History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States Part 8

"I ask Senators, in the first place, if they are now, with the most satisfactory information that is before the body, willing to do that which they refused to do at the last session of Congress? We refused to pa.s.s the law when it proposed to establish a permanent department.

Shall we now, when the war is over, when the States are returning to their places in the Union, when the citizens are returning to their allegiance, when peace and quiet, to a very large extent, prevail over that country, when the courts are reestablished; is the Senate now, with this information before it, willing to make this a permanent bureau and department of the Government?

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

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

I will read what he says:

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

Salaries of a.s.sistant and sub-a.s.sistant commissioners $147,500 Salaries of clerks 82,800 Stationery and printing 63,000 Quarters and fuel 15,000 Clothing for distribution 1,750,000 Commissary stores 4,106,250 Medical department 500,000 Transportation 1,980,000 School superintendents 21,000 Sites for school-houses and asylums 3,000,000 Telegraphing 18,000

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

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

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

"Will some Senator be good enough to tell me what that means? If Indiana be declared a State within which are found refugees and freedmen, who have escaped from the Southern States, and if Indiana has a commissioner appointed to her, and if in each county of Indiana there be a sub-commissioner at a salary of $1,500 a year, with two clerks with a salary of $1,200 each, and then the War Department throws over this little army of office-holders in the State of Indiana its protection, what does that mean? The people of Indiana have been ground hard under military authority and power within the last three or four years, but it was borne because it was hoped that when the war would be closed the military power would be withdrawn from the State.

Under this bill it may be established permanently upon the people by a body of men protected by the military power of the Government. An officer is appointed to the State of Indiana to regulate the contracts which are made between the white people and the colored people of that State, and because he holds this office, not military in its character, involving no military act whatever, the military throws over him its iron shield of protection. What does that mean? If this officer shall do a great wrong and outrage to one of the people, and the wronged citizen appeals to the court for his redress and brings his suit for damages, does the protecting shield of the War Department prevent the prosecution of that suit and the recovery of a judgment?

What is the protection that is thrown over this army of office-holders? Let it be explained.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The most remarkable sections of the bill, however, are the seventh and eighth, and to those sections I will ask the very careful attention of Senators; for I think if we can pa.s.s those two sections, and make them a law, then indeed this Government can do any thing. It will be useless to speak any longer of limitations upon the powers of the General Government; it will be idle to speak of the reserved power of the States; State rights and State power will have pa.s.sed away if we can do what is proposed in the seventh and eighth sections of this bill. We propose, first, to legislate against the effects of 'local law, ordinance, police, or other regulation;' then against 'custom,'

and lastly, against 'prejudice,' and to provide that 'if any of the civil rights or immunities belonging to white persons' are denied to any person because of color, then that person shall be taken under the military protection of the Government. I do not know whether that will be understood to extend to Indiana or not. That will be a very nice point for the bureau to decide, I presume, after the enactment of the law. The section limits its operation to 'any State or district in which the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion.' It will be a little difficult to say whether in the State of Indiana and Ohio the ordinary course of judicial proceeding has or has not been interrupted. We had some war in Indiana; we had a very great raid through that State and some fighting; and I presume that in some cases the proceedings of the courts were interrupted and the courts were unable to go on with their business, so that it might be said that even in some of the Northern States this provision of the bill would be applicable. Suppose that it were applicable to the State of Indiana, then every man in that State, who attempted to execute the const.i.tution and laws of the State, would be liable for a violation of the law. We do not allow to colored people there many civil rights and immunities which are enjoyed by the white people. It became the policy of the State in 1852 to prohibit the immigration of colored people into that State. I am not going to discuss the question whether that was a wise policy or not. At the time it received the approval of my judgment. Under that const.i.tutional provision, and the laws enacted in pursuance of it, a colored man coming into the State since 1852 can not acquire a t.i.tle to real estate, can not make certain contracts, and no negro man is allowed to intermarry with a white woman. These are civil rights that are denied, and yet this bill proposes, if they are still denied in any State whose courts have been interrupted by the rebellion, the military protection of the Government shall be extended over the person who is thus denied such civil rights or immunities.

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

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

"My judgment is that, under the second section of the const.i.tutional amendment, we may pa.s.s such a law as will secure the freedom declared in the first section, but that we can not go beyond that limitation.

If a man has been, by this provision of the Const.i.tution, made free from his master, and that master undertakes to make him a slave again, we may pa.s.s such laws as are sufficient in our judgment to prevent that act; but if the Legislature of the State denies to the citizen as he is now called, the freedman, equal privileges with the white man, I want to know if that Legislature, and each member of that Legislature, is responsible to the penalties prescribed in this bill? It is not an act of the old master; it is an act of the State government, which defines and regulates the civil rights of the people.

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

"Sir, if we establish courts in the Southern States, we ought to establish courts that will be on both sides, or on neither side; but the doctrine now is, that if a man is appointed, either to an executive or a judicial office, in any locality where there are colored people, he must be on the side of the negro. I have not heard, since Congress met, that any colored man has done a wrong in this country for many years; and I have scarcely heard that any white man coming in contact with colored people has done right for a number of years. Every body is expected to take sides for the colored man against the white man. If I have to take sides, it will be with the men of my own color and my own race; but I do not wish to do that.

Toward these people I hope that the legislation of Congress, within the const.i.tutional powers of Congress, will be just and fair--just to them and just to the white people among whom they live; that it will promote harmony among the people, and not discord; that it will restore labor to its channels, and bring about again in those States a condition of prosperity and happiness. Do we not all desire that? If we do, is it well for us to inflame our pa.s.sions and the pa.s.sions of the people of the North, so that their judgments shall not be equal upon the questions between these races? It is all very well for us to have sympathy for the poor and the unfortunate, but both sides call for our sympathy in the South. The master, who, by his wickedness and folly, has involved himself in the troubles that now beset him, has returned, abandoning his rebellion, and has bent down upon his humble knees and asked the forgiveness of the Government, and to be restored again as a citizen. Can a man go further than that? He has been in many cases pardoned by the Executive. He stands again as a citizen of the country.

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

Following immediately upon the close of the above argument, Mr.

Trumbull thus addressed the senate: "Mr. President, I feel it inc.u.mbent on me to reply to some of the arguments presented by the Senator from Indiana against this bill. Many of the positions he has a.s.sumed will be found, upon examination, to have no foundation in fact. He has argued against provisions not contained in the bill, and he has argued also as if he were entirely forgetful of the condition of the country and of the great war through which we have pa.s.sed.

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

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

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

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

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

"Sir, the war powers of the Government do not cease with the dispersion of the rebel armies; they are to be continued and exercised until the civil authority of the Government can be established firmly and upon a sure foundation, not again to be disturbed or interfered with. And such, sir, is the understanding of the Government. None of the departments of the Government understand that its military authority has ceased to operate over the rebellious States. It is but a short time since the President of the United States issued a proclamation restoring the privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ in the loyal States; but did he restore it in the rebellious States?

Certainly not. What authority has he to suspend the privilege of that writ anywhere, except in pursuance of the const.i.tutional provision allowing the writ to be suspended 'when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it?' Then the President understands that the public safety in the insurrectionary States still requires its suspension.

"The Attorney-General, when asked, a few days ago, why Jefferson Davis was not put upon trial, told you that, 'though active hostilities have ceased, a state of war still exists over the territory in rebellion,'

so that it could not be properly done. General Grant, in an order issued within a few days--which I commend to the especial consideration of the Senator from Indiana, for it contains many of the provisions of the bill under consideration--an order issued with the approbation of the Executive, for such an order, I apprehend, could not have been issued without his approbation--directs 'military division and department commanders, whose commands embrace or are composed of any of the late rebellious States, and who have not already done so, will at once issue and enforce orders protecting from prosecution or suits in the State, or munic.i.p.al courts of such State, all officers and soldiers of the armies of the United States, and all persons thereto attached, or in anywise thereto belonging; subject to military authority, charged with offenses for acts done in their military capacity, or pursuant to orders from proper military authority; and to protect from suit or prosecution all loyal citizens or persons charged with offenses done against the rebel forces, directly or indirectly, during the existence of the rebellion; and all persons, their agents and employes, charged with the occupancy of abandoned lands or plantations, or the possession or custody of any kind of property whatever, who occupied, used, possessed, or controlled the same, pursuant to the order of the President, or any of the civil or military departments of the Government, and to protect them from any penalties or damages that may have been or may be p.r.o.nounced or adjudged in said courts in any of such cases; and also protecting colored persons from prosecutions, in any of said States, charged with offenses for which white persons are not prosecuted or punished in the same manner and degree.'"

Mr. Saulsbury having asked whether the Senator believed that General Grant or the President had any const.i.tutional authority to make such an order as that, Mr. Trumbull replied: "I am very glad the Senator from Delaware has asked the question. I answer, he had most ample and complete authority. I indorse the order and every word of it. It would be monstrous if the officers and soldiers of the army and loyal citizens were to be subjected to suits and prosecutions for acts done in saving the republic, and that, too, at the hands of the very men who sought its destruction. Why, had not the Lieutenant-General authority to issue the order? Have not the civil tribunals in all the region of country to which order applies been expelled by armed rebels and traitors? Has not the power of the Government been overthrown there? Is it yet reestablished? Some steps have been taken toward reestablishing it under the authority of the military, and in no other way. If any of the State governments recently set up in the rebellious States were to undertake to embarra.s.s military operations, I have no doubt they would at once be set aside by order of the Lieutenant-General, in pursuance of directions from the Executive. These governments which have been set up act by permission of the military. They are made use of, to some extent, to preserve peace and order and enforce civil rights between parties; and, so far as they act in harmony with the Const.i.tution and laws of the United States and the orders of the military commanders, they are permitted to exercise authority; but until those States shall be restored in all their const.i.tutional relations to the Union, they ought not to be permitted to exercise authority in any other way.

"I desire the Senator from Indiana to understand that it is under this war power that the authority of the Freedmen's Bureau is to be exercised. I do not claim that its officers can try persons for offenses without juries in States where the civil tribunals have not been interrupted by the rebellion. The Senator from Indiana argues against this bill as if it was applicable to that State. Some of its provisions are, but most of them are not, unless the State of Indiana has been in rebellion against the Government; and I know too many of the brave men who have gone from that State to maintain the integrity of the Union and put down the rebellion to cast any such imputation upon her. She is a loyal and a patriotic State; her civil government has never been usurped or overthrown by traitors, and the provisions of the seventh and eighth sections of the bill to which the Senator alludes can not, by their very terms, have any application to the State of Indiana. Let me read the concluding sentence of the eighth section:

"'The jurisdiction conferred by this section on the officers and agents of this bureau to cease and determine whenever, the discrimination on account of which it is conferred ceases, and in no event to be exercised in any State in which the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has not been interrupted by the rebellion, nor in any such State after said State shall have been fully restored in all its const.i.tutional relations to the United States, and the courts of the State and of the United States within, the same are not disturbed or stopped in the peaceable course of justice.'

"Will the Senator from Indiana admit for a moment that the courts in his State are now disturbed or stopped in the peaceable course of justice? If they were ever so disturbed, they are not now. Will the Senator admit that the State of Indiana does not have and exercise all its const.i.tutional rights as one of the States of this Union? The judicial authority conferred by this bill applies to no State, not even to South Carolina, after it shall have been restored in all its const.i.tutional rights.

"There is no provision in the bill for the exercise of judicial authority except in the eighth section. Rights are declared in the seventh, but the mode of protecting them is provided in the eighth section, and the eighth section then declares explicitly that the jurisdiction that is conferred shall be exercised only in States which do not possess full const.i.tutional rights as parts of the Union.

Indiana has at all times had all the const.i.tutional rights pertaining to any State, has them now, and therefore the officers and agents of this bureau can take no jurisdiction of any case in the State of Indiana. It will be another question, which I will answer, and may as well answer now, perhaps, as to what is meant by 'military protection.'

"The second section declares that 'the President of the United States, through the War Department and the commissioner, shall extend military jurisdiction and protection over all employes, agents, and officers of this bureau.' He wants to know the effect of that in Indiana. This bureau is a part of the military establishment. The effect of that in Indiana is precisely the same as in every other State, and under it the officers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau will occupy the same position as do the officers and soldiers of the United States Army.

What is that? While they are subject to the Rules and Articles of War, if they chance to be in Indiana and violate her laws, they are held amenable the same as any other person. The officer or soldier in the State of Indiana who commits a murder or other offense upon a citizen of Indiana, is liable to be indicted, tried, and punished, just as if he were a civilian. When the sheriff goes with the process to arrest the soldier or officer who has committed the offense, the military authorities surrender him up to be tried and punished according to the laws of the State. It has always been done, unless in time of war when the courts were interrupted. The jurisdiction and 'protection' that is extended over these officers and agents is for the purpose of making them subject to the Rules and Articles of War. It is necessary for this reason: in the rebellious States civil authority is not yet fully restored. There would be no other way of punishing them, of holding them to accountability, of governing and controlling them, in many portions of the country; and it is because of the condition of the rebellious States, and their still being under military authority, that it is necessary to put these officers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau under the control of the military power.

"The Senator says the original law only embraced within its provisions the refugees in the rebellious States; and now this bill is extended to all the States, and he wants to know the reason. I will tell him.

When the original bill was pa.s.sed, slavery existed in Tennessee, Kentucky, Delaware, and in various other States. Since that time, by the const.i.tutional amendment, it has been every-where abolished."

Mr. Saulsbury, aroused by the mention of his own State, interrupted the speaker: "I say, as one of the representatives of Delaware on this floor, that she had the proud and n.o.ble character of being the first to enter the Federal Union under a Const.i.tution formed by equals. She has been the very last to obey a mandate, legislative or executive, for abolishing slavery. She has been the last slaveholding State, thank G.o.d, in America, and I am one of the last slaveholders in America."

Mr. Trumbull continued: "Well, Mr. President, I do not see particularly what the declaration of the Senator from Delaware has to do with the question I am discussing. His State may have been the last to become free, but I presume that the State of Delaware, old as she is, being the first to adopt the Const.i.tution, and n.o.ble as she is, will submit to the Const.i.tution of the United States, which declares that there shall be no slavery within its jurisdiction." [Applause in the galleries.]

"It is necessary, Mr. President, to extend the Freedmen's Bureau beyond the rebel States in order to take in the State of Delaware, [laughter,] the loyal State of Delaware, I am happy to say, which did not engage in this wicked rebellion; and it is necessary to protect the freedmen in that State as well as elsewhere; and that is the reason for extending the Freedmen's Bureau beyond the limits of the rebellious States.

"Now, the Senator from Indiana says it extends all over the United States. Well, by its terms it does, though practically it can have little if any operation outside of the late slaveholding States. If freedmen should congregate in large numbers at Cairo, Illinois, or at Evansville, Indiana, and become a charge upon the people of those States, the Freedmen's Bureau would have a right to extend its jurisdiction over them, provide for their wants, secure for them employment, and place them in situations where they could provide for themselves; and would the State of Illinois or the State of Indiana object to that? The provisions of the bill which would interfere with the laws of Indiana can have no operation there.

"Again, the Senator objects very much to the expense of this bureau.

Why, sir, as I have once or twice before said, it is a part of the military establishment. I believe nearly all its officers at the present time are military officers, and by the provisions of the pending bill they are to receive no additional compensation when performing duties in the Freedmen's Bureau. The bill declares that the 'bureau may, in the discretion of the President, be placed under a commissioner and a.s.sistant commissioners, to be detailed from the army, in which event each officer so a.s.signed to duty shall serve without increase of pay or allowances.'

"I shall necessarily, Mr. President, in following the Senator from Indiana, speak somewhat in a desultory manner; but I prefer to do so because I would rather meet the objections made directly than by any general speech. I will, therefore, take up his next objection, which is to the fifth section of the bill. That section proposes to confirm for three years the possessory t.i.tles granted by General Sherman. The Senator from Indiana admits that General Sherman had authority, when at the head of the army at Savannah, and these people were flocking around him and dependent upon him for support, to put them upon the abandoned lands; but he says that authority to put them there and maintain them there ceased with peace. Well, sir, a sufficient answer to that would be that peace has not yet come; the effects of war are not yet ended; the people of the States of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, where these lands are situated, are yet subject to military control. But I deny that if peace had come the authority of the Government to protect these people in their possessions would cease the moment it was declared. What are the facts? The owners of these plantations had abandoned them and entered the rebel army. They were contending against the army which General Sherman then commanded.

Numerous colored people had flocked around General Sherman's army. It was necessary that he should supply them to save them from starvation.