dragoon beat my father because he was unable to get a bottle of claret in our whole village, and I then swore that if I ever got to France I would beat a Frenchman for not getting me a bottle of weiss bier. Am I not right?" This was a case of retaliation in kind, and retrospective in its operation, like that of the original resolution.

But much as the original resolution has been changed, so that it no longer requires retaliation in kind, I think it might be changed still further. It is not enough on such an occasion, and especially after the avowals which have been made in this Chamber, to say that retaliation shall be according to the principles of public law. Montesquieu, in his Spirit of Laws, (book 1, chap. 3,) has shown us the uncertainty of this language. These are his words:

"Every nation has a law of nations; even the Iroquois, who eat their prisoners. They send and receive embassadors; they know the laws of war and peace. The evil is that their law of nations is not founded on true principles."

The resolution, therefore, for the sake of certainty, and to give double assurance that humanity shall not suffer, ought to be still further amended by limiting the retaliation to the usages of civilized society. This amendment becomes the more needful since Senators have argued that by the principles of public law the intolerable cruelties of the rebellion might be retaliated.

I desire to repeat my unalterable conviction that these cruelties cannot be retaliated in kind. And here I venture to call attention to the opinions of an illustrious citizen who was recently removed from the duties of this world. I refer to the late Edward Everett, who, in a speech at Faneuil Hall only a few days before his lamented death, thus testifies in what may be called his dying words:

"I believe that the best way in which we can retaliate upon the South for the cruel treatment of our prisoners, is for us to continue to treat their prisoners with entire humanity and all reasonable kindness; and not only so, but to seize every opportunity like the present to go beyond this. "Indeed, it is no more than our duty to treat the prisoner well. The law of nations requires it. The Government that refuses or neglects it does not deserve the name of civilized. Even inability is no justification. If you are yourself so exhausted that you cannot supply your prisoner with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food, you are bound, with or without exchange, to set him free. You have no more right to starve than to poison him. It will, however, be borne in mind that while the hard fare of our prisoners is defended by the southern leaders, on the ground that it is as good as that of their own soldiers, at the same time they maintain that their harvests are abundant and their armics well fed. There is no merit in treating a prisoner with common humanity; it is simply infamous and wicked to treat him otherwise."

You will observe, if you please, how positively the opinion is expressed on the limits of retaliation. And here it is proper to remark that Mr. Everett was not only a patriot, who, in the latter trials of the Republic, had devoted himself ably, purely, and successfully to the vindication and advancement of the national cause, but he was a publicist who had studied profoundly the law of nations. Few persons in our history have understood it better. His last labors were devoted to this important subject. At the time of his death he was preparing a course of lectures upon it. Therefore, when, in the name of the law of nations, he speaks against any imitation of rebel barbarism, it is with the voice of authority-an authority now, alas! echoed from the tomb.

From one eminent publicist I pass to another. On a former occasion I took the liberty of introducing a familiar letter on this question from Professor Lieber, once of South Carolina, now of New York. The Senator from Michigan, not content with attempting an answer to the learned professor, proceeded to use language with regard to him which I am sure his careful judgment cannot approve. Professor Lieber can need no praise from me as a practical writer and thinker on questions of international law. It was on account of his acknowledged fitness as a master of this science that he was selected as the commissioner to prepare the instructions for the armies of the United States, constituting a most important chapter of international law. Those instructions are the evidence of his ability and judgment. So long as they are followed by our Government, it will be difficult for the Senator, learned as he unquestionably is, to impeach their distinguished author. There is no Senator, not excepting the Senator from Michigan, who might not be proud to point to such a monument of fame. But he is no mere theorist. It was on the field of battle, where

as a youthful soldier he was left for dead, that he began his practical acquaintance with these laws of war which he has done so much to expound.

And now let me read a commentary on the law of retaliation by this authority. I quote from an article which has already appeared in the New York Times:

"No mawkish sentimentality has induced the writer to express his views. He has had dear friends in those southern pens, which have become the very symbols of revolting barbarity, but he desires, for this very reason, that the subject be weighed without passion, which never counsels well; especially without the passion of mere vengeance. Let us bring down this general call for retaliation to praetical and detailed measures. It is supposed, then, that retaliation is resolved upon; what next? The order is given to harass, starve, expose, and torture, say twenty thousand prisoners in our hands until their bones pierce the skin, and they die idiots in their filth. Why should things be demanded which every one knows the northern man is incapable of doing?

"If, however, by retaliation be meant that captured rebels in our hands should be cut off from the pleasant comforts of life which northerners subservient to the South love to extend to them, then, indeed, we fully agree. This treasonable over-kindness ought never to have been permitted. It has had the worst effect on the arrogance of our enemy, but prohibiting it is not and cannot be called retaliation." "Let us not be driven from the position of manly calmness and moral dignity; and let us, on the other hand, be stern, so stern that our severity shall impress the prisoners that they are such. But let us not follow rebel examples. It is too sickening, too vile."

Such is the testimony of Francis Lieber in entire but unconscious harmony with the testimony of Edward Everett. As authority nothing further can be desired. And yet the question is still debated, and grave Senators take counsel of their feelings rather than of the law.

The earnestness which has characterized this discussion attests the interest of the question, and the interest here is only a reflection of the interest throughout the country. When you speak of our brave officers and soldiers suffering, languishing, pining, dying in rebel prisons, you touch a chord which vibrates in every patriot bosom. He must be cold, sluggish, and inhuman, who is not moved to every possible effort for their redemption.

I am happy to see that the Secretary of War has not been insensible to this commanding duty. Here is an extract from a communication which he sent to the House of Representatives under date of January 21:

but language failed him. After speaking of their "immeasurable criminality" and "the horrors of these scenes," which he said were "absolutely indescribable,' ," he proceeded to ask that we should do these same things; that we should take the lives of prisoners, even by freezing and starvation, or turn them into living skeletons-by act of Congress.

Sir, the law of retaliation, which he invokes, has its limits, and these are found in the laws of civilized society. Admit the law of retaliation; but you cannot escape from its circumscription. As well undertake to escape from the planet on which we live. What civilization forbids cannot be done. Your enemy may be barbarous and cruel, but you cannot be barbarous and cruel. The rule is clear and unquestionable. Perhaps the true principle of law on this precise question was never better expressed than by one of our masters, Shakspeare, jurist as well as poct, when he makes Macbeth exclaim

"I dare do all that may become a man;
Who dares do more is none."

So with us now. We are permitted to do all that
may become a man; but nothing more.
But surely nobody will argue that the "bar-
harities of Andersonville" and all those torments
which we deplore can become a man. As well
might we undertake, by way of retaliation, to
revive the boot and thumb-screw of the Inquisi-
tion, the fires of Smithfield, " Luke's iron crown
and Damien's bed of steel," or to repeat that ex-
ecrable crime which is pictured by Dante in one
of his most admired passages, where Ugolino and
his children were shut up in a tower, without food
or water, and left to die slowly, cruelly, wickedly,
by starvation:

"Thou modern Thebes! what though, as fame hath said Count Ugolino did thy forts betray

His sons deserved not punishment so dread." Thanks to the immortal poet who has blasted forever this sickening enormity, and rendered itsėmitation impossible. Thanks to that mighty voice which has given new sanction to the mandate of public law. And yet in this terrible case there was retaliation, and the famished victim is revealed as gnawing the skull of his tyrant. But this was not on earth.

It is when we consider precisely the conduct of the rebels, as it has been represented; when we read the stories of their atrocities; when we call to mind the sufferings of our men in their hands; when we gaze on the pictures introduced into this discussion, where art has sought to represent the living skeletons; when the whole scene in all its horror is before us, and our souls are filled with unutterable anguish, that we confess how difficult, how absolutely impossible, it is for us to follow this savage example. And just in proportion as the treatment of our prisoners transcends the usages of civilized society, must the example be rejected. Such is the law which you cannot disobey.

"On the 15th of October the subject of exchanges was placed under the direction of Lieutenant General Grant, with full authority to take any steps he might deem proper to effect the release and exchange of our soldiers and of loyal persons held as prisoners by the rebel authorities. He was instructed that it was the desire of the President that no efforts consistent with national honor should be spared to effect the prompt release of all soldiers and loyal persons in captivity to the rebels as prisoners of war, or on any other grounds, and the subject was committed to him with full authority to act in the premises as he should deem right and proper. Under this authority the subject of exchange has from that time continued in his charge, and such efforts have been made as he deemed proper to obtain the release of our prisoners. An arrangement was made for the supply of our prisoners, the articles to be distributed under the direction of our own officers, paroled for that purpose, and the corresponding privilege was extended to the rebel authorities. In order to afford every facility for relief, special exchanges have been offered whenever desired on behalf of our prisoners. Such exchanges have in a few instances been permitted by the rebel authorities, but in many others they have been denied. A large number of exchanges, including all the sick, has been effected within a recent period. The commissary general of prisoners has been directed to make a detailed report of all the exchanges that have been accomplished since the general exchange ceased. He will furnish it to the House of Rep-nothing by which our country shall forfeit that resentatives as soon as completed. The last communication of General Grant gives reason to believe that a full and complete exchange of all prisoners will speedily be made. It also appears from his statement that weekly supplies are furnished to our prisoners and distributed by officers of our own selection."

Let these instructions be followed, and it is difficult to see what remains to be done. Exchange, retaliation, and every other agency "right and proper," are fully authorized in the discretion of the commanding general. There is nothing in the arsenal of war which he may not employ. What more is needed? But this brings me again to the proposition before the Senate.

The committee, not content with what has been done-distrustful, perhaps, of the commanding general-have proposed that Congress shall instruct the President to enter upon a system of retaliation, where we shall imitate as precisely as possible rebel barbarism, and make our prisons the same scenes of torment which we denounce. Why, sir, to state the case is to answer it. The Senator from Michigan who advocates so eloquently this unprecedented retaliation attempted a description of the torments of the rebel prisons;

Do not, I pray you, consider me indifferent to the condition of those unhappy prisoners. I do not yield to the committee or to any Senator in ardor or anxiety for their protection. Whatever can be done I am ready to do. But, as American citizens, they have an interest that we should do

great place which belongs to it in the vanguard of the nations. It cannot be best for them that our country should do an unworthy thing. It cannot be best for them that our national destiny should be thus darkened. Duties are in proportion to destinics, and from the very heights of our example I argue again that we cannot allow ourselves, under any passing passion or resentment, to stoop to a policy which history must condemn. There is not a patriot soldier who would not say, "Let me suffer, but save my country."

Mr. President, it is with pain that I differ from valued friends on this occasion, whose friendship is among the treasures of my life. But I cannot help it. I cannot do otherwise. It is long since I first raised my voice in this Chamber against the "barbarism of slavery," and I have never ceased to denounce it in season and out of season. But the rebellion is nothing but that very barbarism armed for ballle. Plainly it is our duty to overcome it; not to imitate it. And here I stand.

Mr. HALE. Mr. President, I was pleased and instructed by the reference which the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, who has just

taken his seat, made to the incident he related of Mr. Fox, who said he had got so altered that his oldest creditors would not know him. I think Something like that has occurred to this resolution; but notwithstanding the fact that it has been so altered, and that about everything which was exceptionable in it has been stricken out, still the Senator from Massachusetts cannot see it except as it was before any alteration was made; and the beautiful philippic that he has delivered against "retaliation in kind" is delivered against a kind of resolution that has got nothing of the kind in it, [laughter,] because all that has been stricken out by the motion of the honorable Senator from Ohio.

That is enough on that part of the case; but there is one branch of this subject which has been alluded to by two Senators who have addressed the Senate, one the honorable Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. DAVIS,] in very bold and explicit terms, as he always does-whatever he does say he says plainly and boldly-and the other the honorable Senator from Maryland, [Mr. JOHNSON,] who, if I understood him, though I have not his remarks before me, was not quite so explicit, but I think he had the same sentiments, to which I desire to refer for a few moments.

I would have been glad if the honorable Senator from Kentucky could have discussed this subject of the barbarity of the rebels to our prisoners without going out of the way to make his philippic equally severe against his own Government; for all the thunders which he denounces against the rebellion and against the rebels he says should be visited with equal force upon our own Government. Perhaps it was too much to expect the Senator from Kentucky at this time of life and of his senatorial experience to begin to make a speech which did not have that essential ingredient of denunciation of the President in it. Senator has said, and well said, that the laws of war and the laws of retaliation have been very much ameliorated. That is true; but I think in the speech he made he gave evidence that the laws of forensic debate in this body have been exceedingly ameliorated, more so than the laws in relation to war, or in relation to retaliation.

The

When

I heard the Senator from Kentucky larding and illustrating his speech with high-wrought culogium on the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER,] I said "There is a change here also not less remarkable than the change in regard to war and in regard to retaliation." [Laughter.]

But, sir, I will return to the point upon which I rose to address a few words to the Senate, and that was a remark made by the Senators from Kentucky and Maryland; and if I do them injustice I am willing to be corrected. The Senator from Kentucky, if I understood him, I will not undertake to give his words, but the idea, said, in substance, that if the only obstruction to the exchange of prisoners grows out of a refusal on the part of the rebels to exchange colored prisoners, the exchange ought to go on nevertheless, and the colored prisoners left in prison or in confinement; and I understood the Senator from Maryland to make substantially the same averment: that if the treatment of our colored prisoners was the only obstacle in the way of these exchanges, they ought to be left in prison. Against that sentiment I wish

Mr. DAVIS. Will the honorable Senator allow me to explain my position?

Mr. HALE. I think I have stated the Senator's position in substance.

Government of law-if this Government, in this gigantic struggle for its existence, has called upon that defenseless portion of its people to come into the ranks and fight its battles, if there is one duty on earth binding above all other duties upon this Government, it is to see that every protection consistent with the state of war and the laws of war and the rights of war are extended to that defenseless portion of our soldiery. Sir, look at them. What are they? The highest judicial tribunal of the land has said they were a class with no rights that white men were bound to respect; they were the outcasts and the down-trodden of earth; the common rights of humanity denied to them; holden, instead of being considered as men, like beasts of burden, and sold like them on the auction block. This country, in its hour of necessity and emergency, has called upon these men, and they have come forward; and the testimony of all your officers is that they have fought with a courage, a heroism, a bravery, and a devotion unsurpassed by any of your soldiers. The proposition that if they be captured and held by the rebels as prisoners they may be neglected and overlooked in any contingency is to my mind monstrous, and would stamp this Government before all posterity and all time as guilty of the most infamous position they could take. When you called a black man into your Army, when you gave him your uniform and made him a soldier, he became a soldier to all intents and purposes; and if there is one class more than another that has a right in the hour of its distress to appeal to the Government for protection, it is that most helpless and most defenseless class that you have put into your Army. I say that if the Government, in its negotiations for exchanges, consents to the shadow of a shade of difference that shall operate to the disadvantage of the colored soldier, they are treacherous to the highest trusts that have been confided to them, and false and recreant to the first principles of duty which the position of these men imposes upon the Government.

I desire to make these remarks in order that this sentiment might not go out unchallenged bofore the country. I repeat again that in proportion to their defenseless position they have the higher claim upon the Government. What is the history of it? We began this war without their help. We were disposed to ignore them. We treated them in the manner in which the public policy of the General Government had treated them. But, sir, the God of nations and the God of justice taught us a terrible lesson. We were slow to learn it, but we learned it at last. We learned that in this gigantic strife it was necessary to our final success, to secure the blessing of the God of nations, that we should use for our defense in this struggle this very class of our population. We have called on them; we have called them into our service by hundreds and thousands, and by our legislation we are inviting them there again, and our armies in a great measure are filled up with them. What will be the effect, what will be the consequence, if it be proclaimed to-day that the Government of the United States have adopted a policy which looks to the exchange of their white prisoners, leaving the black prisoners to their fate?

Mr. HOWARD. If my respected friend from New Hampshire will permit me, I will put him one question connected with this matter. It has been often remarked in this body that the rebel authorities will never consent to the exchange of the Union black prisoners in their own hands for their own

Mr. HALE. I will hear the Senator.

except by retaliation in kind or by a generous ransom to be paid in money or cotton, or some other mode? That brings us back at once to the consideration of the question of the propriety of resorting to retaliatory measures in kind.

Mr. HALE. I do not see that that question is exactly pertinent to the train of argument 1 was pursuing. I have always thought much of the wisdom of the answer that used to be given by a magistrate whom I used to practice before when I practiced law in my early days. If there was any fine-spun question raised which he did not see had a pertinent bearing to the issue, he would say, "Stop a moment; I am not going to spend my judgment on that now." [Laughter.] Mr. HOWARD. It is one you have got to meet, and that soon.

Mr. HALE. Well, sir, I will put a parallel case: if the rebels refuse to treat captive colored men as prisoners, and the Government knows it, and yet the Government invites colored persons to enlist in the Army and go out and fight its battles, and puts them in a position where they are liable to be taken prisoners; I say, if this Government abandons them to their fate, without putting forth every energy at its command for their salvation as its first duty, the Government is infamous before the nations.

Mr. HOWARD. I say amen to that. Mr. HALE. Then we agree upon that. That is what I say; that is the point upon which I stand; it is the only thing upon which I rose to say anything. I repeat, by taking these men into our ranks, clothing them with our uniform, making them soldiers, putting them in a condition where they are liable to be taken prisoners, we are bound by every consideration of honor and of humanity to stand by them, not to leave them for a moment, but to put forth all the energy and power we can possibly do to save them. It was for the purpose of saying this I rose, and hav-. ing said it, I leave the subject.

Mr. JOHNSON. The honorable member from New Hampshire, I am sure, has no purpose to misrepresent me in anything I have said on this or any other occasion, but although he may have no purpose to misrepresent me, if he will see that he has misunderstood me he will be satisfied that he has practically misrepresented me.

What I said was that it was our duty to effect an exchange to every extent to which we could accomplish it; that if one of the difficulties of making that exchange coextensive with the necessity of the entire case, so as to embrace all the prisoners that the rebels may have in their hands, was their refusal to exchange that portion of such prisoners as belonged to the African race, it was incumbent upon the Government to exchange so many of their prisoners for so many of ours as could be accomplished, retaining in our hands as many of their prisoners, man for man, as would equal in number those of the black prisoners of ours in their hands, not to abandon them to the mercies of the rebels, but not to make that difficulty such an impediment that we will abandon our obligation to our white soldiers.

I put it to the Senator from New Hampshire whether, if this state of things shall exist, he would be willing that there should be no exchanges. We have of their prisoners, say thirty thousand; they have of ours thirty thousand; and of that thirty thousand ten thousand are colored soldiers. They are willing to exchange the twenty thousand that they have of white soldiers for the twenty thousand that we have of their white soldiers; but the United States say, No; we will do no such thing; we will leave in rebel imprisonment, sub

the entire white soldiery of the United States, because we are unable to get back more than a portion of our soldiers, the rebels having decided, or being supposed to have determined, that they would not release any of their black prisoners. Docs the honorable member say that would be right? He feels for the black soldier not more strongly than I do. I have said before, upon this floor, at the last session, and, I believe, at the present session, that I would go as far as any Senator in protecting any black man who might be enlisted into the service of the United States, and shouldered his musket to protect the rights of the United States; but while I feel all the sym

selves or the right to seck protection under a

ers of war? What other way is there to get them

extent of that proper sympathy to the black pris

oner, I cannot forget that there is sympathy due to the white soldier, and an obligation growing out of that sentiment.

Let me suppose the case to be now as it was at one time as proved by the testimony before us: starvation is going on; cruelty of every description is going on; our white men are dying in consequence of that treatment; they are dying by the scores; and those who have not been relieved from suffering are sustaining a punishment a great deal worse than death; an appeal is now made to the honorable member from Ohio, who has tens of thousands of white soldiers from New Hampshire in those prisons thus being tortured, and he is told, "You can get them out if you will give in exchange for them ten thousand white men; but we have ten thousand black men whom we will not exchange; we think they are not entitled to the privileges due to a state of war, to prisoners; they are not prisoners according to our view; they are slaves; and we will not extend to them the doctrine of exchange;" would he suffer his ten thousand New Hampshire white men to lie in prison until they died because he could not get a proportion of blacks? Would he not say, "I am willing to exchange, my object being to get an entire exchange, but failing in that I am willing to exchange man for man; I say that the black soldier is as much a soldier as the white man, and I will hold on to the prisoners that I have in my hands sufficient to meet the number of black soldiers that you may have in your hands?" But if they are willing to exchange the rest would he refuse it? Could he face his own people and refuse it upon the ground that those poor black men are more defenseless than the white men? In that situation the white man is as defenseless as the black; they have alike fallen into the hands of the barbarians; they are subjected to all the tortures known only to a savage nature. You can relieve a part, but you refuse it upon the ground that you cannot relieve all. I submit-and I am perfectly willing that the judgment of the country shall be pronounced upon that; I am perfectly willing that the judgment of the white soldiers and the black soldiers shall be pronounced upon that-I submit to the honorable member from New Hampshire whether the duty is not an imperative one to rescue from the thralldom in which the white soldier is, as many of them as it is possible to rescue, keeping in our hands as many as can be made to answer for the refusal to exchange the black soldiers.

Wedded as the honorable member is (and I am far from blaming him) in attachment to the black, in a disposition to place him in all respects on the same footing with the white, perhaps socially for aught I know, but, politically, in the eye of the law to give him all the rights to which the white man is entitled, I suppose he has not gone to the extent of saying that he is entitled to more rights; that he will punish the white without necessity in order to prevent the black from being punished. Let me reverse it, and what would be his answer? If I understand him he wants the black man out. Suppose the rebels say, "We will let him out, but we will not exchange the white man; our antipathy to the white race of the North is so great that him I will hold, him I will starve, but you may have the black soldier," would the honorable member be for taking the black soldier out and leaving the white man to suffer? I presume he would. I think his heart would tell him that he should. If he would pursue that course in a case of that description, why is it that he will not obtain the release of the white man because the rebels refuse to exchange the black man? The obligation in each case is precisely alike, as I submit to the honorable member.

Mr. DAVIS. The honorable Senator from Maryland has stated very distinctly the position which I have always occupied in relation to this question. I frankly admit that if negro captives and white captives belonging to the Army of the United States are in rebel prisons I feel a deeper and stronger sympathy for the white prisoners than I do for the negroes, because I feel more affinity and more interest to and for the white race than I do for the black. It is my race. make this avowal: that if there were ten thousand negro soldiers and ten thousand white captive soldiers in the rebel prisons, and I had the option to save one prisoner, he should be a white prisoner; if I had the power to save half of the whole twenty

I

thousand, none of the white prisoners should perish. I would endeavor to save the negro prisoners also, but not until the deliverance of the whites was accomplished. Whenever and wherever either the white or negro races are to be destroyed, and I can save either one and not the other, all my instincts would impel me to rescue the white. Other men might make a different election.

But upon this question of negro prisoners I have always distinctly avowed, even as long ago as December, 1863, the position that, when a negro is admitted by the United States Government into its armies, it is the duty of that Government to do everything it can for the protection and preservation of the negro soldier, whether he be at the time serving in the ranks of our armies, or languishing in the prisons of our enemies; and I make the same declaration now. But here was the point which I endeavored to make yesterday and the day before, and which I made distinctly in the Senate in December, 1863. The Secretary of War, in his annual report of that year, portrayed the condition of things in Libby prison, and he then brought to the attention of Congress and to the nation the very condition, to some very considerable extent, of our prisoners that has been portrayed in the report read by the honorable Senator from Michigan; that our prisoners there were in want, that they were insufficiently fed; that they were not sufficiently clothed or housed; that from the scarcity of food and disease consequent upon it, and the want of medical attention, and exposure, they were perishing; and that report, which I now have before me, admits in effect that our Government was not prosecuting this work of exchanging prisoners, and the reason was, as I understand the statement of the Secretary, because the rebels had refused to exchange colored troops and their officers for white rebel soldiers who were prisoners. My position was that if the authorities of the United States had the overture, the option, the opportunity to exchange white Union soldiers who are in rebel prisons suffering such tortures, and dying rapidly from day to day, and refused to make the exchange because the rebel authorities would not exchange the negro prisoners they held for them, our Government, in that respect, was delinquent, and it was little less delinquent and horribly delinquent than the rebel authorities who thus doomed our unfortunate and brave soldiers to such a dreadful fate as death by starvation. I maintain that position now. I have maintained it ever. It is the dictate of my reason and of my heart, and I boldly advocate it here and now, as I did fourteen months since.

exchanged, and the rebels refused to exchange the white soldiers belonging to the United States Army who were in rebel prisons, it was the duty of our authorities to agree to such exchange, limited as it would be to our negro soldiers.

I also made the converse proposition, that if our authorities had or could make the opportunity to exchange white Union soldiers held in rebel prisons, to the whole or to any extent whatever, it was their duty, not to the rebel government, but to the Union patriots who were languishing and dying in such horrible prisons, to make exchanges to the whole or any extent of their numbers, even though the rebel authorities refused absolutely to give in exchange negro soldiers and their officers, and would give only white men who had never had negro commands.

I will state the proposition in another form. Suppose that in all the rebel prisons there were thirty thousand soldiers in captivity; that one tenth of them were officers, and the other nine tenths private soldiers, and from any motive whatever the rebel authorities offered that they would exchange the private soldiers, but not the officers; I submit to gentlemen this question: after reasonable efforts made by our Government to induce the rebel authorities to exchange for officers as well as private soldiers, and after all these efforts had failed, if the option was still left to them to exchange for the private soldiers, nine tenths of our countrymen who were perishing from starvation and exposed to the wintry elements, would it not be the imperative duty of our authorities to exchange for these nine tenths? Or should they be left to the horrible fate of the other tenth because the rebels would not exchange for them? What claim of justice or humanity would such course satisfy? What alleviation of the horrid sufferings of the inevitably doomed one tenth would it be for their common Government to refuse to rescue nine times as many of their comrades from such a dreary death, because it could not force a cruel and inexorable foe to deliver up from it the other tenth? Misery is said to love company; but believe me, the noble and brave American soldier, if left himself to decide the point, would never invite his comrades to be company to such a havoc of death.

Now, I make a proposition another step in advance: that if a few hundred, or a few thousand, or any number of negro soldiers were in rebel prisons, and their officers also, if you please, and the rebel authorities were unwilling, upon some principle of right or policy, or from any cause whatever, to exchange those negro soldiers and their officers, but were willing and were to offer to exchange their other white prisoners, the authorities of the United States, after having ex

change, comprehending each class and the whole, when such an effort as that had failed, and the only choice left was to exchange for the white private soldiers and officers who had not commanded negroes or permit them all to remain and all to perish by starvation and exposure, it would be the duty, however painful, of our authorities to accept the proposition in the form in which the rebels had made it.

Now, Mr. President, let me read a little from the report of this correspondence between the United States and the confederacy, to show some of the propositions that were made and rejected by the parties in relation to the exchange of prisoners. I propose to show that the United States authorities had the option offered to them again and again to exchange for all the white private soldiers belonging to our Army held by the rebels in captivity, and that our authorities refused to accede to it. As long ago as January, 1863, what did Jefferson Davis, the president of the confederacy, say in his proclamation from which this difficulty about exchanging negroes first originated?

"The enlisted soldiers I shall continue to treat as unwilling instruments in the commission of these crimes, and shall direct their discharge and return to their homes on the proper and usual parole."

and usual parole, that they might return to their homes.

I will next read from a communication of Mr. Ould, dated War Department, Richmond, Virginia, July 26, 1863, to our commissioner for exchanges in which he, as the rebel commissioner, says:

"If, at this time, you have any officers of the rank I have declared exchanged, or of any other rank, or if you have any particular organization of privates or non-cominissioned officers whom you wish exchanged, you have only to state such fact and your selection will be approved. If you hold the paroles of our officers of any rank, as you state, you have only to present them, and whatever is in our bands, whether on parole or in captivity, will be freely given in exchange for them."

Now, sir, here is the full, explicit, unreserved, unconditional promise of this commissioner of exchange that the authorities of the United States might make their own selection among all the private soldiers and officers held in captivity by the rebel armies or who were on their parole, that did not come within the particular interdiction of Jeff. Davis's proclamation; and that the whole of them should be exchanged for rebel soldiers who were held by the Union armies as captives. This proposition was not accepted by our authorities, but was treated by them with cold neglect. Colonel Ludlow was relieved as United States agent for the exchange of prisoners, and that excellent gentleman, that intelligent citizen and soldier, that loyal and true man, General Meredith, of Indiana, whose acquaintance I have the pleasure and honor to enjoy, was appointed his successor. He went down to Fortress Monroe to enter upon this business, the exchange of pris oners. He says, in a communication to General Halleck, that his predecessor was reticent on the subject; I believe that is the phrase, "reticent;"I should have said "reserved," in my old-fashioned lingo. At any rate, he was not communicative, and General Meredith undertook the examination of his books, and he gathered from those books, which he says had been badly kept, what were the obstacles in the way of a free and full exchange, and in this letter to the General-inChief he stated them thus:

"From what I can gather in Colonel Ludlow's letter books, I suppose the following are points to be insisted upon:

1. The immediate exchange of Colonel Streight and his command.

"2. An agreement that Dr. Green shall be held by the United States Government as a hostage for Dr. Rucker; other surgeons to be exchanged.

3. That all officers commanding negro troops, and negro troops themselves, shall be treated as other prisoners of war, and exchanged in the same way."

There is the chief difficulty, stated in the most precise language. It was that the negro soldiers and their officers should be treated as other prisoners, and exchanged in the same way; and that it should be insisted upon by him as it had been by his predecessor.

This communication of General Meredith was dated August 7, 1863, and on the 12th of the same month General Halleck replied to it, and from his reply I read:

"In order, however, to avoid any difficulty on this point, General Meredith will be authorized to agree with Mr. Ould that all paroles given by oflicers and men on either side, between the 23d of May and the 3d of July, not in conformity with the stipulations of the cartels be regarded as null and void, a declaration to that effect being published to the armies of both belligerents.

"The other three points mentioned in General Meredith's letter of the 7th instant seem to be fully understood by him. The Government of the United States will, under no circumstances, yield to either of these points."

General Meredith was thus instructed by the General-in-Chief that he fully understood the three points, and that they formed an ultimatum, "that all officers of negro troops and negro troops themselves shall be treated as prisoners of war, and exchanged in the same way."

But that is not all on this point. Here is an extract from another letter from General Meredith to the War Department, dated Fortress Monroe, September 23, 1863:

"Mr. Ould made the following proposition: That all officers and men on both sides be released, unless there be actual charges against them. If officers or men are held on charges which their Government consider unjust, let one or more hostages be held for such. If there be charges against officers and men, and they are not tried on the same within a reasonable time, (to be agreed upon,) they are to be discharged.'”.

Now, sir, as to the great mass of white prisoners from our Army held in rebel prisons, here was a proposition for their immediate and uncon

ditional release by exchange or upon parole, to be reciprocal between the parties. If this proposition had been accepted, more than nine tenths of our soldiers in captivity would then have gone free. But how was this proposition received by our authorities? General Hitchcock, who was the chief in control of the exchange of prisoners, in this city, wrote, in reply to that proposition of Mr. Ould, through General Meredith, as follows, on the 26th September, 1863:

"The proposition submitted as from Mr. Ould, in your letter of 23d instant, that all officers and men on both sides be released, unless there be actual charges against them,' &c., is not accepted. The effort to make a distinction between officers serving with different species of troops can receive no countenance whatever."

The proposition of the rebel commissioner was for the release of all officers and men on both sides against whom there were no charges. It was objected to by General Hitchcock for the single cause that it was an "effort to make a distinction between officers serving with different species of troops," and for that cause would receive no countenance whatever. The fair inference is that as to the men there was no objection, otherwise it would have been stated. Why, then, was it not agreed, or proposed by our authorities that the men should be mutually released? Because it was their settled purpose, a sine qua non, that men and officers should be exchanged together; that if the rebel authorities would detain the officers, the men too should stay and perish with them.

The rebel proposition was, "We will release all your officers and men against whom we have no charges of the commission of crime on condition that you will release ours against whom you have no charges held by you.' "This proposition was rejected by our authorities, and the torture of nine tenths of our brave and patriotic men, whom they might have delivered, they thus permitted to proceed to its dread consummation. In my judgment this was not only a mistake, not only injustice, but a shocking crime committed by our authorities.

Sir, we have heard in debate and we have seen from documents read here, that it was objected to exchanging these brave unfortunate men that already a great many of them were nearly starved to death; and if they were exchanged, healthy, vigorous rebels, ready to take up arms and do efficient service in the rebel cause, would be given for dying, starving Union patriots, many of whose terms of service were about to expire. Sir, such a consideration, instead of being a reason for denying the exchange, for delaying it, for protracting it, is among the strongest reasons that could address themselves to my mind and to my heart why we should have accepted the exchange with all the speed possible. If any portion of those men had apparently but a day to live, if they were physically capable of enduring their tortures but a single day, and that day could have been saved to the soldier, and given to his proper nursing and treatment to snatch him from a grave that was already apparently opening for him, haste should have been made to seize the opportunity lest it should be lost forever. Not only humanity, but patriotism and justice demanded this as the last hope to save the starving, dying patriot soldier, and to restore him to his home and his family.

Mr. HALE. I beg to interrupt the Senator to inquire if he would not rather have a whole day. If so I will move an adjournment.

Mr. DAVIS. The Senator is one of the most liberal gentlemen I know; but I believe I will give him the next day, or rather I think he and I can occupy the next day by advocating a committee to investigate the enormous and gigantic frauds and corruptions that have been perpetrated on this Government, and which he so eloquently portrayed this morning. Sir, I have come nearly to a conclusion. Here is what General Meredith said again in a letter to the War Department:

"In reply to my demand for the release of Colonel Streight and his command, I was informed that they were in Richmond held as other prisoners of war, and will be exchanged when exchanges of officers are resumed. In relation to Dr. Rucker, Mr. Ould referred me to his letter of August 16, which I have the honor to forward herewith. "To my demand that all officers commanding negro troops, and negro troops themselves, should be treated as other prisoners of war, and be exchanged as such,' Mr. Ould declined acceding, remarking that they (the rebels) would die in the last ditch' before giving up the right to send slaves back to slavery as property recaptured, but that they were willing to make exceptions in the case of free blacks."

Thus it appears they were willing to yield for exchange all the white private soldiers, all free negro soldiers, but they would die in the last ditch before they would give in exchange negroes who by the constitution and laws of their States were the property of their own people. They insisted, as they ought with their views to have insisted, upon their right and obligation to the people of their own States, and of their own confederacy, whenever negro property came into the hands of their military authorities that belonged to their citizens by the constitution and laws of Virginia, and the other confederate States, that it was their duty to return that property back to its

owners.

"He could not exactly tell me how his authorities intended to distinguish between the two, (free and slave,) but presumed that evidence as to the fact of freedom would be taken into consideration. As their laws put slave and free upon the same footing, no comment is necessary."

Furthermore:

"An informal proposition was made to the following effect: To exchange officer for officer of the same grade, except such as are in command of negro troops,' which was declined."

The rebel authorities there made a proposition with three branches. First, that all the white private soldiers on both sides should be exchanged; second, that all the free negroes who were free at the time they entered the Army, and whose freedom would be subject of proof, should be exchanged; and then the further proposition to ex-' change officer for officer of the same grade, except such as were in command of negro troops; and. this proposition was declined, inflexibly and unconditionally declined, by our authorities. That reduced the whole matter to this point: they retained the negroes who were the property of people living in the confederate States to surrender them to their owners. They were induced to do that because the constitution and laws of those States gave to those owners a right to that property, and their own men in authority had that property in possession, and therefore it was their duty to yield it up to its owners. They then made a proposition to exchange officer for officer, retaining only those who commanded negro troops, and a further proposition that those offcers should be tried-I do not know whether by a military court or not, but I hope not. liver the civilian from a military court. the monarch of this land a little while, there is not a man who has ordered a civilian to be tried by a military court, and there is not a military man who has acted as judge advocate of such court, or has been a member of such a court, and has pronounced judgment in violation of the plain letter of the Constitution, and of the liberty it guaranties to the citizen, that I would not bring to instant and condign punishment by hanging him as high as Haman.

Mr. HOWARD. Without trial?

God de

If I was

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; I would try him by the civil courts, I would try him by a jury of his peers. He should not be condemned and executed unless he was condemned according to the course of the common law recognized by our Constitution and fought for by our fathers throughout the revolutionary war. Never, sir, should any man, except one in the naval or military service of the United States, be tried or punished in any other way than by a fair trial by a jury of his peers according to the course of the common law.

me

Mr. HOWARD. If the Senator will allow

Mr. DAVIS. I shall be done in a minute, and then you shall have all the time after me. Several SENATORS. Let us adjourn.

Mr. HOWARD. I do not rise for the purpose of moving an adjournment, but I am not perfectly sure that I understand the Senator from Kentucky. Mr. DAVIS. Well, sir.

Mr. HOWARD. The Senator has plunged in medias res. I am extremely anxious to comprehend him.

Mr. DAVIS. I will endeavor to make myself comprehensible.

Mr. HOWARD. If the Senator from Kentucky will pardon me, I should like to be enlightened on this point: whether, if he was the omnipotent magistrate that he speaks of, he would permit his officers who had been in the command of negro troops, and who had fallen into the hands of the enemy as prisoners of war, to be tried by

their captors for the crime of having commanded his black troops? This is the question upon which I wish his opinion. He rather shied the main point.

Mr. DAVIS. I will give you a categorical answer if you will just allow me the opportunity. Mr. HOWARD. That is what I want, a categorical answer.

Mr. DAVIS. I would not.

Mr. HOWARD. I thought not.

Mr. DAVIS. I would not; but I would say this, that if my effort to defeat such a trial as that could not prevail, I would never consent that the failure of my effort to defeat such a trial should prevent me from agreeing to the exchange of every private soldier held in rebel captivity. And I say that an officer or a Government or an authority that would make the failure of the attempt to defeat such a trial the reason for holding thirty thousand Union patriots in starving rebel prisons and bringing them to an inevitable, lingering, horrible death, would deserve the same fate as the unfortunate soldiery that were thus suffering, and I wish I could make this exchange; I wish I could send those men who prevented our gallant soldiers from deliverance from such a dungeon to all the horrors and to the inevitable - fate of that dungeon.

"Mr. Ould expresses a willingness to release all chapJains. I have given, I believe, the substance of all that took place. According to your instructions, I avoid much discussion. No agreement was made."

That is what General Meredith announced. To all these liberal propositions, if I may use the term, and I do-they would not be liberal in relation to a Christian and humane nation, but they were liberal when compared with the course of the rebels-there was one cold, inexorable, absolute denial, when if this assent had been given, one of the greatest jubilees that was ever seen upon earth, at least in this quarter of the globe, would have been exhibited by thirty thousand starving, emaciated, wasting, doomed prisoners marching forth from their horrible dungeons and exchanging them for all the comforts and blessings of

home.

I do not want any man given up, yielded, to such a fate, and I say that it was the duty of our Government to contend for the exchange of the negro soldier, and it was the duty of our Government to contend for the exchange of Colonel Streight, and it was the duty of our Government to contend, and to contend persistently and resolutely, for the exchange of every man who has rendered service in our armies. My position is simply that when such an effort has been made and has failed, it is the duty of the Government then to suspend the fate and the question in relation to the disputed cases, and to give exchange and freedom to all that the rebel authorities are willing to exchange.

It was not only the duty of the Government to have accepted the overture but to have offered the proposition. I make the case stronger, and say that when our military authorities saw that the negro soldiers and the officers of negro soldiers were in the way of the exchange and liberty of thirty thousand other soldiers who did not come within that category, it was the duty of our Government to have said to the rebel authorities, "Let us hold up and suspend the question and the fate of the negro soldiers and their officers; let their fate no longer interfere with, let it not defeat or defer the liberties of those against whom no such objection exists; but we exhort you, we demand of you in the cause of humanity, by the sacred.rights of all manhood, to consent to the exchange of every private soldier and every free negro and every single man who does not come within the reason of your difficulty."

I say, sir, that it was the duty of our Government not only to have accepted the opportunity, but to have made the opportunity, to have urged it,|| to have offered the proposition, and by every force of reason and appeal to heart, to soul, and to humanity, and by every other proper force that can operate upon human nature, to have enforced such an offer; not only to have availed itself of this action of the other side, but to have offered it; and it is for that reason that I condemned fourteen months ago, that I condemn now, and expect to condemn to the day of my death, a barbarous, inhuman, cold, calculating, politician-like policy of our Government, the men whom these brave martyrs had put in power.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Foor in the chair.) The question is on recommitting the joint resolution and all pending and proposed amendments to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. WILKINSON. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

Mr. WADE. I hope not.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, January 28, 1865.

Prayer

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. by Rev. J. ALLEN MAXWELL, of South Orange, New Jersey.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

yesterday this day was set apart by unanimous The SPEAKER. By the order of the House

consent for debate on the constitutional amendment, and no other business can be transacted. The Chair, however, does not suppose that that order was meant to preclude the receiving of reports from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, as it is necessary for the bills to be sent to the Senate.

ENROLLED BILLS.

Mr. COBB, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills and a joint resolution of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same:

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

An act (H. R. No. 394) for the relief of Mary Scales Accardi.

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

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

grants; and

An act (S. No. 363) to amend the charter of the Washington Gas-Light Company.

SERVICE ON COMMITTEE.

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin. I rise to a privileged question. Some days ago I was appointed on a committee of investigation. I have delayed asking to be excused, because I really hoped that I should be able to attend to the duty. But I have so many things accumulating on my hands in consequence of sickness for two weeks during this session, that I find it impossible to act on that committee, at any rate to act properly. I therefore ask to be excused.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that question must be reserved until after the morning hour on Monday next, as it requires a vote of the House. If the gentleman will call the attention day next, his request will be submitted to the of the Chair to it after the morning hour on Mon

House.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

The House then proceeded to the consideration of the motion to reconsider the vote by which the House, at its last session, rejected the joint resolution (S. No. 16) submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States so as to prohibit slavery in the several States; upon which Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin, was entitled to the floor.

Mr. BROWN. Probably not more than fifteen or twenty minutes.

Mr. ASHLEY. I have no objection to the gentleman having twenty or twenty-five minutes on Tuesday, instead of addressing the House today.

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin. I shall not occupy more time than that.

Mr. STILES. I would ask the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. ASHLEY,] if he proposes to press the question to a vote on Tuesday next.

Mr. ASHLEY. That is my present intention. Mr. HIGBY. I had supposed that I should immediately follow the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BROWN] in this debate. That was one reason why, on the day that he obtained the floor,

I

moved the adjournment; in order that he might

have a full opportunity to be heard when the question should come up again, and that I might immediately follow him. But he has obtained leave, by unanimous consent, to speak on Tuesday next, the day when the question is to come up again. Mr. STEVENS. When was that unanimous consent granted?

Mr. HIGBY. Just a few moments ago.

Mr. STEVENS. I was not present when that was done, or I should have objected. I would ask to-day, or if anything can be done to-day but if that unanimous consent could properly be given speaking.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would have doubted that the arrangement could properly be made, had any gentleman objected. But it was a mere question as to the time when the gentleman should speak, he being already entitled to the floor. Still the arrangement required unanimous consent.

Mr. STEVENS. I had supposed that the vote ject to any speaking that will carry the subject was to be taken on Tuesday next. I must ob

beyond that day.

Mr. ASHLEY. I do not think we should disregard the agreement of the House that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BROWN] shall be allowed to occupy twenty minutes on next Tuesday. I understand that is all the time he desires.

The SPEAKER. Although no entry will be made on the Journal, the Chair will feel bound to recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BROWN] as entitled to the floor, if he claims it on Tuesday next, after the one who shall have obtained it at the time of the adjournment to-day shall have concluded his remarks.

Mr. HIGBY. Mr. Speaker, amid the long debate that has occurred upon this question, not only at the last session but also at this session, three classes of objections principally have been raised upon the other side of the House. One of them is that the Constitution of the United States contains no provision by which we can make an amendment of the character proposed in the resolution now before the House; another, joined with the objection I have just named, is that it is inexpedient at this time to make this amendment; and the third objection is, that slavery is the true condition of the African race.

Mr. Speaker, objections of this kind are the only ones which at this time men could possibly raise to the passage of this resolution. The first of these statements savors of the argument which has been used for scores of years, that the States were complete sovereignties when they organized the General Government. The proposition is very simple, very direct. It is a matter of fact in history that the States never were separate and independent. As dependent colonies, they united together for the purpose of gaining their inde

mother country. They were dependent colonies at that time, but through their union and their united action independence was obtained. And having obtained their independence, the very first action on their part was to establish a constitution for a General Government over all.

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin. When I ob-pendence and securing a separation from the tained the floor upon the close of the debate when this subject was last under consideration, it was with the expectation of opening the discussion on Tuesday next, to which day this subject had been postponed. I desire to ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow the speaker who may close the discussion to-day, and be entitled to the floor when the consideration of this subject shall be resumed on Tuesday next.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BROWN] asks permission to waive his right to the floor to-day, and that he shall be considered entitled to it on Tuesday next. Is there any objection?

Mr. ASHLEY. How long will the gentleman desire on Tuesday?

They established a Government under the Articles of Confederation, which, for the sake of distinction from the present Coustitution, I will designate as the former Constitution. When they had established that Government, there was no State government that could exist for any time except by virtue of the Confederation. When they had continued under that form of government until they found that it would not accomplish its ends and objects, they established the present Con