printing of some papers relative to Mexican affairs communicated by the Secretary of State in obedience to a resolution of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to, and the following resolution was considered and agreed to:

Resolved, That the papers relative to Mexican affairs communicated to the Senate by the President of the United States on June 20, 1864, be printed.

SLAVES TAKEN INTO THE ARMY.

Mr. POWELL. I move to suspend all prior orders and take up the resolution I offered on Monday last. I have prepared an amendment which I think will meet the objections of Senators on the other side of the Chamber.

Mr. WADE. I must object if that resolution will lead to debate. I am anxious to take up the unfinished business of yesterday, and proceed with it until we get through with it.

Mr. POWELL. I do not think the resolution will lead to debate. I have prepared an amendment which I think will meet the objections of the Senators.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution submitted by Mr. POWELL on the 23d instant, calling on the Secretary of War to state why he has not appointed the commission required by the twentyfourth section of the act of February 24, 1864.

Mr. POWELL. I move to amend the resolution so as to make it read:

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to inform the Senate whether or not he has appointed a commission in each of the slave States represented in Congress "charged to award to each loyal person to whom a colored volunteer may owe service a just compensation, not exceeding $300, for each colored volunteer," as required by the twenty-fourth section of the act approved February 24, 1864, entitled "An act to amend an act entitled An act for enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes,' approved March 3, 1863;" and if he has not appointed said commission, that he inform the Senate why he has not done so.

The amendment was adopted; and the resolution as amended was agreed to.

RETALIATION ON REBEL PRISONERS.

Mr. WADE. I move now to proceed with the unfinished business of yesterday.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The unfinished business of yesterday comes up regularly at this time without a motion. The joint resolution (S. R. No. 97) advising retaliation for the cruel treatment of prisoners by the insurgents, is before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole, the pending question being on the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] to the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER.] Upon that question the Senator from Missouri [Mr. HENDERSON] is entitled to

the floor.

done recently; and I do not understand that at the time the commission proceeded there, which was spoken of yesterday by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER,] the complaints which now prevail against the confederate authorities on this subject existed; but I am very well aware that there is ground for the complaints that are now made throughout the country in regard to the treatment of our prisoners.

It was stated by the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HENDRICKS] yesterday that this complaint did not properly exist against the treatment at Libby prison. I believe, and I have always believed, that such is the fact. I have never heard such complaint against the treatment of prisoners at the Libby prison. If I understand it aright, the treatment complained of is at Andersonville and at Florence and other points in the extreme South. I think our prisoners generally have been treated well at Libby prison; that at least is the information I have received, but it may be incorrect.

But, Mr. President, the question arises before us now, what is the object, what is the design, of the resolution pending before the Senate? Is it revenge, or is it for the purpose of ameliorating the condition of our prisoners in the southern States? I think that we can come to the point at once, and I shall not detain the Senate, because that is the only point in this matter: is this resolution for the purpose of ameliorating the condition of our prisoners? If that be not the object, the resolution has no legitimate object. How is it best to accomplish that end? That is the question. This treatment, I have no doubt, to a very considerable extent exists. How is it best for us to get rid of this treatment on the part of the rebels? If we retaliate, may they not retaliate again and again, until, in the language of the President, this becomes a revolutionary strife in which all the principles of civilization will be entirely disregarded?

Then, assuming that the object of this resolution is to ameliorate the condition of our prisoners in the hands of the rebels, I ask if it is not in accordance with the rules of civilized warfare, and if we have not sufficiently acknowledged the belligerent character of the rebels, to enable us with the greatest propriety possible to appoint a commission to proceed there and see whether these complaints are just or not? Is there anything wrong in it? Have we not already entered into an arrangement for the exchange of prison

ers? Can we not do with them what we have been in the habit of doing with other nations, foreign Powers, in time of war? Let us look back to the war of 1812. I find that during that war we had an arrangement with the English Government upon this subject, and I cannot see why humanity does not require that we should go just as far to ameliorate the condition of our prisoners now as we then went in the war with Great Britain. At page 354 of Twiss's Law of Nations I find this statement:

"The cartel of 1813, between Great Britain and the United States, provided that American agents might reside at Halifax and other places, and British agents at various places within the United States. It is usual, and obviously of the last importance, for carrying out the objects of a cartel, that a commissary of prisoners should reside in the country of the enemy,"

We had agents superintending the exchange of prisoners residing upon British soil after the year 1813 and during the residue of the war of 1812. Now, if it be the object upon our part to ameliorate the condition of our prisoners in the enemy's hands, why in the name of sense can we not appoint, or ask the President, who has the control of this matter, to appoint, commissioners to go there and to examine into the treatment and condition of our prisoners, and demand of the confederate authorities that these commissioners be permitted to reside there and superintend this trust? Is it not possible to do so? Then we can have a correct report; and if we are driven to the dreadful thing called retaliation let us know for what we are doing it; let it be in such a shape that we can justify ourselves before the civilized nations of the earth.

I cannot say to what extent this doctrine of retaliation ought to be carried; it is impossible for us at present to determine, because I do not know how long this war will last; I cannot tell what will be the conduct of the confederate authorities toward our prisoners. I am not prepared to say, as the Senator from Massachusetts does in his

amendment, that under no circumstances ought retaliation to be adopted. I cannot go to that

extent.

Mr. SUMNER. If the Senator refers to me, I have not said that.

Mr. HENDERSON. I understand that the amendment of the Senator goes to that extent; that is, if the conduct of the rebel authorities be of a very aggravated nature, if it be barba

rous

Mr. SUMNER. My proposition is that there can be no imitation on our part of rebel barbarism in the treatment of prisoners.

Mr. HENDERSON. Then the question arises, what is barbarity? I would not be willing, any more than the Senator from Massachusetts, to starve a prisoner to death; the fact is that it is perfectly revolting to me. Nor if, in the language of this resolution, the rebel authorities give to our prisoners food that is not wholesome, and thereby cause their deaths, would I under any circumstances whatever adopt a policy of that sort. But I cannot pretend to say that retaliation of some other character, much more effectual than that, and not disgracing us in the eyes of the civilized world, might not be adopted which would accomplish all the ends that we desire.

Now, Mr. President, what is this resolution? I must confess that I was somewhat astonished at the introduction of it. The resolution declares that it is a fact known to Congress, that the knowledge has come to us, that these things have occurred; that our prisoners "have been subjected to treatment unexampled for cruelty in the history of civilized war;" and that "its parallels" are only to be found in the conduct of savage tribes;" that our prisoners have been starved to death and assassinated; and the proposition is made, not that we retaliate in some way which will accomplish the end, but that we retaliate in the same manner, retaliate with a conduct and a treatment similar in quantity and style to the conduct of the rebels themselves.

Mr. BROWN. If my colleague will give way to me for a moment, I desire to say that I think he misapprehends the purport of the resolution in one point. I think, if he will peruse it again, he will find that such is the case. The resolution, as I understand it, and I was a member of the committee which reported it, does not propose that we shall proceed to-day and retaliate in kind for every barbarity that has been inflicted upon those of our soldiers who have been taken prisoners, but it does propose that we shall take a number of their prisoners now in our hands, and, after making inquiry, subject them to treatment similar to that which is persisted in against our own men. It is a resolution looking to future action, to be regulated by future action on their part as well as our part; and that is the intent and that is the meaning of retaliation, as used in the law of nations and as used between belligerents; that the same cup shall be commended to their lips which they commend to ours, and for the reason that they can best appreciate then any inhumanity that may exist in it. I think that was the intention of the committee, and I trust they have so expressed it in their resolution.

Mr. HENDERSON. I have no doubt, from my colleague's statement, that he is correct in reference to the intention of the Military Committee; but I think, on examination of the resolution itself as presented by that committee, he will find that I am correct in the construction I give it. Icertainly cannot mistake the proper construction of the resolution. It asserts that certain treatment has been bestowed on our prisoners of war, and "that in the judgment of Congress it has become justifiable and necessary that the President should, in order to prevent the continuance and recurrence of such barbarities, and to insure the observance by the insurgents of the laws of civilized war, resort at once to measures of retaliation; that in our opinion such retaliation ought to be inflicted upon the insurgent officers now in our hands, or hereafter to fall into our hands as prisoners; that such officers ought to be subjected to like treatment practiced toward our officers or soldiers in the hands of the insurgents, in respect to quantity and quality of food, clothing, fuel, medicine, medical attendance, personal exposure, or other mode of dealing with them; that, with a view to the same ends, the insurgent prisoners in

our hands ought to be placed under the control and in the keeping of officers and men who have themselves been prisoners in the hands of the insurgents, and have thus acquired a knowledge of their mode of treating Union prisoners; that explicit instructions ought to be given to the forces having the charge of such insurgent prisoners, requiring them to carry out strictly and promptly the principles of this resolution in every case, until the President, having received satisfactory information of the abandonment by the insurgents of such barbarous practices, shall revoke or modify said instructions."

Mr. BROWN. Those last words explain the whole resolution, showing that it is to cease at the moment of the abandonment of the same course on their part. It is to be parallel with it. Mr. HENDERSON. But I will call my colleague's attention to the fact that it is stated in the preamble to the resolution, that

Mr. BROWN. The preamble is no part of the resolution; it is a simple declaration of fact.

Mr. HENDERSON. It merely explains the circumstances on which the resolution is based. Now, what is that preamble? It is not stated in the preamble that it is believed by Congress that such is the fact. I only refer to the preamble as explanatory of the resolution; and it declares that it has positively come to the knowledge of Congress that such is the fact, and then it is said that now the prisoners in our hands ought to be subjected to this treatment until the rebels cease their treatment. Then this is to be done at once; we are right at once to commence this treatment because their treatment is going on, as we are told by the preamble, at the present time, and it becomes our duty, if we retaliate at all, to retaliate at once, until (and we are only to cease the retaliation when) the rebels themselves cease this busi

ness.

Now, Mr. President, let me call the attention of my colleague to the consequences of the principle he has stated. My colleague insists that the very same treatment should be accorded to the prisoners in our hands that they accord to the prisoners in theirs. He and I agree upon the policy of putting negro troops in the Army, and we have ever agreed upon the proposition that these negro troops ought to be exchanged, and that they ought to be exchanged for white men whom we may capture from the enemy. Now I believe as verily as I believe any statement made in this preamble, that the confederate authorities have on some occasions sold into slavery negrocs captured from our Army. The resolution is that the same treatment ought to be accorded to those prisoners whom we capture from the rebels as they accord to ours. Let me ask my colleague if he would be in favor of taking an equal number of prisoners of the southern States and putting them upon the block and selling them to the highest bidder.

Mr. BROWN. I will answer my colleague very frankly and say that I would not, and I do not conceive that in making that answer I involve myself in any contradiction at all. I stated, not that we should in all cases apply the same modes of retaliation, but I stated that the law of retaliation justified the application, as far as might be necessary of the extremest modes in order to correct any such punishments inflicted on our own prisoners. How far I might deem any particular mode desirable; how far I might deem one thing more advantageous than another, is a question of judgment, upon which I should expect to exercise my judgment. I simply assert that the law of retaliation as practiced by all nations has justified extreme measures, even to the taking away of life for the purpose of preventing inhumanity to the prisoners that are in the hands of the enemy.

Mr. HENDERSON. My colleague has given the answer that I knew he would give to my question; and it only requires that the enormity of this proposition shall be fairly presented, in order to satisfy every Christian gentleman in this body that the resolution itself will not do. I will not disagree with my colleague in regard to retaliation in some cases; and, in fact, he and myself know perfectly well that retaliation as retaliation has frequently been necessary in the State of Missouri. I will give instances. The rebels scize upon prominent citizens, Union men, in a certain neighborhood, and we fear that their lives will be taken. How do we prevent it? What

sort of retaliation do we resort to? We seizewe have done it repeatedly there--an equal number of prominent men who belong to the other side of the question, and notify the rebel officers that if any harm comes to the men whom they have arrested, punishment of an equal character will be visited upon those whom we have taken. Then it is a question afterward whether we shall carry out the threat thus made, or not. It is a question to be determined after we have seen the conduct of the rebel authorities toward those whom they have arrested. It frequently, I know generally, results in the turning loose of those men who have been arrested. Therefore, as my colleague has properly said, it will not do to declare that under no circumstances will we resort to retaliation.

But he says that we may retaliate properly under the laws of nations, even to the taking of life. It seems to me that this resolution does retaliate to the taking of life. What does it propose? It says that we know perfectly, we are perfectly satisfied already, that the rebels have administered to our men food of a poisonous character, and that thereby they have died; that we know perfectly well that they have assassinated them in cold blood, and we must turn round and do the same thing; that we know perfectly well that they have exposed them to the inclemency of the weather, and thereby caused their deaths; and we must do the same thing. Mr. President, that is not retaliation. It seems to me that it is revenge. If my colleague will insist that it is right to retaliate even unto death, I say to him with all candor it would be infinitely better to take fifteen or twenty or a hundred rebel prisoners and have them shot down by a squad of soldiers, than to subject them to treatment of this character.

Again, Mr. President, I cannot give my sanction to a resolution of this sort, because I am not willing to have such a resolution go forth stamping the character of this great nation. This resolution says that the rebels have starved our soldiers who were prisoners in their hands, and therefore we will slowly starve theirs who are in our control. What is that for? Is it to prevent the same treatment in the future, or is it mere revenge? If it be revenge, all will agree that it ought not to be resorted to. There was a code of morals laid down many years ago, which I believe individuals as well as nations may safely, under all circumstances, obey; and in that code of morals I remember it is said, "Recompense to no man evil for evil." I remember further that in that code it is said, "Therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink." Is this in accordance with the resolution we are considering? I think not. I think we are told in this resolution that the enemy whom we have under our control is not to be treated in accordance with the divine command; but that because the rebels have starved somebody else this enemy is to be starved.

Mr. BROWN. I would inquire of my colleague whether he carries his doctrine to the extent of a condition of war, and whether he would advise General Grant and his army to present the other cheek to be smit when one cheek has been smitten?

Mr. HENDERSON, Mr. President, I certainly would not. I am speaking of a very dif ferent thing. I say that he who is assaulted has a perfect right to defend himself. That is a principle which I do not think the Bible ever denied. I know perfectly well that it is in accordance with the divine command, and in accordance with our own nature. This war has been brought against us, and it is our duty to defend ourselves; but I submitted the question whether it was in a spirit of revenge or really for the purpose of preventing the outrages complained of, that it is proposed to resort to the principles laid down in this resolution; and I am arguing against it upon the idea that it is revenge, and cannot be anything else. How will it accomplish anything? How is it to accomplish anything? Do we, by it, do anything else than disgrace ourselves in the eyes of the civilized world? I think not. Can we not make retaliation more terrible and effective than by thus disgracing ourselves? If the loss of life is necessary, is it not better to take these men out and shoot them? Is it not better to shoot ten or fifteen than thus to starve one to death? In the name of God, I do not wish to resort to any slow process of

punishment of this character, because, I say, it is of the very essence of revenge. You can only finally accomplish the death of the man. Then why not accomplish it speedily? Why kill him by inches? Is not that revenge? I have quoted from the good Book in order to show that under no circumstances can we resort to revenge.

My colleague will not differ with me, I suppose, upon the subject of duty, even though we may differ upon this question. This resolution says that whereas the rebels have done certain things to us which are evil, we must do likewise. I think that in that code of morals to which I have referred we are taught this doctrine: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." I do not suppose that my colleague will dispute the authority of this duty by any means, and I say that, generally followed, it is safest for nations and safest for individuals. It is not our duty under the circumstances to do as others do. That is not the proper plan; it accomplishes nothing. The best idea in regard to this matter, in my judgment, is to do what we regard to be our duty, that which is right in the eyes of all men; and what is that? I say that under some circumstances retaliation may be resorted to, but not that cruel and barbarous retaliation which would merely bring disgrace and odium upon our own country.

Mr. President, I desire to state another considcration. I do not believe that the soldiers of this country generally, if these rebel prisoners were placed in their hands, would be disposed, or that you could compel them to adopt a course of policy such as is indicated in this resolution. I know too much of the soldiers of this country, their magnanimity, their generosity, their spirit, and feelings of mercy, to believe that they would adopt any such course of policy. If retaliation is to be resorted to, let it be resorted to in such manner as will take the life of the individual at

once.

History records that in 1793 or 1794 the Committee of Public Safety at Paris, they themselves being perfectly secure in that city, adopted a resolution making it obligatory upon the French soldiers then in the army to shoot every English prisoner the moment he was captured. A short time after the battle of Fleures, under Pitchegru, some English soldiers were brought in captives before the commanding officer, and the question was propounded to the lieutenant who brought them in why he brought those English prisoners there. "Why did you not shoot them?" was asked. He said that his refusing to do so saved just so much powder and ball. "But," said the officer, "the committee of public safety have demanded at our hands that this thing be done, and I tell you that it must be done." The lieutenant promptly answered, "It is not we that will commit this deed; but send them to the Committee of Public Safety at Paris, and if they desire to shoot them they can do so, and eat them too; but I will not do it." The soldiers of the French revolution refused to carry out any such barbarous decree; it was never done by them under any circumstances; and I undertake to say that in consequence of that action of theirs much was gained for the humanity of the French nation, and much perhaps of the success that afterward crowned their arms was due to it. I have no question of that.

While upon this subject, Mr. President, I may refer to the matter of the exchange of prisoners, which is also embraced in the amendment which I propose to offer. I do not desire to reflect on the War Department, because perhaps the War Department has done all within its power to release our prisoners and ameliorate their condi tion; but it seems to me that it is high time the Congress of the United States should look into the matter. According to reports, there are some fifty or fifty-five thousand soldiers of ours who are prisoners in southern prisons. What has been of late years the course of civilized nations in relation to prisoners taken in battle? Has it not been immediately to exchange or parole them? It unquestionably has been. I know that the English Government, in the war of the Revolu tion, said that prisoners could not be exchanged with rebels; but the British authorities soon got over that. They found that it was necessary to make exchanges. Why not let us come up boldly to the proposition, and make these exchanges at

throw of our Government. They are attempting to divide and segregate. What are we attempting to do? We are attempting to reunite. After we have reunited this country what do we want? We want the same feeling that once animated the nation. We want the causes of this rebellion removed. What are they? We say slavery is the cause. Let it be removed. Let us insist upon that in any reconstruction that may take place. I agree most heartily to that; but when that is done what else is to be done? Let us bring about a cordial reunion; let us bring about the union of hearts, the union of hands; and let us, if possible pursue such a course that when the present exigency has passed, we shall not be ashamed of what we have done in the eyes of the world, and so that there shall be nothing to which "the slow unmoving finger of scorn" can be pointed in the future. Let us resort to no measure that will lead the rebels hereafter to point to our conduct in this war with reproach. Let us be superior to them. Sir, they love their own rebels and they mistreat our men. If we mistreat rebels and love our own men, how much better are we than they?"Do not even publicans the same ?" Sir, we must not only love the neighbor, but as far as consistent we must love the enemy. Such a command is upon

us.

It is said you shall not be hearers only but you must be doers of these commands that are put upon you. He who heareth these things and doeth them not, we are told, is like the foolish man who built upon the sand, and the rains fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and the house fell, and great was the fall. Mr. President, I believe, as I have ever believed, that the true code of morals is the proper one to be followed. It is to do unto others as you would that others should do unto you. How would you have your prisoners treated in southern pens? Would you have them treated with kindness? If so, shall you not treat their prisoners in your hands with kindness? You are not commanded to do as others do, but you are commanded to do as you would that others should do unto you. It is not for me to determine how far these great rules of morality may be violated under circumstances of this sort, but I am satisfied that, so far as we can consistently with our own existence as a nation, and consistently with our own salvation in the present emergency, we ought to cling to them.

But, Mr. President, we are told by gentlemen that if we do not resort to this course of policy, the rebels will continue their inhuman treatment of our soldiers who fall into their hands as prisoners. I think we are told that the most effectual way of heaping coals of fire on the head of your enemy, is to feed him, and to give him drink when he thirsts. But it is said that if we do not resort to this policy our men will continue to die in southern prisons. Sir, I do not propose in my amendment to let them inflict these punishments with impunity. Let us send there and see what course of conduct is being pursued. When we ascertain that, or when they refuse to receive our commissioners so sent, my proposition is:

If the insurgents shall refuse such authority to the commissioners, or having granted it, the said commissioners shall find that our prisoners are being subjected to the wantonly barbarous and cruel treatment which we have reason to believe has heretofore been practiced by the insurgentsa treatment so shocking to the impulses of humanity and so disgraceful to the civilization of the age-it is the opinion of Congress that, however repugnant it may be to the feelings of a Christian people, the President should adopt such stringent measures of retaliation, consistent with the rules of civilized warfare, and not derogatory to the national honor, as will effectually put an end to such conduct in the future, and secure to our prisoners the treatment due to them at the hands of a people claiming to be civilized.

to pay for them. Why can we not do the same thing again? Is it not amelioration that we are seeking? Unquestionably, if these prisoners must remain prisoners of war during the remainder of the war, however long it may last-I hope to God the war will soon have a close; but if they are to remain for a year, or two or three years longer, why shall we not adopt some measures to look into their true condition and to make it better if we can? Can we do anything toward it? When they suffered for clothing a short time ago, we made arrangements by which clothing could be furnished on both sides. Is it not strictly in accordance with humanity, is it not in accordance with the better impulses of a noble nature, that we shall again resort to the same means?

I am perfectly willing that their agents shall come here and examine the prisons. I can state to the Senator from Delaware that they will find, when they come, that their prisoners are treated with humanity everywhere. I have not any question about that. The prisoners of war in our hands have been treated with humanity. There may be cases of civil prisoners, political prisoners, in which the treatment was not proper. 1 am inclined to think so, from what I have understood; I cannot say that such is the fact; but I have never heard any complaint in regard to the treatment of the prisoners of war which we hold in our charge from the confederates. Then let them come, and let them report. I have no objection to it whatever. If the prisoners are to be retained during this bloody strife for a year, or even six months to come, let us ameliorate their condition in every way that we possibly can.

Then, sir, I desire that the second resolution which I have submitted shall also be adopted, in these words:

That the President is hereby earnestly requested to urge a speedy exchange of all our prisoners, white and black, now held by the insurgents.

I say nothing about the cartel adopted. We have already a plan adopted for the exchange of prisoners, the same that existed between Great Britain and our country in 1812. Let us resort to that. We have already agreed upon it. I say nothing about the mode and manner of exchange, because that has been agreed upon between the two parties.

Mr. President, if this course of policy be adopted I have no doubt but that the condition of our prisoners in the southern prisons will be better to a very great degree, and that cruelty which has existed heretofore will die away under this threat of retaliation; and I wish to make no threat of retaliation except such as may be adopted in strict accordance with the principles of civilized warfare, and which will not in any manner disgrace the civilization of our country. I wish none other adopted, and if we hold out none other we neither disgrace ourselves nor foreign nations, nor shall we hereafter look with regret upon our own conduct, but we shall have accomplished the end that we have in view; we shall better the condition of our prisoners, and save them the miserable deaths which they are dying in southern prisons. Therefore, sir, when the proper time arrives, I shall offer the amendment submitted by me a few days ago, and I hope that the Senate will consider it favorably. I think it accomplishes all the purposes that we desire.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, as a member of the committee which reported this joint resolution I feel desirous of presenting some of the reasons that operated upon us in submitting it to the Senate, and also of indicating what was understood, at least by myself, and I believe by others of the committee, to be the true intent and mean

Mr. SAULSBURY. Will the Senator allowing of the resolution itself. me to ask him a question?

Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly.

Mr. SAULSBURY. I ask the Senator whether he will so modify his amendment as to grant to the confederates the same privilege to send commissioners or agents to inspect the prisons here and see how their prisoners are treated?

Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly. If I am not mistaken, it was very recently the case that, on complaints being made by both sides, confederate officers were released here and Federal officers were released in the South, and the confederate officers went to New York and purchased blankets to be given to their prisoners in our hands, and cotton was brought from the South in order

The preamble of the resolution recites a condition of facts. It tells of the cruel treatment that our prisoners have received at the hands of the enemy. It specifies the atrocities that have been perpetrated upon those who have surrendered, and details what I venture to say is the common understanding of the country at large, the modes and manner of dealing with our prisoners by the enemy in the South. It is said by Senators that we have no technical evidence before us of these facts. That was not the view of the committee. They considered that there was evidence before them in the reports made by other committees of this body, one of which I hold in my hand. I refer to the report of the committee on the con

duct of the war, in which the horrors of the Fort Pillow massacre and other matters connected with the condition and treatment of our prisoners are detailed at great length and substantiated by evidences. I think I shall be borne out fully in the remark when I say that that report, of which the Senate has ordered twenty thousand additional copies to be printed, will confirm every allegation made in the preamble to this resolution. 1, therefore, feel that if there were nothing to rest its declarations upon other than the reports which we have before this body, they would be fully and fairly borne out; but in addition to that, I assert that we have the right, standing here and legislating for the country, to recognize and accept and act upon those common convictions which are the common property of the community, and which are as well known, evidenced by all the accepted modes of proof used among men, as could possibly be the fact that daylight is here present with us now.

Nobody can successfully call in question the fact that atrocities of the kind cited have been systematically perpetrated. The history of this whole war shows it. The reports of our generals declare it. The anguished narratives of our returned prisoners establish it. The common cry of the country proceeding from so many sources demonstrates it in a manner that we cannot longer doubt. Therefore I think that the quibble (if I may so term it) which has been raised against the report of the committee, that there was not evidence in official form before us of the exact condition and treatment of our soldiers in southern prisons, is unworthy of the occasion and not entitled to the weight which some Senators are inclined to give it. It was in that belief upon the grounds of evidence set forth that the committee proceeded to recommend that retaliation should be adopted. Such was their judgment-a deliberate judgment, too, arrived at in full view of the past, in full view of the future, and in full view of the appliances which had heretofore been used without success to alleviate this cruel wrong, and with these recognitions they concluded to recommend to the Senate this last resort of retaliation as the only mode left of getting justice and mercy out of the confederate authorities in this matter of the treatment of our prisoners.

It has been said by a Senator that retaliation is repudiated by all civilized nations. I deny the proposition. I do not believe there is any principle better recognized throughout the law of nations than that belligerents have the right to resort to retaliation of the extremest character, even to the taking away of life for the purpose of protecting their own soldiers who may fall into the hands of the enemy. I do not think that the proposition can be controverted with any show of authority from the books. I certainly have heard no authority here stated which comes in conflict with that doctrine, and I therefore cannot understand the bearing of the argument of the Senator from Pennsylvania touching the law of nations, failing as he did to show wherein it limited the modes of retaliations. On the contrary, I believe that it is fully recognized; and I state further that it has not only been commonly recognized, but that it has likewise been practiced in every war that has ever taken place in which any such cruelties have been initiated on the one side or the other. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] yesterday cited a letter which was republished a few days ago in the Boston Advertiser, I believe, from General Washington during our revolutionary war. He cited it to sustain his argument. I submit whether the letter does not overthrow his argument, which was against the whole policy of retaliation. The letter is by General Washington in reply to General Gage, in regard to the treatment which our prisoners had received at his hands. I will read it:

HEADQUARTERS, CAMBRIDGE, August 11, 1775. SIR: I understand that the officers engaged in the cause of liberty and their country, who by the fortune of war have fallen into your hands, have been thrown indiscriminately into a common jail, appropriated for felons; that no consideration has been had for those of the most respectable rank, when languishing with wounds and sickness; that some of them have been even amputated in this unworthy situation.

Let your opinion, sir, of the principle which actuates them be what it may, they suppose they act from the noblest of all principles, a love of freedom and their country. But political opinions, I conceive, are foreign to this point. The obligations arising from the rights of humanity, and

elaims of rank, are universally binding and extensive, (exeept in case of retaliation.) These, I should have hoped, would have dictated a more tender treatment of those individuals whom chance of war had put in your power.

Nor can I forbear suggesting its fatal tendency to widen that unhappy breach which you, and those ministers under whom you act, have repeatedly declared you wish to see forever closed.

My duty now makes it necessary to apprise you that for the future I shall regulate my conduct toward those gentlemen who are, or may be, in our possession, exactly by the rule you shall observe toward those of ours now in your custody.

If severity and hardship mark the line of your conduct, (painful as it may be to me,) your prisoners will feel its effects; but if kindness and humanity are shown to ours, I shall with pleasure consider those in our hands only as unfortunate, and they shall receive from me that treatment to which the unfortunate are ever entitled.

I beg to be favored with an answer as soon as possible, and am, sir, your very humble servant, G. WASHINGTON.

The letter is specific and emphatic, that he will retaliate, and retaliate precisely in the same manner in which punishment is inflicted upon his soldiers, prisoners in the hands of the enemy. There is no equivocation about the language. It is a full and original notification that hereafter he will treat their prisoners precisely as his prisoners are treated, and there is no limitation as to the treatment, or to the manner of that retaliation. I say, therefore, that so far as the practice during our revolutionary war is concerned, it fully bears out the statement that retaliation was there adopted as an extreme measure to extort from the enemy humane treatment; and I may add that it was a successful measure; it attained the object that was designed.

But I desire to call the attention of Senators to the further fact that the doctrine of retaliation has been recognized and has been applied by the Government of the United States and its officers in the present war; that it has been resorted to time and again in numerous isolated instances; and that in every instance in which it has been resorted to it has been successful in accomplishing its end.

Senators need scarcely to be reminded by the fact that when our prisoners at Charleston were taken and placed in front of the breast works of the enemy, and we were told that if we fired we should fire upon our own men, an equal number of theirs were taken and they were notified that the like treatment would be enforced against them; and the result of it was that the practice was promptly discontinued and our prisoners were removed to a secure position.

Nor can they fail to remember the further fact that when in the construction of a redoubt down near Richmond some of our soldiers held as prisoners were placed in front of the earthworks by the enemy while they were at work, and we were notified that we should have to shoot through them if we made any attack, immediately some of theirs were taken and placed in the Dutch Gap canal as a matter of strict retaliation, and it at once brought the rebels to a sense of their inhumanity, and our prisoners were removed.

Again, let me cite to Senators the further fact that when, owing to some transactions which occurred in New Orleans, it was stated by the rebel authorities that some of our prisoners would be executed in return and they were set apart for that purpose, on the other hand, a relative, I believe, of the rebel General Lee, held as a prisoner of war was set apart on ours, and they were notified that execution by them would be followed by retaliation in kind, and that that also accomplished its end, and they desisted from their threat.

There, sir, are three direct and specific illustrations of the application of the principle of retaliation during this war, in each of which it has served the purpose for which it was designed; and yet are we to be told that retaliation is inhuman? Was it inhuman to save the lives of our men by that mode? Did that result in redoubling murder, in making barbarians of us, or did it result in saving life, and in elevating the humanities of this war?

I

The committee, I need scarcely say to the Senate, were actuated by no motives of revenge. will not do injustice to any Senator on this floor by assuming that any such bad passion reigns in his bosom; and I certainly would not do injustice to any committee of this body by assuming that so evil a spirit could influence their deliberations. I say, therefore, that the committee when taking this matter in hand were actuated simply and solely by the one object, the relief of our gallant soldiers who are now suffering in the pris

ons of the South, and upon whom these cruelties are being systematically practiced. They believed that all other means had been resorted to; they believed that the Executive Government of the country, with the power and with the disposition to use all its appliances to obviate their sufferings, had not been unfaithful to its trust, had not utterly neglected that great matter, but had made its endeavors, had filed its protests and appeals, had sent its representations through its commissioners of exchange and otherwise, and had failed in impressing upon the enemy a sense of the horrid barbarity that had been practiced toward us; and they believed that the time had come when, if we were to be true to those who had fought so nobly for us, and who were languishing in the South under these inflictions, we must come to sterner measures, and notify them that a change must take place, or retaliation would be surely and sternly inflicted. The committee in that view of the case believed likewise, not that retaliation would result in redoubling, as some Senators seem to think, these horrors of starvation and multiplying the muster rolls of death; but in their calm and deliberate judgment they felt assured that it would result in terminating them entirely. It was for the purpose of putting an end to these barbarities, and not for the purpose of enhancing them, that they recommended the joint resolution now before the Senate.

Sir, I believe that all the evidences we have upon this subject of retaliation, both in the present and in the past, justify us in assuming that, however insensible the enemy may be to the cruelties they practice upon our soldiers, yet, when that cup is commended to their lips, they will understand how bitter it is as practiced against their own officers. I feel persuaded that if we cannot through any appeal to their humanity, if we cannot through any reference to the moral sense of the civilized world, convince them that this course is inhuman, we can convince them when we apply it to their own relatives. They will then know what it is. They will then understand how bitter, how atrocious is such treatment; they will see it brought on by their own conduct; they will recognize the policy as determined, and they will desist. That is the animus of this joint resolution, and I should do very poor justice to the committee if I had not set forth in their behalf that their presentation of it was founded upon the thorough and exclusive conviction that the adoption of measures of retaliation would result in terminating this state of affairs, and that milder measures of negotiation, viewed in the light of past transactions, held out no assurance of any such success-no probability of any speedy relief.

I do not desire to prolong this discussion, but felt impelled to make that statement in behalf of the committee of which I was a member. I was not charged with the conduct of this measure before this body, but as a member of the committee myself, and being somewhat conversant with the views which were presented in support of the resolution, I felt it due that this statement should be made.

Now, as to the language of the resolution

Mr. HENDERSON. If my colleague will permit me, before he proceeds any further, I desire to inquire whether he alludes to any remark made by me as charging the committee with deliberating in a spirit of revenge? I did not intend to make any such charge, neither against the gentleman nor against the committee. I simply gave the construction which I thought the resolution would bear. I have no idea that any member of the committee desires to carry out against the enemy, or against anybody, a spirit of revenge. I merely desired to state that I thought such a construction could be given to the resolution, and that such a construction would be likely to be given to it in the eyes of the civilized world.

Mr. BROWN. I did not intend to impute such an intent to the Senator at all. It was in response to a remark that fell from some one else, I forget now whom, that the disclaimer was made.

Mr. President, I differ from some Senators who have preceded me in regard to the construction which should be placed upon this resolution. I think that the language, when read carefully and read in connection, shows that the whole of the resolution is prospective; that while it is predicated upon a state of facts that still exist, and which calls for retaliation, it does not necessarily

imply that that retaliation shall be, instance for instance, case for case, the present for the past; but, on the contrary, it is intended to apply to the future, to go into effect now, and to have its efficacy in the hereafter, and to terminate this treatment of our prisoners. It implies notice, necessarily, to the enemy, and thereby gives them opportunity in advance to avoid retaliation by practicing humanity. If the language of the committee is defective in that respect, I am not at all wedded to it, and shall be very glad to see it corrected so as to correspond with the evident intent and meaning which a connected reading carries along with it. In proof of this, I will call attention to the last clause of the resolution, which says:

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 a resort to them as demanded by the occasion.

That is the concluding sentence, and serves as a key-note to the whole context. It shows that the evident intent was that the principle should be asserted and should be applied, and that the President, as the Executive Officer of the Government, charged with its execution, was not to be understood as being limited in his action by any suggestions which might be contained in the body of that resolution. I think that language is sufficient to take it out of the exception which has been taken against it by several Senators. At all events, I say that such was the design; and if it has not been satisfactorily set forth, I will be glad if it shall be perfected so as to do so more explicitly.

One point, however, deserves a passing allusion here. The only detail in which the application of this doctrine of retaliation is suggested, is in regard to food, diet, medical attendance, &c., to be graduated toward their prisoners by the same scale applied to our prisoners. It was believed by the committee that the suggestion thrown out presented the most decisive mode of arriving at a true solution of this difficulty. It was felt that there could be no better criterion, no better mode of bringing the rebel authorities to a sense of what they were practicing themselves, than by this specific manner of retaliating in kind, which is here suggested. It would array their inhumanity on our side, and make it speak trumpettongued to their hearts, appealing to them to desist from such practices; not alone against our soldiers, but against their soldiers.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Foot in the chair.) Will the Senator suspend his remarks to receive a message from the House of Representatives?

Mr. BROWN. Certainly.

DEFICIENCY BILL.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had receded from its disagreement to the amendment numbered one, two, six, seven, and eight of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 620) to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1865, and adhered to its disagreement to the fourth amendment of the Senate.

Mr. CLARK. I ask the indulgence of the Senate to make a report from the committee of conference on that bill, in order to dispose of it.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report; which was read, as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments to the bill of the House (H. R. No. 620) to supply the deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1865, having met, after full and free conference, have been unable to agree.

DANIEL CLARK,

LYMAN TRUMBÜLL,
LAZARUS W. POWELL,

Managers on the part of the Senate.

R. C. SCHENCK,

D. W. C. LITTLEJOIN,

S. J. RANDALL,

Managers on the part of the House.

Mr. CLARK. I move that the Senate adhere to their amendment to the bill, and on that question I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. CLARK. I will state to the Senate what the amendment is, so that the question will be intelligibly before the Senate. There were six or