Mr. NIBLACK. Whether true or not the fact is an immaterial one in the consideration of the legal points involved. I again admit there were some raids into that State, but no insurrection. It never was the theater of war in the sense in which that term was used in the decision to which the gentleman refers and to which I am referring. But, sir, as I was remarking, the civil rights bill declared that every person either born or naturalized within the U. States, without regard to race or color, shall be deemed a citizon of the U.S. That is general; it applies to the lately rebellious States as much as to the loyal States. The Freedmen's Bureau bill recognized people in all sections of the country, and especially in the southern States, and of all races and colors, as being citizens of the U.S., entitled to the protection of the laws of the U.S. Now, sir, I care not how great the crimes of any citizen may have been, or what may have been his short comings, what may have been his degree of disloyalty or of his rebellion against. Government of the U.S., he is still a citizen if he falls within the provisions of our laws in that respect, and is entitled to all the protection of any other citizen in the administration of the laws. If he shall be convicted of his crimes it must be under some law constitutionally enacted. conviction even of the highest crime does not ne.his civil rights or destroy his citizenship unless that conviction shall be followed by capital punishment. It is no more lawful to feloniously assault or kill a person under conviction for a high crime than the most worthy citizen. Therefore, every man entitled to the protection of the Constitution and laws of the U.S. can claim the benefit of this decision, and can insist on being tried by a jury of his countrymen. The Constitution on that subject says that — “The trial of all crimes, except in casesof impeach ment, shall be by jury.” Not in one section, not of one class of people, not of one class of crimes, but the .P. crimes, except the case of impeachment, shall be by jury. This bill, therefore; runs counter to that provision of the Constitution. The Constitution also provides, as is quoted in the decision to which } have referred, much of the argument in that decision being founded upon this provision, that — “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwiseinfamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in casesarising in the land or nayal forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger;” “norshall any person be deprived; life, liberty, or property without due process of aW. That provision is plain and unequivocal; there is no. any doubt about the construction of it, and it is against the authority claimed in this 3rd section, the assumed right to try civilians, persons not connected with the Army or Navy or the militia in actual service in time of war, by military commission. But the 4th section is, in my judgment, so far as it goes, more objectionable in some respects than any other portion of the bill, though not so important, H. aps; in its consequences as some others. It provides — That courtsandjudicial officersof the U.S shall not issuewrits of habeascorpus in behalf of persons in military custody, unless, some commissioned officer on in the district wherein the person is detained shall indorse upon said petition a statement certifying, upon honor, that he has knowledge, or information as to the causeand circumstancesof the alleged detention, and that he believesthesame to wrongful; be and further, that he believes that the indorsed petition is preferred in good faith, and in furtherance of justice, and not to hinder or delay the punishment of crime. All personsput under military arrest by virtue of this act shall be tried without unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted. Now, Mr. Speaker, if this bill contained no other obnoxious provisions, that would be sufficient to induce me to vote against it. It is proposed that in the P. condition of the country the right shall be given to suspend the writ of habeascorpus, when the Constitu.tion guaranties that the writ of habeas co shall only be suspended in time of rebellion or invasion. On that subject the Constitution says: “The privilege of the writ of habeascorpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” To authorize Congress, therefore, to suspend the writ of habeascorpus there must be an existing rebellion, or else an invasion of the country. This has already been conceded by some gentlemen who have seen the importance of this question. But they have attempted to apologize for the exercise of this power, or to argue in favor of it, on the ground that the country is still in a state of war. Well, Mr. Speaker, if this country is still in a state of war the people are not aware of it. There are, I concede, some slumbering embers still remaining of that great fire which swept over the States lately in rebellion, but I am only surprised, considering the terrible struggle through which the country has passed, that we have not had more lawlessness and irregularities than we have had following the dissolution of our great armies. Mr. Speaker, the President was authorized early in the war to declare States in insurrection under certain circumstances. This power, in my judgment, carried with it the right to declare when the insurrection had ceased. The President long since proclaimed that the rebellion had ceased and that the country was again at peace. Our soldiers enlisted for a given time, or during the war. After the cessation of hostilities, in the spring of 1865, all, or at least nearly all, of our soldiers enlisted during the war were, with the approbation of congress, as I infer from the circumstances, mus: tered out of the service, because the war had terminated, and because the terms upon which they had enlisted had been complied with. And yet more than a year and a half after these volunteer soldiers were mustered out of service, because the war had closed, we are met by the declaration in this House that the country is still at war, and that, being thus at war, we are justified in taking military jurisdiction of all the country lately in rebellion, and of suspending the privileges of the writ of habeascorpus throughout its limits. ow, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to go into the questions of international law disccussed by the Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. BANks, 1 defining the different degrees of hostility which may exist from time to time between 2 nations at war with each other. Theorize as we may, the common sense of mankind will pronounce that when one army totally and unconditionally surrenders to the other the war is at an end. Applying that proposition to our condition, war ceased to exist in this country more than a year and a half ago. A well man needs no remedies; it is only when he is sick that you can require him to submit to medicinal applications. A country at peace does not need and ought not to allow martial law and other summary remedies in cident to a state of war. Gentlemen on the other side feel and recognize this. To obviate this difficulty they are now driven to assert that a state of war still exists between this Government and the people of the States to be affected by this bill. they can succeed in establishing this proposition there will then, and only then, be some pretext for the war measures proposed in this bill. the and last section of the bill we are considering reads as follows: Sec. 5. Abife: That no sentence of any military commission or thorized, affecting tribunal hereby authe life, or liberty of any person shall be executeduntil it is approved by the officer in command of the district, and the laws and regulations for the government of the Army shall not be affected by this act, except in so far as they conflict with its provisions. This section, Mr. Speaker, does not require more than a passing notice. It is intended as a limitation on the power conferred in the 3rd section of the bill. It does not obviate any of the constitutional objections to that section, nor in any other manner materially in prove it. It would be murder to take the life of a civilian under the sentence of a military com: mission or tribunal, as provided for in this 3rd section. The effect of this last section could only be to make the commanding officer a party to such murder, or where a civilian is thus imprisoned, by his approval to make him liable for a false imprisonment. Sir, it is unreasonable, it is unjust, to place any gal lant officer of the American Army in such a dilemma. Sir, I yield to no man in my admiration for the Army of this country. We have always had and now have an Army which compares very favorably with that of any other country of the civilized world. It is an Army of which the country is and always has been justly proud. And I am willing to avail myself of every fit ting opportunity to honor that Army and every worthy member of it. And in the objection which I make to the military jurisdiction which is proposed to be conferred by this bill I in tend no reflection upon any officer or soldier connected with that Army. But we all know that the officers and men of our Army are selected, not with reference to their knowledge of municipal laws and the rights of persons and of property, but with reference to their gal lantry, their bravery, and their prowess as soldiers in the field. Military officers are exFo to have some knowledge of international w; but they are not required, so far as I am advised, to give any special attention to the local or municipal laws of the country or to the manner of proceeding in the civil courts. They are, therefore, not selected with reference to this matter of civil administration, but for other and far different purposes. And I really think that any officer of the Army of the U.S., no matter what he might feel that his duty required of him, would do otherwise than very reluctantly assume the duties required of him by this bill should it become a law. Now, Mr. Speaker, I concede as fully as any gentleman here the pressing necessity that exists for a full and complete restoration of this Government. Our greatest need is to be again united and to have all the States once more in harmony with each other and with the Federal Government. In our present condition the power of this Government is section alized and localized. No measure can pass this Congress in opposition to certain localities and to certain interests. No one, therefore, regrets more than I do that the majority here have not been able to agree upon some proposition or to adopt some line of policy tending toward a speedy reunion of the whole country. To me the process has seemed an easy one ever since the present Congress assembled. And that is, whenever a gentleman presents himself as a Senator or Representative from anyone of the lately rebellious States, armed with his proper credentials and possessing all the necessary and proper qualifications for the position he claims, admit him at once, and so on, considering each case separately if thought more desirable, until all the States and districts are again represented. This once accomplished, all other mine r matters could soon be, and I have faith soon would be, adjusted. The majority here, however, assume that some preliminary and affirmative legislation is necessary before Sens&Reps can be admitted from those States or before the legal existence even of those States can be recognized. If this be so, why has not such legislation been adopted? Ample time has intervened. As I have already remarked, the majority have power to pass laws independently of the President's objections. They seem never to have failed to pass any measure over the President's veto when they earnestly resolved to do so. Why, then, this delay about reconstruction? 1st one proposition is broughtforward and then another. } is in turn discussed and then postponed, laid aside, or defeated. Just before the adjournment of the last session of this Congress certain amendments to the constitution were agreed to and submitted to the several States for adoption. Recently, however, they too have been cast aside as insufficient for the emergency. It is now pretty well understood that these amendments were only a bridge to carry the majority over the late elections. It is now claimed that more radical measures must be resorted to, and that the military power of the Government, must be invoked to do the work. As has been well said by the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. RAYMoND, a recurrence to military power in matters of civil administration is usually the last resort of a decaying republic. Gentlemen on the other side will pardon me, I hope, if I confess that the impression has stolen upon me during our deliberations here that complete and final reconstruction (as it is.) is just what a large proportion of them do not want at this time. With the lately seceded States unrepresented and uncounted in the Electoral College the majority stand a good chance for a new ‘. of power in 1868. With these States represented and their votes counted it is not so certain with them. In this I do not intend to impute corrupt or base motives to anyone. Gentlemen undoubtedly believe that the policy of procras: tination is the better policy, else they would not adopt it. All seem to be anxious that something looking to restoration ought to be done, yet nothing efficient for any practical purpose is done. Now, is there not some purpose in this seeming disagreement? Some gentlemen of the majority have reluctantly admit ted of late that Congress has no affirmative }. on the subject. They denounce the resident for having a policy, but adopt none themselves. I have therefore come to the deliberate conclusion that the long talked of policy of Congress in regard to this subject simply means no policy and indefinite procras: tination. By this means this question of reconstruction will again be thrown as a foot ball into the canvass of 1868. I have also ceased to expect that any practical measure of reconstruction will be adopted or at most be allowed to go into full effect until after the next presidential election. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENs] has had the candor to announce, on more than one occasion I believe, that the continued ascend eney of his party is a matter to be provided for at almost every hazard, and that to that end the majority are justified in using all the powers in the possession of Congress. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are many methods of carrying an election, there are many means that may be used to perpetuate party ascend ency; but the last 5 or 6 years have dem onstrated that one of the surest means of car rying an election is not to allow your opponents to vote. This the majority doubtless well understand. Hence perhaps we ought not to expect them to place ballots within the reach of those whose votes they may not be able to control. Then, again, high tariffs and other monopoly interests are holding high carnival in the present divided and disorganized condition of the country. With the States all represented in Congress they might not fare so well. Better let well enough alone, say some who believe in those things, and they are in no haste about reconstruction. Thus it is, sir, that the high est and dearest interests of this country are made subordinate to party exigencies and to oand particular interests. No wonder, then, that trade languishes and commerce declines. I hope, sir; I am mistaken in some of the predictions I have made today. Hf shall find that I am, none will be more rejoiced than I will be. Hoping all things, trusting all things, I shall await with intense interest the result of this measure and of everything else affect.ing the unity and prosperity of this great country.