Mr. MCDOUGALL. I object to the amendment, and in objecting to the amendment I object to the portion of the bill to which it is amendatory. To both I object. They are both violations of law, of fundamental law. GenlSherman , it is true, may have, by virtue of his military power, been able to give to the persons within his particular Jurisdiction for the time be exercised military authority. Beyond the time that he exercised military authority or that some commander did who occupied his place, the power did not exist. He placed certain persons in possession of certain property, that he had the power, the just possession is if you please, at thattime, when he made his arrangements and made his contracts, cannot be disputed, because he was in military possession. but he gave a processionary right limited by his military power, and that power was governed by his. Beyond that the right of war does not go and never did. While these lands were within his jurisdiction and under his military power he gave to certain persons a temporary right of possession. Now it is proposed to give them, what? A legal right of possession y virtue of an act of Congress. Let me ask the gentlemen on the other side, lawyers many, how you can give a man a legal right of possession by act of Congress against a law or against the legal right of another? All that part of this bill is simply a provision to justify men, under the armed force of the Government, in maintaining a possession not according to the rules of law; the law that governs myself, that governs you, Mr. President, and governs us all. I say that provision of this bill is cardinally wrong. GenlSherman, I know, understood the science and art of war; he is a scholar and an accomplished gentleman, of whom I speak with great respect. Be understood that as long as his arms covered these people they were within his military protection, and that when the armies were with 1 drawn they would be subject to the civil law of the country, that is, of the Federal and State Governments. There is a great mistake about this bill, in my judgment. I would like to protect the men and women of African descent as well as on man on this floor. but it must be done according to the laws which we inherited, which belong to us, and which have to be continued to to come if we are to maintain this republic intact and to be free men. This bill provides that GenlSherman s grantees may have a possessory title for a given time. The amendment of the Senfrom Illinois, the chairman of the ComJudiciary, limits it. I considered, and agreed to: What is a possessory title? Gentlemen may not be familiar with the term; I am familiar with it. All the Indian tribes have what we call. by way of grace, possessory titles. They had the title 1st, they owned all the woods, they owned all the prairies, they owned all the land which we have sweat from them as with a bosom of destruction. e allowed them what we call, in technical language a possessory title; that is, a title which is goo against every, body except the Government, and we can drive them or carry them away as we please. That is a processionary title, according to law as r corded in all the books.