Mr. BOUTWELL. A very proper question, and one in reference to which I hope to present my views. The remark has been made that the committee did not contemplate anything but a military government for these States. This statement is negatived by the concluding clause of the preamble, which is in these words: And whereas it is necessarythat peace and good order should be enforced in said socalled States luengtaillllyoyeasltaabnldislheoda, n State governmentscan be &c. I may remark here that the Gentfrom NewYork.[Mr. Raymond] admitted the other day that life, liberty, and property were not protected in these ten States; and it follows as a matter of course that somebody for the time being is bound to furnish that protection. What I ask the House to accept is, the fact that there is no other practicable way of furnishing protection to life, liberty, and property in these ten States except through the instru mentality of a bill conferring great powers upon the military dept of the Government; but powers not to be exercised without authority of law, powers not to be exercised independent of Congress, but to be exercised precisely as the police of a city exercise the vast powers confided to them. They derive their authority from the law and they exercise the powers in trusted to them in obedience to principles of law. They are always responsible to the people as the source of law. The military dept in its operation in these ten States, whether considered with reference to the people of the whole country or considered with reference to the powers that they exercise, will be but as the police of a city acting under authority of law and in consonance with the principles of law, possessing vast power, exercising great authority, but always in subjection to law. The moment they depart from the principles of law, the moment they attempt to assume or assert any authority not confided to them, they become utterly powerless in the Presence of the majesty of the people, who will revoke the jauthority with the same judgment and the same certainty with which they conferred it. It follows, therefore, that 50 or 60,000 men of the Army who may be intrusted with these powers in those States will be, with reference to the people of those States and of the country, but as the police of a City. I over the 2nd section of this bill. I believe that as reported by the committee it is constitutional, and I believe also that the amendments suggested by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania would have been constitutional also. But the main feature of this section, whether accepted as reported by the committee or amended as suggested by the chairman of the committee, is that which gives to the General of the Army, subject, of course, to the authority vested by the Constitution in the President as Commander in Chief of the Army, authority to designate 5 officers of the rank of major general or brigadier general, and appoint them to command the 5 districts created and established by the bill. In passing I venture to make a single observation for the purpose of relieving gentlemen upon the point suggested by my friendfrom Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK] that it was not compe tent for Congress to detail officers of the Army by rank. I do not at all concur in that idea if by “detailing” is meant designating certain officers by name or by rank and assigning them to the performance of certain services. The President is undoubtedly Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy; but by a provision of the Constitution Congress has power to make rules for the regulation and government of the Army and Navy. The President is required to command the Army in subor dination to the rules and regulations which Congress Prescribes. There would be no doubt of the authority of Congress to send a fleet to the Indian ocean for the protection of American commerce, and to detail Admiral Farragut by name and assign to him a certain number of vessels belonging to the Navy, and direct him to proceed to the Indian ocean for the F." of protecting the commerce of the U.S. The authority of the President over the Navy is precisely the same as is his authority over the Army. Objection is made to another provision of this bill, found in the 3rd section, which authorizes the military officers to allow local civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and try offend ers. It has been suggested that this provision is equivalent to a recognition of the State governments which have been set up in those States, and that in some way or to some degree it conflicts with the provisions contained in the preamble and in the text of the last paragraph of the 3rd section of the bill. I think that this provision is not justly subject to any such interpretation. We establish military authority in that vast district of country. We give to our military officers supreme, but not necessarily exclusive, jurisdiction over all local affairs; and by this provision we put it in the power of the military officers to use the existing legal tribunals. The officer does not use a local tribunal because it was instituted by the State and derives its powers from the State, but he uses it, if he uses it at all, because he finds it there, because he finds the people acquainted with its mode of administration, and because he can make it useful in protecting the property, the liberty, and the lives of the people within his jurisdiction. But no authority or argument can be deduced from this provision in favor of the pretended State governments which have been set up. Our action in this case will be precisely analogous with the conduct of President Lincoln when my friend and colleague [Mr. BANKs] was in command in Louisiana. I remember that at that time a proclamation was issued, I suppose by the President, declaring the constitution of Louisiana, except those rts of it which related to o. the law of for the time being. was myself slightly disturbed at that time by the fear that the President recognized the old constitution of Louisiana as binding upon the people of that State because it had been the constitution; but with his usual clearness he made the distinction, and said that finding the constitution there, and finding the people familiar with it, he recognized it and caused it to be enforced; and not because it had any vital power or legal existence arising out of the fact that previously it had been the constitution of the State.