Mr. TRUMBULL. As muc stress is laid by the Senfrom Indiana upon his assumption that the Government of the U.S. has no right to appropriate money to take care ofindigent persons, as he says, and as he seems to regard this as an act of the 1st without going over the argument aigmapinreIsswioisnh, to call his attention to 2 statutes of the U.S. passed many years ago. Then I should like to know what the difference in principle isbetween the cases to which I shall refer and the one under consideration. I read from the 27th section of the act in regard to the slave trade, passed in 1819: “That the POTUS he and he is hereby, authorized to make luoh regulations and arrangements as he may deem expedientfor the safe kceing, support, and removal beyond the limits of the rated total or all such names. Mulattos or personsof color as l maybe so delivered and brought. withiii their jurisdiction“ This refers to Africans or persons of color who are brought within the jurisdiction of the U.S. for the purpose of reducing them to slavery "and to appoint a proper person or persons. residing upon the coast of their, as agentor agents for recciving the negroes. ulnttoos, or persons of color delivorer from on board vessels seized in the prosecution of the slave trade by the commandersof the U.S. armed vessels.” There was an act passed over 40 years ago authorizing the POTUS to appoint an agent to take charge of these very colored peOple that we are proposing to take charge at now through the o wars of the freedmens Bureau. They are now cast upon the Government by the war. In the instances provided for under the act prohibiting the sparovse trade they were negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color thrown upon the charity of the Government when they were taken out of the os session of those who were seeking to reuce them to slavery, or were by stress of weather driven on our coast. Do they occupy any different relation to the Government whion, as the result of the war, they are thrown destitute and helpless upon the Government, than they would if, as a consequence of the slave trade or an attempt to carry on the slave trade, they were thrown helpless and destitute upon our s ores? Again, sir, in 1860, before this rebellion broke out, on the 16th of June, the year before the rebellion, it was provided by an act of congress “ That it shall and maybelnwflil for the POTUS to enter into contract with any person or persons, society or societies, or body corporate, for a term not exceeding 5 years. to receive from the U.S.tlirough theirduly constituted agent or agonts, iipon the coast of Africa, all negroes mulattocs or persons of color. (lclivered from on our vessels seizedin the prosecutionof the slave trade, by commandersof the I U.S. armed vessels, and to provide thesaid negrnes. inulattoes, and personsof color with comfortable clothing, shelter, and provisions for a period not exceeding one year from the date of their being landedon the coast of Africa. at a price in no case to exceed $100 for each person so clothed, shcltered, and provided with food: Provided, That any contract so made as aforesaid may be renewed by the President from time to time as found necessaryfor periods not to exceed 5 yearson each renewal.” It would seem as if this Freedmens Bureau act must have been co ied in part from this law. The Congress oft ie U.S. vested the POTUS with authority before the war to provide food shelter, and cothing for Africans token from this country to the coast of Africa, to feed them there for 5 years, and provided for the oppointment of agents 40 years ago to take c arge of such persons. Now, I should like to know if it was competent for Congress to do that (and I believe that power was never doubted, 5 why it may not do it in this case? Why is not the exi one just as great?