Mr. KASSON. While, as I apprehend, there is no difference of opinion on this side of the House touching alike our right and our duty to protect the rights of all those who have been the allies of the U.S. in the States lately in rebellion, and to protect them if necessary by the establishment of martial laws, still there are, as has been stated, certain misgivings as to the best mode by which we can accomplish that result. Now, sir, this bill proceeds upon the theory that not only in some of the southern States, but in all of the southern States and in all parts of them, a condition of insurrection still exists. But, sir, the Gentfrom Ohio {Mr. SHELLABARGER) has stated the true ground, and the only ground upon which this bill or any bill seeking to accomplish the like object can stand. He has stated distinctly that in order to stand at all in the eye of the law or in the Presence of the Constitution the bill must rest upon the fact that an insurrectionary condition exists in the South to day. I accept that position. As I said on a former occasion, when I offered a resolution directing the ComJudiciary to inquire into our right to establish martial law in the South, and on a subsequent occasion when I was discussing the 13th amendment of the Constitution, I believe that in some parts of the South the insurrection still exists. This bill, however, instead of meeting alike the provisions of the Constitution and the facts of the case, assumes an inherent right in the Congress of the U.S. to establish a military government over people who ‘have been in insurrection. I deny the existence of such a right. But if those people are now in insurrection the right exists today. The question, therefore, Presents itself in 2 lights: 1st, as a constitutional question; and 2ndly, as a question of fact. Now, sir, the Constitution in its enumeration of the powers conferred upon Congress contains this clause: “To make rulesfor the governmentand regulation of the land and naval forces.” There is no dispute that the Congress of the U.S. has the right to Prescribe articles of war. Articles of war, when Prescribed, bind alike the President, the lowest lieutenant of the Army, and the private soldier in the service of the U.S. When, therefore, we proceed to establish any regulation of mar tial law, we have the constitutional right to do it by making “rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” I entirely concur in the statement of the Gentfrom Ohio, that we have the right to govern by the administration of martial law wherever there is a condition of rebellion or insurrection against the U.S. Now, sir, all that remains for Congress to do to accomplish the object we have in view on this side, if not on the other side of the House, is to Prescribe an article of war that shall apply to an insurrectionary condition within o communities and districts where it shall be found to exist. Instead of erecting this great military power over people in some parts of the South who are in fact at peace and observing law and order, our rule should be so flexible that we may apply martial law wherever peace, law, and order do not prevail, without imposing it upon people whose subordination to the laws renders military rules unnecessary. The assumption of power involved in this bill is objectionable mainly because it goes too far, and not because it is inherently wrong in its application to the insurrectionists of the South. The bill, if I understand its principles, assumes the right of Congress to take an unor ganized territory of the U.S., to take any unorganized people of the U.S., and because they have neither a territorial government recognized by Congress, nor a State government recognized by Congress, govern them by military power and martial law. Ideny the existence of such a right on the part of Congress. I affirm that only to the extent of the existence of actual hostilities or insurrection against the U.S. have we the right under any circumstances to establish martial law. Hence, in my view this bill extends too far and is dangerous because of its great breadth. To obviate this to me objectionable feature of the bill I propose to submit to the House a proposition framed, as I conceive, in accordance with the principles I have stated principles in reference to which I believe the Gentfrom Ohio and myself concur, differing only on the question of fact as to the extent of an insurrectionary condition in the South. I ask the Clerk to read the proposition which I design on a suitable opportunity to offer as an amendment.