Mr. SHELLABARGER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad of the opportunity to explain the reasons for the vote F. give on this important measure, and in what I have to say I shall not go much beyond that. Now, if I agreed with the other side of this House in regard to the state of fact and the resulting state of law that is now upon our country; I would most heartily and thoroughly agree with them. it would not only be incompetent but monstrous for us to pass this bill into law on the state of facts assumed by my friends on the other side of the House: that we are in a state of profound peace, that there is peace in every sense of the word all over the Republic in the civil administration of the law; that the courts are open every where, and redress for violence and wrong can be obtained. I say if that is the state of the Repub.lic we must not pass this bill. Constitution, with that strange wisdom that amounts to inspiration, which, as we go along in these turbulous times, only excites more and more the admiration of every right thinking man, has foreseen and provided for the exact state of the country which is now, alas ! upon us. In that provision of your Constitution to which I now allude, and which is the one touching the suspension of the habeascorpus; the framers of the instrument provided for and have indicated what the duties of the hour are. Whenever in time of rebellion or of invasion the public safety requires that the [. of that writ shall be suspended, it becomes not only the right, but the duty of the Government of the U.S., either Congress or the Executive and for the purposes of this inquiry it makes no difference whether the power be lodged in the President or in Congress to suspend the writ of habeascorpus. That is this bill in all its scope and effect, and nothing beyond that. The bill assumes that the Republic is in a condition of rebellion when the public safety requires that the privileges of the writ of habeascorpus shall be suspended, because the courts are unable to administer the law. No. if we are mistaken in that fact, then this bill must be wrong, as indeed must every other conceivable method of reconstruction. Now, let me remind learned gentlemen for there are learned gentlemen on the other side of this House and as patriotic as those on this side that every work on international law contemplates, recognizes, and provides for 2 states of war, namely: one in which it is flagrant and the other in which it is cessante, in the tech nical language of the books. The latter condition of things (I simply state the fact to be so, with out, of course, stopping now to argue and prove it) is now upon the country, in which arebellion is simply crushed by war, by the arms of the Republic, but is still sufficiently strong to overthrow and defy the courts in nearly iai. the territories of the Republic. That is state of war cessante; that is a state of things contemplated by your Constitution, and, thank God, the wise men who framed the Constitution provided for the case. The duties of the hour require that we should see to it that this mighty reserved force of your Government, lodged in the ultimate powers of war, shall be brought into play for the Preservation of the life of your Republic. That is all there is of it. if I mistake the fact, then my law goes. If that is not the condition of the country, then we must abandon the bill. Now, in the few minutes that have kindly been accorded to me I want to make a suggestion or 2 in regard to the detailed objections that are made to the provisions of this bill. They are every one of them worthy of consideration, and I desire to give to them that careful and kind attention that their value entitles them to in the 20 minutes that are allowed to me. 1st, it is said that this is an assumption of the powers of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army, and that it is incompe tent for Congress to indicate to any portion of the military forces of the Government a particular or specific duty that the Congress shall require to be done. Let me suggest to the gentlemen on the other side that if they will an alyze that idea they will abandon it in the frankness that is due to so great discussions as we are now upon. Let me remind them now of some examples in the history of our own legislation where in principle the identical thing has been done by law that this bill proOSes. p Take, for instance, this;–and I have hunted up these examples only this morning, taking them at random; 1000s of others like them might be selected. The act of February 11, 1807, orders that vessels of war in actual service shall go into a specified service of the Government of the U.S., namely, the coast survey. Now, I ask the gentlemen on the other side is that interfering with the prerogative of the POTUS as Commander in Chief of the Navy? Every gentleman says no instantly. Well, why not? he Presidentis the Commander in Chief; why is it that he cannot disregard a requirement of Congress that commands him to detail or send forth a portion of the Navy into a partictflar service? Take another example. In the act of 1832 relating to the same service, it is exPressly provided that such proportion of the land and naval forces of the U.S. as may be requisite for the execution of that service shall be detailed for that purpose. Now, suppose the POTUS should say: “I am the Commander in Chief of the Navy: you are assuming my powers, and I will not execute thatlaw.” I would like to know whether the President would not be liable to impeach ment; and whether there is any gentleman on this floor who denies that liability? Another example. The act of May 14, 1886, provides that the President shall send a sloop of war, for purposes of exploration, into the South seas, into the Pacific ocean; what is commonly known as the Wilkes' oexpedition. Suppose the President had disre garded that requirement of law, would that not have clearly been a violation of his duties as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy? I will now refer to another and a more striking example, because it is a case exactly like the one now before the House. It is a case where Congress, by act and operation of law undertook to detail a portion of the Army o the U.S. to a particular territory for the purpose of enforcing the laws of Congress. I allude to various acts of Congress, one of which is as old as 1797, May 19, and which have been running through our legislation ever since. In every one of those acts it is provided that within the Indian Territories the POTUS shall be authorized and required to use the armies of the U.S. for the purpose of executing the laws of Congress. Now, I have alluded to these examples for the purpose of bringing to the minds of gentlemen this great fact: that the POTUS is indeed the commander of the armies and navies of the U.S. But in your desire to follow the Constitution of the U.S. you must not stop there; but you must also remember that the armies and navies of the U.S. are made the instruments of the Government for the execution of its laws. It is the business of the government, of the political powers of the country, to make those laws; and then the Constitution has provided armies and navies for their execution. And the President in command of those armies and navies must command them so as to secure the execution of the laws. But gentlemen say that after you have sent your military officers into those insurrectionary States for the purposes of government and protection, the President, as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, may take them all away again and thus defeat your laws. So he might. taken away the naval officers from the exploring expedition; so he may take away any portion of your naval forces which you may order to clean out you harbors and the mouths of your rivers. But suppose he does it; then comes in that other reserved force and power of your Constitution, by which if it is done wantonly and for the purpose of defeating the provisions of the acts of Congress, your President is impeachable. Now, it does seem to me that if gentlemen will only bearin mind these leading ideas, then all the fogs which surround this subject will disappear. Let it be remembered all the time that your country has a right to its life, and that the powers of your Government are given for its Preservation. Let it be remembered that one portion of your Republic has fallen into a state of rebellion, and is still in a state of war against your Government, and that the powers. the Government are to be exercised for the purposes of the protection and the defense of the loyal and the disloyal too, in that part of the Republic; and that for the purpose of that defense you are authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeascorpus, and to exercise such extraordinary powers as are necessary to the Preservation of the great life of the nation. Let these things be remembered; and then let it also be remembered that the lawmaking power of the Government not only controls the President but controls the purposes and the ends and the objects of war, and, of course, the movements of the armies that are to be employed in war. Let these things be remembered; and it, seems to me that all the difficulties with which it is sought to surround this measure will at once disappear. Now, the only other suggestion which I desire to make, and it is one which I wish to make, is that this measure taken alone is one which I could not support unaccompanied by provisions for the rapid and immediate establishment of civil governments, based upon the suffrages of the loyal people of the South. I could not support a military measure like this, that was to be regarded at all as permanent in its character. It is because it is only the initiative, because it is only the employment of the armies of the U.S. as a mere police force to Preserve order until we can establish civil governments. based upon the loyal suffrages of the people there, that I can support this measure at all. If it stood by itself and were designed to be permanent I could not, with my notions of the possibility and the practicability of establishing civil governments in the South based upon loyal suffrages, vote for this bill.