Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

without the formal mode now pursued of seeking it by a resolution of inquiry, and that it would release many clerks now kept, at large expense, and employed to answer these calls. But these ideas, if entertained, are without any foundation. That the information could not be obtained with any more facility is clear. No Secretary can give verbatim from memory the contents of documents on file in his Department, or of accounts and tabular statements in figures. The scheme would not facilitate the business of the House, or relieve any Department from its present labors.

If we required the attendance, or admitted the presence, for instance, of the Secretary of the Treasury, he could not be expected to discharge the daily routine of his office, and we should have reason to copy British precedents still further by having an additional Secretary of the Treasury. There could be no diminution of clerks, for an equal force would be requisite to supply the facts and figures in detail for the use of the talking Secretary as are now needed to furnish the present officer before he can communicate to Congress answers to resolutions.

The more heads or chiefs that may be created for any service the more numerous will be the subordinates. Civilians, as well as military men, magnify their offices and feel honored by the extent of their commands. It can hardly be doubted that, instead of lessening the number of employés, it would increase them. As a matter of economy, then, the scheme should be rejected.

It may be suggested that by the change proposed we should have an open, face to face, communication with the heads of the Executive De-|| partments, instead of a clandestine, secret, and suspicious one. I must deny the covert allegation. By the Constitution it is provided the President, not the Cabinet, "shall from time to time give to Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient," and this he does through the Secretaries annually, and oftener, when necessary, through their reports made to him and communicated by him to us. The Secretary of the Treasury reports to us because of law to that effect and because we hold the purse-strings of the nation. The option in the law allowed us to require it to be done in person, but this the House has never required and never permitted. All these reports are at once printed and promulgated to us and to the world. They are open to our scrutiny and the criticism of ages. The President speaks by his own authorized Secretaries. The responsibility cannot be shirked. The new scheme, however, would tend in the direction of making these officers responsible to the House, and to that extent relieving the President. If the Secretaries were of great force of character they would make the House bend to their will. If they were weak they would become the tools of a faction, or of some artful demagogue. But the idea that any less of secret and suspicious influence would be exerted when ampler opportunities of constant intercourse should be offered, hardly requires serious refutation.

Mr. Speaker, I have thus presented some of the objections to the admission of the President's Cabinet to seats in this House and to me they appear insuperable. However lamely presented, I feel confident the House is in no great danger of reaching a wrong conclusion, as all parties have an equal interest in the maintenance of its character and privileges. It will retain with most respectful attachment its ancient usages and bar out all attempts to undermine its constitutional independence. It will not seek obedience where it has no power to enforce its commands. It will never consent to dim either in form or substance the luster of its republicanism; and, conscious of having been created and elected to represent the people only, separated by fundamental law as well as by all our most revered traditions from executive alloy, it will not debase its original standard, no matter whether the solicitation comes from within or without.

Mr. COX obtained the floor, but yielded to Mr. BLAINE, who said: I desire to ask the gentleman from Vermont a question, which I did not like to address to him during the progress of his speech, for I always dislike to interrupt a gentleman in the course of his remarks. l'understood him to maintain, as one essential part of

[blocks in formation]

Mr. MORRILL. Undoubtedly, if they were guilty of any misdemeanor.

Mr. BLAINE. In case of an absolute and contemptuous disobedience of law, how would it be? Mr. MORRILL. If this House or any officer of the Government imposes an unconstitutional obligation or order on any person or officer, he would not be bound to obey it.

Mr. BLAINE. But the law, if passed by a concurrence of the House and Senate, and the approval of the President, would be obligatory upon the members of the Cabinet. Now, does the gentleman from Vermont assume the ground that a member of the Cabinet might refuse to obey the law until a judicial test was had as to its constitutionality?

Mr. MORRILL. I take the ground that neither this House, nor Congress itself, has power, by the Constitution, to compel the attendance of members of the Cabinet on this floor.

Mr. BLAINE. That is begging the question entirely.

Mr. MORRILL. And I submit that there is no power under the rules of this House, as now adopted, by which we could compel the attendance here of those parties.

Mr. BLAINE. I undertake to say that if this measure should receive the vote of the Senate and House of Representatives, and the approval of the Executive, it would be a law, and that, until authoritatively decided, would be binding; the members of the Cabinet would be bound by it as much as you or I, or any other citizen, would be bound by any other law upon the statute-book.

Mr. MORRILL. I do not think the question which the gentleman from Maine proposes has very much relevancy to the matter. So far as I can learn what his views are, I agree with him that the Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate expounder of all our laws. I think it rests with the gentleman from Maine and those who advocate his side of the question to show that there is any authority in the Constitution to pass such a law; and if he cannot show that, I think he had much better vote against this measure than to undertake to show here how an unconstitutional law can be enforced.

Mr. BLAINE. I did not rise to discuss the

general merits of the question at this time; but I understood the gentleman to make the specific point that if Congress passed this measure, the members of the Cabinet could snap their fingers in the face of this House, and there is no power here to vindicate the authority of Congress.

Mr. MORRILL. I still maintain that there is no power in the Constitution, and no law which now exists, by which you could compel them to be present; and that if you pass this law the Executive may execute it or not, of course at their own peril.

Mr. THAYER. I would ask the gentleman from Maine how the constitutionality of the law is to be tried if it is violated?

Mr. BLAINE. And I would ask if the constitutional test could not be applied to this law as it is to any other law? We have documents brought in here upon almost every question to prove that a pending measure is unconstitutional, and it is proved over and over again, and yet in defiance of that we go forward and pass the measure into a law, and until it is passed upon by a judicial tribunal it is binding; and the argument of the gentleman from Vermont is that this is an exception to all law.

Mr. THAYER. I do not think the gentleman understood the force of my interrogatory. I understood the gentleman to reply to the suggestion of the gentleman from Vermont in regard to the obedience which is to be given by the members of the Cabinet to an unconstitutional law, if this law is passed, by saying that they would be bound to obey it until it was pronounced unconstitutional. I ask the gentleman from Maine how the opportunity to pronounce it unconstitutional

is to arise, unless the Cabinet ministers should refuse to obey the law.

Mr. BLAINE. I turn the question upon the gentleman himself; suppose they refuse to obey, how are you going to make a case on either side?

Mr. THAYER. If the power of impeachment existed, I suppose you would proceed under that; and in the course of the proceeding the question would arise and be decided.

Mr. BLAINE. Do I understand the gentleman to maintain that the power of impeachment does not exist?

Mr. THAYER. I do not say it does not. Mr. BLAINE. I say it does. The Constitution says:

"The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from othee on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Now, if an absolute and contemptuous disregard and defiance of law does not constitute a misdemeanor, what does?

Mr. THAYER. That depends entirely upon the constitutionality of the law.

Mr. BLAINE. Precisely.

Mr. THAYER. That is the very question in controversy.

Mr. BLAINE. Now, let us see whether this process of impeachment extends to these Cabinet officers. The Constitution says all “civil officers" may be impeached, and members of the Cabinet are distinctly recognized as "civil officers" in another provision of the Constitution. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] wants to know whether I consider the Secretary of War a "civil officer. [Laughter.] I do not consider that a very civil question. [Laughter.]

Mr. WILSON. I would ask the gentleman from Maine how the question is to be settled by the judicial department of the Government.

Mr. BLAINE. It is to be determined by the power of impeachment. The Constitution provides that civil officers of the Government may be impeached, and each head of an Executive Department of the Government is subject to impeachment.

[ocr errors]

Mr. WILSON. I understand that; but how in relation to the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the law? Suppose the head of a Department should decline to appear in this House, and proceedings intended to result in an impeachment of him should take place, how would the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of this act of Congress be determined?

Mr. BLAINE. I will answer that question by putting another.

Mr. WILSON. Oh, no; answer my question. Mr. BLAINE. Suppose you impeach any other civil officer anywhere for disobedience of law, how will you determine the constitutionality of the law that is disobeyed?

Mr. WILSON. Well, take any other civil officer. I come back to the same question. Mr. BLAINE. I put the same question to the gentleman.

Mr. WILSON. Answer my question.

Mr. BLAINE. It would be done in this case through the same medium, the same instrumentality that is applicable to any other civil officer. Mr. WILSON. What is that?

Mr. BLAINE. I would be very glad to hear it from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. WILSON. If the gentleman will pardon me, did I not understand him to say that this question must be decided by the courts of the country?

Mr. BLAINE. By no means. I maintain that a member of the Cabinet who is made amenable to a law has no more right to decide that that law is not constitutional than you or I have.

Mr. WILSON. Then I make this suggestion: suppose a Cabinet minister under the provisions of this law should withhold his attendance here, and proceedings should then be commenced looking to impeachment, and that he should insist that the law is unconstitutional; what tribunal is to determine that question?

Mr. BLAINE. I ask the gentleman the same question. I say that the process of impeachment is as applicable to Cabinet ministers as to all other officers. The House presents the articles of impeachment, and the Senate tries them. That is the whole of it.

I only rose to reply to that single remark of the gentleman from Vermont, and I will say in closing, as I said at the commencement, that the power to enforce this law when once enacted is just as ample as the power to enforce any other law.

Mr. COX resumed the floor.

Mr. CLARK presented a memorial of Sweeney, Rittenhouse, Fant & Co., praying that their claim reported upon adversely by the Court of Claims January 23, 1862, may be referred back to that court for a rehearing; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. WILSON presented the petition of Josiah

Mr. GRINNELL. Will the gentleman give Copeland, praying an extension of his patent for way for a motion to adjourn?

Mr. COX. I yield for that purpose.

Mr. GRINNELL. Inasmuch as the Cabinet are not expected here this evening, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and thereupon (at four minutes to four o'clock, p. m.) the House adjourned.

IN SENATE.

THURSDAY, January 26, 1865.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. Dr. BowMAN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter of the Secretary of the Interior transmitting a copy of the supplemental report of the chief engineer of the Washington aqueduct, showing the condition of the work and the present state of the appropriations authorized and provided for by the act of July 4, 1864; which was referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

He also laid before the Senate a report of the Secretary of War in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 17th instant calling for muster rolls of such of the regiments as have been raised in the State of Maryland in the present war which were composed in whole or in part of those who were at the time of their enlistment or draft slaves; which was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

He also laid before the Senate a report of the Secretary of War communicating, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 25th instant, information in relation to the appointment of a commission in each of the slave States represented in Congress "charged to award to each loyal person to whom a colored volunteer may owe service a just compensation;" which was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

He also laid before the Senate a report of the Secretary of War communicating, in answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 22d of December, 1864, a report of the Adjutant General in relation to volunteers called out in the State of Delaware for thirty and for one hundred days; which was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

CREDENTIALS PRESENTED. Mr. RIDDLE presented the credentials of Hon. WILLARD SAULSBURY, chosen by the Legislature of the State of Delaware a Senator from that State for the term of six years, commencing March 4, 1865; which were read, and ordered to be filed.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed without amendment the bill (S. No. 384) to amend an act entitled "An act to amend and extend the charter of the Franklin Insurance Company," approved the 2d of March 1838; and also that the House had passed a joint resolution (H. R. No. 142) tendering the thanks of Congress to Major General Philip H. Sheridan and the officers and men under his command; and a bill (H. R. No. 705) for the relief of collectors and surveyors of the customs in certain cases; in which the concurrence of the Senate was requested.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. SPRAGUE presented resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Rhode Island in favor of the passage of the joint resolution submitting to the Legislatures of the several States an amendment to the Constitution of the United States abolishing slavery; which were ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

Mr. GRIMES presented a petition of chaplains in the Navy of the United States, praying that the law regulating their pay may be so amended as to give them the pay of the line officers with whom they rank; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

an improvement in boot crimps; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

He also presented the petition of Josiah M. Read, praying for an extension of the patent for an improvement in boot crimps to Josiah Copeland; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

He also presented the petition of boot manufactures and crimpers of Boston, praying for an extension to Josiah Copeland of the patent known as Read's improvement in boot crimps, patented January 20, 1844; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

Mr. MORGAN presented the petition of citizens of Orange county, New York, praying for the passage of a law authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue duplicates of United States bonds, certificates, and scrip which have been or may hereafter be lost or destroyed; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

He also presented the memorial of William H. Webb, shipbuilder of New York, contractor with the Navy Department of the United States under date of July 3, 1862, for the construction and equipment of the iron-clad screw ram called -the Dunderberg, praying for an additional allowance on his contract; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. HARRIS presented the petition of Jane W. Nethaway praying for an allowance of back pay and bounty due her husband, and the passage of an act allowing her a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. FARWELL. I present resolutions of the Legislature of Maine in favor of the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty with the British provinces. As that subject has been disposed of by the necessary legislation, I move that the resolutions lie on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. TEN EYCK. I present the memorial of

owners and masters of vessels owned in whole or in part by residents of the counties of Hudson and Bergen, in the State of New Jersey, praying that the act of Congress of February 21, 1863, by which those counties of New Jersey were made a part of the collection district of the port of New York, may be so amended that the assistant collector shall have charge of loading and unloading vessels to and from foreign ports and the warehousing of merchandise, and that he be also empowered to enroll and license vessels in the coasting trade owned in whole or in part in those counties, and to do such other acts and things as will promote the interests of New Jersey and of the United States. I present also a similar memorial from the city of Hoboken. I move that these memorials be referred to the Committee on Commerce.

The motion was agreed to.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. MORRILL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 411) to amend an act entitled "An act to incorporate the Metropolitan Railroad Company in the District of Columbia;" which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES. Mr. CHANDLER, from the Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the petition of light-house keepers in Narragansett bay, praying for an increase of salary, reported adversely thereon, the committee deeming it inexpedient at this time to increase official salaries.

Mr. COLLAMER. The Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, to whom was referred a bill (S. No. 392) supplementary to an act approved July 14, 1862, entitled "An act to establish certain post roads," have directed me to report it back with amendments. The amendments are merely verbal, and need not be printed.

Mr. POWELL. I move to take up the bill

just reported by the Senator from Vermont. It is a matter of very deep interest to the community generally to have the railway completed to which the bill refers.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Kentucky asks the unanimous consent of the Senate to proceed to the consideration of the bill just reported by the Senator from Vermont. Is there any objection?

Mr. COWAN. I object. I want to read the bill first, and see what it is.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Objection being made, the bill must go over under the rules.

BENJAMIN VREELAND.

Mr. ANTHONY. I am instructed by the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of Benjamin Vreeland, praying to be allowed the difference of compensation between the pay of an assistant surgeon and that of passed assistant surgeon from the date when he was entitled to his examination by law to the date of his passing his examination, to report a bill for his relief. It is a very small matter, and I ask for the present consideration of the bill.

By unanimous consent, the bill (S. No. 412) for the relief of Benjamin Vreeland, surgeon in the Navy of the United States, was read twice and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides for the payment of $449 07, being the difference between the compensation of an assistant surgeon and a passed assistant surgeon from May 9, 1855, to March 30, 1857.

Mr. HALE. Is there a report in that case? Mr. MORRILL. I believe the bill touches the general question of increasing salaries, against which the Senate has expressed itself so strongly.

Mr. ANTHONY. No, sir. I will explain the case. There is no written report. Assistant Surgeon Vreeland was ordered to sea about the time when he was entitled to an examination for promotion. At the time when all the other assistant surgeons of the same date were examined, he was at sea and could not be examined. As soon as he returned he was examined, and the board of examiners testified that he would have passed the examination at the time when he was entitled by law to receive it, but being absent at sea he could not appear before the board. This bill is to allow time when he ought to have been examined and him the pay for the advanced grade between the

the time when he was examined. It is in strict accordance with precedent. As these cases have arisen occasionally, a general law has been passed covering them, but the law was not retroactive and did not reach his case.

Mr. MORRILL. It is a gratuity.

Mr. HALE. I do not know anything about the law referred to by the Senator from Rhode Island, but I know that I have had such cases as this and the Senate has refused to pay them. The case of young Dr. Suddards, of Philadelphia, I recollect, precisely similar to this, and the Senate refused to make the allowance. I wish that the bill may lie over until to-morrow, so that I may look into that law.

Mr. ANTHONY. I have no objection to that. I am sure that if the Senator examines the case he will find that the bill is according to precedent, and that there is a general law now covering such

cases.

The bill was postponed until to-morrow. COMMITTEE ON BANKS. Mr. GRIMES submitted the following resolu tion; which lies over under the rule:

Resolved, That there be added to the standing committees of the Senate a Committee on Banks and Banking lustitutions, to consist of seven members.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Mr. SHERMAN. I am directed by the Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 677) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide ways and means for the support of the Government, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864, to report it back without amendment, and I ask for its present consideration.

By unanimous consent, the bill was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides that in lieu of any bonds authorized to be issued by the first section of the act of June 30, 1864, that may remain unsold at the date of this act, the Secretary of the Treasury may issue, under the au

thority of that act, Treasury notes of the description and character authorized by its second section; but the whole amount of bonds authorized by it and Treasury notes issued and to be issued in lieu thereof is not to exceed the sum of $400,000,000; and such Treasury notes may be disposed of for lawful money, or for any other Treasury notes or certificates of indebtedness or certificates of deposit issued under any previous act of Congress; and such notes are to be exempt from taxation by or under State or municipal authority. The second section of the bill provides that any bonds known as five-twenties, issued under the act of February 25, 1862, remaining unsold to an amount not exceeding $4,000,000 may be disposed of by the Secretary of the Treasury in the United States, or, if he shall find it expedient, in Europe, at any time, on such terms as he may deem most advisable. There is a proviso that this bill is not to be so construed as to give any authority for the issue of any legal-tender notes, in any form, beyond the balance unissued of the amount authorized by the second section of the act of June 30, 1864.

Mr. SHERMAN. It is proper, as this is a bill of general importance, that I should state the purpose of it. By the act of the last session, approved June 30, 1864, the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to borrow $400,000,000 on the credit of bonds to be issued by the United States on the terms prescribed by the first section of that act, and he was authorized by the second section to issue, in lieu of $200,000,000 of the bonds authorized by that first section, Treasury notes to an amount not exceeding $200,000,000. Under this law, perhaps about seventy million dollars have been issued under the first section and about one hundred and twenty-five million dollars under the second section. The Secretary of the Treasury desires to avoid the issuing of bonds under the first section, to avoid the payment of interest in gold. He does not desire to increase that class of securities at present unless he is compelled to do so. The only effect of the first section of this bill is to authorize the issue of the same amount under the second section of that law, instead of under the first section.

The second section of the bill relates to $4,000,000 of the five-twenty loan which was hypothecated for certain purposes in London, and is now there. Itauthorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to sell those bonds already issued in the market, rather than to issue new bonds, or to export gold to redeem them.

I believe this is the only explanation of the bill that is necessary. It is only a change of the form of security, and does not increase the amount now authorized by law.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

MILITARY ACADEMY APPROPRIATION Bill.

Mr. SHERMAN. I move that all prior orders be postponed, with a view to take up the Military Academy bill. I will state that I should like very much to pass to-day the Military Academy bill, and also the Post Office appropriation bill, which have been lying on our table for three or four days.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 621) making appropriations for the support of the Military Academy for the year ending the 30th of June, 1866.

The Committee on Finance reported the bill with two amendments. The first amendment was to strike out lines thirty-nine and forty of the first section of the bill, in the following words:

For store-rooms for artillery and small-arms, $25,000.
The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment of the committee was to strike out the second section of the bill, in the following words:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That section four of chapter forty-five of the public acts of the first session of the Thirty-Eighth Congress, relating to cadets "found deficient," is hereby repealed.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in and ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time. It was read the third time, and passed.

[ocr errors]

POST OFFICE APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. SHERMAN. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the Post Office appropriation bill.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 659) making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department during the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1866.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The following bill and joint resolution from the House of Representatives were severally read twice by their titles, and referred as indicated below:

A bill (H. R. No. 705) for the relief of collectors and surveyors of the customs in certain casesto the Committee on Finance.

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 142) tendering the thanks of Congress to Major General Philip H. Sheridan and the officers and men under his command-to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

BILLS RECOMMITTED.

On motion of Mr. MORRILL, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 376) to amend an act entitled "An act to amend an act to incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington, passed May 15, 1820,"approved May 5, 1864. Mr. MORRILL. I move that it be recommitted to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

The motion was agreed to.

On motion of Mr. ANTHONY, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 387) for the relief of Solomon Parsons, which had been reported adversely by the Committee on Claims.

Mr. ANTHONY. I move that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Claims. The motion was agreed to.

[blocks in formation]

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New York moves to postpone all prior orders for the purpose of proceeding to the consideration of the subject indicated in his motion.

[ocr errors]

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the motion of Mr. DAVIS to reconsider the vote by which the bill (S. No. 212) for the relief of Henry A. Brigham was passed.

Mr. DAVIS. I will merely state the ground upon which I made the motion for a reconsideration of the passage of the bill. I feel no particular interest in it. There was in the testimony in the case the evidence of a bank officer. That evidence proved the fact that while the dispute about the counting of the money was progressing, a third person came in and examined the package from which the money was lost; but it did not state whether this examination by the stranger, the third person, was before the money had been counted by the paymaster, or afterward. The testimony of the bank officer was indefinite on that point. I desired that the testimony should be retaken, and that that officer should make a definite statement on that point. If the examination by the stranger was before the deficit was ascertained and announced by the paymaster, I would not vote for the passage of the bill to give the paymaster relief, because I think that would be such an act of carelessness on his part, in admitting the money to be counted by a siranger and a third person, as to preclude him from asking any relief from the Congress of the United States. On the contrary, if that examination by the stranger took place after the deficit had been discovered and announced by the paymaster, I would vote most readily for the passage of the bill.

[ocr errors]

I feel entirely indifferent what disposition the Senate make of the motion to reconsider. That is all I have to say about it.

Mr. CLARK. I do not know that I understand distinctly to what examination the Senator from Kentucky refers.

officer in the case. Mr. DAVIS. The written evidence of the bank

Mr. CLARK. I understand that there was the written evidence of the bank officer; but did I understand the Senator to refer to the examination of the money by a stranger?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. That bank officer remarks in the course of his testimony that he saw the money that was then paid by the bank officer to the paymaster being examined by a stranger. Mr. CLARK. The Senator misunderstood the testimony entirely, I think.

Mr. DAVIS. I think not. At any rate, he said that a stranger had his hand on it.

Mr. CLARK. That was while the officer of the Department was counting it out.

Mr. DAVIS. My recollection of the evidence is this: that the evidence of the bank officer, in regard to the money being handled by the stranger, is not clear upon the point whether it was before or after the deficit was ascertained and announced. Mr. CLARK. It was before. Mr. DAVIS. Before? Mr. CLARK. I think so.

Mr. DAVIS. If the proof is that it was before, I think it is just such a case in which the paymaster ought not to have relief at all.

Mr. CLARK. After that, the paymaster took it and counted it himself, to ascertain if it was correct, and then they discovered the loss of the money.

Mr. DAVIS. The evidence itself is better to establish its contents than any understanding or debate between the honorable Senator from New Hampshire and myself in relation to what that evidence is.

Mr. CLARK. The evidence has gone to the House of Representatives. There is no evidence here. I tried to find it.

Mr. GRIMES. It is printed in the Globe. Mr. DAVIS. I do not care what disposition is made of the motion.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on reconsidering the vote by which the bill was passed.

The motion was not agreed to.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the following enrolled bill and joint resolution; and they thereupon received the signature of the Vice President:

A bill (H. R. No. 677) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide ways and means for the support of the Government, and for other purposes, "approved June 30, 1864; and

A bill (S. No. 384) to amend an act entitled "An act to amend and extend the charter of the Franklin Insurance Company," approved the 2d of March, 1838.

RETALIATION ON REBEL PRISONERS.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It being near the expiration of the morning hour, and there being no other matter before the body, the Chair will call up the unfinished business of yesterday, the joint resolution (S. R. No. 97) advising retaliation for the cruel treatment of prisoners by the insurgents, the pending question being on the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio; [Mr. WADE,] and upon that question the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. DAVIS] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. DAVIS. I shall not occupy much of the time of the Senate in continuation of the remarks I was making yesterday. I had stated the proposition that the law of retaliation existed as an undoubted principle of international law, and that the law of retaliation had its limits was just as certain and as indisputable as the existence of the principle of that law itself. I read from two American authorities in limitation of the law of retaliation, and both of those authorities established this general principle, that retaliation by death in any form could only be visited upon those who were personally guilty of the offense against national

law for which retaliation was resorted to. I do not contend myself for the latter or the qualified principle of retaliation to the extent that Chancellor Kent and Professor Woolsey do. I admit that there may be cases in which retaliation by death in some form may be visited upon persons who are not individually and personally guilty of the offense for which retaliation is resorted to as a preventive.

By way ofexample, there is bushwhacking now all over the States that border upon the confederacy. I concede that the bushwhackers may be shot down, and that they ought to be shot down without being captured; that prisoners should not be taken from bushwhackers at all, because they are a lawless set of robbers, assassins, and murderers who ought to be hunted down in that summary form. I concede, further, that if a man is a bushwhacker and our authorities desire to make an example by way of retaliation, a bushwhacker may be taken as the subject of that retaliation. But I would qualify that concession in this wise: I would not allow any commanding general by his own order to determine who was and who was not a bushwhacker, and order that man against whom there was an imputation of being a bushwhacker thus to be summarily executed. I would require the bushwhacker to be tried by a military court, and give him an opportunity of disproving the charge if he could do it, in order to exempt himself from that summary mode of execution. My friend from Maine [Mr. FARWELL] suggests that the Government ought to be required to prove the fact that he was a bushwhacker against him. I concede the justice of that position; but that is not the principle upon which the law of retaliation is practiced in relation to bushwhackers. The military commandant of the particular section of the country-at least it is so in Kentucky-decides for himself and by himself who is and who is not a bushwhacker; and any man that he determines to be a bushwhacker he orders to summary execution by being shot.

My own opinion, Mr. President, is that such mode of punishment might frequently result in the murder of an innocent man. It denies to a man the right of trial. It withholds from him the invaluable privilege of proving himself innocent of the charge that is made against him, and without any examination, mutual or ex parte, of the facts of the case, dooms him to a sudden and to a horrible death. In that form I would not, if I could control the matter, permit any man to be punished. I would not consent that any man should be deprived of his life upon the imputation of crime without knowing what the charge against him was, and without having a fair and a full opportunity of bringing evidence of his exculpation from that crime. Retaliation exists only for one purpose and upon one reason, and that reason is not vengeance, not justice, but simply by the force of the example of retaliation to arouse another belligerent, who is in the inhuman violation of the laws of war, to a proper observance of those laws of war in waging hostilities; and that is the only legitimate consideration, in my judgment, upon which the principle can be executed. It is the reason upon which it is founded in the laws

of nations.

Mr. President, this law of retaliation is not our law. It is not the law of the Congress of the United States. It is not the law of the President of the United States.. It is the law of nations, that is established by their consent, their practice, and their usage. We have to receive the law as the nations of the earth have made it; we cannot modify it; we cannot add to it; we cannot restrict or repeal any of its principles or provisions; it exists as a code independent of all local legislation by any Government upon earth; it exists as the common, general law of the civilized world, that has received the sanction of the nations of the civilized world.

This law may be taken up by the President of the United States without any additional legislation upon the part of Congress just as it exists, and it may be executed by him; and as some of the members of the Senate have maintained, and I assent to the position, there is no reason whatever for the interposition of Congress in this matter at this time. So far as the law of retaliation exists, so far as it may be legitimately executed, it is to be decided by the law of nations, and the President of the United States, without any ancillary

legislation on the part of Congress, may execute || that law just as he could and to the same extent and rigor with which he might execute it backed by any legislation which Congress would adopt.

I had furthermore said that the fate and the question of our prisoners depended somewhat upon two powers. The first is the rebel government and authorities that hold them in captivity. The second power is that of our own Government, and especially our military authorities, who have the function to exchange for them, and to relieve them from that captivity by the ordinary mode to which the civilized earth has resorted and resorts for the deliverance of prisoners, and that is, by exchange. I stated that I had asked the attention of the Senate to the latter point more than twelve months ago, and I had failed to attract any decided attention to the subject on the part of the Senate.

How did this difficulty in relation to the exchange of prisoners arise? I concede that there have been the most revolting and inexcusable cruelties practiced on the part of the rebel authorities toward our prisoners. The picture read by the honorable Senator from Michigan [Mr. HowARD] in a report of a committee that examined the subject a few days since, was one of the most revolting that has ever been presented to my mind. I have no doubt that thousands and tens of thousands of our prisoners have perished in captivity substantially in the mode set forth in the vivid picture that is presented in that report. Who doomed those unfortunate and brave men to such a fate? It was the rebel authorities; but if there was a power, and that power was in their own Government, to redeem and to deliver these unfortunate men from that dreadful fate, and our Government and our authorities refused to make the deliverance, I ask if the condemnation against our own Government ought not to be as severe as that against the rebel government for bringing them into such a condition?

The honorable Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] adverted to this subject about the time that I brought it before the Senate. A cartel for the exchange of prisoners was established between the two Governments at an early day. That cartel was read yesterday by the honorable Senator from Missouri, [Mr. HENDERSON.] It established the general principle that prisoners should be exchanged by the belligerent parties according to the terms recognized and practiced by the present civilized world. It furthermore stipulated that if either party had an excess of prisoners over the other, that excess of prisoners should be liberated upon their parole. The rebel authorities have contended all the time with distinct emphasis, that the cartel in relation to the release of prisoners upon parole was violated by the American authorities. If it was violated by the American authorities I suppose they had some very good reason for it. But be that as it may, the difficulty which arrested the exchange of white prisoners was that the rebel authorities refused to give negro prisoners in exchange for white prisoners. The Senator from Maryland adverted to the number of negro prisoners that were then in rebel prisons.

Mr. HOWE. If my friend will allow me, I should like to know what is the authority for the statement he has just made, that the difficulty in the way of exchanging white prisoners was because the rebel authorities refused to exchange colored troops.

Mr. DAVIS. I will read to the honorable Senator in a few minutes some authority on that subject. In the mean time I state that position, and I will sustain it by proof in a few minutes.

I understood, furthermore, that the rebel authorities were willing to exchange negro prisoners who had been freed before they entered the United States Army; they were willing to exchange negro prisoners whose ownership could not be ascertained; they only refused to exchange negro prisoners to the extent that those prisoners belonged to their own people; and they insisted and practiced upon the principle of returning those negroes to their owners in the confederate States, and therefore refused to exchange them as prisoners of war.

I recollect that the honorable Senator from Maryland stated near a year ago, when the subject was up before the Senate, in debate, that there were only between one and two hundred negro prisoners then held in captivity by the rebel mil

itary authorities, and that all the obstacle to the exchange and to the deliverance from horrible captivity of ten, twenty, or thirty thousand white Union prisoners, was that there were between one and two hundred negro prisoners held by the rebel authorities which they refused to give in exchange.

Now, sir, I will read an extract from a letter of General Butler, dated in August last, to the rebel commissioner for prisoners, Mr. Ould:

"I unite with you most cordially, sir, in desiring a speedy settlement of all these questions, in view of the great sufferings endured by our prisoners in the hands of your authorities, of which you so feelingly speak. Let me ask, in view of that suffering, why you have delayed eight months to answer a proposition which by now accepting you admit to be right, just, and humane, allowing that suffering to continue so long? One cannot help thinking, even at the risk of being deemed uncharitable, that the benevolent sympathies of the confederate authorities have been lately stirred by the depleted condition of their armies, and a desire to get into the field, to affect the present campaign, the hale, hearty, and well-fed prisoners held by the United States in exchange for the half-starved, sick, emaciated, and unserviceable soldiers of the United States now lan

guishing in your prisons. The events of this war, if we did not know it before, have taught us that it is not the northern portion of the American people alone who know how to drive sharp bargains.

"The wrongs, indignities, and privations suffered by our soldiers would move me to consent to anything to procure their exchange, except to barter away the honor and faith of the Government of the United States, which has been so solemnly pledged to the colored soldiers in its ranks. "Consistently with national faith and justice we cannot relinquish this position. With our authorities it is a question of property merely. It seems to address itself to you in this form. Will you suffer your soldier, captured in fighting your battles, to be in confinement for months rather than release him by giving for him that which you call a piece of property, and which we are willing to accept as a man?

"You certainly appear to place less value upon your soldier than you do upon your negro. I assure you, much as we of the North are accused of loving property, our citizens would have no difficulty in yielding up any piece of property they have in exchange for one of their brothers or sons languishing in your prisons. Certainly there could be no doubt that they would do so were that piece of property less in value than $5.000 in confederate money, which is believed to be the price of an able-bodied negro in the insurrectionary States.

"Trusting that I may receive such a reply to the questions propounded in this note as will lead to a speedy resumption of the negotiations for a full exchange of all prisoners, and a delivery of them to their respected authorities, have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, BENJAMIN F. BUTLER, “Major General and Commissioner of Exchange." The correspondence between the two commissioners of exchange was reported upon the call of the Senate; and, if I recollect that correspondence, it states distinctly that the difficulty, and the only difficulty, in the way of the exchange of white prisoners was, that the rebel authorities refused to exchange for negro prisoners. In the remarks that I made to the Senate on that subject at the time, I assumed the position that the Government and the military authorities of the United States ought to exchange for our white prisoners, even if the rebel authorities refused to make a solitary exchange for a negro prisoner. I assumed then that the holding of white Union prisoners in rebel prisons to languish, to be tortured by starvation, and to die, did not in any degree alleviate or make more comfortable the condition of negro prisoners. I assumed, furthermore, that if the rebel authorities were willing to exchange for any class of Union soldiers in captivity, white or black, that exchange ought to be made to the extent that was practicable, in order to deliver those who might be delivered from the horrors of such a captivity. I remarked then, as I now remark, that if from any whim, or principle, or policy, the rebel authorities refused to exchange white prisoners and were willing to exchange negro prisoners, the fact of their refusal to exchange white prisoners ought not to have been an obstacle with our military authorities even to exchanging negro prisoners; and with much more force and distinctness would I contend for the converse of that proposition. If the rebel authorities were willing to exchange for the ten, twenty, or thirty thousand white prisoners, who were in that loathsome captivity, and refused to exchange for negro prisoners, it was the dictate of humanity, of justice, of magnanimity, and of gratitude upon the part of our own Government to our own brave white men who were thus perishing in such loathsome prisonsit was the duty of our Government to those brave men, who were thus suffering martyrdom by all the horrors of starvation, to deliver them at once from such a wretched fate.

But what says General Butler? "The faith of

our Government is pledged to the negro soldiers." I understand that faith to have been, "We will not enter into exchange with the rebel authorities for white prisoners, unless they will agree at the same time to exchange for negro prisoners." That was the reason, and the solitary reason, if I understand the difficulty, why the exchanges for white prisoners did not proceed. Why, sir, suppose the rebel authorities had been willing to exchange for all white prisoners, except those from Tennessee, or any other State, would their objection and refusal to exchange for that class of prisoners be any excuse, much less any justification, to our military authorities not to exchange for the white prisoners that they were willing to make a free exchange for? I contend that this business of exchange was not a matter that interested mainly the rebel government; it was a matter that interested principally American Union prisoners who were perishing in prison. Mr. HOWE. Will the honorable Senator allow me to interrupt him for a moment?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir, with pleasure. Mr. HOWE. The honorable Senator has just read from a letter of General Butler's, written in August last. I should like to know if it was not preceded by a letter from Commissioner Ould, of the rebel government.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; but I have not got that letter here.

Mr. HOWE. I should like to ask the Senator, further, if it is not within his recollection that the letter of General Butler, from which he has just read, was in reply to a letter from Commissioner Ould, in which Commissioner Ould said that our Government had, months preceding that date, offered, and repeatedly offered, to make the exchanges, man for man and rank for rank, which offer had been steadily refused by the rebel authorities, for two reasons, one of which was that they would not consent to treat colored soldiers in the American uniform as prisoners of war, and we must relinquish that pretense as the condition to exchange, and the other was that before they would exchange at all we must agree to parole the excess of prisoners in our hands.

Mr. DAVIS. I do not understand the facts as the honorable Senator from Wisconsin has stated them. I understand the position of the rebel government to have been this: that their authorities were willing to enter into an exchange of prisoners on the terms of the cartel agreed upon between the two Governments, that the rebel authorities were willing to execute the agreement in the cartel for the exchange of prisoners between the two Governments.

Mr. HOWE. Yes; and the Government of the United States refused to carry out that cartel, for the reason that the rebels had violated in numberless instances the paroles given by their prisoners, and therefore we refused to take paroles any longer.

Mr. DAVIS. But I understand the position of our authorities-and it is stated substantially by General Butler in the correspondence to which 1 have referred to be that they had pledged their faith and honor to the colored soldiers that no exchange of prisoners should take place with the rebel authorities unless the exchange included negro prisoners as well as white prisoners. I may be misinformed; I may have read the papers inaccurately; and if so, I should like to be corrected; but I understand our Government to have assumed and steadily and inflexibly to have maintained the position that it would enter into no exchange of prisoners unless the rebel authorities would agree to treat negro soldiers just as white prisoners, and enter into their indiscriminate exchange. I understand General Butler to have stated this pledge to Commissioner Ould as one reason at any rate why the exchange for white prisoners had not proceeded.

I stated at that day and at an earlier day that this would be one of the ills and evils resulting from the enlistment of negro soldiers into our armies; that there would be disputes and questions about the exchange of negro soldiers which could not be satisfactorily adjusted with the rebel authorities, and that those difficulties would prevent, hinder, or defeat the exchange of white prisoners, and would condemn our white citizens to remain in these prisons where they were gradually starving to death. In my judgment our Government had no right to assume any such posi

[ocr errors]

tion, and especially it had no right to maintain that position so persistently, so obstinately, and so inflexibly as to suffer twelve or eighteen months to expire without a general exchange of white prisoners between the two authorities, and in that way to have permitted thousands and tens of thousands of the best and bravest men of our land to perish by starvation.

A friend of mine came from Libby prison two or three months before the close of the last session of Congress, and he informed me that he had been in that prison thirteen months, that in that time there had been upward of eighteen thousand Union prisoners brought to Libby and to Belle Isle, and that more than six thousand of them had perished by exposure, want, and starvation, and the diseases resulting from insufficiency of food and from exposure. We have all seen the report of the mortality in the prisons of Andersonville in the southern confederacy during the summer. All the papers stated that at one time there were about thirty thousand Union prisoners confined in the prisons at Andersonville, and that in two months, either June and July or July and August, upward of eight thousand of our prisoners perished in that single place.

I have no doubt that at least thirty thousand Union soldiers have died from starvation and disease resulting from insufficient food and from exposure, from a want of shelter and other protection that a sick soldier ought to have, by being held in these rebel prisons. What a horrid fate! The vivid picture read by the honorable Senator from Michigan, the other day, from the report of a committee of the Sanitary Commission, I suppose did not portray it in colors too strong. The human heart and imagination recoil from torture. The rack and all the cruel modes of punishing and torturing criminals in the dark ages shock the sense of the present age of Christian civilization; but all of them were not more revolting, were not more horrid, and indeed not so much so, as the punishment of a prisoner by starving him to death. In my judgment, the most horrible death that my reason or my imagination could contemplate would be to be shut up in a dungeon and there starved to death. The men who can doom prisoners to such a fate are monsters, and any punishment of the guilty who do this deed that would promise to reform or restrict or curtail in any degree the horrid sufferings of our brave and unfortunate soldiers who are prisoners in the enemy's hands, I would be willing to resort to.

But, Mr. President, what liberality, what magnanimity, even what justice toward our poor unfortunate prisoners, had our Government a right to expect at the hands of these rebels, these criminals? None. They are engaged in a conflict of war, deadly, savage, desolating, almost without an example in modern times. But here is our own Government, which is charged with the fate of our brave but unfortunate captives in rebel prisons. These men, the soldiers of our Republic, had volunteered to bear aloft the flag of our country and to sustain the Union and the authority of the United States within all the borders of the United States. When those men were so unfortunate as to be captured, and especially when the direful misfortune of being lodged in such prisons as Libby, Belle Isle, Andersonville, and others equally horrible, was brought upon them, I ask if every principle of humanity and justice and policy did not require that their own Government should exhaust every means to deliver them from their dreadful condition.

I ask you, sir, and I ask the Senate, if the refusal of the rebel authorities to exchange for a few hundred negroes was any justification, any excuse, any palliation even, for our military authorities in not exhausting every means of exchange or parole and any other mode whatever by which these brave and perishing men might be delivered from their horrible captivity and its inevitable death. I say to-day that if the subject of exchanges had been taken up honestly, earnestly, and in good faith by our Government and our military authorities eighteen months ago, more than twenty thousand gallant and true men who have died in these dreary prisons would have been restored to their country, their friends, their families; and with all the comforts of home and all the attentions of mother, wife, and daughter which they would have received, they might ere this have been restored to health, so that now, instead of

filling an unknown grave in a distant land, they would be cheering and sustaining and blessing their own homesteads and their own families.

Sir, I view with horror the conduct of the rebel authorities to these prisoners, and second, even if second to that, I view with repugnance, condemnation, and execration, the heartless, cruel, and unjust indifference of our own authorities toward the fate of these perishing brave men.

I never heard it controverted before this occasion that the great difficulty in the way of exchanging white prisoners with the rebel authorities was their refusal to exchange for negro prisoners. On this point I will read again a single clause from General Butler's letter:

"The wrongs, indignities, and privations suffered by our soldiers would move ine to consent to anything to procure their exchange, except to barter away the honor and faith of the Government of the United States which has been so solemnly pledged to the colored soldiers in its ranks."

What was that faith? What was that pledge? What was it but simply this, that exchanges would not be entered upon by our Government unless they were treated as prisoners of war with our white soldiers, and unless the exchanges should extend to and include negro soldiers as well as white men? I dissent entirely from the position that the refusal of the rebel authorities to exchange a few thousand, yea all the negroes in America if they had been in captivity, should make one moment's delay or obstacle in the exchange of our white prisoners. The refusal to exchange negro prisoners did not mitigate the sufferings of those negroes. It made their condition no better. It gave them no additional comforts. It offered them no speedier or earlier deliverance from captivity. Then, when it produced no good fruits to the negro, and resulted in the wasting, torturing, starving to death of our white citizens in captivity, why should the latter dread consequence be looked upon calmly, with cold indifference and apathy, in its terrible consummation, by our military authorities and they not waive the condition of negro prisoners being also exchanged?

No, Mr. President, I would say and I do say that all the negroes in America should never have been one iota in the way of or an obstacle to the free and prompt deliverance of our unfortunate white soldiers from captivity. It is for that reason that, although I denounce and censure and abhor the cruelties of the rebel authorities that doomed our brave men to such a dreadful fate, I condemn with equal decision and with equal indignation that heartless policy of our military authorities which permitted those brave men there to remain and thus to perish. I like to hear the thunders of the denunciation of my eloquent and able friend from Michigan in condemnation of the cruelties of the rebel authorities; but here is a double cruelty; here is a cruelty, an apathy, a heartlessness, a devotion to an abstraction and a mischievous error on the part of our own authorities, that has resulted in the great destruction of the health, of the happiness, of the hopes, and even of life to all those prisoners of ours that have died in rebel prisons. I insist, then, that condemnation ought to extend to our own authorities also.

Sir, we have even heard the proposition advanced that exchanges ought now to cease because our prisoners are in an emaciated and unhealthy condition, while the rebels are in a healthy and hale condition, and will if exchanged go into their armies, and fighting behind fortifications one man of them will be equal to four of ours. For that reason we have been told that exchanges should not take place any more during this war; and nobody is able to determine or to predict when the war will close! Sir, I utterly repudiate that position. I do not care what advantage in a military point of view the exchange of our prisoners would give to the rebel armies or to the rebel power. The simple, single inquiry is, what does the obligation under which our Government lies toward our brave soldiers (who are in captivity in loathsome dungeons where they are starving to death and enduring such horrid tortures) require from our Government toward those men? Not that exchanges shall cease, not that exchanges shall be further postponed until the negro is exchanged, but to go forward to-day, to-morrow, whenever you can, with any class of our white soldiers, any number of them, without

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »