Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

of authority for it as that under which the war is prosecuted the Executive will. I do not see any objection to the proposition.

Mr. BALDWIN, of Massachusetts. What power is there to call such a convention without violating the Constitution, which provides that, on application of two thirds of the States, Congress shall call a national convention?

Mr. ROSS. I think there is no difficulty in the matter whenever this is desired. But the trouble with the gentleman from Massachusetts and his friends is that they do not want such a thing.

Mr. BALDWIN, of Massachusetts. I want to proceed according to the Constitution.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. How did Jackson compromise with South Carolina nullification? Mr. ROSS. Well, I will tell you. Jackson issued his proclamation against the nullifiers, which was all right; but he concurred in the peace measures offered by Mr. Clay about the same time. While he sent forth the sword, he also sent forth the olive-branch. That is what I want now.

A MEMBER. It is what we have now.

Mr. ROSS. Why do you not issue a proclamation telling these men in rebellion that if they will lay down their arms they shall be entitled to all the rights which they enjoyed under the Government before the war? In my judgment, the reason is that you are afraid that it will be accepted. I am afraid that there are too many in this counwho want to prosecute this war for the purpose of place and emolument. I fear that this is the great danger.

Now, I submit, Mr. Chairman, whether we had better not bury, for the time being, our party prejudices, rise above party, and act like patriots for the restoration of our Government. I am will

Mr. ROSS. So do I. I am for the Constitution and for the Union, maintaining it in all its parts just as it was, with such amendments as we may see fit to make. If it is defective I am will-try ing that it shall be amended. There is nothing strange or novel in my position. I have been for the Union all the time. I have not been very fierce in the prosecution of this war. [Laughter.] I have no disposition to disguise my feelings on the subject. I will tell you why I have not been. Because I thought the war might have been hon-ing to join hands with any who are in favor of a orably avoided. I knew that peace propositions introduced by Mr. Crittenden, Mr. Douglas, and Mr. Kellogg, of Illinois, were voted down in this House. I noticed that when Mr. Clemens, of Virginia, introduced a proposition to submit the Crittenden compromise to a vote of the people of the United States the majority in this House voted it down. And I was irresistibly led to the conclusion that they desired war and not peace.

Another thing brought me to this conclusion. At the time the peace convention was in session in Washington city, a distinguished member of the Republican party telegraphed home, "Send us stiff-backed men or none. "" Said he, "Illinois and New Jersey are caving in. Without a little blood-letting this country will not be worth a curse." From these facts I have been drawn to the conclusion that there were many in the country who desired war and not peace.

are tumbling; when the bottom of the tub is near out; at a time when we have, as the President says, detached a large army, holding on to what we have conquered, to go curverting back and forth through the confederacy without let or hinderance; at a time when Sherman has made his triumphant march through Georgia, when his guns are thundering away at Savannah, when it is a question of time, and that brief time, when Savannah falls, when he sweeps up and takes Charleston, and then, unstayed in his onward progress, joins the veteran hosts of Grant at Richmond? At such a time my colleague talks about an armistice! He talks about withdrawing this army. I regret that any voice from my own State, that glorious, gallant State of Illinois which has given so many soldiers to this war, and has so many more to give regret, sir, that any voice from that State should croak about an armistice and peace. That, too, when the people have thundered their verdict in his ears, and when that verdict has reached the ears of the despots across the water, who, he says, are wishing so anxiously for us to fall to pieces. Yes, sir, and that is the reason they gave every aid and comfort to the gentleman's party in the last election, because they want us to tumble to

restored Government as our fathers made it. I am willing to coöperate and consult, to do what-pieces. ever may be best to secure the restoration of our glorious Government. I want to hand it down as a precious legacy to my children. Houses, or lands, or anything else that we can give them, are worthless when compared with free government and free institutions. No man in this House is more attached to our form of government and the institutions under which we live than I am; none would make greater sacrifices to maintain them.

Gentlemen on the other side taunt us with the fact that we have been beaten at the last election. Be it so. We submit gracefully. We come here to do what we can to restore the Government. The great interests of the country now hang tremblingly in the balance in your hands. The responsibility of determining whether we shall have a restored Government rests upon you. I will throw no obstacles in the way. I will do what I can to aid the Union men of this country in the restoration of this Government. I am a Union man without an "if" or a "but." I am for the Union, whether slavery lives or dies. I do not care whether slavery be voted up or voted down. I am for the Government and the Constitution and the Union as our fathers gave them to us. I would ask my colleagues here whether the time has not come when we should bury our party prejudices beneath the rubbish of ages, and come to

I am as willing as anybody to have war when it is necessary to have it. Whenever I am satisfied that this Government cannot be maintained except by war, then I am for war. While it can be maintained by peaceful measures, I prefer to avoid war. I have no disposition to disguise the fact that I prefer a peaceful adjustment of our difficulties rather than war. If any gentleman would rather adjust them by war than by peace, he is entitled to his opinion. I will ask my colleague [Mr. FARNSWORTH] whether he would prefer now that our difficulties should be settled by peace or by war. Let him just answer that question with-gether as true men to consult for the restoration out a speech.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. No man in the wide world excels me in a strong desire for peace. Every soldier, and, I take it, every reasonable man, wants peace. I think, however, that the only way out of our present troubles is to conquer a peace. I am entirely satisfied that the method proposed by my colleague [Mr. Ross]an armistice and a convention-would simply lead to a further prolongation of the war. Being entirely satisfied of that, and inasmuch as the rebels may at any time, by simply laying down their arms and abiding by the Constitution, have peace, with all the rights that they ever had, except such as they have forfeited by their rebellion, I see no necessity for an armistice or a convention, which, in my opinion, would subserve no purpose except to throw obstacles in the way of the further prosecution of the war.

Mr. ROSS. The gentleman has not answered the question which I propounded.

Now, I would like to exhaust all peaceful measures before we should prosecute this war much longer. We have been about four years engaged in war, and it has been crippling our resources very greatly. We are heaping upon our people a very heavy debt. Now, if there is any possibility of avoiding this it appears to me that we should all concur in an effort toward that end. Why not try it? Why not see whether we can. not make peace? Gentlemen on the other side of the House are not so much greater than Washington and Jefferson and Adams and Jackson and Clay and Webster. All these were willing to compromise. How does it happen that such superior wisdom has sprung into existence within the last three or four years?

of our Government and an honorable and enduring peace.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I think that the time has come when these old rusty party prejudices should be buried, and that the time has come also when this rusty old fossil of a party should be buried, as it has been pretty much by the votes of the people.

My colleague talks about his love for the soldier. Strangely it happens that the soldiers do not reciprocate that attachment. We find from the votes in our own State of Illinois, as in every State of this Union, whether the soldiers have been at home or in the field, they have spewed the Chicago platform and its nominees out of their mouth with disgust; and my colleague is the only one left of all of my colleagues on that side of the House to tell the tale. He has taken the first opportunity to tell it, and he tells it well. I am not surprised that he has gathered a portion of courage from the vote in his district. He is the "last of the Mohicans," the last of the tribe. [Laughter.] I have no disposition to take his scalp, for I am entirely willing that one should be left.

Mr. ROSS. Let me correct my colleague. I am not the only one, for there are three Democratic members from Illinois.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I said that my colleague is the only one of those now here who is left to tell the tale. That is true.

My colleague talks about an armistice and a convention to arrange terms of peace. Peace at a time like this! Shall we lay down our arms and recall our victorious soldiers from the field just at the time when light is breaking through the rebellion; when we see around it and through it, and it is becoming transparent; when its resources

Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of peace, as I have already told my colleague. There is not a soldier among all the gallant host from Illinois, who marches back and forth upon his silent watch at midnight and thinks of his home and fireside, who does not pray for peace; but there is not one of them, with all their anxiety for peace, who is willing to turn his back to his foe at this moment for armistice and peace. He the friend of the soldier! The soldier does not reciprocate his attachment by any manner of means. The soldier does not want an armistice, for in it he sees a prolongation of the war. He can see no peace in anything patched up by the builders of the Chicago platform. He believes it would result in chronic war. I, for my part, see no road to peace but the road of war; and I am in favor of prosecuting this war day by day, month by month, and year by year, if necessary. We have shown that our resources are scarcely touched, and we have made the rebel Ang bite the dust.

My colleague talks about the Constitution and the flag. All that is necessary is for the rebels to submit to that Constitution and flag, lay down the instruments of war and take up those of peace, and the war is ended. Why, sir, they had the old Constitution; they had the old flag, and, I am sorry to say it, they had the old Democratic party in power when they broke up the Union. They had the friend of my colleague, James Buchanan, at the head of the Government, and his thieving, traitorous crew in all the Departments.

I failed to get an answer to the question I put to my colleague as to what kind of a compromise he would propose. I have heard these gentlemen talk much about compromise. But, Oh no, it is an armistice, a convention; and then they will see what terms they can make. What do they propose to compromise? What have we done? The gentleman says they complain of our action in reference to the fugitive slave law. But it happens that those States which had the most reason to complain have not gone out of the Union. Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri did not complain; or, if they did, they did not complain to the extent of seceding. South Carolina was the leader in this rebellion-the first State that seceded. Will my colleague tell me how many slaves South Carolina ever lost by reason of the non-execution of the fugitive slave law?

Mr. ROSS. Did not the former Governor of Ohio, the present Postmaster General, say he would resist the execution of the fugitive slave law by force?

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I do not know what he said; I never heard him say so; but if he did, I do not know that that is any reason why South Carolina should secede.

I hear it said by gentlemen on this side that South Carolina lost ten slaves in thirteen years. I did not suppose it was so many; but those she . did lose were those who concealed themselves on board of vessels at Charleston, or who were barreled up, or stuffed into old dry-goods boxes, to be sent off. She never lost by the non-execution of the fugitive slave law. Nor did Georgia. It was said on the floor of this House, by the lead

New York, praying for the repeal of the fourth section of the "Act to provide for carrying the mails from the United States to foreign ports, and for other purposes, approved March 25, 1864, imposing restrictions upon mailable matter; which was referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Ronds.

interest on the public debt, and for other purposes,"approved June 30, 1864, commonly known as the amendment to the whisky tax, have had the same under consideration, and directed me to report it back without amendment. The committee have also instructed me to ask for its present consideration, so that it may be disposed of before the adjournment, as otherwise the effect of it will be lost.

ers of this rebellion, that it was not that that theyGeorge W. Matsell & Co., and others, citizens of¦¦ternal revenue to support the Government, to pay cared for. I heard a member from Alabama say, upon the floor of this House, that he came here, as a member of that Congress, for the purpose of breaking up the Union, and not on account of the non-execution of the fugitive slave law. And I have lived to hear my colleague from the old glorious State of Illinois get up upon the floor of the House and apologize for those men who, with lips yet warm with the oath they had taken upon the Holy Evangel of Almighty God that they would support the Constitution and perform their duties as members of Congress to the best of their ability made their boasts openly and aboveboard, under a Democratic Administration, and in the presence of those voting with the Democratic party, that they came here only for the purpose of trying to break up the Government.

I rose only to throw out these few remarks by way of brief reply to my colleague, and I yield

the floor.

Mr. COX obtained the floor, and moved that the committee rise.

The motion was agreed to.

So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. GARFIELD reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had the Union generally under consideration, and particularly the President's annual message, and had come to no resolution thereon.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. HICKEY, their Chief Clerk, announced to the House that the Senate insist upon their amendments to the bill of the House (No. 51) entitled "An act to establish a Bureau of Freedmen's Affairs," agree to the conference committee asked for by the House, and had appointed Mr. SUMNER, Mr. HOWARD, and Mr. BUCKALEW, the committee of conference upon the part of the Senate.

OVERLAND MAIL TO CALIFORNIA.

Mr. DAILEY asked unanimous consent to introduce the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Postmaster General be requested to furnish to this House copies of all advertisements by the Post Office Department for the letting of the late contract for carrying the overland California mail, with a list of all bids and bidders under any or all of said advertisements; also, a copy of all correspondence with the Department in relation to said contract, the date when, and to whom, the contract was finally let.

Objection was made.

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS.

On motion of Mr. EDEN, leave was granted for the withdrawal from the files of the House of the papers in the case of M. W. Twiss; and the same were referred to the Committee of Claims.

HEIRS OF JOHN A. STEVENS.

Mr. BOYD, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the relief of the widow and heirs of John A. Stevens, deceased, of Springfield, Missouri; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee of Claims. And then, on motion of Mr. COX, (at four o'clock, p. m.,) the House adjourned.

IN SENATE.

WEDNESDAY, December 21, 1864. Prayer by Rev. THOMAS BOWMAN, D. D., Chaplain to the Senate.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a report of the Secretary of the Navy, communicating, in compliance with law, a statement of the appropriations to the credit of that Department July 1, 1863, and the unexpended balances on the 30th of June, 1864; which was ordered to lie on the table.

He also laid before the Senate a communication of the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting, in obedience to law, copies of the accounts of the superintendent and agents charged with the disbursement of the funds for the relief of the refugee Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole Indians for the second quarter of the year 1864; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. COLLAMER presented a petition of Harper & Brothers, and others, and a petition of

Mr. HOWARD presented a petition of surgeons and assistant surgeons in the United States Army, praying for an increase of compensation; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

He also presented a petition of clerks in the Treasury Department, praying for an increase of compensation; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. SAULSBURY presented the petition of Benjamin S. Compton, praying for compensation for seven hundred and eighty-two bales of cotton alleged to have been seized by a military expedition under the command of General Ransom, and shipped to Memphis and sold on account of the Government; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. ANTHONY presented the petition of Edwin M. Chaffee, praying for an extension of letters patent granted to him August 31, 1836, for the "machine patent," so called, used in the manufacture of india rubber; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Of fice.

B. Hughes and others, bailiffs of the United States Mr. TRUMBULL presented the petition of R. courts in the District of Columbia, praying for an increase of pay; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SHERMAN. I desire to present a petition on behalf of the widow of Rev. Samuel Hibben. It appears that he was duly commissioned chaplain of the fourth Illinois volunteers, and served as such, and died in the service, but by reason of the failure to have him mustered in according to the regulations, he has not been paid. I move that the petition be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia. The motion was agreed to.

REPORT FROM COMMITTEE.

Mr. SHERMAN, from the Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 597) making appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the United States for the year ending the 30th of June, 1866, reported it without amendment.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message was received from the House of Representatives, by Mr. McPHERSON, its Clerk, announcing that the House had passed the following bills and joint resolution, in which the concurrence of the Senate was requested.

A bill (H. R. No. 697) to provide for an advance of rank to officers of the Navy and Marine corps for distinguished merit;

A bill (H. R. No. 623) to amend an act entitled "An aceto provide for carrying the mails from the United States to foreign ports, and for other purposes," approved March 25, 1864;

A bill (H. R. No. 625) to amend an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending the 30th of June, 1865, and for other purposes," approved June 15, 1864; and

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 128) providing for the appointment of a commission to locate one or more navy-yards and depots on the north

western waters.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

The message also announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the following enrolled bills; which thereupon received the signature of the President pro tempore:

A bill (S. No. 358) to establish the grade of vice admiral in the United States Navy;

A bill (H. R. No. 478) for the relief of Charles M. Pott; and

A bill (H. R. No. 603) to extend the time allowed for the withdrawal of certain goods therein named from public stores.

INTERNAL REVENUE.

By unanimous consent the bill was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to amend section fifty-five of the internal revenue act of June 30, 1864, by striking out the word February," wherever it occurs in that section, and inserting in lieu thereof the word "January.'

66

[ocr errors]

Mr. SHERMAN. It is due to the Committee on Finance that I should make a brief statement

in regard to this matter, as it is a very important question. The bill proposes to anticipate the two dollars a gallon tax on spirits, so as to make it commence on the 1st of January instead of the 1st of February: Several objections are very strongly urged to the measure. One is that it is a change of legislation, indicating a want of stability in the action of Congress on the subject. It is also urged that it will interfere with the arrangements already made by the manufacturers of spirits in anticipation of the existing law, that it operates as a snap-judgment, to use a cant phrase, on these men engaged in an ordinary business.

On the other hand, it is alleged, that if this bill be not passed, the manufacture of whisky will be enormously increased, probably to the amount of ten or fifteen million gallons, which will pay but a dollar and a halfa gallon, and thus, at a diminished rate of duty, fill the market for months to come, and that the effect would be that no whisky would be manufactured after the 1st of February, when the increased tax is to take effect under the present law. The committee, after a very patient and careful examination of this subject, feeling that there was a great deal to be said on both sides, thought that the interests of the Government would be subserved by passing the bill, that it was better to have the matter settled, and settled permanently at once, rather than to have it continued so as to make uncertainty and confusion in the manufacture of whisky and uncertainty in the revenue. If this increased tax be made to take effect on the 1st day of January, the Government, as a matter of course, will get two dollars on every gallon of whisky manufactured after that time. If it be postponed until the 1st of February, according to the law as it now stands, the Government, it is true, will get one dollar and a half on the largely increased manufacture during January, but none will be manufactured after the 1st of February for some time, until the stock on hand shall be exhausted.

It is a question on which there was a difference of opinion in the Committee on Finance, but we deemed it our duty to report the bill for the action of the Senate. I make this statement in behalf of the committee, without giving my own opinion, so that the Senate may take such action as they may deem proper. It is proper for me to say further, that whatever action is taken should be taken to-day, so that the bill may be disposed of at once. If it be postponed after to-morrow, the bill falls as a matter of course.

Mr. POMEROY. It may perhaps be interesting to the Senate and to the country to know whether this is all the legislation that is intended on this question. At the last session we had it up twice, and I supposed the settlement made in the bill we then passed was final, but of course I have no objection to any improved legislation on the subject. The point with me is to learn whether it is understood by the Committee on Finance that the bill is to terminate our legislation on this question for the session.

I have always believed that this manufacture would bear an increase of tax, even beyond two dollars a gallon. I know that when we first began to tax it, we commenced at twenty cents, and that was struggled against. We then went up to sixty cents, and then to a dollar, and prospectively to a dollar and a half, and finally to two dollars as the rate from the 1st of February next. I should like to have the final point reached at once in one measure, and then let the country rest. I do not wish to embarrass this bill, but I be

Mr.SHERMAN. The Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 618) to amend the act entitled "An act to provide in-lieve that we might put $2′ 50 a gallon tax on all

spirits manufactured after the 1st day of January, and rest there, and then let the revenue come as fast as the whisky shall be manufactured. But if this is all the measure we are to have for this session, and if the Committee on Finance will tell us that this is all they anticipate, I am very willing to go for this. It will increase the revenue fifty cents on every gallon manufactured between the 1st day of January and the 1st day of February. We shall get $1 50 at any rate, but if this bill passes it will add fifty cents on every gallon.

Mr. SHERMAN. As a matter of course there can be no understanding between the two Houses on a question of this kind, nor would it be in order for me to state the opinions of members of the House of Representatives on this subject; but I can state what I believe from the legislation of Congress, and perhaps what I believe also from conversations with various members of the other House and also of this body, that this bill was intended in the House of Representatives as a kind of compromise or settlement between the various opinions on this subject. There is a feeling in the House that there ought to be a tax on spirits on hand. That has been a controverted point here in the Senate for a long time. Many of those who were friendly to the proposition to tax the stock on hand were satisfied with this proposition, and hoped that during the month of January the increased duty of fifty cents would furnish us some additional revenue at least, and would compensate for what was lost by the failure to tax spirits on hand. As a matter of course there can be no understanding about it. Any member of the House, or any member of the Senate, may introduce a proposition to tax spirits on hand. My impression is that if this bill passes it will be the end of the whisky question.

Mr. POMEROY. That was all I wanted to know.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment.

Mr. McDOUGALL. I should like to have the bill read.

The Secretary again read it.

Mr. McDOUGALL. It strikes me that there is an injustice in this change, because our legislation in that respect is somewhat in the nature of a contract with the people who are engaged in this business. I am not disposed to discuss the matter, but I know it is radically wrong.

Mr. GRIMES. I have fot anything to say in regard to the merits of the measure proposed, but I trust that this is the last bill we shall be called upon to give our sanction to that contains such phraseology as is embodied in this. This bill proposes to strike out the word "February" wherever it occurs in a certain act of Congress passed twelve months ago, and to substitute the word "January." What would be thought of a bill to strike out the word " February" in an act passed twenty years ago, and which had been standing on our statute-book that length of time, and to substitute the word "July?" Why, sir, it is the mostinartificial manner of drawing a bill, and would not be creditable to any Legislature. I have not anything to say about the merits of the proposition. I am prepared to vote for it, and am going to vote for the bill as it stands, unless it be amended; but this is a kind of phraseology that ought not to be indulged in.

Mr. McDOUGALL. I object to this bill, not for its phraseology but for its substance. When the bill of the last session was passed, we gave notice to the people who engaged in this kind of enterprise that we had make certain assessments and certain rules whereby their commerce might be governed. Now, by active legislation we propose to anticipate their business by a month, which will interfere, I suppose, very materially with the business of the men engaged in that department of commerce. It is unjust, and its recitude cannot be maintained by any force of argu

ment. I therefore object to it, and shall not vote for it even if it does add some dollars to the Treasury.

Mr. FARWELL. I propose to vote for this bill as the best thing we can get at the present time, although I regret exceedingly, and I believe the people of the country regret exceedingly, the legislation upon this subject at the last session. The effect of that legislation, in exempting from taxation the amount of spirits on hand, has taken from the Treasury of the nation sufficient to pay

every soldier now in the field all that is due him. And who has it given it to? It has given it to the speculators in whisky; and, ordinarily, they are not the best class of citizens. What injustice, I would ask, would be done these men by taxing the stock of whisky on hand? If the Government established an additional tax, and the manufacturers had to pay it, would not the amount of the tax be at once added to the cost of production and be added to the price of the article? And, sir, it has been added. The men who held these large stocks of whisky have added the prospective tax that was to go upon it, and have sold it with this addition, and made the profits that should have gone into the Treasury.

But, sir, as this bill goes into operation at the earliest possible day, only a week hence, I think it is the best thing, under the circumstances, that can be had, and I shall vote for it.

Mr. JOHNSON. I think, with the Senator from California, that the principle of this bill is altogether wrong. I do not rise to maintain that by anything of argument, but to say that the criticism made by the Senator from Iowa is, I think, entitled to such weight that we ought to amend the bill. There is no difficulty in amending it. The whole object of the bill is to impose the tax of two dollars upon domestic spirits on the 1st of January instead of the 1st of February, as it stands under the act. We may do that by saying that the "1st of February" in a certain section of the original act is to be stricken out and the "1st of January" substituted. If it is agreeable to the honorable chairman of the Committee on Finance, I will ask that the bill be laid on the table for a moment to see if we cannot amend it so as to avoid that defect. It can be done in a moment.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have no objection.

Mr. McDOUGALL. Why not amend it so as to make the tax on the 1st of February two dollars?

Mr. SHERMAN. That is the present law. Mr. JOHNSON. I move that the bill be passed over for the present.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Foor in the chair.) It will lie on the table for the present.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

On motion of Mr. HARLAN, the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution submitted by him yesterday:

Resolved, That the Committee on the District of Columbia be instructed to inquire into the expediency and propriety of requiring all residents of the District of Columbia to take and file with the provost marshal of said District an oath of allegiance or fidelity to the Government of the United States similar to the oath required by law of Members and Senators in Congress and other officers of the Government; and also the expediency and propriety of prohibiting all persons from doing business in said District or with the several Departments of the Government who have not or may not take and file such oath; and that said committee have leave to report by bill or otherwise.

Mr. SUMNER. I wish to thank the Senator from Iowa for introducing this proposition, and at the same time to call the attention of the Senate to a bill which is on their Calendar, which I had the honor of introducing at the last session, but which, for some unaccountable reason unknown to me, has been reported upon adversely by the Committee on the Judiciary, requiring that same oath to be taken by the practitioners in the courts of the United States. I am told that there are lawyers in the city of Washington who decline to practice in the courts here because they are unwilling to take the oath which you, sir, have taken, and which the Chief Justice of the United States only the other day took before he entered upon his functions; and yet these same lawyers flaunt in the Supreme Court of the United States. That ought to be stopped; and I give notice therefore that, carrying out the spirit of the resolution of the Senator from Iowa, I shall ask the attention of the Senate as soon as possible to that bill.

Mr. SAULSBURY. It is not my intention to discuss at any length this resolution, but simply to ask for the yeas and nays on its adoption. I would take that oath myself very willingly, although I believe, as far as relates to members of Congress, it is wholly unconstitutional. I do not object to it, as far as it could relate to myself, because of anything other than its unconstitutionality contained in it; but I regard it, if it should pass, as one of those acts of unnecessary oppression on the part of the Government which in times like

these ought to be avoided. Is there any evidence before this Senate that the old inhabitants of this city, those of them who are living here, have given any trouble to this Government, or even to this Administration? They are without a voice in the Government, and they have been sitting quietly at home, doing naught, as appears from any evidence, that is wrong toward this Government; and shall not this Administration and its supporters just coming into power again, flushed with victory, and dreaming perhaps of the perpetuation of their power for years to come, be satisfied with present victory over political opponents, but shall they pursue them into the quiet walks of life, seek out the high-toned, honorable men and women of this city, and compel them to subscribe to any form of oath that may be dictated by a member of this Senate, or by a supporter of this Administration, or by anybody else? When a man is quietly pursuing his business, will you not let him rest in peace if he is doing naught against you, or will you hunt him down? Will you try to drive him out from the community?

Sir, I do not say that the honorable Senator who introduced this resolution meant it as an act of oppression, but it is such in its nature and in its character, and it ought not to be tolerated by this Senate. The honorable Senator must have a very high appreciation of the enemies of this Government, whom he regards as traitors, if he supposes that a simple oath would bind them. Does the honorable Senator think that the man who would be guilty of treason would be bound by an oath ? What is the object, therefore, of introducing it?

Sir, when I first came to this city six years ago, the population in it was very different from what it is now. Gentlemen engaged here in business, it may be, are envied of their situation by persons from distant States and distant sections of the country, who think they are living prosper ously, and who suppose that by their removal from business their own private stores will be increased. If the object be, therefore, to give to the supporters of this Administration all the business of this city, if it be to drive out everybody from this city who will not tamely and quietly submit to take any and every oath which may be presented them-if that be the object, I submit that the Senator ought to reflect at least before he attempts to force the passage of such a measure through this body.

Sir, I will not discuss the question further. Regarding it simply as an act of oppression, believing that no possible good, but only evil, can result from it, I shall content myself with simply objecting to its passage, and culling for the yeas and nays upon it, in order that I may record my vote in opposition to it.

Mr. HARLAN. I think the Senator from Delaware misapprehends the purport of the resolution.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator allow the Chair to ascertain whether the call for the yeas and nays on the adoption of the resolution is seconded?

Mr. HARLAN. I think the Senator from Delaware will withdraw that on reflection. This is merely a resolution instructing the Committee on the District of Columbia to inquire into the expediency and propriety of such a measure.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator withdraw the call for the yeas and nays? Mr. SAULSBURY. No, sir.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. HARLAN. I have but one observation to make in addition to the remark made to the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. SAULSBURY,] that this is a resolution instructing the committee to make an inquiry on this subject. It is barely possible that the committee might report adversely to any legislation. I am frank to state, however, that I think some such legislation is necessary, and ought to be had. I did not suppose a resolution of this kind would implicate any member of this body. It is not intended to require opponents of the Administration per se to take an oath of fidelity to the Administration as a political organization, but an oath of fidelity to the Government itself during the existence of a gigantic rebellion. Iam inclined to think that a casual listener to the speech of the Senator would suppose that he regarded himself as implicated in the inquiry; that, because he opposed some of the political measures of the Administration, therefore he must be considered

as an opponent of the Government itself, and therefore is in alliance or in sympathy with the rebels. He argues as if he supposed all opponents of the Administration were rebels. I apprehend that no Senator on this floor would maintain for a moment that an alien enemy has a right to remain here and do business in the capital of the nation in time of war, and that the Government would have no right to make use of the necessary means to expel him. And if so, why may not the Government expel from the capital a domestic enemy during the existence of a great armed rebellion? The right to do so, in my opinion, is clear. The only question is one of expediency and propriety. And this question I propose to refer to a standing committee of this body.

Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] will par-league, if that proposition were not supported by
don me-which is now the province of Maryland,
under the acts of this Administration, he would
have seen how the very inception of such meas-
ures as this worked injury, and how in their prog-
ress they work harder.

But, sir, I do not intend to be provoked (if 1 may use that term) into any lengthy discussion on this question. I believe the proposition is wrong in principle, unprecedented in practice, can be attended with no possible good, and will be oppressive in its operation.

Mr. McDOUGALL. Mr. President, during the period of the present lamentable war there bas been no time when the people of the District of Columbia have made any demonstration against the Government or the Administration. That is a simple fact bound to be admitted. What occa

While, then, I maintain that in my opinion some such legislation may be necessary, and I desire the inquiry to be made by one of the standing|sion there can be for this special legislation, I cancommittees of this body, I do not think it can be properly denominated a measure of persecution against political opponents of the party in power; and I think the Senator does himself and his political friends gross injustice in throwing out such an intimation. He surely does not desire the mass of the people of this country to understand that he and his political associates are opponents of the Government of the United States and are in synpathy and alliance with the rebels. And yet he argues as if in his judgment opposition to the rebels was in some way detrimental to the Democratic party. But if that is not what he means his whole speech is without pertinence.

I think this inquiry would be well enough, and in my opinion such legislation would be proper. The committee may differ with me in opinion; and if the committee should agree with me in opinion, a majority of the Senate might differ with me. I think that no evil at least can grow out of the inquiry, and I therefore desire the passage of the resolution.

Mr. SAULSBURY. Mr. President, I shall make no reference to the personal allusions of the honorable Senator to myself. If he really is pained at the idea that by any remarks I have made public suspicion, or even private suspicion, may be aroused that I am not true to the Government of the United States, and am in sympathy with those whom he styles rebels, let me tell him that his sympathy is wasted. I have seen enough since the commencement of these troubles to care but very little what either private individuals or masses of individuals think of my political course or my political principles. I do not seek for instructions in patriotism or in duty either from individual menor from large masses ofmen. Though God Almighty has given me but a feeble intellect, and but little light to discover the path of truth, such as He has given me governs me, and not the intellect of others, or the opinions of others, however much I may respect the opinions of my fellow-men.

Sir, those who choose to regard me and my political associates as in sympathy with rebellion are welcome to the indulgence of their very charitable opinion. I shall do naught, as a member of this body or in private life, to remove any such suspicion from their minds. I know very well the distinction between the Government of the United States and the Administration at the present time. I know they are asunder as far as the polls; that they approach each other no nearer than heaven and earth approach each other; but I know the doctrine attempted to be inculcated at the present day by a large number of people in this country and by a very influential press, and that is, that the Government is the Administration, and the Administration is the Government.

I see no objection on all proper occasions to any man and every man in the United States taking an oath to support the Government of the United States and the Constitution of the United States. But, sir, the honorable Senator does not live in the section that some of us do. He has not seen the progress that these measures have made. He has not heard it announced, perhaps, as we have, that it is traitorous to oppose the actions of the Administration in times like these. He has not heard voters at the polls questioned in reference to their fidelity to an Administration, not their fidelity to a Government or to a Constitution. Sir, had the honorable Senator lived in the section from which I come, had he lived in what was once the glorious and gallant State of Maryland-if the

not comprehend. That the people of the District of Columbia, a people who are to a certain extent ignored in our Government, and who have no right of suffrage in the establishment of the Federal Government, should be particularly proscribed or called upon specially to take special oaths, man by man, is something which I do not understand. I cannot understand it, particularly at this time, when if there ever was a time for it the policy of conciliation should be the policy of the Government. We have triumphed in armis; jubilante has been said from north to south, from east to west throughout all the land for what we have accomplished; and why require this particular thing of the people of this District? what is the occasion which has demanded it? I would think it strange if I were demanded to go through that same process, but to demand it of the people of the District of Columbia to go through the whole population and require them to do this thing in order that they may maintain the right of citizenship in this District is a strange proposition to me. I should like to know from some one the good reason for it.

We have been here, most of us, during the whole period of this war. We have seen no disturbance here. We have heard of men going to the Capitol prison, &c., but we have seen no disturbance, we have seen nothing that required any particular legislation to compel the people of the District of Columbia, who are deprived of a portion of the rights of American citizens by virtue of their residence, to do things which are not required of the other citizens of the Republic. I look upon it, I cannot otherwise than look upon it, as an oppressive and wrongful act. Of course this is only a resolution of inquiry, but all these things tend to agitation. I say that to-day our policy is or should be a policy of conciliation.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, when the Senator from lowa yesterday submitted this resolution I felt it to be my duty to object to its consideration at that time. I do not intend now to enter into this debate at any length, but I wish to say that the suggestion, in my judgment, which he has made that this was but an inquiry is not a sufficient argument to support his resolution unless in addition to that he is able to state to the Senate that the true interests of the Government require the people of this District to be placed in an attitude not occupied by the rest of the citizens of the United States. Does the Senator say that? He has not said it so far as I have heard his argument.

When this war broke out I have no doubt that there were many citizens of the District of Columbia who sympathized with the southern movement; but the proceedings of the Administration, not then supported by law, in many instances, have sent many of these people to the prisons— some have been sent across the lines-and now, within the last year, is the Senator able to say that the people of the District of Columbia are less true to the Government in the discharge of all their obligations than the citizens of any other portion of the country? I take it, sir, that although this is a mere inquiry, the adoption of the resolution casts a suspicion upon the fidelity of the people of this District to their obligations to the Government. If the Senator from lowa proposed a resolution instructing one of the committees to inquire into the propriety of requiring the citizens of Indiana to take such an oath as is not required of the rest of the people of the country, would it not be my duty, and the duty of my col

[ocr errors]

a strong array of facts to justify it, to protest against an imputation by the Senate against the fidelity of the people of that State to their Government? If, then, as the representative of that State, such would be my duty, is it not the duty of the Senators who do not believe that the people of the District of Columbia are untrue in their obligation to the Government to protest, as their representatives? They have no special representative on this floor; there is no Senator here whose duty it is specially to stand up for their honor. I think it is the duty, then, of every Senator to see that no unjust imputation is made against them.

I know nothing in the history of this District of Columbia, or in the conduct of the people in this District for the last year, that justifies the resolution which the Senator from Iowa has proposed to the Senate. When we instruct a committee to inquire into a thing of that sort, the presumption arises that there is some ground for that inquiry. What is the ground? Men have been arrested here; they have been sent to prison. They have been arrested in the Senator's own State; they have been charged with disloyalty there, and have been sent to the prisons; but is that arbitrary conduct on the part of the Administration a reason why the Senate should place a brand of suspicion on a part of the people of this country?

As I suggested yesterday, I am opposed to a resolution that contemplates the increase of oaths in this country. Why does the Senator intimate by his resolution that it is necessary to pass a law to require the people to take an oath of this sort? Have these oaths been required of the people without authority of law all over the country? It has been done in Indiana, in Kentucky, and, I venture to say, in the Senator's own State, without authority of law. Then does the Senator by this inquiry intend to be understood as saying that the Administration has pursued a course not authorized by law in this respect? Very many men, very many honest men, very many true citizens have been required to subscribe oaths to protect their persons and their property. The Senator by this resolution intimates that that is all wrong and illegal. I grant that it is. It is a shame that without authority of law any man has been required to take an oath which is not required of the rest of the people.

But, sir, in my judgment it does not promote the fidelity of the people to the institutions of the country to require an oath like this. It tends to promote and encourage perjury. Swearing men upon every trivial occasion does not promote the cause of truth, in my judgment, and I think one of the evils of the country is that we require men to swear upon almost every occasion, when entering into the most unimportant office and discharging the most trivial duties. I find my views upon that particular point so well expressed by one of the ablest writers in our language that I will read from "Buckle's History of Civilization in England" a short extract.

Mr. SUMNER, Which volume?

Mr. HENDRICKS. The first volume, page 259.

"It is this suspicion as to the motives of others which has given rise to oaths of every kind and in every direction. In England, even the boy at college is forced to swear about matters which he cannot understand, and which far riper minds are unable to master. If he afterwards goes into Parliament, he must again swear about his religion." As we Senators are required to swear that we are true to our country.

"And at nearly every stage of political life he must take fresh oaths, the solemnity of which is often strangely contrasted with the trivial functions to which they are the prelude. A solemn adjuration of the Deity being thus made at every turn, it has happened, as might have been expected, that oaths, enjoined as a matter of course, have at Jength degenerated into a matter of form. What is lightly taken is easily broken. And the best observers of English

society-observers, too, whose characters are very difierent, and who hold the most opposite opinions-are all agreed on this, that the perjury habitually practiced in England, and of which Government is the immediate ereator, is so general that it has become a source of national corruption, has diminished the value of human testimony, and shaken the confidence which inen naturally place in the word of their fellow-creatures."

Mr. SHERMAN. I will appeal to the courtesy of the Senator from Indiana to allow the bill which I reported this morning to be acted on now. Mr. HENDRICKS. I will finish what I have to say in a few minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. POMEROY in the chair.) It is the duty of the Chair at this time to announce that the unfinished business of yesterday is the order of the day.

Mr. HENDRICKS. If the senate will indulge me for three minutes I will conclude all I desire to say on this question.

MP. WILSON. Let the special order be laid aside informally.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be done; and the Senator from Indiana will proceed.

Mr. HENDRICKS. What does the Senator from lowa wish to reach by his proposition, the opinions or the conduct of men? If he wishes to strike at the conduct of men, that is properly reached through the courts If men in the District of Columbia have been guilty of such acts as the Jaw condemns, the courts in the District of Columbia are open; they can be tried and convicted. If the Senator wishes to reach the opinions, the convictions of citizens, I protest against a policy which has proved prejudicial and hurtful to Government wherever it has been adopted. You cannot correct the opinions of men by requiring them to take oaths. It is one of the evils that England for the last twenty years has been abandoning, and I hope that our own country will not adopt a policy which experience has shown that the older Governments of the world ought to abandon and are abandoning.

Mr. HARLAN. Mr. President

Mr. SHERMAN. Iask the Senator from Iowa to allow us to dispose of the important matter which was temporarily laid aside, that must be acted on now if at all.

Mr. HARLAN. Ishall not occupy more than a few moments; but the Senator from Indiana addressed himself so directly and personally to me that I ought to respond.

Mr. SHERMAN. The bill to which I refer will not take long.

Mr. HARLAN. When I conclude I shall have no objection to laying this resolution aside for the purpose of taking up that bill.

The Senator from Indiana addressed himself very directly, and I thought somewhat personally, to me. He propounded a number of inquiries, one of which was whether I was disposed to cast suspicion on the people of the District of Columbia as to their loyalty. I do not think that this is a legitimate logical conclusion to be drawn from the adoption of the resolution, no more than it would have been from the passage of the law requiring members of Congress to take a similar oath. I did not infer from the passage of that law that any person voting for it supposed that a majority of the members of this body, or any of them, were unfaithful to the Government; but it was supposed to be barely possible that some one or more persons might present themselves here and claim seats who had been engaged in this rebellion, and for the purpose of ferreting out the few possible cases the general rule was adopted requiring all to take the prescribed oath.

Now, sir, this is not unusual. It is not unusual for communities to institute a search of every house in a town or a city where a burglary or theft may have been committed, not that it is supposed that the majority of the people of the town or city are thieves or burglars, but because it is known that the law has been violated, and that goods have been stolen and hidden away, and that there is probably a thief in the community, and that the stolen goods are concealed, and for the purpose of ferreting out the thief and ascertaining where the goods are, all the citizens submit to a search, and do it voluntarily. No man permitting his house to be searched supposes he will be regarded as in complicity with the thieves. The general search is made for the purpose of protecting each one from the consequences of unjust suspicion. If the search was made of the house of the suspicioned party alone, it would wound his feelings, and probably ruin his character for all time to come; and for the purpose of preserving him from the consequences of a possible unjust suspicion, the general search is made. And so I apprehend we may justify the passage of a law requiring every member of Congress to take an oath of fidelity to the Government, not because it is supposed that a majority of them, or any considerable number of them, lack fidelity, but because it is believed that some may possibly present themselves who are unworthy of trust;

[ocr errors]

and to avoid the consequences of unjust suspicion on any one member, the general rule is adopted requiring all to take the oath. Now, sir, the proposition that I make, if adopted by Congress, will screen each individual froni unjust suspicion, and yet afford means of detecting the guilty parties, whose continuance in our midst may enable them to afford assistance to the public enemy.

The Senator desired me to state whether I knew

of any facts that would justify the passage of any such law as the resolution contemplates. am amazed that any one could ask such à question as that who has lived in this District for a single month. We all know that there are people living in this District who are not only in sympathy with the rebellion, but who embrace every available opportunity to aid the rebels in arms against their Government, who carry goods through the lines on every occasion that they can make available, and who send the proceeds of their trades and of their professions to their sons, and brothers, and husbands in the rebel army, so that we are, in harboring them in our midst, indirectly supporting the rebellion. In my opinion, we have a right to drive them from this community.

But the Senator inquired whether I would propose any such law for Indiana. There is a marked difference between the political condition of this District and that of a State. Congress has " exclusive jurisdiction" over this District, has a right to prescribe all its laws. It has not the right thus to legislate for a sovereign State. And hence the distinction is clear between the political condition of the people of a State and the political condition of the people of this District. He said that the people of the District had no representatives in this body. Sir, we are all the representatives of this District, and are bound by our oaths to legislate in good faith for their welfare; and in my opinion every loyal citizen of this District would thank Congress for the adoption of any measure calculated to drive from their midst aiders and abettors of the rebellion. In my opinion this resolution ought to pass; I think a law on this subject ought to be enacted, but I am content to leave that question with the committee appointed to take the immediate oversight of the interests of the District.

Mr. SAULSBURY. I wish to ask the Senator from lowa a question, if he will be kind enough to answer it. Suppose his resolution should be passed and an inhabitant of this District should refuse to take the prescribed oath, what does he propose to do in such a case as that?

Mr. HARLAN. I think the Senator from Delaware misapprehends the whole purport of the resolution. It is a resolution of instruction, instructing the Committee on the District of Columbia to inquire into the propriety and expediency of such a law, and that is the whole of it. If they should report a bill on the subject, and the question should then pertinently arise which has been propounded by the Senator, I should take great pleasure in attempting to answer it.

Mr. SAULSBURY. The experience of Senators in this body shows that when an inquiry of this character is directed, the committees generally report in accordance with the suggestions contained in the resolutions directing the inquiry. The Senator suggests that this is only a simple inquiry, and that no harm can result from it. For myself, believing that a report of the character that he wishes made will be made, and as he himself says it is barely possible the committee will not report favorably, I have felt it my duty to oppose even the inquiry.

the District in case of non-compliance with it, be violative of the Constitution? In this respect: the Constitution provides that:

[ocr errors]

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury," "nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Now, I apprehend it will be very difficult for the District Committee to frame a law allowing a trial by jury for the purpose of compelling a person to take the oath. I presume the punishment would be more summary than such as could be administered by a court upon conviction by a jury. It might be exportation from the District, and that would be depriving a person of his liberty without due process of law. It might be taking away his property, and clearly that would be a violation of the Constitution.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 24, nays 10; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Clark, Collamer, Conness, Dixon, Farwell, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Howard, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan. Pomeroy, Sherman, Sprague, Summer, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wilkinson, and Willey-24.

NAYS-Messrs. Brown, Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, Powell, Richardson, and Saulsbury-10.

ABSENT-Messrs. Carlile, Chandler, Doolittle, Harding, Harris, Hicks. Howe, MeDougall, Morrill, Nesmith, Ramsey, Riddle, Wade, Wilson, and Wright-15. So the resolution was agreed to.

BILLS BECOME LAWS.

A message from the President of the United States, by Mr. NICOLAY, his Secretary, announced that he had yesterday approved and signed the following bills and joint resolutions: A bill (S. No. 329) for the relief of William H. Jameson, a paymaster in the United States Army; A bill (S. No. 350) to authorize the purchase or construction of revenue cutters on the lakes; A bill (S. No. 352) authorizing the holding of a special session of the United States district court for the district of Indiana;

A joint resolution (S. R. No. 83) tendering the thanks of Congress to Captain John A. Winslow, United States Navy, and to the officers and men under his command on board the United States steamer Kearsarge, in the conflict with the piratical craft the Alabama; and

A joint resolution (S. R. No. 84) tendering the thanks of Congress to Lieutenant William B. Cushing, United States Navy, and to the officers and men who assisted him in his gallant and perilous achievement in destroying the rebel steamer Albemarle.

INTERNAL REVENUE.

Mr. WILSON. I now call for the regular order of the day.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator waive his call for a moment, to enable us take up the bill from the House of Representatives imposing the two-dollar tax on whisky? If it is to be passed it is important that it should be passed to-day.

Mr. WILSON. I suppose I shall have to give way to that bill.

Mr. JOHNSON. I only ask that the Senator give way to that as it was laid aside on my motion. I have now prepared an amendment to carry out the suggestion which I made. I move to take it up.

The motion was agreed to, and the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 618) to amend the act entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864.

Mr. JOHNSON. 1 move to amend the bill by striking out all after the enacting clause and insert

That the tax of two dollars on spirits imposed by the fiftyfifth section of the act" to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864, be levied, collected, and paid on and after the 1st day of January, 1865, instead of the 1st day of February in said year as provided by said original act.

Now, sir, I shall be justified in opposing it here on its passage, because the committee cannot report a bill upon this subject that will not be in violation of the Constitution of the United States. I know that it is an able committee, and I know that it can do on this subject whatever any othering the following: committee of this body or any other body can do; but is there a propriety in making an inquiry whether a thing should not be done, which, if done, would be violative of the Constitution of the United States? Why do I say that? If the committee report a bill saying that an oath of this character shall be administered to every inhabitant of this District, and to every person doing business in this District, they must provide some mode of compelling the party to take it in case of refusal. Now, what is the Constitution of the United States, and wherein would a bill with any penalty, a penalty, for instance, of removal from

Mr. SHERMAN. This is an amendment simply of phraseology. I like the language used by the Senator from Maryland better than the language sent to us from the other House; but I submit to him whether it is worth while to raise a question of phraseology on a bill that must be acted upon to-day or to-morrow. I think if a

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »