Mr. BINGHAM. It was not my purpose to have asked the attention of the House to any discussion of this bill; nor should I have done so if the motion to recommit had not been made, by which I was prevented from proposing amendments which I think ought to be considered by the House. I do not believe that in regard to a bill of this magnitude either a member of the committee or a member of this House is under any sort of obligation to take the bill as it comes from the committee without amendment or discussion. All that can be asked of any member is to give the bill a respectful consideration, and accept or reject it with or without amendment as his sense of duty may dictate. As I said, in the few words which I uttered before the recess this afternoon, this bill is the exercise of the highest possible power of legis.lation which, under the Constitution of the U.S., can be exercised by the representatives of the people. This being so, I be: lieve the House should make haste slowly. I think, at all events, it should allow amendments to be offered; and when they are offered U.S. it should allow at least an opportunity for their consideration. Now, my purpose is to make this bill, if it is to become a law, subject to as little objection as possible, without in any way impairing its its efficiency. And I trust that before I shall have concluded the few remarks which I propose to make tonight I shall be able to per suade some of the RePresentatives here assem bled that this bill may possibly be somewhat improved. At all events, I should consider myself false to my own sense of duty if I did not seek to amend this bill so that it would be in accord with the entire and continuous record of the great body of free men rePresented upon this floor, who, under God, have enacted the laws through which and by which we have been saved as a nation. I challenge any man here tonight to point to any statute passed by the Congress of the U.S., since the opening of this revolt on the part of the insur gent States to this hour, that by implication or otherwise, by direction or indirection, inti mated the dogma of the chairman of the Committee of Reconstruction on the part of this House with which he opened this debate, that those ten insurrectionary States were a foreign and conquered country. I stand here tonight to assert that every act of legislation upon your statute books, from the day this rebellion commenced to this hour, asserts the very contrary and excludes the conclusion of the gentleman. How was it in 1861, when this conflict began, and you came to assess a direct tax and apportion it? You apportioned it among the citizens of the insurgent States as States; and you apportioned it among the people of the Territories as Territories. It is proposed to inaugurate a new theory, and to qualify, if not abrogate, your past legislation by incorporating in this bill, for the 1st time, the words the “so called States.” You did not insert in 1862, in your bill apportioning rePresentation among the several States, the words, the several States except the “so called States of Virginia, ” &c., shall be entitled to RePresentatives in Congress to the number of 241. On the contrary, you did by that act provide for the whole number to be apportioned among all the States; and, accordingly the apportionment was made that SCarolina.be entitled to 4 RePresentatives, and the State of Georgia to7, and so on. It is pretty well understood in this country that rePresentation in Congress is only apportioned among States, and not among territories, whether acquired by purchase or conquest, nor among foreign States, but only among States within the Union. By this apportionment you did provide that all States within the Union, having constitutional State governments and sustaining practical constitutional relations to the Government of the U.S., might elect RePresentatives in single districts. Surely, sir, if Virginia had resumed her constitutional relations in 1864 she would have been so entitled to elect representatives to Congress. By the proclamation and message of our late lamented President this opinion was clearly and fully exPressed by his words, “the resumption of the national authority within the States wherein that authority has been suspended.” It did not occur to that statesman to say the socalled States of Mississippi, Alabama, NCarolina, and Georgia, &c., in which the national authority has been suspended. Clearly by proposing that upon laying down their arms and submitting to the laws and Constitution of the U.S and taking the oath Prescribed in his proclamation, and saying that if in any of the States named there shall, in the mode Prescribed, be set up a State government, it shall be recognized and guarantied by the He recognized them as States in the Union without constitutional State governments. By the Freedmen's Bureau bill of last session for the protection in the insurgent States of those who, by the action of the American people by a constitutional amendment, had been released from bondage, you do not find incorporated the words “so called States.” On the contrary, sir; in that statute the very words may be found which I seek to insert by way of amendment in the preamble to this bill. In this connection I wish to incorporate in my remarks the 14th section of the act to continue in force, and to amend “An act to establish a Bureau for the Relief of Freedmen and Refugees;” and which section is as follows: Src. 14. Abife:, That in eve State or district wherethe ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion, and until the same shall be fully restored, and in everyState or district whose constitutional relations to the Government have been practically discontinued by the rebellion, and until such State shall have been restored in such relations, and shall be duly rePresented in the Congress of the U.S., the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and security proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal and the acquisition, oyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall besecured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district, without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery. And whenever, in either of said States or districts, theordinary course of judicial pro: ceedings has beeninterrupted by the rebellion, and until the same shall be fully restored, and until such State shall have been restored in its constitutional relations to the Government, and shall be duly presented in the Congress of the U.S. joi the President shall, through the Commissioner the officersof the bureau, and under such rules and reglations as the President, through the Secretary o ar, shall Prescribe, extend military protection have military jurisdiction over all cases and questions concerning the freeo: of such immunities and rights, and nopenalty or punishment for any violation of law shall be imposed or permitted be causeof race or color, or previous condition of sla" very, other or greaterthan the penalty or punishment to which white, persons may be like offense. But the jurisdiction iabeleonbfeyrlraewd fboyr this section upon the officers of the bureau shall not exist in any State where, the ordinary course of. "; judicial ion, has not been interrupted by the rebel and shall cease in every State when the courts of the State and the U.S. are not disturbed in the peaceablecourse of justice, and after such State shall befully restored in its constitutional relations to the Government, and shall be duly represented in the Congressof the U.S. No man can read that statute and not come to the conclusion that every RePresentative in this House and every Senator who voted for the enactment of that law has, under his oath, averred 2 things. 1st, that those insurgent States are States of the Union, and next, that their population are citizens. They are declared States and the people thereof declared citizens of such States in the section just read. What are we told now by this bill, in the face of all our past legislation, so often repeated? We are told, sir, that it ought to have been writ: ten in this section just read, “in the socalled States, ” and citizens of “the socalled States.” Citizens of the socalled States are entitled to what? To the rights of citizens of the U.S.? No, sir; but to such rights, in the language of the gentleman who reported this bill as the conqueror sees fit to. them. I stan here, sir, to repudiate that dogmatical assumption. There never was a moment, thank Go since rebellion fired the 1st gun at Fort Sumter that a State of this Union was foreign ground; and therefore it results that those States are not a ocountry, and that the loyal people of those States are no more conquered subjects and vassals than you are, or any other RePresentative upon this floor. And yet all that is embraced in the words “so called States, ” in the light of the interpretation put upon them by the honorable chairman of the ComReconstruction, {Mr. STEvens] If the gentleman wishes us to insert these words let him give us some intelligible reason for it. I suppose the gentleman gave us the best reason that could be given when he said they were a conquered people, subject to be governed by the conqueror, and subject also to the usages of war in such cases. I respectfully submit, sir, that any loyal citizen of the U.S. in SCarolina or Georgia or Louisiana or in any other of the southern States is no more liable to the rule of the conqueror after the armies of the rebellion have been disbanded than are the rePresentatives of the people in this Hall. Why should they be? Men who never lifted up their hands in revolt against their Government and country; men who followed your flag in the hour of darkness and distrust; men who supported the shaking pillars of the Republic in tempest of battle are not now to be told that they are captives of war, subject to the will of the conqueror. Sir, I repudiate the proposition, and without intending the slightest disrespect to anyone, I will add that repudiate it as unreasonable and unjust. The rights of a citizen of the U.S. are in his own keeping; they are not to be forfeited by be the dogmas of the continental writers, in which gentlemen are fond of indulging when they come to a discussion of this question. Is it not clear that under the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. no law abiding citizen of this Republic can be deprived of his personal and civil rights by way of punishment on account of the crimes of others? Every man in every State of this Union is responsible only for his own crimes, and not for the crimes of others, in which he in nowise participated, and with whom he in nowise sympathizes. Surely it is not needful, even seemingly, to as sert either in the preamble or body of this bill that the insurrectionary States are foreign and conquered provinces, and the people thereof captives of war. It is because I entertain these views that I ask leave to move in this House that the preaumble and bill may be amended. The preamble is as follows: Whereas the pretended State governments of the socalled confederate States of Virginia, North SCarolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas was set up without the authority of Congress and without the sanction of the people; and whereassaid pretended governments afford no adequate protection for life or property, but countenance and encourage lawless npeesasceand crime; and whercas it is necessarythat and good order should be enforcedin said socalled States until loyal and republican State governments can belegally established: Therefore, &c. If permitted I would move to strike out this rèamble for the reasons which I have alread intimated to the House. I move to strike it out, because it is interpreted by the gentleman who reported this bill as being intended although it is no part of this bill and has no operative effect as a solemn declaration on the part of this House that those States are foreign conquered territories, and that the people of those States, all the people therein, are alien enemies, captives of war, and subject to the conqueror's will. I ask that leave to propose such amendment be conceded by the house, because the preamble is not needful, because it adds no force to the bill, and because it gives no protection to any citizen, and ifed is but a declaration. Surely, sir, it is not needful to make such recital as is made in this preamble in order to show authority in the Congress of the U.S. to pass such laws as may be necessary, as may be wise and just and proper for the protection of persons and of property throughout all the insurrectionary States. I have myself no doubt that under the Constitution of the U.S., without going outside of its plain written letter, the Congress of the U.S. have full and exclusive jurisdiction to pass and enforce all needful laws for the protection of the person and the property of every citizen in those insurgent States, until that good time comes when those States shall be duly reorganized and readmitted to rePresentation in Congress. at being so, where is the necessity of this reamble? What force does it give to this bill? how does it strengthen this great cause of ours to make this manifest and palpable departure from all our preceding legislation? That is the question I want answered in the progress of this debate. What is not needful to the efficiency of this bill no man here should insist upon, especially if it be offensive to those of us who are desirous to maintain the national authority and to protect the lives and liberty and property of all alike, under such rules and the crimes of others, whatever may, regulations as the lawmaking power of this nation may Prescribe, until those States shall be fully restored to their proper constitutional relations. With a view, then, to test the sense of the House on this subject, if the majority of this House, as I trust they will, will refuse to 2nd the previous question and allow an amendment to be voted upon, and allow the question to go to the people, I will move to amend the reamble by striking out the 1st clause and to insert in its place the following: Whereas it is necessarythat peaceand good order should be enforced in the several States of Virginia, NCarolina, SCarolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas, lately in rebellion, until said Statesrespectively shall be fully restored to their constitutional relations to the U.S.; Therefore, be it enacted, &c. I ask the House to consider the recital as it stands is in the very words of your Freedmen's Bureau bill, the 14th section of which I have just read; and if it were fit and proper so to designate the States then, on the 22d of last July, it is equally fit and proper so to designate them now. If it is not, I wish to know the reason why. I would also suggest that this bill be amended in the 3rd line of the 1st section by strikin out the phrase “so called, ” so it will re“the said States, ” and stand with the text of the same section declaring that Virginia shall constitute the 1st district; NCarolina and SCarolina the 2nd district; Geor gia, Alabama, and Florida the 3rd district; Mississippi and Arkansas the 4th district; and Louisiana and Texas the 5th district. Why use the words “so called State of Virginia, ” and thereby raise a doubt what are the bound aries of that territory?, Why not use the words in the last clause of the 1st section as I have just read them, without limiting them by the terms “so called?”. Every gentleman knows you must, under this bill, recognize the boundaries of these States as originally fixed by the sovereignty of this Union; and that they stand as they were to this day. The territorial jurisdiction becomes a very important consideration, as my learned friend well knows, and the territorial jurisdiction of whatever tribunals you create, whether civil or military, must be aseertained precisely by law. Grave, difficult questions arise if this be not done. Hence it iIs propose to strike out the terms “so called” in the 3rd section, and insert “said States.” And in the 4th section, Mr. Speaker, I propose to offer an amendment for the consideration of the House, and I think if gen: tlemen will give attention to it, if they will examine the authorities on the subject, they will come to the conclusion the amendment would give efficiency to the bill; at all events, will secure it against adverse decisions in the several courts of the U.S. whenever the same question may be raised within your borders; that is to insert in the 3rd line of the 4th section, after the word “custody, ” so it will read: SF.C. 4. Abife: That courts and judicial officersof the U.S shall not issue writs of habeascorpus in behalf of persons in military custody, except in cases in which the person is held to answer only for a crime or crimes exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts of the U.S. tShteatreesinw, ithin said military districts, and indictable or unless some commissioned officer on duty in the district wherein, the person is detained shall indorse upon said petition a upon honor, that he has knowledge moernitncfeorrtmifyaitniogn, as to the causeand circumstancesof the alleged detention, and that he believes the same to be wrong ful; and further, that he believesthat the indorsed petition, is preferred in good faith and in furtherance of justice, and not to hinder or delay the punishment of crime. All personsFo under military arrest by virtue of this act shall be tried without unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted. I think, Mr. Speaker, if there is anything well settled by the judicial decisions of the U.S. it is this: that where by positive law of the U.S. a person is authorized to be taken into custody and held to answer for a crime which by the laws of the U.S. is not indictable nor punishable in the Federal courts, the writ of habeascorpus will not lie in said courts unless exPressly provided for by statute. If there be a decision of the courts of the U.S. in conflict with that I have never heard of it, and I will be under great obligations to any gentleman of this House who will point it out. Why, sir, that question has been ruled in manner and form as I have just stated, where it involved the dread issue of life and death, where the person was placed under arrest by the warrant of a commissioner appointed by authority of an act of Congress, where the person so arrested was committed by the order of the commissioner and by no other authority, to be handed over to answer for his life upon a charge of crime not committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S. nor indict able in any of the courts of the U.S. Upon application for a writ of habeascorpus it was refused, exceptions were taken, the case was brought into the Supreme Court, where it was fully argued and considered, and the court, according to my recollection, without a dissenting voice, ruled that their jurisdiction, if any, in the premises was purely appellant; and inasmuch as it was exPressly provided in the Constitution that the appellate jurisdiction of that court should be subject to such exceptions as the Congress of the U.S. might by law enact, and inasmuch as the Congress in the case had withheld from the court and refused to confer appellate jurisdiction in such a case, the writ was refused. such will be the effect of this bill if the House adopts it with the amendment. How will the question stand then? Why, that the writ shall only issue in the cases excepted by the exPress terms of the amendment. In the language of the proposed amendment the writ shall only issue in cases where the person is held only to answer for a crime committed within the military districts Prescribed in the bill, and which crime is injin the courts of the U.S. by existing law. Now, sir, every man E. knows well that there are but few crimes of any sort committed within the organized or disorganized States of this Union that are cognizable and indict able in the courts of the U.S. The general purpose of this bill meets my hearty approval. All I desire is to so shape this legislation as to add to its efficiency by removing any cause or seeming cause for conflict with the civil authorities of the U.S., especially so as to allow cases that are indictable in the civil courts of the U.S. within said insurrectionary States to be tried in them. I would like to inquire of gentlemen who seem to smile at the statement that but few offenses committed within a State are indictable in the U.S. courts, where is the statute of the U.S. that ever allowed any man to be punished for murder of a private citizen within the jurisdiction of a State of the U.S., North or South? There is no such statute. I would like to know when any court of the U.S. held any man to answer for crime save and except in those cases which were made exPressly punishable by act of Congress in the courts of the U.S. No common law crime as such without a statute exPressly authorizing it is indictable in the courts of the U.S. Therefore I say, for the burning of the property of a citizen, for the murder of a private citizen, for the robbery of a private citizen, or for any other crime whatever against the per; son or property of a private citizen, committed in any State of this Union, the party is not in dictable now and never was indictable in any court of the U.S. The object of this bill, then, is, as explained by one of my colleagues on the committee, to furnish some protection against the destruction of property and of life where that protection is withheld or notofurnished by the existing organizations of the South..That being the object of the bill, this limitation jIpropose to incorporate in "the 4th section, instead of defeating the object, simply removes what might be ruled a very grave objection to the validity of the bill. I do not care how much stronger gentlemen may exPress the amendment if they see fit, so that it will clearly and by exPress enactment declare that no appellate jurisdiction shall be taken by any of the courts or judges of the U.S. on the application of any person held by military authority within these States, except only where held for a crime indictable in the courts of the U.S. within said States under the existing laws.