to treat him with unkindness. I think he has the sympathy of all of us. I do not know whence that Senator gets the impression that we mean to adopt any of the barbarities or enormities practiced by the other side.

Mr. HENDERSON. If I made any charge whatever against Senators that they desired to adopt barbarities in the prosecution of this war, I really did not intend it, and I certainly think I did not do so. What I said of course was said hurriedly and rapidly, and without much consideration; but if I said anything from which the inference may be drawn that I intended to charge any Senator here with being favorable to using barbarities against the rebels, even, I wish to withdraw it.

Mr. CLARK. I did not understand the Senator to make the charge. I desire to know whence he got the impression that we wished to do it. He did not charge us with wishing to do it; but he seems to have got the impression that we are going to do it, or wish to do it, because he deprecates it. He says, do not do it.

Mr. HENDERSON. I will state to the Senator what I was speaking about when I made use of the remarks to which he is now referring. I stated that I had received letters again and again from home complaining of my course here. I have voted solitary and alone upon proposition after proposition before this body, when every border State man has voted against me. I said that my people were complaining most bitterly because of this proposition being before us in regard to arming the negroes of this country. They regard that as barbarous and cruel, and I said regretted the Senate did not strike it out. But, sir, I did not charge that anybody here wished to commit any barbarity, and did not intend to be so understood.

Mr. CLARK. It was to that to which I supposed the Senator referred, and I wanted to call his attention to it, not by charging him with any unkindness, or saying he had charged us; but he referred to the Senator from Michigan, and approved of what he said the other day in regard to the employment of Indians, and I supposed he had in his mind some impression that we were guilty of some like offense in employing negroes or persons of African descent.

Mr. HENDERSON. I do object to employing negroes. I object to it upon principle as well as upon policy. We already have our hands full, and I do not want to have others deluded and led into this rebellion by the adoption of any such measure. Those who are in this rebellion are deluded. It is too late to argue that because a man objects to this, and forfeits his life on the battle-field against us, that he is a deluded man. Sir, we have had nearly three or four hundred thousand of such deluded persons, who have given us very much trouble for the last twelve months.

Mr. CLARK. I was not saying whether these men were deluded or not; I was not saying whether they were prejudiced or not; but I was endeavoring to call the Senator's attention to this point, for I want to present to him and the Senate this consideration: the committee did not adopt that provision hastily and without consideration, nor unadvisedly. They adopted it deliberately. They considered it carefully. They amended the proposition first proposed, and endeavored to put it in such a shape as would be satisfactory to the country, if they could do it; and I beg the Senator to consider the position in which we are. The summer is coming; our troops are in a hot climate; they are in a warm latitude. It is reported that already one or two cases of yellow fever have appeared in New Orleans. Our men are to die there like sheep and dogs, and that is what the rebels are aiming at. Are your prejudices to stand in our way when we see our sons and brothers rotting there, to prevent us employing Africans who can stand that climate in order to preserve the lives of our kindred; and are we then to be accused of barbarity? Our humanity is such that we want the white man out of that climate where he cannot stay without certain death, and put in a man who can stay and who will be loyal; and I hope it is no offense to humanity, nor to Christianity either, to do it.

We do not desire to arm the negro universally. We desire to take as many of them as may be necessary in the judgment of the President-and he is a humane man-and put them into these for

tifications and into these cities, and hold them
from the rebels. If we did not do that, what
would be the case? Down in New Orleans, when
our men were cut down with disease, and lying
in the hospitals, and could not raise a gun nor
lift a sword, these rebels would sweep in upon
them; the whole force would be swept away, and
we should have all this work to do over again.
Let us take the men who can bear the climate.

Having accomplished our purpose in securing
these places, let us hold them. Let us show these
people when they threaten that they will draw us
into that climate and our men shall die, that we
have a way to meet it; we can employ those who
can stand the climate, and preserve our own broth-
ers and our own sons.

Mr. HENDERSON. I wish merely to suggest
to the Senator in all kindness, and I do it know-
ing, I believe, what I am saying, that if we have to
trust, to put down this rebellion, to the negroes
of the cotton States, we never shall put it down-
never on the face of the earth.

Mr. CLARK. Nobody suggested that, and nobody proposed it. We propose to put it down, and we propose to hold it down by the black man if we cannot in any other way, while the yellow fever and disease and plague sweep our men away. We do not propose to let the rebel have as his ally the yellow fever and the plague; we propose to subdue even that, and to hold these places. We propose to put it down by the loyal men and the free citizens of the Government; but if these rebels will resort to that course which makes it necessary for us to do it, we have no choice in saving the lives of our sons and brothers but to do it, and so help us God we will try.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.

Mr. HENDERSON. I ask for the yeas and

nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 12, nays 25; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Henderson,
Latham, Powell, Saulsbury, Sherman, Stark, Willey, Wil-
son of Missouri, and Wright-12.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark,
Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster,
Grimes, Harlan, Harris, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of
Kansas, Pomeroy, Samner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade,
Wilkinson, Wilmot, and Wilson of Massachusetts-25.
So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. POWELL. I move that the Senate do
now adjourn. ["Oh, no!"] It is near five o'clock.
The motion was not agreed to.

Mr. DAVIS. I have one more amendment to offer, to come in at the close of the bill:

Provided, That no slave shall be emancipated under this act until such slave shall be taken into the possession of some agent of the United States, and be in transitu to be colonized without the United States of America.

Mr. CLARK. I do not propose to say a word about the amendment; but as I cannot make a suggestion on a motion to adjourn, I desire now to make an appeal to the Senate to stand by the bill for a little while longer, and perhaps we can dispose of it. I do not propose to debate or defeat action in any way. I hope we may go through with it.

Mr. DAVIS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 6, nays 30; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Davis, Powell, Saulsbury, Stark, Wilson of Missouri, and Wright-6.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Kansas, Latham, Pomeroy, Sherman, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Willey, Wilmot, and Wilson of Massachusetts―30.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. SAULSBURY. I move to strike out the ninth section of the bill, and on that I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

ent rebellion, the slaves of all such persons, within such State or district, shall be made free, and thereupon the slaves of all such persons, at the expiration of said thirty days, shall be free and forever discharged from any and all claim to their labor or service, any law or custom of any State notwithstanding.

Mr. SAULSBURY. I will simply remark that to the first part of this section I have no objection. The only intention of the section, however, as a whole, is to attempt to confer on the President a power which this Congress cannot confer on him, and that is to liberate slaves in the States by proclamation. If any benefit could result to the country from any such proceeding, certainly some benefit would have been experienced heretofore, for we have had two or three generals attempting that game. If report be true, a celebrated general down South has proclaimed all the slaves free in three States, and this is to recognize such a principle as that, and confer on the President of the United States power to set slaves free by proclamation. I object to it not from any apprehension that any slave will be set free by a President's hanging; and, in order to set them free, it will be proclamation; there is always catching before necessary for the President, or some person else, to get possession of the slaves. No practical good, I think, can result from the adoption of this section; no slave, as I apprehend, will be set free by it that would not be set free otherwise. It is against the recognition of the power in the President to do any such thing, and in order to get clear of this intermeddling with the subject of slavery in every section of the bill, (which really seems to be the real object of the bill after all,) that I move to strike out this section. It does seem, from the repetition of words, for the purpose of setting slaves free in this bill, that it is the sole object of the bill. It occurs two or three times in the first section, it occurs in almost every section, and there is no use in disguising the fact. It is this very legislation on this subject which is giving most difficulty now throughout the country to the success of the Federal arms, and I honestly believe that just so long as legislation is attempted upon this subject, so long will this war be protracted, and we shall be, and continue to be, after this Congress adjourns, just as far from peace as before, and just as far from the restoration of the Union.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I shall vote with the Senator from Delaware to strike out this ninth section; and I hope that all the friends of a really efficient measure will vote with me. Let us strike it out, and put in a section that will be effective. Let us strike out this section, and then afterwards we can supply its place with a section making it the duty of the President to issue this proclamation, if you propose to give the thirty days' notice. I would free the slaves of all who shall continue in arms after the passage of the act. That would be my proposition; and I cannot conceive how it is, when these men are with arms in their hands, as the Senator from New Hampshire said, shooting our brothers and our sons, that we can insist upon holding their negroes in their possession to enable them to shoot our sons and our brothers. I think we ought to make that section imperative, and with that view, I shall vote to strike it out, understanding that it will be in order afterwards to substitute something else, or to move a new section which will be imperative upon the President, and not be left in the way that this is. I do not wish to take up time; I will not argue it at all; I merely state why I shall vote to strike out this section, and I hope that all who are in carnest to do something, and to have something efficient, will vote to strike it out, and then let us put in a section that will accomplish something.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. The motion that has been made and what has been said upon it impose upon me the necessity of making now a motion that I intended to make at some time, and that is to strike out in the ninth section the words "at any time" in the first line and insert "imme

The Secretary read the section proposed to be diately," and to strike out the word "whenever,'

stricken out, as follows:

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That at any time after the passage of this act, whenever the President of the United States shall deem it necessary for the suppression of this rebellion, he shall issue his proclamation commanding all persons immediately to lay down their arms and to return to their allegiance to the United States; proclaiming that if any person within any State or district declared by him in a state of insurrection, shall be found in arms against the Government of the United States thirty days after the date of such proclamation, or giving aid and comfort to the pres.

in the second line, and in the third and fourth lines to strike out "shall deem it necessary for the suppression of this rebellion, he;" so that the section, if amended as 1 propose, will read:

That immediately after the passage of this act the President of the United States shall issue his proclamation commanding all persons immediately to lay down their arms, &c.,

making it imperative. I think that since this bill

was reported there are reasons why I shall vote that way.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question

must first be taken on the motion of the Senator from Massachusetts to perfect the section before the question of striking out is put.

Mr. CLARK. The Senate, perhaps, will pardon me for saying that in the committee the original proposition stood as the Senator from Massachusetis proposes now to have it, but we found that the measure now reported was the measure upon which we could agree, and that we could not agree upon any other measure, and therefore it was reported as it stands here. I shall vote for the proposition as it stands in the bill for that reason. I should have preferred myself, perhaps, a measure a little stronger, but it was the measure that we could agree upon, and I thought for the purpose of keeping harmony upon the bill we had better adopt it as it is, and I think so now. I think we had better retain the measure for the sake of unanimity.

Mr. COWAN. I may state, sir, that owing to illness I was unable to meet with the committee except on the first evening when it was organized, and therefore I had little or no hand in getting up this bill, and am perfectly free to adopt any course upon it which I may think right and proper. I shall oppose the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts, and I believe that I shall vote to strike out the section, and I shall do so for a very simple reason, and that is, that it is utterly valueless in the bill. I suppose there is no gentleman upon this floor who is not now of opinion that the President may, if he chooses, under the pressure of a military necessity, make such proclamation as is contemplated in this section; and I suppose further that there is no one here who believes that under any circumstances other than a pressing necessity he would order and direct such a proclamation to be made.

I may say further, Mr. President, that I am exceedingly sorry that at this stage of the business we seem to be tending towards a rock upon which, in my opinion, we shall inevitably and fatally split, and that very soon, for I think if there is one truth well established in the world it is that our guide in constitutional legislation is the will of the people-I mean of the majority. What are we doing here to-day? Laws are proposed, the operation of which is to be confined to the slave States. A number of those States are represented in this Chamber by loyal men, men of approved loyalty and patriotism. What are they here for? They are here to let us know what the will of the people is in those States where these laws are to operate.

Now, Mr. President, it is not a question whether the opinions and beliefs of that people are in accordance with our views. Suppose them to be erroneous opinions and erroneous beliefs, and having for their end, aim, object, and purpose to sustain a mischievous and dangerous system, yet, sir, we cannot disguise the fact that they do exist there, and for my own part, I cannot relieve myself from the obligation to respect them. How is it in the North? We of the majority forget here that we do not represent the whole people of the North. We do not represent the opinions and the beliefs of all the people of the free States upon this subject. We forget that there is another and a powerful party all through the North everywhere who are utterly and totally hostile, if we are to be allowed to take the ordinary indications of public opinion, to this system of legislation, this system of congressional emancipation and liberation, no matter under what shape or form you disguise it. Well, how are we to maintain ourselves with one half of the people of the free States against it; and I think the gentlemen who represent the border States will say to us that their people are unanimously opposed to it. Under these circumstances, it does not matter to me a particle what my opinions may be, what my belief may be. We are here to legislate for the people. We are here, in the first place, to stand upon the Constitution, because the Constitution is paramount, and no matter what the will of the people might be, if the will of the whole people were in favor of any particular project which is unconstitutional, it is our duty to throw out that project and discard it; but where the legislation is constitutional and within the purview of that instrument, then our next guide is the will of the people, Now, I ask Senators who come from the free States, do you be

lieve, do you suppose that you can get along here
and suppress this rebellion by disregarding what
these gentlemen from the border States tell us?
Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. We have
so far.

Mr. COWAN. The Senator from Massachu-
setts says we have so far; and where are we now;
how far have we got? We have gotten so far that
oftentimes the heart of the patriot despairs. And
do we strengthen ourselves by violating the opin-
ions and the beliefs and feelings of these men?
Are we making them friends? I think it is ex-
ceedingly unkind to the representatives from those
States here. What right have we to drive away
from the Senators from Virginia the friends who
have stood about them in these dark hours? What
right have we to do the same with the Senators
from Missouri, or the Senators from any border
State? Is that proper treatment? I would defer
to those gentlemen as to all things relating to their
own States, and as to all laws which are to oper-
ate on their own people. Upon what presumption
do we decide that they are not interested in put-
ting down this rebellion-ay, even more than we
are? I should like to know from the honorable
Senator from Massachusetts how he comes to
know better than they do how to put down this
rebellion. Has he been there, has he consulted
the loyal people of the border States, the men who
live near the seat of war, the men who know about
these things? I do not know whether it is pre-
sumptuous in him to dictate; I certainly should ||
feel that it would be on my part if I were to un-
dertake it.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. I do not know why the Senator should use the word "dictate." I have not undertaken to dictate to any body; I have simply expressed my opinion. I have not reproached others, as the Senator is accustomed to do in every speech that he makes. I take it that some of us have studied this question quite as long as the Senator from Pennsylvania, or gentlemen of the border States; that we have looked into it quite as minutely, and that we have a right to our opinions. I see no reason why I should give up my opinions to those of any gentleman from the border States. I do not know anything in the history of this contest, from the time it opened in the attack on Fort Sumter up to this time, in the advice we have received from gentlemen of the border States, whether we have followed it or not, that entitles their opinions to any more weight than the advice received from any other portion of the country. I think the history of this war shows that if we have failed anywhere, it has been because too much deference has been paid by the Government, and by Congress, to those opinions. As we look back over the history of the past, we see it. It marks every furlong of this contest. Our own feebleness of purpose, our own deference to fears and anxieties, has prolonged the contest, and has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, and thousands of lives. That is my judgment. I reproach no man for thinking otherwise.

Mr. COWAN. I do not know that I said that the Senator from Massachusetts had dictated to anybody. I asked him why he would do so, and I stated that I thought it would be presumptuous on my part to dictate to anybody, and particularly to dictate to those who have much better opportunities than I have of knowing how the actual facts of the case stand; and I certainly should think it most extraordinary if a man were to undertake to have a better opinion about western Pennsylvania than I myself have, living there. But let that pass. I differ from the honorable Senator from Massachusetts in the aggregate result of his judgment upon the progress of this war. I think that we have not failed in this war because we have taken counsel of the men of the border States, and I think if we do fail in it at all, it will be because we do not take their counsel; because we presume to know better how to carry it on than they do, and what would tend better to strengthen us in those States. I think it is certainly one of the plainest propositions that can be stated anywhere, that what we want to make in the border States is friends. Can anybody answer that it is not friends we want to make? How do you make friends? Do you make friends by dictating to them, by asserting the superiority of your opinions over theirs, by quasi insulting them, by putting them constantly in antagonism with you? If

||

friendship be made in that way, it is the first time I think in the history of the human family that anybody ever tried the experiment. I think that if you desire to make friends in a community which is in an angry and excited hostile state, with dubious opinions on certain subjects, your business is to remove their doubts, and allay them, and to show that they are unfounded, and to conciliate and restore, if you can, the good feeling and amity which formerly existed between you and those people.

What is it that we do here? Now, here is a section in this bill that is utterly and totally useless for any beneficial purpose, and yet it seems to effect this mischievous purpose, to split us here on the consideration of it. Does it give the President any power that he has not already? I do not think any one can pretend that it does. I never heard anybody seriously dispute his power to do anything and everything which he found to be necessary in order to put down this rebellion. If that be true, what do the friends of the clause expect from it? It must be a mere idle declaration of opinion upon our part, not wearing at all the aspect of a law.

Mr. GRIMES. Allow me to inquire of the Senator, if this section only gives an authority already vested in the President, why is it that it is so obnoxious to our friends from the border States. If it is only cumulative, and merely confers in special words an authority the President already has, why should they be so scrupulous about it?

Mr. COWAN. For one of the very best reasons in the world: it indicates on our part here a purpose to irritate, and to do things without any possible use whatever, merely for the purpose of irritating and making them angry; or at any rate it has that effect. I could give the gentleman a great many very familiar illustrations of that. I might do a parcel of useless things that ought not really to annoy him, but yet if he found that I persisted in them with a malevolent purpose, he would take offense, and properly. So it is here. These people are exceedingly sensitive on the subject of slavery.

Mr. GRIMES I understand the Senator, then, to say that it depends on the purpose with which the thing is done.

Mr. COWAN. I think so.

Mr. GRIMES. Then the inference is that those who seek to have this section adopted have an improper purpose in its accomplishment, and that is to irritate our border State people.

Mr. COWAN. I think it is to satisfy an improper feeling among a portion of the people in the North, without caring whether it does irritate or not. I do not know that they contemplate exactly the effect which always results from its introduction here; but that is the effect, and the man who moves the cause is generally held responsible for the effect when he sees it and sees it as repeatedly as we do here.

Mr. CLARK. Permit me to inquire whether the Senator charges that purpose on the committee?

Mr. COWAN. No, sir. I do not mean to charge that purpose on the committee, unless I see the committee persisting in it when it turns out to be mischievous, and then I shall charge it on them if they persist.

I say, then, if this clause is useless, if it does no good, but on the other hand gives offense, is calculated to divide and distract and alienate us, it had a great deal better be stricken out, and I think that nobody can now deny that it will have that effect. A proclamation was made a few days ago by a general in our Army, whether a wise proclamation or a foolish one I do not know, because I cannot judge of the necessity which he may allege gave rise to it; but has anybody doubted his power? The Senator from Massachusetts is not only desirous to have the section there, useless as it is, but he wants to make it obligatory on the President

Mr. SUMNER. I understand the Senator from Pennsylvania does not doubt the power of General Hunter?

Mr. COWAN. No, sir; I have never doubted the power. On the contrary, I have not only not doubted the power, but I have asserted here over and over again the power on the part of the President and his generals to do whatever is necessary to put down this rebellion; and I am utterly aston

ished that almost every time I get up I am asked that question again.

Mr. SUMNER. I am very glad to hear the Senator make that declaration, that General Hunter, in his opinion, has the power.

Mr. COWAN. If the Senator from Massachusetts wants an exceedingly fine point to stand upon, I will allow him the benefit of it. I hope he understands me, and I hope, too, that he is honorable and manly enough to understand what I say in its true sense. I do not mean to say that General Hunter had the power as against the will of the President, his superior; but I mean to say that the President, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and the generals of the Army, acting in obedience to that superior authority, have the power. I hope that will satisfy the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, and that it will relieve me from any further explanation.

Mr. SUMNER. I understood the Senator to affirm that the President had the power, and that also any commanding general in the field had the power. That I understood to be his proposition.

It was that, although there was a majority in the
Chamber in favor of some bill, there was not a
majority in favor of any particular bill, owing to
these differences of opinion, and that these differ-
ences of opinion must be reconciled in some degree
by mutual concession on the one side and on the
other-not an unusual course in legislative bodies,
but a very common one. Under those circum-
stances, a committee was selected, and that com-
mittee was made up of gentlemen entertaining these
different opinions, but a majority, a decided ma-
jority, of the committee in favor of a stringent
measure of confiscation, in accordance with the
views of the majority of the Senate. That is the
way the committee was made up. My friend from
Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] was one of them,
representing his own opinions on this very point
now under consideration. The subject went to a
committee thus constituted, and that committee
reported the bill which is before the Senate. The
bill being reported under these circumstances,
what has the body a right to expect? What has
the majority a right to expect and a right to ask?
It is that the matter being thus considered, if there
is no principle involved, no constitutional objec-
tion, nothing of that sort, the opinions of gentle-
men, as to the expediency of making the bill more
or less stringent on this point or that, should be
yielded to the decision of the committee; else there
is no conclusion arrived at, and we are thrown
back precisely where we were before, into the same
state of confusion.

Mr. COWAN. I am sorry that I was misunderstood. Understand me as intending to say that the executive department of this Government has the power. Now, perhaps, we understand each other. I hold that the legislative department has certain powers, and that the executive department of this Government has certain powers; that it is a distinct power of the executive department to command the Army, and to order it to do whatever may be necessary and proper to put down this rebellion, to order everything necessary in its dealings with the enemy, with the rebels, and that we can only deal with them, according to the theory of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, as criminals. Whenever they come within our purview they are criminals according to the doctrine laid down by himself as to the distinctions between criminals and enemies, and that will make it still further clear. When Congress deals with a citizen for any offense whatever, she deals with him as a criminal; when the Executive, with the posse comitatus, if you please, Mr. FESSENDEN. I am not speaking of this undertakes to arrest men opposing the Govern-section; I am speaking of a stringent bill. ment in rebellion, or with the Army, he treats them as enemies, and deals with them as such. I hope, Mr. President, that the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts will not prevail.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I did not think I could be tempted to say anything on this matter

Mr. HOWARD. Will my friend from Maine allow me to move an adjournment?

Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope we shall go on and

finish the bill.

Mr. HOWARD and others. Oh, no; that cannot be done.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I think we can finish it if we are disposed to do so. The question is not whether we can, but whether we will. We can if we like.

Mr. HOWARD. I think my friend from Maine will find it entirely vain to attempt to sit the bill out to-night.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I cannot give way to the motion, because I am opposed to adjournment. I simply rose to say that it is very evident that something must be conceded, if we design to pass this bill. It may be utterly in vain to hope that my friend from Pennsylvania will concede anything at all. We had the same speech from him before, substantially, that we have had now. It may be vain to expect that other friends will concede anything, and they may insist on having their own peculiar ideas, or no idea at all. Now, sir, experience has taught me that we never can pass a bill about which there is a difference of opinion among friends, on any such principle. Just look a moment at the history of this measure. A bill on this subject has been pending here, in some shape or other, for months, and the reason why it was not passed was that there was on some points a radical and entire difference of opinion, seemingly so strong that it was an almost hopeless attempt to think of reconciling those opinions, and passing the bill. After a long time, some half dozen projects being on the table, it was moved that they should all be referred to a special committee, and that that committee should take them into consideration-the ordinary, the usual course in such cases. What was that predicated upon? What was the leading idea of it?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I understood the inference at any rate to be that the majority of the committee had agreed to this.

has been agreed upon. Is that consistent with the course of a member of a committee, going upon a committee to reconcile jarring opinions, and to see if he can get a bill that can secure a majority of the votes of the Senate? If he is to have his own way and amend it, if the Senator from Illinois is to amend it, if my friend from New Hampshire is to amend it, and two or three other members of the committee, then where are we? Had the Senator rather defeat the whole scheme, and go back where he was before, for he voted for the committee? The Senator voted for it; he went upon it, representing his own opinions; the report is made by a majority, and he comes in to make the same difficulty again. I say this in all kindness. He has a perfect right to do so, so far as his legislative rights are concerned; but is it consistent with the object of a committee raised as this was, and will anything be obtained by it except defeat? I submit it to his better judgment. In my judgment, a member of a committee thus situated ought not, when the report has been made by a committee thus raised and for this purpose, to again press his own peculiar views when he knows that those views are opposed. It defeats the very object of the committee which was raised, and of which he was a member.

My friend from Pennsylvania says he attended but one meeting of the committee, having been sick, and therefore he feels himself at liberty to quarrel with the bill substantially. I do not admit that that is a correct proposition at all, or that we can ever get along upon any such supposition. He may have disagreed to it, and may show it by his vote; perhaps he will. Now, take this proposition: I agree with him fully that the President has now all the power that is proposed to be given him by this section; but why was it inserted? It was to meet the views of gentlemen

Now, if my friend from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] desires that no bill shall be passed unless his own or the one which he thinks is the best-and which may be the best it is not for me to say-his course is easily explained. Find all the fault you can with the bill here, beat it down if possible, and have nothing; be thrown precisely where we were before, into a condition where we can do nothing--and there are some such here--who hold that Mr. TRUMBULL. As the Senator refers to the President had no such power, and that it was me, I should like him to give his authority for necessary to confer it upon him; that he could not the statement that a decided majority of the com- constitutionally do it unless we who are his supemittee of nine were for this section of the bill as riors in these matters, conferred the power upon it is. him. Then why should it be stricken out? 1 believe that the President has to-day, without any legislation whatever, all the power conferred by this section; and yet I am perfectly ready to vote for it in deference to the views of gentlemen who think that he has it not, and that he ought to be allowed to exercise it. 1 yield my opinion to theirs. I do so in several other matters connected with this bill on the ground of expediency and propriety. I yield it, and why? Because, as I said, and said in good faith, I am in favor of a stringent bill, and I think this is a stringent bill. If I did not think it was, yet as it was agreed upon by the majority, and is the only thing to be got, I would not stand up here, because I did not like it, and advertise the country that this bill which is to be passed by my friends, will be good for nothing after it is passed. I would let them find it out. I would not take pains to advertise them in advance, because I did not happen to carry my own notions, that it would do nothing and would amount to nothing.

Mr. FESSENDEN. No such thing. I said the majority of the committee was for a stringent confiscation bill. It was made up with that view.

Mr. TRUMBULL. That is your opinion.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Take the names and read them, and see if it is not so; the thing cannot be disputed.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like, then, the authority for the statement that a majority of the committee were for a stringent bill.

Mr. SUMNER. I have not understood it so before.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I suppose it to be so. The Senator from Illinois himself stated in debate that he regarded the chairman of the committee [Mr. CLARK] as a friend of the bill.

Mr. TRUMBULL. That is not a majority. Mr. FESSENDEN. Besides the chairman, there were the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WILSON,] the Senator from Iowa, [Mr. HARLAN,] the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. SHERMAN,] and the Senator from New York, [Mr. HARRIS.] There are five, and that is a majority of the committee all recognized heretofore as the friends of confiscation, and the leading friends. There are five out of nine, and the Senator from Illinois himself was appointed but refused to serve. If the Senator will say that any one of those gentlemen was not reliable, was not a friend of confiscation-he denominated them all such before-I am wrong; otherwise my statement stands; it cannot be disputed. I say, therefore, that under these exact circumstances, if the Senator from Illinois desires that we shall be thrown back into the same state of confusion that we were in before, and that no bill shall be passed, then his course on this bill is perfectly reconcilable and consistent.

Take my friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. WILSON,] and I address myself to his better sense. He went on to the committee the friend of the particular provision which he now moves; he had moved it originally. The bill is reported not in that shape. He comes in again moving it on the bill, knowing that it is opposed, and after the bill

I think we ought to pass upon this matter, amend the bill in its details if necessary, but, not take this course, which must inevitably result in throwing us back into the same state of confusion that we were in before, and pass nothing. If gentlemen desire that course, well and good; let us understand it.

Mr. WADE. I really am not in a mood to stand very much lecturing in the Senate or anywhere else. I am perfectly willing that every Sen ator shall act on his own responsibility, and take such course in regard to any measure as he thinks proper to take, and vote for any bill, offer any amendment, advocate any measure he thinks right, and I am the last man to question his right; but I do not like to be lectured and scolded here in the Senate for the course that I see fit to take.

Now, sir, what is the history of this bill? It is not quite true that a majority of the Republican party here were in favor of this measure. The measure that was before the Senate for some time which came from the Judiciary Committee, I believe met the approbation of a majority of the Republican members of the Senate. It was, however, referred, with all the other measures, to a select committee. My judgment then was that that reference was a total surrender of the principle of confiscation, and I so stated I believe

Mr. FESSENDEN. Mr. President, I sin-with, if the Senators want to know, is this: that cerely regret that I had the temerity to state to the Senate the results of my observation and experience with regard to bills of this kind, since it has brought down upon me the wrath of the distintinguished chairman of the committee on the conduct of the war, who seems to have imagined, ever since he was thus appointed, that he not only had the war under his control, but the Senate, too. Now, sir, in spite of it, I doubt whether he will succeed in regulating me quite as well as he regulates the war. The gentleman asks where I have conceded anything. I should like to ask him where I have made a proposition in regard to this || thing from beginning to end.

Mr.WADE. I said no such thing, to start with. Mr. FESSENDEN. And yet it was fairly in-bers of the committee would come into the Senferable from what the Senator did say-a manifest inference that no one could help drawing from what he said. But, sir, I do not wish to continue this discussion. I have taken no part, as I said before, in the questions in regard to this bill. I have waited until a committee, made up of gentle-tee-room? men entertaining different opinions, should agree; and when I found that they did agree and reported a bill, I made up my mind to sustain it, because I am desirous that a bill shall be passed, and I believe this to be an efficient one. It will accomplish all that it ought to accomplish, and I am willing, therefore, to sustain it. I might sustain another, I might prefer another, I might prefer to draw one myself to suit myself; but we must take the united judgments of all, or else not legislate on this proposition, and that is the course that I am willing to adopt.