Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senfrom Del aware suggests that the President could have done that. I dare say that the President would have done it, but. it is utterly impossible for the POTUS to examine the many records and files that come up from the trials before military courts. I think it is a protection to the military men of the country to have such a court. It will come to be, when the hour of passion, to which my colleague has referred, shall have passed away, a court delib erate in its proceedings, and I hope and have no doubt wise in its adjudications. Then it will be a blessing to the country and a protection to our military men. Necessaril when our Army shall come to be 50,000strong there will be many military trials for military offenses of military men. There ought to be a court of appeal; and this is intended to be a court of appeal; a court in which the judgment of the courts martial may be reviewed, and if improper reversed. such a court, it seems to me, ought to be in the Army. But, sir, I concur in the proposition of the Senfrom Delaware that these words, “ and military commissions, ” ought not to find their way into this section, or into any other statute of our laws, and I shall move to strike those words out of the section before the vote is taken on the proposition of the Senfrom Delaware. The language of the section is, “the proceedings of all courts martial and courts ofinquiry.” I understand that courts martial and courts of inquiry have been known to the Army since its organization courts of inquiry for the purpose of enabling the commanding general to decide whether an officer ought to be put upon trial; and courts martial for the purpose ot trying military men for military offenses. Now, I am in favor of continuing anappellate court. that shall revise the proceedings of all courts martial; but this triunal known as a military commission is a thing that has s rung up among the abuses of the last 2 or t ree years, so far as I know. I do not know that military commissions have been recognized by the military law of the country 1101t‘o the late war. My colleague inquires, what is there in the history of military commissions that they should not'command our approval? I ask my colleague, what is there 1n the history of military commissions that ought to command our approval? They have passed away. The highest judicial tribunal in this country has pronounced them to be illegal, and their findings to be void, when they extend to the trial of civilians. What is there in their history that we can commend? If the Senator refers to the trial of the assassins of President Lincoln, I shall not question the propriety of their trial before a court martial a military court known to our law for the simple reason that it may be held, though somewhat doubtful, that their offense was a military offense. The POTUS was the head of the Army; it was during a time of war; and the city of Washington was the headquarters of the Army; and this offense was committed against the Commander in Chief of the Army and at his headquarters during the war, as if a man should go into a camp in the presence of the enemy and should kill the commander in chief who was to conduct a charge perhaps the next day. I would not. question that that would be a military offense tor which the party might be tried by a courtmartial. But I do not recognize the doctrine which my colleague seems so broadly to advocate, that a military commission may put upon trial a civilian in no way connected with the Army for whatever that court may define to be a crime. What has been the wrong which the SCOTUS has reversed and consigned, I will not say to infamy, but consigned, I hope, in our future history to forgetfulness? it is this: thata court is organized unknown to our laws; a court organized without a defined jurisdiction; a court which is authorized to bring before it the men of the country not connected with the Army, and to put them upon trial for offenses not defined by any law, iand to punish them in a mode unknown to the aw. organized in our country which is not, authorized by law; if it can proceed aceordin to its own pleasure, by no mode of practice efined by the law; if it can punish or a crime not defined by the law, an in a mode not tolerated or allowed by the law, then, sir, to the extent of the jurisdiction of such a court the liberty of the people is gone. What do we ask? That the courts that shall take jurisdiction of our persons shall only do so according to the law. A military commission is not known to the law; its proceedings are not defined by the law; its punishments are not prescribed by the law; and therefore in every respect, as the SCOTUS has decided, it is outside of the law, illegal, and void. But, sir, since the decision of the Supreme Court it ceases to be necessary that we should argue upon this question. That court has pronounce upon the subject, and the citizen here after can only be tried before a court which the law has conferred jurisdiction upon, and according to the practice which the law has rescribed, and can be punished only as the law says, and not as some gentlemen who may happen to be upon a military commission may see fit to punis him. Therefore I shall move to strike out the words “and military commissions;” so that the court provided for in this section, shall have appellate jurisdiction from all courts martial and courts of inquiry. I do not know that it is necessa to give the court jurisdiction of the roceeings of a court of inquiry. A court of inquiry passesno judgment; it simply reports to the command in general the facts in the particular case to ai the judgment of the commanding general upon the question whether an officer is to be put upon trial before a court martial; but I have no objection to allowing the findings of a court of inquiry to go before the Judge Advocate General. All proceedings before courts mar tial, I think, ought to be reviewed somewhere.