Mr. TRUMB ULL. Mr. President, it was with surprise and profound reret that I read the extraordinary message of the pOTUS, returning with his objections the bill to amend an act entitled “An ct to establish a Bureau for the Relief of hreedmen and Refugees ” and for other ur po5es. It has been in desire that the various Depts of the government should1har monize in the restoration of all the States to their full constitutional relations in the Union. I have soughtto forward such measures as would protect the loyal refu ees and freedmen in the rebellious States, an would, as I supposedn harmonize with the views of the Executive. He had proposed to the rebei States, as conditions recedent to their resumption of prac tical relations with the U.S., “that civil rights should be secured by laws up licable alike to whites and blacks, ” and had declared in his message, delivered to us at the commencement of the session, that “we shall but fulfill our duties as legislators by accordingequal and exact justice to all men, special privileges to none. The only object and design of the bill was to secure these rights to all men; and I am greatly surprised that a bill designed for such a purpose should have been returned by the Executive with a statement that it is “ as inconsistent with the actual condition of the country as it is at variance with the constitution of the U.S. ” Having taken a somewhat active part in the passage of this bill through the Senate, I feel called upon to vindicate myself from the charge of having urged upon the Senate a bill so unconstitutional and so inconsistent with the actual condition of the country as this is now declared to be. What is this amendment to the Freedmens Bureau bill? It is nota measure establishing a bureau, but merely amcudatory of an act already in existence; nor does it, as seems to be supposed by some, materially enlarge the powers of the hreedmens Bureau as it already exists. It is an entire misapprehension to suppose that such was the object of the bill or sue its effect. It does little more than give the sanction oflaw to what is already bein done without any statute authorizing it. the Freedmens Bureau, as I have said, already exists. Courts are held by the Freedmens Bureau throughout the entire region of country where that bureau is in operation. Under the military authority laws inconsistent, as is believed, with the of the GOvernment and incompatible withsamfei? itary operations are set aside at this time in 11 States. The object of the bill was to continue in existence the Freedmens Bureau not as a permanent institution. Any such intent was isavowed during the discussion of the bill. It is true, no time is expressly limited in the bill itself when it shall cease to operate, nor is it customary to insert such a clause in a law; but it is declared that the bill shall operate until otherwise provided by aw. It is known that the Congress of the U.S. assembles every year, and no one supposed that this bill was to establish a bureau to be ingrafted upon the countryas a permanent institution: far from it. Nor is it a ill that is intended to go into the States and take control of the domestic affairs of the States. The original act and this amendatory bill together were simply designed to protect refu gees and freedmen from rsecution, aid them to find employment, an to provide, not for 4 million emancipated slaves and millions of refugees, but only for the indigent, for those who were unable to take care of themselves, and that temporarily, until provision could be made so thatt ey could become selfsupporting. In consequence of the war, 1,000s of Union men had been driven from their homes allover the South, and particularly was this the case in Tennessee. They had been stripped of their property. Women and children adlied destitute from their tomes. They had neither food to eat nor clothes to wear. They flocked around our armies, and during the whole progress of the war they were fed by our supplies. So also with the freedmen. Congress at an earl da passed a law declaring free all slaves who s only come within the lines of our Army. They came flyin within our lines, without clothing, without hats. oftentimes wounded, footsore and distressed. Many of them entered our ranks to 6ght for the cause of the country, and others we lid and clothed from our stores. While the war was progressin, and while these people were flocking aroun our Army, on the 8d of March, 1805, not yet one year ago, the Congress of the U.S. passed a law to create a special dept of the military establishment whose duty it should be to 100 to theirvpressing wpnts. That was called the Freedmens Bureau, and officers were assigned chiefly from the Army to take charge of it. Since that time the conflict of arms has ceased, but there are still upon our hands some of these destitute people who must be provided fora far less number than would have been upon our hands if no system had been devised for taking care of them, for finding them employment, for settlin them upon tracts of land wherever it could live done; and l undertake to say that there has been saved to the Government millions of money by the establishment of a system through which employment was found for these people, and they became self supporting who otherwise would have been entirely dependent on the bounty of the Government for support. Since this freedmens Bureau was organized an amendment has been adopted to the constitution of the U.S. declaring that slavery shall no longer exist within the jurisdiction of the U.S. By virtue of that enactment millions of slaves have become free. They have become free in the midst of a hostile population. They have become free without any of this worlds goods, not owning even the hats upon their heads or the coats upon their backs, without supplies of any kind, not knowing often where to obtain the next meal to save them from starvntion. Somethingmustbedone to protect them in their new rights, to find employment for the ablebodied, and take careof the suffering; and the Freedmens Bureau, as Original] established and now proposed to be amended: was designed to do that something not by furnishing food and clothing for all fir merly in slavery. Most of them, with the aid of the bureau, have been able to provide for themselves. The number of indigent freedmen receiving supplies has been comparatively few, and in many instances less than the number of white refugees receiving assistance in the same locality, as I shall presently show. The President in his veto messageand I design to treat it candidly and without an feeling, for I have no other object in view than to adopt such measures as shall best tend to mote the peace and happiness of the wproole countrysays: “I might call to mind. in advance of these objections. that there is no immediate necessity for the proposedmeasure. the cliefofFreedmeu and Refugees. which wasapproved in the month of March last. has not yet expired. It was thought stringent and extensive enough or the purposein View in time of war.” N ow, sir, when will that not expire, and what was it? It provided in its 1st section Q “That there is hereby establishedin the War Dept. to continue during the present war of recllion and for oneyourthereafter. a Bureauof Refu gees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands.” By the terms of the act it was to continue “during the present war of rebellion and for one year thereafter.” Now, when did the war of rebellion cease? So far as the conflict of arms is concerned we all admit that the war of rebellion ceased when the last rebel army laid down its arms, and that was some time in the month of May when the rebel arm in Texas surrendered to the Union forces. I c not hold that the consequences of the war are over. I do not understand that peace is restored with allits consequences. We have notyet escaped from the evi s inflicted by the war. Peace and harmony are not yet restored, but the war of rebellion is over, and this bureau must expire in May next, according to the terms of the act that was passed on the 3d of March, 1865, and according to the views of the President as expressed in his veto message. "The President says: The bill proposes to e stnblish, by authority of congress, InlllfaIYJllflBdlCUOD over all parts of the U.S. containing refugees and freedmen.” Sir, I desire to speak respectfully of the Executive, but I would like to know where in that bill is any provision extending military jurisdiction over all parts of the U.S. containing refu ees and freedmen? The bill contains no such clause. It isa misap rehension of the bill. The clause of the bi 1 upon that subject is this: “And the POTUS, throusht he War Dept and the Commissioner shall extend militaryjurisdiction and protectionoverall smploye s agents and officersof this bureau in the exercise of the duties imposedor authorized bythis notorthe act to which this is additional. ". Is not the difference manifest to everybody between a bill that extends military jurisdiction over the officers and employee s of the bureau and a bill which should extend military jurisdiction over all parts of the U.S. containingrefngeessnd freedmen? Thisbill makes the F freedmens Bureau a part of the War deThe act to establisha Bureau for, partment. It makes its officers and o. cats amenable to the Rules and Articles of ar. But does that extend jurisdiction over the whole country where they are? How do they differ from any other portion of the Army of the U.S.? The Army of the U.S., as every one knows, is governed by the Rules and Articles ofWar, whereverit maybe, whether in Indiana or in Florida, and all persons in the Army and a part of the military establishment are subject to these Rules and Articles of War; but did anybody ever suppose that the whole country where they were was under military jurisdiction? If a company of soldiers are stationed at one of the forts in NewYork harbor. the officers and soldiers of that company are subject to military jurisdiction; but was it ever supposed that the people of the State of NewYork were thereby placed under military jurisdiction? It is an entire misapprehension of the provisions of the bill. It extends military jurisdiction nowhere. it merely places under jurisdiction the persons belonging to the freedmens Bureau who, nearly all of them, are now under militaryjurisdiction. The Commissioner at the head of that bureau is an officer of the Army of the U.S and under military jurisdiction. I believe every asst commissioner is an officer of the U.S. Army and under military jurisdiction. But the bill does authorize the President, iflie thinksproper, instead of detailing military officers, to appoint civilians in some cases; and in case he does appoint civilians, then by the provisions I have read these civilians subject themselves to Military jurisdiction and are entitled to military protection in the performance of the duties imposed by this act. at passing over that objection, which I think I have sufficiently answered, the next which I will notice is the statement of the President that “ the country is to be divided into districts and sub districts, and the number of sal aried agents to be employed may be equal to the number of counties or parishes in all the States, where freedmen and refugees are to be found.” Now, sir, what is the provision of the bill on this subject? For a great deal seems to be made out of this objection urged here in the Senate, published to the country, and now reiterated in the veto message of the President, that the bill makes it necessary to a point a large number of salaried officers and agents throughout the country, and it is said to be very objectionable upon that ground. I have already stated that a single officer need not be employed other than those we now have. I have already stated thatit is in the power and discretion of the President to detail from the Army officers to perform all the duties of the Freedmens Bureau, and in case they are detailed the bill provides that they shall serve without any ad. itional compensation or allowance. But, sir, is it necessary, or was it ever contemplated, that there should be an officer or agent of the Freedmens Bureau in every county and every parish where refugees and freedmen are to be found? By no means. What is the bill upon that subject? The 2nd section provides that “Ths Commissioner. withthe approval of the presiodpeenrta. taionndswhen the same shall be necessaryfor the of the bureau, may divide each district into a numberofsubdistricts, not to exceedthenumber of counties or parishesin such district.” Does this make it imperative upon the president to a point an agent in one county and parish? It. authorizes him “when the same shall be necessary for the operations of the hu reau;” not otherwise. He has no authority under the bill to a point a single a cut unless it is necessary for the operations of the bureau, and then he can only appoint so many as may be needed. Sir, it never entered the mind, I venture to say, of a single advocate of this bill that the POTUS would so abuse the authority intrusted to him as to station an agent in ever county in these States; but it was apprehende that there might be 10 calities in some of these States where the prejudice and hostility of the white population and the former masters were such toward the negroes that it would be necessary to have an agent in every county in that locality for their protection; and in order to give the President the necessary discretion, where this should be requisite, the bill authorized, when it was necessary for the operations of the bureau, the appointment of an agent in each county or parish; and the wor “ parish” was used to designate those districts of country in the State of Louisiana which are not known as counties, but as parishes, there being in that State no county organizations. I should have been very glad, and I think I may sa the committee who reported this bill origins ly to the Senate would have been glad, if we could have limited the oflicials in the law to a far less number of agents than it is possibleto employ under it. But in order to vest the presient with sufficient power in some lo calities, it was necessary, legislating by general law, to give him much larger power than would be necessary in other localities and yet now this bill is arraigned and it is said that “ the country is to be divided into districts and subdistricts, and the number of salaried agents to be employed may be equal to the number of counties or parishes in all the U.S. where freedmen and refugees are to be found.” Sir, the count is not to be divided, I under take to say, into districts and sub districts unless the POTUS finds it necessary to do so for the protection of these people; and if the law should be abused in that respect, it would be because be abused the discretion vested in him by Congress, and not because the law required it. It makes no such requirement. The original law required that there be appointed one Commissioner and ten asst commissiOners, and the amendatory act which the President has vetoed authorized the appointment of 12 asst commissioners, 2 more than the present law. But as to this division into sub districts and the appointment of this innumerable number of agents that have so alarmed the minds of Senators, not one of them is to be appointed, by the express terms of the bill, unless it is necessary to carry out its operations; and who believes that an such number would be necessary as one in one county? If one in each county were appointed under the bill, I undertake to say that it would has most manifest abuse of the discretion which the bill vests in the Officers who are to carry it into execution. The President further says, in his veto message: “The subjectsoverwhich this military jurisdiction is to extend in every part of the U.S. includo protection to all employee s, agents and officers of this bureau in the exercise of the duties imposed upon themby the bill. In 11 States it is urther to extend over all casesaffectin freedmenand refu geesdiscriminated against by local law, custom, or preiudice. In those 11 States the bill subjects any white person whomay be charged with depriving a freedman of nny civil rights or immunities belonging to white persons to imprisonment or flne or both. without. however, defining the civil rights and immunities. which are thus to be securedtothe freedmen bv military law. This military lurisdiction also exton s to all questions that may arise respecting contracts.” After reading that most extraordinary statement, what will be said when I show from the bill itself that so far from extending this Military jurisdiction over all questions arising concerning contracts, and so far from extending military jurisdiction anywhere, it expressly provide by the ver terms of the bill that no such jurisdiction shall be exercised except where the President himself has established and is maintaining military jurisdiction, which he is now doing in 11 States, and the very moment that he ceases to maintain military jurisdiction, that very moment the militaryjurisdiction conferred over freedmen by this act ceases and terminates. I Will rea from the 8th section of the bill, which is explicit upon this point: “The jurisdiction conferred by this and the precedingsectionon the officers and agentsof this bureau shall ceaseand determine whenever the discrimination on account of which it is conferredeeases, and in no event to be exercised in any State in which the ordinary course of judicial proccedjnzs hasnot been interrupted by the rebellion, nor in any such State after said State shall have been fully restoredin all its constitutional relations to the U.S and the courts of the State and of the U.S. within the sameare not disturbed or stoppedin the peoccablo course of justicc.” Sir, the whole jurisdiction to try and dispose of cases by the officers and agents of the Freedmens Bureau is expressly limited to the time when these States shall be restored to their constitutional relations and when the courts of the U.S and of the States are not interrupted or interfered with in the peaceable course of justice. So far, then, from this bill establishing a military jurisdiction, it confers no jurisdiction to try cases one moment after the courts are restore and are no longer interrupted in the eaceable administration of justice. and, sir, at me ask, by what authority is it that military tribunals are sittin today at Alexandria, Virginia? By what authority is it that the writ of habeascorpus is suspended today in 11 States when the constitution of the U.S. says the privilege of that writ shall not be suspended except when in cases of rebellion and invasion the public safety may require it. By what authority does the POTUS object to the exercise of militar jurisdiction by that part of the Army charge with the execution of the provisions of the Freedmens Bureau when he exercises that military iirisdiction himself by other portions of the riny? It is not long since a military commission in the State of Georgia, without presentment or indictment of a grand jury, trie and convicted white men for the murder of a negro, and, as I understand, by the fiat of AndrewJohnson himself and by the judgment of this military commission, the men were executed for the murder. Not long ago Benjamin W. Ivey, of Robeson county, NCarolina, without resentment or indictment of a jury, was tric by a military commission (ordered by Maor General linger) upon a charge of willfully and maliciously shooting a negro, was found guilty, and sentenced to ten giars hard labor in the State prison at Auburn, NewYork, and from the decision of this arbi trary tribunal no appeal was allowed. It is but a few days since s. military commission was sitting in Alexandria trying persons charged with crimes“ and they are held all over the South and yet that art of the Army connected with the Free mens Bureau cannot exercise any such authority because it is unconstitution al! unconstitutional to do by virtue of a law of Congress what is done without any law! Sir, let me read what is being done in these southern States at this very time: [General OrderS.No. 3.] Wm DEPT. Anmrasr Gsssnsns OFFICE whsiiisoros. January 12. l866. To lprotect persons a pinstiin proper civil suitsand pena tics in late rebellions States: Military division and Dept commanders, whose commands embraceor arecomposedof any of the late rebellious States and who have not already done so, will at oncoissuo and enforceordersprotecting from prosecutionor suits in the State or niuni cipal courts of such State. all officers and soldiers of the armies of the U.S and all persons thereto attached or in anywisothereto belonging, subject to military authority. chargedwith offensesfor 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 climate done against the robe forces, directly or indirectly, during the existence of the rebellion and all persons, their agents Cl employees. charged with the occupancyof uban oned lani or plantations or the possessionor custodyof any kind of property whatever, who occupied. used. possessedo. r controlled the sume pursuant to the order of the president or any of the civil or military Depts of thq (ibvernment, and to protect them from any penalties or damages that may have been or may bepro nounced or adjudged in said courts in an of such cases; and also protecting colored persons rem persecutionsin any of said Stateschargedwith offenses for which white persons are not prosecutedor punished in the samempnner and degree. By command of Lieutenant GenlGrant: E. D. TOWNSEND, Auulam Adjutant General. There is an order issued necessarily under the authority of the President, who is comninnderinChief, directing Dept commanders everywhere to protect loyal citizens against prosecutions by rebels for acts done in support of the Government, and to protect colored persons charged with offenses for which white persons are not punished in the same manner and degree. Where is the authority to issue that order, dated on the 12th day of January last? Sir, I want to know, if there was apthority to issue such an order as that which is today being executed all through the South, whether it is possible that Congress has no authority to transfer that urisdietion from dept commanders to the commander of the Freedmens Bureau, who is as much an officer of the Army as is Lieutenant GenlGrant himself? But where does the Executive get the power? The President is but the CommanderinChief of the armies, made so by the constitution;. but he cannot raise an army or a single soldier, he cannot a point a single officer without the consent of congress. e cannot make any rules and regulations for the government of the Army without our permission. The Constitution of the U.S. declares in so many words that congress shall have power “ to make rules for the government an regulation of the land and naval forces” of the U.S. Can it be that that Dept of the Government, vested in express terms by the constitution itself with authority to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, has no authority to direct that portion of the land and naval forces cm ployed in the Freedincns Bureau to exercise this jurisdiction instead of Dept commanders? Sir, it is competent for Congress to declare that no Dept commanders shall exercise any such authority, it is competent for Congress to declare that a courtmartial shall never sit, that a military commission shall never be held, and the President is as much bound o ((iibey the law as the humblest citizen in the an. Sir, I will read another order issued within a few days, dated the 17th of February, of the present year: HEADQUARTERS WAiSHiiIGTON, FnebUrNuIaTrEyD17S, nrns. 1866. You will leasesend to theseheadquarters, assoon as practice. 10 and from time totime thereafter. such copiesof newspapers published in your Dept as contain sentimentsof disloyalty and hostility to the Governmentin any of its branches and state whether such paperis habitual in its utterancesof such sentiments. The persistent publication of nrticles cul culiited to keep up hostility of feeling between the people of the different sectionsof the country cannot e tolerated. This information is called for with a view to their suppression, which Will be done from these headquarters only. By commandof Lieutenant GenlGrant: AsstTA. dSju. tBaOntW General. There is an order issued within a week past, the object of which is to stop the publication of newspapers containing disloyal sentiments. By what authority, if this be a time of peace, does the military make such an order? Can we not confer that power, if the military can properly exercise it at all, on another branch of the Army? It is surprising to me that persons in the daily exercise of the very powers conferred by this amendment of the Breedmens Bureau should deny the authority of Congress to pass the act. “But, says the President, The trials having their origin upder this bill are to take place Without the interventipn of aiury, and without any fixed rules of low or evidence.” Do not all military trials take place in that way? Did anybody ever hear of the presentment of a grand jury in a case where a court martial sat for the trial of a military offense, or the trial of a person charged with any offense co“gnizable before it? Again he says: The rules on which offonsesare to be heard and determined by the numerous agents are such rules and regulations as the Ifresident. throiigh the War Dept, shall prescribe. N e prevmus presentment is ycquired, nor any indictment charging the commissionof a crime against the laws; but the trial mustproceedonchargesandspecifications. The punishment Will benotwhat the law declares, but such as ii courtmartialmaythink proper; and from these arbitrary tribunals there lics no appeal, no writ of error to any of the courts in which the constitution of the U.S. vests exclusively the Judicial power of the country.” Trueexcept the bill limits the punishment to “a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding one:year, or both, ” and yet that is precisely what is today being done, and has been done for the last 4 years under the directsanction of the POTUS This Freedmens Bureau bill confers no authority to do this except in those regions of country where military authority prevails, where martial law is established, where persons exercisin civil authority act in subordination to the military power, and where the moment they transcen the properlimits as fixed by militar orders, the are liable to be arrested and punis edwithoutt e intervention of a grand jury, or without the right of appeal to any of the judicial tribunals of the country. What would have been thought of an apeal from the decision of the militar tribunal thht sat in the city of Washington an condemned the murderers of our late resident, to the judicial tribunals of the country l Where military authority bears sway, where the courts are overbornc, is it not an absurdit to say that you must have a presentment o a and jury and atrial in acourt? Sir, it is an 01 adage, that the law never requires impossibilities. There was a time when in all these rebellious States there was not one judicial officer recovnizing the authority of the Government. of the U.S., when there was not one single court where a grand jury could be impaneled to maintain the law and constitution of the U.S.; and are we to be told, and is it tobe seriously argued, that. in a district of country thus situated, where courts cannot be held, where in the conflict of arms the civil tribunals are overborne and expelled, and where martial law)revails, that no person can be tried or punishc for any offense by the military power, which is the only power in existence at the time? All parts of the constitution of the U.S. are to be construed to ether and in harmony with each other; an although the constitution does provide, for the protection of the citizen, that he shall not be tried for a crim inal offense except on the indictment or resentment of a grand jury, and that he shal be entitled to a trial before apetit jury, manifestly these clauses of the constitution apply to a condition of thingswhere it is possible to have a court, to have a grand jury and a petit jury impaneled, and to bring the offender to justice before the civil tribunals; and the framers of the constitution never intended, and such is not the meaning of the instrument, that when the civil tribunals were overborne and a grand ury could not be impaueled, still you must have the presentment or indictment of a grand jury. No, sir, the same constitution that contains these guarantees for the protection of the citizen in localities where the courts are in operation, and where they are not interrupted in the eaceahle administration of justice, contains a so a clause authorizing the callin out of the militia to enforce the laws of the nion and to put down insurrection and rebellion; and when this army is called forth it operates, Mr. President, not as civil tribunals through juries and courts, but it operates as armies o crate. It proceeds to put down rebellion by s aying the rebel if he is found in arms, without trial in court, without impaneling juries; but, sir, it does it in the exercise of the power which is conferred upon the Army. It acts as an army and not as a court, and the Constitution authorizes it to act as an arm and not as a court, and the very reason o giving this power to call forth the Army is because the courts are unable to preserve the peace and punish offenders. The President says: “I cannot roeoncilsa systemof military inrisdiction of this kind with the words of the constitution.” Sir, ifI might be permitted to ask a ifestion of the POTUS, would inquire, if you cannot reconcile a system of military jurisdiction of this kind with the words of the constitution why have you been exercising it? Why haveyou been organizing courts martial and military commissions all over the South, trying oileiiders and punishing some of them with death? Why have you authorized the present Freedmens Bureau to hold bureau courts all through the South? This has all been done by your permission, and is being done today. lhen, sir, if you are in the exercise of this power now, if you have been exercising it from the day you became POTUS, how is it that you cannot reconcile a system of jurisdiction of this kind with the words of the constitution? Sir, does it detract from the Presidents authority to have the sanction of law? I want to give that sanction. I do not object to the exercise of this military authority of the President in the rebellious States. I believe it is constitutional and legitimate and necessary; but I believe Congress has authority to regulate it. I believe Congress has authority to direct that this military jurisdiction shall be exercised by that branch of the Army known as the freedmens Bureau, as well as by any other branch of the Army. But the President tells us further that “the rebellion is, in fact, at an end. The measure, therefore, seems to be as inconsistent with the actual condition of the country as it is at variance with the constitution of the U.S. ” Sir, in rely to that I need only ask aquestion which f believe I have once already ailted. If the rebelliOn is at an end, will anybody tell me by what authority the POTUS suspends the writ of habeascorpus in those States where it existed. The act of Congress of March, 1863, authorized the POTUS to suspend the writ of habeascorpus during the present rebellion. He says it is at an end. By what authority, then, does he suspend the writ? The constitution of the U.S. declares that the writ of habeascorpus, that great writ of right for the protection of the citizen, shall only be suspended when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety requires it. The president tells you officially that the rebellion is ended. We know there is no invasion. By what authority, then, does he declare the writ of habeas c suspended? Sir the rebellion is ended, so or as the conflict of arms is concerned; but the consequences of the rebellion are not ended; peace is not restored; the safety of the citizens where the rebellion existed is not yet established, and till it is, till the courts can be recstablished till they can administer justice peaceably, till the citizens can be protected from lawless bands, from prejudiced slaveholders, from incensed rebels, t ie military authority may properly be continued, and the President is authorized, in my opinion, to suspend the writ of habeascorpus. ut, sir, by his own declaration let him stand or fall. If it is competent to suspend the writ, if it is compe tent for military tribunals to sit all through the South and entertain military jurisdiction, this bill, which does not continue military jurisdiction, does not establish militaryjurisdiction, but only authorizes the officers of this bureau, while military jurisdiction prevails, to take charge of that particular class of cases affecting the refugee or freedman where he is discriminated against, cannot be obnoxious to any constitutional objection. The President further says that "This bill proposesto make the Freedmens bureau, establishe by the act of 1865. as one of many great and extraordinary military measuresto suppressa formidable rebellion, a iermanent branch of the public administration, with its powers greatly enlarged.” That is a mistake. It is not intended, I apprehend, by anybody, certainly not by me, to make it a permanent branch of the public administration; and I am quite sure that the pewers of the bureau are not by the amendatory bill greatly enlarged. A careful examination of the amendment will show that it is in some respects a restriction on the powers already exercised. The President says “The 3rd sectionof the bill authorizes a general and unlimited grant of support to the destitute and sutiering refugees and freedmen, their wives and children.” Now, let us see if it does that. In the 1st place let us see what the original law was. The 2nd section of the original act is in these words: “That the SecyWar may direct such issues of provisions, clothing and fuel ashe may deem need ful for the immediateand temporaryshelter and supply of destitute and sutlering refugees and freedmen and their wives and children, under such rules and regulations as he may direct.” That is the present law enacted March 3, 1865. Now, whatis the 3rd section of the bill which the President says contains such an unlimited grant of support to the destitute and suffering refugees, t cir wives and children? I will read that 3rd section: “That the SecyWar maydirect such issues of provisions, clothing, fuel, including niedicalalores and transportation, and alford such aid. medical or otherwise, asheiniiy deem needful for the immediate and temporary shelter and supply of destitute and sufferingrefugeesand freedmemtheirwives and children, under such rules and regulations as he may direct: Provided. That no person shall be deemed destitutc. “suliering, or dependent upon the Government for support, within who, being able to find employments, enoinn of this act. d by proor industry and exertion avoid such dostitution. so oring, or dependence.” This proviso is not in the original lawn That authorizes the issuing of these supplies, all except the medical supplies and the transportation, just the same as the bill which the president has vetoed. Does hepbject to this bill on the ground that it authorizes medicalaid to be furnished the sick? or does he object to it because of the proviso which limits its operation, and declares that nobody shall be deemed destitute and suffering under the provisions of the act who is able by proper industry and exertion to avoid such destitution? Why, srr, it is a limitation on the ainsting law. Does that look much like taking care of 4 million peoplea provismn that expressly limits the operation of this act to those only who cannot find employment? A statement of the fact is all that is necessary to meet this statement in the veto message. After commenting upon the 3rd section of the bill, which I have just read, the President says: “Succeedin sectionsmake revision for the rent or purchase o landed estates or freedmen, and for the erection for their benefit of suitable buildings for asylumsand schools. the expensesto be deli ayed from the Treasury of the whole people. The Congress of the U.S. hasnever crctofore thought it selfemlpowered to establish asylnms beyond the limits of the DistCol, except for the benefit of ourdisabledsoldiersandsuilors. Thas never lounded schools for any class of our own peo10: not evenfor the orphans of thosewho have fallen in defenseof the Union, but has left the care of education to the much more competent and eflicient control of the States, of communities, of private associations, and of individuals. It has never deemeditself authorized to expend the public moneyfor the rent or purchaseofhomes for the 1,000s, not to say millions, of the white race who are honestly toiling from day today for their subsistence. A system for the support of indigent persons in the U.S. was never contemplated by the authors of the Constitution; nor can ("1 good reasonbe advancedwhy, as a permanent establishment. it should be founded for one class or color of our people morethan another. Pending the war many refugees and freedmen received support from the Government. but itwas never intended that they should thenceforth be fed, clothed, educated, and shelteredby the U.S. ” I have read that whole paragraph in order to do no injustice to the views of the president. The objection which the President makes is that it has never heretofore been thought that Congress was empowered to pass provisions of this character. he answer to that is this: we never before were in such a state as now; never before in the history of this Government did 11 States of the Union combine together to overthrow and destro the Union; never before in the history of this Government have we hada 4 ears civilWar; never before in the history of this Government have nearly 4 million people been emancipated from the most abject and egrading slavery ever imposed upon human beings; never before has the occasion arisen when it was necessary to provide for such large numbers of people thrown upon the bounty oft ie Government, improtected and unprovided for. But, sir, wherever the neccSSity did exist the Government has acted. We have voted 100s of 1000s and millions of dollars, and are doing it from year to year, to take care of and prowde for the destitute and suifering Indians. We appropriated, years ago, 100s of 1,000s; of dollars to take care of and feed the savage African who was lauded upon our coast by slavers. We provided by law that whenever savages from Africa should be brought to our shores, or whenever they should be captured on board of slavers, the POTUS should make provision for their maintenance and support for live years on the coast of Africa. He was authorized by law to appoint agents to go to Africa to provide means to feed them, and we paid the money to do it and yet, air, can we not provide for those among us who have been hcl in bondage all their lives, who have never been permitted to earn one dollar for themselves, who. by the great constitutional amendment declaring freedom throughout the land, have been discharged from bonda e to their masters who had hitherto provide for their necessities in consideration of their services? Can we not provide for these destitute persons of our own land on the same principle that we provide for the Indians, that we provide. for the savage African? Sir, they cannot provide for themselves. What are they to do? In one part of his messa e the President says they are permitted to go where they please. will show by and by that by local legislation thisprivilege is not permitted them. But what sort of protection would that be to the negro if it were so? Here are 100s and 1,000s of these poor, igiibiant, degraded human beings who never went elf the plantation where they were born in their lives. They do not know how to travel. They do not know where to go; they have no means to pay for subsistence by the way; they do not know whither the railroads lead; the railroads would not carry them if they did, and were able to pay. As a friend suggests, the cannot read the fingerboards by the waysi e; and where are they to go, and what is to be done with them? They are to go to the same place, and the same is to be done with them t iat would have been done with the 100s of natives from Africa who a few years ago were landed destitute on our coast; they are to be taken and reduced into slavery again, or they are to perish and die for want of subsistence, or some body niust temporarily look after and providp for them. But we have never rented lands, the president says, for the white race we have never purchased lands for them., What do we propose to do by this bill? Does this bill provide for" purchasing any land? Let us see: SEC. 6 and bed Abife: That the commissioner shall, under the direction of the President, procure in the name of the U.S., by grant or purchase. such lands within the districts aforesaid as may be required for refugeesand freedmen dependent on tie Government for support; und he shall provide or cause to be erected suitable buildings for asylumsand schools. But no such purchase shall be madeJior contractfor the sainc enteredinto, nor other expensesincurred. until after appropriations shall have been provided by Congressfor such purposes.” This authorizes, if the President thinks proper to direct it, the purchase or renting of lands on which to place these indigentpeople; but before any land can be purchased or rented, before any contract can be made on the subject, there must be an appropriation made by Congress. This bill contains no appropriation. If the president is opposed to to rent or purchase of land, and Congress passesa bill appropriating money for that purpose, let him veto it if he thinks it unconstitutional; but there is nothing unconstitutional in this bill. This bill does not purchase any land; but it prevents even a contract on the subject until another law shall be passed appropriating the money for the purpose. But, sir, what is the objection to it if it did appropriate money? I have already undertaken to show, and I think I have shown, that it was the duty of the U.S., as an independent nation, as one of the Powers of the earth, whenever there came into its possession an unprotected class of people, who must suffer and perish but for its care, to provide for and take care of them. When an arm is marching through an enemys country, an poor and destitute persons are found within its lines who must ie by starvation if they are not fed from the supplies of the army, will anybody show me the constitutional provision or the act of Congress that authorizes the general commanding to feed the starving multitude from his army supplies? and has it not been done by every one of your commanders all through the South? Whenever a starving human being, man, woman, or child, no matter whether white or black, rebel or loyal, came within the lines of the Army, to perish and die unless fed from our supplies, there has never been an officer in our service, and thank God there has not been, who did not relieve the sufferer. If you want to know where the constitutional power to do this is, and where the law is, I answer, it is in that common humanity that belongs to every man fit to bear the name, and it is in that power that belongs to us as a Christian nation, carrying on war upon civilized principles. f we had the right, then, to feed these people as we did, have we not the right to take care of them in the cheapest way we can? If, when GenlSherman was passing through Georgia he found the lands abandoned; if their ablebodied owners had entered the rebel army to fight against us; if the women and children had lied and left the land a waste, and he had, as is the fact, 1,000s of persons hanging n on his army depIendent upon him for supplies, I ask you, Mr. presieat, if it was believed that it would be cheaperto support these people upon these lands than to buy provisions and feed them, might he not do so? May we not resort to whatever means are mostjudicious to protect from starvation that multitude which common humanity requires us to feed? Nor. sir is it true that no provision has been made by congress for the education of white people. We iave given all through the new States one section of land in every township for the benefit of common schools. We have donated 100s of 1,000s of acres of land to all the States for the establishment of coleges and seniinaries of learnin. How did we get this land? It was purchase by our money, and then we gave it away for purposes of education. The snme right exists now to provide for these people, and it is not simply for the black people, but for the white refugees as well as the black, that this bill provides. Again, the President says: “The appropriations askedby the FreedmensBu reau. as now established. for the your amount to 7. It may besafely estimated that the cost to be incurred under the pending bill will require double that amount.” How much was exended last year for the benefit of refugees an freedmennot through the Freedmens Bureau, but through the Army? Have you any means of knowing? The president did not tell us, but I presume that a far larger sum in proportion to the number that were thrown upon our hands was exended before the creation of the Freedmens nreau in feeding and takin care of refugees and freedmen than since its establishment. Since that time the authority of the Government has been extended over althe rebellious States, and we have had a larger number of refugees and freedmen to provide for, but in proportion to the number I have no doubt that the excnse is less now than it was before the establishment of the bureau. Again, the President says: “In thiseonneotion the query presents itself whether the system proposed by the bill will not, when put into completeoperation. practically transfer the entire care. support, and control of 4 million oman wcigaot. eadpsploaivnetestdoata eVnatsshninegvetorsne. earrse. otor tbaesklomcaatestdeirns, ccovnerty apine iunngtyre and mpacrnisahndthrreofuuggheoest. "the U. S. I scarcely know how to reply to that most extravagant statement. I have already shown that it would be a rent abuse of the power conferred by this bill to station an agent in every county. I have already stated that but a small proportion of the freedmen are aided by the Freedmens Bureau. In this official document the President has sent to Congress the exaggerated statement that it is a question whether this bureau would not bring under its control the 4 million emancipated slaves. The census of 1860shows that there never were 4 million slaves in all the U.S., if you counted every man, woman, and child, and we know that the number has not increased during the war. But, sir, what will he thought when I show, as I shall directly show by official figures, that so far from providing for 4 million emancipated slaves, the Freedmens Bureau never yet provided for a 100,000, and as restricted by the proviso to the 3rd section of the present bill, it could never be extended under it to a larger number. Is it not most extraordinary that a bill should be returned with the veto from the President on the ground thatit provides for 4 million people, when, restricted as it is in its operations, and having been in operation now since March last, it has never had under its control a 100,000? I have here an official statement from the Freedmens Bureau, which I be“g leave to read in this connection: The greatest number of personsto whom rations were issued. including the commissaryDept and bureau issues to persons without the Arm is 148,000 onc him and 20.” Who are they? I said there were not a 100,000 freedmen provided for by the bureau. “Whites, 57. 360, colored. 90, 607. Indians. 133. The cutest number by the bureau was49, 932in Septem cr. The total number for Decemberwu 17. o25.” That sounds a little different from 4 millions. 17,025 were all that were provided for by the Freedmens Bureau in the month of december last, the number getting less and less every month. Why? Because by the kind and judicious management of that bureau places of employment were found for these refugees and freedmen. When the freedmen were discharged from their masters plantations they were assisted to find places of work elsewhere. “The abovefigures are based on full rations. The number of persons aided by rations or parts of ra tio“nIs. Hfoarve December uare. colored30. 016w. ites 4. 992.” these figures hastily, from the records will carefully review.” This communication is from Major GenlHoward, the Commissioner of the Freedmens Bureau. In the same connection I wish to read the testimony (which has been kindly furnished me) that was given before the reconstruction committee by Major General Fiske, who is commissioner of the Freedmens Bureau for the State of Tennesseeand I wish these Gentlemen who are declaiming so loudly against feeding the negro to notice the statistics. The President says, in his veto message, that congress has never thought of making these provisions for the white people. Let us see what provisions have been made for the white people. General Fiske was asked: Queattan How large is the pecuniary support that you are obliged to extend to the freedmen intennessee? “ Anmoer. I am not today issuing a single ration to freedmenin Tennesseeexcept to u out 100 orphan children and 30 old people at Memphis and about 60 orphan children an 25 old people lit Nashville; that is “ Qumtion. Do you issue rations to white people in Tennessee? Awncer. During the lastyear therati ons issuedto white people in Tennesseehave beenmuch in excess of those issued to freedmen. When I took chargeof my district the Governmentwas feeding 25,000 people: in round numbersabout 17,500 white persons and 7,500 blacks. the month preceding the establishment of the Freedmens Bureau. for rations alone for that class of people the sum of 897,000 was pa“n. My 1st efforts were to reduce the nnrnber of those beneficiariesof the Government. to withhold the rations and make the people selfsupporting as far as possible and in the courseof 4 months I reduced the monthly expenses from 897.000to 85.000.” That is what the Freedmens Bureau has done in the State of Tennessee by the sworn testimony of General Fiskc, whose word no body would question, delivered within a few days before tereconstruction committee of the 2 Houses; and this is denounced as an expensive establishment! I undertake to say that the Freedmens Bureau has already saved this nation millions of money, and if continued, it will save it millions more. But it is not simply in money that the country is to be benefited. here are in schools 70,000 colored children, chiefly placed there through the agenc of the Freedmerigs Bureau. An agency which reduces your expenses, educates colored children, and provides homes for the destitute, is now denounced as exensive and its establishment unconstitution. General Fiske further says: “And in the course of 4 months Iredneed the monthly expensesfrom897.000to$5.000;savingwithin that time on subsistenceten times asmuch moneyas the whole Freedmens Bureau cost in the entire district. including all salaries paid to officersand agents for" the Government. queulion. Is the military support of the Govermment required now in Tennessee in aid of your bureau? “Amtoer. It is. “Qualion. Do you believe that the sffairs oftho bureau could be snfcl administered there without the military support of the Government? Answer. do not.” That is all desire to read from the testimony of General Fiske in refutation of the assumption in this messa e that the bill is intended to provide for the c ucation and support of 4 million black people, when the evidence shows that far more whites than blacks are provided for in Tennessee; that the bureau has been a means of economy to the Government, and that the expense of feeding refugees and freedmen has been reduced from $97,000 to $5,000 in one dis“trict in 4 months. In additionntothe objectionsalready stated" says the President “the 5th section of this bill proposesto take away land from its former owners without any legal procoedingsbeing 1st had.” I regret that a statement like that should in advertently (for it must have been inadvertent) have found a place in this veto message. The 5th section of the bill does not propose to take away lands from anybody. I Will read it, and we shall see what it is: “That the occu ants of land under Major GenlSherman s specia field order, dated at Savannah, January 16, 865, are hereby confirmedin their possession.” Is not that a different thing from taking away land from anybody? Do you take a thing away from another person when you have it in your possession already? Here are certain occupants upon lands in pursuance of an order of one of the maor generals of your Army, and it is proposed y an act of Congress to protect them there temporarily in that possession. Is that taking away land from somebody? Iwill read what the President says in reference to that section, and then I will read the whole section: "In addition to the objections already stated the 5th sectionof the bill proposes to take away land from its former owners Withoutany legal proceedings being 1st had. contrary to that provision of the constitution which declaresthat no person shall bede prived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. It does npt appear that a part of the lands to which this section refers may not be owned by mine rs or personsof unsound mind, or by those who have been faithful to all their obligations asciti sensof the U.S. If any portion of the land is held by such persons. it is not competent for an authority to deprive them ofit. If on theotherhan. it befound that the property is liable to confiscation, even then it cannot be appropriated to public ur posesuntil. by due processof law. it shall have condeclared forfeited to the Government.” That is what the President says. Now, I will read the section itself: “SEC. 5. Abife: That the occupants of land underh mor GenlSherman s special ticld order. dated at Savannah, January 16, 1865. are hereby confirmed in their possession for the period of 3 years from the dateof said order. an no person shall be disturbed in or ousted from said possession duringpaid 3 years. Unless a settlement shall he made with said occu ant. by the former owner. his hciis or assigns satis actory to the Commisionor of the Freedmens Bureau: Provided. That whenever the former ownersof lands occupied under GenlSherman s ficld order shall make application for re: toration of said lands. the Commissioner is hereby authorized. upon the agreement and with the written consent of said occupants. to procure pther lands for them by rent or purchase. not exceeding 40 acres for each occupant upon the terms an conditions named in sectionfour of this act, or to set apart for them, out of the public lands assigned for that purpose in sectionfour of this act. 40 acres each, upon the same terms and conditions.” Now, it will be seen that this 5th section, so far from taking. land from anybody, prowdes simply for protecting the occupants of the land for 3 years from the 16th ofJanuaiy, 1866, a little less than 2 years from this time. If the section does anything, it simply prevents the restoration of this property to its former owners within that period, except upon terms to be entered into, satisfactory to the Commissioner, between the occupant and the former owner. This is all there is of it. It is a very different thing from taking away land from its former owners. The President says that it is unconstitutional to take land from a person except by due process of law, and that this section violates that provision of the constitution which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Now, what are the facts about these lands? GenlSherman was marching with a Union army through the State of Georgia, from Atlanta to the seacoast. When he ar rived at Savannah there was following his army a large number of persons whom he had been feeding by the way, who were deendent upon him for subsistence, and he foun a large tract of country entirely abandoned and waste. Hc issued an orderauthorizing and directing these followers of his army, the negroes, to settle upon these abandoned lands and guarantying to them miliiar protection. The possession which they took was to be temporary. It is so stated in the order. Under this order some 40 or 50,000 persons settled upon these abandoned lands with the sanction of the President more than a year ago; and notwithstanding the quotation contained in the veto message of the clause of the constitution do claring that no person shall be deprived of life, libert, or property except by due process of law, ly insist that a major general, under the circumstances, had a perfect right to take possession of these lands and place these persons upon them. It was a right oi war. I go lurther, and I care not whether a house in Savannah was ocen ied or vacant, nor whether it belonged to a loyafor disloyal man, it was entirely competent for the commander of your army who entered Savannah, whence the rebel army fled on his approach, to take possession of any property belonging to loyal or disloyal men that in his judgment the exigencies of his condition required. These persons, therefore, were right ully placed upon this land. 1f General Shor man had called a court and imaneled a jury to ascertain whether he could ta e possession of these abandoned lands and put the followers of his camp upon them, he would have been laughed at by the civilized world and yet we are told that this is taking property contrary to the constitution of the U.S. It has been practiced all through the war, and it is a necessity of war. Now, sir, I insist that these persons went rightfully upon these abandone lands; and being there they are entitled to protection for a reasonable time. The military authority is not yet withdrawn from Georgia. They are rightfully there now. The faith of this nation, through its commanding general in that dept and the approbation of the late POTUS, is committed to these people who went upon these lands, set up their ittle homes, put in a cro, and supported themselves and relieved the Freasury. The faith of the nation is pledged to them in writing to protect them in this possession so long as the military jurisdiction continues; and that is not yet. ended; and upon every principle of equity and justice they are entitle to be protected even beyond that time on the familiar principle that. where a person enters upon an estate rightfully, as these people did, an is to hold it for an uncertain period, depending, if you please, upon the life of another, he cannot be turned off the moment that other dies; but he is entitled to hold the possession until he shall have had a reasonable time to gather his crops and remove the improvements which he may have put upon the place. Whether the time fixed by this bill is a reasonable time or not may depend upon circumstances. The former owners of the lands may make arrangements with the occupants to leave at anytime, and the Commissioner of the Freedmens Bureau is authorized to provide for them a home elsewhere. This provision of the bill is pronounced as unconstitutional, and as taking away land Without due process of law. The land was taken by military authority, in the midst of war, and of course without process in any court, and rightly so. But, says the lresident g “Undoubtedly the freedmen should be protected by the civil authorities. especially by the exercise of all the constitutional powers of the courts of the U.S and of the States. He also possesses a perfect rght to change his place of abode, and if. therefore. o does not lind in one community or State a mode of life suitedto his desires or proper remuneration for his labor, hecan moveto anot, or wherethat labor is more esteemed and better rewarded.” Now, let us see how he will remove. I have in my hand a communication from Houston, Texas, dated December 15, 1865, from Colonel deGress, addressed to Major GenlHoward, of the Freedmens Bureau, which Iwill read: “Honsros, Tans. December15, 1865. "Sin: I have the honor to respectfully report that in some portions of this Statethe negroes are not yet free, that the pass systemis still in force, and when a freedman is found at large without a pass, ho is taken up and whipped.” That is the liberty he has to go from one place to another; that is the civil protection th"at he has. That a freedmanis not allowed to hire out without written permissionfrom his former master; at least planters have hold meetings and haveagreednot to ire freed people Without such permission. These facts are known to mefrom personalobservation, and written statementsof reliable mon.” Here is a letter from Lieutenant Stuart Eldridge to Major GenlHoward, dated Vicksburg, Mississippi, November 28, 1865: “I have the honor to inclosoherewith for your consideration the freedmensbill, which hiisjust become a law in this State and would respectfully ask your attention to the following points). ercon: “Section1st prohibits the holdmgdeasmg or renting of real estate by freedmen.” The President says these people are to be protected by the courts and by the civil authority. This is the protection they get in Mississippi. They are prevented from holding, leasing, or renting real estate. Section 3rd compels all freedmen to marry whom so ever they may now be living With and to support the issueof what was in many casescompulsoryco llfl“bSlbeflcthiolonll. 4th excludes freedmen from testifying in“casesall white. Section 5 authorizes mayors and boards of polico by their sole edict to prevent any freedmen from doing any independent business and to compel them to labor as employee s, With no appealfromsuchdecision. Section 7 gives the power to any white citizen over the person of a freedman unknown to any other law. prid deniestheright of appeal beyond the county oour. A telegram from Colonel Samuel Thomas, asst commissioner, dated Jackson, Missis sippi, and addressed to Major General o. o. Howard, is as follows: “Tho freedmen bill has become law. It does not allow freedmen toown orleaseestato. 1,000s of acreshave been rented from owners of lund by freedmen who eirpectedthat theywould boallowed tocul tivato land in this way. They are notified that they must give up their losses by citizens. What course must pursue?” To which the Commissioner replied as follow“ s: While the bureau remains in Mississippi you will continue to protect the fre lmonin the right to lease land. The act of the legislaure referred to in your telegramof the 27this not yet recognizedhere.” Here is another letter from Colouel Thomas dated Vicksburg, Mississippi, December 13, and ad"dressed to GenlHoward: The organization of the militia hashad aboutthe offectupon the countiziy thatl predicted lastSeptember. hourly all the issatisfaction that now exists among the freedmen is causedby the abusive conduct of this militia. It has assistedto paralyze labor and add to the combination of difficulties under which the Statdlins labored. I do not know of one instance in which it has assisted n the restoration oflaw and order or that they have exercised any power unless in something which would bring on a conflict with the national troops or hang some freedman or search negro houses for arms. Only a short time ago Governor Hpmphrcis admitte dto methat 2 companies of the militia hail sworn that in their counties no negro who did not work for his old masterand no Yankee could live, that they woiild drivo out the thieving Yankees and shoot the niggers. This is an extreme case. in which the Governor revoked the commissions of the officers and disbanded the companies. I believe his Excellency is in favor of Conservative measures, and that many of the militia would blush at the recital of the outrages committed by some of the members. I have here a number of communications of a similar character, showing that by the laws in some of the southern Statesa pass system still exists, and that the negro really has no protection afforded him either by the civil authorities or judicial tribunals of the State. I have letters showing the same thing in the State of Maryland from persons whose character is vouched for as reliable. Under this state of things, the President tells us that the freedman should be protected “ by the exercise of all the constitutional powers of the courts of the U.S and of the States 1” In Kentucky, Major General Palmer, in response to a request that he should recommend the restoration of the habeascorpus, declined to do so “ For the reasonthatreturnedrebels, of whomthere are 20,000 in that State, are openly regarded and treatedaspatriots, whereasloyal citizens and soldiers are objects of prejudice, dislike, and often of persccnlion; becausecourts in many in stancesare permitted to becomethe instruments of the vengeanceof thosewho are hostile to loyal men; becauselaws are enforced tending to embarrass the citizens formerly slave but now freemon, and that the Government is bound to protectthem until they shall have the sameprivileges asothercitizerisbefore the law; because outrageshave beencommittedupon negroeswhich have been allowed to o no punished; in fact. no single instance has existe in which punishment has reached the ag ressors, becausenegroos have been murdered and their murderers have escaped becauseof the legal incompetencyof n runs to testify against them; and finally bec use t are are illegal combinations of men in the S to got u to drive colored men out of it to prevent them fining employment and such personsare allowed to act with impunity.” I Then, sir, is there no necessity for some supervising care of these people? Are they to be coldly told that they have a perfect right to change their place of abode, when if they are caught in a strange neighborhood without a pass they are liable to be whipped; when cominations exist against them that they shall not be permitted to hire unless to their former master? Are these people, knowing nothing of geography, knowing not where to go. having never in their lives been ten miles from the place where they were born, these old women and youn children, these feeble persons who are turned off because they can no longer work, to be told to go and seek employment elsewhere, and is the Government of the U.S. which has made them free to stand by and do nothing to save and protect them? Are they to be left to the mercy of such legislation as that of Mississippi, to such laws as exist in Texas, to such ructices as are tolerated in Maryland and in Kentucky? Sir, I think some protection is necessary for them, and that was the object of this bureau. It was not intended, and such is not its effect, to interfere with the ordinary administration of justice in any State, not even during the rbbellion. The moment that any State does justice and abolishes all discrimination between whites and blacks in civil rights, the judicial functions of the freedmens Bureau cease. But, sir, the President most strangely of all dwells upon the unconstitutionality of this act, without ever having alluded to that provision of the constitution which its advocates claim gives the authority to pass it. Is it not most extraordinary that the POTUS returns a bill which has passed congress, with his objections to it, alleging it to be unconstitution al, and makes no allusion whatever in his whole message to that provision of the constitution which, in the opinion of its supporters, clearly gives the authority to pass it and whatis that? The 2nd clause of the constitutional amendment, which declares that Congress shall have authority by appropriate legislation to enforce the article which declares that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude throughout the U.S. If legislation be necessary to protect the former slaves against State laws which allow them to be whipped if found away from home without a pass, has not Congress, under the 2nd clause of the amendment, authority to provide it? What kind of freedom is that which the constitution of the U.S. guaranties to a man that does not protect him from the lash if he is caught away from home wrthout a pasri? and how can we sit here and discharge the constitutional obligation that is upon us to pass the appropriate legislation to protect every man in the and in his freedom when we know such laws are being passed in the South if we do nothing to prevent their enforcement? Sir, so far from the bill bein unconstitution al, I should feel thatI had failed in my constitutional duty if I did not propose some measure that would protect these people in their freedom and yet this clause of the constitution seems to have escaped entirely the observation to the President.” I come now to the last of the objections to this bill, and I reoice that it is the last, both because I am exausted, and because it has been an unpleasant duty to dwell upon this veto message. The last objection which the President takes is this: I cannot but add another very grave objection to this bill. The constitution imperatively declares. in connection with taxation, that eachState shall have utleast one Representative and fixes the rule for the number to which. in future times. each state shall be entitled. It also provides that the Senate of the U.S shall be composed of 2 Senators from each State; and adds. w1thpeculiar force that no State. without its consent shall bedeprive of its equal suffragein the Senate. The original act was necessarily passed in the absence of the Stateschiefly to be nffected. because their people were then contumaciously engagedin the rebellion. Now the case is changed and some at least. of those Statesare attending Congressbyloyal Representatives. soliciting the alloivance of the constitution alrightofrepre sentation. " At presentall the people of 11 States are excluded those who were most faithtuldunng the war not lessthan other s.” The President objects to this bill because it was passed in the absence of representation from the rebellious States. If that objection be valid, all our legislation affecting those States is wrong, and has been wrong from the beginning. hen the rebellion broke out, in the 1st year of the war, we passed a law for collecting a direct tax, and we assessed that tax upon all the rebellious States. According to the theory of the President that was all wrong, because taxation and representation did not go together. Those States were not represented. Then, according to his argumentI will not read all of itwe were bound to have received their Representatives, or else not legislate for and tax them. He insists they were States in the Union all the time, an according to the constitution each State is entitled to at least one Representative. If the argument that Congress cannot legislate for States unrepresented is good now, it was good during the conflict of arms, for none of the States whose governments were usurped are yet relieved from military control. If we have no right to legislate for those States now, we had no right to impose the direct tax on them. We had no right to pass any of our laws that affected them. We had no right to raise. an army to march into the rebel ious States while they were not represented in the Congress of the U.S. We had no right to pass a law declaring these States in rebellion. by? The rebels were not here to be represented in the American Senate. We had no right to pass a law authorizing the President to issue a proclamation discontinuing all intercourse with the people in those rebellious States; and why? Because they were not represented here. They are States, says the President, and each State is entitled to 2 Senators, and to at least one Representative. Sup use the State of SCarolina had sent to congress during the war a Representative; had Congress noting to do but to admit him I Must be be received because he comes from a State, and a State cannot go out of the Union? Wh, sir, is anything more necessary than to state this proposition to show its absolute absurdity? I agree, sir