very clearly by the laws of nations. It lies in a nutshell. The blockade right is to exclude a neutral from carrying on trade with the enemy's country even in articles that are not contraband of war. Now, you cannot declare that blockade and carry it into effect as against the rest of the world and yourselves undertake to monopolize that trade. If the blockading Power carries on the trade by its own citizens it must allow it to neutrals. You cannot sustain the blockade on such a ground; but

I ask,

I was not coming to that point just now. why did we declare the blockade? It was to keep the southern people from selling their great quantity of cotton and getting money for it from foreign nations, and having thereby the sinews of

war.

Would it not be strange if we should ourselves say in the face of the world, "All that was a mere pretense; we will buy their produce; we will pay them money for it; we will give them the sinews of war?" It would be the strangest anomaly under the heavens.

Mr. President, I desire to call the attention of honorable Senators for a moment to another thing. A law was passed here, I think in 1862, called confiscation act, whereby we declared that all the property of persons in the rebellious States who should thereafter participate in the rebellion, should be forfeited, confiscated, become the property of the United States. But here is a law to say that we will take all that valuable property of theirs, which we have deciared to be forfeited and to belong to us, and we will pay them the money for it. That is carrying out confiscation, I suppose! That is the law which I propose to repeal.

I will endeavor, Mr. President, to be as brief as I can; and the next suggestion which I wish to make-indeed I have already partly presented it-is that this is an entire end of blockade. your If it amounts to anything it is this, that we will keep up the blockade as against the world, and we will ourselves go in and get this property and monopolize this trade to ourselves. That is really it. You cannot disguise it. It requires but a few words to state the doctrine applicable to such a condition of affairs, and I will read but a sentence in support of it from a very distinguished writer, James Parker Deane, in his summary, and a very fine one it is, of the laws of war, and every principle which he announces is sustained by decisions in the Admiralty:

"And a blockade which excludes the subjects of all other countries from trading with the ports of the enemy, and at the same time permits a general access to those ports to the subjects of the State which imposes it, is irregular, illegal, and null. All blockade being for the purpose of obtaining a commercial monopoly for the private advantage of the State imposing it, would be void on the very principles on which the right of blockade is formed." Deane on War and Neutrais, page 27.

There could be nothing more to the point. It is utterly impossible to avoid this effect by undertaking to say that we do not go into the particular ports which are blockaded, but the trade is carried on in ports in our actual possession. Of what importance is that? You invite all the people of the country to bring in their products for sale, if they have any, at those ports, and of course when they come there they get the money for their productions. You say to them, "You have nothing to do but to come to our ports and bring your productions, and you shall have the money." The fact that they bring them to a port in your possession does not alter the character of the transaction. The true character of it, is as stated by this writer, to monopolize the trade to ourselves, and keep neutrals away from it, and that is not admissible by the laws of nations. I can merely say that if the law which I propose to repeal shall go into effect, and agents shall be appointed, and purchases made throughout the southern country, if cotton shall be brought from places throughout that country to the points designated for its purchase and use by the United States, then if a blockade runner shall be seized with a cargo of cotton and brought before our admiralty courts, she cannot be condemned as prize, for that is the end of the blockade.

I have thus summarily stated my objections to the existence and continuance of this section of the law of last summer; I now propose to read a little from those who are on the ground, and who know the practical working of the system. I will first read from a letter of General Čanby, who is at New Orleans, and I believe in command of the Mississippi department. Speaking of this order of the President given under that law, he says:

"The operation of this order is contingent, by the eighth section, upon the orders to be given by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy; but the General Orders of the War Department have been received in due sequence to the 14th of November, and no order corresponding in number, date, or matter, with the order submitted by Mr. Cutler, is found among them. Without waiting for the official receipt of this order, I shall at once give such orders as may be necessary to secure a due observance of the executive order of September 24, 1864, and the Treasury

"Cotton speculators in the Mississippi valley have a prospective and hope to have an actual interest in every bale of cotton within the rebel lines; they know that expeditions within the enemy's country are followed by the capture of cotton, or its destruction by the rebels to prevent its falling into our hands; hence it is to their interest to give information to the rebels of every contemplated movement. I have not sent an expedition into the enemy's lines without finding agents of this character in communication with the rebels, giving them information regarding our movements; and nearly every expedition has been foiled to some extent, in some of its objects, by information so communicated. I have now several speculators, who were captured in the enemy's country, awaiting trial, under the fifty-seventh Article of War, for giving information to the enemy. But the punishment of these men is no compensation for the evil they have occasioned, and will not secure us from future disasters from the same cause. "I have now in my possession papers in relation to such contracts, made with English houses in Mobile, for the exportation of two hundred thousand bales by the way of this port; the conditions of the sale require that the payments be made in supplies, in gold, or in foreign exchange. The net profits of these transactions are estimated by the contractors themselves at $10,000,000, and it is easy to see how much zeal will be evoked by profits of this magnitude. I cite this as one of many instances that have come under my observation; and to show the character of these transactions in the Mississippi valley, I ask attention to the memorandum printed on page 8 of the inclosed pamphlet, referring to the particular transaction just cited, and indicating clearly the means by which our laws are evaded, and how the amount due the rebel government is converted into foreign exchange.

"The rebel armies east and west of the Mississippi river have been supported mainly, during the past twelve months, by the unlawful trade carried on on that river. The city of New Orleans, since its occupation by our forces, has contributed more to the support of the rebel armies, more to the purchasing and equipment of privateers that are preying upon our commerce, and more to maintain the credit of the rebel government in Europe, than any other port in the country, with the single exception of Wilmington. I do not make these statements as conjectures, but from evidence that will prove conclusive to any impartial mind. I know the restrictions of the law of July 2, 1864"

Referring to section nine which I first read"have reduced the rebel armies east and west of the river, and greatly straitened them for supplies essential to their existence. Kirby Smith has officially announced that he can no longer supply his army with clothing, and every rebel paper coming from west of the Mississippi contains appeals to the families and friends of soldiers to contribute clothing. The last Alexandria paper contains a proclamation by the rebel governor, appealing to the people of Louisiana to furnish clothing to the suffering and destitute soldiers of Missouri.

"The construction placed upon the regulations of the Treasury Department by one, at least, of the purchasing agents in this command, will, in sixty days, undo all that has been done by the law of July 2, and enable the rebel authorities to arm, equip, and clothe the armies that cannot much longer be kept together without aid from us.

"I make these statements in order to convey to you my own opinion of our actual condition, of the embarrassment under which all military operations must be conducted, and to express the hope, if the future operations of the troops in this command should fail to meet your expectations, that you will consider the circumstances by which their usefulness and efficiency were impaired."

I have here a letter from Commander W. H.

Macomb, commander of the United States steamship Shamrock. It appears that there is a clause in the Treasury regulations for commercial intercourse which permits any one bringing out cotton or tobacco to take in return supplies of merchandise to the amount of one third the value of the products brought in. Commander Macomb, under date of January 4, 1865, says:

"This law is a mistake; under no circumstances should supplies be allowed to pass without our lines. I seized the other day a schooner with a cargo of every kind of contraband articles, valued at nearly seven thousand dollars, which was on its way directly into the enemy's lines, and there is very little doubt that most of it will go to feed the enemies against which we are fighting."

And he says further:

"A steamer called the Philadelphia, with a large cargo, said to have the proper Treasury permits, signed by General Shepley, &c., ran up the Chowan river the other night, and is said to have gone to Franklin, Virginia, to sell her cargo. On her way up a guard of rebel soldiers was placed on board her to take her up in safety."

Knowing that my statements were rather broad, I said that I would endeavor to sustain them by the statements of men who knew what they talk

about as matters within their own observation and experience.

But gentlemen may say, we want cotton, and how are we to do? Mr. President, from the best information we are able to obtain, there is now in the confederate States about one full year's production of cotton. In the past three years they have raised about as much as they have been able to get off. There is then just about one year's supply on hand, and that is four million bales. That is a good year's supply, no more. Take the four million bales-they will average four hundred pounds to the bale-and suppose we put the value of the cotton at less than half the market price now in New York. The law is that we shall not give more than three fourths of the market price in New York; but suppose you put it at half, that would furnish to the enemy $800,000,000! At fifty cents a pound for the product which they have on hand, which they have been unable to get off and get the money for, which they cannot eat, the fruit of which they want, you would furnish to them $800,000,000! Am I at all extravagant, then, in saying that it is utterly impossible to prosecute this war successfully and permit that trade to go on, and furnish them with that advantage? I have already shown you from the letter of General Canby that within his department it is utterly impossible to prosecute the war, (to say nothing about the money feature of the question,) because it interferes with and defeats military operations; but even if it did not, the idea of furnishing an enemy with that amount of the sinews of war, of money, to prosecute the war against us, is to me the wildest thing that ever entered the head of man.

I mention this amount of money not merely to show the effect of permitting this trade, but also with another view. Can I expect to repeal this section of the law of 1864? Have I any good reason to believe that the trade can be stopped? Mr. President, any man or company of men who desire to have a law to license them to trade in cotton and tobacco could well afford to come to this Congress and give $100,000 apiece to a majority of the members of the two Houses and give $1,000,000 apiece to the two Secretaries to sign the licenses, and it would not be two per cent. on the purchase.

Mr. WILSON. Do you think that would have any influence?

Mr. COLLAMER. I have not said so. But, sir, "cotton is king. "We have jeered at it, we have sneered at it, but let us see whether when we get through we shall not find it so. Cotton is king. I have shown how it is king, potential in its pecuniary influence. Two years ago a proposition came here to license this trade. There was a very short debate about it, and it received no countenance at the hands of the Senate, but I find that it was passed and was approved on the 24 day of July last, and no doubt it was passed upon the recommendation of the Committee on Commerce, and here we stand, and we see the

effect of it.

Mr. TEN EYCK. It was not reported by the committee.

Mr. COLLAMER. That I do not know. 1 have made many inquiries, and some gentlemen scem entirely oblivious about how it got through, about how it came to be in the law at all, and they seem to know no more about it than I did who had gone home before its passage on account of sickness; but it is there. The bill was in charge of the honorable Senator from Maine, and he did not know this clause was in it until he came here at this session, or if he did he had forgotten it. I was here when that gentleman was making his very laudable efforts to get his bill through the Senate, and I know that he told us it was a bill to put an end to this trade, not to put in a section authorizing it.

Mr. President, I do not know that this trade can be stopped; but I know that if it goes on, licensed by our authority and without limitation, we cannot succeed in putting down this rebellion, in the cotton States any way.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1865.

I have no desire to trespass on the time of the Senate. It is with the utmost reluctance that I have said anything on the subject, but feeling the force of the convictions which I have stated, I felt it to be my duty to offer this proposition. When you consider the amount of money which the continuance of this trade must furnish to the enemy, when you consider the manner in which it must defeat all our military enterprises within those States, when you consider the corruptions which grow out of it, when you consider that it is the end of your blockade, when you consider that it is to furnish the enemy with such an enormous amount of money to carry on the war against us, I think I have succeeded in showing that I had occasion to present this bill.

A single word more about the money. Some gentlemen seem to think that it is a good thing to let them have our greenbacks, and that they will keep them and thus create a large circulation for them. Take the case of a man who comes from the interior country to New Orleans with a quantity of cotton. He sells it and takes greenbacks for it. He puts those greenbacks in the first express that goes out to New York to his agent there to turn them into gold, and probably ships that gold to London subject to his order when it gets there. In England the means and opportunities of exchange are well known. There is no possibility of having our greenbacks hoarded in the South in that way. Besides, by the laws of war that money in whosesoever hands it may be in the enemy's country is at the enemy's command.

Mr. FOSTER. If he gets cotton enough there by the time he gets the greenbacks they would be worth as much as gold.

Mr. COLLAMER. Of course he will forward them to be converted into gold, and the money in his hands may be used by the rebel government against us. The rebel government lays hold of money wherever it finds it, and it may be very well to say to its people, "We are exceedingly in want of money; our own is so depreciated that it hardly answers any of the purposes of exchange, and we will take this property and use it, and will enlist every man in this country to fight to the death, because we shall thereby, if we succeed, get rid of ever redeeming this money, and we shall not redeem our own."

In short, Mr. President, in any way in which I can view the subject, it seems to me that it is an utter mistake to attempt to hold illicit intercourse with our enemies, bribed to it by the value of their products which we want. It is an exceedingly unnatural connection-a love of money on one side and a pretended patriotism on the other. They defeat each other. I desire that this section may be repealed.

Mr. MORRILL. I should like to inquire of the Chair what the question before the Senate is.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion will be, if there be no other, to refer the bill to an appropriate committee. The Senator from Vermont will indicate what disposition he proposes to make of the bill.

Mr. COLLAMER. I understand that this very section which I propose to repeal was itself recommended by the Committee on Comerce. is our rule such that the bill must be committed?

NEW SERIES.....No. 18.

question which I desire the Senate should understand, because, although I say that I agree with the Senator from Vermont in the argument and in the conclusion, I do not quite agree with his narrative.

The law originally, in 1861, was correctly stated by the honorable Senator to be that all intercourse with the insurrectionary States was prohibited by that act, with the exception therein stated, which was a limited exception. The history of it is that under that exception there sprang up a trade. That was a law with the enactment of which I believe the Senator from Vermont had very much to do. I do not know but that he reported it; at any rate, I believe he is entitled to the paternity of it, and I so conferred with him in regard to the amendatory law. At the commencement of the last session a bill was presented to the Senate-I do not remember by whom-and referred to the Committee on Commerce, the object of which was to enlarge the provision of that exception in the act of 1861. That bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and the Committee on Commerce gave diligent attention to the subject-matter of the bill. We had witnesses before us who gave us an account of the traffic under the act of the honorable Senator from Vermont, by virtue of regulations which were authorized by that act in certain cases to be made by the Secretary of the Treasury under the sanction of the President. The Committee on Commerce came to the conclusion that all traffic under the act of 1861 was injurious to the public interests, was particularly detrimental to the military service, was fraught with evil, and chiefly evil. That bill having been referred to myself to be perfected, I did, as the honorable Senator suggests, confer with him upon the subject, and the Committee on Commerce came to the conclusion to interdict all trade whatever. The Committee on Commerce, instead of not only not reporting the section now under consideration, the repeal of which is the object of this bill, went the whole length of repealing the exception ingrafted upon the bill of 1861, and came to the conclusion that the public interest demanded that there should be no trade whatever; and we reported accordingly to the Senate.

I remember very well making these general statements to the Senate, that the conclusion to which the Committee on Commerce had come was that all trade was inconsistent with the prosecution of the war; and that not only no additional provisions should be made for the commercial intercourse, but that all trade whatever should be cut off. That bill was amended in the Senate. Precisely how it was amended, I do not remember.

Mr. COLLAMER. It was amended by the insertion of the eighth section.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Not necessarily. Mr. COLLAMER. I desire that it shall be put on its passage.

With all that the honorable Senator from Vermont has said in the main I concur, both with the reasoning and the general scope, saving and excepting, perhaps, the inference as to the com. mercial character of the Senate. I am hardly prepared to believe that cotton will be supreme on any question before the Senate when fairly understood.

There is a little narrative connected with this

the considerations I have just stated, and which suppose delicacy will require that I should not very far elaborate.

I

That is the whole fact of the matter; and such being the history of the subject, I submit, with all deference to the judgment of the honorable Senator from Vermont, that this bill ought to go to a committee, that it is altogether too important to be passed here in an hour or a day without further light on the subject. Although the Committee on Commerce were satisfied that the whole