Mr. ROGERS. I am here, sir, to think and speak for myself; and I do say I will oppose despotism to the last extremity, and, as Patrick Henry said, if that be treason make the most of it. It is treason to the Constitution of the U.S. to place ten of the States of the Union in a time of profound peace under the unrestricted control of martial law, as is done in this bill. I say if the people of the South are not already so oppressed and broken down as to be unable to defend themselves, if they have the blood of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and the other heroes of the Revolutiqn running in their veins they would protest as our fathers protested against the despotism of King George when the military attempted to deprive them of their inherent right to govern themselves. But they say we must have guarantees from the South. The gentleman says there is no guarantee against secession. Who is account able for that? This House and the Senate are accountable. The committee of 15, composed of gentlemen, of high professional and congressional standing, upon whom was devolved the important duty of framing an enactment proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S., did not propose that there should be a feature of it providing against future secession. It was their business to do it. Gentlemen on the Republican side of the House do not want this question settled. They had no idea in presenting the constitutional amendment to the people in the form they have, that it would be accepted. be no such thing as a destruction of a State. wet with their blood spilled in fierce conflict, people are compelled to take the whole of the The legal Government cannot be destroyed by || we have filled their land with widows and orphans, whose wail of sorrow is now piercing the very clouds. The rebellion was caused by || amendment or none at all. It was so framed the null government. The action of the H.". || that the chance of rejection might be greater. cannot destroy the status that a State had in || || If each section had been submitted by itself the Union. Those States were integral parts || radicalism in the North and South, and your || several would have been adopted. Gentlemen say that the rebellion is not suppressed. Is there any rebellion in the South now? Are there any men in arms against the Federal Government? It is a mere attempt to excite the people of the North against the South. It is to put the minority in power at the South. The question involved has been settled by the SCOTUS, and upon it there was no dissenting opinion in the court. Those who concurred in the minority opinion in the Indiana case all agreed upon all the points but one. They all agreed that in times of peace Congress has no right to establish military tribunals for the trial of offenses, whether in States that have been in rebellion or not. The only disagreement among the members of the court was as to the power to establish military tribunals in time of war. I now read from the opinion of the SCOTUS in exparte Milligan:. Another guarantee of Milligan freedom wasbroken when wasdevied a trial by jury, The greatminds of the country have differed on the correctinterpretation, to be given to yarious. of the ederalConstitution, and judicial decision has been often invoked to settle their true meaning; but until recently no one ever, doubted that the right of trial by jury was fortified in the organic law against the power of attack. It is now assailed; but, if ideascan be expressed in words, and languagehas any meaning, this right—one of the most valuable in a country—is preserved free to every one accused of crime who is not attached to the Army or Navy or militia in actual service. The 6th amendmentaffirms that in all criminal prosecutionsthe accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.” to: “All other persons, citizens of States where the courts are open, if charged with crime, are guarantied, the inestimable privilege of trial by jury. This privilege is a vital principle, underlying the whole administration of criminal justice; it is not held by sufferance, and cannot be frittered away on any plea of State or political necessity. When peace prevails, and the authority of the Government is undisputed there is no difficulty of preserving the safeguards of liberty: for the ordinary modes of trial are never neglected, and no one wishes it otherwise; but if society is disturbed by civil commotion, if the passions of men are aroused and the restraints of law weakened, if not disregarded, these safeguards need and should receive the watchful care of guardianship thoseintrusted with the of the Constitution, and laws. In no other way can we transmit to posterity unimpaired, othfethbelersesvine glustoi of liberty, consecratedby the sacrifices “The statement of this proposition shows its importance; for if true republican, government is a ailures and there is an end of liberty regulated by law. Martial law established on such a basis destroys every guarantee of ually the constitution, and effect rendersthe ‘military independent of and supe rior to the civil power' the attempt to do which by the King of GreatBritain was deemedby our fathers such an offensethat they assigned it, to the world as one of the causes which impelled them to their independence.” declare But this bill, sir, proposes to take away the right of trial by jury. These assumptions of power were attempted to be sustained or excused during the war on the ground of military necessity. When we have returned to a state of peace there is no pretended necessity for it. What has AndrewJohnson done in the formation of these State governments that his predecessar did not do? Mr. Lincoln was revered by you all on the other side, and your whole party clung to him with unfaltering devotion. Did not he form State governments for Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia, and were they not recognized by congress? If the State governments organized by AndrewJohnson are void then the government of Virginia and WestVirginia, organzied under Mr. Lincoln's administration, was also void. The State of Virginia had adopted secession and officially signed the articles of confederation and attached itself to the socalled confederate government long before WestVirginia was, by the action of the State of Virginia and of Congress, admitted into the Union and permitted to send representatives to the Congress of the U.S. What authority had Congress or the Legislature of old Virginia to agree to the creation of WestVirginia unless old Virginia was a State of the Union? Yet, in the face of your premises, you have admitted Tennessee to representation. If it be true that the status of that State had been changed, that Virginia was a conquered territory. then it was beyond the control of congress and Virginia to make the State of West irginia a State. It follows upon the radical theory that all the acts performed by any of the r officers of these Governments organized by President Lincoln must be void. If the position taken by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEvex's] be correct, that these States are Territories, then we have no right to rule and govern them by military authority. I take issue with the gentleman as to that on the ground that the Constitution nowhere recognizes the right of Congress to govern Territories by military law. such a power was never known to the Constitution. this inimical to its spirit, and is a perversion of its intent and purposes. Our fathers protested against the exercise of this military power by England. It is attempted here to take us back to the days prior to 1776, and to put the southern States in the very status that the Colonies were placed in by England. You will find in the grievances set forth in the DeclarIndep the very things which are now attempted to be forced upon the southern people. Our fathers asserted in that immortal document, as one of their grievances, that King George kept among us in time of peace a standing army without the consent of the Legislatures of the Colonies. What do you propose to do? You propose to keep a standing army in ten States of this Union without the consent of their Legislatures and to render the civil authorities of those States subordinate to the military power. It goes further even than this. o: proposes to vest in military officers the power to appoint tribunals to try offenders. Sir, this places in the hands of the military the government of 8 million people. If that be, not des: potism, then our fathers were mistaken in the assertion of the grievances against which they rebelled and in the support of which they went into the most glorious Revolution ever recorded in the annals of history. Another ground upon which they rebelled was that the British Government deprived them in many cases of the right of trial by jury, and made the civil law subordinate to the military power. Now, everyone of these objections will exist under the now pending. If the people of the South were not at our mercy, if they were not prostrate at our feet, if we had not the power to stamp them to earth, unless they were reptiles unworthy to crawl they would rise as their fathers rose against the mother country. They are not cowards, as their bravery has already demonstrated. Did not the committee of 15, in reporting the constitutional amendment which they ask Congress to pass, recognize the existence of these States? They reported a bill expressly providing that whenever any State adopted that amendment and it became a part of the organic law such State should be entitled to full representation in Congress. This shows that these 15 go. selected at the commencement of this Congress to devise means by which our difficulties could be settled, were 8 months ago clearly of the opinion, that these States were entitled to exercise their constitutional functions and to be: here. do not stand alone upon the decision I have read, but have others to which I will refer, which decide that the Federal Government can exercise no rights except those which it was authorized to exercise over its own territory before the rebellion broke out. The war did not give the Government of the U.S. a right to any new territory; it acquired the right to exercise no new sovereign power that did not exist in it before the rebellion. And when that insurrection was suppressed it sim: ply resumed control of the sovereign jurisdiction which it had the right to exercise over those States as States before the rebellion broke out. It merely acquired possession of its own territory. it proceeded upon the principle of an action of ejectment. Finding that a usurper, an intruder was in possession of some terri.tory over which it had sovereign power, it took possession of that territory again; but it acquired no power or authority which was not lodged in it before the rebellion broke out. I refer the members of this House to the case of the Amy Warwick, in admiralty. I know there is no use in reading law or making arguments here upon this subject, for there is a predisposition on the part of honorable gentlemen in this House to so conduct the legislation of this country as to perpetuate their political power. They appear to be afraid to allow representation to these people in the South for fear that their present political power may be taken away from them and they thus lose the control of the Government. “In the case of the Amy Warwick, in admiralty, Jud ge Sprague, of Massachusetts, said: has been supposed that if the Government have the rights of a beliigerent, then, after the rebellion is suppressed, it will have the rights of conquest: that a State and its inhabitants may be permanently divested of all political privileges, and treatedasfor eign territory acquired by arms.'. This is an error, a grave and dangerous error. Belligerent right cannot be exercised where there are no belligerents. Conquest of a foreign country gives absolute, unlim ited sovereign rights, but no nation ever makessuch a conquest of its own territory. If a hostile Power, either from without or within, take and hold possession and dominion over any portion of its territory, and the nation by force of arms expel or overthrow the enemy and suppress hostilities, it acquires, no new title, but merely regains the possession of that of which it had been temporarily deprived. The nation acquiresno new sovereignty, but merely maintains its previous rights. “When the U.S.take possession of rebel district dtehsepyomtice Govevrnments eth the right reocfxciosntefinstctait theo.n may be unlimited, but under our Government the right of sovereignty over any portion of a State, is given and limited by the Constitution, and will be the same after the war as it was before.” I have also another opinion here of a com: mentator on criminal law, Mr. Bishop, in which he takes the same ground. Therefore there are 4 different decisions and opinions, all expressly sustaining the position which the POTUS occupies. Bishop on Law, in section 132, volume one, remarks: “Except, therefore, for the clause guarantyin republican governments to the States, the U.S. might; if it chose, after a State has committed what is called an act of secession, ” “legislate, for it forever, to the exclusion of any subsequent State legislation. But the clause under consideration provides that the U.S shall on'f to the State a RFG. Therefore, as soon as the guarantee is, executed, the right of legislation which the U.S. received from the defunct State government flows out to the new State government. “When for any reason, as for instance when a State has passed what is termed in these days an ordinance of secession, there ceasesto be within the State a government under the Constitution of the U.S., “the guarantee o’ mentioned in section of the Constitution attachcs, and the “U.S.” becomes obligated to give the State a RFG.” I stated in a speech which I made here some 3 or 4 weeks ago that the liberties of the people were about being taken away. stated that in good faith; and the legislation now proposed fully convinces me of my proph ecy on that occasion. And I am here again to raise o warning voice and proclaim to them that liberty expires in the establishing of a military government over 1/3rd o the territory of this nation. Sir, when that shall be done our liberties will have been destroyed, and and tyranny will: in full and undisturbed impunity; and the place where our fathers and mothers used to drink the love of liberty on the mountains and in the vales will no longer be visited by anything but the rule of despotism and anarchy; and the scenes of Mexico and South America will soon be enacted in our land. God knows I have but one hope, and that is to see the flag of our country waving in triumph from one end of it to the other. I want to see the Constitution of our fathers preserved, and to see civil liberty maintained as our fathers left it to us. I want law, liberty, and order to go down to posterity, as a bright casket of human freedom, unimpaired. I want to see the day when the passions of the hour shall have passed away and when a generous, humane, and enlightened policy toward a brave, courageous, and noble fallen foe shall be adopted. I want to preserve a reverence for the memory and for the tomb of Washington, which lies in Virginia, and where his sacred dust and ashes are mingling with the soil of that State, as a consecrated emblem of liberty never to be disgraced by governing the land where he lies by a wicked military despotism, as proposed by this bill. I know that men laugh and sneer at such predictions as these. They think that these calam ities are not coming upon us. I tell gentlemen that in the heat and excitement of the present time you do not reflect as you should. Party passions often obscure the better reason which should at all times govern our minds. We are warned by George Washington in his Farewell Address, as we are warned by the recent opinions of the Supreme Court, that in the heat and excitement of party passion liberty is easily dethroned. This Government, sir, has been the model one of the world. It was founded by our fathers upon principles of liberty; it was erected in antagonism to military rule; it was established to secure to every man his rights of civil liberty, where every man's house should be his castle, where the courts of the country should be open to all. Yet if we are to countenance such legislation as this, the day is fast approaching when ours shall be a Government of bastiles, dungeons, cells, anarchy, despot: ism, secret police, spies, and informers. I grieve to see the day when any portion of the people of this country, whether they have been engaged in rebellion or not, shall be deprived of those inestimable rights which the blood of our fathers was shed to establish. These rights are to be invaded by the legislation which it appears this House is about to pass. It will be the end of free government if such a law be enforced. It deserves to be met by all the force which the people are able to command. I am anxious to preserve the equilibrium of the different depts of the Government; I desire that the executive power shall be confined to its constitutional limits; I want the judicial power to be restricted to its legitimate sphere; I wish the power of Congress to be exercised strictly within the scope defined by the fundamental law. When these several depts come into collision there results a isorder that must be fatal to the public good. But, sir, even putting out of view the constitutional question, I submit that as a matter of policy we ought not to pass this bill. Have the people of the South done anything that warrants such treatment? I claim” that they are a brave people. I claim that they are “bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.” Their fathers and our fathers, fighting side by side, achieved the liberties of this country. When the people of the South rebelled against the power of the Federal Government they did no more than has been done by many pations in times past. It was an exercise of revolution ary power; and if they had succeeded in that effort the nations of Europe would have placed the leaders side by side with those who succeeded in vindicating their liberties against, the power of Great $ and establishing a Government on this continent founded upon the civil tribunals to try certain offenses. more lenient; that he had been more merciful; that he had been more charitable. If I had been the POTUS the very moment the rebellion was suppressed I would have recognized those States as restored to their constitutional relations and rights as States of the Union without any conditions or qualifications. But the course here appears to be to take away the power of the President and lodge it in another person. I should like some gentleman to tell me what authority there is in this Congress to take away a grant of power expressly and mandatorily placed in him as commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. The Constitution says that the President shall — that is the word; it is a mandatory word—be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the U.S. You are not only trying to take away his civil power, but to take away his military power. An attempt is made in this bill to place the entire military powers of the President in the hands of a commission unknown and unrecognized by the Constitution. The Constitution has reposed certain powers in him, and I hold that he cannot be divested of them by any action of this congress. The Constitution declares that he shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy; but you propose by this bill that he shall not be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. You say that a General shall establish an army in the South, that he shall establish military law there, and that he and his subordinates may in their discretion authorize You break down and take away the mandatory constitutional grant of power which makes the President coof the Army and Navy. By what authority can that be done? Is the Constitution of the U.S. no longer the law? Is the theory to be, as declared by the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. RAYMoND, that we have 2 constitutions, one real an the other not real—one a written Constitution and the other outside of it? The SCOTUS says there is but one Constitution, and that it is a law for rulers and people equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men at all times and under all circumstances. No d.octrine involving more pernicious conse was ever invented by the with of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. such a doctrine leads directly to an archy or despotism. (Ex parte Milligan, page 7.) If the organic law be not a dead letto, how can you pass this bill taking away from an officer the mandatory power placed in him by the Constitution of the U.S and lodge it in another man unknown, unrecognized, and unprovided for in it? You cannot do it without usurpation; and I hope the President will not submit to have the power placed in him by the Constitution of the U.S. taken away from him, and that he will exert his military power against all traitors and disunionists, whomsoever they may be. We are all bound to obey the law, and if AndrewJohnson will stand tamely by and see his country destroyed then I say his name would be a slander and a libel on free government, and he ought to go down with infamy and ignominy to posterity as a man who did nothing in the hour of danger to assert the great constitutional rights placed in him by our revolutionary fathers under our organic act. He is a good man and a true patriot, and will not silently see his country die. “What is life without liberty.” Free government brought him from a poor boy to as great a man as ever ington, and will yet receive it. 1861 and branded the southern Senators as traitors and disunionists, will not submit to have the citadel of liberty invaded and destroyed without using the civil and military powers to prevent it. He will maintain the Constitution, sir, even to the spilling of blood. I am a peace man when there can be peace, but without liberty there cannot be peace, But I am not a peace man enough to quietly consent to see military despotism established in the place of civil law. f is once destroyed, then the Union will perish with it; I mean the Union made by Washington and Jefferson and the heroes and sages of the days that tried men's souls. My position may be somewhat in advance of other gentlemen, even on my side of the House. But I do not think it is. I know all gentlemen cannot think alike on these questions. Men will disagree. But what I say is the honest convictions of my heart. I speak for the whole country, and deep seated is the sorrow I feel for the wronged and abused people of it, North and South. I know there is a rule of action which ought to be carried into effect by every law abiding man, that when the court of the highest juris diction, upon a question legitimately in issue before it, decides a case, that it ought to be recognized as the law of the land. If Mr. JOHNson is willing to have his power taken away, to quietly submit to usurpation of the rights which have been conferred upon him by the Constitution, I am mistaken in the man, because I recognize in him as pure and patri otic a statesman as ever lived. He stood in the Senate of the U.S. in 1861, amid the hisses of rebels, branding them as traitors and disunionists; and yet today he is assailed after all the suffering, anxiety, and trouble which he underwent during the rebellion, as being himself a traitor and disunionist. Let him go on in his good work of reconstruction; he will prevail. He is but following out the impulses of the people during the whole war. It is but conforming to the JtResolution of Congress which passed oHouses, wherein we solemnly declared to the civilized world that the object of the war was not subjugation nor conquest, but to restore the States to all their rights unimpaired. By that declaration we have pledged our selves and our posterity in the face of the world that when we put down the rebellion we would restore these people to the rights to which they were entitled before the war. If that was a living principle in 1861, and was right then, is it not now? Have we acquired any juris diction or gained any rights or powers by, the suppression of the rebellion that did not exist in us during the war? Even up to the close of the war, when GenlSherman made the treaty with General Johnson I never heard any man pretend, except Mr. SUMNER on one occasion in the Senate of the U.S., that by our becoming conquerors these persons were at our mercy as captors to deal with them as we might see fit. Even if the conclusion be a logical one, that these States are reduced to conquered prov inces; even if they were the conquered domain of a foreign country, the law of nations will not allow them to be governed by military law any longer than civil institutions can be put in motion. The civil law of the conquered country operates as soon as the military can be safely withdrawn. It was so demonstrated in the case of the acquisition of NewMexico and California from the Mexican Government, which was 1st conquered and then by treaty ceded. Our Supreme Court decided that the laws of Mexico governed that Territory in so far as it was not inconsistent with our Constitution, and in cases afterward arising out lived, and he deserves as much credit as Wash || of the title to real property there they were I know him decided by the laws of Mexico. f the Constitution. limitations and the principles of constitutional liberty. I wish well enough to say that AndrewJohnson, who || Government of Insurrectionary States. the POTUS had been || stood in the Senate of the U.S. in