Mr. BANKS of Massachusetts addressed the House. [His remarks will be published in the Appendix] Speech entitled Reconstruction. February 9, 1867. The House having under consideration the bill (H.R.No. 1143) to provide for the more effectualgovernment of the insurrectionary States Mr. BANKS said: Mr. SpeakER: Nothing was further from my purpose than to enter into a discussion of this question at this time. My 1st intention was, as it always has been my desire, to support all measures reported by the ComReconstruction. On reflection and a more careful examination of the military bill for the government of the insurgent States, it seemed I am compelled to change my purpose; and I wish to state briefly my reasons for that conclusion. It is my belief that the States lately in rebellion are still States of the Union. They have not lost their legal character as States. They were made States by the action of the people and of the General Government, and they cannot change that condition except by the consent of the General Government. That consent has never been given. The general grounds for this Too I shall not attempt to enter upon at this time, but I venture to say that there is nothing in theory of law or fact which deprives them of their legal existence as States of the Union. But Congress, by the votes of 2 Houses, with approval of the President, by many acts from 1861 to 1865, have deprived the people of these States of all right to cooperate in the government of this country. The loyal and disloyal alike are denied this privilege. The States as they stand are leff with a legal recognized existence, but the people are without power, as a matter of right, to participate in the Government. Now, I understand the position of these people to be this, according to received doctrines of international law: there are 3 conditions of a Government. It may be at peace, at war, or in an intermediate condition of suspended war, which is called a state of siege. The people are in exercise of political privileges, more or less extensive, according to the will of the governing power, but without any absolute right of their own to control affairs. That is the condition of the people of the in surgent States. It is not one of peace or war; it is a state of siege. We hold them in this condition until governments shall be established by the consent of Congress in which they shall participate. This is a military condition. The fundamental law of these States is martial law. Whatever is done or has been done by Congress, by the President, or by military officers, has been done and will be done in virtue of the military power and the right given in the Constitution to declare war. We may allow them to exercise such power as may not be inconsistent with public safety. The limita of our power in this regard is that which is necessary for the safety and welfare of the Union according to the theory of our Government. This is the theory of continental writers upon international law, and it has been adopted by the law officers of this Government. It is not my purpose to complain of what has been done. I am willing to assume tia: it has been done in good faith and with a proper regard for the rights of the Government and of the people. But this much I will say: the result of what has been done in the insur. gent States is to bring the enemies of this country foremost into power, and to place under their jurisdiction and control all the loyal and well disposed citizens of those States. To that result I object; and I am in favor of any measure the most stringent and the most thorough that shall reverse that condition of things, repress the enemies of the country, and elevate the well disposed and loyal portion of that population. Now, sir, I regret to be compelled to speak of the bill which has been reported by the JtCom on Reconstruction as I shall do. It seems to me that any bill which shall place these States under military or martial law is proper; and I do not object to any measure which shall, propose to accomplish that purpose. But this bill proposes to do more, much more. It establishes what may be termed a complete frame of civil government, to be administered by the regular Army without restriction or limitation of power except the discretion of its officers. The regular Army administering this power is without responsibility to the Constitution, to Congress, or to the people. It is responsible only to the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and those charged with its administration. Whatever malfeasance may occur can be tried only by the officers, under its own rules and regulations of the Army. Now, if I am mistaken in that interpretation of its terms, I shall willingly ask pardon of the committee. But if I am right, then I think that no member of this House will desire that this bill shall be a law without some modifications. I read from the 3rd section of this bill, as follows: SEc. 3. Abife:, That it shall be the duty of eachofficerassigned as aforesaid to protect all persons in their rights of personand property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of public peace the and criminals and to this end he may allow civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and to try offenders, or, when in his judgment it may benecessary for the trial of offenders, he shall have power to organize military commissions or purpose, anything tribunals for that in the constitution and laws of the socalled States to the contrary notwithstanding: and all legislative or judicial proceedings or processes to prevent or control the proceedingsof said military tribunals, and all interference by said pretended Sthtaotreitygovernmentswith the exerciseof militaryau under this act, shall be void and of no effect. This gives them the control of all questions of persons and property. It enables them to recognize existing State governments just so far as they shall choose. It enables them to make such reports of the condition and character of these governments as they please, and the people, without means to obtain otherinformation, will be compelled to receive such reports as official, and to a great extent to accept their conclusions. It authorizes them, if dissatisfied with the State tribunals, to establish military commissions and tribunals of their own, “and all legislative or judicial proceedings or pro: cesses to prevent or control the proceedings of said military tribunals” is declared to be “void and of no effect.” That power is not qualified in any respect. If it is intended to have reference only to the Legislatures and the judiciary of the insurgent States, it is unobjectionable. But it is not so limited and is liable at least to the interpretation I have given it by those who are to administer it. There is no positive limitation to these State tribunals fo Legislatures. On the con trary, the 4th section provides that no court or judicial officers of the U.S shall issue writs of habeascorpus in behalf of persons in miitary custody “unless some commissioned officers shall certify in advance that he b?ealtie, ves tha e detention to be wrongful. Now with the paragraph immediately preced wg v, wxich I have read, would imply that Cowgress will have as little right to proceed against whem in a legislative as in a judicial capacity. do not think that the members of this House will be willing to pass an act which will bear that construction, and I trust that so much of this bill as implies, if it does not establish, a frame of civil government which embraces all the powers given by the Constitution of the U.S., except perhaps the right to treat with foreign nations, to be administered by the officers of the regular Army without responsibility except to any officers under Army regulations, will be stricken from the bill, or so modified as to obviate that objection. I to repeat that any power of a military character which may be demanded for the protection of the people of that part of the country I shall be entirely willing to concede. Mr. Speaker, I have another objection. There is not a line or a letter in the body of this bill which limits the duration of its operation or or looks to the establishment of any other government except this which is to be administered by the regular Army. I know that in to the preamble it is stated that this bill is to be is in force until loyal and republican State govis erminents can be legally established. But the prea mble is no part of the law; and my conviction, flood upon personal experience, compels me to say that I do not think the adminis istration of the officers of the regular Army o, will tend to the reestablishment of a loyal and republican government. History does not jus a tify us in expecting the restoration of overthrown republican or democratic governments, through the intervention of purely military governments or of standing armies. I have never known a tendency to such results, and I f do not believe that if this bill shall be passed, with its unrestricted and unlimited power, it will have any other effect than to crush out the spirit of loyalty so far as that spirit has an existence in those States. o Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the hope. of this country for reconstruction of the government is in the masses of the people, the uneducated, the poor, the powerless masses of the people of these States, whom we ought to … educate and elevate. Whenever we shall have so far progressed in our work as to give them power and a comprehension of what they and their descendants are to gain from the Government of the U.S., they will become the truest and best friends this Government has ever had. Against this democracy, this lower order of society in the insurgent States, of there is the aristocracy, influential, educated, a wealthy, powerful, and absolute in its control or of public action beyond any aristocracy elsewhere existing. In the administration of purely military law I believe that the influence of the is regular Army will fraternize with this aristoc or racy against this democracy; and so far as this occurs we shall be deprived of the only basis we can have for the restoration of a loyal or democratic Government in this country. …. If there is any hope for the Government of o: s: the U.S., (and, sir, I sometimes fear that we may be deprived of even that which a was left to Alexander after he apportioned his estates to his favorites—hope,) if there be any hope, it is in the millions of the common people of the South; and if we have anything to fear. from any portion of the population there, it is from those implacable public enemies who are o, wedded to the doctrines and the privileges of o aristocracy, and to whom we owe exclusively. all the sufferings and sorrows of the age in which we live. Whatever measures, whatever form of government shall be adopted, I wish to place myself with the democracy and against the aris.9 Reconstruction–ir. Banks, tocracy of these States; and I fear that the machinery of this bill will not tend to that end. I have another suggestion to make. The bill proposes to give to the General of the Army power to appoint these officers. I have no fear of GenlGrant. On the contrary, I am sorry to say that I believe he may be the only man to whom the country can turn in its present disturbed condition for safety. I say this with regret, not because I distrust him in the least degree, but because I am sorry it should even be said that there is but one man or that there are not multitudes of men to whom the people can turn for relief from our present trouble. It is easy for Governments to sacri fice public men. It is not impossible for the friends of GenlGrant to place him in such a position that he must either be sacrificed or be compelled to indorse conduct which no true friend of his could approve. If he acts with the President in the execution of this law we have not much to hope, unless the President's position be materially changed, the probability of which all gentlemen around me seem to doubt. He still retains the command of the Army. He can assign to such duties as he pleases all its officers. The superior and subordinate officers depend upon i. for promotion, and covet his favor and patronage. If GenlGrant resists his views of public pol: icy he will not unlikely find the superior and the subordinate officers in opposition. And with the higher officers against him and the lower officers against him, surrounded by hostile communities, if he is composed of mortal dust it is certain he will suffer, and with him the hopes of the country that rest upon him. Appeals from his decisions will be constantly made, his authority impaired, and his success defeated. There are men who have been in such machinery. It is an engine of destruction. Its power cannot be resisted or controlled. If the General of the Army, who is to be charged with the execution of this law, is required to run counter to the course of the Administration, and is undermined by the patronage and the promotions offered to the officers below him, he must submit to that power and be destroyed, or he must seize the military power of the Government and fight his way to a different result. Neither result, I am sure, can be desired for him or for the country if it can be avoided. so For these reasons I regret to say that I hesi State to give my vote for the bill; and I trust that it may be amended so as to relieve it from features to which I have referred, and to give to these States the protection of whatever military power is necessary for the protection of the people. But I desire that that military power shall be accompanied by a proposition to establish popular governments, based upon the loyal people in one or more of these States, as a condition precedent to the exercise of this military power; so the idea that the 1st object of the act is to establish governments for the loyal people will be forced upon the attention of the Executive, of the people, and of the Army.” And this, sir, leads me to speak for a few moments of the various propositions which have been made upon the subject of reconstruction. Take, for instance, proposition of universal amnesty and universal suffrage.