The American Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year, 1861-1865, vols. 1-5. New York: Appleton & Co., 1868.

Congress of the United States, 1862 - Part 1

CONGRESS, U. S. 1862 The second session of the thirty-seventh Congress* convened at Washington on the 2d of December, 1861. At this session the legislation of Congress assumed a new aspect. Two positions were taken, which became the basis of the action of the controlling majority in that body on all subjects relating to the troubles of the country. The first one was that slavery was the cause of those troubles. Of course, all the power of the Government must be directed against this cause. This power was to be wielded in two ways, viz., by negative measures and by positive. The negative measures consisted in withholding all restraints upon the slave. Practical emancipation followed the progress of the armies. The slave could go wherever he pleased, and be fed and clothed when destitute at the public expense, and be protected from the apprehension of his master, unless the latter could prove his loyalty, although residing in a country where the Government of the United States was utterly unable to afford to him any protection. The positive measures consisted in emancipation in all places under

________________________________________________

* The following Is a list of the members of both Houses:

SENATE.

Maine—Lot M. Morrill, William P. Fessenden.

New Hampshire—Daniel Clark, John P. Hale.

Vermont—Solomon Foot. Jacob Collamer.

Massachusetts—Henry Wilson, Charles Sumner.

Rhode Island—James F. Simmons. Henry B. Anthony.

Connecticut—James Dixon, Lafayette B. Foster.

New York—Preston King, Ira Harris.

New Jersey—John E. Thompson, John C. Ten Eyck.

Pennsylvania—Edgar Cowan, David Wilmot.

Maryland—Anthony Kennedy. James A. Pearse.

Delaware—James A. Bayard, Willard Saulsbury.

Virginia—John S. Carlile, Waitman T. Willey.

Kentucky—Lazarus W. Powell, Garrett Davis.

Ohio—Benjamin F. Wade, John Sherman.

Michigan—Zachariah Chandler, Jacob M. Howard.

Indiana—Jesse D. Bright,* Henry S. Lane.

Illinois—Lyman Trumbull, O. H. Browning.

Wisconsin— James B. Doolittle, Timothy 0. Howe.

Iowa—James W. Grimes, James Harlan.

Minnesota—Henry M Rice, Morton S. Wilkinson.

Missouri—John B. Henderson, Robert Wilson.

Tennessee—Andrew Johnson.

California—Milton S. Latham, James A. McDougall

Kansas—Samuel C. Pomeroy, James H. Lane.

Oregon—James W. Nesmith, Benjamin F. Stark.

_________________

HOUSE.

Maine—John N. Goodwin, Charles W. Walton, Samuel C. Fessenden, Anson P. Morrill, John H. Rice, Frederick A. Pike.

New Hampshire—Edward H. Rollins, Thomas M. Edwards, Gilman Marston.

Vermont—E. P. Walton, Justin S. Morrill, Portus Baxter.

Massachusetts—Thomas D. Eliot, James Buffington, Benjamin F. Thomas, Alexander H. Rice, John B. Alley, Chas. K. Train, Goldsmith F. Bailey, Charles Delano, Henry L. Dawes, Samuel Hooper, Daniel W. Gooch.

Rhode Island—William P. Sheffield, George H. Browne.

Connecticut—Dwight Loomis, Alfred A. Burnham, Geo. C. Woodruff, James E. English.

California—Aaron A. Sargeant, T. G. Phelps, F. F. Low.

New York—Edward H. Smith, Moses F. Odell, William Wall, Frederick A. Conkling, Elijah Ward, Edward Haight, Charles H. Van Wyck, John B. Steele, Stephen Baker, Abraham B. Olin, Erastus Corning, William A. Wheeler, Socrates N. Sherman. Richard Franchot, Roscoe Conkling, K. Holland Duell, William E. Lansing, Ambrose W. Clark, Charles B. Sedgwick, Theodore M. Pomeroy, Robert B. Van Valkenburgh, Augustus Frank, Burt Van Horn, Elbridge G. Spaulding, Reuben E. Fenton, Benjamin Wood, James E. Kerrigan, Isaac C. Delaplaine, James B. McKean, Chauncey Vibbard, Jacob P. Chamberlain, Alexander S. Diven, Alfred Ely.

New Jersey—William G. Steele, George T. Cobb, Nehemiah Perry, John T. Nixon, John L. N. Stratton.

Pennsylvania—William E. Lehman, John P. Verree, William D. Kelley, William Morris Davis, John Hickman, Sydenham E. Ancona, Thaddeus Stevens, James H. Campbell, Galusha A. Grow, Charles J. Biddle, Joseph Bailey, Edward McPherson, Samuel S. Blair. Jesse Lazear, James K. Moorhead, Robert McKnight, John W. Wallace, John Patton, Elijah Babbitt, Thomas B. Cooper, John W. Killinger, Hendrick B. Wright, Philip Johnson, James T. Hale, John Covode.

Maryland—Cornelius L. L. Leary, Henry May, Francis Thomas, Charles B. Calvert, John W. Crisfield, Edwin H. Webster.

Virginia—Charles H. Tipton, Jacob B. Blair, Joseph Segur, William G. Brown, Kellian V. Whaley.

Ohio— George H. Pendleton, John A. Gurley, Clement L. Vallandigham, William Allen, James M. Ashley, Chilton A. White, Richard A. Harrison, Samuel Shellabarger, Warren P. Noble, Carey A. Trimble, Valentine B. Horton. Samuel S. Cox, Samuel T. Worcester, Harrison G. Blake, James R. Morris, Sidney Edgerton, Albert G. Riddle, John Hutchins, John A. Bingham, Robert H. Nugen, William P. Cutler.

Kentucky—Charles A. Wickliffe, George W. Dunlap, John W. Menzies, Aaron Harding, Samuel L. Casey, George H. Yeaman, Henry Gilder, Robert Mallory, John J. Crittenden, William H. "Wadsworth.

Tennessee—Horace Maynard, A. J. Clements.

Indiana—John Law, James A. Cravens, W. McKee Dunn, William S. Dolman, George W. Julian, Albert G. Porter, Schuyler Colfax, William Mitchell, Daniil W. Voorhees, Albert S. White, John P. C. Shanks.

Illinois—Elihu B. Washburne. Isaac N. Arnold. Owen Lovejoy, Wm. Kellogg, Wm. A. Richardson, James C. Robinson, Philip B Fouke, John A. Logan, Anthony L. Knapp.

Missouri—Francis P. Blair, jr., Elijah H. Norton, John "W. Noell, James S. Rollins, William A. Hall, Thomas L. Price, John S. Phelps.

Michigan—Bradley F. Granger, Fernando C. Beaman, Rowland E. Trowbridge, Francis W. Kellogg.

Iowa—William Vandever, James F. Wilson.

Wisconsin—John F. Potter, Luther Hanchett, A. Scott Sloan.

Minnesota—Cyrus Aldrich, William Windom.

Delaware—George P. Fisher. Oregon—George K. Shiel.

Kansas—Martin F. Conway.

Dakota—John B. S. Todd.

Nebraska—Samuel G. Daily.

Utah—John M. Bernhisel.

Nevada—John Cradlebaugh. Colorado—H. P. Bennet.

New Mexico—John S. Watts.

Washington—William H. Wallace.

____________________________________

* Mr. Bright was expelled, and Joseph H. Wright appointed by the Governor.

_____________________________________

the exclusive control of the Government, in prohibiting the extension of slavery to territories, and in a universal emancipation in the disloyal States through confiscation. The second position taken was that, the Government was engaged in a struggle for its existence, and could, therefore, resort to any measure which a case of self-defence would justify. This was said to be one of the hitherto undeveloped powers of the Constitution, and was called the " war power." The limitations which are prescribed in the Constitution to the powers of the Government, were supposed not to apply under the existing circumstances of the country, but Congress could pass all measures which it considered necessary to sustain the Government in the exercise of its authority. Practically the Constitution is of no force under this view, so far as it relates to the measures deemed necessary; or it is regarded as silent on the subjects in question. If the Government is considered to be one simply of delegated powers, the question may naturally be asked, how Congress can legislate upon measures relative to which it has no power? If the Constitution Page 276 was considered to be silent respecting the duties and powers of the Government amid such circumstances as existed, then it was asked if the law of nations was not a rule by which the Government should act in its treatment of the people of the seceded States. These questions were extensively discussed at this second session of the thirty-seventh Congress. To the American citizen, the history of his country presents no subjects of such serious importance.

In the Senate, immediately after the organization, Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, gave notice "of his intention hereafter to ask leave to introduce a bill for the confiscation of the property of 'rebels, and giving freedom to the persons they hold in slavery."

The President's Message was sent to Congress on the next day. (See ANNUAL CYCLOPAEDIA, 1861, PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.)

In the House, immediately upon its organization, Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, offered a joint resolution tendering the thanks of Congress to Captain Wilkes. It declared that " the thanks of Congress are duo and are hereby tendered to Captain Wilkes, of the United States Navy, for his brave, adroit, and patriotic conduct in the arrest and detention of the traitors James M. Mason and John Slidell." It was immediately read three times and adopted. This resolution was referred to the Naval Committee in the Senate, and no further action taken upon it.

Mr. Colfax, of Indiana, offered the following resolution, which was adopted:

Whereas, Colonel Michael Corcoran, who was taken prisoner on the battle-field of Manassas, has, after suffering other indignities, been confined by the rebel authorities in the cell of a convicted felon: therefore,

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to similarly confine James M. Mason, late of Virginia, now in custody at Fort Warren, until Colonel Corcoran shall be treated as all the prisoners of war, taken by the United States on the battle-field have been treated.

A similar resolution was offered by Mr. Odell, of New York, relative to John Slidell, in consequence of the imprisonment of Colonel Alfred M. "Wood. It was agreed to.

Mr. Eliot, of Massachusetts, then offered the following joint resolution on the conduct of the war:

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 1. That, in behalf of the people of these States, we do again solemnly declare that the war in which we are engaged against the insurgent bodies now in arms against the Government has for its object the suppression of such rebellion, and the reestablishment of the rightful authority of the national Constitution and laws over the entire extent of our common country:

2. That, while we disclaim all power under the Constitution to interfere by ordinary legislation with the institutions of the several States, yet the war now existing must be conducted according to the ordinary usages and rights of military service, and that during its continuance the recognized authority of the maxim that the safety of the State is the highest law, subordinates rights of property, and dominates over civil relations: 3. That therefore we do hereby declare that, in our judgment, the President of the United States, as the Commander-in-chief of our Army, and the officers in command under him, have the right to emancipate all persons held as slaves in any military district in a state of insurrection against the national Government, and that we respectfully advise that such order of emancipation be issued whenever the same will avail to weaken the power of the rebels in arms, or to strengthen the military power of the loyal forces.

Its consideration was postponed to Tuesday of the ensuing week, and again postponed to December 12.

Mr. Campbell, of Pennsylvania, offered the following:

Resolved, That, in legislating to meet the exigencies of the present rebellion, Congress should confiscate the property, slaves included, of all rebels, and protect the property and rights, under the Constitution and laws, of all loyal citizens.

Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, also offered the following:

Whereas, slavery has caused the present rebellion in the United States; and whereas there can be no solid and permanent peace and union in this Republic so long as that institution exists within it; and whereas slaves ore now used by the rebels as an essential means of supporting and protracting the war; and whereas by the law of nations it is right to liberate the slaves of an enemy to weaken his power: therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President be requested to declare free, and to direct all of our generals and officers in command to offer freedom to all slaves who shall leave their masters, or who shall aid in quelling this rebellion.

SEC. 2. And be it further resolved, That the United States pledge the faith of the Union to make full and fair compensation to all loyal citizens who are and shall remain active in supporting the Union for all the loss they may sustain by virtue of this act.

The consideration of these resolutions was postponed. In the Senate, on the 4th of December, Mr. Saulsbury, of Maryland, offered the following joint resolution proposing a conference for the settlement of the existing national difficulties. This was the only proposition made at this session, which contemplated a peaceful adjustment of the difficulties between the North and South. It was publicly declared in South Carolina that more was to be feared from this proposition than from all the armies of the North:

Whereas, the people of the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and Tenness see, are in revolt against the constitutional Government and authority of the United States, and have assumed to secede from the Federal Union, and to form an independent government under the name of the Confederate States of America; and whereas the Congress of the United States, approving the sentiment expressed by the President, in his annual message, "that the Union must be preserved, and hence all indispensable means must be employed," and believing that kind and fraternal feeling between the people of all the States is indispensable to the maintenance of a happy and prosperous Union, and being willing to manifest such feelings on their part, to the end that peace may be restored to a distracted country, and the union and Constitution be preserved and maintained, and inviting the cooperation of the people of the aforesaid States in the accomplishment of objects so beneficial to each and all, do resolve as follows:

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, Roger I. Taney, Edward Everett, George M. Dallas, Thomas Ewing, Horace Linney, Reverdy Johnson, John J. Page 277 Crittenden, George E. Pugh, and Richard W. Thompson be, and they are hereby, appointed commissioners on the part of Congress, to confer with a like number of commissioners, to be appointed by the States aforesaid, for the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the Constitution, and that they report the result of their said conference to Congress for approval or rejection.

Resolved, That upon the appointment of commissioners, as hereby invited, by said States, and upon the meeting of the joint commission for the purpose of conference as aforesaid, active hostilities shall cease, and be suspended, and shall not be renewed unless said commission shall be unable to agree, or in case of an agreement by them, said agreement shall be rejected either by Congress or by the aforesaid States.

Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, objected to its reception. It was, however, received, and laid on the table.

Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill "to punish officers and soldiers of the Army of the United States for arresting, detaining, or delivering persons claimed as fugitives to any person."

Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be requested to furnish to the Senate copies of any general orders in the military department of Missouri relating to fugitive slaves.

He said: "Mr. President, my attention has been called, by letters from St. Louis, to certain general orders purporting to come from Major-General Halleck, in command of the department of Missouri, relating to fugitive slaves, wherein it is directed that such persons shall not be received within his camps, or within the lines of his force when on march; and that any such persons now within such lines shall be thrust out; and the reason strangely assigned for this order is, that such fugitive slaves will carry information to the rebels.

"Now, it is difficult to speak of an order like that and to keep within bounds. Besides being irrational and inhuman on its face, it practically authorizes the surrender of fugitive slaves beyond any constitutional obligation. Such an order must naturally be disheartening to our soldiers, and it gives a bad name to our country, both at home and abroad.

"General Halleck is reputed to be a good tactician; but an act like this, with which he chooses to inaugurate his command, does not give to us assurance of any great success hereafter. He may be expert in all the details of military science; but something more than that is now needed. Common sympathy, common humanity, and common sense are needed in the conduct of this war. I take the liberty here of saying—and I wish that my words may reach him—that every fugitive slave that he surrenders will rise in judgment against him hereafter with a shame which no victory that he can win can remove."

The consideration of the resolution was postponed until the next day, when it was agreed to.

On the same day, the following resolution was adopted unanimously in the Senate:

Whereas, John C. Breckinridge, a member of this body from the State of Kentucky, has joined the enemies of his country, and is now in arms against the Government he has sworn to support: therefore,

Resolved, That the said John C. Breckinridge, the traitor, be, and is hereby, expelled from the Senate.

Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, offered the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia:

Resolved, That all laws now in force within the District of Columbia relating to the arrest of persons as fugitives from service or labor, together with ail other laws concerning persons of color within the District of Columbia, be referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia; and that the committee be further instructed to consider the expediency of abolishing slavery in the District, with compensation to the loyal holders of slaves.

In the House, on the same day, Mr. Holman, of Indiana, offered the following resolution:'

Whereas, this House, on the 22d day of July last, by an almost unanimous vote, adopted the following resolution, submitted to the House by Hon. J. J. Crittenden, of Kentucky:

"Resolved, if the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government, and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged, upon our part, in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of the States; but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union with its dignities, equality, and the rights of the several States unimpaired, and that, as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease:"

And whereas, since that time, no event has occurred to change the policy of the Government: therefore,

Resolved, That the principles above expressed arc solemnly reaffirmed by this House. This was laid on the table: ayes, 71; noes, 65.

Mr. Dunn, of Indiana, also offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs be instructed to inquire into and report whether it is practicable and expedient to obtain the rights and privileges of settlement and of citizenship in any part of this continent, or in the adjacent islands south of the United States, for the benefit of such free persons of African descent as may choose to emigrate thereto from the United States, or where such emigrants may form themselves into independent colonics, under such protection as may secure them from foreign molestation.

 On the 5th of December, in the Senate, Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, introduced his bill, according to previous notice, "for the confiscation of the property of rebels, and giving freedom to the persons they held in slavery. It provided for the absolute and complete forfeiture forever to the United States of every species of property, real and personal, and wheresoever situated within the United States, belonging to persons beyond the jurisdiction of the United States, or beyond the reach of civil process in Page 278 the ordinary mode of judicial proceeding, in consequence of the rebellion, who, during its existence, should take up arms against the United States, or in anywise aid or abet the rebellion; this forfeiture to be enforced against property in the rebellious districts through the military power, and against property in the other portions of the United States in which the judicial power is not obstructed by the rebellion, through the courts; and the proceeds of the property of each individual seized and forfeited, subject to the just claims of his loyal creditors, to be held for the benefit of loyal citizens despoiled of their property by the rebellion, and to defray the expenses incurred in its suppression. The bill also forfeited the claims of all rebels, and those who gave them aid and comfort, to the persons they held in slavery, declared the slaves thus forfeited free, and made it the duty of the President to provide for the colonization of such of them as might be willing to go, in some tropical country, where they might have the protection of the Government, and be secured in all the rights and privileges of freemen. The property belonging to traitors, or those giving them comfort, who might be convicted by the judicial tribunals, was to be forfeited on their conviction; the realty for life, and the personal property for ever."

Mr. Trumbull thus stated the principles in accordance with which this bill had been framed:

"The Constitution declares that Congress shall have power 'to declare war,' and 'make rules concerning captures on land and water,' 'to raise and support armies;' 'to provide and maintain a navy; to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; to provide for calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions,' and 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.' Acting under these grants of power, Congress has provided for bringing into service more than half a million of men who are now engaged in suppressing the insurrection; and has, to some extent, made rules for the government of these forces, which, as far as they go, are obligatory on them; but in the absence of any regulation as to how the army is to be used in suppressing the insurrection, its commander would be at liberty to make such use of it, consistent with the rules of civilized warfare, as he believed most conducive to the service of the state, and best calculated to secure the end for which it was called into being; upon the principle that every man intrusted with an employment, or duty, is presumed to be invested with all the power necessary to enable him to perform the service. Hence the authority of the army in the suppression of an insurrection to seize, imprison, or shoot the insurgents, to desolate the country they occupy, to seize and appropriate for the time being their property, and free the persons they hold in bondage, is as ample and complete under the Constitution as that of a court in peaceful times to arrest, imprison, try, and execute a murderer.

"That the judicial tribunals have no right or power to interfere with the army in the exercise of its powers in suppressing an insurrection, either by issuing writs of habeas corpus or otherwise, is apparent, from the fact that the only ground on which the military authority can be invoked at all, is, that the judicial tribunals, being overborne, are incompetent to the task. The judicial authority ceases at the very point where the military begins. It may be, and often is, a delicate question to determine this particular point, and decide in what localities the military, and in what judicial authority should have sway. This the Constitution has left to be provided for by Congress, by declaring that it shall have authority to call forth the militia to suppress insurrection; and Congress, soon after the adoption of the Constitution, passed an act authorizing the President to call forth the militia for that purpose, whenever the laws of the United States were obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings; and by an act passed at the first session of the present Congress, the President is authorized, in certain cases, to declare the inhabitants of a State, or part thereof, in a state of insurrection, and make use of the army to suppress it. the responsibility, therefore, of determining when and in what districts of the United States the military power may be used to suppress a rebellion, is devolved by Congress on the Executive, and when the military power is called into requisition, the judicial authority can no more interfere with its action, than can the military with the judicial tribunals in time of peace. Under certain circumstances either may be called to the aid of the other. The courts sometimes make use of the military in aid of the execution of their powers, and the military would doubtless have like authority to make use of the aid of the judicial tribunals in districts under insurrectionary control, should they be deemed a proper means by the military power to aid in suppressing the rebellion. In each case the power called to the aid of the other, whether it be the military in time of peace to the assistance of the judicial, or the judicial in time of rebellion to the assistance of the military, would be subordinate to the power making the call."

The Constitution defines the offence of which the Southern people have been guilty, and prescribes the extent of their punishment. This fact seems to be overlooked by Mr. Trumbull. The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On the same day, in the House, Mr. Gurley, of Ohio, offered the following resolution, which was adopted:

Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee be requested to inquire if a telegraphic censorship of the press has been established in this city; if so, by whose authority and by whom it is now controlled: to report Page 279 if such censorship has not been used to restrain a wholesome political criticism and discussion, while its professed and laudable object has been to withhold from the enemy important information in reference to the movements of the army.

He also, on the same day, introduced a hill "to confiscate the property of rebels, to liberate their slaves and employ or colonize the same, and for other purposes," which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

On the same day Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, offered the following resolution:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, required to revoke the first section of General Order No. 8, bearing date of November -Jo, 1861, of Major-General Halleck, commanding the Western Department

[The section of General Halleck's order referred to in the resolution was as follows:

                   HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF MISSOURI

                                        ST; LOUIS, November 20,1861. |

GENERAL ORDERS, NO. 8.

I. It has been represented that important information, respecting the number and condition of our forces, is conveyed to the enemy by means of fugitive slaves, who are "admitted within our lines. In order to remedy this 6»il, it is directed that no such persons be hereafter permitted to enter the lines of any camp, or of any forces on the march; and that any now within such lines be immediately excluded therefrom.]

Mr. Lansing, of New York, offered the following substitute, which was accepted, and its consideration postponed:

Whereas, Major-General Halleck, of the Western Department, has issued an order prohibiting negroes from coming within the lines of our army, and excluding those already under the protection of our troops; and whereas a different policy and practice prevails in other departments, by the direct sanction of the Administration; and whereat said order is cruel and inhuman, and, in the judgment of this House, based upon no military necessity: therefore,

Resolved, That the President be respectfully requested to direct General Halleck to recall said order, or cause it to conform with the practice of the other departments of the army.

On the same day Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, offered the following, which was referred to the Judiciary Committee:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all acts and parts of acts in force in the District of Columbia, which authorizes the commitment to the jails of said District, of persons as runaways, or suspected or charged with being runaways, and of free negroes, mulattoes, and other persons found living idle and without visible means of maintenance; and all acts and part of acts which authorize the sale of persons so committed, for charges of commitment or jail fees, be, and the same are hereby, repealed; and to so commit, or imprison, or sell any person for the causes aforesaid, within said District, is hereby declared a misdemeanor, and any person or persons so offending after the passage of this resolution shall, upon indictment and conviction, be subject to a fine not exceeding $500, and imprisonment not exceeding one year, nor less than three months, at the discretion of the court.

Mr. Riddle, of Ohio, offered the following, which was agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Interior be requested to furnish to this House information as to the number of slaves now holden, or resident within the District of Columbia, and of their estimated value; and also such information us be may possess as to their intellectual and moral condition."

Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, offered the following, which was agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee for the District of Columbia be requested to report the number of fugitive slaves that have been confined in the Government jail in Washington within the last year and a half; by whom claimed, whether any have been returned to the claimants; by what authority, and to whom, &c.

In the House, on the 11th. The resolution relative to the order of General Halleck abovementioned was considered.

Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, said: "We all know—for we have seen it in the orders— that successor of General Fremont, more, I believe, for the purpose of hunting down General Fremont than from any general principle, has ordered that all slaves that have been received within our lines by order of General Fremont should be excluded and returned to their masters, and that, in future," none others shall be permitted to come within those lines, upon a pretence, which any man who reads must know is a false pretence, that they are spies, and carry intelligence to the enemy. That is too bald a pretence to secure the belief of a child even. That slaves who have run away from their masters and sought protection from us, should have any desire to return as spies, and give information to the enemy, seems incredible. All our information from every source, so far as I have heard, is that those persons never desire to return, and that they are faithful to those who protect them. I hope the resolution will be passed, for the purpose of affecting our generals everywhere else.

"We know that this system of excluding fugitives from labor from our lines, and returning them to their masters, was inaugurated by General McClellan in Western Virginia. Afterward came the magnificent proclamation of General Dix, when he sent down an army into Eastern Virginia, amidst enemies and secessionists—for I venture to say that in those counties of Virginia, as well as in the adjoining counties of Maryland, there are not fifty loyal men—which ordered, in effect, the arrest of all fugitive slaves which came to them, and their delivery of them to their masters, and to exclude them entirely from their lines, because special care was to be taken that nobody's slaves should be liberated.

"In my judgment, all these cases which I have recited are a disgrace to the profession of arms; and if done on the mere motion of the commanding generals, they deserve to have the epaulets stripped from their shoulders. If done by the direction of higher authority, I have only to say, God forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, followed, and said: "But I desire to state, in reference to the last remark of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that it is my honest conviction that these orders are given by the promptings of the generals Page 280 themselves, and that they have no authority to issue them from the President. I am satisfied that that is true. While the President does not remove and cashier them, as I would do, yet I do not believe he has given them any authority whatever, directly or indirectly, to proceed in this inhuman and shameful manner; for it is the concurrent testimony of every general in the field—and it is in accordance with my own observation while in the western department—that these slaves never play the game of spy; and that they are truly loyal and faithful. I remember very well that General McDowell, before that fatal battle, was careful to inquire of every fugitive whom he met in relation to the position and movements of the enemy, and the topography of the country. I am satisfied that they are the most reliable scouts we have; that they give us the host information we have; and I do think it is most shameful, and mean, and contemptible for a major-general of the United States to slander a race already degraded, poor, and despised. It is an utter shame."

Mr. Blair, of Missouri, replied: "I desire to state to the House, in justification of General Halleck, what occurred between us when I called on him the day after that order was issued. I know I may speak of it, because he does not care to conceal his sentiments. I told him I believed his order would be misunderstood and misconstrued, as it has been here today. He told me then that he had no idea of contravening the law of Congress, or the policy of the Administration on this subject; that his simple object was to exclude from his camp— not his lines—persons who could convey information to the enemy. As an instance of what he intended to guard against, I will say that at Cairo it was the habit of slaves to come into camp from Kentucky and southeastern Missouri for the purpose of selling provisions, and then going back into Missouri and Kentucky, where they fell into the hands of the enemy, who exacted information from them. He desired to put a stop to this thing, and that was the moving cause of his having published this order. I believe that what he stated in reference to this matter can be corroborated by gentlemen who were at Cairo at the time; and he said, moreover, that he not only intended to exclude from his camp these fugitive slaves who came there, and then went back to the enemy's camp, but that he meant to exclude everybody, white and black; that he meant to make no distinction in the matter, but that it was a more military order, to preserve the discipline of his camp, and prevent the enemy from getting information."

Mr. Fouke, of Illinois, made the following statement: "Inasmuch as Cairo has been alluded to, I will state the fact that the officers and soldiers there regard this order of General Ilalleck as a most wise and salutary one. I care not what motives prompted him to make it, it was one which was much needed. The statement of my colleague in regard to the fidelity of these slaves is, in the main, untrue. We were misled on the 7th of November last by one of them, and my own regiment was led into ambush, and suffered the consequences. You cannot, therefore, rely upon the fidelity and loyalty of the slaves of Missouri, or any other State. I merely state facts which are known to our whole army there; and let my colleague's views prevail, and there is an end of recruiting for the volunteer service in my section of the State. These negroes come into our camps to sell their produce, and then communicate to the enemy information regarding the situation of our army. These are facts; and I know that every man bearing arms there will substantiate what I say."

Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, replied: "The concurrent testimony of all these generals with whom I conversed was in contravention of the statement of my colleague as to the general principle, not in reference to that particular case. I would ask my colleague what became of the negro who betrayed his regiment? Will my colleague be kind enough to answer?"

Mr. Fouke answered thus: "I do not happen to know what became of him afterward. We fell into the engagement at half past ten o'clock in the morning and remained under fire until five o'clock in the evening, and I had no time to look after the negro, about whom my colleague seems to be more concerned than the wounded and slain upon the battle-field; and I think if he would pay less attention to the negro and more to the interests of his country, we would get along much better with this war."

Mr. Blair, of Missouri, added: "General Halleck stated, in addition to what I have already said, that he intended to use those slaves who ran away from their masters if he could use them with advantage to the Government; that he intended, if he found that it would weaken the enemy, to take their slaves from them wherever he found them; but he did not intend that that class of persons, or any other unauthorized persons, should come into his camp."

Mr. Julian, of Indiana, followed, saying: "This resolution relates to the policy adopted by General Halleck in his division of the army. I think that the policy of the Administration itself is in favor of delivering up to their masters such slaves as come into the camps. I state this from the fact that within the past few days a slave girl, claimed by a Mr. Jessup, of Cockeysville, Maryland, found her way into the camp of Colonel Brown, of the Twentieth Indiana regiment, and accompanied the regiment to Fortress Monroe. The master, learning her whereabouts, demanded his slave. Colonel Brown refused to deliver her up. Application was then made to Secretary Cameron, who ordered General Wool to have her delivered up to her claimant, which I understand, in pursuance of the order, he did. I infer, therefore, that the general policy of the Administration sanctions the conduct of General Halleck in reference to Page 281 this matter, and renders necessary some action on the part of Congress, looking to a change of that policy."

Mr. Blair, of Missouri, replied: "I infer quite the contrary from the sentiments expressed by the President in his annual message. Whatever Mr. Cameron, or any other officer, may hare done, I take what the President says to be at least an indication of his policy— and he is at the head of the Administration."

Mr. Kellogg, of Illinois, said: "The gentleman from Indiana charges pretty clearly that the Administration favors the line of policy indicated by the order under consideration. If the gentleman knows that President Lincoln, by any act or word communicated to this House, or spoken out of it, is in favor of it, I would like him to point to it now. I assume to say, however, that the Administration has had no hand, directly or indirectly, in the order of General Halleck, or in shaping the policy which is in the general line of that order, as construed by my colleague. I am inclined to say this from watching tolerably closely the acts of the Administration, and reading, tolerably carefully, all that the President has said on the subject. I do not hesitate to say that the Administration is in no way complicated with the policy indicated in this order. I do not assume to say that the President is opposed to or in favor of it; but I do say, that no action, of this Administration has induced that order, and that, in my judgment, the Administration will not indicate such a general policy."

Mr. Blair, of Missouri, again said: "I think, Mr. Speaker, that when the Congress of the United States shall itself have indicated a policy on this subject, and shall have passed a law justifying the Administration in taking such and such grounds, it will be time enough for us to censure the Administration or to censure others for not following the policy laid down by us. Up to this time no such policy has been indicated by Congress."

The resolution was subsequently laid on the table: yeas, 76; nays, 64.

On the next day Mr. Blair, by permission, read the following from General Halleck:

     HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI,  

                                         ST. LOUIS, December 8,1861.

MY DEAR COLONEL: Yours of the 4th instant is just received. Order No. 3 was, in my mind, clearly a military necessity. Unauthorized persons, black" or white, free or slaves, must be kept out of our camps, unless we are willing to publish to the enemy everything we do, or intend to do. It was a military, and not a political order.

I am ready to carry out any lawful instructions in regard to fugitive slaves, which my superiors may give me, and to enforce any law which Congress may pass. Bat I cannot make law, and will not violate it. You know my private opinion on the policy of confiscating the slave property of the rebels in arms. If Congress shall pass it, you may be certain that I shall enforce it. Perhaps my policy as to the treatment of rebels and their property is as well set out in Order No. 13, issued the day your letter was written, as I could now describe it.

    HON. F. F. BLAIR, Washington.

The resolutions offered by Mr. Eliot, of Massachusetts, and others, were then taken up. (See p. 276.) Mr. Eliot, after explaining the resolution, said: "Our President may act, our commander-in-chief, within his province, and the officers under him in command may act, and I believe are called upon to act, by every consideration of humanity and of patriotism. And, coming from the commonwealth I represent, in part—a State which has performed no small service in this war—I call upon yon to aid mo in giving such expression of the judgment of this House as shall command respect. I am not here to boast of the bravery or the patriotism of Massachusetts soldiers. In their name and in their behalf I pray you to call upon the military arm to strike that blow more effective for peace and for freedom than armies or victories can be, and convert the slave, which is the power of the enemy, into the free man who shall be their dread. So shall the sword intervene for freedom! If I have read the history of Massachusetts aright, that is the intervention her fathers contemplated!"

Mr. Steele, of New York, replied: "There is a consideration, in my judgment, in opposition to these resolutions which we must heed, and that is this: that, whether right or wrong, a very large majority of the soldiers of our army are opposed to this anti-slavery agitation. Is it possible that those extreme measures are to be forced through Congress simply for the purpose of showing the sense of Congress upon this question, when gentlemen opposite tell us there is no need of any such laws? And do you suppose it can be done without demoralizing our army? These men have been educated all their lives in the idea that this agitation of the slavery question was unprofitable, and that it was likely to produce the very state of things which now exists; and they believe—whether right or wrong, they religiously believe—that the unnecessary agitation of this slavery question is the solo and only cause of all our troubles. Now, sir, let it be understood, let it be read in our camps, that this war is prosecuted, as has been more than intimated by the gentleman from Massachusetts, for the extinction of slavery, and I tell you, gentlemen, whether you believe it or not, the power of our army is paralyzed."

Mr. Conway, of Kansas, said: "To retain slavery under existing circumstances, in our body politic, would, in my judgment, evince the very worst kind of folly or wickedness. To eliminate it forever should be the unwavering determination of the Government. Nevertheless, the Administration refuses to heed such counsel, and persists in regarding the institution as shielded by such constitutional sanction as it is not at liberty to infract. The President, in his recent message to Congress, refers only incidentally to the subject; and indicates its policy whatever for dealing with the momentous question."

On the results of the war he said: "The success Page 282 of the Government in subduing upon its present plan the rebellious States must inevitably result in restoring the domination of the slaveholding class by reinstating the institution, under the forms of our constitutional system, in the powers, privileges, and immunities which have always pertained to it. Hence, such a policy is calculated to bring no lasting peace to the country, and utterly fails to fulfil the object to which a wise statesmanship would strive to direct the present momentous occasion.

"It is no answer to me to say that it would elevate to power in the South men of more agreeable manners, or even more gentle proslavery views, than are now on the stage. In truth, the character of the agents whom the slaveholders select to represent them has no important relation to the question. Men are of but little consequence in this case. It is a contest of principles. The rehabilitation of slavery in the Union brings with it the whole train of evils under which the country has suffered from the origin of the Government.

"There are many persons, however, who believe that slavery may be placed where it will be in the course of ultimate extinction; that, indeed, the effect of this war, in any event, will be so to weaken it in all the States in which it exists that it will be unable to recover from the shock thereby inflicted, but will languish and ultimately die, without a disturbing struggle.

"This is, in my judgment, a mistake. The inexorable and eternal condition of the life of slavery is, that it must not only hold its own, but it must get more. Such is the unchangeable law, developed from the conflict of slavery with the order of justice; and no one is competent to render a judgment in the case who does not recognize it."

Mr. Harding, of Kentucky, said: "I ask, sir, whether the President does not stand pledged before the country and the world to this conservative policy? It is plain that Congress and that this Administration all stand pledged in the most solemn manner to the people of this country to follow this line of policy, and not depart from it.

"It follows, then, that Congress and the President being pledged to this conservative policy, he cannot now, nor can Congress, swerve from it without a palpable and plain violation of the plighted faith of both. To sanction the policy proposed by these resolutions would be to turn the war away from its legitimate purpose, and indeed to turn the bayonets of our soldiers against the institution of slavery. It would not only be a departure from the policy heretofore indicated, but would in fact be a betrayal of the loyal States who have been induced with such great unanimity to vote men and money to carry on this war for the defence of the Government. "Why, sir, common honesty would demand, if I induce a man to engage in any enterprise on stipulated conditions, that I should stand by him and adhere to my agreement. Let me put the case to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Eliot), who introduced these resolutions. I take the ground that this war should have nothing to do with the institution of slavery, any more than with any other state institution. Let slavery alone, it will take care of itself. Let me argue with the gentleman from Massachusetts, who moved these resolutions. The President and the Secretaries and Congress, by their action, have induced us with great unanimity to raise a very large army. Some six hundred thousand men have been brought into the field. Large amounts of money have been voted and expended. Direct taxes have been imposed even upon the necessaries of life. All this has been done to sustain, defend, and preserve the Constitution and Government of our fathers.

"But after our troops are in the field, and have their armor on, suppose I come up from Kentucky and propose to divert the war from its legitimate objects by urging that the regiments from Massachusetts should be employed part of their time in capturing and returning runaway slaves? Would not the representatives from that State rise up and denounce such a proposition with the deepest indignation? What, then, is it yon propose? If it would be bad faith and a fraud upon your troops to employ them in capturing and returning fugitive slaves, I ask whether it would not be far more fraudulent and in bad faith to the loyal men of Kentucky who have girded on their swords and gone out to fight for the Union, to tell them that from this time forth they shall be engaged in making war upon the institution of slavery—a war for the destruction of their own property, and leading on to all the bloody horrors of servile insurrection?

"Sir, let me illustrate a little further, to show how destructive this policy is, and how strange it is that a man should be so far misguided as to permit himself to be influenced by it. We all know that a man's honest conviction of right, the burning zeal which he feels within him when he is engaged in this abolition war, or war of emancipation, is no evidence whatever that he is right. I remember that Paul himself was never more zealous than when he was breathing out threatenings and death; when he was persecuting, wasting, and destroying the churches of God; and he was doing all that in the name of religion, and 'verily thought he was doing God's service.' But when the scales fell from his eyes he saw things in their true light, and he was a different man. I would that the scales might fall from the eyes of every one. What has this question of slavery to do with this war? We have no more right to interfere with slavery in a Southern State than with the common school system, or any other local institution of a Northern State. Suppose I should arise hero and propose a bill to abolish or radically change the common school system of Massachusetts, Page 283 and should urge that dangerous political heresies were taught in those schools, such as the higher law doctrine and various other wild and extravagant notions, tending to disqualify men for self-government, and to array them against the Constitution of our country; and that therefore these schools are at war with the spirit of our free institutions, and must be put down. Might not the gentleman from Massachusetts with great propriety interrogate me thus: 'Sir, have you any property or interest in Massachusetts?' 'None whatever.' 'Were you ever there?' 4 Never.' 'Do you desire to go there?' 'Not at all; I am satisfied to live in Kentucky.' 'Do you ever expect to be in Massachusetts?' 'No.' 'Why then concern yourself about our local institutions?' 'Ah, but you forget, I am engaged in a philanthropic line of business; that is all.' [Laughter.] 'Well, sir, perhaps you had better turn your attention to Kentucky. I have known men to show much good sense and acquire fine fortunes by simply attending to their own business; but no man ever manifested the one or secured the other by intermeddling with and giving his time to matters which no way concerned him. All that ever was accomplished in that way has been to annoy others and benefit nobody.' How would I respond to that argument of my friend? I think I should ' give it up,' and immediately move to lay the bill upon the table.

"Now, that is exactly a parallel case with this. It is manifest that the Constitution of the United States secures to each State the right to have or not to have the institution of slavery—just as essentially so as it does the right to regulate your own common school system. We have no more right to make war upon the institution of slavery than upon any other local institution. The Constitution secures to each State the right of regulating its own domestic institutions; and it must necessarily protect slavery, as certainly as it protects your own common school system. Our wisest men, the President of the United States, the heads of departments, and Congress, having with united voice declared that we have no constitutional power upon the subject, how are you to escape from the difficulty?

"Sir, the Union cause in the border States has already lost more strength by the agitation of this question in Congress, at this session, than was lost by the defeat of our arms at Bull Run. Gentlemen should take care, lest in their great zeal to strike off the bonds of the slave they should be preparing chains and slavery for themselves and posterity.

"Sir, the fearful responsibility, the deep guilt and crime, of plunging this great country into all the horrors of civil war and bloodshed, does not rest alone upon the leading secessionists of the South; a full share of that criminal guilt is justly chargeable to the leading disunion abolitionists of the North. If this Government shall outride the angry storms now threatening its destruction, and the fearful day of just retribution shall come, may it not be justly said to these leading spirits from the North and the South: You have been co-workers in the attempt to destroy the Government of your country You of the North sought to dissolve the Union of these States, professedly to destroy slavery. You of the South sought to dissolve it, professedly to protect slavery. You were both disunionists—all rebels against the Government. As State after State plunged into the gulf of disunion, your shouts of triumph from the North rose up and met the peals of joy from the South. You have smitten k. great country with desolation and waste. You have crimsoned fields with kindred blood. You have filled the whole land with weeping widows and orphans. In guilt and crime you have been banded together, like Siamese twins, through life, and you ought not to be separated in death. It is but just that you should expiate your enormous crime together, on the same scaffold, and together be buried in the same traitors' grave."

The resolutions were then referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: ayes, 77; noes, 57.

_______

In the Senate on the 16th, Mr. Ten Eyck, of New Jersey, offered the following resolution, which was laid on the table and ordered to be printed:

Resolved, That the present war is for the Union, according to the Constitution; that its object is to save the former and enforce the latter—was so in the beginning, is now as carried on, and should be, to the last; that measures, extreme and radical, disruptive in themselves, involving in a common fate as well the loyal as disloyal, should not be resorted to; and that in crushing treason—wide-spread and hateful as it is —the Government itself cannot prove traitor to organic law.

Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, offered the following, which was agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia be instructed to inquire into the expediency and propriety of establishing by law a uniform mode of dealing with the slave; of rebels escaping from their masters, or taken as prisoners by our Army.

Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, offered the following resolution, which was agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office be directed to consider if any further legislation is necessary in order to secure to persons of African descent, in our own country, the right to take out patents for useful inventions, under the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Secretary of State be directed to inform the Senate whether, in the loyal States of the Union, any person or persons have been arrested and imprisoned and are now held in confinement by orders from him or his Department; and, if so, under what law said arrests have been made, and said persons imprisoned.

Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, expressing his regret that, the resolution had been introduced, said: "What are the arrests which the resolution proposes to consider? They are well known Page 284 to the country, so far at least as relates to their object and character. It is well understood that during the last six months, while our existence as a nation seemed for a time to hang upon a thread—while large armies threatened the capital, and its safety was, at one period, in great doubt, there were, in many of the loyal States, men of dangerous character and designs allowed to go at large, although it was well understood they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy in every possible manner. Some of them infested my own State. I am glad to be able to say that they were, for the most part, emissaries from other States, and that the disgrace of giving them birth, or of affording them ft home, did not belong to us. They first manifested their treasonable purposes by attempting to institute a series of peace meetings (see Annual Cyclopaedia, 1861—Connecticut), so called, by which they hoped to debauch the public mind and prepare it for degrading submission, under the false pretence of restoring peaceful relations between the North and the South. What effect these meetings might have had in deceiving the more unthinking, does not appear; but acting in accordance with the wishes of almost our entire people, the Secretary of State put a sudden stop to their treasonable designs by arresting and confining one or more of the most obnoxious. It was precisely the right thing, done at precisely the right time; and it nipped treason in Connecticut in the bud. It struck terror to the hearts of all who sympathized with secession, and it encouraged the hearts and strengthened the hands of every true-hearted and patriotic citizen. It was, certainly, the opinion of many that the summary process of arrest and confinement did not go far enough; that others, equally guilty, ought to have been placed under restraint; hut the desired effect was produced, and an appeal to the fears of a certain class accomplished what nothing else could accomplish.

"Now, sir, I maintain that the action of the Government in making the arrests alluded to was not only justifiable, but that not to have pursued it would have been moral treason on the part of the President. Was he to see the Government paralyzed by the unprincipled men who, under the false pretence of peace, were seeking to ruin the country by distracting and dividing our people? Was he to allow information and materials of war to be furnished to the enemy by open, avowed secessionists? For one, sir, I thank him—I thank the Secretary of State, as does every loyal citizen of Connecticut, for any and every arrest made there; and I shall not vote an inquiry into the legality of these arrests. They find their justification in the dire necessity of the times."

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, replied: "I have said upon this floor that I believe the Constitution of the United States confers all the power which is necessary to enable the Government to crush this gigantic rebellion. "Why? Because the Constitution confers on Congress the power to raise armies to put it down, and when the power is given to raise armies to put down insurrection, the power comes also to crush it in the way that armies are accustomed to act. It is with powder and hall that it is to be done; and neither your jury trials nor your habeas corpus acts can interfere with the Army which, clothed with constitutional power to crush a rebellion, goes forth armed for the purpose of putting it down in the very way that armies subdue their enemies. But, sir, this is a resolution of inquiry, simply as to the arrest of persons in the loyal States. That is all it is. The Senator from Connecticut tells us there were persons in his State who were allowed to go at large when they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I am astonished at that. I should have supposed that in the goodly State of Connecticut men giving aid and comfort to the enemy would have been arrested and tried, and if convicted by a jury, would have been hung."

Mr. Dixon, interrupting for explanation, said: "If the Senator will allow me, I will repeat to him what kind of aid and comfort those men gave to the enemy. I stated that they gave aid and comfort to the enemy by instituting a series of meetings, falsely called 'peace meetings,' in which they addressed largo assemblages of the people, and attempted to debauch the public mind on the question of this war, claiming that we were the aggressors; that the South were acting in self-defence; that the Administration was making war upon the South. Now, sir, if the Senator can inform me how such men can be attacked by arms, by powder and ball, I shall thank him for the information. I do not know how they could be arrested for treason. I do not say they were guilty of open treason. They were guilty of moral treason; and the Secretary of State, to the great joy of every loyal citizen of Connecticut, imprisoned one or more of those men and put a stop to the whole proceeding. I thank him for doing it. I will not ask him a single question as to the provisions of the law or the Constitution upon which he acted."

Mr. Trumbull responded: "The Senator assumes that these persons were traitors. Who is to decide that? He says he will ask no questions. Why, sir, how does he know that, in portions of this country where there is no disturbance and no insurrection, the right persons will be arrested? The unconstitutionality of such action as this seems to be admitted by the Senator who comes to the defence of this despotic power. Why, sir, the power—without charge, without examination, without opportunity to reply, at the click of the telegraph—to arrest a man in a peaceable portion of the country and imprison him indefinitely, is the very essence of despotism. I thought the Senator from Connecticut was engaged in a war to defend and uphold the Constitution. What, sir, becomes of constitutional liberty, what are we fighting for, if this broad ground is to be assumed and Page 285 to be justified in this body, and any man is to be thanked for assuming an unconstitutional and unwarranted authority? What are we coming to, if arrests may be made at the whim or the caprice of a cabinet minister? Do you suppose he is invested with infallibility, so as always to decide aright? Are yon willing to trust the liberties of the citizens of this country in the hands of any man, to be exercised in that way? May not his order send the Senator from Connecticnt or myself to prison? Why not?

"Now, sir, I am for regulating this thing by law. That is the object of my inquiry. If additional legislation is necessary for the purpose of punishing persons who sympathize with treason in Connecticut, or in any other loyal State of this Union, where the laws can he enforced through the judicial tribunals, I say let us give that additional legislation, and let us not sanction the exercise of such high powers as theso outside of the law, and as the Senator says, 'on the plea of necessity.' Why, sir, I deny the necessity. The principle contended for would justify riots and mobs in punishing criminals wherever found. Suppose a man has committed an offence apparent to the whole country, shall the citizens of the country get together and execute the man without trial; or imprison him and hold him in prison without trial? Is that the way the laws of the country are to be administered? Has the Constitution no meaning, and aro laws to have no efficacy? We shall have anarchy at once if such doctrine is to prevail."

Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, again replied: "I confess I never have heard anything in the Senate, which filled me with more astonishment than the remarks which have fallen from the Senator from Illinois; and they have strengthened mo in the opinion that this resolution ought not to pass. He talks about the whim and caprice of the Secretary of State. Sir, I deny here, on behalf of that officer of the Government, that he has been actuated by whim or caprice. I say he was compelled to take the course he did; and, if he had not, he himself would have been a moral traitor. Now, if we are told that we ought to pass laws providing for such cases in the future, I have not the least objection. If the Senator refers to the future, very well. Let him make a law, if he can, which shall define the powers of the President in such a case. Let it be a precedent for the future; let it be a guide for the future, if we should ever be placed hereafter in similar circumstances. But when the Senator proposes to go back six months, and inquire of the Secretary whom he has arrested, why he has arrested him, and for what reason; and when he talks about innocent persons being arrested, and then discharged, I cannot comment upon it. I can only express my surprise that language like that should fall from a Senator known to be so devoted as he is to the cause of the country and the Constitution.''

Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, followed. He said: "I regret, Mr. President, that the Senator from Illinois has introduced this resolution, and I deplore the speech he has mado in its support. That Senator knows, as we all know, that the Secretary of State, in obedience to the order of the President of the United States, has made arrests in 'he loyal States. Why then ask the Secretary if such arrests have been made, and the law upon which they were made? If the Senator does not approve of the action of the Secretary of State in making those arrests, or rather the action of the President of the United States in ordering those arrests, instead of reflecting on the Secretary of State or the President, why does not that Senator come into the Senate with a bill proposing to enact a law that shall clothe the Government of this country with ample powers to arrest and imprison men who are in complicity with traitors? Why is it necessary at this time, in this crisis of our country's history, threatened by domestic traitors and by foreign Powers, to come into the Senate of the United States with a resolution that carries an implied censure with it upon the executive Government of the country?"

Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, immediately rose and said: "Mr. President, instead of feeling grief and mortification and regret at the introduction of this resolution, I thank my friend from Illinois for introducing it. I think it eminently proper, eminently appropriate; and I shall feel mortified if the day has come when any act of your Executive may not be inquired into by his sworn constitutional advisers, the Senate of the United States. If, in answering that resolution, if it passes, the Secretary of State or the President shall deem it proper to send it to us under the seal of executive secrecy, I shall find no fault with that; but the right, the power, the propriety, and the necessity of making this inquiry, to my mind, eminently exists. What is the purpose of this inquiry? Have not arrests been made in violation of the great principles of our Constitution? If they have, let us know it, and let us know the necessity which impelled them. If the fact be that such arrests have been made, and if the necessity exists upon which they were made, then I trust there is magnanimity, there is justice, there is patriotism, there is forbearance enough in this Senate and in this Congress to throw the mantle over every act that has been prompted by a patriotic impulse to serve the nation and preserve its liberties. You may gain your victories on the sea, you may sweep the enemy from the brood ocean and from all its arms and from all its rivers, until you may hoist, as the Dutch admiral once hoisted at the head of his flag-staff, a broom, indicative that you have swept the ocean of your foes, and you may crush every rebel that is arrayed against you and utterly break their power; and when you have done all that, when you have established a military Power such as Page 286 the earth never saw, and a naval power such as England never aspired to be, and constitutional liberty shall be buried amid the ashes of that conflagration in which you have overcome and destroyed your foes; then, sir, you will have got a barren victory, and with all your glory you will have but achieved your everlasting shame."

Mr. Kennedy, of Maryland, followed. He said: "Mr. President, I do not know that I could add one word to the remarks that have been made by the Senator from New Hampshire, if I felt so disposed. I do not rise now for the purpose of entering into any debate upon the propriety of this resolution, but simply to express to the Senator from Illinois my hearty thanks for its introduction at this time. I believe it to be eminently proper and just. I think that the condition of the country, and especially of the loyal States, now demands some investigation of this sort. Arrests were made in the loyal States months ago that were charged to have been made without the authority of law. They were vindicated npon the ground of public necessity. It was said that we were then in the beginning of a great rebellion; that the whole country was in a state of alarm and terror, and that it was considered expedient and proper for the Government to use all the means it could command to suppress the insurrection, without reference to the existing laws nt the time."

Mr. Doolittle, of "Wisconsin, moved to refer the resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, objected, saying: "If there is a disposition in the Senate to make any inquiry into these matters, let us know it: and let us know it by a direct vote upon the resolution. I want to know whether or not we are fighting for the Constitution, and for constitutional liberty regulated by law. I hope the resolution will not be referred."

Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, opposed the reference, saying: "I want to know what is the ground upon which the Secretary rests this power. I want to know whether it is anything which we can find in the Constitution, directly or by implication, or whether it is a fancy of his, that in these troubled times there ought to exist at the seat of Government a great, subtle, vague, undefined power pervading the whole country, reaching through all the ramifications of the telegraphic system, which will enable him, while seated in his office, by a dash of his pen, to set the electric fire in motion, and to order arrests at Cincinnati, at Chicago, at Baltimore, or even in Connecticut, where there is no treason, but too much love of peace.

"Sir, I do not believe in the necessity of any such power, lawfully claimed or unlawfully claimed. I do not believe that it is necessary to the management of this war. I do not believe that it promotes the purposes of those who desire to see this Union brought together again—an object of all others to me the most desirable if it be possible. I believe, on the contrary, that it disaffects a great many good and worthy men who desire to see the Onion restored. This, sir, I do know, that if there is no power in the Constitution to authorize these arrests, and if this body shuts its eyes and closes its ears to all complaints on that subject, the day is not far distant when the vital spirit of a republican government will be entirely gone from us.

"Sir, I thank the Senator from Illinois, and the Senator from New Hampshire, for the just and noble sentiments they have expressed to-day, and I shall lament in despondency and grief if the Senate shall shrink from an inquiry so obviously (to me at least) proper as this."

Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, said: "Sir, when these arrests were made, by the authority of the President of the United States, first through the Secretary of War, and afterward, by arrangement, through the action of the Secretary of State, the loyal people of this country were electrified; they felt that they had a government that was ready to exert its power to save the country, and they rejoiced as they did when Mason and Slidell were clutched from the deck of a British vessel, and imprisoned at Fort Warren, under the direction of the Secretary of State. The people of the loyal States have expressed, in every form in which they could make their sentiments known, their approbation of these arrests.

"I should have no objection to the passage of this resolution if it could do any good, but if senators are opposed to these arrests altogether, say so; if they are in favor of these arrests, but believe that this is not the proper mode, then let them come into the Senate with a bill, and I think we shall all vote for a proper measure of that kind, and so arrange it that disloyal persons may be arrested according to the forms of law. That I think is the proper way; it carries no censure, it implies no reflection on any one; but I think the adoption of this resolution, especially after the remarks that have been made here to-day, will be regarded as a reflection upon the President and upon the Secretary of State; and, if it is so understood, traitors whose mouths have been closed during the last four or five months, will again open their treasonable lips, and Jefferson Davis, and the men who are supporting his rebellion, will express their joy, if they do not vote their thanks to the American Senate for thus reflecting upon their own government."

Mr. Trumbull again replied: "I have already stated that this is not a resolution to censure the Administration. "Who makes it a censure on the Administration? "Who seeks any such issue? The Senator from Massachusetts is trying to make such an issue. I have quite as high a regard for the Administration as he has. I stated the object of the resolution. It is a resolution of inquiry, and I have not even said that arrests had been made; but if there is no authority to make them, and it is necessary they should be Page 287 made, we want to pass the necessary law. The Senator from Massachusetts goes off, in his zeal, to denounce traitors. He is no more against traitors than I am, but I am for constitutional liberty and against traitors too. He is against traitors and against the Constitution of his country, and that is the only difference. I will put down treason and save the Constitution, save regulated liberty, and he does not care whether there is any Constitution or not. I am not to be put in such a position. The Senator shall make no such issue with mo—that the resolution is introduced as a reflection on the Administration."

Mr. Latham, of California, said: "I see no necessity for trampling upon the Constitution in order to maintain it. 1 see no necessity for violating all law, and by our refusal to pass this resolution acquiescing in and endorsing usurpation of power, in order to preserve the laws. We present to the civilized world a very sad and humiliating spectacle, in upbraiding revolting States for violating the laws and the Constitution, when we ourselves are committing equal if not greater outrages upon that Constitution and against those laws. What is it? One man, unauthorized by the Constitution or the law, usurps the power to arrest the citizen, to incarcerate him, to discharge him or hold him in prison upon the tenure of his will, without the courts, Congress, the people, or anybody knowing the reasons for this usurpation."

Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, then presented his views, as follows: "I have no question, indeed I know, that, under the directions from the Secretary of State, certain individuals in the loyal States have been arrested and imprisoned. That is notorious; the whole country is aware of it. I will say hero that I do not believe there is the slightest warrant of law for any such proceeding, and I do not suppose you will find a lawyer in the country who does think there is any warrant of law for any such proceeding; and yet I do not shrink from it. For the most part, so far as I know in the great majority of cases, certainly wherever the necessity existed—and I shall not undertake to judge as to that—I justify the act, although it was against law; I justify it from the necessity of the case, and especially in the instances referred to by my friends from Maryland. I will not say in all of those instances, but in many of them; for I am not aware of the facts in all the cases. There are others equally notorious. Why do I say that I justify it? Because, in my judgment, it was absolutely necessary to the protection of the commonwealth, if I may so call it—the Government of the country. It was the business of the Administration, under the circumstances, to see that no detriment was done to the Republic, and where they acted, believing conscientiously that the good of the country demanded this action in this the hour of her peril, although they may have acted against law, I honor the man who, under such circumstances, takes the responsibility; and I say here that if I were in power as an executive officer, and if I saw that the good of the country that I was serving demanded that I should stretch my authority, even at the risk of my official or of my own natural life, in order to protect the country, as God is my judge, I would do it, and take the consequences; and it is the duty of every man placed in such a trust to do it. A man who stops, who hesitates, in such a case to inquire, when he sees that the building is about to be wrapped in flames, whether there is a law to guide his action, and pauses for fear that the newspapers may be down upon him, or that he may be called to account, that he may be impeached even, is unfit for a great place.

"That is my opinion; but, sir, while I express that opinion, I say that when he steps beyond it, when the people see, or the representatives of the people see that he is daring for a moment to use that power and that pretence of necessity for a nefarious purpose, for any purpose that is not fully justified by the facts before him—when the country sees, or believes, or dreams, or suspects that he is acting from anything but the highest motives that should actuate a public officer, then I would be ready on the instant to check the first advance, and to lay my hand upon the man.

"Sir, we cannot trifle with these questions in times like those that have preceded the present moment. There have been hours, thero have been days, weeks, and months in the progress of this rebellion, when it was the duty of the Executive to act promptly, without fear, without trembling, at their own risk and the risk of public reprobation; and when they did it from good motives and took that responsibility, it only showed them in my judgment so much the more fitted for the exigency which is upon us. But, sir, I agree with my honored friend from New Hampshire, I agree with my friend from Illinois, and others, that we should watch carefully, most carefully, the first approach to any exercise of illegal power that is not fully justified by the pressing exigency of the hour, because it has been well said, and is known as a principle which every man certainly of us must recognize, that we, standing hero as the guardians of public liberty, must see that no man infringes on the liberty of the citizen, unless under such circumstances that all the world will justify him from the obvious necessity that requires the act."

Mr. Browning, of Illinois, opposed the passage of the resolution chiefly because it was an inappropriate time to adopt it. He said: "I regard the time at which the inquiry is proposed as the most inopportune that could possibly have been selected. At a time when the energies of evrry department of the Government are taxed to their utmost capacities and powers of endurance to meet and put down a formidable rebellion, threatening the very overthrow of the Government, and at a time when we are probably on the very verge Page 288 of a rupture with one of the most powerful nations of the earth, whose power is to be united with that of the rebels in the fierce struggle with us, I think it would be far better for us to expend our time and our energies in devising the means for the successful prosecution of the war, and the suppression of the rebellion, than to waste it in what will have the appearance, whether it is so in fact or not, and make the impression over all the country of an assault upon the Administration."

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, replied to this objection, saying: "My colleague further says that this is a bad time to after such a resolution. Why, sir, it is the only time when there would be any occasion for such an inquiry. It is in just such times as these that this power is exercised. It is only on such occasions as this, I know, that he would attempt to justify it. In a time of quiet and peace in the country he would not agree that men should be arrested without charge, without complaint, without opportunity to answer. From necessity, if you ever make the inquiry, you must do it now.

"He says, moreover, we give aid and comfort to the enemy by this resolution. Sir, I disagree with him totally. If you will have a united people, if you will bring up the twenty millions of loyal people in this country as one man to crush out this wicked rebellion, you must bring them up believing they are fighting for constitutional liberty; you must bring them up believing they are fighting for law, and to maintain the institutions which are established by the Constitution; and you will weaken your Government, you weaken its hands when you do anything that creates the impression in any portion of the country that we are not fighting for this regulated liberty."

The resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

YEAS.—Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Harris, Howe, Johnson of Tennessee, King, Lane of Indiana, Morrill, Pomeroy, Rice, Sherman, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Wade, and Wilson—25. 

NAYS.—Messrs. Bayard, Bright, Carlile, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Kennedy, Latham, McDougall, Nesmith, Pearce, Powell, Saulsbury, Thomson, Trumbull, Wilkinson, and Willey—17.

_____

On the l6th of December, a bill was brought before the House to authorize the raising of a volunteer force for the better protection of Kentucky. The objections advanced against this bill were that the measure was uncalled for — that there were more soldiers in the field than were necessary, &c. These objections were urged by members who asserted that slavery was the cause of the troubles of the country, and who feared that if this extra force in Kentucky, composed of citizens of the State, was authorized, it might serve as an additional protection to the institution of slavery in Kentucky. Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, opposed its passage. He said: "I am willing to vote all the men and all the money that are needed in defence of the country, and in defence of true and loyal men anywhere within the limits of the United States; but I insist that we have more soldiers now than can be used. If we have sixty thousand soldiers in Kentucky and thereabouts, advancing, and we need twenty thousand more to protect them as they inarch, or to keep the line of communication, twenty thousand more can be ordered from the Potomac, or from some other quarter, for I do not know where all our soldiers are now."

Mr. Richardson, of Illinois, replied: "I hope this bill will pass, sir, and I will state to my colleague why I think it ought to pass. They propose to raise twenty thousand troops in Kentucky who are familiar with all the country there; and the misfortune that has attended us heretofore has been that we have not been familiar with the country where we have had to fight. There are some limitations upon the raising of this force. They are to serve in Kentucky. They will make the most efficient soldiers there. Our base of operations has got to be at Louisville. Twenty thousand troops are necessary in order to guard our base and guard the line that you have got to advance as you go into the rebel States, and these are the best troops that you can get to guard that base, and to guard that line."

Mr. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, followed. He said: "What is proposed by the bill under consideration? It is, that when the main army gets ready for its operation on Columbus, and to open the navigation of the Mississippi river, the rear of the army shall be protected, and the people and homes of Kentucky defended from inroads from Tennessee and Virginia, on these seven hundred odd miles of "border line. We think we will not want this force longer than twelve months, and that we can raise them—suitable, ready, and prompt, to perform that service. We do not say that they shall not serve their country anywhere else. If the commanding general deems it necessary that they shall be moved elsewhere, they will fight wherever an enemy is to be found; and I will guarantee that they will do it well, and will not stop to inquire whether they must cross the line."

Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, objected to the passage of the bill on the ground of economy: "I think that if this House mean that the war shall be carried on to a successful termination, it must be done in such an economical manner as that the people shall not become alarmed, and that it shall not have to be abandoned before it is finished. The only way to guard against that is to use economy, and to restrain the expenditures of the Government within all possible bounds, consistent with carrying it on properly.

"Now, sir, the House ought to know something about what it will be called upon to appropriate, according to the estimates sent to us. The Committee on Ways and Means will Page 289 have to report a deficiency bill, even after Congress appropriating $318,000,000 last July. We shall have to appropriate from one hundred and sixty to two hundred and fourteen million dollars more to make up the deficiencies for this fiscal year. We shall also have to report a bill making an appropriation of $413,000,000 for next year. "We will thus have to appropriate more than six hundred million dollars, without the addition of a single dollar beyond what is estimated for. Now, sir, that in itself is alarming. I confess I do not see how, unless the expenses are greatly curtailed, this Government can possibly go on over six months. If we go on increasing expenses, as we have been doing, and as we propose to do by this bill, the finances, not only of the Government, but of the whole country must give way, and the people will be involved in one general bankruptcy and ruin.

"Now what does this bill propose to do? "We have already in the field an army of six hundred and sixty thousand men. I am told that eighty thousand of these are in Kentucky, constituting the command of General Buell. If that be not enough, it is most remarkable that, out of the six hundred and sixty thousand now in the field, enough cannot be spared to guard Kentucky."

Mr. Diven, of New York, replied: "Mr. Speaker, I wish to advert briefly to the argument employed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Stevens) against this bill—that is, in reference to the enormous expenses that this country is incurring, and his unwillingness to add to that expense under any contingency. Sir, this country is advanced too far in this war to recede. It will not do to mako calculations as to whether the expenses now running against the Government can be endured for two or three years. The expenses that are rolling up daily and monthly must be terminated? How terminated? By withdrawing our troops, disbanding our armies, and giving up this struggle? "Who would thus terminate this expense? No, sir, that is not the way. There is but one determination as to the manner in which this expense shall be abridged. It is by going through with what we have undertaken. This rebellion must be put down, and put down speedily, or it will wear out the resources of the country. In deciding, therefore, whether I will vote for this additional expense or not, I will be controlled by the fact whether this rebellion will sooner be put down by my giving than by my withholding my vote. Let it be made apparent that by this additional force in Kentucky this rebellion can be subdued one month sooner than by withholding it, and it can be shown that no better economy can be employed than by the expenditure of this money in Kentucky."

Mr. "Wright, of Pennsylvania, urged the passage of the bill at some length, during which he alluded to the object of the war in these words: "Sir, if this war is conducted upon  legitimate principles, I have no fears in regard to its result. If you will confine yourself to the proclamation of Abraham Lincoln, issued on the 19th of. April last, when he made his appeal to the people of this country, saying that he wanted an army to put down insurrection and rebellion, and to protect the rights of property and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the States—if gentlemen will but adhere to the principles contained in that proclamation, there is no danger with regard to the result of the war, with the number of troops we now have in the field. But if it be the desire and the plan to change the object of the war, and make it a war for emancipation, I can tell those gentlemen who hug the negro so closely to their bosoms that they do it at the hazard of the very life and existence of the Government itself. I do not pretend to say whether the gentleman from Illinois be of that party or not. If gentlemen will confine themselves even to the principles of the Message which the President sent in at the opening of this session, we need have no fear with regard to the result; but, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Steele) observed the other day, I repeat, if you change the object and principle of the war, you paralyze the bravery of the army; you present another question; you present a divided North and a South united. That would be the effect of such a change of policy. It is a war for the supremacy of the Constitution and laws, and the honor of the flag, and not for the emancipation of slaves. I believe that it is the sworn duty of this Government to accept all the men who offer to come to our standard for that purpose, as these twenty thousand men seek to enlist under our standard in Kentucky, and to make our ranks formidable. I believe that we already have a well-disciplined army."

Mr. Hickman, of Pennsylvania, opposed the bill on the ground that it was giving to Kentucky a military system different from that in the other States, and thus replied to the remarks of the preceding speaker on the conduct of the war: "My colleague (Mr. Wright) has resorted not to argument, but to a declaration which I had hoped might have been avoided upon this floor. It is to this amount: that if this army should at any time be used, as I understand him, under any circumstances, to free negroes from slavery, you will have demoralized the army and imperilled the safety of the country. I enter my protest here against the truth or soundness of any such declaration. It is placing negro slavery above the country. It is making the salvation of slavery superior to and more sacred than the safety of the Constitution of the country. Sir, in my judgment, that man is not fit to conduct this war, either as chief Executive or as a member of the Cabinet or as Commander-in-Chief or as subordinate officer, who does not place the safety of the Constitution beyond and above, immeasurably beyond and above, the safety of negro Page 290 slavery. Whenever that sentiment shall predominate in the United States, as uttered by my colleague, then American liberty will sleep forever. There is but one sentiment which an American patriot can own: that is, that the American Constitution, the American Union, and American institutions, are superior to and above everything else, including local institutions of a peculiar character or the safety of any local people."

Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, met the objection against the merits of the bill by the following statement: "The bill in no respect differs in principle from a previous bill passed by this House on the 22d of last July, and which received the assent both of the gentleman from Pennsylvania and of my worthy friend from Illinois. This bill is as well guarded as that was, touching the objects and purposes for which these volunteers may be called into the field. That bill contains the same phraseology under which my friend from Illinois (Mr. Lovejoy) thinks is lurking a power to strike at the rights of the slave. The declared purpose of that bill and of this is, that the volunteers are to be used 'for suppressing insurrection, repelling invasion, and protecting the public property.' These words are used in the" same sense in each of the bills."

Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, said: "I wish to ask the gentleman why it is necessary to raise this number of men, when we already have enough to perform the service; when we have ten thousand, at least, waiting in Illinois, and anxious to get into a fight somewhere?"

Mr. Bingham replied: "The difficulty is that I do not know that the fact is as it is stated by the gentleman from Illinois. On the contrary, I have the best evidence that the force in the field is not sufficient for the public interest, and therefore I am for the proposed increase."

Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, again rose and said: "I would like to know upon what facts the gentleman states that we really need more soldiers in the service of the United States?"

Mr. Bingham replied: "If the gentleman wants some authority, I will say that we have the report of the Adjutant General of the United States, stating that the whole force in Kentucky is not more than one third of what our public exigencies require. We have also the statement of the representative from Kentucky (Mr. Wickliffe) that the Secretary of "War himself stated that this additional force of twenty thousand is needed now in the service in Kentucky."

Mr. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, repeated his previous statements. He said: "I stated that, before I received the communication from the Legislature of Kentucky, urging the organization of a force of this kind by the General Government, I had consulted the Secretary of "War upon the propriety of it, and explained to him the purposes, objects, and necessity of the corps. He approved of it, or else my cars deceived me. I then went to the President of the United States, and submitted the proposition to him. He took it under consideration, and told me he would consult his cabinet. He afterward informed me that he approved the raising of the troops, that he believed them necessary."

Mr. Maynard, of Tennessee, urged the importance of the bill.. He said: "I have not attended sufficiently close to the movement of this debate to know how the negro question has been introduced into it; but I cannot see how it properly has any connection with it. I suppose there are very few gentlemen—certainly I hope there are but few—upon either side of the House, who do not concur in the general sentiment that the preservation of this Union and the perpetuity of our American nationality is an object infinitely more important for us to consider than either the preservation of slavery or the abolition of slavery. We are told that this legislation is peculiar; that it is abnormal. In answer to that it is sufficient to state that the condition of Kentucky at this time is peculiar. Kentucky occupies a peculiar situation in connection with our public affairs. She is not only invaded by armies in large force and great strength, but she has the elements of disorder within her own limits. She has, in portions of the State, a large number of latent rebels who are very strong in their sympathy with those in active rebellion against the Government, and who are only waiting a fit opportunity to let their sympathy break out in open insurrection. She is surrounded by hostile forces on three sides, who wish to make her Union and loyal citizens feel the force of their wrath in consequence of the attitude of loyalty they have assumed toward the Government. Hence she is subject to invasion from those quarters. Her railroads, her bridges, and her other public property are in constant danger of being destroyed; and this not by the regular movement of armies and large bodies of men, but by guerilla bands who come in the night and go in the night; who go in small numbers by stealth through the byways of the country. In order to defeat them, you do not want armies, but bands of men equal in number and firmness of purpose to them. You want men familiar with the country; who have that sort of local knowledge which will enable them to meet this invading or insurrectionary force. It is manifest that such men must be drawn from the country itself, and that their organization should be in the nature of a police force, to preserve order and give protection to the people at home.

"Now, the State of Kentucky, as has been repeatedly said, has already furnished her quota of troops for the armies of the country. She has, if I mistake not, a larger force in the field for the war than the State of Massachusetts, with her larger and entirely loyal population; yet her resources in the way of raising troops are not exhausted. It does not follow that Page 291 because she has already famished nearly thirty thousand troops for three years, as we have been told she has, she cannot furnish half as many more. It is believed that, for a more limited period, and for the special purposes designated in this bill, she can and will furnish more. I need not 6ay that there are many men who could go into the service for twelve months who would find it inconvenient, if not impracticable, to enlist for three years. If it is admitted that it is the duty of the Government to give protection to loyal citizens who have attested their loyalty to the country by as great sacrifices, at least, as the citizens of any part of the country, I see not how we can hesitate a moment about the passage of this bill. These men must be protected. It is a duty which the Government owes them."

Mr. Blair, of Missouri, rose and replied to the statement that the force was not needed. He said: "Mr. Speaker, I merely desire to occupy the attention of the House for five or six minutes in concluding this debate; and I want especially to reply to the remarks made by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lovejoy), who first spoke in opposition to this bill. He asserted over and over again that this force is unnecessary, and that we have more troops than we want, and do not know what to do with them. Now, I would reply to that remark by saying that we have the best reason in the world for believing that we have not got enough men in the field, for we have not been able to conquer this enemy anywhere as yet. That is one proof of it, and another proof of it is that we never have met them anywhere that they have not outnumbered us. We have never confronted the enemy in battle yet when they have not been superior to us in numbers, nnd we have never been able to drive them back one foot. I think that that ought to be proof conclusive to the gentleman from Illinois that we have not got enough men."

Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, in reply, said: "I suppose that fact is accounted for by this, that the enemy never will meet us unless they are superior in numbers. They watch their opportunity, and never meet us on an equal field with equal numbers." Mr. Blair answered: "Then why does not our army advance and overrun them?"

Mr. Lovejoy again replied: "Because we have no generals."

Mr. Blair responded: "Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen who insist all the time that we have got more men than we want, ought to be made to look the facts in the face. We have not as many men here—though the gentleman is complaining of being overrun in the city of Washington —as the enemy have in their breastworks on the other side of the river."

Mr. Hickman, of Pennsylvania, now rose and said: "I wish to ask the gentleman from Missouri how it comes, then, that this Administration is derelict in its duty in not asking Congress to raise more men"

Mr. Blair replied: "I do not know that the Administration is derelict; I rather think the gentlemen who refuse to vote troops are derelict."

Mr. Hickman responded: "That was not my question. I wish to know of the gentleman from Missouri how it is that the Administration is derelict in duty in this respect; why do they not ask Congress to raise more men! If we have not yet a number sufficient to conquer the enemy, then it is the plain duty of the Administration to ask us to vote more men; but they have not done so. This measure comes upon the recommendation of the Military Committee alone."

Mr. Blair again said: "Let me say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that if the Administration is derelict, as he argues, that is no reason why we should be so; and when we see the fact as plainly as the Administration can see it, or as anybody else can see it, that our armies are not advancing, and that we have never met the enemy except when the enemy were in overwhelmingly superior numbers; when that is the undisputed fact before the country, we are ourselves derelict in duty if we do not vote additional troops.

"Now, sir, let me reply to another question which the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lovejoy) asked of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Wright,) and that was, whether he was willing to accept all the men who would offer their service in this war? I say I would—every man. It would end the war quicker and more cheaply, in my opinion. I think the objection of the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means (Mr. Stevens), that this is an expensive measure, and that our Republic is to be crushed by the expense of this war, is invalid. I believe that the more men we raise the more speedily will we end this war, and the more cheaply, too. I should have been in favor of doubling the number of men we have raised, and putting them in the field; and if it had been done sooner, in my opinion we should have felt the advantage of it now."

The bill was then read a third time and passed the House, but failed to pass in the Senate.

The subject of a reduction of the army camo up also in the Senate, on the 28th of March. Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, moved that the Committee on Military Affairs and Militia be discharged from the further consideration of the following resolution:

Resolved, That in the opinion of the Senate no persons should be commissioned as generals of divisions or brigades except such as shall exhibit superior competency in the command of men, or gallantry in action against the enemy.

Mr. Grimes thus stated the object of the resolution: "I merely desire to get it before the Senate in order that we may put it in the proper form, and then express to the country and to those who have the authority to appoint general officers in the army, what are our convictions Page 292 as to the proper course to be pursued. I wish the Senate and the country to know that at this time there have been appointed one hundred and eighty brigadier generals in the United States Army—one hundred and seventy-two irregular or volunteer brigadier generals and eighty brigadiers in the regular army. The pay of these officers is $3,951 a year, including their legitimate pay proper and a portion of the commutation of their rations; but in addition to that, they draw upon an average, as I have learned by investigation, a commutation for quarters amounting to $300 each, a commutation for fuel amounting upon an average to ninety-six dollars each, a small commutation for lights; and besides they receive medical attendance, drugs, medicines, and stationery free. I think it safe to say that the expenses to the United States growing out of the appointment of brigadier generals alone is $1,000,000 a year.

"Now, sir, I am prepared to say, and I think the facts justify me in saying, that the necessities of the army and the country do not require one half of this number of brigadier generals. We went through the Mexican war with only three generals in the field. Brigades and divisions were then commanded by colonels. Regiments were commanded by captains. In some instances regiments were commanded by first lieutenants. They acted bravely; they vindicated the honor of the country; they upheld the honor of its flag upon every field. The comparative expense, therefore, of conducting that war with officers enjoying those ranks was nothing at all by the side of the expense that we are now incurring."

Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, said: "I concur with the Senator from Iowa in the opinion that we have had quite enough general officers nominated. Still, sir, I think the Senator is somewhat mistaken in some of the views he has expressed. We have in the field something more than six hundred regiments, making one hundred and fifty brigades, and, of course, they require one hundred and fifty brigadier generals. We have forty-five or fifty divisions of the army, and they require so many general officers. Then we have several departments or corps d’armee in the service, which require some ten or fifteen general officers. We have had nominated one hundred and seventy-five brigadier generals for the volunteers, and about twenty major generals. I believe the one hundred and seventy-fifth brigadier general was nominated this morning, and his name will be down here by and by. A few of these nominations, I believe, we have rejected; a few more I certainly hope we shall reject for the good of the service and the credit of the country."

Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, followed saying: "It is absolutely necessary, in my judgment, that Congress should bring itself to consider the question of expense, and as well with reference to their own particular friends as to anybody else. They should remember that the country has to pay for it, and that we should not have any more of these gentlemen appointed, if we can help it, than are necessary in order properly to command the army. It is not for me to say how many may be necessary; but let the gentlemen look at the question for a moment. My honorable friend from Massachusetts says there are so many brigades in the army. We all know there are a great many more than Congress ever intended there should be; that we intended in the beginning, and we so legislated, that the number of volunteers to be raised should be limited to five hundred thousand; but although Congress in its language expressed the idea, and it was stated so over and over again, it accidentally gave a power which extended to a million, or was so construed as to extend to a million, and under that our army has been swollen up to over seven hundred thousand men. At this day I do not think a man can be found anywhere who will say that half a million are not all that we can possibly need or use; and yet we have this number of troops in the service, though not actually in the field. There are regiments in my own State to-day that have been raised, staying there—who have been staying there for months—paid by the Government, efficient men, the choice men of our State, waiting and begging to be called into the field and not to be left there doing nothing; not armed; ready to do everything, anxious to be in service; and the answer is: 'We have no occasion for you; we have got so many men here—more than we know what to do with;' men who make a most elegant appearance on days of review, and who undoubtedly would fight well if they could only get a chance. There are more men than the Government knows what to do with here on the Potomac to-day. What occasion is there to send for others? So it is in every State in the Union; there are men who are paid from month to month, and who have been paid for months, not armed, not called into the field, absolutely for the reason that the Government has no occasion to use them; and yet no step is taken to disband these men. Why not disband them, if they are not wanted? Because we have seven hundred and fifty thousand, if that is the number—two hundred and fifty thousand more than we ever intended to have—therefore my friend from Massachusetts argues you must have a number of generals to correspond! I dare say we have more brigadier generals to-day than there are brigades organized. What is the reason why we should go on and appoint generals to correspond with a number of men that are not needed and are not used? It is extravagance of the most wanton kind; and we may as well express our opinions upon it openly and lot the country understand it. I mean to wash my hands of it. I have tried to do so hero over and over again repeatedly. I offered a proposition the other day to stop all enlistments until the army should be reduced to the proper level, until we should get down to the number Page 293 we wanted, and no more. My friend from Massachusetts said we should have a bill soon where I could put on my amendment. I have not seen his bill yet; as soon as He brings it along so that I can put on my amendment I will, and I hope it will be forthcoming very soon. I understand, however, that the Department has absolutely stopped enlistments; but whether that be so or not, it is best to reduce it to shape and have a law on the subject. The country is ready to raise, I am ready for rny constituents to say and we will all say that they will raise, whatever number of men may be needed, and put them in the field, and set them to doing the work we want done; but why should we saddle the country with a quarter of a million of men more than are needed, and simply for no other reason than because A, B, C, D, E, and F, and so on through the alphabet, are continually pressing for authority to raise men who are not needed? I for one thank my friend from Iowa for introducing this resolution, for if it has no other effect it gives an opportunity for those of us who desire to do so, to express to the country our anxious wish to stop this wanton waste."

Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, replied: "The Senator from Maine the other day proposed to reduce the number of men authorized by law down to five hundred thousand. I agree with him in that. Still we have not been able to do it. It was suggested also that we ought to stop recruiting. I agree to that; I have over and over again been to the War Office and urged upon the Department to stop recruiting in every part of the country. We have had the promise that it should be done; yet every day in different parts of the country we have accounts of men being raised and brought forth to fill up the ranks of regiments. The papers tell us that in Tennessee and other parts of the country where our armies move, we are filling up the ranks of the army. I believe we have to-day one hundred and fifty thousand more men under the pay of the Government than we need or can well use. I have not a doubt of it; and I think it ought to be checked. I think the War Department ought to issue peremptory orders forbidding the enlistment of another soldier into the volunteer force of the United States until the time shall come when we need them. We can obtain them any time when we need them.

"Then, sir, there is another thing that ought to be done; and I have pressed that on the War Office for weeks; and I suppose they are trying to do it; for I want it to be understood I make no complaint of the manner in which business is done in that office. They have a great deal to do, and a great deal must necessarily escape their attention. It is this: we have thousands of men in the volunteer force of the country unfit for duty. I know regiments that have moved down the river that have left forty and fifty men behind them about Washington who want to be discharged and who ought to be discharged, and who would be discharged if the medical men would attend promptly and vigorously to their business. We have in this army, with a great deal of energy and vigor, a great deal of this how not to do a thing. I think we have a great deal of that in that portion of the army. We have thousands of men who ought to be discharged from the Army of the United States, for they are physically unfit to bear the burdens of a campaign, and most of these men desire to be discharged.

"Now, sir, the Senator from Iowa thinks it will be difficult for us to get rid of these generals. We make them easily. I do not think, as a general rule, any difficulty will grow out of making them, more than other officers. I think we shall get rid of them just as easily us we make them."

The motion to discharge the committee was not agreed to. In the Senate, on the 18th, Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia be directed to consider the expediency of providing by additional legislation that our national armies shall not be employed in the surrender of fugitive slaves.

He said: "Sir, besides my general interest in this question, besides my interest in the honor of the national army, I have a special interest at this moment because Brigadier General Stono has seen fit to impose this vile and unconstitutional duty upon Massachusetts troops. The Governor of my State has charged me with a communication to the Secretary of War on this subject, complaining of this outrage, treating it as an indignity to the men, and as an act unworthy of our national flag. I agree with the Governor of Massachusetts; and when I call attention to this abuse now. I make myself his representative, as also the representative of my own opinions.

"But there are others besides the Governor of Massachusetts who complain. There are two German companies in one of the Massachusetts regiments who, when they enlisted, entered into the public service with the positive understanding that they should not be put to any such discreditable and unconstitutional service. Sir, they complain, and with them their own immediate fellow-citizens at home, the German population generally throughout the country. I am glad to know that my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, promises us at once a bill to meet this grievance. It ought to be introduced promptly, and to be passed at once. Our troops ought to be saved from this shame."

Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, followed. He regarded the cause of the mischief complained of as arising from the injudicious proclamations of various Generals, but apprehended that there need not be any difficulty upon the question. Alluding to the. views of the people of Pennsylvania, he said: "There is a tendency on the Page 294 part of a great many people in the South to insist that this war is to be a war for the emancipation of their slaves, and there is a tendency on the part of a great many people in the North to insist the same thing. Now, sir, I speak for Pennsylvania, the great State, the Keystone State, which lies between those extremes, and where we think we can look upon this question as coolly as it is possible for a disinterested person to examine anything. I say for her that she repudiates both these extremes. Her object, when she put her one hundred and five thousand or one hundred and six thousand men into the field upon which this battle is to be fought, was not that. Her object was to vindicate the Constitution and the laws, and to compel obedience to them everywhere, uncaring consequences. If in the flames of this war the chains melt from the slave, it is not her fault. They who lighted up the conflagration are alone responsible, and upon them let the responsibility rest. The object which she pursues is that one which I have stated, and that one alone. She has always at all times joined most heartily in indorsing that amendment to the Constitution which was passed here at the last session, and declared that she desired to interfere in no wise with the domestic institutions of any other State."

The resolution was agreed to.

_______

A short time after hostilities commenced between the North and the South, an order was issued from the State Department, requiring passports to be procured by all persons intending to depart to foreign countries. Persons going to California were also included in this order. It led to a call by Congress upon the Department for an explanation.

Mr. Latham, of California, offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Secretary of State be requested to inform the Senate by virtue of what law, or for what reason, passports arc required of passengers going direct from New York city to San Francisco, in California.

He said: "Mr. President, this is simply a resolution of inquiry, and I desire to state to the Senate that, in offering it, I had no intention to embarrass the Department of State. Neither do I propose, by making the inquiry, to do anything more than what I conceive is justice to the people that I have the honor in part to represent upon this floor. The people of California have a right to know why those of them, who are going to the West and returning to their friends in the East, are subjected to this imposition. They have a right to know by virtue of what law or for what reason it is done. I say it is an imposition, because the people of California are the only people in the Union among the loyal States that are now paying for the privilege of going to their home and of leaving it. I do not know, sir, by what right the Secretary of State can exact from the people of the Pacific coast the taking out of a passport, any more than 1 e can of the citizens of Massachusetts who want to leave that State and go to the State of New York."

On a subsequent day the Secretary of State, Mr. Seward, sent the following letter to the Senate:

To the Senate of the United States:

The Secretary of State has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the resolution of the Senate of yesterday, requesting him to inform the Senate by virtue of what law or for what reason, passports are required of passengers going direct from New York city to California. In reply, the Secretary of State has the honor to remark, that the twenty-third section of the act of Congress of the 18th of August, 1856, ordains, "that the Secretary of State shall be authorized to grant and issue passports, and cause passports to be granted, issued, and verified in foreign countries, by such diplomatic or consular officers of the United States, and under such rules as the President shall designate and prescribe, for and on behalf of the United States." From the beginning of the insurrection there has been reason to believe that citizens of the insurgent States and agents of the insurgents have taken passage in the steamers from New York to Aspinwall for disloyal purposes, and especially for the purpose of embarking tor Europe and elsewhere. Latterly, it was deemed imperative for the public safety to endeavor to check this practice. With this view, a few weeks since, the Secretary of State directed that all persons embarking in such steamers should obtain passports. These instruments aro by law required to be gratuitously furnished in this country, and in order that travellers might experience as little inconvenience and delay as practicable in obtaining them, the Secretary of State authorized the despatch agent of the Department at New York to furnish them to loyal applicants in the same manner as if they should apply to the Department itself. Complaints of the inconvenience of the requirement, however, to travellers to California, having reached the Department, the regulation was for a time suspended; but information having been received that the suspension had led to abuses which it was the original object of the regulation to correct, it has been recently restored.

The Secretary of State is well aware of the importance of free communication between the Atlantic States and the possessions of the United States on the Pacific, and would, at all times, be reluctant in any way to trammel that communication. It is believed f, however, that no loyal citizen will, under the circumstances, object to the temporary requirement of a passport. When the order referred to was restored, instructions were at the same time given to exempt from the requirement that class of passengers among whom dangerous conspirators against the Government and the Union would not probably be found.

                                                    WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

          DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

WASHINGTON, December 10, 1861.


Source: The American Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year, 1861-1865, vols. 1-5. New York: Appleton & Co., 1868.