Mr. TRUMBULL. I have made no proposition. I was answering the suggestion of the Senfrom Ohio. I think flint, under the circumstances, in the present condition of the public business of the country, and when nothing is to be lost to the parties who wish to bring some facts to the consideration of Congress by the passage of the bill today, inasmuch as they can bring this matter before the HoRep, it is unreasonable to ask that we should longer delay action upon the bill. I should in the ordinary course of things, as I am upon the floor and have charge of this bill, feel it incumbent upon me to reply, in the conclusion of this debate, to some of the objections which have been urged against the passage of the bill; but so much time has been occupled i as I conceive, in dilatory motions, and what cannot but be regarded as a debate designed to prevent action upon the bill, that I donot fee myself justified in occupying any considerable time in replying eitherto the Senfrom Kentucky or to other Senators who have spoken against the passage of the bill. I will hastily, however, as it is not quite 3 oclock and designing to concludeal I have to say by that hour, reply to all I think there is in the remarks of the Senfrom Kentucky. He has strained his voice to the utmost and, put down the armed resistance, than temili tary power is called into play, and by military talked about the fury of passion which governs l the Senate, of the monstrous infractions of the i constitution and ot the black Republican party. I Now, does the Senator suppose that these 0ithets and these highsounding words make the bill unconstitutional? Has anybody displayed half the fury of passion that he has? Has anybody been so much excited as he has? Who has delayed the Senate by the fury of passion and denunciation but the Senfrom Kentucky himself? Sir, the declaration that this ist a monstrous infraction of the constitution does not make it so; nor does the declaration of the Senator that because some of the States in the Union are not represented here, it is therefore unconstitution al, prove that to be so. That is his 1st position. The very statement of an argument is sometimes its most perfeet refutation. The Senator assumes here and argues that because some of the States of the Union, having been in rebellion against the Government, and not yet restored in their relations to the Government, are not represented here, it is therefore unconstitutional for us to pass a lawl What is the Senfrom Kentucky here for? Why does he not go home? Why is be sitting here but to pass laws? Is it unconstitutional to pass this bill because some States are not represented here? Why, sir, what sort of a Government would it be if some State, by withdrawing its rereseutation, could take away the constitutions power of the Congress of the U.S. to pass a law? The absurdity of the reposition is such that it needs not to be argue to be refuted. But he says that there is a clear violation of the constitution in this bill, because judicial power is by it conferred upon the officers and agents of the Freedmens Bureau. He says it is admitted that such power is conferred, and then he reads the clause of the constitution of the U.S. which declares that the judicial power shall be vested in a Supreme Court and inferior courts, to be established by congress, and he says these officers of the freedmens Bureau are not the courts contemplated by the constitution; and he reads another clause to show that the right of trial by jury is secured to parties, and he says no jurytrial is provided for here. Of course not; but how plain a statement shall answer that whole argument. Are there not other provisions of the Constitution? Has the Senfrom Kentucky never read that the Congress of the U.S shall have authority to call forth the militia to put down insurrection and rebellion? Does not the Senfrom Kentucky know that from 11 States of this Union every court has been expelled and driven out? and could anything be more absurd and preposterous than for him to talk about trials before the ordinary courts of justice, where every court of justice has been expelled by force of arms? It would not be more absurd for the Senator to contend that when the 100s of1,000s of men metin battle array you should 1st impanel a jury, and try a traitor, and see whether he was guilty oftreason, before you could shoot or hang him I When the time comes that the judicial authorities of the country are overborne, when theyare expelled, and armed men rise up in opposition to the civil tribunals, and they have no power to authority the armed insurrection is crushed and put down. The military power governs and controls where no courts can exist. it is under this provision of the constitution, authorizing judicial powers to be conferred upon military tribunals which have been exercised for the last 5 years, that udicial authority is now to be conferred upon e officers and agents of the Freedmens Bureau. Does that Senator deny the authority to hold a courtmartial; does he deny the authority of a military commission to try and punish men in rebellious districts where no civilcourts can exist, and where all judicial authority is Overborne by arms? If he does. deny it, he denies the authority to have any Government at all in those districts, and we should have a state of anarchy and confusion. I The Senator says the laws ofKcntucky forbid a white man or woman marrying a negro, and that these laws of Kentucky are to exist for ever; that severe penalties are imposed in the State of Kentucky against amalgamation between the white and black races. Well, sir, I am sorry that in noble Kentucky there is such a disosition to amalgamation that penallies and punishments can prevennot thing but u sir, it is a misrepresentation of this bill to say that it interferes with those laws. I answered that argument the other day when it was presented by the Senfrom Indiana. The bill provides for dealing out the same punishment to people of every color and every race; and if the law of Kentucky forbids the white man to marry the black woman I presume it equally forbids the black woman to marry the white man, and the punishment is alike upon each. All this bill provides for is that there shall be no discrimination in punishments on account of color; and unless the Senfrom Kentucky wants to punish the negro more severely for marrying a white person than a white, for marring a negro, the bill will not interfere with is law. But he says the Freedmens Bureau did not originally embrace Kentucky, and it is:1 mon strous usurpation to extend it over Kentucky, and thereu on he assaults the AttyGen, who, suppose, is capable of defending himself.