« PreviousContinue »
thosc opposed to an efficient measure of confisca was opposed to confiscation is no evidence now; that was what the Senator from New Jersey alluded tion, if there is a disposition to bring in amend because this very question of reference is now to when, not disclaiming that he was a friend of ments, you may have forty amendments offered | urged by those whom the Senator from Ohio confiscation, he still said that that vote was no test the moment your committee reports. Surely forty- | agrees are as good friends of confiscation as he of what bill he would go for, what measure he five Senators will not put their constitutional scru himself; and he might with equal justice agree would support. That was the test exactly. ples into the custody of this committee of five to that, at least, some of those who advocated the Mr. WADE. I do not like to interrupt the settle for them. They may offer all these amend reference on Friday last were just as good friends gentleman; but I believe there was no friend of ments after the bill comes back into the Senate, of confiscation as he himself. I speak only for confiscation who voted for that reference; not one. just as they are offered now. I shall not despair. one; but I believe there were others who voted Mr. FOSTER. That was what the gentleman I shall not say, with the Senator from Ohio, that with me that are just as sincere friends of confis said. I understand him now to come back to it, nothing will be done; but I admit that it is dis cation as he is.
after having once suggested that he did not say it. couraging. I think the tendency will be to bring Mr. WADE. They had a singular way of Mr. WADE. No. I say it now. I did not say about that unanimity which the Senator from || showing it.
it before. Rhode Island desires, by giving up the life and Mr. FOSTER. They had a singular way of Mr. FOSTER. I thought the gentleman said vitality of a confiscation bill. I should be glad to showing it, says the honorable Senator. It was it before, but in that he stated that I was wrong. have unanimity. I wish we all might agree. But singular on Friday, last; but after two days' dis It is sufficient that I understand him now to mean I want that agreement upon something that will cussion, it is not at all singular now; the honor that not a man who voted for that reference on be of value. However, many of my friends who able Senator does not think it singular now. It is Friday was a friend of confiscation. are as earnestly for confiscation as l'am, favor this perfectly in accordance with the utmost zeal for Mr. WADE. I believe not. reference, and I shall rejoice if the committee to confiscation to vote now for this reference to a Mr. FOSTER. Of course the Senator does not to which it is referred, if the Senate thinks proper committee; and the honorable Senator thinks so speak as a matter of knowledge, because that to refer it, which, of course, will be done without
would be more presuming than the Senator from my vote, can bring in a measure that shall have Mr. WADE. Oh, no.
Ohio ever is, for he always speaks properly; and vitality, that shall accomplish something, that Mr. FOSTER. The honorable Senator agrees to say that you believe a man means so and so is shall iake the property of rebels to pay in part
that those who do think so, and who are going to about as strong as you can speak on a subject not the expenses occasioned by this rebellion. vote so now, are just as good friends of the meas admitting knowledge. Now, I say that when a
The classification now contained in the first sec ure as he is. If the fact that a man votes for this || distinction is undertaken to be made in this Sen. tion has been adopted into the bill since it was reference is any evidence against him, it is just as ate between those who vote differently on a matreported from the Judiciary Committee. I voted much evidence against those who are now good | ter of that sort, gentlemen are speaking without against it. Further reflection has satisfied me that confiscationists as it is against those who voted | authority; they are speaking without book. When my vote was correct. There was great force in in the same way on Friday last, and with entire the Senator comes to apply his own test to-day what the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Howe) || deference to the Senator's better judgmeni, I think to an act done on Friday last, he agrees that the said yesterday in regard to this classification. He much stronger evidence, for the question of ref test fails, because he agrees that men who now thought that under it innocent persons might have erence on Friday last was a different question vote for the reference are as good friends of the their property taken, while the guilty would go from the question of reference to-day. There measure of confiscation as he himself. unpunished. I think so to some extent; but I were reasons for the reference then which do not Mr. TRUMBULL. Will the Senator from thought it a very strange argument to come from exist now. I am not about to say that there may Connecticut allow me to suggest to him that there the Senator from Wisconsin, who, if I mistake not be good reasons now, but they are not asgood is all the difference in the world between the two not, came into the Senate and voted to put the nor as numerous as they were then. We have motions in my estimation? The motion to-day classification into the bill, and then attacked the had further discussion. There is no one identi comes from a friend of confiscation. It came the bill because it was in it. I believe it ought not to cal proposition before the body to-day which was other day from a Senator known and avowed to have gone in, and I agree very much with what not before us then. They are arranged in a little be opposed to confiscation. he said on that subjeci. I think the bill was bet different form in the amendment proposed by the Mr. FOSTER. Ah, Mr. President, that is it, ter as it originally stood. However, others of my || honorable Senator from Massachusetis this morn is it? It is because the measure did not come own friends thought then, as they do now, that it | ing. That is the only measure which is brought from the right source. The character of an act, was better to adopt the classification; and although forward that is claimed to be new, and there is then, does not depend upon the act; or rather the I voted against it, I did not very strenuously op- || nothing new in that except the arrangement of it. act has no character, it depends upon him who pose it, and I took in regard to that the same view It is an eclectic amendment, so to speak, taking || performs it the actor. ihat I shall now take in regard to this question of those propositions which the honorable Senator Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator does not reference. Senators favorable to the bill insist deemed best and putting them together. So, then, mean to misrepresent me, I know. upon it; I can only acquiesce-and that I desire we have had nothing new, and we have bad two Mr. FOSTER. Of course I do not. to do gracefully-without any strenuous opposi- || days in which to compare these bills and make Mr. TRUMBULL. He must know that the tion to the motion, stating at the same time that, up our minds in regard to voting. Now, there is person making the motion takes control of the in my judgment, it is a mistake, and that we had good reason in the minds of men who are earnest measure. I think it makes all the difference in better adhere to the measure that is before us. friends of confiscation for the reference. The the world whether a confiscation measure goes to
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. President, on Friday last reason why I rose to speak now, was to protest its friends or its enemies. By parliamentary rule, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cowan) | against the assertion made by the honorable Sen the Senator knows as well as any gentleman upon moved that this bill which was then before the ator from Ohio, who said that a man who was in the floor, that the Senator making the motion to Senate, together with the other bills on the table favor of referring these bills was not a friend of refer takes charge of the bill. of the Senate connected with the same subject- | confiscation.
Mr. FOSTER. I would say that the Senator matter, be referred to a select committee the num Mr. WADE. I believe the Senator has inferred is a little fast, first, in his assumptions, but if he bers five and seven were both named; seven I be that; I think I said no such thing. If the Senator were entirely right, what did the Senator from lieve was finally the motion. It was opposed, and is conscious that such is the face in regard to him- || Pennsylvania do? He rose here in his place and it was suggested that it would occasion delay when | self, that is a deduction of his own mind. I did disavowed, in the most explicit terms, any desire we had already long delayed action on the bill. not say it.
or wish to be upon the committee, and if the come In connection with that suggestion, the Senator Mr. FOSTER. I understood the Senator, in mittee were raised, he requested that he should from Wisconsin (Mr. Doolittle) proposed, as an the remarks he made a short time ago, to assert not be placed upon it. Does any man doubt his amendment to the motion, that the committee || distinctly that those who on Friday last voted in good faith, and ihat he did not mean what he said? should be instructed to report upon these several favor of the motion to raise a select committee, If so, of course they would still take it for granted propositions on the Monday then next, now yes and to refer these bills to that committee, were that the Chair would appoint him, and that he terday. The question wastaken upon the motion persons who were opposed to confiscation, and was taking that particular course for the sake of to amend, by instructing the committee when to that those who voted against it were friends of getting the appointment; but I trust-although report, and it was voted down; and then upon the confiscation. In that connection my friend from Senators may think the Senator from Pennsylvamotion to refer to the committee, and that wa's New Jersey (Mr. Ten Eyck] made an explana- | nia is not a friend of the confiscation billeno one voted down; and the honorable Senator from Ohio tion, in which he said that, although he voted will say but that he spoke sincerely and truly, says that those who voted at that time for the
against the motion to refer, it must not be inferred not hypocritically, when he disclaimed any desire motion to refer were persons who are opposed to that he thereby pledged himself to any particular or wish to be upon the committee. And as to his confiscation, and those who voted against the bill before the body, or that by that vote he indicat- | being an enemy of confiscation, it is better, permotion to refer are friends of confiscation. ed distinctly what were his views upon the ques. || haps, that he should speak for himself. I do not
Now, Mr. President, the question comes up tion of confiscation. The Senator from New Jer undertake to speak for him. If the Senator from again, and we have had over an hour of discus sey at least understood the Senator from Ohio as I Illinois or the Senator from Ohio can, of course sion upon this motion to refer, which does not did, and at that time the Senator from Ohio did not it is because they have more knowledge on the open the merits of the question; still the Chair, think proper to disclaim having made such a re subject than I have. I confess I should prefer to in forbearance to members upon the foor, has mark. I may have misunderstood him. Certainly bave the Senator from Pennsylvania speak for permitted us to go on and discuss not only its if he did not intend it, it is sufficient; whether he himself. mcrits and demerits, but matters connected and said what I have asserted or not.
There is nothing, as I apprehend, in the fact unconnected with the measure, to the heart's con Mr. WADE. The Senator from New Jersey that the motion is now, as it is said, made by the tent of every gentleman who has addressed the spoke about the test question, not about who was friends of the measure, and was not made by the Senate. This discussion has been confined en for or who against confiscation; but about the mat friends of the measure on Friday. There is no tirely to gentlemen who, on Friday, voted against ter of test, which I explained to him.
force in the suggestion, because, as I before reany reference of this question, and who are con Mr. FOSTER. Precisely; and what was the marked, the Senator from Pennsylvania, if he is sidered by the Senator from Ohio (Mr. WADE) as test? It was the vote on that motion of reference. to be taken as an enemy of the measure, disclaimed friends, par excellence, exclusively of confiscation; || That was the test-those who voted yea were no entirely any disposition to be upon the committee, so what was on Friday last evidence that a man friends of confiscation, those who voted nay were; and requested not to be placed upon it. The Pres
ident of the body would appoint the committee, Gentlemen have spoken of the remark which I the bill of the Senator from Vermont is inefficient, and there was no reason, in parliamentary usage made as to the vote on the motion of the Senator | utterly. or otherwise, for supposing that there would be from Pennsylvania being a test vote. I did not Mr. COLLAMER. The Senator from Ohio a committee appointed other than a fair and im rise here and state, as I say now, that the prop- || expressed that opinion three or four times over; partial one, as friendly to the bill of the Senator osition came from an enemy of the bill. I was
he had a perfect right to express it, and give his from Illinois as to the bill of the Senator from criticised severely for saying it, but the Senator reason for it. Now, Mr. President, whether men Vermont, or Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin. There did not deny that he was an enemy of the bill; he are in favor of confiscation or not, depends very can be no reason on earth for supposing that the admitted that he was. I then warned my breth- | much upon the definition of the term; how you Chair would undertake to discriminate in regard ren here who wished to go for an efficient confis use the word; in what sense you use it. If you to those particular measures, but he would en cation bill to resist the attempt to refer it to a com mean by confiscation that you may strip people deavor to make up an able, competent committee. mittee, because, in my judgment, it was fatal to l of their property by a law which shall execute By those principles the Chair would have been the measure; and I said so. I did not pretend to itself without any oiher means or mode of carrygoverned on Friday; by them the Chair will be say that every one who voted for that propositioning it into effect in a way which I regard as ungoverned lo-day-no different rule. I say, then, was an enemy to confiscation, as the Senaior from constitutional, I am opposed to confiscation alloMr. President, that an attempt to decide who are Connecticut supposes I said. What I said was gether. If it be defined to be a stripping of the for and who are against a particular measure by || that, in my judgment, at so late a period of the people by calling them names, without ever trya vote which they give on an incidental question session, after nearly four months'discussion of the ing ihem whether they are guilty of these names strikes me as unwise and unsafe; and surely it is measure, if we should refer it to a new committee, or not, so that the law shall execute itself—if connot worth while for us to interpret each other's when it was seen how we differed and upon what | fiscation means that, then to be sure nobody can opinions, and especially each other's motives. It || principles we differed, it would be nugatory, other be in favor of it unless he comes up to the bill was not alone the Senator from Ohio who thus ihings would intervene, your tax bill would be up, which gentlemen so strenuously urge. I know is enabled by a vote to determine what a man's the session would be advanced, a thousand rea there are confiscation bills of old. I called the at. views are; the Senator from Illinois, who has sons would interfere why no efficient measure tention of the Senate recently to one instance in made several suggestions in the course of the mal could be passed after that; and I believe to-day the State of Georgia during the time of the Revoter, charged, I remember, the Senator from Maine, that the fact that this is going to a committee is lution, and I think it was a fair specimen of the (Mr. FESSENDEN,] the other day, with being op fatal to the measure. I am sorry thai it is so; I others. It went on and named the persons A, B, posed to confiscation; and on being asked what regret, as the people will regret, that gentlemen | C, D, and E, to the number of one or two hunibe evidence of that was, answered because he so construe the Constitution that we have not a dred, and said they were regarded as being guilty voted for the reference on Friday last of these majority here who will pass this measure. It will of rebellion or toryism against the Government of measures. It may be that that is conclusive. If | be a sad announcement io the country to tell the the United States. As I called attention lately to so, it places some gentlemen on the floor, who people that we are powerless to do anything in the character of that confiscation bill, which is have never as yet, I believe, agreed that they were this particular, for I know that they have been ex. really and truly a confiscation bill, perhaps I had opposed to confiscation, and who were never, I tremely auxious in regard to it, believing them- || better read it as I have it here. It is in these believe, charged by anybody with being oppo selves that it was within our power to punish trai words: nents of confiscation, in a most unfortunate posi- tors, and make their property indemnify us in “Whereas, on the 1st day of March, which was in the year tion.
some measure for this rebellion, and for defend of our Lord 1778, an act was passed for attainting certain I think that at that time and now it is better that ing ourselves against it.
persons therein inentioned of treason, and confiscating their
estates for the use and benefit of this state, wbich act has a matter so complicated as this should go to a com That was about the course of remark in which
pot as yet been carried into full execution ; and whereas it mittee for preparation, that these several projects I indulged before; but I impugned nobody, and is necessary that the names of the said persons so attainted may be digesied and brought forward in proper I am astonished that men should rise here and loy the said act should be inserted in a law, with the names form and shape, but it is possible to go on with- || insinuate that I did. They had a right to vote as
of various other persons who have since the aforesaid time
been guilty of treason against this State, and the authority out; and having gone on several days without, as they pleased on that occasion; they have now. I of the same, by traitorously adhering to the King of Great I have before remarked, there is less necessity did not deny them that privilege. "I am opposed Britain, and by aiding, assisting, abetting, and comforting now than then. Still I am inclined to think it will to this reference. I am opposed to it because I
the generals and other officers, civil and military, of the said
king, to enforce his authority in and over this state, and be as well to have them now go to a committee, think I foresee that it will result in nothing fa
the good people of the same; and whereas the said treathough lamby no means strenuous on the subject. vorable to what ! am exceedingly anxious for, sons have been followed with a series of murders, rapine,
Mr. WADE. I have been a little surprised at and that is an efficient bill to confiscate the prop and devastation, as cruel as they were unnecessary, wherethe course of remarks indulged in by several gen- || erty of rebels. That is what I want to see done.
by order and justice were banished the land.” tlemen on account of what I said when I was up I believe that at this late period the reference of And so on, speaking of the evils which gentlebefore. I did regret most sincerely that we were these measures to a committee will prevent ac men have so often recapitulated here, and then it not able to pass an efficient confiscation bill. I tion. The Senator from Illinois well remarked | proceeds: remarked, I think, that it would be the saddest that a committee of five could not settle the Con “ And whereas the aforesaid treasons and other atrocious announcement to the country that had been made | stitution for fifty Senators. I do not believe it
crimes justly mcrit a forfeiture of protection and property : for a long time when it was found that we now will amount to anything; you will come out of
“ Be il enacted by the representatires of the freemen of
the State of Georgia in General Assembly met, and by the referred this bill to a committee after four months' || the committee just as you went in; no Senator, authority of the same, That all and each of the following discussion. I did not impugn the motives of any who has constiiutional scruples when you go in, persons, viz: for Chatham, Sir James Wriglit, Bart., John may for the course he saw fit to take. I never do will have them removed when you come out, by Muiryne, Josiah Tatnall, Basit Cowper”–
Graham, Alexander Wright, Lachlan McGillivray, John that, whatever gentlemen may insinuate. I am the finding of the committee, any more than by one of those who admit that every man has the || arguments in the Senate. That is my judgment; | And so on, enumerating the names through two same honesty of purpose that I claim for myself. || bui I may be wrong. All I said about the vote
whole pagesNor did I undertake to fix the status of any man the other day being a test was this: I stated that "be and they are hereby declared to be banished from this on the subject of confiscation. I did regret, and if the motion should prevail, in my judgment the
State forever ; and if any of the aforesaid persons shall re.
main in this State sixty days after the passing of this act, I do regrei, that there seems to be a majority op: || question of confiscation was gone, was rendered or shall return to this site, the Governor or commanderposed to confiscation in any practicable form. 'I null. That was my judgment, and there was no in-chief for the time being is hereby authorized and rehave nobody to blame for it; because every man man here who rose and said it would not be a test
quired to cause the persons so remaining in or returning to has a right to his own opinions on the subject, as for him. As all of you rested under the announce
this State to be apprehended and committed to jail, there
to remain without bail or mainprize until a convenient opI claim to have myself. I had not even said that ment which I made that it would be considered a
portuny shall otfer for transporting the said person or perany man was opposed to confiscation. I did say test, I repeated it lo-day. Nobody denied that it sons beyond the seas to soine part of the British king's that, from the announcements made on this floor, || would be a test; no Senator said it would be no
dominions, which the Governor or commander-in chief for there were radical differences of opinion upon con
the time being is hereby required to do; and if any of the lest for him. I thought it probable, then, under
said persons shall return to this state after such transportastitutional grounds, and that I did not see how a those circumstances, that it was a kind of test. tion, then, and in such case, he or they shall be adjudged, reference to a committee could be of any service That is all there is about it.
and they hereby are declared to be guilty of felony, and to surmount those difficulties. If the difference Mr. COLLAMER. Mr. President, I had sup
shall, on conviction of their having so returned as aforesaid,
suffer death without benefit of clergy. were simply as to the details of the measure, a posed, as was suggested by the Chair, that on a
“5. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, reference to a committee might be of very great || motion to commii, the merits of the subject-mat That all and singular the estates, real and personal, of each advantage; but we differ on this question most ter to be committed were not proper for discus and every of the aforesaid persons which they held, posradically upon principle. Here are some eight or sion, but it has received discussion with as much
sessed, or were entitled to in law or eqnity, on the 19th day pine different bills. The Senator from Vermont || latitude as was taken when the merits of the bill
of April, 1775"has announced that he believes it is only consti- and the various amendments to it were properly
That was three years previousLutional to take a man's property after you have under discussion. When a Senator's bill and his
" or which they have held since, or do liold in possession, convicted him. That is his argument, in short,
or others bold in trust for them, or to wbich they are or remarks or speech (if what I said on this question may be entitled in law or equity, or which they may have, as I understand him; and several other Senators may be called by that name) are commented upon hold, or be possessed of in right of others, together with all entertain the same opinion. Then why refer it with freedom, it must be expected that he will l debts, dues, demands, of whatever nature, that are or may to a committee? The gentlemen who believe that, || make a reply in some degree at least, especially
be owing to the aforesaid persons, or either of them, be con
fiscated to and for the use and benefit of this State, and the are opposed to any practical measure, such as the if there is anything in him to render a reason for
moneys arising from the sales wbich shall take place by bill of the Senator from Illinois. I could not see, the hope he entertains and the opinion he has. The virtue of and in pursuance of this act, to be applied to such iherefore, why it would be of any use to refer it Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Ohio uses and purposes as the Legislature shall hereafter direct.” to a committee. A committee cannot fix the Con talk about all who are opposed to the bill reported Thus it will be perceived that they attaint the sulution for members of the Senate. It is a mat by the Senator from Illinois, or the essential feat persons directly, say they are guilty of treason, ter of conscience; a matter of oath; a matter that ures of that bill, as opposed to any confiscation, name them, confiscate their estates and all the gentlemen cannot surmount. I blame no man for I and they say that if any bill is presented which estates they had at any time for three years prehis constitutional opinions; but I have regretted || does noi come up to that, it is utterly inefficient. vious, and order them to be transported without that we did so differ that we could not make an Mr. TRUMBULL. I said no such thing: the country, and to remain out of the country: efficient confiscation bill. I regret it now.
Mr. WADE. I did not say it; but I believe That is a confiscation bill. I submit to any and
all gentlemen in the Senate who are in favor of | away and would not hear the answer, and did not understand, but I cannot fully appreciate the canconfiscntion, if they will answer me, do you be hear it. Perhaps the question now put is of the dor of arguments made in that way. lieve that under the Constitution of the United same character.
The bonorable Senator from Illinois occupied States, under which we act and exist, we have a I was remarking that the very forms of all these considerable time to-day in finding fault with my right to pass such a bill as that? If we have not, bills all imply that what they are doing is matter of || bill; and in some features he thinks it is a more we have no right to pass a confiscation bill prop- || punishment; because, as I have said, they all pro extreme measure than his own. I wonder he erly so called.
vide that it shall be applied only to those who should complain of me for that. I should think Another act passed by the same Legislature | shall be thereafter guilty. So far I do not find in that he would, at least, find ground for comprovides, after naming a list of persons whether any fault with them. That is according to the mendation; but no, that will not do; that will not The same as the other I do not know-that they | Constitution. That is not my complaint of them.
The Senator finds in my bill that it is shall
But I ask why it is that the other provisions of the provided that the President, by his proper offi“ Be attainted and adjudged guilty of high treason against Constitution are disregarded while this one is so cers, shall take possession of all these people's this State, and they are hereby attainted and judged guilty | respectfully regarded? The present punishment property for the purpose of sequestering it to of the same accordingly."
of treason by the law of Congress under the Con mect the fine which will be levied upon them, There is a bill of attainder, and the other which stitution is the punishment of death. I believe it and he asks, “there, do you not take the propI have just read is a bill of confiscation. In the is best for the country that there should be some
So I do; but it is a mere sequestration. course of the remarks made by the Senator from other mode of dealing with these people provided, "Well, but you order some of it that is perishMichigan, these examples of the colonies are cited because I do not believe that any such sentence able to be sold. If there is a quantity of sweet to us as proper for us to consider and to follow, as that could ever be executed upon but a small potatoes there, you must let them perish.". CerI would ask gentlemen to read such a bill of con number. I do not know that it will ever reach iainly, not at all. I provide for the disposing of fiscation and attainder as this, and then I would any. I do not think my brethren around me here such' property, and putting the proceeds in the ask them, do you believe we have the power to are of opinion that it will reach any. I think it Treasury. "But that is not what is required; follow examples of that kind? Can any man be will reach some unless they get oui of the coun that is nothing but sequestration. The moment lieve it? If such be attainder-and I say every try; but I think it is probable they will expatriate you bring a man to trial, if he is acquitted, you thing depends on your definition-if that is attain themselves. If that law is so practically inopera return him that with his other property." As a der, I wish gentlemen distinctly to understand tive, as all gentlemen around me concede it is, if | matter of course. Now, is it a fair and candid that I am utterly opposed to it, and I am opposed That is to produce no effect and punish nobody, | mode of treating the bill to say it does not mean to it because the Constitution of the United States as most gentlemen say, certainly ii is hardly worth that, when it is declared expressly it is a mere act utterly forbids it.
while to be leaning on that as a corrective which of sequestration to meet the final judgment which I will remark further, that all the bills that are we all say will never be administered.
is to be rendered against him? And yet he says offered here, propose only to work the forfeiture Now, I come pretty near answering the Sena we are to pocket the money and mean to keep it, of the property of those who shall “ hereafter” tor's last question to me, when he asked why I even though the man is innocent! commit an act of rebellion. The bill of the hon would provide other law. Because I would pro I am perfectly willing to agree to certain amendorable Senator from Illinois is that way. Why | vide some law that I could execute and that might ments if gentlemen desire them, and I believe one is it that that is put in! In the bill of attainder have effect. The present law would have none; Senator has shown me an amendment that I am which I have just read they do not provide that a and hence it is that I introduced a bill by way of willing to adopt. If gentlemen say that we should man shall be thereafter guilty of the crime. Con amendment, providing that the punishment of not leave any discretion to the President, but he fiscation was made of their real estate and of all treason should be death or fine and imprisonment, || should seize the property of them all when he their cstate that they had held for three years past; in the discretion of the court, believing that this gets possession of the country, if it is to wait and the Legislature declared they were already last part might be effective. If I understand hon- || until judicial trial, I care nothing about it. I am guilty. Why is it asserted in all these bills that orable Senators in their argument-for I shall not perfectly willing that he should take anything if a person shall hereafter, or after the passage of | misrepresent them intentionally—they seem to from those supposed to be engaged in the rebelthis act, be guilty of the crime, the punishment suppose that that mode of providing for taking | lion to wait until trial; but I want it ultimately shall follow? Why are they put that way? Sim- property by fining them and thus disposing of disposed of according to the Constitution and the ply and singly and for nothing else but this: they their property would be utterly ineffective. laws under it. If, after being notified that their concede upon the very face of them that it is a It is said that the reason why it would be incf. property will be seized and sequestered, they will punishment; they know that you could not make fective is because judgment could not be obtained. not submit, but go off and remain away, I am a law according to our Constitution which was Is not that very strange, very extraordinary, after perfectly willing there should be a provision that ex post facto. What do you mean by that? To the remarks we have heard from the honorable that should be considered as an abandonment of define the punishment for the offense after it is Senator from Ohio? He has said that the people that property forever. After due proclamations committcd; that is what is cx post facto. They do of the South are writing to him from day to day and notice given by the courts, it should be so. not attempt to create what they call confiscation, to have a law made for the punishment of the peo When gentlemen say my bill leaves too much to or anything of that kind, in relation to acts com ple who have raised this rebellion, and led the the President whether he will seize this property mitted in the past, because they will not pass an people of the South into all their troubles. He is for the purpose of meeting the offense, and it ex post facto law.
receiving them constantly, and yet are we to be should be made imperative upon him to seize it What is the reason that Senators are so tender told in the very next breath that when we have all, I say they can make it so if gentlemen prefer on that point? Why is it that you will regard taken possession of that country and reëstab it. If they think it is better to go into these Slates that provision of the Constitution forbidding you lished ihe laws and the Government, we cannot and get possession, and seize the property of all to pass an ex post facto law, but you will utterly || get a jury who will convict them? Could we not men supposed to be in the rebellion before you disregard all those provisions of ihe Constitution obtain a jury from those men who are writing offer them conditions of amnesty, and that your that declare that a man shall not be deprived of here and pressing gentlemen, who are of conse offer of conditions of amnesty will be more effecthis property without due process of law; that he quence enough to be pressed, to have a law made ive after the seizure than before, I have no objecshall not be visited with punishment except upon that shall punish those people, as they know the tion to gentlemen making it so. Perhaps it may indictment, trial, and conviction; and that he shall present law will never be cxecuted? They are ask be so; I have doubts about it. It is a mere pracnot be twice punished for the samc offense? Why ing exactly for the very law I offer, a law that tical question, whcther it would be better to offer overlook all these probibitions of the Constitution? can practically punish those in rebellion. Do you them amnesty if they come in and take the oath Why be so tender and careful about the provision believe there will be any difficulty in administer of allegiance and submit to the laws, and if they in regard to ex post facto laws, and utterly regard- | ing that law through juries of loyal men who are do not come in, then seize their property, or less of all the others? It seems to me the hon- || importuning us for it? The moment you take whether it is better to seize their property first orable Senator from Ohio comes always to this possession of the country and of this property, and then offer them amnesty, and if they come conclusion, that if he cannot have what he calls a inder the bill of the Senator from Mlinois, the in, let them have it back again. I am perfectly confiscation bill except according to the Constitu moment you can take property in that way and willing to have it whatever way gentlemen think uion, he cannot liave anything effective. I answer sell it, you can administer justice according to the most effective. If they believe the last the that if he requires anything io be done contrary law, and call in as jurors the loyal men who have most effective, let them make it so. to the Constitution, he must go without an effeci been ridden over roughshod by these people; and I have now occupied all the time I desire in reive law. It is not my fault. He says he docs || certainly there are plenty of loyal men there. It lation to this question. I can merely say that the not disregard the Constitution' at all. But, sir, is a curious thing that we should be told that this only confiscation which Congress can pass must when that Constitution forbids the punishing of very bill, that can be made practically effective, be by way of punishment for offenses thereafter people without conviction, how is it that you will would be good for nothing because the loyal peo- committed, and it must be upon trial and convicconfiscate their property-as you call it confisca- ple who want it, who desire it, and who would tion; because so I believe the Constitution to be. tion-without conviction? How can you do it? constitute juries, would not convict. It is absurd, At the same time I believe that the bill which I
Mr. WADE. If that is all we can do, and litterly absurd. It is altogether the most effect. have presented would be effective for that purpose, there is a law now punishing treason, I would ive bill.
I mean constitutionally: The seizing and holding ask the Senator what more le expects to do by When I ask gentlemen to tell us why it is that of the property, and trying and convicting the men bringing in a bill bere?
we should not take this property legally, consti and selling their property by way of meeting their Mr. COLLAMER. I do not believe that a tutionally, and upon conviction, they immediately | fines, I believe would be the most effective way, question put by that honorable Senator in that get up a long declamation filled up with the ui. and I believe it is the only constitutional way. "I way to me could ever be put if there had been a most cloquence, describing the barbarities, the have said thus much merely in relation to that part candid reading of my bill, or any candid hearing || horrors, and the outrages of this rebellion. In of the bill with which the gentleman from Illinois of my remarks. I cannot believe it.
stead of explaining and telling us why and how has found fault to-day. I ought to say, however, Mr. WADE. Then why does not the Senator the thing can be done constitutionally, that is the that I am for confiscation, that is, a legal and conanswer it?
answer we get; and when we desire to do the stitutional one; no other. Mr. COLLAMER. The gentleman, I remem thing effectively, and in a constitutional way, we Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of ber, the other day asked me a question, and went are told it is not good for anything. I belicve I the Senator from Vermont if he knows anybody
that is for any other confiscation except that which | days, and many times nights, upon another sub to bring it forward here. But, sir, have not results is legal and constitutional?
ject-the tax bill, which I present this afternoon- shown this day that the opinion I then expressed -Mr. COLLAMER. I mean, as I understand it. toʻsuch a degree that I have not been in the Sen was a correct opinion Gentlemen may answer
Mr. TRUMBULL.. I do not think there is any ate Chamber when this matter has been in discus for themselves.' This debate has gone on and it thing peculiar in the Senator's position in being sion but a very few moments during the whole of has come precisely to the point that I foresaw it for constitutional confiscation, unless he meant to it. I should not presume, then, under such a state would come to, that in the Senate there was this make the inference that somebody was for uncon of facts, to address the Senate at all, except merely | multitude of different propositions, arising from stitational confiscation.
for the purpose of a personal explanation. I re the different opinions entertained by gentlemen; Mr. COLLAMER. We know how that mat gret exceedingly that I have not had an oppor and finding that state of facts, I did not stop to inter is, especially among lawyers. One says, "you || tunity to listen, or, at any rate, if not to listen to quire who made the motion to refer. To me it is are against confiscation, because you provide trial, read what has doubtless been a very instructive a matter of perfect indifference who makes it. and that will not do; I am for a confiscation bill, and illuminating debate on this subject. Such Acting amongst Senators, I do not regard anyand mine is constitutional.” The other man says, opinions as I may have are somewhat unformed, body as friend or an enemy of a measure. There "I think confiscation can only be by way of pan 100 imperfect to arrive at a conclusion before I am may be those that approve and those that disapishment upon conviction, and I think that is the called upon to vote definitely. I say this in excuse prove, those that are for one particular mode of only one that would be constitutional.” They || for myself. A man, perhaps, is bound to know action and those that are for another. But that both claim to be constitutional; but each man in everything that is passing in the body of which he is men on this floor who happen to entertain differspeaking of them thinks according to his own a member, and to be prepared to vote and act, and ent opinions upon a great, an exceedingly great views. All of us do that. I do not say that the even to express his opinions upon every subject; || question, one that involves consequences so imcourse taken by gentlemen in relation to their
bills but with my limited capacity for understanding portant and upon which we ought to act as Senis, in their estimation, unconstitutional. They and for labor, I have been absolutely physically ators-old men almost-at any rate men who are must be their own judges of that; but I take it they | unable to give my attention to any subjeci except considered to have arrived at years of reasonable must let other people be their own judges of their that which has been committed to the charge of discretion, and to be calm, thoughtful, and free course; for, I take it, differences of opinion must the committee of which I am a member. To a from prejudice, able to look at questions in the be indulged in in bodies like this, and courtesy of certain extent I am now rid of that.
light of the Constitution, whatever may be their treatment in relation to those opinions. But it was I will only say, therefore, sir, that when my sentiments and feelings that we Senators, a conin relation to the point that my bill.could not be friend from Illinois the other day chose here in the servative body,made up of thoughtful men, should effective in the way I proposed that I desired to Senate to point me out to the country-a man who be able to look at questions calmly, deliberately, make my remarks.
had not said a word on this subject from begin with an endeavor to get at the truth, to find out first In relation to the reference of this whole subject il ning to end; who had not been here to listen to what we may do, and next what it is expedient to a select committee, I have only this to say about the debate; who had not committed himself, so to for us to do in a body made up of such men, I it: I have now thrown my plan before the body, speak, upon it in any point whatever--as one who thought, with all these differeni propositions beand presented my views in relation to it. I do was opposed to confiscation, and whose vote he fore us, nobody was to be designated as an enemy not expect that I am infallible. I expect the body did not hope to get for any bill for confiscation, of a measure or a friend of a measure. We are to decide it, and I expect to abide by their de- || I was utterly astonished. I did not know upon all of us friends to good sound legislation, and the cision. If they desire to have it committed to a what ground such an inference could be made, | only thing is, how can we accomplish it and do committee with other men's propositions, I have and such a statement could be put forth to the coun what the good of the country requires, and, if we no objection. I am not afraid to commit my prop- | try, singling me out here as I accidentally sat in entertain different opinions, how can we come toosition with the others, and having them all com my chair for a moment, having been called in by a gether upon a common ground, having something pared. I do not shrink from it. I do not partic-messenger to vote upon a question upon which the yielded on the one side, perhaps, and something ularly court it. I think, with the Senator from yeas and nays were ordered. I therefore inquired upon another, of that opinion, and after all come Ohio, we shall probably entertain our own views of my friend what ground he had for making that to the conclusion of the great majority, which is after all; but it may be worth the experiment; it assertion, and he gave as a reason that I had had very likely to be right on the subject. may be worth the trial. I voted for the reference the temerity-that was not his language, but it That is the view that I entertain with regard to to a committee the other day. I am willing that seemed to be his idea-10 vote to commit this sub- | the mode of legislation upon such a bill as this, they should try it now. I am no way tenacious ject as it stood before the Senate. I did not think and upon all bills; and I confess I feel a little resiabout it. I have no very great confidence in it; in doing that I was committing any very great live when I am singled out by anybody and pointed but I think it is worth a trial. That is all I can offense against parliamentary proceeding, or com at as an enemy of a particular principle, simply say of it. I should be myself entirely willing and mitting myself upon one side or the other, to or because I am in favor of having ihat principle furdesirous of obtaining the opinions of men about it. against any bill which had been offered before the ther investigated. I feel a litile restive, too, when But I have this to say: if that committee is to be Senate,
upon a mere motion of proceeding, a mere matter composed of the men who have offered proposi But, sir, there were certain things that I did of detail, a mode of accomplishing a purpose, a tions, the prospect of any coincidence of opinion know, and that my friend knew as well. He knew Senator can rise in his place and say, "according on the subject will not be very bright. I do not that I had considered this bill as the most im as gentlemen vote upon this subject, I shall dethink if the subject were committed to the honor portant measure that had been brought before the nominate them friends or enemies; I consider this able Senator from Illinois and myself now, we country, or one which might be the most import matter a test question, and everybody who, on should ever be likely to agree. In the fore part ant in its results of any measure that had been this mere matter of proceeding, votes contrary to of the session I thought we might agree; and I brought before Congress since I had been a mem my notion, I shall consider as opposed to the cannot but say that I believed then that if full con ber of it. I could not help knowing that it was whole measure altogether." I do not hold myself ference had been had in relation to the principles one which in its details occasioned a very great | subject to any such imputation, if imputation it of it, we might have come to something. It is too difference of opinion, both as to the constitutional | be; and I deny the right of any man to make a late now. Though I do not presume to dictate, I questions involved and as to the expediency of test vote upon anything except the measure itself and hardly attempt to advise-certainly not at all the measures proposed. I could not help know when it comes to be acted upon. No man has a in such a body as this still it would be, in my | ing-for in the morning hour I found them on my right to say it is a test vote or call upon anybody estimation, rather desirable, if this committee is table that there were many projects before the else to rise and say it is not a test vote. In my to be raised, that it should be composed of men Senate, many amendments, many ideas put in | judgment it does not belong to the rights of any who are not committed upon the subject, if that writing, of many members of the Senate. I could Senator to say what is or what is not the result could be done. It may be difficult to do that. Still, not help knowing that there had been a wide and of the vote in reference to that matter. that is not a duty that falls within my circle. That extended debate upon the subject. I could not I am in favor of confiscating the property of belongs rather to the Chair, to the appointing help knowing, further, that opposite opinions were rebels, and have been from the beginning, and have power, and not to me. I have merely this to say: entertained by my own friends, by my own po so stated. I am in favor of doing it under the Con
am willing that my proposition shall be consid litical friends upon this side of the Senate, and by stitution and of not violating the Constitution in cred with that of other Senators, and receive the men equally eminent and equally entitled to my doing it, and of doing it to just that extent, and no fate it merits; and that is all.
very great respect for their opinions. All these further, that I judge the good of this country reMr.FESSENDEN. A few words which passed || facts were before me, and under these facts-being quires that we should go in doing so. That is as between my friend from Illinois and myself the called into the Senate from my committec-loom far as I go, and for that I will go. Why, sir, after other day, perhaps renderit necessary thai I should to vote on the question of reference to a commit the adjournment of the Senate on Friday lasiexplain to the Senate and to the country, so far tee voted for that reference; and for that I was and it was the first time I had an opportunity to as ihe country may be interested in anything I do, designated by my honorable friend-in no unkind look at them from my very multifarious engageprecisely my position upon this question. Oro spirit I know, because I know he is incapable of ments-I took these different bills, read them over dinarily' a man owes an apology for talking too it as a member of the Senate whose vote he could carefully once, all of them but one for the first much or for talking at all in such a body as this. not hope to obtain for any confiscation bill what time, and there is not one of them that is not a conPerhaps on this occasion, as there has been so
fiscation bill, and a strong confiscation bill. The wide and general a debate, if I owe any apology My friend knew another thing, and that was, I only question that arises in them or that can be at all to the Senate and to the country, it is for not that early in the session I had given the opinion | raised in them by gentlemen on one side or anexpressing my opinions apon a measure of so very decidedly and strongly, that we never should | other and I am expressing no opinion about that much importance. I have only to suy that up to come to a conclusion which would be satisfactory || --is, what is confiscation under the Constitution the present period I have had 'no opportunity to to our friends and ourselves upon the subject, upon || and according to it, and what is confiscation against so digest my own thoughts upon the subject as which we could unite, until it had been examined and in violation of it? I do not express my opinto render it, in my judgment, proper that I should || by a committee, and another committee appointed || ion upon that subject now. There is no occasion address the Senate. I have been engaged, as all to examine the measure itself as brought forward that I should do so. my brethren here know, upon other matters; and by the Committee on the Judiciary. That had But I ask gentlemen, suppose I am opposed to since the debate came up, for the last four weeks been my opinion. That opinion was expressed confiscation, what ihen? I have a right to be, and very nearly, I have been constantly occupied, ll freely, but'it was not followed. I did not choose no man has a right to call me to account for it.
khao molishelse only.course by which it could be proceeded further to say:
No man has a right to question my motives or my the measure, and to let them examine it, not the I have read enough to show that he thought it opinions, and no man has a right to speak for the opponents of the measure, and I prefer the word | ought to go over. The Senator from Wisconsin people, to threaten me with the judgment of the opponents” to " enemies," if there are any op- | had not asked that it should go over, had not depeople, or to talk about the disappointment of the ponents. I prefer not to denounce a friend—I am sired it, but the Senator from Maine did desire it. people. It may be so in some localities. Each speaking with reference to the measuremora po- | In a very kind way, as I thought, I replied to him, genileman can answer for his own. That remains litical friend, if you please, simply because he || and I stated that to be scen after the thing is acted upon. We are happens to differ from me in relation to the extent “I should be very glad to bave my friend from Maine to act upon a great constitutional question, a ques to which a particular thing should go. He has support this bill. I have no hope that he will vote for any tion involving the interests of this country, with the same right to his opinion that I have to mine;
confiscation bill, not the least, and very likely there may out reference to anything of that sort. To be sure, and it is useless for any set of gentlemen to say
not be enough in the Senate to pass any bill, but I do dewe all wish to act in accordance with the views that their opinions are right, they have examined and wishes of the people and our constituents; but it, it must be so, and if there is any difference of
Here the Senator from Maine interrupted me we should be unworthy of seats here if we allowed || opinion it is very ill-founded, and there is no ac
by saying: any supposed views of the people, our constitu- | complishing any purpose without coming up to
"If the Senator will allow me, I should like to ask him ents, to influence us to go against what was our their standand. I require no man to come up to
the ground of that opinion in regard to myself.” deliberate judgment of our rights and our duties | mine, or down to mine.
To which I replied: under the Constitution of the United States. Thank Therefore, sir, I say, as I said in the beginning, “ The course the Senator from Maine has pursued. God, I represent a people that I know would visit that I voted for this reference the other day, not
“ Mr. FesSENDEN. What course has the Senator from judgment upon me more severely when they be as an opponent of confiscation, but as a friend of
Maine pursued ?” lieved that, in accordance with their wishes and it, wishing to get a bill which would unite the
I answered: their opinions, I had yielded one hair of what I votes of all the members of this body, or a great “I saw him vote on the yeas and nays to refer this mat-, believed was my duty under the Constitution. That majority, particularly of all the gentleinen on this
ter to a committee, the other day, on the motion of a genis what they would judge me for and judge me side of the Chamber, in favor of it. I believed
tleman known to be opposed to any confiscation bill." rightly. I have that respect for them and that knowledge of them to be aware, from long com accomplished. It was
“I think that is pretty good ground. When a Senator munication with them, that they hold a represent for I never suspect bad faith; I wait until it is votes to refer a pending measure and all propositions on the
subject to a person known to be opposed io the whole of ative responsible for an honest discharge of his proved—who makes the motion, whether it is duty; and when they believe they have had that, | Mr. A, or Mr. B; if the thing is a good thing, we bein, I think have crewy good evidence that he is opposed it is all they ask at his hands.
have only to do it. I hope, therefore, for these very glad to know that I have. I hope I am mistaken, and Now, sir, with reference to this particular mata reasons, as I intend to vote for this committee
that the Senator from Maine is for a confiscation bill." ter, I feel precisely as I felt in the beginning. If again, that gentlemen will understand they are not Now, it seems to me that was said in a kind gentlemen wish to get a confiscation bill--and I to designate me for that vote as an enemy of con spirit, and not in a spirit that should have called wish to get one, and as strong a one as the good fiscation, but to take me at my word as a friend forth, after a week elapsed, the remarks of the of the country demands and the Constitution will of it, and at the same time not to suppose that I || Senator to-day in which he speaks of my having allow-if they wish to get such a bill, in my judg cease to be a friend of it because I do not come denominated him as an enemy to the bill. It may ment, and I say it kindly, for I do not mean to up to their standard. We all have our peculiar not have been a choice expression. If it will interfere with this matter-I have been out of the ities of thought and opinions, and we must all be gratify my friend from Maine in the least, I will Senate too much to give my advice about it-the at liberty to express them.
try not to say “an enemy of the bill” hereafter; only way in which it can be accomplished is to Mr. TRUMBULL. I trust I have no such || I will use the word that he has thought better, and refer all these propositions. You cannot accom pride of opinion, because I had given expression say “opponent of the bill.” I am sorry that on plish a thing upon which there is such a difference io that opinion months ago, that I would adhere | Thursday or Friday of last week I did not say of opinion upon detail and particular provisions, persistently to it, and insist that that must have that the motion to refer was made by an opponent by discussions and amendments moved in the Sen been right. The Senator from Maine tells you of the bill; and if it was in my power I would corate; because gentlemen will not understand each that long ago he knew this matter could not be rect it in the Globe, so that it should appear that other; because unfortunately they suspect each brought to a vote, and that we could not get action | it was “an opponent” and not " an enemy" of other; and because if an amendment is moved by upon this measure without its going to a commit the bill. a Senator who happens to differ strongly in opin tee. I denied it. He was wiser than I, and he Mr. FESSENDEN. I had no reference whation with another, that other says at once, adheres to it to-day. I thought in my simplicity ever to the Senator in what I said. comes from an enemy of the bill; I cannot look that when it had been to a committee of its friends, Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator now says he at the subject-matter of the thing, but I look to and they had reported it to the Senate, that pos had no reference to me in what he said ! the man that offered it.” In the first place, sup- || sibly we could act upon it without its going Mr. FESSENDEN. In what I said about an pose an amendment is offered, and then an amend to another committee of its friends. It seems I
enemy of the bill. Take me as speak. The ment to an amendment is offered; there you stop; was mistaken; and the Senator from Maine, much Senator did not use the word " enemy." you can go no further; you are hampered and con wiser than 1, expressed that opinion long ago, Mr. TRUMBULL. Then I misunderstood the irolled always by the rules of the Senate. There and now he rejoices that he was right in that, and Senator, it seems, lo-day. I am sorry to be so are in such cases infinite difficulties always in reminds the Senate of the correctness of his view unfortunate as to misunderstand the Senator. coming to a conclusion that will be satisfactory to at that time,
Now, sir, I suppose we are all for the Constitumen who wish to vote together.
A person who heard him to-day would suppose tion, and I do not know that those Senators who Now, how is it here? Those who are in favor that I had come into the Senate and singled him are opposed to a confiscation bill are par excellence of confiscation—and they comprise a great major- | out, engaged as he has been in his committee the defenders of the Constitution. I claim, so far ity of the Senate--and gentlemen on both sides of room, to proclaim to the country that he was op as I am capable of understanding the Constituthis Chamber, perhaps all, cannot agree upon the posed to a confiscation bill. One would suppose tion, to be as devotedly attached to it as anybody details here; it is out of the question. They will that he was sitting quietly in his seat and had not else. I may be mistaken in my views about it; have different views. It cannot be prevented in said a word, and that I had referred to him. Has but I will not vote for any measure which I believe the nature of things. If you look into the history the Senator from Maine forgotten that I was re to be unconstitutional. 'I know that a number of of Congress, I think you will find that when the plying directly to him; that he spoke immediately || amendments are here pending to this bill. It will Senate or the House gets itself into difficulty from before me? Has he forgotten the circumstances be very easy for those who are not satisfied with this great difference of opinion and these numer of that day, that there had been an understanding || any bill which a committee of five shall report to ous propositions, the course always has been to in the Senate, so far as it was possible to obtain introduce a great many amendments hereafter. I raise a committee of the friends of the measure, an understanding, that a vote should be taken upon think the effect of referring this bill is to weaken and let those friends see if they cannot agree upon that day! It had been suggested the day before. the friends of an effective confiscation bill. I think something that will be satisfactory to all. It binds When ihe Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Howe] || that the union of sentiment which is sought to be nobody. No one is compelled to accept that re came in, and proposed to say something upon the brought about will be a union of sentiment upon sult. No one is compelled to say I will do this. I | bill, not exacily certain whether he would or not, a bill that really will accomplish but little. I know acknowledge it is a strong argument, a very strong and without asking to put the bill over, saying he | the bill of the Senator from Vermont accomplishes argument. When a measure of this kind has been felt hardly willing to do that, then the Senator | something. It has some excellent provisions in pending about which I have great doubts, which from Maine rose and insisted that the bill should it, in my judgment. It substantially copies some has been much argued, and a committee fairly go over. We have been told by the Senator from sections of the original bill, changing the language, made up of the friends of the measure have con New Hampshire to-day that it has been under | perhaps, and, very probably, improving it. Those sidered all these different propositions and come consideration four months, and when the Senator || who think as I do, if they cannot get an efficient to a result, I confess I am very much inclined from Maine came in and insisted that it should go measure acconiplishing all they desire, will vote always, and should be, to say, “ very well; the over another day, was it singling him out if I tried for a weaker one. I have no pride of opinion thing has been carried out; the measure is import to reply as well as I could, and show the impro- about this measure. I shall vote for the best conant, and I yield; I am not going to set up my opin- priety of its going over another day?
fiscation bill I can get. I believe it is a duty, a ion against everybody else after a fair and thor Mr. FESSENDEN. Will the Senator, instead constitutional duty, imposed upon me, to endeavor ough and careful examination of the subject." of saying that I insisted upon its going over, just to make those who are carrying on this waragainst That is the course of a fair man and a fair mind, read what I said?
the Government pay its expenses as far as I can. and I hope that I am a fair man in reference to Mr. TRUMBULL. “ If any one member of I may be defeated; the votes of the Senale may these things.
the committee of which I am chairman who has determine otherwise; but I cannot consent that My opinion, then, is now, sir, as it has been not spoken on this subject wishes time, it ought the lives of loyal men shall be sacrificed, that the from the beginning-and in saying it I wish to to be granted under the circumstances." That property of the loyal men of this whole country treat with disrespect no member of the Senate at is part of what the Senator said. He said more shall be taxed to the utmost ability of the people all that the proper course would have been ear than that, however. I do not propose to read 10 pay, that a debt shall be incurred which will lier to have selected a committee of the friends of ll his whole speech unless he desires me to do so. hang upon our posterity for ages to come to pay