Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[ocr errors]

and honestly, and no sham; and I am for retaliation until the object shall be accomplished.

I have, Mr. President, but one brother, whom I love as I love myself; if he were a rebel in arms to-day against this Government, I would take him in my arms, as Abraham did Isaac, and offer him upon the altar of the country, and ask Almighty God to bless the sacrifice. I have none of this squeamishness, none of this smypathy for these rebel prisoners; I would retaliate up to the point of achieving the object we have in view.

I set out not to argue this resolution but to show you now that there is nothing to refer to the Military Committee. My distinguished colleague froni Indiana [Mr. HENDRICKS] says it is highly appropriate and proper that all such questions should go to a committee. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] says that these committees of the House are eyes and ears to the House. Is this measure suddenly thrust upon the attention of the Senate? It has already been before a committee for more than one month, and it comes here upon the report of a committee. That report has been modified by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. WADE] until it meets the approbation, I venture to say, of every single Senator upon this floor; and yet we are asked to refer it and to delay further. Is there

Senator upon this floor who does not believe in the right of retaliation? Is there a Senator upon this floor who doubts the rebel barbarities against our prisoners? Then if you believe in retaliation at all, you say the limit is the usages of civilized nations and the laws of war. That is precisely the language of the present resolution, that the President shall be directed to retaljate upon these rebel prisoners according to the laws of nations and the usages of war. That is precisely the resolution as it now stands. Then what do you gain by a reference to a committee? Different phraseology! If you intend to do any thing, if you believe in the right of retaliation at all, how else can you retaliate? You say you would not retaliate in kind. I would. But suppose you would not; the resolution is now so modified as to use precisely the words that you wish to have incorporated in it, that we shall retaliate according to the laws of nations and the usages of civilized warfare. That is the resolution as now modified. Then what are you debating? Has it come to this, that there is a grave debate in the Senate as to whether we have a right to say that we will retaliate according to the laws of nations and the usages of civilized warfare? That is the whole of it. Are you ready to vote upon that? Your prisoners are dying by thousands daily in southern prisons, without shelter, without food, without clothing, lying upon the bare ground with the inhospitable sky above them, and with their dying fingers are digging their own graves, hundreds becoming insane, so reduced that they are joining the enemy, taking the oath of allegiance to the rebel government, rather than undergo the pangs of starvation; and we are here debating whether we have a right to retaliate according to the laws of civilized warfare, and that is the whole of it; and who doubts that? If there is a man who doubts it, while I might respect his motives, I should certainly not sympathize with his action.

I am ready to retaliate. I believe the people require it. I believe the soldiers in the field require it. But gentlemen say to retaliate is barbarous and would shock the civilized world-a highsounding phrase, meaning less than nothing in this great argument. Suppose you present the other side of it. We do not propose to retaliate as a matter of revenge or of vengeance for past wrongs, but to prevent these very atrocities that all admit. Suppose it should be flashed over the wires, suppose it should be carried over the ocean, that this great people having called a million men into the field, when they were starving and suffering in southern prisons, refused to defend and protect their own soldiers by the only means possible by which they can be protected, you would be a by-word and a reproach forever in the history of civilization. We do not do this from any purpose of vengeance, but to protect our own soldiers from these rebel barbarities. Yet gentlemen say the civilized world is to be shocked. What is the civilized world? What is the Christian public sentiment of Christendom to-day? Do

[ocr errors]

they sympathize with you now? Let England and France tell the story. With the exception of the German States and Russia, there is no Christian public sentiment that sympathizes with us. Would England be shocked at such a course as this of retaliation? If so, read the bloody history of the Irish rebellion, or the bloody history of the Sepoy rebellion in India, where fifty Sepoy prisoners were tied at the mouths of British cannon and blown to destruction; yet they are to be shocked because we resort to this system of retaliation! The truth is, the laws of nations have nothing to do with our punishment of these traitorous, insurgent, rebel citizens. It is for us and us alone to measure out the meed of their punishment, past, present, or to come. We are sovereign of all Powers upon earth as to them, and we are to adopt our own punishment; and even if it should be unheard of and terrible for this terrible and unheard-of iniquity, no other nation could object.

[ocr errors]

Then why refer this resolution? The committee had it two months, and we have debated it two weeks. We have come now to a common conclusion; for I venture to say that when the vote is taken by yeas and nays upon the resolution as now modified not one member of this Senate will record his vote against it.

that we read of in sacred or profane history could be found to be guilty of the barbarities that have been perpetrated by these rebels.

The Senator says the time will come when I shall regret that I have used this strong language relative to these rebels. Sir, when those men who have instigated these barbarities come back and associate with us, meet us in the social circle and in the halls of legislation, meet us on friendly terms of intercourse, then the Senator says that I shall regret that I have used this strong language. Sir, when the originators of these barbarities come back upon this floor and associate with us upon terms of equality, that Senator may take them to his bosom, but he will not find any loyal man who will greet them as living men. These men are to be punished for their crimes; they are to be punished for their barbarities; they are to be punished as traitors and murderers, and not welcomed back into the social circle or legislative halls by any loyal man who now stands by this Government, in my estimation. I certainly shall never regret that I have done them justice at this or at any other time.

Mr. SAULSBURY. Mr. President, it is not my intention to enter into this discussion; it has not been my intention at any time since its commencement to do so, and I do not propose to de

Mr. CHANDLER. The Senator from Mas-tain the Senate for more than a moment. I unsachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] says that committees of this body are the eyes and the ears of the body; and therefore, after passing a high eulogium upon eyes and ears, he hopes this resolution, with the amendments, will be recommitted: Well, sir, eyes and ears are very important members of the human body. I admit they are important; but when men are dying by thousands and tens of thousands, dying of starvation, and demanding at our hands a measure of redress, what is required of us is heads and hearts and hands to act immediately, and not eyes and ears.

Mr. President, immediate action is what is demanded from us. I see no object in referring this matter to any committee. I believe there is not a member of this body whose mind is not made up as to whether he will protect these helpless prisoners now suffering and dying by thousands, or whether he will not.

Yesterday the other Senator from Massachusetts, not now in his seat, [Mr. WILSON,] called me to account for a remark which I then made. He said that I had threatened him. Sir, I did no such thing. I stated a fact which he and every other member of this body will find to be a fact, and that was that this account was not to be settled here upon this floor with his colleagues, but with his constituents at home. I uttered no threat, I made a simple statement of a fact. Every man here must meet this question at home. He must meet these returned soldiers and he must meet the friends of those who have died of these rebel barbarities. But again the Senator said:

"As I listened to-day to the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. WADE.] and then again to the Senator from Michigan Mr. CHANDLER] I thought the old slave-masters had come back again. I thought I witnessed all their insolence and something more than their coarseness."

That is a mere matter of taste. It is a matter which I do not propose to discuss, much less to discuss it with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, a gentleman who is as much a master of deportment, as we all know, as Mr. Turveydrop; a man who, in matters of taste, beauty of expression, finish of argument, refinement of language, cannot be approached. He is unapproachable. Therefore, sir, I pass that by as a mere matter of taste with which I have nothing to do.

But, sir, the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HENDRICKS] has called me to task for pretty much the same thing. I can only repeat, with regard to the alleged threat, that it was no threat, but a simple statement of fact. The Senator from Indiana objects to another statement that I made, which was that these rebels were "hellish," or something to that effect. On reflection I think I have done an injustice, and no man is more ready to apologize for an injustice done than I am; but when I apologize for that remark it will not be to the rebels, but to the inhabitants of hell. I do not believe that any barbarities equal to theirs have ever been perpetrated by any people on earth, nor do I believe that the inhabitants of any region

derstand, however, that upon the motion to refer to the Military Committee the yeas and nays have been ordered, and we have been notified that in case that motion fails the yeas and nays are to be called upon the final passage of the joint resolution. I have not engaged in the discussion, because I have no taste for its sickening details. If one half is true that is alleged by the Federal authorities against the confederate authorities in reference to their cruelties to prisoners, or if half is true of what is alleged by the confederate authorities against the Federal authorities, as we rend in extracts from their newspapers, then it is vain either for them or for us to boast of Christianity or freedom from barbarism. If these statements be true, then since the dawn of civilization there has never existed upon the face of the earth a people more barbarous and unchristian than the people of America, both North and South.

I admit that it is in the power of this Government or any other Government, any belligerent Power whatever, to resort to retaliation. The question with me, however, is whether this measure as proposed, advising the President of the United States to resort to it now, would lead to any practical good. I doubt it.

The question has been discussed in every possible form in which it could be presented except one; every suggestion possible to be made but one for the relief of the suffering Federal prisoners has been made. That one I propose to make; and whether it be popular or unpopular, whether it shall be heralded by the papers as patriotic or unpatriotic, is a metter of indifference to me. That measure is peace. If these acts of cruelty which are alleged to have been perpetrated have been perpetrated, it is only additional proof that this war ought never to have been begun; but having been begun, that it ought instantly to stop. If these allegations be true, these enormities disgrace man and reduce him to the level of the brute; ay, sir, reduce him to the level of the fiends.

I am not ashamed to raise my humble voice in the Senate of the United States in behalf of peace. Peace descends from heaven; war springs from hell; and when hell's agency is at work, you cannot expect the blessings of Heaven. It is seldom, sir, that I can approve of any act of the President of the United States; but if the rumor be true which is current to-day that commissioners are on their way from the South to this capital to treat for peace, and that that is the result of an informal message from the President of the United States, I will take occasion here, while approving but little that he has done before, to approve his action in that respect. Sooner than resort to the bloody scenes which may result from a system of retaliation, if it be true that commissioners are to meet to discuss the terms of peace, instead of invoking starvation and death upon any set of men, any set of prisoners, either Federal or confederate, I would, if it were in my power, cause the thunderbolts of the Almighty to roll and the lightnings of heaven to flash one

continued flame between the contending armies, until these commissioners meet to consult in reference to the great boon of peace.

action on this measure, to move a modification of
this proposition so as to bring it in harmony with
the precedents of our history, and also to make
it, as I think, duly effective and applicable on this
occasion. If you refer to the past precedent of
our history, I mean the act of March 3, 1813,
entitled "An act vesting in the President of the
United States the power of retaliation,"
you will
see that this is the language employed:
"The President of the United States is hereby author-
ized to cause full and ample retaliation to be made, accord-

It is peace, sir, that this country wants. Give us peace, and no Federal soldiers will ever again rot in confederate bastiles or prisons, or starve in confederate pens. Give us peace, and the mother whose aching heart and streaming eyes you now witness will bless you for your deed. Give us peace, and instead of these acts of barbarism of which we hear, your land shall again bloom and blossom as the rose, Sir, in the place of retali-ing to the laws and usages of war among civilized nations." atory measures, in the stead of resorting to acts of cruelty to meet acts of cruelty, and to prevent them in the future, I propose that your commissioners meet, and I invoke you, if this be the honest aim of the President of the United States, lend him your willing and cordial aid; and then, sir, you will have no need for retaliation; then, sir, your soldiers no longer will be starved or murdered or ill treated, but they shall return to their homes long left, to cheer their families, to rejoice again that peace blesses the land, and that their country does not require any further sacrifice of life or blood upon their part.

I have said, Mr. President, more than I intended to say. I suggest, instead of all such measures as this, a cordial coöperation by the Congress of the United States with the Executive, if indeed he is engaged in that work, in restoring

peace to a distracted land.

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not intend to venture an opinion upon this resolution. It has been presented in almost every aspect of which the subject is at all capable. I desire, however, to urge upon the Senate to dispose of this question tonight. I think there is no view of it but what has been already presented. There are one or two bills that I desire to have acted upon to-morrow. I hope, therefore, we may have a vote upon the pending propositions without a word being said. I shall express my opinion by my vote.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] to recommit the resolution with all the amendments and proposed amendments to the Committee on Military Affairs.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 10, nays 26; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Carlile, Davis, Hendricks, Powell, Richardson, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sumner, Van Winkle, and Wright-10.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Conness, Cowan, Dixon, Foster, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Morgan, Morrill, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Ten Eyck, Wade, Wilkinson, and Willey-26.

ABSENT-Messrs. Brown, Buckalew, Doolittle, Farwell, Foot, Grimes, Harding, Hicks, Lane of Kansas, MeDougall, Sprague, Trumbull, and Wilson-13.

So the motion was not agreed to.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question now is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. WADE.]

Mr. SUMNER. To that amendment I have a further amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. Ishould like, with the consent of the Senator from Massachusetts, to have it read as it now stands. I do not know that I understand it in its present form.

And if Senators remember the eloquent re-
marks to which they listened only a few moments
agp from the Senator from Indiana [Mr. LANE]
they cannot have forgotten how forcibly, more
than once, he insisted that our resolution now
required a retaliation in conformity with the laws
of civilized nations. Now, sir, I propose to bring
the resolution in harmony with the Senator's
speech; in harmony with the precedents of our
history; in harmony also with humanity. I
move, therefore, to insert in the resolution, as it
now stands, after the word "laws," in the twen-
ty-eighth line, the phrase, "and usages of war
among civilized," and then the sentence goes on,
"nations;" so that it will read: "in conformity
with the laws and usages of war among civilized
nations."

objection to that, and I hope it will be adopted.
Mr. LANE, of Indiana. I have not the slightest

Mr. JOHNSON. How will it read then?
Mr. WADE. Let us hear how it will read as
proposed to be amended.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It will be read.
The Secretary read, as follows:

And that the executive and military authorities of the Uni-
ted States are hereby directed to retaliate upon the prisoners
of the enemy in such manner, in conformity with the laws
and usages of war among civilized nations, as shall be effect-
ive in deterring him from the perpetration in future of cruel
and barbarous treatment of our soldiers.

the French people, against whom this retaliation was launched were a civilized, Christianized people, and they did not assume to treat them as mere savages, as the Senator from Massachusetts now assumes to treat the rebels in arms against the United States.

I hope, sir, that this amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts, which has no object or aim aside from the mere attempt to stigmatize the rebels as savages, and nothing but savages, a fact which is not true except in the fancy of the Senator from Massachusetts, will not be adopted. There is no necessity for it. It is as much out of the line of American precedents, because it has but one precedent to stand upon, as is the resolution as offered now by the Senator from Ohio. Let us stick to the resolution as now agreed to by the Senator from Ohio and reject all these useless and trivial amendments.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I voted for the recommitment of this resolution in the hope that, if recommited, the language of it might be somewhat amended. As it stands now, it appears to contradict itself. It proceeds to say that it has become justifiable that the President should retaliate, and then goes on and directs the executive, and military authorities to retaliate, and then concludes by saying that it is not intended to limit or restrict the President. It appears to me that the words, "the President," should be used in all cases instead of "the executive and military authorities."

I am in favor of the amendment just offered by the Senator from Massachusetts; but I will call his attention, and I will call the attention of the Senator from Maine [Mr. MORRILL] to the fact that, with his amendment in it, a further amendment is needed in the latter part of the resolution. The amendment of the Senator from Maine is, that this retaliation shall be in conformity with the laws of nations. The Senator from Massachusetts extends that a little further, and says it

Mr. HOWARD. I do not understand, sir, upon what ground it is that the Senator from Mas-shall be in conformity to the laws and usages of sachusetts insists that that particular phraseology is supported by historical precedent in the United States. As used in the statute which he assumes to quote, it had a certain significance, because that statute directing retaliation was aimed, as the Senator perfectly well knows, if he knows anything of the history of the war of 1812, at the barbarities committed by the British, not only by the British military authorities, as a civilized military force, but at barbarities committed by their Indian allies who were employed to assist the British arms in prosecuting that war. Hence Congress, when they enacted this statute of 1813, desiring to punish by some fitting retaliation these Indian barbarities committed upon American soldiers, enacted that the retaliation should be in accordance with the laws of civilized nations, in contradistinction undoubtedly from the laws and usages of savage nations, which prevailed among those tribes which were in league with the British. That, and that only, is the reason for the incorporation in that statute of the phrase "civilized nations."

civilized nations. Then the resolution goes on to say, to defeat both, that it is not intended by this resolution "to limit or restrict the power of the President to the modes or principles of retaliation herein mentioned." I understand that as distinctly affirming that it is not intended by this resolution to restrict the President to the modes and usages of civilized nations in the principles of retaliation. It was for these reasons that I . voted to recommit this resolution to the Committee on Military Affairs.

There is no occasion for its introduction in the present resolution at all. We do not deny that the rebel confederacy are a civilized community. It is not denied here that they are a Christianized Mr. SUMNER. I was going to read it my-community. They are educated in the same self. The proposition as moved by the Senator from Ohio, by way of amendment to the resolution of the committee, is to insert as follows:

And that the executive and military authorities of the United States are hereby directed to retaliate upon the prisoners of the enemy in such manner and kind as shall be effective in deterring him from the perpetration in future of cruel and barbarous treatment of our soldiers.

At the suggestion of the Senator from Maine [Mr. MORRILL] the words "and kind" were struck out, and instead thereof were inserted the words "in conformity with the laws of nations ;" and the proposition of the Senator from Ohio now stands in that form. It no longer requires retaliation in kind; but it does require retaliation in conformity with the laws of nations. When I had the honor of addressing the Senate on Saturday, I took the liberty of making a comment on that language. I characterized it as inadequate. It does not go far enough; it is dry; it is not sufficiently specific. Still further, sir, it is not in conformity with the precedents of our history. I then stated that if no other person made the motion, I should feel it my duty, before final

moral and religious principles as ourselves. They
have ever heretofore been regarded as a part of the
civilized world, and are still regarded as such.
Why then does the Senator from Massachusetts
seek to characterize them as being savages, and
not a part and parcel of the civilized world? It
seems to me that this is carrying the poetic jus-
tice a little beyond the line of truth.

But, sir, as to historical precedents, I refer
again, as I did the other day, to the precedent
set by the Congress of 1799, at the time that
General Washington was President of the Uni-
ted States. The language in that statute is this:

"That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, and he is hereby empowered and required, to cause the most rigorous retaliation to be exercised on any such citizens of the French Republic as have been, or hereaf ter may be, captured in pursuance of any of the laws of the United States."

There, sir, was General Washington's retaliation; there was the kind of retaliation which was enacted by the Congress of 1799; and in that we hear nothing said about the usages of civilized nations. Congress then took it for granted that

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio. Mr. SUMNER. On that I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not sure that I understand the amendment and its effect upon the resolution as it was originally before us at the time the amendment was offered.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator request that it be again read?

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask for the reading of the resolution as it will stand if amended.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the amendment of the Senator from Ohio as it will stand if the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts should be adopted.

The Secretary read, as follows:

And that the executive and military authorities of the United States are hereby directed to retaliate upon the prisoners of the enemy in such manner, in conformity with the laws and usages of war among civilized nations, as shall be effective in deterring him from the perpetration, in future, of cruel and barbarous treatment of our soldiers. Mr. JOHNSON. What is the rest? Is that the end of the resolution?

The VICE PRESIDENT. That is the amendment pending.

Mr. JOHNSON. I know it is, but I want to hear what follows.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read on.

The Secretary read, as follows:

Congress do not, however, intend by this resolution to limit or restrict the power of the President to the modes or principles of retaliation herein mentioned, but only to ad. vise and require a resort to them as demanded by the occasion.

Mr. HOWARD. It is quite obvious, if this

[ocr errors]

amendment is carried, that that latter clause will have to be stricken out, as being inapplicable to the resolution, and I shall make that motion. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Maryland is entitled to the floor.

cording to," that being the phrase employed in the statute of 1813. It reads better, and it is in conformity with the precedent. I merely suggest it. There is no difference in the effect. Mr. WADE. The Senator is not acting aeMr. JOHNSON. I was about to say that the cording to the precedent he quotes. That law criticism of the honorable Senator from West Vir-directed the President to make "full and ample ginia is perfectly correct, provided we are authorizing any retaliation which the laws of nations or the usages of war among civilized nations do not forbid, because we go on to say that although our advice to him is that he should only resort to such retaliation as the laws of nations and the usages of war do not forbid, yet he is to understand we do not mean to limit him in that way; he may be as savage and as barbarous as he thinks proper. I shall move at the proper time, therefore, to strike out that latter clause.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question now is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 27, nays 13; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Foot, Foster, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Morgan, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Powell, Richardson, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Van Winkle, Willey, Wilson, and Wright-27.

NAYS-Messrs. Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Conness, Dixon, Farwell, Hale, Howard, Howe, Ramsey, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilkinson-13.

ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Buckalew, Grimes, Harding, Hicks, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, and Sprague-9. So the amendment to the amendment was agreed

to.

Mr. JOHNSON. I move further to amend the resolution, in lines thirty-one, thirty-two, and thirty-three, by striking out the words, "to limit or restrict the power of the President to the modes or principles of retaliation herein mentioned, but" so that it will read, "Congress do, however, intend by this resolution only to advise a resort to them as demanded by the occasion."

Mr. WADE. I hope that amendment will not be adopted. It will destroy the whole resolution. I hope we shall not take any further counsel of our enemies.

Mr. HOWARD. I hope so, too.

Mr. JOHNSON. The honorable member is very quick in favor of his own proposition. How does he know I am opposed to that? I have told him four or five times on the floor, and said to himself, that I was not, as it now stands. I have not offered this amendment with any view to impair its efficiency.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If the Senator will pardon the Chair for a moment, his amendment is not now in order. The question before the Senate now is on the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. WADE.] When that shall he disposed of, it will be in order to entertain the amendment of the Senator.

Mr. JOHNSON. Very well.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question now is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, as amended.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. Is it not competent to amend that amendment?

The VICE PRESIDENT. It is; but the words in the latter part of the resolution are not a part of the pending amendment.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I understand that. I move to amend the amendment by striking out all after the word "and" in the twenty-sixth line down to the word "hereby" in the twenty-seventh line, in the following words, "that the executive and military authorities of the United States are," and to insert the words "he "" e is, so that it will read "and he is hereby directed to retaliate," &c. The effect will be to get rid of the word "that," which has no business there anyhow, and to direct the President to retaliate instead of "executive and military authorities of the United States."

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to, there being, on a division-ayes twenty-three, noes not counted.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question now is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, as amended.

Mr. SUMNER. I will simply suggest a verbal amendment to the substitute, instead of the words "in conformity with" the phrase "ac

[ocr errors]

vise and require a resort to retaliation as demanded by the occasion.

Mr. SUMNER. That is right; I accept that in lieu of the amendment I proposed.

Mr. HOWARD. There is no objection to that.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from retaliation." Those words are two strong for the Ohio proposes to amend the resolution by strikSenator's nerves altogether, and he has skippeding out, in line thirty-two, after the word "Presthem over. ident," the words "to the modes or principles of retaliation herein mentioned;" and in line thirtyfour, to strike out the word "them," and insert the word "retaliation;" so that, as amended, the clause will read:

Mr. SUMNER. I propose to substitute "according to" for "in conformity with" merely to bring the language into conformity with the precedent, and to make it read a little smoother.

Mr. HALE. I should like to hear some phi lologist give us the difference in meaning between the resolution if amended as the Senator proposes, and as it now stands. I am not in favor of making amendments unless there is something to be effected by them. Ifit is a mere matter of rhetoric, I think it sounds as well now as it will if you alter it.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question now is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I desire to inquire for information whether the last sentence, beginning with the word "Congress," in the thirtieth line, is now in the resolution?

The VICE PRESIDENT. It is not in the amendment. When the amendment shall have been disposed of that clause will be open to amend

ment.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. Mr. SUMNER. I now move what I suppose the Senator from Maryland had intended to move, but his motion was not in order when he made it, and indeed I think it would require that he should go a little further than he proposed to go in order to carry out his own idea. I had intended to move it originally, but it was not in order when I made the other motion. It is to strike out all after the word "soldiers" in the thirtieth line on the 3d page, in these words:

Congress do not, however, intend by this resolution to limit or restrict the power of the President to the modes or principles of retaliation herein mentioned, but only to advise resort to them as demanded by the occasion.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair desires to state that there is another amendment pending before the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts or the amendment proposed by the Senator from Maryland will be in order. It is the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. WADE,] to add the words "and require" in line thirty-three, after the word "advise." That is the amendment now pending.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. Is it in order to move that the Senate do now adjourn?

The VICE PRESIDENT. It is.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I make that motion. Several SENATORS. Oh, no; let us dispose of this subject.

The motion was not agreed to.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, to insert the words" and require" after the word "advise," in the thirty-third line.

The amendment was agreed to.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts is now in order.

Mr. SUMNER. It is simply to strike out the last passage, beginning with the word "Congress:"

Congress do not, however, intend by this resolution to limit or restrict the power of the President to the modes or principles of retaliation herein mentioned, &c.

Mr. SHERMAN. Before that motion is put, I desire to submit a motion, if it is in order, which I think will better attain the object desired. I think that last clause ought to be retained, with the exception of the words "to the modes or principles of retaliation herein mentioned." Those words ought to be struck out, being inconsistent, and then it would read:

Congress do not intend, however, by this resolution to limit or restrict the power of the President, but only to ad

Congress do not intend, however, by this resolution to limit or restrict the power of the President, but only to advise and require a resort to retaliation as demanded by the occasion.

Mr. WADE. I do not know how far that amendment might change the principle of the resolution. It uses the words "to limit or restrict the power of the President," but it does not say to what modes. It does not restrict him at all. I do not know that it hurts it, however, and I shall not object to it.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I desire to offer the following amendment as an additional section:

And be it further resolved, That in the judgment of Congress such measures ought to be taken as may be necessary to secure the earliest exchange of prisoners at all times during the continuance of the war.

Mr. HOWARD. It seems to me there is a very plain distinction between the two things, the mere treatment of our prisoners in the hands of the enemy, and the exchange of them in the regular pursuance of a cartel. I see, therefore, no necessity for burdening this simple resolution of retaliation with any recommendation whatever upon the subject of exchange. Believing as I do that the Executive of the United States and the military authorities have been diligent and faithful in their endeavors to bring about an exchange of prisoners, I do not feel authorized upon this occasion to insert in this resolution a censure of the President and the military authorities by implication such as it seems to me would arise from the use of such language. I therefore am opposed to the amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana. If it shall appear hereafter that the Government is derelict in regard to the exchange of prisoners, that it is inattentive to our interests or the interests of the prisoners, I will with pleasure join the honorable Senator in resorting to measures which shall be effective; but I do not see the propriety of incorporating this clause in this resolution, and therefore oppose it.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I intended to offer, as I said to the Senate a while ago, a substitute for the entire resolution, this being a part of it; but as the resolution introduced by the Senator from Michigan has been so amended as that I have no objection to it, I offer this as an additional section. It presents this simple question, whether Senators are in favor of an exchange of our prisoners. I am not going into a discussion now as to whether the Administration has done its duty on this subject. This is no criticism upon the Administration. The first resolution as now adopted by the Senate is mandatory. This is but an expression of the judgment of Congress that that policy ought to be adopted which will secure an early exchange of prisoners during the continuance of the war.

For myself, I am not satisfied that justice has been done to the soldiers on this subject of exchange. As I said the other day, a distinguished member of the House of Representatives, of the Senator's own political party, brought it as a grave charge against the War Department that these exchanges might have been made months ago, but that thousands of our soldiers had been left to die because that duty was not done by the War Department. The Senator from Ohio, at the head of the committee on the conduct of the war, who is presumed to be well informed on the subject, in the debate the other day, said that he could not understand why exchanges were not made. I do not desire to say in this resolution that the Administration is in fault; but upon so grave and important a question as this, one affecting so seriously the comfort of the soldiers and the happiness of their friends at home, is it not proper for Congress to express an opinion? I

dare say that opinion will be respected by the Administration after it is expressed. The simple question is, whether Congress is in favor of an early exchange of prisoners. It mitigates the sufferings and the barbarities of war; it is a proper thing; and it is a subject upon which it is proper for Congress to express an opinion; and it cannot be said to be a criticism upon the Administration.

The amendment was agreed to.

ing men to go there to look into the condition of our prisoners, not to get upon their knees and beg of Jefferson Davis, but to demand as a right in the name of civilization, that our prisoners shall be properly treated. We have a right to demand it. The laws of nations guaranty it to civilized people. I hope, therefore, the amendment will be adopted. I ask for the yeas and nays upon it. The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. SHERMAN. Is there any difficulty in that matter now? May not the President send such commissioners now? I think we ought not to belittle so grave a resolution as one in favor of retaliation-always a grave measure-by coup

Mr. HENDERSON. As the resolution has now been amended, it covers all the points covered by the amendment that I offered in the early part of this discussion except one, and that is, that the President be requested to procure an amendmentling with it any subordinate matter of this kind.

of the existing cartel by which commissaries of prisoners may be authorized to visit our prisoners in the hands of the rebels, to promote their comfort, examine into their condition, and make such suggestions to him as may be deemed necessary to enforce humane treatment by the insurgents.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator offer that as a separate resolution?

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, sir; I move to amend the resolution by adding the following as an additional section:

And be it further resolved, That the President be requested to procure an amendment to the existing cartel by which commissaries of prisoners may be authorized to visit our prisoners in the hands of the rebels, to promote their comfort, examine into their condition, and to make such suggestions to him as may be deemed necessary to enforce humane treatment by the insurgents.

Mr. WADE. I hope that will not be adopted. There is no necessity whatever for it.

As I

Mr. HENDERSON. I cannot for my life see what objection there can be to a proposition of this sort. We are here instructing the President to retaliate under certain circumstances. stated the other day-and I read from the books to establish the position-it has been common for the last two hundred years to have these commissaries of prisoners in the enemy's country. During the war between us and Great Britain, in 1812, 1813, and 1814, we had a commissary of prisoners at Halifax looking after the condition of our prisoners and making suggestions in regard to their comfort.

Our object, as I understand it, is to make the rebels treat our prisoners properly. Suppose they insist that they will not exchange, I want to know what their treatment is in order that the President may be advised in regard to this matter. How is it possible for the President to know how to retaliate unless he has men to look into the condition of the prisoners and report the facts to him? There can be no objection in the world to a proposition of this sort. It is not treating with the rebels. I will not disagree with the Senator from Ohio on that point. I do not want to treat with Jefferson Davis. This is not treating for peace. The proposition is to procure an amendment to the existing cartel. If this requires treating with the rebels, we have treated with them, because we have a cartel on the subject of the exchange of prisoners. Why not in the name of sense provide in some way that men may go there and look after our prisoners?

Mr. WADE. I wish to know if we have not just such a thing now. Are not our commissioners there now under the cartel as it exists, carrying provisions and clothing to our prisoners? They do not always get them, as the proof shows; but have we not men there?

Mr. HENDERSON. If that be the case, why is it that the President the other day released some men in order to act as commissaries for their prisoners, and why is it that they released some of our men to act as commissaries for our prisoners? It strikes me as being the most remarkable thing on the face of the earth that there should be any objection to this proposition of mine. I do not want you to treat with rebels; I am not asking for anything of that sort. I am not asking now that we treat with them about terms of peace. This is an entirely different thing. Humanity requires that we look to the condition of our soldiers in the hands of the rebels; all the principles of civilized society demand that we should do something to ameliorate the condition of our prisoners in their hands. There is a vast number of them there. Some difficulty has taken place in relation to the exchange. In the name of sense is there anything objectionable in hav

It can be done by the President under the existing laws.

Mr. McDOUGALL. The remark of the Senator from Ohio will apply to the whole proposition as now amended on the motion of his colleague, because the resolution as amended recognizes the whole matter as being within the province of the Executive, and is merely advisory to the Executive as to how he shall discharge his particular office, and this again is a matter of advice. That being conceded, we have been for a week talking about a thing that does not belong to the province of the Senate or House of Representatives, but belongs to the province of the Executive, and undertaking to give advice to the President of the United States, who has charge of this business, and whose particular duty it is to see that he understands it, and that he executes his office in a proper manner. I think we have exhausted all these days uselessly and fruitlessly and out of our own province. I think gentlemen have sought this as an opportunity to say things that may be put in print, and that may be read on the stump some day hereafter when they may have occasion agam to seek the force of popular opinion.

Mr. HENDERSON. I do honestly believe today that if we adopt this amendment we shall have no more rebel atrocities on our prisoners. Whenever they find out that we have officers there to look after the condition of our prisoners and to report the facts to the country and to the civilized world, we shall have no more of this barbarous conduct toward our prisoners.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 24, nays 16; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Carlile, Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Foot, Foster, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Morgan, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Powell, Riddle, Summer, Ten Eyck, Van Winkle, Willey, Wilson, and Wright-24.

NAYS-Messrs. Chandler, Clark, Conness, Dixon, Farwell, Hale, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Lane of Indiana, Morrill, Ramsey, Sherman, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilkinson16.

ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Buckalew, Grimes, Harding, Hicks, Richardson, Saulsbury, and Sprague-9. So the amendment was agreed to.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question now is on agreeing to the amendment submitted by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] to the amendment of his colleague, [Mr. SUMNER.]

Mr. SUMNER. With the permission of my colleague, I propose to withdraw my amendment, and in withdrawing it I wish to state that I do so because the resolution on which the Senate is now acting has undergone such modification as to be in substantial harmony with the proposition which I originally introduced.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The amendment is withdrawn.

Mr.SUMNER. There is a verbal amendment which, if I can have the attention of my friend from Ohio, I wish to suggest, and that is, to strike out the word "insurgents" in the sixth line and substitute rebels." In speaking of them here on this floor, we do not speak of them as insurgents; we speak of them as rebels, and I wish so to speak of them in this resolution. I hope my friend from Ohio will accept the amendment.

Mr. HOWARD. I hope that amendment will not be adopted.

Mr. SUMNER. If the Senator is against it, I shall not press it.

Mr. HOWARD. I am against it most decidedly. The joint resolution was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in.

Mr. McDOUGALL. I wish to say a word before the final vote is taken, that I may be well understood. There is nothing in the substance of this resolution now that I deem at all exceptiona

[ocr errors]

ble as far as the matter itself is concerned, and I should not object to it if we were called upon to counsel the executive department of the Government, but I vote against this proposition upon the ground that it has no business either in this Hall or in the other Hall of Congress, but belongs to a department of the Government which has full authority over it, and which has not sought our advice in regard to it, and is not likely to accept that advice unless it pleases. We have spent one full week in fruitless conversation.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time, and passed.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED.

The joint resolution (H. R. No. 126) declaring certain States not entitled to representation in the Electoral College, was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HALE. I move that the Senate do now

adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

TUESDAY, January 31, 1865.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. W. H. CHANNING. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

MAINTENANCE OF THE UNION.

Mr. FERNANDO WOOD. I ask unanimous consent to introduce the following resolution:

Resolved, That it is the duty of the President to maintain, in every constitutional and legal manner, the integrity of the American Union as formed by the fathers of the Republic, and in no event, and under no circumstances, to proffer or accept negotiations which shail admit by the remotest implication the existence of any other Federal or Confederate Government within the territory of the United States.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I object.

Mr. FERNANDO WOOD. I desire to know whether it is in order to move a suspension of the rules in order to offer this resolution.

The SPEAKER. It is not. That motion can only be made on Monday after the morning hour. Mr. FERNANDO WOOD. Then I give notice that at the earliest opportunity, on next Monday, I shall move to suspend the rules for the purpose of offering this resolution.

RAILROAD TO NEW YORK.

Mr. WEBSTER. I rise to a privileged motion. I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill to provide for the construction of a line of railway communication betwen the cities of Washington and New York, and to constitute the same a public highway and a military road and postal route of the United States, was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

The motion was entered.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT.

A message from the President of the United States, by Mr. NICOLAY, his Private Secretary, announced that the President had this day approved and signed a joint resolution and bills of the following titles:

An act (H. R. No. 94) for the relief of Isaac R. Diller;

An act (H. R. No. 344) for the relief of Mary Scales Accardi;

An act (H. R. No. 622) to amend an act entitled "An act to incorporate the Metropolitan Railroad Company in the District of Columbia," approved July 1, 1864; and

Joint resolution (H. R. No. 99) relieving mineral lands from the operation of all acts passed at the first session of the Thirty-Eighth Congress granting lands or extending the term of former grants.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. HICKEY, their Chief Clerk, informed the House that the Senate had passed a joint resolution (S. R. No. sional Directory at each session; in which the con106) providing for the compilation of a congrescurrence of the House was requested.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

Mr. RICE, of Maine, by unanimous consent, introduced joint resolutions of the Legislature of Maine, in favor of the amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting slavery;

which were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

TAX ON SALES.

several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."

It is not claimed that Congress itself can enMr. F. CLARKE. I ask unanimous consent graft this amendment into the Constitution withto offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That in order that the Government may have, and the people understand, its fixed and determined policy in reference to restoring the currency of the country to its normal value, the Committee on Ways and Means are hereby instructed to inquire into the expediency of imposing a special tax of one per cent, on all sales of the country for the period of one year, and a tax of three fourths of one per cent. for, one year thereafter, and a tax of one half of one per cent. thereafter, until the whole sum collected equals in amount the United States notes now issued by the Government; and that the proceeds of the tax, as it may from time to time be collected, be especially appropriated to the redemption of said notes until all are redeemned and canceled. And also that the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized, at any time after the close of the war, to issue bonds not having less than five nor more than forty years to run, to an amount equal to all of the Treasury interest-bearing legal-tender notes that have been or may hereafter be issued, and dispose of the same from time to time as may be required to pay said notes as they mature from and after the close and termination of the rebellion, and report by bill or otherwise.

Mr. STEVENS. I object, and call for the regular order of business.

Mr. ANCONA. I ask my colleague to give way until I introduce a resolution for reference. Mr. STEVENS. I call for the regular order of business, and will yield for no purpose.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

The SPEAKER stated the question in order to be the consideration of the motion to reconsider the vote by which the House, on the 14th of last June, rejected Senate joint resolution No. 16, submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States; and that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. ASHLEY] was entitled to the floor.

Mr. ASHLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MCALLISTER] to have read a brief statement.

Mr. MCALLISTER sent to the Clerk's desk and had read the following:

When this subject was before this House on a former occasion voted against the measure. I have been in favor of exhausting all means of conciliation to restore the Union as our fathers made it. I am for the whole Union, and utterly opposed to secession o dissolution in any shape. The result of all the peace inissions, and especially that of Mr. Blair, has satisfied me that nothing short of the recognition of their independence will satisfy the southern confeder acy. It must therefore be destroyed; and in voting for the present measure I cast my vote against the corner-stone of the southern confederacy, and declare eternal war against the enemies of my country.

[Applause from the Republican side of the House.]

Mr. ASHLEY. I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. COFFROTH.]

Mr. COFFROTH. Mr. Speaker, I speak not to-day for or against slavery. I am content that this much-agitated question shall be adjudicated at the proper time by the people. It is my purpose to state in all candor the reasons which prompt me to give the vote I shall soon record.

The amending of our Constitution is fraught|| with so much importance to the American people that before it is accomplished the amendment's proposed should be scrutinized with the strictest criticism. No frivolous, vague, or uncertain experiment should be for a moment tolerated. The life and existence of this nation is centered in the observance and faithful execution of the powers conferred by the Constitution upon the servants of the people.

The joint resolution before us proposes:

That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the said Constitution, namely:

ART. XIII, SEC. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The first inquiry is, has Congress this power? I turn to the Constitution, and find article fifth provides

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the

out being ratified by three fourths of the States. Then, sir, under the Constitution, Congress has no power beyond discriminating what shall or ought to be submitted to the people. The members of this House assume no responsibility, they enact no amendment, but as faithful Representatives they submit to the people, the source from whence their power comes, the proposed amendment. "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed." All political power is invested in the people. At their will constitutions can be remodeled and laws repealed.

The amending of our Constitution is no new experiment. Already at three different times amendments have been submitted to the Legislatures, and by them adopted. The first amendment was ratified in 1791, the second in 1798, and the third in 1804. It never was intended by the wise men who adopted the Constitution that it should remain unchanged. The growth of the nation, its progress and its advancement, will, as time passes, demand new articles and additional provisions. The people are the guardians of the Constitution, and I am not convinced that any danger is to be anticipated, as presented in the following illustrations of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. PENDLETON,] put with such admirable compactness and scholastic force:

1. "1 assert that there is another limitation, stronger even than the letter of the Constitution, and that is to be found in its intent and spirit and its foundation idea. I put the question which has been put before in this debate, can three fourths of the States constitutionally change this Government, and make it an autocracy? It is not prohibited by the Constitution."

2. Can three fourths of the States make an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which shall prohibit the State of Ohio from having two Houses in its Legislative Assembly? It is not prohibited in the Constitution."

3.Sir, can three fourths of the States provide an amendment to the Constitution by which one fourth should bear all the taxes of this Government? It is not prohibited."

4. "Can three fourths of the States, by an amendment to the Constitution, subvert the State governments of one fourth and divide their territory among the rest? It is not forbidden."

5. Can three fourths of the States so amend the Constitution of the States as to make the northern States of this Union slaveholding States?"

constitutional power to destroy or interfere with the right of property. Learned gentlemen of this House differ on this subject. The Constitution itself provides the remedy by which all these differences of opinion can be legally adjudicated. Section two of article three provides:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution."

In my opinion, if any person is injured by this amendment, he has a judicial remedy before the highest court of the country.

If the States of the South desire to retain slavery, they can do so by refusing to ratify this amendment. There are thirty-five States. In order to adopt this amendment twenty-seven States must ratify it. Eleven States have seceded from the Union. This is more than is required to defeat the amendment. Certainly no one will pretend to argue that this amendment can be adopted without being submitted to the eleven seceded States. If it was, these States would not be considered a part of the Union. In fact it would be, to all intent and purpose, recognizing them as independent States, and not being under the control of the Federal Constitution.

If this view is taken, then this amendment can do no harm to the people of the States in the Union. In June last my objection to this amendment was that it was taking away the property of the people of the States that remained true to the Union; that the Constitution was made the means to oppress rather than protect the people. Since that time Missouri and Maryland have abolished slavery by their own action, and the Governor of Kentucky in his message recommends to the Legislature of that State gradual emancipation. The same objection which was then urged against this amendment cannot now be urged.

It is argued that new State governments will be formed in the seceding States under the control of military governors, and this amendment ratified by them. Whether this amendment would be binding upon the people of the seceded States thus ratified will depend entirely upon the result of this war. If after a long struggle, and each of the contending armies or Powers will conclude to adopt the wise and humane policy of a peaceful solution of the difficulties now existing, all of the acts of the State governments formed by military power will be invalid, and the old organization of these States recognized. In this event the ratifications by the new-made State governments will not be worth the paper upon which they are written. If the South achieve her independence, then this amendment will only ap

I do not think there is any power in the Constitution which would permit three fourths of the States to change the form of government. The Constitution provides for a republican form of government, and to establish an autocracy wouldly to that which does not exist. If the people not be amending the Constitution, but utterly destroying it, and establishing upon its ruins a new form of government of self-derived power.

I would not give one of the new copper twocent pieces for the insertion into the Constitution of explicit prohibitions against every other supposition brought forward by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. PENDLETON:]

"Long before three fourths of the States can become so debauched and demoralized that they would practice such monstrous injustice, they must have lost the sense of honor that would be bound by a compact, and the fear of God that would keep an oath. When these virtues have died out, no matter what safeguards a written constitution might contain, they would be of no more value than so much waste paper. There are certain things which can never be attempted so long as there is public virtue enough not to evade, explain away, or openly violate the Constitution. It is for this reason so little limitation was put upon the amending power.

The actual limitations on that power operated against natural equity, and hence the necessity for their insertion. One of them restrained Congress from putting an end to the slave trade prior to 1808, and the practical effect of the other is to give New England, which has a smaller population than New York and only a fraction more than Pennsylvania, twelve Senators, while New York and Pennsylvania have each only two. The Constitution presumes that the majority of the people in three fourths of the States cannot be corrupted; or that, if they should, they would not afterward respect paper restraints on their passions. A constitution is no stronger than the sense of the moral ob

ligation of the parties bound by it. It is futile to take men's

engagements against crimes more heinous than breaking an engagement. You might as well swear a man not to commit highway robbery. If he has conscience enough to respect an oath, it would be needless, and if he has not, an idle precaution."

Again, it is argued that this amendment is unconstitutional; that the Congress of the United States has no legal authority to propose this amendment, nor have the States in ratifying it the

of the South are subjugated and their State lines obliterated, and they are ever admitted into this Union under new constitutions, each and every one of the constitutions will have to come free from slavery before the State will be admitted.

The South would not remain in the Union under the Constitution as it now is; they demanded stronger guarantees for their institution of slavery. Can any intelligent person believe that after fighting as they have for nearly four years they will accept that which they rejected before the war? If they will not come back under the Constitution, why not abolish slavery; strike from our statutebooks every enactment which protects it; make our Constitution and our laws free from the subject of slavery? And then, when this unfortunate, inhuman, barbarous, and bloody war has been prolonged until every heart shall turn sick with its carnage and the reports of its wrongs and outrages, and the people demand a cessation of hostilities until it be ascertained if glorious peace cannot be accomplished by compromise and concession, there will be no obstacles in the Constitution to defeat the accomplishing of a much desired result. We will be free to give new guarantees or new amendments to protect the rights and property of every person who shelters himself under the American Constitution.

Again, I have voted for every peace resolution offered in this House. My heart yearns for peace. The gentlemen on the other side of this Chamber refused to appoint peace commissioners, but they tell us this amendment will do more to secure peace than any resolution proposed in this House. Although they would not try the remedy we presented, I am willing to try the one they present; and if by my vote this amendment

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »