Mr. FINCK. Mr. Speaker, I approach the examination of this measure with a saddened heart. I know of none which has been presented to the American people of so grave a character and magnitude as the questions involved in the bill now Presented by the distinguished Gentfrom Pennsylvania. I have been taught to revere the Constitution of my country and to love the Union of these States. I have been taught to believe that ours was a Government of law, in which the rights of the American people were protected by the Contitution of the Federal and State Governments. ut, sir, I see an attempt in the passage of this measure to overthrow free government, and to establish on its ruins the principles of military despotism.. I had hoped that great issues before the American people would have been adjusted in the spirit of wisdofh and moderation, and that all the States once more would be assembled here by their rePresentatives, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and again move along harmoniously in the legitimate legislation of the American people. In the Presence of this measure I tremble at the thought that our hopes may perhaps be forever dissipated. Certainly no member on this floor who understands the Constitution of the U.S., and who is a friend of free government, will pretend to urge that we have any constitutional power to pass this bill. I understand the distinguished Gentfrom Pennsylvania {Mr. STEVENs] does not argue that there is any authority under the Constitution of the U.S. to sanction this measure; where, I ask, does he obtain the authority to pass it? On what principle is this Congress and the people of the U.S. called upon to adopt it? if I understood the gentleman correctly, he claims the power to pass this bill under the law of nations and upon the doctrine of the right of the conquerors to take possession of and control conquered territory and its inhabitants in such a manner as may suit the purposes of the conqueror. This is the ground upon which the measure is defended. Certainly no man will insult the intelligence of the American people by defending it upon any other principle. It is at war with. Constitution; it is at war with every principle of free government. And I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it cannot be successfully defended on the ground upon which it is placed by the chairman of the committee. He places it upon the ground that we, as conquerors, have a right to dictate to the peoo of these ten States their governments and y the strong arm of military power hold and treat them as a conquered people. I deny most emphatically.the premises and conclusions of the learned gentleman. I can understand very well how when 2 distinct and foreign nations are engaged in war, the result of that war may be a conquest of the territory and of the inhabitants of one of the belligerents. That result has been achieved more than once in the history of the nations of the earth. But, sir, that condition of things could not result from the late war for the supPression of the rebellion. What was that war, Mr. Speaker? It was not a war betweendistinct and separate nations. It was a war upon the part of the Federal Government, to do what? Not to make a conquest of territory. Not a war for subjugation. No, sir; it was a war on the part of the Federal government to enforce its laws throughout the jurisdiction of the U.S. It was a war on the part of the Federal Government to remove all armed opposition to the execution of the laws and maintain the supremacy of the Government; to Preserve the union of these States and to supPress all opposition to the i and rightful execution of the laws of the U.S. Need I say that in such a war as that, confined within the limits of the Republic, there could not be any conquest of territory or the people of any State belonging to the Union? I put the question to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, {Mr. go what did you conquer? You conquered a peace; but did you io.a single inch of territory over which the U.S. did not exercise jurisdiction before the war commenced? Not a single inch sir. Neither did you acquire by the results of the war jurisdiction over a single man, woman, or child over whom you would not have had iurisdiction if the war had not taken place? o, sir; you merely reestablished firmly the jurisdiction of the U.S., not over any new territory, not over territory conquered from a foreign enemy, but we reestablished the jurisdiction of the U.S. over what had been and what continued to be during the war; a part of the territory comprised within the boundaries of the U.S. We are not today exercising jurisdiction over these ten States rightfully by the laws of nations, and can only exercise over them the jurisdiction and authority which was authorized before the war commenced, and which is reg'dated by the Constitution of the U.S. Mr. Speaker, the only ground upon which the gentleman can possibly defend his bill is the ground which does not exist in the condition of our affairs. Is it possible, sir, that any gentleman will argue that the Federal Gover.ment could have made a conquest of its own territory? such a result would have been impossible. I ask gentlemen upon the other side who sustain this bill to cite a single in stance in the history of nations where a nation has made conquest of its own territory or its own people. There is no such instance in history. Nations have supPressed revolts within their own limits; nations have supPressed rebellions against their Governments; nations have maintained by war the integrity oftory. their own terri but never has any nation in supPressing a revolt of its citizens against its Government acquired title to its own territory by conquest or the rights of the conqueror over its own people. The idea of defending this revolutionary scheme on the pretext that this Government is authorized to exercise toward the territory and people of these ten States the rights under the laws of nations of a conqueror and thus overthrow the Government, is one only to be conceived by the fertile genius of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, {Mr. STEvens] What is the territory of these States? Who are the people of E. these States who you now to put under this military despotism? our of those States which are to be put under this military government, are 4 of the original 13 States which formed your Constitution, and which is now to be subverted to enslave them. The people of those States who are to be subjected to this worse than despotism, are the sons and the daughters of the men who with your fathers and mine fought together in the revolutionary struggle, and by their patriotic devotion and their wisdom aided to achieve our independence and establish this free system of Government. Sir, I know these people have committed a great wrong in trying to break up this Union. I. attempt have always opposed their to withdraw from the Union. I have always denounced secession. But, sir, they failed in their mad attempt to overthrow the Union of these States, and have they not suf. fered, Mr. Speaker, as no people have ever suf. fered before? I believe they are now sincere in their desire to continue in the Union and to share the blessings and burdens of a common government with us. Sir, if we wish a real Union we must treat them as friends and not as enemies; we must have confidence in them; and as we and our children for generations to come are to live with them and their descendants, I submit, sir, that it is best for all of us and for the peace and prosperity of this great country, that we should live together as j. But such is not the policy of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. Can it be possible, Mr. Speaker, that we have gone back 6 centu ries in the history of the world, and are willing to strike down the great principles of free government for which so many struggles and heroic sacrifices have been made by ourances tors? Is it possible that in this Congress we can find men bold enough and bad enough to conspire against the great right of trial by jury; the great privilege of habeascorpus; men who are willing to reverse the axiom that the military should be subordinate to the civil power, and to establish the abhorred doctrine resisted by the brave and free men of every age, that the military should be superior to the civil authority? Who would have believed that the sons of revolutionary fathers, bred under the influences and teachings of our system of free government, would today in an American Congress gravely discuss the question whether ten millions of their fellow citizens should be placed under a military despotism? Mr. Speaker, I speak earnestly upon this subject, but not more earnestly than I feel. I look upon this measure as a most dangerous and alarming proposition. Not only in the provisions of this bill to which my friend and colleague {Mr. LeBLOND] has referred, striking down the great rights of the American system of Government do I find most serious cause for objection, but also in the additional proposition that no judicial or legislative interference shall take place in reference to military commissions and military trials authorized under this bill. Let me read that portion of the bill. I refer to the latter clause of the 3rd section: And all legislative or judicial proceedings, or processes to prevent or control the proceedingsof said military tribunals, and all interference by said pretended State governmentswith the exercise of. mili authority under this act shall be void and of no eliect. Can it be possible that the measure now before us, was deliberately prepared by any gentleman upon this floor? Is it possible that this measure has been seriously considered? Dogentlemen believe they have the leastshadow of authority to thus attempt to close the doors of the judicial dept of this Government, so that the SCOTUS cannot examine into a sentence or order made by one of these petty military tribunals which are to be set up over the lives, liberty, and property of the people of ten of these States? Are we slaves? Are the American people so engaged in the struggle for “the almighty dollar” that they have forgotten the sacred rights of a free people and decline the task to maintain a free Government? Is it possible that these military tribunals and commissions shall override your Constitution, and that an American Congress can be found who will say that their orders and decrees are not to be interferred with by the supreme judicial tribunal of the U.S.? If so, then all we have to do is to withdraw all our protestations in favor of free Government, and declare that we will quietly and ignominiously submit to the surrender of the priceless blessings of that system of government which has been transmitted to Uls; an illustriousancestry. Gentlemen well know that the SCOTUS has solemnly declared in the Milligan case, by a unanimous decision on the main point in the controversy, that there was no authority in these military tribunals either to try, convict, or punish any citizen who was not in the military or naval service of the U.S. But in this bill, in opposition to that decision of the supreme judicial tribunal of the country, it is not only proposed that none of the orders or decisions which may be made by these military commissions shall be revised by the POTUS, who is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy; but more than this, that these orders, findings, and decisions shall not be reviewed or interfered with by the judicial tribunals of the country. And, sir, is this the end of the war? Is this, then, to be the result of the sacrifice of the lives of so many 1000s of our people and the expenditure of countless millions of treasure, that now, when the war has terminated, when E. reigns throughout the borders of the Republic, the RePresentatives of 2/3rds of the States shall gravely determine to put the people of the remaining ten States under a military despotism? Is this the free Government of which we so much boast? Are these the doctrines that were taught us by the men who established our system of government? Sir, I declare it as my solemn conviction that no Government can long continue to be free where 1/3rd of its people and 1/3rd of its States are controlled by military power. You cannot, Mr. Speaker, hold 1/3rd of the people of this Union under military power, and at the same time Preserve the freedom of people of the other States. It is impos Slole. I object, therefore, to this bill on the broad ground that it is a blow aimed at the overthrow of our system of government. I do not believe (and in this I mean no disrespect to any gentleman on this floor) that the men who support this bill, whatever may be the oof their intentions, are the friends of the Union or of free government. I do not believe that the men who desire to impose this measure upon these States are willing that this government shall be controlled and administered in accordance with the Constitution of our fathers. I believe, on the contrary, that it is an attempt to maintain party ascendency by excluding from all, voice in the Government, a large portion of the voters of this nation. Have we, Mr. Speaker, forgotten the ser mon of our divine Redeemer on the Mount? Are we to act as men who have no love or charity in their hearts? Are hatred, malice, and revenge to usurp the holy functions of Christian charity? o, we intend to perpetuate the Union of these States by the principles of hate? Do we expect to make the people of the South love the Union by trampling upon rights as sacred to them as they can be to us? Do we expect to perpetuate the principles of free government by blotting them out entirely in 1/3rd of the Republic? Is revenge to be per petual? I trust not, Mr. Speaker. I trust, sir, we shall not enter upon any such unfortunate experiment as is proposed by this bill; and I pray the Almighty Ruler of nations that He may inspire the American people with such wisdom that they may understand the grave responsibilities of the hour; that they may be aroused to realize, and to realize at once, the volcano upon which we are standing; that they may appreciate the fact that their system of government is threatened, and that if they venerate the character of their revolutionary sires, if they love and cherish the institutions which have been transmitted to them by those patrioticancestors, if they would perpetuate their RFG, they must remember that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Let us rise equal to the great occasion, and animated by no paltry Considerations of mere party or sectional animosi ties, let us, I beseech you, Mr. Speaker, aban don these dangerous experiments and unwar ranted usurpations of power, and labor with a patriotic devotion to unite again all these States and the people of all these States in the stron and enduring bonds of mutual.an interest, and together go forward in the achievement of that grand destiny which most certainly awaits this country as a united people, if we are but true to the of these States and the great principles of our Constitution.