Mr. FARNSWORTH. The testimony of GenlSheridan has not yet been taken. All those whom I have named have testified with one accord that there is no other method of protecting loyal men, white or black, in those rebellious and disorganized States than by clothing the military with the necessary powers. I said of the General of the Army that I believed this bill was in accordance with his views. I cannot speak authoritatively or “by the card” so far as he is concerned. It is for the reason that we desired to bring these facts before the House that my colleague on the committee [Mr. PIKE] and myself have occupied the time of the House. My purpose is to nail to the counter this denial of the rebels and their sympathizers that these out rages and disorders exist. It is to place the matter of fact beyond a peradventure. There can be no possible doubt or question in reference to the matter when military commanders of different schools of politics, who have no political or personal ends to serve by their testimony, have stated under oath the true condition of things in the South. Now, Mr. Speaker, we need spend no more time upon the facts. I take it the fact is settled that adequate and necessary protection to the Union people in those States is not afforded and cannot be under the present system of government, because of the popular hatred which exists against all loyal men. I propose now to say a few words with regard to the bill itself and the power of Congress to pass such an act. It is claimed on the other side of the House that this bill is, in several particulars, in derogation of the Constitution. It is objected, in the 1st place, that we violate the Constitution by directing the General of the Army to assign officers of a rank not below that of brigadier general to the command of certain districts. It is said that as the Constitution clothes the President with the right to command the Army, therefore we cannot direct any other official to assign an officer of a par ticular rank to a special duty. I do not believe in that doctrine. I think that I can find numer ous instances in various statutes which have been enacted during the war wherein we have by law directed, for instance, that the Provost Marshal General shall perform a certain duty that the Judge Advocate General shall perform a certain duty; that the General of the Army or the Lieutenant General shall assign officers to certain duties. If we should declare in this bill that the General of the Army shall assign a particular officer, naming him, to a special duty, there might be some question raised about such a provision: but that Congress has a right to direct that officers of a certain grade shall be assigned by the General of the;: to particular duties seems to my mind a matter beyond controversy. Why, sir, the President only can command the Army in obedience to the law and for its execution. Congress commands both President and Army. It is said that the ComReconstruction have, in framing this bill, changed the provisions of a similar bill which was introduced by a Senfrom Oregon, [Mr. will LIAMs.] That is true. The ComReconstruction have struck out the words “by authority of the President.” I am very glad that this has been done; and I will state why. I want to put the President into a position, in which he will be obliged, by affirmative action, to place himself in the way of a law of congress, if he is disposed to obstruct the execution of that law. If you require the General of the Army to run to the President every time he wants to make an assignment of an officer to a particular duty, and the President chooses to say, “I am engaged and cannot attend to the matter now, ” and thus by a sort of negative action defeats a law of Congress, he is not placed in the position in which he would be if he should by a positive order direct Grant not to assign an officer to this particular duty. Let him thus array himself, if he will, against the express provisions of a law of Congress, and then he will be placed in a position where there will be no difficulty about dealing with him. I say again, that as to the right of Congress to direct that an officer of a particular grade shall be assigned for certain duty to a district, without even naming the district, I have no doubt whatever. It is said that by this bill we propose to up turn and destroy the civil tribunals in these insurrectionary States. Why, sir, who gave them civil tribunals? What kind of civil tribunals have they? The President stated, after the war had concluded, that those States were left without civil governments; that there was chaos there; that all civil government was overthrown. He said this repeatedly. Did anybody doubt it then? No. And his friends upon the other side of the House will not. I suppose, contend now that he was not right in so saying. Then if those States were left with. out civil governments at that time, who has iven them civil governments since? Where i. they derive their authority to set up civil governments? Have they any civil govern. ments which are entitled to recognition by the sovereign power of this nation? If they have set up any governments it has been under the direction of the POTUS. This is the 1st time, if we pass this act, that the Congress of the U.S. has passed a?y law giving them any kind of government. We are, sir, now doing what we ought to have done in May, 1865, an what, in all probability, Congress would have done had it been able to assemble and had an opportunity to legislate upon the subject. These are called civil governments, and yet the only tribunals they possess it seems are used for the protection of crime.