Читать книгу History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States - William Horatio Barnes - Страница 46

The bill introduced and referred to Judiciary Committee—Its provisions—Argument of Mr. Hendricks against it—Reply of Mr. Trumbull—Mr. Cowan's amendment—Mr. Guthrie wishes to relieve Kentucky from the operation of the bill—Mr. Creswell desires that Maryland may enjoy the benefits of the bill—Mr. Cowan's gratitude to God and friendship for the negro—Remarks by Mr. Wilson—"The short gentleman's long speech"—Yeas and nays—Insulting title.

On the 19th of December Mr. Trumbull gave notice that "on some early day" he would "introduce a bill to enlarge the powers of the Freedmen's Bureau so as to secure freedom to all persons within the United States, and protect every individual in the full enjoyment of the rights of person and property, and furnish him with means for their vindication." Of the introduction of this measure, he said it would be done "in view of the adoption of the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. I have never doubted that, on the adoption of that amendment, it would be competent for Congress to protect every person in the United States in all the rights of person and property belonging to a free citizen; and to secure these rights is the object of the bill which I propose to introduce. I think it important that action should be taken on this subject at an early day, for the purpose of quieting apprehensions in the minds of many friends of freedom, lest by local legislation or a prevailing public sentiment in some of the States, persons of the African race should continue to be oppressed, and, in fact, deprived of their freedom; and for the purpose, also, of showing to those among whom slavery has heretofore existed, that unless by local legislation they provide for the real freedom of their former slaves, the Federal Government will, by virtue of its own authority, see that they are fully protected."

On the 5th of January, 1866, the first day of the session of Congress after the holidays, Mr. Trumbull obtained leave to introduce a bill "to enlarge the powers of the Freedmen's Bureau." The bill was read twice by its title, and as it contained provisions relating to the exercise of judicial functions by the officers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau, under certain circumstances, in the late insurgent States, it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

On the 11th of January Mr. Trumbull reported the bill from the Judiciary Committee, to whom it had been referred, with some amendments of a verbal character. On the following day these amendments were considered by the Senate, in Committee of the Whole, and adopted. The consideration of the bill as amended was deferred to a subsequent day.

The bill provided that "the act to establish a Bureau for the relief of Freedmen and Refugees, approved March 3, 1865, shall continue until otherwise provided for by law, and shall extend to refugees and freedmen in all parts of the United States. The President is to be authorized to divide the section of country containing such refugees and freedmen into districts, each containing one or more States, not to exceed twelve in number, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint an assistant commissioner for each district, who shall give like bond, receive the same compensation, and perform the same duties prescribed by this act and the act to which it is an amendment. The bureau may, in the discretion of the President, be placed under a commissioner and assistant commissioners, to be detailed from the army, in which event each officer so assigned to duty is to serve without increase of pay or allowances.

"The commissioner, with the approval of the President, is to divide each district into a number of sub-districts, not to exceed the number of counties or parishes in each State, and to assign to each sub-district at least one agent, either a citizen, officer of the army, or enlisted man, who, if an officer, is to serve without additional compensation or allowance, and if a citizen or enlisted man, is to receive a salary not exceeding $1,500 per annum. Each assistant commissioner may employ not exceeding six clerks, one of the third class and five of the first class, and each agent of a sub-district may employ two clerks of the first class. The President of the United States, through the War Department and the commissioner, is to extend military jurisdiction and protection over all employés, agents, and officers of the bureau, and the Secretary of War may direct such issues of provisions, clothing, fuel, and other supplies, including medical stores and transportation, and afford such aid, medical or otherwise, as he may deem needful for the immediate and temporary shelter and supply of destitute and suffering refugees and freedmen, their wives and children, under such rules and regulations as he may direct.

"It is also provided that the President may, for settlement in the manner prescribed by section four of the act to which this is an amendment, reserve from sale or settlement, under the homestead or preemption laws, public lands in Florida, Mississippi, and Arkansas, not to exceed three million acres of good land in all, the rental named in that section to be determined in such manner as the commissioner shall by regulation prescribe. It proposes to confirm and make valid the possessory titles granted in pursuance of Major-General Sherman's special field order, dated at Savannah, January 16, 1865. The commissioner, under the direction of the President, is to be empowered to purchase or rent such tracts of land in the several districts as may be necessary to provide for the indigent refugees and freedmen dependent upon the Government for support; also to purchase sites and buildings for schools and asylums, to be held as United States property until the refugees or freedmen shall purchase the same, or they shall be otherwise disposed of by the commissioner.

"Whenever in any State or district in which the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion, and wherein, in consequence of any State or local law, ordinance, police or other regulation, custom, or prejudice, any of the civil rights or immunities belonging to white persons (including the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate), are refused or denied to negroes, mulattoes, freedmen, refugees, or any other persons, on account of race, color, or any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, or wherein they or any of them are subjected to any other or different punishment, pains, or penalties, for the commission of any act or offense, than are prescribed for white persons committing like acts or offenses, it is to be the duty of the President of the United States, through the commissioner, to extend military protection and jurisdiction over all cases affecting such persons so discriminated against.

"Any person who, under color of any State or local law, ordinance, police, or other regulation or custom, shall, in any State or district in which the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion, subject, or cause to be subjected, any negro, mulatto, freedman, refugee, or other person, on account of race or color, or any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, or for any other cause, to the deprivation of any civil right secured to white persons, or to any other or different punishment than white persons are subject to for the commission of like acts or offenses, is to be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be punished by fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both. It is to be the duty of the officers and agents of this bureau to take jurisdiction of and hear and determine all offenses committed against this provision; and also of all cases affecting negroes, mulattoes, freedmen, refugees, or other persons who are discriminated against in any of the particulars mentioned in this act, under such rules and regulations as the President of the United States, through the War Department, may prescribe. This jurisdiction is to cease and determine whenever the discrimination on account of which it is conferred ceases, and is in no event to be exercised in any State in which the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has not been interrupted by the rebellion, nor in any such State after it shall have been fully restored in all its constitutional relations to the United States, and the courts of the State and of the United States within its limits are not disturbed or stopped in the peaceable course of justice."

Other business occupying the attention of the Senate, the consideration of the Freedman's Bureau Bill was not practically entered upon until the 18th of January. On that day, Mr. Stewart made a speech ostensibly on this bill, but really on the question of reconstruction and negro suffrage, in reply to remarks by Mr. Wade on those subjects.

Mr. Trumbull moved as an amendment to the bill that occupants on land under General Sherman's special field order, dated at Savannah, January 16, 1865; should be confirmed in their possessions for the period of three years from the date of said order, and no person should be disturbed in said possession during the said three years unless a settlement should be made with said occupant by the owner satisfactory to the commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau.

Mr. Trumbull explained the circumstances under which the freedmen had obtained possessory titles to lands in Georgia, and urged the propriety of their being confirmed by Congress for three years. He said:

"I should be glad to go further. I would be glad, if we could, to secure to these people, upon any just principle, the fee of this land; but I do not see with what propriety we could except this particular tract of country out of all the other lands in the South, and appropriate it in fee to these parties. I think, having gone upon the land in good faith under the protection of the Government, we may protect them there for a reasonable time; and the opinion of the committee was that three years would be a reasonable time."

On the following day, Mr. Hendricks presented his objections to the bill in a speech of considerable length. He was followed by Mr. Trumbull in reply. As both were members of the Judiciary Committee from which the bill was reported, and both had carefully considered the reasons for and against the measure, their arguments are given at length.

[Illustration: Hon. T. A. Hendricks, Senator from Indiana.]

Mr. Hendricks said: "At the last session of Congress the original law creating that bureau was passed. We were then in the midst of the war; very considerable territory had been brought within the control of the Union troops and armies, and within the scope of that territory, it was said, there were many freedmen who must be protected by a bill of that sort; and it was mainly upon that argument that the bill was enacted. The Senate was very reluctant to enact the law creating the bureau as it now exists. There was so much hesitancy on the part of the Senate, that by a very large vote it refused to agree to the bill reported by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumner,] from a committee of conference, and I believe the honorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull,] who introduced this bill, himself voted against that bill; and why? That bill simply undertook to define the powers and duties of the Freedmen's Bureau and its agents, and the Senate would not agree to confer the powers that that bill upon its face seemed to confer, and it was voted down; and then the law as it now stands was enacted in general terms. There was very little gained, indeed, by the Senate refusing to pass the first bill and enacting the latter, for under the law as it passed, the Freedmen's Bureau assumed very nearly all the jurisdiction and to exercise all the powers contemplated in the bill reported by the Senator from Massachusetts.

"Now, sir, it is important to note very carefully the enlargement of the powers of this bureau proposed by this bill; and in the first place, it proposes to make the bureau permanent. The last Congress would not agree to this. The bill that the Senate voted down did not limit the duration of the bureau, and it was voted down, and the bill that the Senate agreed to provided that the bureau should continue during the war and only for one year after its termination. That was the judgment of the Senate at the last session. What has occurred since to change the judgment of the Senate in this important matter? What change in the condition of the country induces the Senate now to say that this shall be a permanent bureau or department of the Government, when at the last session it said it should cease to exist within one year after the conclusion of the war? Why, sir, it seems to me that the country is now, and especially the Southern States are now in better condition than the Senate had reason to expect when the law was enacted. Civil government has been restored in almost all the Southern States; the courts are restored in many of them; in many localities they are exercising their jurisdiction within their particular localities without let or hinderance; and why, I ask Senators, shall we make this bureau a perpetual and permanent institution of the Government when we refused to do it at the last session?

"I ask Senators, in the first place, if they are now, with the most satisfactory information that is before the body, willing to do that which they refused to do at the last session of Congress? We refused to pass the law when it proposed to establish a permanent department. Shall we now, when the war is over, when the States are returning to their places in the Union, when the citizens are returning to their allegiance, when peace and quiet, to a very large extent, prevail over that country, when the courts are reëstablished; is the Senate now, with this information before it, willing to make this a permanent bureau and department of the Government?

"The next proposition of the bill is, that it shall not be confined any longer to the Southern States, but that it shall have a government over the States of the North as well as of the South. The old law allowed the President to appoint a commissioner for each of the States that had been declared to be in rebellion—one for each of the eleven seceding States, not to exceed ten in all. This bill provides that the jurisdiction of the bureau shall extend wherever, within the limits of the United States, refugees or freedmen have gone. Indiana has not been a State in insurrection, and yet there are thousands of refugees and freedmen who have gone into that State within the last three years. This bureau is to become a governing power over the State of Indiana according to the provisions of the bill. Indiana, that provides for her own paupers, Indiana, that provides for the government of her own people, may, under the provisions of this bill, be placed under a government that our fathers never contemplated—a government that must be most distasteful to freemen.

"I know it may be said that the bureau will not probably be extended to the Northern States. If it is not intended to be extended to those States, why amend the old law so as to give this power? When the old law limited the jurisdiction of this bureau to the States that had been declared in insurrection, is it not enough that the bureau should have included one State, the State of Kentucky, over which it had no rightful original jurisdiction? And must we now amend it so as to place all the States of the Union within the power of this irresponsible sub-government? This is one objection that I have to the bill, and the next is the expense that it must necessarily impose upon the people. We are asked by the Freedmen's Bureau in its estimates to appropriate $11,745,050; nearly twelve million dollars for the support of this bureau and to carry on its operations during the coming year. I will read what he says:

"'It is estimated that the amount required for the expenditures of the bureau for the fiscal year commencing January, 1866, will be $11,745,050. The sum is requisite for the following purposes:

Salaries of assistant and sub-assistant commissioners $147,500

Salaries of clerks 82,800

Stationery and printing 63,000

Quarters and fuel 15,000

Clothing for distribution 1,750,000

Commissary stores 4,106,250

Medical department 500,000

Transportation 1,980,000

School superintendents 21,000

Sites for school-houses and asylums 3,000,000

Telegraphing 18,000

Making in all the sum which I have mentioned. The old system under this law, that was before the commissioner when he made this estimate, requires an expenditure to carry on its operations of nearly twelve million dollars, and that to protect, as it is called, and to govern four millions of the people of the United States—within a few millions of the entire cost of the Government under Mr. Adams's administration, when the population of the States had gone up to many millions. How is it that a department that has but a partial jurisdiction over the people shall cost almost as much for the management of four million people as it cost to manage the whole Government, for its army, its navy, its legislative and judicial departments, in former years? My learned friend from Kentucky suggests that the expenses under John Quincy Adams's administration were about thirteen million dollars. What was the population of the United States at that time I am not prepared to state, but it was far above four millions. Now, to manage four million people is to cost the people of the United States, under the law as it stands, nearly as much as it cost the people to manage the whole affairs of the Government under the administration of Mr. John Quincy Adams.

"I hear Senators speak very frequently of the necessity of economy and retrenchment. Is this a specimen, increasing the number of officers almost without limit, and increasing the expenditures? I think one might be safe in saying that, if this bill passes, we can not expect to get through a year with less than $20,000,000 of an expenditure for this bureau. But that is a mere opinion; for no man can tell until we have the number of officers that are to be appointed under the bill prescribed in the bill itself, and this section leaves the largest discretion to the bureau in the appointment of officers. I appeal to Senators to know whether, at this time, when we ought to adopt a system of retrenchment and reform, they are willing to pass a bill which will so largely increase the public expenditures.

"Then, sir, when this army of officers has been organized, the bill provides: 'And the President of the United States, through the War Department and the commissioner, shall extend military jurisdiction and protection over all employés, agents, and officers of this bureau.'

"Will some Senator be good enough to tell me what that means? If Indiana be declared a State within which are found refugees and freedmen, who have escaped from the Southern States, and if Indiana has a commissioner appointed to her, and if in each county of Indiana there be a sub-commissioner at a salary of $1,500 a year, with two clerks with a salary of $1,200 each, and then the War Department throws over this little army of office-holders in the State of Indiana its protection, what does that mean? The people of Indiana have been ground hard under military authority and power within the last three or four years, but it was borne because it was hoped that when the war would be closed the military power would be withdrawn from the State. Under this bill it may be established permanently upon the people by a body of men protected by the military power of the Government. An officer is appointed to the State of Indiana to regulate the contracts which are made between the white people and the colored people of that State, and because he holds this office, not military in its character, involving no military act whatever, the military throws over him its iron shield of protection. What does that mean? If this officer shall do a great wrong and outrage to one of the people, and the wronged citizen appeals to the court for his redress and brings his suit for damages, does the protecting shield of the War Department prevent the prosecution of that suit and the recovery of a judgment? What is the protection that is thrown over this army of office-holders? Let it be explained.

"It may be said that this is a part of the military department. That will depend not so much upon what we call them in the law as what are the duties imposed upon these sub-agents. It is a little difficult to tell. They are to protect the freedmen; they are to protect refugees; they are to buy asylums and school-houses; they are to establish schools; they are to see to the contracts that are made between white men and colored men. I want to know of the chairman of the committee that reported this bill, in what respect these duties are military in their character? I can understand one thing, that it may be regarded as a war upon the liberties of the people, but I am not able to see in what respect the duties of these officers otherwise are military. But this protection is to be thrown over them. I will not occupy longer time upon that subject.

"The third section of the bill changes the letter of the law in two respects: first, 'That the Secretary of War may direct such issues of provisions, clothing, fuel, and other supplies, including medical stores and transportation,' etc. Those last words, 'medical stores and transportation,' make the change in the law that is proposed in this bill. But, sir, in point of fact it makes no change in the law; for if you will turn to the report of the commissioner of this bureau, it will be found that the bureau, during the past six months, has been furnishing medical supplies and transportation. A very large item in the expenditures estimated for is transportation. But I wish to ask of the Senator who framed this bill why we shall now provide for the transportation of freedmen and refugees. During the war, a very large number of refugees came from the Southern States into the North; but the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, in his report, says that those refugees have mainly returned, and but few remain now to be carried back from the North to the South, or who desire to be. Then why do we provide in this bill for transportation? Is it simply to give the bureau the power to transport refugees and freedmen from one locality to another at its pleasure? The necessity of carrying them from one section of the country to another has passed away. Is it intended by this bill that the bureau shall expend the people's money in carrying the colored people from one locality in a Southern State to another locality? I ask the Senator from Illinois, when he comes to explain his bill, to tell us just what is the force and purpose of this provision.

"The fourth resolution, as amended, provides for the setting apart of three million acres of the public lands in the States of Florida, Mississippi, and Arkansas for homes for the colored people. I believe that is the only provision of the bill in which I concur. I concur in what was said by some Senator yesterday, that it is desirable, if we ever expect to do any thing substantially for the colored people, to encourage them to obtain homes, and I am willing to vote for a reasonable appropriation of the public lands for that purpose. I shall not, therefore, occupy time in discussing that section.

"The fifth section, as amended by the proposition before the Senate, proposes to confirm the possessory right of the colored people upon these lands for three years from the date of that order, or about two years from this time. I like the amendment better than the original bill; for the original bill left it entirely uncertain what was confirmed, and of course it is better that we should say one year, or three years, or ten years, than to leave it entirely indefinite for what period we do confirm the possession. I have no doubt that General Sherman had the power, as a military commander, at the time, to set apart the abandoned lands along the coast as a place in which to leave the colored people then surrounding his army; but that General Sherman during the war, or that Congress after the war, except by a proceeding for confiscation, can take the land permanently from one person and give it to another, I do not admit; nor did General Sherman undertake to do that. In express terms, he said that they should have the right of possession; for what length of time he did not say, for the reason that he could not say. It was a military possession that he conferred, and that possession would last only during the continuance of the military occupation, and no longer. If General Sherman, by his General Order No. 15, placed the colored people upon the lands along the coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, for a temporary purpose, what was the extent of the possessory right which he could confer? He did not undertake to give a title for any defined period, but simply the right of possession. It is fair to construe his order as meaning only what he could do, giving the right of possession during military occupancy. Now, sir, the President informs us that the rebellion is suppressed; that the war is over; that military law no longer governs in that country; but that peace is restored, and that civil law shall now govern. What, then, is the law upon the subject? A right of possession is given by the commanding general to certain persons within that region of country; peace follows, and with peace comes back the right of the real owners to the possession. This possession that the General undertook to give, according to law, could not last longer than the military occupancy. When peace comes, the right of the owners return with it. Then how is it that Congress can undertake to say that the property that belongs to A, B, and C, upon the islands and sea-coast of the South, shall, for two years from this date, not belong to them, but shall belong to certain colored people? I want to know upon what principle of law Congress can take the property of one man and give it to another.

"I know very well what may be done in the courts by a proceeding for confiscation. I am not discussing that question. If there has been any property confiscated and disposed of under proceedings of confiscation, I do not question the title here. That is purely a judicial question. But, sir, I deny that Congress can legislate the property of one man into the possession of another. If this section is to pass, I prefer that this confirmation shall be for three years rather than leave it in the uncertain state in which General Sherman's order left it.

"The sixth section provides, 'That the commissioners shall, under the direction of the President, procure in the name of the United States, by grant or purchase, such lands within the districts aforesaid as may be required for refugees and freedmen dependent on the Government for support; and he shall provide, or cause to be erected, suitable buildings for asylums and schools.' Upon what principle can you authorize the Government of the United States to buy lands for the poor people in any State of the Union? They may be very meritorious; their cases may appeal with great force to our sympathies; it may almost appear necessary to prevent suffering that we should buy a home for each poor person in the country; but where is the power of the General Government to do this thing? Is it true that by this revolution the persons and property of the people have been brought within the jurisdiction of Congress, and taken from without the control and jurisdiction of the States? I have understood heretofore that it has never been disputed that the duty to provide for the poor, the insane, the blind, and all who are dependent upon society, rests upon the States, and that the power does not belong to the General Government. What has occurred, then, in this war that has changed the relation of the people to the General Government to so great an extent that Congress may become the purchasers of homes for them? If we can go so far, I know of no limit to the powers of Congress. Here is a proposition to buy a home for each dependent freeman and refugee. The section is not quite as strong as it might have been. It would have been stronger, I think, in the present state of public sentiment, if the word 'refugee' had been left out, and if it had been only for the freedmen, because it does not seem to be so popular now to buy a home for a white man as to buy one for a colored man. But this bill authorizes the officers of the Freedmen's Bureau to buy homes for white people and for black people only upon the ground that they are dependent. If this be the law now, there has come about a startling change in the relation of the States and of the people to the General Government. I shall be very happy to hear from the learned head of the Judiciary Committee upon what principle it is that in any one single case you may buy a home for any man, whether he be rich or poor. The General Government may buy land when it is necessary for the exercise of any of its powers; but outside of that, it seems to me, there is no power within the Constitution allowing it.

"The most remarkable sections of the bill, however, are the seventh and eighth, and to those sections I will ask the very careful attention of Senators; for I think if we can pass those two sections, and make them a law, then indeed this Government can do any thing. It will be useless to speak any longer of limitations upon the powers of the General Government; it will be idle to speak of the reserved power of the States; State rights and State power will have passed away if we can do what is proposed in the seventh and eighth sections of this bill. We propose, first, to legislate against the effects of 'local law, ordinance, police, or other regulation;' then against 'custom,' and lastly, against 'prejudice,' and to provide that 'if any of the civil rights or immunities belonging to white persons' are denied to any person because of color, then that person shall be taken under the military protection of the Government. I do not know whether that will be understood to extend to Indiana or not. That will be a very nice point for the bureau to decide, I presume, after the enactment of the law. The section limits its operation to 'any State or district in which the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion.' It will be a little difficult to say whether in the State of Indiana and Ohio the ordinary course of judicial proceeding has or has not been interrupted. We had some war in Indiana; we had a very great raid through that State and some fighting; and I presume that in some cases the proceedings of the courts were interrupted and the courts were unable to go on with their business, so that it might be said that even in some of the Northern States this provision of the bill would be applicable. Suppose that it were applicable to the State of Indiana, then every man in that State, who attempted to execute the constitution and laws of the State, would be liable for a violation of the law. We do not allow to colored people there many civil rights and immunities which are enjoyed by the white people. It became the policy of the State in 1852 to prohibit the immigration of colored people into that State. I am not going to discuss the question whether that was a wise policy or not. At the time it received the approval of my judgment. Under that constitutional provision, and the laws enacted in pursuance of it, a colored man coming into the State since 1852 can not acquire a title to real estate, can not make certain contracts, and no negro man is allowed to intermarry with a white woman. These are civil rights that are denied, and yet this bill proposes, if they are still denied in any State whose courts have been interrupted by the rebellion, the military protection of the Government shall be extended over the person who is thus denied such civil rights or immunities.

"The next section of the bill provides punishments where any of these things are done, where any right is denied to a colored man which under State law is allowed to a white man. The language is very vague, and it is very difficult to say what this section will mean. If it has as broad a construction as is attempted to be given to the second section of the constitutional amendment, I would not undertake to guess what it means. Any man who shall deny to any colored man any civil rights secured to white persons, shall be liable to be taken before the officers of this bureau and to be punished according to the provisions of this section. In the first place, now that peace is restored, now that there is no war, now that men are no longer under military rule, but are under civil rule, I want to know how such a court can be organized; how it is that the citizen may be arrested without indictment, and may be brought before the officers of this bureau and tried without a jury, tried without the forms which the Constitution requires.

"But sir, this section is most objectionable in regard to the offense that it defines. If any portion of the law ought to be certain, it is that which defines crime and prescribes the punishment. What is meant by this general expression, 'the deprivation of any civil right secured to white persons?' The agent in one State may construe it to mean one thing, and the agent in another State another thing. It is broad and comprehensive—'the deprivation of any civil right secured to white persons.' That act of deprivation is the crime that is to be punished. Take the case that I have just referred to. Suppose a minister, when called upon, should refuse to solemnize a marriage between a colored man and a white woman because the law of the State forbade it, would he then, refusing to recognize a civil right which is enjoyed by white persons, be liable to this punishment?

"My judgment is that, under the second section of the constitutional amendment, we may pass such a law as will secure the freedom declared in the first section, but that we can not go beyond that limitation. If a man has been, by this provision of the Constitution, made free from his master, and that master undertakes to make him a slave again, we may pass such laws as are sufficient in our judgment to prevent that act; but if the Legislature of the State denies to the citizen as he is now called, the freedman, equal privileges with the white man, I want to know if that Legislature, and each member of that Legislature, is responsible to the penalties prescribed in this bill? It is not an act of the old master; it is an act of the State government, which defines and regulates the civil rights of the people.

"I regard it as very dangerous legislation. It proposes to establish a government within a government—not a republic within a republic, but a cruel despotism within a republic. In times of peace, in communities that are quiet and orderly, and obedient to law, it is proposed to establish a government not responsible to the people, the officers of which are not selected by the people, the officers of which need not be of the people governed—a government more cruel, more despotic, more dangerous to the liberties of the people than that against which our forefathers fought in the Revolution. There is nothing that these men may not do, under this bill, to oppress the people.

"Sir, if we establish courts in the Southern States, we ought to establish courts that will be on both sides, or on neither side; but the doctrine now is, that if a man is appointed, either to an executive or a judicial office, in any locality where there are colored people, he must be on the side of the negro. I have not heard, since Congress met, that any colored man has done a wrong in this country for many years; and I have scarcely heard that any white man coming in contact with colored people has done right for a number of years. Every body is expected to take sides for the colored man against the white man. If I have to take sides, it will be with the men of my own color and my own race; but I do not wish to do that. Toward these people I hope that the legislation of Congress, within the constitutional powers of Congress, will be just and fair—just to them and just to the white people among whom they live; that it will promote harmony among the people, and not discord; that it will restore labor to its channels, and bring about again in those States a condition of prosperity and happiness. Do we not all desire that? If we do, is it well for us to inflame our passions and the passions of the people of the North, so that their judgments shall not be equal upon the questions between these races? It is all very well for us to have sympathy for the poor and the unfortunate, but both sides call for our sympathy in the South. The master, who, by his wickedness and folly, has involved himself in the troubles that now beset him, has returned, abandoning his rebellion, and has bent down upon his humble knees and asked the forgiveness of the Government, and to be restored again as a citizen. Can a man go further than that? He has been in many cases pardoned by the Executive. He stands again as a citizen of the country.

"What relation do we desire that the people of the North shall sustain toward these people of the South—one of harmony and accord, or of strife and ill will? Do we want to restore commerce and trade with them, that we shall prosper thereby as well as they, or do we wish permanent strife and division? I want this to be a Union in form, under the Constitution of the United States, and, in fact, by the harmony of the people of the North and of the South. I believe, as General Grant says, that this bureau, especially with the enlarged powers that we propose to confer upon it, will not be an instrument of concord and harmony, but will be one of discord and strife in that section of the country. It can not do good, but, in my judgment, will do much harm."

Following immediately upon the close of the above argument, Mr. Trumbull thus addressed the senate: "Mr. President, I feel it incumbent on me to reply to some of the arguments presented by the Senator from Indiana against this bill. Many of the positions he has assumed will be found, upon examination, to have no foundation in fact. He has argued against provisions not contained in the bill, and he has argued also as if he were entirely forgetful of the condition of the country and of the great war through which we have passed.

"Now, sir, what was the object of the Freedmen's Bureau, and why was it established? It was established to look after a large class of people who, as the results of the war, had been thrown upon the hands of the Government, and must have perished but for its fostering care and protection. Does the Senator mean to deny the power of this Government to protect people under such circumstances? The Senator must often have voted for appropriations to protect other classes of people under like circumstances. Whenever, in the history of the Government, there has been thrown upon it a helpless population, which must starve and die but for its care, the Government has never failed to provide for them. At this very session, within the last thirty days, both houses of Congress have voted half a million dollars to feed and clothe people during the present winter. Who were they? Many of them were Indians who had joined the rebellion, and had slain loyal people of the country. Yes, sir, we appropriated money to feed Indians who had been fighting against us. We did not hear the Senator's voice in opposition to that appropriation. What were the facts? It was stated by our Indian agents that the Indian tribes west of Arkansas, a part of whom had joined the rebel armies and some the Union armies, had been driven from their country; that their property had been destroyed; and now, the conflict of arms having ceased, they had nothing to live upon during the winter; that they would encroach upon the white settlements; that unless provision was made for them, they would rob, plunder, and murder the inhabitants nearest them; and Congress was called upon to appropriate money to buy them food and clothing, and we did it. We did it for rebels and traitors. Were we not bound to do it?

"Now, sir, we have thrown upon us four million people who have toiled all their lives for others; who, unlike the Indians, had no property at the beginning of the rebellion; who were never permitted to own any thing, never permitted to eat the bread their own hands had earned; many of whom are without support, in the midst of a prejudiced and hostile population who have been struggling to overthrow the Government. These four million people, made free by the acts of war and the constitutional amendment, have been, wherever they could, loyal and true to the Union; and the Senator seriously asks, What authority have we to appropriate money to take care of them? What would he do with them? Would he allow them to starve and die? Would he turn them over to the mercy of the men who, through their whole lives, have had their earnings, to be enslaved again? It is not the first time that money has been appropriated to take care of the destitute and suffering African. For years it has been the law that whenever persons of African descent were brought to our shores with the intention of reducing them to slavery, the Government should, if possible, rescue and restore them to their native land; and we have appropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars for this object. Can any body deny the right to do it? Sir, humanity as well as the constitutional obligation to suppress the slave trade required it. So now the people relieved by our act from the control of masters who supplied their wants that they might have their services, have a right to rely upon us for assistance till they can have time to provide for themselves.

"This Freedmen's Bureau is not intended as a permanent institution; it is only designed to aid these helpless, ignorant, and unprotected people until they can provide for and take care of themselves. The authority to do this, so far as legislative sanction can give it, is to be found in the action of a previous Congress which established the bureau; but, if it were a new question, the authority for establishing such a bureau, in my judgment, is given by the Constitution itself; and as the Senator's whole argument goes upon the idea of peace, and that all the consequences of the war have ceased, I shall be pardoned, I trust, if I refer to those provisions of the Constitution which, in my judgment, authorize the exercise of this military jurisdiction; for this bureau is a part of the military establishment not simply during the conflict of arms, but until peace shall be firmly established and the civil tribunals of the country shall be restored with an assurance that they may peacefully enforce the laws without opposition.

"The Constitution of the United States declares that Congress shall have authority '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 insurrection, and repel invasion,' and 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.' It also declares that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States,' and that 'the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government.' Under the exercise of these powers, the Government has gone through a four years' conflict. It has succeeded in putting down armed resistance to its authority. But did the military power which was exercised to put down this armed resistance cease the moment the rebel armies were dispersed? Has the Government no authority to bring to punishment the authors of this rebellion after the conflict of arms has ceased? no authority to hold as prisoners, if necessary, all who have been captured with arms in their hands? Can it be that, the moment the rebel armies are dispersed, the military authority ceases, and they are to be turned loose to arm and organize again for another conflict against the Union? Why, sir, it would not be more preposterous on the part of the traveler, after having, at the peril of his life, succeeded in disarming a highwayman by whom he was assailed, to immediately turn round and restore to the robber his weapons with which to make a new assault.

"And yet this is what some gentlemen would have this nation do with the worse than robbers who have assailed its life. They propose, the rebel armies being overcome, that the rebels themselves shall be instantly clothed with all the authority they possessed before the conflict, and that the inhabitants of States who for more than four years have carried on an organized war against the Government shall at once be invested with all the powers they had at its commencement to organize and begin it anew; nay, more, they insist that, without any action of the Government, it is the right of the inhabitants of the rebellious States, on laying down their arms, to resume their former positions in the Union, with all the rights they possessed when they began the war. If such are the consequences of this struggle, it is the first conflict in the history of the world, between either individuals or nations, from which such results have followed. What man, after being despoiled of much of his substance, his children slain, his own life periled, and his body bleeding from many wounds, ever restored the authors of such calamities, when within his power, to the rights they possessed before the conflict without taking some security for the future.