Mr. HOWARD. I shall vote against this amendment because I deem it entirely unnecessary if the purpose of the mover of it is to re enact the Constitution arid that would seem to be his purpose so far as he has indicated it, but more especially if his object be to limit and restrain the presentjurisdiction of courts martial or military commissions. I believe the law at present is sufficiently settled and definite as to the jurisdictien of that kind of courts. The mover of the amendment seems to entertain the idea that he is reasserting the principles of the Constitution in the amendment which he offers. I do not so regard it. It is very true the 5th article of the amendments of the constitution speaks of cases arising in the military or naval service of the U.S., or in the militia when called into actual service. In those special cases it is not necessary, according to that amendment, that the accusation should be presented in the form of an indictment against the accused; and that is the sole effect of the clause, and it relates to a comparatively small portion of military offenses. It can apply only to such military offenses as are punishable capitally, or which in themselves are infamous crimes. n such cases in the civil service there must be an indictment. That is the entire meaning and application of the clause. I do not loo ' upon”article 5 of the amendments to the Constitution as giving any juris diction at all to courts martial or military commissions. It has nothing to do with these courts; it does not provide for the establishment or creation of those courts, but only secures the right of an accused party charged with a capital or otherwise infamous offense the right to be indicted by a grand jury of the proper number. It is not this source from which we derive authority to establish military commissions, but from those clauses of the Constitution which authorize Congress to make rules and regulations for the 'government of the land and naval forces, to raise and support armies, and to carry on war. These, as Iunderstand, are the sources of the power to establjsh courts martial and military commissions, and I know of no clause in the Constitution which limits the jurisdiction of courts mar tial or military commissions further than they are understood to be limited by the laws of war, unless Congress should see fit to limit their jurisdiction. The source of power for the establishment of these courts, in myjudgment, is not found in the 5th article of the amendments, nor in that article which provides that in all criminal cases the accused shall be entitled to a trial by jury without any distinction of cases which are military in their nature or civil in their nature. The whole power is derived from the authority of Congress to raise and support armies, to carry on war, and to make in es and regulations for the government of the land and naval forces of the U.S. In these respects we have the same power and authority that any other Government possesses over the whole subject. Fearing, therefore, that the effect of this amendment may be to restrict and restrain unnecessarily and injuriously the just jurisdiction of courts martial and military commissions, and that its purposes will not be really to reenact the Constitution, which would be an idle ceremony, utterly use less, not. to bestow upon it worse epithets, 1 must vote against the amendment. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yous 12, nays 18; So the amendment was non-concurred in.