"Captain Flinn, the prisoner to whom Senator H. refers, being incidentally on a visit to our city, has called at our office and given a denial to the statements of Mr. IIENDRICKS, so far as he (Flinn) is concerned. The captain says that he never talked with the honorable Senator on this subject. Furthermore, that he never was in Andersonville, and so knows nothing experimentally, or by observation, of the treatment of our prisoners there. ile is diametrically opposed to the views of Mr. HENDRICKS in this matter, and he has good reason to be.

"It will be recalled by most of our readers that in July, 1863, Captain Flinn, in connection with Captain Sawyer, was chosen by lot from the officers confined in Libby prison to be hung in retaliation for two spies who were executed by General Burnside. They were thrown into a dungeon, and there, for six weeks, experienced untold barbarities at the hands of the rebels. Their release was only secured by the positive and expressed determination of the Federal Government to execute Fitz Hugh Lee and General Winder's son in case Flinn and Sawyer should be shot or hung."

I do not know that I have a right to find fault with an editor who ventures to base a criticism upon any information he gets from Congress by the telegraphic dispatches, especially those coming through the Associated Press, they are so unreliable when they reach the distant portions of the country; but perhaps it,is due to myself, as this is published in my State and will be generally circulated, that I should correct almost every statement made in the article.

In the first place, the dispatch, according to the editor's article, seems to make me say that I am opposed to retaliation in any case. Senators who did me the honor to listen to what I submitted the other day know very well that I took the very opposite ground; and, that I may not be misunderstood now upon the subject, I will read what I said upon it. During the course of my remarks, the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HOWARD] asked this question:

"I ask the Senator whether he is in favor of any retaliation with a view to compel the rebels to treat our prisoners with more kindness and humanity."

To which I made this reply:

"I am in favor of carrying on this war upon our part as a civilized and Christian people. I am in favor of compelling the southern people to carry on the war upon their part as a Christian and civilized people; and if they refuse to do it, I am in favor of retaliating for the protection of our people and soldiers just so far as the usages of civilized nations will justify, and just so far, as a civilized and Christian people, we ought to go, and no further."

It is very difficult to understand how the author of this telegraphic dispatch could have reported me as having said that I was opposed to any retaliation. I read from a very distinguished author of our own country to show that retaliation was right, but also to show the limitation that the laws and usages of nations impose upon the right of retaliation, and held, as I have just read, that we were restrained by the usages of civilized and Christian nations. For two or three days I have had upon my table an amendment, which at the proper time I intended to propose, which expressed my view upon this whole subject, and which I will read as a part of my remarks:

Be it resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That, in the judgment of Congress, such proper measures ought to be taken by the President of the United States as may be necessary to obtain the earliest exchange of prisoners at all times during the continuance of the war.

And be it further resolved, That the executive and mili tary authorities of the United States are hereby directed to treat prisoners of the enemy in such manner, in accordance with the usages of civilized nations, as shall be effective in deterring the enemy from the perpetration in future of cruel and barbarous treatment of our soldiers held as prisoners of war.

These two resolutions present my views upon this whole subject: first, that, as a remedy for the evils of which we complain, we demand of the Administration the adoption of all proper measures which will secure an early and immediate exchange of prisoners during the continuance of the war. This is a remedy which I can appreciate, and, in my judgment, is a remedy which the country will appreciate. As I had an opportunity the other day to give the Senate the reasons why I was in favor of the remedy by exchange, I need not now repeat them. They were in substance these: that if we leave our soldiers in southern prisons, in an unhealthy climate, exposed, as of necessity they must be, to hardships, they will encounter diseases, and that to restore them to health we desire to bring them to their homes, that they may enjoy the advantages which home alone can give.

But, sir, I do not care to continue the discussion upon that particular point further. If it is

the judgment of the Senate that a policy ought not to be adopted which will secure an exchange of prisoners, I must be content; but I hope that before this subject passes from the consideration of the Senate a very decided expression will be given in favor of the adoption of such measures as will secure an immediate exchange of prisoners during the continuance of the war.

The other resolution which I propose to submit as a substitute for the proposition now before the Senate is restricted as I understand the laws of nations require us to restrict it. That we have a right to retaliate is not to be questioned; but to what extent, to what point? As far as the usages of civilized nations allow us to go. Is this Senate prepared to go further? The Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CowAN,] in a very able argument the other day showed that Congress could not modify or amend the laws of nations. We can enact a municipal law which will have force upon our own citizens, which will have force upon our own soldiers; but so far as we as a nation, a member of the family of civilized nations, are concerned, we cannot modify the laws of nations. That system of laws has been adopted by the usage of nations; it is the common law of nations, and can only be modified by a contrary usage of nations.

I desire also to correct the statement of this editor in respect to Captain Flinn, for whom, as I said the other day, I have a personal regard and friendship. Captain Flion, the editor says, does not agree with the statement which I made to the Senate; and what statement does Captain Flinn not agree to? I was represented as saying that he had reported to his neighbors that at Andersonville there were no cruelties perpetrated upon our prisoners. The Senate very well know that I made no such statement; and it is very reasonable that Captain Flinn should be surprised to see by the telegraphic dispatch that I had made such a statement. Captain Flinn, I believe, was never at Andersonville. He was a prisoner at Libby; and what I said in respect to Captain Flinn was in reply to the evidence the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HOWARD] adduced in respect to the treatment of prisoners in Libby, and was expressly so restricted.

The editor goes on further to say that Captain Flinn says he had no conversation with me on the subject. I believe that is true. I do not recollect to have met Captain Flinn but once, and I think that was upon the streets of Indianapolis, but for a few minutes since his release from Libby. I did not profess in the course of the debate to speak upon my own knowledge of what Captain Flinn had said. I had then no doubt, and I have now no doubt, that what I said was correct. will read from what I said, showing that I spoke from information:

"I have given the statement of an honest man who was a prisoner there for months, a part of the time in a duageon, selected by lot to be shot. When he came home he inade this statement to his neighbors. I have no doubt that there have been cruelties inflicted on the Union prisoners in southern prisons, and that is one reason why I want them brought home; but I do not believe that it has gone to the extent reported in the country."

I stated to the Senate what I knew was what he had stated to his neighbors; but further in the debate I made it more explicit that my information was derived from his neighbors. In the course of the argument made by the Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. FOSTER,] I corrected a misunderstanding on the part of that Senator, and repeated what I had said on this subject, and continued:

"This I was informed by his neighbors with whom he conversed immediately on his return. Of course, that is confined to Libby prison. I suppose Captain Flinn knew nothing about any other."

I undertook to state to the Senate what Captain Flinn had said to his neighbors, as they informed me. Nor does Captain Flinn undertake to correct that statement; but he undertakes to correct the statement that he had been at Andersonville and that there were no cruelties perpetrated at Andersonville; a thing that I never thought of. He was not there, and of course could know nothing about the treatment of prisoners at Andersonville. I concede that if he saw what was reported in the telegraphic dispatch, he would be surprised that I should have said that he had reported that there were no cruelties at Andersonville.

Again, the editor undertakes, as I think, to make the impression that Captain Flinn was not released

through any efforts which I made in his behalf. I am not going to discuss that question. Captain Flinn's letter was received by me, and that very same morning I took it to the President of the United States, and he was kind enough to make the proper indorsement upon the letter; and I presume that that letter, with the President's indorsement, is now in the proper office in the War Department to speak for itself. Captain Flinn knows by whose efforts he obtained his discharge from prison.

I believe, sir, this is all the explanation I desire to make in respect to this editorial.

I have now but a very few remarks to make in continuation of this debate. I am in favor of the recommitment of this whole subject to the Committee on Military Affairs. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. WADE] said yesterday that any Senator who voted for the reference was necessarily in favor of the postponement and final defeat of the measure. I say that the Senator according to the usages of the body is not justified in making that statement. Is not this business in a proper condition to be sent back to the committee? When the memorial on this subject was presented by my colleague some time ago, and when a resolution was presented by the Senator from Ohio some days since, both were referred to the committee; and why? That that committee might digest a proposition which would probably meet with the approval of the Senate. When the resolution came back, it appeared early in the debate that no side of the Chamber would sustain the proposition as it came from the committee. The debate has gone on from day to day; numerous amendments have been presented; and I now claim that the committee, if this subject be sent back to them, with the light of this debate and of the amendments proposed, can return to the body a proposition which will meet the approval of a large majority of the Senate. Then I say it is proper, it is according to the usages of the Senate, and it will facilitate the business of the body.

But, sir, the Senator from Ohio has no right as an equal in this body to tell us that by adopting the course that we think is right we are opposed to a just measure. We who are in favor of this reference desire to have the measure considered by a committee and properly presented to the body, in order that a large vote may be received in the Senate. That can be done; we have a right to it; and it is not for the Senator to threaten Senators with the displeasure of the country if they do not agree with him. He has the benefit of incorporating in this resolution the very words that he desires to be used. Other Senators desire that their propositions shall go before a committee and shall be properly considered. As the measure now stands, we are cut off from amendment. The Senator, no doubt, is content with the amendment which he has now before the body. He has the advantage of incorporating in this resolution just such words as he desires to use; and if any other Senator prefers other language, and desires that to go to the committee for their consideration, the Senator ought to treat with indulgence this fair desire on our part. I hope the whole subject will be referred; it is according to the usages of the body, and I think will secure the early consideration of a measure with which we shall all be content.

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. WADE] and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. CHANDLER] yesterday used language that I thought remarkable in this body; but as the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] has replied in part, it is not necessary for me to refer to their arguments at any length. The Senator from Ohio said:

"If a man has no sympathy for these barbarians, why are his nerves more affected by the proposition to subject them to the same treatment that they inflict upon us? Why is it that gentlemen's sympathies are all that way? You know from the evidence that these outrages are committed; you cannot deny it. The Senator from Illinois does not deny it. He is too candid to do so. He says there is no doubt about the fact. We all know that our soldiers today are subjected to all that barbarity can inflict upon thein. We know that this day in southern prisons there are thousands of our brave soldiers dying by inches by reason of the barbarity of their captors and keepers." Again, the Senator says:

"Sir, sympathy for the rebellion cannot stop it. Fellowship with the leaders, old acquaintance with them, high standing with them, raising them up as the idols of your idolatry, cannot save theni."

It is difficult to tell to whom the Senator re

ferred. The most earnest denunciation of the measure was from the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER.] I had not known that the Senator from Massachusetts had ever very intimate fellowship with the leaders of the rebellion. I had not known that he was in high standing with the leaders of the rebellion. I think that anything but very intimate relations existed between that Senator and the leaders of the rebellion; and I cannot conceive why the Senator from Ohio should attribute to the Senator from Massachusetts relations of that sort or sympathy with the rebellion. Does he refer to other Senators? In the course of this debate there has been nothing said which justifies the charge of sympathy with the rebellion. So far as I am concerned I disclaim all sympathy with the rebels. Politically, I have more cause of complaint against the leaders of the rebellion than the Senator. They never were his friends politically. Many of them once belonged to the Democratic party, and in my judgment they were in honor bound to stand by the doctrines of that party as enunciated in the Cincinnati convention in 1856; and when they abandoned the Union they abandoned their obligations to the party to which 1 belong; they cut themselves off from the sympathy to which they were entitled while they stood faithfully to the Union and the Constitution.

Mr. WADE. If the Senator will allow me, I think he is mistaken in one thing. He says that the leaders of the rebellion belonged to the Democratic party. I think the Democratic party belonged to them. I think he is wrong in that.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not intend in the course of this debate to bandy words. I am answering the insinuations of the Senator. I should have liked it better if he had made a direct charge against some Senator that he held sympathy with the rebellion, rather than by insinuation to make the charge. The Senator spoke earnestly yesterday of courage. I think, sir, it is evidence of courage where a man makes a charge squarely and directly, rather than by insinuation. So far as I am concerned, I throw the insinuation back to the Senator from Ohio. I have never done an act, I have never said a word, that evidenced a sympathy with the rebellion. This far I have gone; this far I go now: I hope to see the day when they will be back among us, friends again, obedient to the law, honoring and respecting the Constitution and the flag of my country, so that we shall once more be the united, prosperous, and happy people that we were before these difficulties came upon us. Is that sympathy with the rebellion? That, sir, in my judgment, is sympathy with my country, my whole country.

Danton was tried and executed? When the massacres had gone to such an extent as to shock even Danton, he was put upon his trial, and this is the charge:

*

"A secret meeting of the Committee of Public Safety was convened by night, and Danton was accused of the treason of clemency."" "As Dauton entered the gloomy portals of the prison he said, "At length I perceive that, in revolution, the supreme power ultimately rests with the most abandoned.'"

I have said, Mr. President, that I am in favor of that policy which will secure the return of our brothers and friends now in southern prisons to their homes. I have said that I am in favor of such retaliation as will secure to them treatment according to the usages of civilized nations. Does any Senator object to that proposition? This is clemency, they say, and this justifies Senators in intimating that there is a sympathy with the rebellion. My sympathy is not with the rebellion, but with my country. I say we cannot do what is proposed and stand as a civilized people among the nations of the earth. I wish I could command at the present moment the language of one of the greatest orators of our country. The sentiment he expressed I can give. He was speaking of the conduct of Russia toward the exiles from Hungary. He said the earthquake has its power, the lightning has its power, the tornado has its power, but there is a power greater than all, and that is the judgment of the civilized world. When the Senator from Ohio speaks of courage, I claim to have the courage which I accord to him; but I say, as a Senator representing one of the proud States of this Union, I do defer to the judg

ment of the civilized world.

What record does the Senator propose that we shall make? The South say that they have treated our prisoners as well as they could. It is not believed here; it is not believed by myself; but that is their defense; that is what they say to the nations of the world. "We have treated these

prisoners as well as our means would allow; we have not wantonly and willfully inflicted cruelty and barbarity upon them." That is the message they send out to the world. What message do we send? We say to the nations of the world, in the language of the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. CHANDLER:]

"I shall vote for this measure of retaliation, and for any measure of retaliation that promises to be effective. Ay, sir, I will carry it to the point of starvation. A Senator the other day put the question, would you carry it to the stake? Yes, sir, I will carry it to the stake, and I will carry it to any extent that is necessary to preserve the lives of those suffering and helpless prisoners now dying by thousands in the hands of these accursed, hellish rebels." Nobody can charge the Senator with any symThis is not the first time in the history of legis-pathy for rebels after the use of such powerful lation that fear has been held up to control the language. If thoughts become powerful as the action of legislators. The Senator from Michi-language is very strong, the Senator from Ohio gan [Mr. CHANDLER] makes threats of our constituency, particularly the constituency of the Senators from Massachusetts. Is the Senator not aware that the language of threat can only be answered by that of defiance? Who constituted the Senator from Michigan a pedagogue in our body to hold the ferule over shivering children? I expect to vote according to the dictates of my judgment and conscience, and intimations of 66 sympathy with the rebellion" will not control me. My conscience being right on this subject, I shall vote according to that conscience. As I referred to the French Revolution the other day by way of illustration, I will refer to it again, and will read one passage from Abbott's French Revolution. Speaking of the horrible butcheries daily perpetrated in Paris, the author says:

"And yet there was a cowardly spirit impelling these massacres. No one dared speak a word in behalf of mercy Jest he should be deemed in sympathy with aristocrats. He alone was safe from suspicion who was merciless in denunciation of the suspected. It is, however, remarkable that nearly all the actors in these scenes of blood, even in the hour of death, protested their conscientiousness and their integrity."

In the midst of those horrible scenes the most extreme men excited suspicion against those who were in favor of a wiser and a more humane policy. 1 have here a list of the executions during those horrible times, but I will not detain the Senate by reading it. But, sir, he in Paris in those days who was not in favor of wholesale butchery was a suspected person; and why? Because the leaders chose to use that suspicion as a power to control the votes of members of the Convention. Why, sir, did you ever observe the charge upon which

the light of the speech. I do not consent to that. His proposition of starvation, and the proposition of the Senator from Michigan, of the stake, I think would find but little support in this body. I do not go for it, and we cannot go for it. Senators say it shall be, but I say it will not be. It cannot be, for God and His religion forbid it; it cannot, be, for civilized humanity forbid it; it cannot be, for the genius of our country presiding over its destiny forbids it. Let the resolution, then, be modified by the committee so as to reflect the sentiments of the body as shown in the debate, and the many amendments that have been offered, and there will be no difficulty in passing the measure.

Mr. TEN EYCK. Mr. President, I listened the other day to the statement of the Senator from Indiana as he understood it to have been made by Captain Flinn to his neighbors at home in relation to the manner in which our prisoners had been treated in Libby prison, or at Richmond. That statement did not exactly accord with the statement I myself had received from an authoritative source; but I did not feel myself called upon to arrest the Senator in the progress of the debate for the purpose of making a counter statement, nor did I consider it necessary at that time to interfere with the discussion for the purpose of counteracting the influence of that statement, supposing it was not materially to be relied upon, or that a point would not be made of it in relation to the mode in which our prisoners were treated at Richmond. But since that matter has been referred to over and over again, and reiterated during the course of this discussion some three or four times, I think it is my duty, in justice to the true history of the mode of treating prisoners there, and in justice to a gallant Union soldier and sufferer, that I should make a simple statement of the evidence in my possession.

Captain Henry Sawyer, who was taken at the same time with Captain Flinn, and who was held by the rebels for retaliation on account of two of their officers who had been executed under General Burnside's command, came to the city of Washington the very day after he landed at Annapolis, fresh from the Libby prison. He was from my State; and I am proud of the man who has by his gallantry, although acting in an inferior capacity, shed luster and honor upon her soldiery. Captain Sawyer came tottering into my house in the presence of my wife and children, and he detailed the sufferings of our Union soldiers in the Libby prison. He stated, if I remember his declarations aright, and they made a deep impression upon me at the time, that they suffered almost everything but death. He stated that they were nearly starved; that they had not sufficient clothing and protection from the weather; and so far as regarded himself and Captain Flinn,

up and watch while the other slept to prevent them from being gnawed by the rats. The story made such an impression upon me that I have thought of it since in my dreams. Whether the report made by Captain Flinn's neighbors of the treatment of prisoners in Libby is correct, or whether the report made by my friend Captain Sawyer is correct, I am unable to say; but the effect of that treatment upon Captain Sawyer was such that as soon as he was able to resume the saddle he went, in accordance with the indignation of his feelings, declaring in the presence of my family that he would retaliate upon these rebels with his saber; and he has done it since to our credit and to his credit.

Mr. President, I cannot support the proposition of the Senator from Ohio, though it is hard to tell what his proposition is. He argued yesterday for starvation; but his resolution is not for starvation. He has yielded that. His proposition before the body upon retaliation, conceding the power to the President, directs him to exercise that power only according to the laws and usages of nations. Then if he wished this debate to come to a close and that we should have a vote on the measure, why was it necessary to go back and discuss a proposition which he had himself abandoned? My objection to it is this: after he had abandoned his original resolution by his modification, he then makes this speech with the expectation, I suppose, that the President will read the resolution in

I make this statement in justice to him, and for the purpose of putting his testimony before the country in relation to the mode in which our Union prisoners are treated at Richmond as well as at Andersonville.

Mr. SPRAGUE. Mr. President, I desire to occupy the attention of the Senate for but a moment or two only upon this question. It has been discussed so fully and freely and frankly that I feel in reference to my position upon the question very much as a patriotic lady from Philadelphia felt yesterday. After listening to the debate on this subject for a day or two she said, "My grandson shall be a Senator of the United States." You can imagine the mother's feeling in reference to a relation so intimate as that of grandchild; and, sir, if it is in my power to be of any service on this floor in my capacity as a Senator, I shall yet be inspired with a feeling to do and to dare for

that country whenever her service may seem to require it.

It

It may not be improper for me to state something in relation to the early progress of this question in committee and out of committee. It was my privilege early in this war to know something of the barbarities of the enemy toward our soldiers. It has since been my privilege to know something of the progress of this question of retaliation in committee and out of committee. was carly agitated there. One of its distinguished members was called upon to make & report upon the subject long before it was agitated in the Senale. When he was about ready to make that report, the subject was agitated in the Senate by the Senator from Indiana [Mr. LANE] and the Senaator from Ohio, [Mr. WADE,] who suggested a course of action upon it, and their propositions were referred to that committee. The Senator from Ohio has informed you that when this resolution was first presented to the Senate they were unanimous, or he thought they were, in reference to this subject. The Senator was mistaken.

Mr. WADE. I do not think I said the Senate were unanimous.

Mr. SPRAGUE. I mean the committee.
Mr. WADE. I supposed so.

Mr. SPRAGUE. I did not think it then necessary to interrupt the Senator, as I believed that in the progress of the debate that fact would become known to the Senate. But, sir, the Senate, in the modifications of the resolution before them, have arrived very much at the same conclusion to which their committee had arrived. The resolution which came from the Committee on Military Affairs was presented not so much as a proposition expressing the views and opinions of that committee as with a view to place the subject before the Senate, that they might act upon it as they thought proper under the circumstances. That proposition has been presented to the Senate; it has received modifications; it has been curtailed, and almost entirely separated from its objectionable features. I do not know that I should refuse to vote for it in its present shape. There are, however, some objections to it; and it does seem to me that a proposition so important, a proposition which affects so much the interest, the feeling, and the policy of the country, should be recommitted to that committee, and that that committee, with the benefit of the remarks that have been made and the propositions which have been suggested, should present to the Senate and the country something upon which Senators can act so that hereafter no one will ever regret the act or the vote which he gave upon it. Sir, the recommendations which have come from eminent Senators from New England, and from the Senator from Ohio, advising barbarous treatment to rebel prisoners on account of barbarities practiced toward ours can find no sympathy in the people they represent. I believe if there was established in either of those States a camp for rebel prisoners, and it was duly guarded by persons who would treat rebel prisoners with the barbarities suggested in the beginning of this debate, that the men who practiced them upon defenseless prisoners would have no place in those States.

Early in the history of this war it was my privilege to have intimate and near friends connected with the Army. It was my good fortune to be with them upon the battle-field. I saw many of them wounded, others struck down. The patriotic people of my State demanded of me that their remains should be returned to the State; that the ground of that State should be hallowed by their bones and remains; that their history should be a part of that of the State. In obedience to that demand I traveled with a proper escort to endeavor to secure their bodies; and what did I find? I found that the friends whom I had left wounded upon the battle-field had been murdered after we had left. I found the dead that we were obliged to leave upon the battle-field with their faces downward as a mark of indignity. I found the heads of the bravest and best of my companions severed from their bodies to be used as drinking cups by southern rebels. Of the remains of some of the best, most intelligent, and bravest officers that ever served any cause, I found but the portion left from a bonfire.

ate practices of that character upon rebel soldiers either upon the battle-field or in the prison camp. I could not, in the beginning, agree to that proposition. I asked of the men who represented those dead heroes that, instead of imitating the example of the enemy, they should prove themselves better and braver soldiers upon the battle-field; they should show by their courage and their endurance that they were better and higher in the glorious cause in which they were engaged; that they would perform with that motive before them ten thousand times more of service to the country than they could with their hands covered with deeds so black as those which it was proposed to avenge.

Sir, the cause of this treatment of our men by the rebels has not been so thoroughly understood as it might have been. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. HARLAN] has suggested to you the good effects that have been produced by our retaining the rebel prisoners in our hands. I agree heartily with the suggestion that he made early in this debate. I know something of the disposition of our people early in this war to let their blows strike lightly upon the head of this rebellion. I know that the disposition of our soldiers was not to form their lines as steadily as they should, and to do the real, hard service that was demanded of them. This treatment has been practiced by the rebels upon Union soldiers to bring about the very result that has been brought about, and that is, an exchange of prisoners. It was known that the exchange proposed between this Government and the authorities of rebeldom was unfair; it was known that they captured private citizens and endeavored to offset them with our soldiers. We refused to agree to it; and these retaliatory measures on their part have been the means of producing the results which have come to us in the newspapers and otherwise.

I do not mean to apologize in any way for these barbarities, but this much I will say: that the refusal of this Government to exchange has wrought up the soldiers of our armies and the people to the prosecution of this war with an energy unknown to any other people; and the victories of Nashville, the campaign of Atlanta, the splendid success of Savannah, consummated by the capture of Fort Fisher, may be as much owing to the sacrifices and sufferings of our brave men in rebel prisons as to any other cause. While I will not for a moment upon this floor apologize in the least for the barbarities of this cruel foe, I yet see something in the course they have pursued to the advantage of this country, and a greater reason not to imitate their example. Sir, there will be no individuals or families who will receive from the people of this country more real respect and adoration than will go forth from the whole people to these suffering heroes. I believe it has been their fortune, suffering as they have, to do more real service to their country in this, its greatest emergency, than ten thousand times the efforts of any other of our citizens. I believe that if you had put upon our advancing armies the strength that we have withheld in our prison camps, if you had put the thirty or forty thousand rebel troops whom we held as prisoners again in arms against this Government and against our soldiers, the result of their efforts would have put back the success of this contest for years, and would have produced more suffering and more disastrous effects than the suffering that has been brought on our heroes and martyrs in southern prisons.

are against it. Arrange a system, perfect it, bring it to the proper authorities, bring it to the President of the United States, to all men who have an opportunity to act in the matter, and to act quickly; but do not brutalize your acts, do not become savages, because savages are around you; but institute some measures of retaliation." That, sir, is the evidence which comes to us, and which we are advised to receive as the testimony of a man who has witnessed these sufferings.

Sir, I shall occupy the attention of the Senate no longer. I desire that this resolution, with all the amendments which have been proposed to it, shall be recommitted to the Committee on Military Affairs, from whence it originated. I believe that such a reference is eminently proper. I believe that no hasty resolutions should come from any individual or from any set of individuals in this Senate upon a question so important as this, until some committee or some organized body shall have the matter before them and suggest something proper in the case. Let the committee suggest what is proper to the Senate, and let us then act upon it.

Mr. SUMNER. I desire to express my thanks to the Senator from Rhode Island, not only for the practical humanity but for the practical wisdom of his remarks. He is right on the question of humanity, soldier and Senator as he is. He is right, also, on the question of the reference. A matter of so much importance, debated so many days, with regard to which there have been so many conflicting opinions, so many different propositions, differing from each other more or less, ought not to be acted upon without the intervention of a committee of this body. It is for just such a case as this that we have committees, who, as we are told by parliamentary authors, in familiar words, are the eyes and ears of the body. Never, sir, was there an occasion when eyes and ears were more wanted than on a proposition which has been the subject of such a conflicting discussion. If there was a general harmony in the statements on this subject, if these differences had not been developed day by day in the discussion, then I should say, let us act directly on the proposition; but, under the circumstances of the case, I say that it is according to parliamentary usage and according to common sense that this question should go to a committee.

Mr. HOWE Mr. President, I do not hold myself responsible for the fate of this resolution. It is under the care of the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. WADE,] and he knows how to take care of it. It is not his habit to put any of his children to a charity school. And if only the fate of this resolution were at stake I should not trouble the Senate with another word during this debate. But I have sat here, Mr. President, four or five days, and heard for the first time in my life myself arraigned and prosecuted for a want of humanity. I have said that I did not hold myself responsible for the fate of the resolution, but I hold myself responsible for the support I give it; and, if I may be allowed to make use of an expression which is not so much in vogue in this Senate Chamber as it used to be, I wish to say that I hold myself "personally responsible" for it. Sir, I did not come to the Senate of the United States to be taught what was or was not humane, and I am not likely to learn it here, I fear. If i know anything about it now, or if I ever shall, I learned it before I came here; and I did not learn it from the jurists, nor from the publicists, nor from the poets. What little sentiment of humanity I have I acquired before I was put to the schools; acquired it when I was put to my mother's breast; and I beg leave to tell the Senate that so many of them as have not drawn their notions of humanity from the same great fountain had better not parade their humanity here too freely, for it is not reliable.

Day after day, during this debate, every one of those who have asked you in the name of facts which make the nation shudder to do something to put an end to these enormities have been held up as criminals against the holiest dictates of humanity, as offenders against the religion of the land, as criminals in the judgment of civilized mankind; and Senators read us authorities here to prove it. When the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] harangued the Senate on Saturday last against barbarity, I enjoyed the occasion as much as any man who listened to him.

"Indeed, it is no more than our duty to treat the prisoner well. The law of nations requires it." Unquestionably it requires it.

"The Government that refuses or neglects it does not deserve the name of civilized.”

Does any man doubt that when Mr. Everett struck that point in his remarks and made that observation, he had in his mind, not the conduct of our Government, but the conduct of those authorities against which we remonstrate and protest to-day? From that point onward he commenced to arraign, not our Government nor anything we had done, nor anything we proposed to

I like to see great faculties put face to face with great infamy, and I do not enjoy the spectacle any the less because the infamy is imaginary and not real; I think I enjoy it the better for that very reason. I think I would better like to see John C. Heenan sparring with a dummy than with Tom Sayers, because you can see the play of the muscle and the spring of the sinew just as well, and the beauty of the spectacle is not marred by hearing any groans or seeing any bruised and lacerated flesh. So I say I enjoyed the occasion the other day all the better because there was not any real barbarity here for the Senator from Massachusetts to hit. I liked to see him strike out at it all the better because of that fact; and he admitted that it was not here. He said that the proposi-do, but he commenced to arraign the rebel authortion before the Senate had been so changed that there was nothing left of it but the name retaliation. Against the specific proposition before the Senate he had not a word to say in behalf of humanity, of Christianity, of civilization, of poetry, or of philosophy; but he could not forbear the opportunity to impress upon the Senate and the world the notion that some of us here had been, at some previous time, defending a measure which was full of barbarity, which was but an imitation of that of which we complain.

Sir, was that fair and just toward those who have differed from him here on the floor of the Senate? Was it just and fair toward that Senator who has brought forward this proposition, and consented to its being put into this form, [Mr. WADE,] in order to convince the Senate and to convince the world that he did not intend and did not attempt any of those measures which have been ascribed to him? He sees and consents to his own resolution being remodeled and remodeled, until now they who carp at it most and criticise it most bitterly can point to no ugly feature in it. But was it fair to say to him that he had ever been the advocate of anything that was monstrous or barbarous? What he intended, if it were not proved by the language of the resolution which he originally introduced, is abundantly proved by his consenting to its being put into language against which the Senator from Massachusetts can file no protest whatever.

Mr. SUMNER. I made my protest in my remarks.

Mr. HOWE. Against this resolution?
Mr. SUMNER. Yes.

Mr. HOWE. Then I misunderstood the Senator's remarks, and have misread them. I say, Mr. President, that authorities have been brought forward here to convict us who support this resolution of barbarity and of inhumanity. They are not witnesses to the point; they are not fairly treated, and we are not fairly treated by their being produced here.

ities for their violations of the law of nations:

"The Government that refuses or neglects it does not

deserve the name of civilized. Even inability is no justi

fication. If you are yourself so exhausted that you cannot supply your prisoner with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food, you are bound, with or without exchange, to set him free."

Speaking manifestly with direct reference to the action and to the excuses, not of our own Government, but of the rebel authorities. But he lays down the law correctly. Who disputes it? It is the duty of a nation to treat its prisoners well. That is the law. The exception to the law is just such a case as is presented here, when we are not to prescribe treatment as a mere end, but when we are to prescribe treatment as a means to an end.

I am asked by the Senator from Massachusetts to read the last sentence. I will:

"You have no more right to starve than to poison him. It will, however, be borne in mind that while the hard fare of our prisoners is defended by the southern leaders on the ground that it is as good as that of their own soldiers, at the same time they maintain that their harvests are abundant and their armies well fed."

"You have no more right to starve than to poison him," says the witness, speaking still not to our Government but to the rebel authorities who alone have starved; speaking evidently to them, because he goes on to say that the justification which the rebel authorities make for that starvation is utterly untenable:

"It will, however, be borne in mind that, while the hard fare of our prisoners is defended by the southern leaders on the ground that it is as good as that of their own soldiers, at the same time they maintain that their harvests are abundant and their armies well fed."

Mr. SUMNER. That is the point: that is the law of nations.

Mr. HOWE. The law of nations! We are not disputing about what the law of nations is. The simple question is, upon whom was Mr. Everett enforcing the laws of nations? Upon the Senate of the United States or upon the rebel authorities? If the Senator insists that he was in

The Senator from Massachusetts read to us an extract from a recent speech of the lamented Everett. It is to be noticed that the Senator-and that was fair in him; it is entirely allowable by the rules of debate-took pains to eulogize every witness whom he introduced here. I do not complain of that; but if you will consent to look asidestructing the Senate of the United States in referfrom the character of the witnesses and just listen to what they state, I shall not feel at all inculpated by the testimony they give. Mr. Everett says-speaking, if I do not mistake the occasion, before a public meeting called to concert measures for furnishing relief, not to starving prisoners, but to a hungry population in Savannah

"I believe that the best way in which we can retaliate upon the South for the cruel treatment of our prisoners is for us to continue to treat their prisoners with entire humanity and all reasonable kindness, and not only so, but to seize every opportunity like the present to go beyond this."

He was not talking to the resolution which the Senator from Ohio has been defending, or to any modification of that resolution before the Senate; he was talking to a public meeting in behalf of a public charity, appealing purely to the benevolence of those who heard him, and appealing to that benevolence for a specific purpose. He was not talking to a legislature having to grapple with a monstrous crime; he was not attempting to instruct us upon the doctrines of international law.

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator will bear in mind that he lays down the rule of international law there. It was for that that I quoted the passage, not for the sentiment, not for the eloquence.

Mr. HOWE. The Senator reminds me that the witness laid down the rule of international law.

ence to our action upon this resolution, I differ from him altogether. The evidence to the contrary is patent upon the face of the extract.

Again, Professor Francis Lieber is placed upon the stand; a competent witness, says the Senator, upon a question of international law. Undoubtedly competent; and if it had been his purpose or his aim to instruct us in international law 1 should have listened to what he said with as much respect as the Senator from Massachusetts or anybody else. Professor Lieber says:

"No mawkish sentimentality has induced the writer to express his views. He has had dear friends in those southern pens, which have become the very symbols of revolting barbarity, but he desires, for this very reason, that the subject be weighed without passion, which never counsels well; especially without the passion of mere vengeance. Let us bring down this general call for retaliation to practical and detailed measures. It is supposed, then, that retaliation is resolved upon; what next?"

Now, admitting that Professor Lieber is abundantly competent to testify upon a rule of international law, yet if he is asked to testify whether a given measure is within or without the rules of international law, it would be necessary for him to show not merely that he understands what international law commands and what it prohibits, but also that he understands what the specific measure is. I would, therefore, before I gave

ber on this point, want to examine him on his voir dire; I should want to know whether he understood the measure upon which the Senate is deliberating as well as that he understands the code about which he undertakes to instruct us. He shows manifestly in this instance that he does not understand the measure which is before the Senate; for he says, bringing it down to practice:

"It is supposed, then, that retaliation is resolved upon; what next? The order is given to harass, starve, expose, and torture, say twenty thousand prisoners in our hands until their bones pierce the skin, and they die idiots in their filth."

Professor Lieber, well as he understands international law, does not at all understand the measure before the Senate. No such command (as has been repeatedly pointed out) could issue upon the enactment of this resolution in any form in which it has been proposed. It has no retrospective action whatever; it looks steadily to the future. It does not propose to starve any man in the world; it proposes simply to put an end, a final and speedy end, to starvation. The command would not go to take twenty thousand men or one man and starve him until his bones pierced through the skin and he died in his own filth. The command would simply go to the men who have been practicing these enormities, who have been engaged in the wholesale work of starvation, to stop it. To stop it at what peril? At the peril that if they do not commence to feed our prisoners in their hands, we will withdraw the rations which we are daily meting out to their prisoners in our hands. And the command does not go to our agents; it goes to the agents of that rebel organization.

Mr. President, Senators, steadily shutting their eyes and ears to what this resolution says, and what it means, have contrived to give it a bad name. Nay, I do not find any fault with the name; the name is well enough. They call it not merely retaliation, which it is, but retaliation in kind. I do not complain so much of the name they give it as the manner in which they treat that name. If the Senator from Massachusetts, in the tragic mood in which he spoke the other day, had seen fit to call it the balm of a thousand roses, it would have sounded bad to almost all listeners. No matter what name you call a thing by, if you cram your countenance chock full of horror, and throw a sepulchral tone into your voice, it will sound bad, no doubt. But it is after all only retaliation. There is nothing bad about retaliation. All say that. It is strictly in accordance with the laws of nations. All acknowledge that.

Well, let us admit that what we propose here is retaliation in kind; is there anything bad about retaliation in kind, like for like? What is retali ation in kind? If they assassinate a man, retaliation in that case would be to execute a man. If they take a tooth, retaliation in that case would be to take another. If they tear your jacket, retaliation in that case would be to tear another jacket. Necessarily, retaliation in kind is not awful, is it? In reference to the particular evil with which we have to deal, I beg leave to say that retaliation in kind not only is not the terrible enormity it is held to be, but it is the mildest species of retaliation that you can apply.

Senators all tell us that retaliation is right; retaliation is entirely in accord with the law of nations; retaliation is abundantly indorsed by civilization, by Christianity, by Professor Lieber, and by the Senator from Massachusetts. Retaliation is all right, but you must mark the limitations, says the Senator from Massachusetts. And what are they? That you must not be inhuman? No; but you may be humane, I take it. You must not starve a prisoner. We do not want to starve any one. We are trying to subserve a humane purpose. We do not mean to be driven from it. But what sort of retaliation, I put it to the common sense of the Senate, can possibly be applied to the evil which we mean to prevent, but retaliation in kind?

Sir, what do we want to do? There is no vengeance hinted at in anything which is proposed to the Senate. We simply wish to put an end to an enormity. We are about to enact a law, not to command citizens within the reach of our process, but to command a people beyond the reach of our process. We want them to give food and

shelter to the men to whom they are bound to render it by the laws of war, by the laws of civilization, and by the laws of Christianity. How shall we compel them to do it? Retaliation is the only instrumentality offered to you. But what kind of retaliation? Not "in kind," says the Senator from Massachusetts. What then? We are compelled to tell these authorities, "If you do not feed our men we will do something, not to you, because you are not within our reach, but to these men of yours who are in our reach. "Now, what do we do? Take out a given number of them and shoot them, in order to compel them to feed our men to-morrow? No; that would not be retaliation in kind. It would be retaliation; not retaliation in kind, but it would be barbarous, infinitely more barbarous than to tell them, "If you do not feed our prisoners to-morrow we will not feed your prisoners to-morrow." That is retaliation in kind; but it is the mildest, the most legitimate form of retaliation that my mind can conceive of, and I have heard nothing else pointed out. You have no means in the world of coercing these authorities to do what duty requires of them, excepting the power you have over these prisoners in your hands. How will you apply that power? If you want shelter for your prisoners, withhold shelter from theirs. You may withhold food, you may withhold clothing, withhold anything else. You cannot apply any physical punishment to them, because that is more inhuman.

Sir, instead of this proposition being so monstrous and barbarous as it has been constantly denounced, if you will take it right before your eyes and look at it, it is nothing in the world more than equitable process of sequestration to enforce the specific performance of a duty, a most equitable, and a most Christian duty. I have said, therefore, that I do not feel condemned under the testimony of Mr. Edward Everett, nor under the testimony of Professor Lieber. I have shown you abundantly that Mr. Everett was not testifying for our instruction, and I have shown you abundantly that Professor Lieber did not understand the measure which we have before the Senate. But the Senator from Massachusetts was not content with arraying these witnesses against us, he put Mr. Shakspeare on the stand-Shakspeare, who was "both jurist and poet,' we are told. I cannot deny that he was a poet of very respectable pretensions. He might have been a lawyer. However that may have been, I did not profess to be as well read in Mr. Shakspeare as the Senator from Massachusetts undoubtedly is, but according to my understanding of him, I have read the tragedy of Macbeth, and I never supposed that really it was the intention of the great dramatist to produce Mr. Macbeth in the character of an illustrator and delineator of humanity or of an expounder of international law. [Laughter.]

Sir, there are two or three other questions about this whole matter. You all agree that there is a crime in daily perpetration here on this continent and within our jurisdiction, a crime the magnitude of which blanches all of you, and you all agree that that crime ought to be stopped. Now tell me how you would do it. Seeing the numbers of our men and the sufferings of our men there, I proposed a year ago, as I could not get our men exchanged, to make a levy en masse of the American people to go down there and take them out of custody. That was considered a radical measure, and it was dismissed. There they are still.

Gentlemen tell us, "Exchange for them." We are trying to exchange, and have been trying, but we cannot exchange, because it takes two parties to make an exchange, and, as I showed you the other day, the other party will not agree to it. As fast as they do agree we do exchange.

"No, we

The Senator from Massachusetts who sits at my left [Mr. WILSON] says "Negotiate." Without this resolution you send commissioners to the rebel authorities, and what in the world can they say?"Release our prisoners." "No, we cannot do it." "Feed our prisoners.' will not do it." What else can they ask? Negotiate? What have they got to offer? Will these commissioners say, "If you will feed and clothe our prisoners, if you will shelter them, we will shelter and feed and clothe your prisoners." They say, "You do that now, and you dare not do the contrary from that; your Senate forbids it;

your Legislature forbids it." What will you do? What can the commissioners say? But pass this resolution and then you can negotiate with effect; then your agents of exchange will know what to say. Then that brave, that gallant, that heroic, and that Christian man, as I understand him to be, John E. Mulford, can say to these authorities, "I am told by the Government of the American people to tell you, in the name and by the authority of those millions, that if you do not cease your barbarities, if you do not feed these men that you are now starving, and shelter them, the command has gone forth that your men in our hands shall not be fed, and shall not be sheltered." That is inhuman, is it? Well, the only theory upon which any sort of inhumanity can be made out is that the rebels will not consent to this, that they will not consent for the sake of having their prisoners fed to feed ours.

Senators have told you over and over again that they deny this conclusion; that it is not the fact; that it is not the legitimate inference; that if humanity does not compel them to do their duty toward our prisoners, policy will compel when they see that it is necessary to the feeding of their own. I believe it; but I am willing to follow this process of sequestration to the end of it, and I will speak, for a moment, upon the assumption that they will refuse, as Senators assume they will.

would still allow them space to linger on and air to breathe; but inasmuch as it took bread and meat to feed them, and inasmuch as it took loyal force to guard them, and inasmuch as I wanted this loyal force to attack the rebel masses which stand around our prisoners in their dens and starve them daily, I would say to them, "We cannot furnish you these guards any more, and you shall not incumber the earth any longer.

To make myself perfectly intelligible, I have supposed an extremity of barbarity in two classes of men which I know cannot be found; but when you find that extremity of barbarity, what will you do but obey God and end it? If you find any milder means of accomplishing this end, very well. We tell you over and over again that we want to attain but a single end, not the punishment of anybody for anything that has been done, but the relief of human beings from suffering which is inhuman. Show us any means milder than this for attaining that end and we will take them and follow them most gladly, but we say that if we can accomplish it the end must be and shall be attained, and until you stop merely denouncing barbarism, and turn your attention to some practical way of ending the barbarism, we must follow the track, or rather, for I speak only for myself, I must follow the only path which I see open to that end.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. If the Senate will pardon me for a very few moments, I will endeavor to direct the attention of the body to precisely the present position of the question. Some thirty days ago or more the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. WILKINSON] introduced a resolution on the subject of rebel barbarities perpetrated against our prisoners, which resolution was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. Some two or three weeks since I had the honor to present a memorial from a portion of the people of Indiana upon the same subject, asking for retaliation, and asking further that discharged Union soldiers from rebel prisons should be placed in the command of rebel prisoners in the North. At that point the Senator from Ohio [Mr. WADE] introduced these resolutions which have been de

Suppose when your agent of exchange goes down there and tells them, "This is the law; you must give bread to our prisoners or bread is taken from yours;" and they tell you, "Take your bread from our prisoners; we care not for that; we will not give bread to yours;" what then? You must violate the resolution or you must withhold these supplies; but you say it is cruel and inhuman to withhold supplies. There is no other course for you to take. Go back to those estranged, rebellious citizens of yours and say to them, "Guilty of treason as you are, you have been in our hands for months and we have sheltered you; we have fed you; rebels to our authority, traitors as you are, we have furnished you the treatment which belongs to humanity; we are willing to do it; but men who resist your treason have been taken pris-bated for the last two weeks. The memorial and oners by those authorities that have commanded you; they are not sheltered; they are not fed; we have visited those authorities, and we have told them that they must administer this comfort, that if they did not we would visit you with like treatment, and they absolutely refuse; they say, 'We do not care what treatment you bestow upon our men in your hands, we will not feed or shelter the Federal soldiery.""

Now, sir, you will say to these prisoners, "Are you willing to be longer instruments in the hands of authorities who practice such barbarities not only toward their enemies but toward their own soldiery; are you willing to be longer the agents and instruments of an authority that will turn you out to be treated as they treat our prisoners?" What will they say? I think they would say, "No; we have followed the standards of rebellion long enough; we have followed the flag of barbarism as far as we can afford to go, and henceforth we will follow the flag of humanity, the flag of loyalty, the flag of the Union."

the resolutions were referred to the Military Committee, and they reported after mature deliberation and after an investigation upon the whole subject. When that report was made, various modifications and amendments were proposed, and after a lengthy discussion one of the distinguished Senators from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] proposed an amendment by way of substitute for the whole report of the committee, which recited these rebel barbarities and atrocities, and wound up with a general declaration that it would outrage Christian public sentiment and Christian civilization to do anything. That is precisely the tenor and scope of the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts. Recognizing the great evil inflicted upon our prisoners, and reciting in the most eloquent terms their barbarities, it wound up with a lame conclusion that our hands were tied, we could do nothing without outraging civilization, Christianity, and our common humanity. That is precisely as I understand the tenor and effect of the resolutions of the Senator from Massachusetts.

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. HENDERSON] then introduced his proposition for the appointment of commissaries of prisoners or commissioners of prisons to visit the rebel States and make arrangements in reference to ameliorating the condition of our prisoners, and to facilitate exchanges. That proposition is substantially repeated by the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WILSON.]

But suppose they would not say that; suppose we are utterly mistaken both as to what the rebel authorities would do, and what the rebel prisoners would do; and suppose they should say, "We are still loyal to this barbarity which has raised its shocking and monstrous head down there; we know they mete out starvation to your prisoners daily; we are glad that they do it; we stand by the authority which decrees that, and we will fight their battles when we can get out of your prisons; we are ready to do it, notwithstanding its utter want of humanity." What will you say to them, then? I am following the lessons of this resolution, as I understand it; following them clear to the end. What will you say to them, then? There they are, avowing their advocacy of this great monstrosity, taking part in it, committing themselves to it, and to all the cruelty and savagery there is in it. What will you say to them? I doing a mere child's play, idle and nonsensical. We not know what you will say, I am sure; I have some doubt about that; but I have not the slightest doubt as to what I should say myself. I should say to them that they had incumbered the face of the earth too long. I should say to them that if I was more disembarrassed in my movements, I

Now, how do we stand? The resolution as reported by the committee was retaliation in kind until these rebel barbarities shall cease. I prefer that, to-day, to any other mode of redress. Why do we retaliate at all? Because it is necessary to protect our own prisoners. Where, then, is the limit to retaliation? Simply the relief of our prisoners; and if we stop short of that we are play

have no right to retaliate except to accomplish a good end, and that end is to relieve our prisoners. If we stop short of that, the whole thing is a mockery, a delusion, and a humbug, and I will not stop short of that point to whatsoever extreme it shall carry me. I am for retaliation earnestly