Mr. HENDRICKS. I was not able, Mr. President to agree with the ComJudiciary 1866. 315E in its conclusion to recommend this bill to the favorable consideration of the Senate, and I had intended rather fhlly to examine its provisions, but find my health is such today that I shall not be able very fully to consider it. I intend however, briefly to discuss what I think are c prominent features of the bill. It is entitled “ bill to enlarfe the powers of the Freedmenfs Bureau.” t sbbh dbe entitled IA bill to enlarge the powers and extend the jurisdiction of the Freedmens Bureau " and then the title would accurately define the force of the billi Upon the title itself, as indicating the purpose of the bill, I wish to ask Senators what are the reasons in favor of the enactment of this proposed law. Wh shall we now extend the powers of the Free mens Bureau? At the last session of Congress the original law creating that bureau was passed. We were then in the midst of the war; very considerable territory had been brought within the control of the union troops and armies, and within the scope of that territory, it was said, there were many freedmen who must be protected by a bill of that sort; and it was. mainly upon that argument that the bill was enacted. The Senate was very reluctant to enact the law cre ating the bureau as it now exists. There was so much hesitancy on the part of the Senate, that by a very lar c vote it refused to o. rec to the bill reportedfiiy the Senfrom Iassachusetts, [Mr. Sensory] from a committee of conference and I believe the honorable Senfrom Illinois, [Mr. Tnclsum.] who introduced this bill himself voted against that. bill; and why? That bill simply undertook to define the powers and duties of the Freedmens Bureau and its agents, and the Senate would not agree to confer the powers that that hill upon its face seemed to confer, and it was voted down and then the law as it now stands was enacte in general terms. There was very little aiiied, in ced, by the Senate refusing to pass the 1st bill and enactin the latter, for under the law as it passed the Freedmens Bureau assumed very nearly all the jurisdiction and to exercise all the powers contemplated in the hill reported by the Senfrom Massachusetts. Now, sir, it is important to note ver care fully the enlargement of the powers of this bureau proposed by this bill; and in the 1st place it proposes to make the bureau permanent. The last Congress would not agree to this. The bill that the Senate voted down did not limit the duration of the bureau and it was voted down, and the bill that the Senate agreed to provided that the bureau should continue during the war and only for one year after its termi nation. That was the judgment of the Senate at the last session. what has occurred since to change the judgment of the Senate in this important matter? What change in the condition of the country induces the Senate now to say that this shall be a permanent bureau or Dept of the Government, when at the last session it said it should cease to exist within one year after the conclusion of the war? Why sir, it seems to me that the country is now, and especially the southern States are now in u better condition than the Senate had reason to expect when the law was enacted. Civil government has been restored in almost all the southern States; the courts are restored in many of them i in many localities theyfle exercising their Jurisdiction within their particular localities without let or hinderance and why, I ask Senators, shall we make this bureau a perpetual and permanent institution of the government when we refused to do it at the last session?Mr. President, upon this subject I wish to call the attention of the Senate to the information that we have; and I intend 1st to read very briefly from the recent message of the POTUS in repl to the resolution adopted by the Senate on the 12th of December. He says: “I havethe honor to statethat thorebellion wowed by a portion of the people against the properly constituted authorities of the Government of the U.S. has been suppressed;that the U.S. are in possessionof every State in which the insurrection existed and that, as far as could bedone, the courts of the U.S. have been restored. ost offices reestnblished, and steps tuken to putintoc cctive operation the revenuelaws of the country. “As the result of the measures instituted by the Executive, with a view of inducin a resumption of the functions of the States comprehended in the inquiry of the senate, the pen is in NCarolina SCarolina. Georgia Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, an Tennessee, have reorganized their respective State governments, and are yicld in obedience to the laws and Government of the Upite States with more willingness and greater prom titudo than, under thocircumstances, could reason by have been anticipated. The proposed amendment to the con:zution providing fort onbolitionof slavery for overw thin the limits of the country has been ratified by one 1mm of those states with the exception of Mis sissipp, from which no official information has yet been received; and in nearly all of them measures have been adopted or are pendin to confer upon freedman rights and privileges which are ossenti to their comfort, protection, and security.” I)VlSll to call the attention of the Senate to the latter part of the sentence, “and in nearly all of them, ” that is, in nearly all of the Be ceding States, “measures have been adopted or are now pending to confer upon freedmen rights and privileges which are essential to their comfort, protection, and security.” The POTUS informs us that the southern States themselves are adopting measures with a view to the protection on pros perity of the colored people, and this within so shorta period after the close of the war,when we could scarcely have expected that the reorganization of the southern States would have gone so for, when we could scarcely have expected that the prejudices engendered by the war would have passed away to such an extent as that the southern States themselves would have taken this very important and desirable ens. r ste. fii the same connection I wish to read very briefly from the report of GenlGrant. I know it is claimed that GenlGrant says in this report that the Freedmens Bureau must be continued in the southern States. I wish Senators to observe precisel what sort of a Freedmens Bureau general rant says should be continued. He does not anywhere recommend the establishment of a despotism Within the southern States such as this bill proposes. GenlGrant proposes simply that small garrisons shall be continued in tesouthern Suites until order and quietare fully restored, and then that the troops shall be entirely withdrawn. Upon that an ject Iwill read from his report. He is not complimentary to the bureaii. It has been in existence some months, and I Will read what GenlGrant says of it: “I did not give the (ipsration of the Froqdmens Bureau that attention would hava done if more time had been at mydisposul. Conversationson the subject, however, with officers, connected with the bureau lead me to think that in someof the States, its affairshave not been conducted With goodJudgment or economy, and that the beliof, Widely spread among the freedmen of the southern States, that the lnnds of their former owners will, at least in part, be divided among them, has come from the agents of this bureau. This belief is seriously interfering with the willingness of the freedmen to make contracts for the comin year. In some form the Freedmens Bureau is an absolute noccssity until civil law is and enforced, socurin to thy freedmen established their rights and full protection. t pres mt, however it is independent of the military establishment of the countitjy, and seems to beoperatedby the dilforent cuts of the bureau accordin to their indiyidual notions. Everywhere General ownrd, the ablp headof the bureau, inadofriends by the just and fair instructions and advicehe gave: but the cpmplaint in SCarolinawas thatwhen he left things went on asbefore.” Again, he says: “The FreedmensBureau being scparated from the military establishment of the country requiresall the expense of aseparate organization, One does not neccssarily know what the other is (IOIDH, orwhat orders they are acting under. It seemsto me this could ho corrected by regardin every officer on troo dutizr with s in thesouthern totesasan agent of the sad men s Burenu and than haveall ordersfrom the head of the bureau sent through Dept commanders. This would createa responsibility that would secure uniformity of action throughout all the South; would insure theordersand instructions from the bond of the bureau being carried out, and Wouldrcliovofromduty and pay a largo number of employee sof the Governmentn.” Now, sir, to understand what GenlGrant means, I will turn to another part of his report: “Four years of war, during which law wasexecuted l only at the point of the bay onet throughout the States ip rebellion. hnvolcft the people possibly in a condition not to yield that rendyl obedicnce to civil author the American people are generully been in the habit of yielding. This would tend r the presence of small garrisons throughout those states necessary until such time as labor returns to its proper channel and ciVil author ty is full established. I did not meetany one, either those oldins) these under the Government or citizens of the sout cru States. who think it practicnbe to withdraw the military from the South roat present. The white and the black mutually the protection of the General Government. This is all I need at present read from this report and what, sir, are GenlGrants views? 1st, that the bureau has not been well conducted; each agent has acted upon his, own notions; there has been no uniformity of action; in many localities the agents have induced the blacks to believe that the lands of their former owners would be divided out among them. This impression, the General says, has induced the colored people to refuse to enter into contracts for labor the coming year. The bureau itself has prevented the adjustment of the labor of the outh; has prevented that state of things which must take place before there can be entire quiet in those States. Then, what is proposed? Not that we shall send out an army of civil officers to govern the southern States; but he proposes that in the southern States small garrisons shall be continued, not of colored troops, for he so s that produces evil, but of white troops, until the civil law is fully established and the courts become fully organized to adjust the affairs of the eo ple. I intended to read on this subject fiom the NewYork Tribune in reply to some letters which the Senfrom Massachusetts has read to the Senate this morning. That paperso s that, by many communications from the sonern States, it is clear that things are in a very much better condition than was to be expected; that labor is returning to its channels; that peace is prevailing; and that harmon between the colored people and the whites will soon be the result of) the present state of thin s. Iin tended reading from the article, but find the pay or is mislaid. hen, sir, from this evidence that we have before us, the statement of facts by the POTUS, the statement of facts by the Lieutenant General of the U.S., after a visit into the southern States, what reason is there for the Senate to pass a bill enlar ging the powers of the Freedmens Bureau, a bureau of) altogether too much power now. It is important, I believe, if this bureau is to continue, that its powers shall be more accuratcl defined, because it seems now to do whatever it pleases. I believe it has extended its jurisdiction over States not within the provisions of the law. I believe Kentucky has been brought within the sco e and sphere of its government, when the law did not contemplate it and did not allow it. I believe the DistCol has been madea province within its government and control, and I think the law did not contemplate or allow that. Then, sir, this bill proposes that the bureau shall be ermnnent. Ins Senators, in the 1st place, i they are now, with the most satisfactory information that is before the body, willing to do that which they refused to do at the last session of Congress. We refused to pass the law when it proposed to establish a permanent Dept; shall we now, when the waris over, whenthe States are returning to their places in the Union, when the citizens are returning to their allegiance, when peace and quiet, to a very large extent, prevail over that country, when the courts are reestablished; is the Senate now, with this information before it, willing to make this a permanent bureau and Dept of the Government? The next proposition of the bill is, that it shall not be confined any longer to the southern States, but that it shall have a government over the States of the North as well as of the South. I call the attention of the Senate to the 3rd section of the law which it is proposed to"amend: The President mar. by and with the advice “rid consent of the Senate. appoint on asst commssioner for eachof the States declared to he in insurrection, not exceeding ten in number, who shall under the direction of the Commissioner, aid in the execution of the provisions of this act.” The commissioners may be appointed under the original law for each of the States that have been declared to be in a state of insurrection. The President and the bureau had no power to send commissioners into any State except a State that had been declared to be in a condition of insurrection. Now, what are the provisions of the bill before the Sehatc? That the act to establisha Bureau for the Relief of Freedman and Refugees. approvedMarch 3, 1865s. hall continue in forceuntil otherwise provided by law, and extend to refugem and freedmenin all parts of U.S.: and the President maydivide the section of country cuntaiuinirsuch refugeesand freedmeninto districts. eachcontaining oneor more States. not to exceed 12 in number. The old law allowed the President to appoint a commissioner for each of the States that had been declared to be in rebellion, one for each of the 11 seceding States, not to exceed ten in all. This bill provides that the jurisdiction of the bureau shall extend wherever within the limits of the U.S. refugees or freedmen have gone. Indiana has not been a State in insurrection, and yet there are 1,000s of refugees and freedmen who have gone into that State within the last 3 years. This bureau is to become a governing power over the State of Indiana according tot e provisions of the bill. Indiana, that provides forher own paupers, Indiana, that provides for the government of her own people, may, under the provisions of this bill, be placed under a, government that our fathers neirer contemplate, a government that must be most distasteful to fre men. I know it may be said that the bureau will not probablybe extended to the northern States. If it is not intended to be extended to those States, why amend the old law so as to give this power? When the old law limited the jurisdiction of this bureau to the States that had been declared in insurrection, is it not enough that the bureau should have included one State, the State of Kentucky, over which it had no rightful original jurisdiction; and must we now amend it so as to place all the States of the Union within the power of this irresponsible sub government? This is one objection that I have to the bill, and the next is the expense that it must necessarily impose upon the peole. We are asked by the Sreedmens Bureau inits estimates to appropriate $11, 745, 050; nearly 12 million dollars for the support of this bureau and to ca on its operations during the coming year. will read what he says: It is estimated that the amount required for the expenditures of the bureau for the fiscal year commencinr January. 1866w. ill be$11, 745, 050T. he sum is requisite for the following purposes: Salaries of asst and sub asst commission. 6147. 500 Snlnriof clerks. 82, 800 Stationery and printing. 63.000 iiuilrisand fuel. 13. 1"!) lothin: for distribnti, 754 1Ml0 (ouimissarystores 4, 100. 250 Medical Hopnrtme 500.000 Transportation. 1, 980,000 Sclioo super intent 21,000 Sites for schoolhouses and asylums" 8,000, 111) Tclegmphing. 1841) Making in all the sum which I havementioned. The old system under this law that was before the Commissioner when he made this estimate requires an expenditure to carr on its operations of nearly 12 million dollars, an that to protect, as it is called and to govern 4 millions of the people of the U.S., within a few millions of the entire co st of the Government under Mr. Adamss administration, when the population of the States had gone up to many milhons. How is it that a Dept that has but a nrtial jurisdiction over the people shall cost a most as much for the management of 4 million people as it cost to manage the whole Government, for its Army, its Navy, its legislative and judicial Depts, in former years? My learned friendfrom Kentucky suggests that the expenses under John Quincy Adamss administration were about 13 million dollars. What was the population of the U.S. at that time I am not prepared to state, but it was far above 4 millions. Now, to manage 4 million people is to cost the people of the U.S., under the law as it stands, nearly as much as it cost the people to manage the whole affairs of the Government under the administration of Mr. John Quincy Adonis. This extraordinary excnse to the people in in time when the public debt is a great burden to them would be a reason with me to vote to repeal the old law. Is it a reason to Senators why they shall add to the great expenditures of thisbureau? What is the increase of exenditure which this bill provides for? The 0dbill provided for one Commissioner and ten asst commissioners. This hill provides for the same Commissioner and 12 asst commissioners. It also provides that the country shall be divided up into sub districts, and an agent appointed for each districtwithin the discretion of the bureau, each county and parish constituting a district. I ask the attention of the Senate while I read this section: SEC. 2. Abife: That the Commissioner, wit: the approval of the President, shall divide each district into a number of sub districts, not tiwtxceed the number of countiesor parishesin each EI That will be a sub district for every county and parish in the U.S and shall assignto eachsubdistrict at least one agent, either a citizen, officer of the rirniy, or enlisted man, who, if an officer shall serve without additional compensation or allownucc, and ifncitizen oroulisted man shall reccivea salar nut exceedinirSljOO or annum: and such agent shall, before entering on the duties of his ofice, take the oath prescribedin the 1st section of the act to which this is an amendment. Each as sistant commissioner may emplo not exceeding 6 clerks, one of the 3rd class and vs of the 1st class and each agent of a subdistrict may employ two clerks of the 1st class. This bill provides for 12 asst commissioners, and each asst commissioneris to have 6 clerks; 72 in all. It then provides for a sub agent in each county and parish of the country. How many will be appointed I cannot tell. The chairman of the committee that reported this bill cannot inform the Senate on that point. That will depend very much upon the political necessities of the administration. I it shall be found important to increase the number of officeholders for political purposes, I do not choose to place the Treasury of the people under the possibility of such an influence. hetheragents shall be appointed in the counties of Indiana or in the counties of Ohio, where there are 1,000s, perhaps 100s of 1,000s, of refugees and freedmen, I cannot say, nor can the Senator who reports this bill say. It is enough to know that an agent for each county and parish may be appointed at a salary of $1,500, and under him 2 clerks at $1, 200 each. for each county and parish. I ask Senators, if under the ol system it cost nearly 12 million dollars to carry on this:iilrcan, how much will it cost under this new i l?I hear Senators speak very frequently of the necessity of economy and retrenchment. Is this asecimen, increasing the number of of ficers a most without limit and increasing the expenditures? I think one might be safe in saying. that if this bill passes we cannot expect to get through a year Willi less than $20,000,000 of an expenditure for this bureau. But that is a mere opinion; for no man can tell until we have the number of officers that are to be a pointed under the bill prescribed in the bill it self, and this section leaves the largestdiscretion to the bureau in the appointment of officers. I appeal to Senators to know whether at this time, when we ought to adopt a system of retrenchment and reform, they are Willing to pass a bill which will so largely increase the public expenditures. Then, sir, when this army of officers has been organized, the bill provides: and the POTUS, through the War Dept and the Commissioner shall extend militaryjurisdiction and rotcction over all employ6s, agents, and officers oft is bureau. Will some Senator be good enough to tell me what that means" Jim 1.Stfltn "2" “ men whohnve escaped from the southern States, and if Indiana has a commissioner appointed to her, and if in each county of Indiana there be a sub commissioner at a salary of $1,500 a year, with 2 clerks with a salary of $1, 200 each, and therithe War Dept throws over this little army of Officeholders in the State of Indiana its protection, what does that mean I The people of Indiana have been ground hard under military authority and power within the last 3 or 4 years, but it was home because it was hoped that when the war would be closed that militaryypower would be withdrawn from the State. nder this bill it may be established permanently upon the people by a body of men protected by the military power of the Government. An officer is appointed to the State of Indiana to regulate the contracts which are made between the white people and the colored people of that State, and because he holds this of co, not military in its character, involving no military act whatever, the military throws over him its iron shield of protection. What does that mean? If this otheor shall do a out wrong and outrage to one of the people, an the wronged citizen appeals to the court for his redress and brings his suit for damages, does the protecting shield of the War Dept prevent the prosecution of that suit and the recov ery of a judgment? What is the protection that is thrown over this army of officeholders? Let it be explained. It may be said that this is a part of the Military Dept. That will depend not so much upon what we call them in the law as what are the duties imposed upon these sub agents. It is a little did cult to tell. They are to protect the freedmen; they are to protect refugees; they are to buy asylums and schoolhouses; they are to establish schools; they are to see to the contracts that a remade between white men and colored men. I want to know of the chairman of the committee that reported this bill, in what respect these duties are military in their character 7Ican understand one thing, that it may be regarded as a war ii on the liberties of the people, but I am not obe to see in what respect the duties of these officers otherwise are Military. But this protection is to be throwa over them. I will not occupy longer time upon that subject. The 3rd section of the bill changes the letter of the law in 2 respects, 1st: That the SecyWar may direct such issues of provisiops, clothing. fuel and other supplies, including medical stores and transportation. kc. Those last words, ” medical stores and transportation, ” make the change in the law that is proposed in this bill. But, sir, in point of fact it makes no change in the law, for if you will turn to the report of the Commissioner of this burcau, it wi i be found that the bureau during the past 6 months has been furnishing medical supplies and transportation. A very large item in the expenditures estimated for is for transportation. But I wish to ask of the Senator who framed this bill wh we shall now provide for the transportation o freedmen and refugees. During the war, a very large number of refugees came from the southern States into the North; but the Commissioner of the Freedmens Bureau in his report says that those refugees have mainly returned, an but few remain now to be carried back from the North to the South or who desire to be. Then why do we provide in this bill for transportation? Is it simply to give the bureau the power to transport refugees and freedmen from one locality to another at its pleasure? The necessity of carrying them from one section of the country to another has passed awa. Is it intended by this bill that the bureau shall expend the peoplesmouey in carrying the colored people from one locality in a southern State to another locality? I ask the Senfrom Illinois, when he comes to explain his bill, to tell usjust what is the force an purpose of this provision. The 4th resolution, as amended, provides. for the setting apart of 3 million acres of "bin: lands in the States of Florida Mississippi, and Arkansas, for homes for the colored people. I believe that is the only provision of the bill in which I concur. I concur in what was said by some Senator yesterday, that it is desirable, if we ever expect to do anything substantially for the colored people, to encourage them to obtain homes, and ani Willing to vote for a reasonable appropriation of the public lands for that perose. I shall not, therefore, occupy time in discussing that section. The next is the 5th section, in the followmg words: SEC. 5. Abife: That the possessory titles granted in pursuanee of Major GenlSherman s special fiel order, dated at Savannah. Janu ary 16, 1885. are hereby confirmed and madevalid. Yesterday that section was amended so as to provide that the possessory title should continue or 3 years from the date of the order. That order bears date at Savannah, Georgia, Janu ary 16, 1865. This section, as it now stands before the Senate, therefore, proposes to confirm the possessory right of the colored people upon these lands for 3 years from the date I0t that order, or about 2 years from th1s tirne. like the amendment better than the original bill, for the original bill left it entirely uueertain what was confirmed, and of course it is better that we should say one year, or 3 years, or ten years, than to leave it entirely indeliiiite for what period we do confirm the possession. I have no doubt that GenlSherman had the power as a militaig commander at the time to set apart the abau oned lands along the coast as a place in which to leave the colored people then surrounding his army; but that GenlSherman during the war, or that Congress after the war, except by a proceeding for confiscation, can take the land permanently from one person and give it to another, I do not. admit; nor did GenlSherman undertake to do that. In express terms he said that they should have the right of possession, for what length of time he did not say, for the reason that he could not say. It was a military possession that be conferred, and that possession would last only do ring the continuance of the military occupation and no longer. Upon this point I will read somcauthoritics. 1st, lreadfromPhillimores International Law, volume 3, page 731: "With respect to immovable private property, it has been already observedthat the lawswhic relate to the effectofpeare upon public and private property are in: principle the same and that the rule of international law is that the immovable property returns, on peace being made, to its original owner. unless there has been an express stipuation to the contrary. “The conqueror dothrones the sovereign and as names the dominion of the conqueredterritory: but as a general rule he doesno more. It has been well laid down by the tribunals of the North American U.S. that the modern usageof nations. that large and important part of international law, would be violated. the senseof justice and of right. which is felt and acknowledgedby the civilized world. would be outraged. if private property were generally confiscated and private rights annulled. The pen le, indeed. oliaiige theirallogianco: their relation to t iuir ancient sovereignis dissolved; but their relations to each other and their rights of property remain undisturbed.” Of course, the author is speaking of a war between 2 independent Powers, in which the one subjugates or conquers the other. Even in that case the military possession of real estate Within the limits of a conucred country ceases when peace is made, an ess the treaty stipulates otherwise. I will now read from Hallecks International Law, page 456, para gr“aph 12: Private property on land is of war, exemptfrom now. asa general rule general seizure or confiscation; and this exemption extends even to casesof absolute and unqualified conquest. Even where the conquest ouf aish country of issocvocnrfierigmnetyd by the enforced r oitwionnearl, rtehleinre can be uo genernl ori partial transmutation of private property in virtue o any rights of conquest. That which belonged to the llovernment of the vanquished passes to the victorious S t. ite. which also takes the place of the former sovercizn in respectto the right of eminent domain: but private rights and private property both movable and immovable. are in general unaffectedby the operations of a war, whether such Operationsbelimited tomoremilitary occupationor extend to complete conquest. Some modern text writiiisllautetcuillc. for examplecontendfor the ancient rule, that private proicrty on land is subject to seizure and confiscation. he are undoubtedly correct with respectto the genera abstract right, as from the law of natureand ancient practice; but while the general right continues, modern time and the opinionsof modern text writers of the highest authority, have limited this right by establishing the rule of general exemption. The private property of a sovereign IS any other indiveidonusaild. "eredin the samelight as that of I Wlll now call the attention of the Senate to a paragraph from the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in the case ot the U.S. vs. Percheman, 7 Peters, page 86: “It may not be unworthy of remark that it is very unusual. even in casesof conquest, for the conqueror to do more than to displacethesovereignand assume dominion over the country. The modern usageof nations, which has become law, would he violated; that sense of justice and of right which is acknowl edged and felt by the whole civilized world would be outraged. if private property should be generally confiscatedand priViite rights annulled. lho people phnngo their allegiance; their relation to their ancient sovereignis dissolved: but their relations to each other and their rights of property remain undisturbed. If this be the modern rule even in casesof conquest. who can doubt its application to the ease of an amicable cessionof territory 3” That is the rule, says Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of a complete, absolute conquest of territory by one independeut Power from an other, that the title of the private citizen is not disturbed, but that the a lie property passes to the new sovereign. hen i GenlSherman, by his General Order No. 15, placed the colored people upon the lands along the coast of SCarolina, Georgia, and Florida, for a temporary purpose, what was the extent of the possessory right which he could confer? He did not undertake to give a title for any defined period, but simply the right of possession. It is fair to construe his order as meaning only what he could do, giving the richt of possession during military occupancy. h ow, sir, the presdent informs us that the rebellion is suppressed; that the war is over; that military law no longer governs in that country; but that peace is restored, and that civil law shall now govern. What, then, is the law upon the subject? A right of possession is given by the commanding general to certain lpersons Within that region of countr; peace fo ows, and with peace comes back he right of the real owners to the os session. This possession that the Genera undertook to ive, according to law, could not last longert an the militar occupancy. When peace comes, the right of the owners returns with it. Then how is it that Congress can undertake to say that the property that belongs to A B, and C upon the islands and the seacoast of the South shall, for 2 years from this date, not belong to them, but shall belong to certain colored people? I want to know upon what principle of law Congress can take the property o one man and give it to another. Iyknow very well what may be done in the courts by a proceeding, rfor confiscation. I am not discussing that question. If there has been any property confiscated and disposed of under proceedings of confiscation, I do not question the title here. That is purely a judicial question. But, sir, I deny that Congress can legislate the property of one man into the possession of another. If this section is to pass, I prefer that this confirmation shall be for 3 years rather than leave it in the uncertain state in which GenlSherman s order left it. I shall not further occupy the time of the Senate in regard to that section. The 6th section, as amended, provides: SEC. 6. Abife: That the commissioners shall under the direction of the President, procure in the name of the U.S.; by griintor purchase, such lands within the districts aforesaid as may be required for refugees and freedmen deendent on the Governmentforsupport: and he shal provide, or cause to be erected. suitable buildings for asylum and schools. But no such purchase shall be made. nor contract for the sonic entered into, noi other expense incurred, until after appropriations shall have been provided by Congressfor the general purusesof this act. out ofwhich paymentsfor said a n it shall be made and the Commissionershall causesuchlands, from time to time, to be valued.al lotted. assigned, and sold in manner and form provided in the preceding section at aprieo not lesst an the cost thereofto the U.S. This is a most extraordinary provision. I understand the doctrine to be that the constitutioual amendment has been adopted, that the slaves have been made free, and the Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Salsas] this mormng l intimated that the net of emancipation makes them citirmns. Then here are 4 million people made free, according to his doctrine made citizens of the U.S. as free as any Senator upon this floor, as free to contract, as free in every respect, I may say. as any of us, so far astheir former relations are concerned. If they have been made free and brought into the class of citizens, upon what principle do we authorize the officers of the Government to buy homes for them? Upon what principle can you authorize the Government of the U.S. to buy lands for the poor people in any State of the Union? They may be very meritorious; their cases may appeal with great force to our sympathies; it may almost appear necessary to prevent suffering that we should buy a home or each poor person in the country; but where is the power of the General Government to, lo this thing? Is it true that by this revoluti in the persons and property of the pen ile ha le been bronght avithiu the jurisdiction of ongrias and taken from without the control and uris diction of the Statfl mtive understood ere tofore that it. has never been disnted that the duty to provide for the poor, teinsane, the blind, and all who are dependent upon such ty, rests upon the States, and that the power d)88 not be oiig to the General Government. What has occurred, then, in this war that has changed the lclgaioiggfi IRWT Government to so great and eytentfithaL Congress may hQCQIPSLllQ)jlrfihflSflrsnLhnmmI of llit m? If we can go so far, I know of no limit to the powers of Congress. Here is a proposition to mya home for each dependent freedman and refugee. The section is not quite as strong 51. ! it might have been. It wouldl have been stronger, I think, in the present state of public sentiment, if the word “refugee” had been left out, and if it had been only for the freedmen, because it does not seem to be so popular now to buy a home for a white man as to buy one for a colored man. But this bill authorizes the officers of the Freedmens Bureau to buy homes for white people and for black people only upon the ground that they are dependent. If this he the law now, there has come about a start ling change iu the relation of the States and of the peopleto the General Government. I shall be very happy to hear from the learned head of the ComJudiciary upon what principle it is that in anyone single case you may buy a home for any man, whether he be rich or poor. The General Geicrninent may buy land when it is necessary for the exercise of any of its powers; but outside of that, it seems to me, there is no power within the constitution allow inv it. lZut, sir, suppose that the constitutional port or he possessed, is it well to authorize, in gene.al terms, the otheors of the Freedmens Bureau to buy a home for each dependent refugee and freedman? It is said that there is a limitation in this section that they shall not buy these homes until after a general appropriation for the bureau has been made. nder that language, the head of the bureau could take any money appropriated for the bureau and a iply it to the pure use of homes for the depen out freedmen and refugees. But what sort of a limit is that in these times, when deficiency liilll run upto 100s of 1,000s and to millions of dollars, when there is now lying upon our table a deficiency reported of about 600,000 dollars for the public printing expenses incurred without authority of law? If the Printing Bureau can come with a strong demand upon Congress to meet its contracts made in advance of appropriations, why may not the Freedmens Bureau do the same thing? and if lands are purchased under the necessities of the occasion, as the bureau may think, then if the Commissioner reports to Congress that so much is necessary to make up deficiencies, I apprehend a bill a proprinting the necessary sum would pass. “liere is really no limit, therefore, u 30!}this section. A little while ago I spoke of the expenses of this bureau upon the pee 19. At that time I did not include the cost o those purchusoci 3What will that be? How many farms are to be bought? How many homesteads in the villages? I know they are not to be given to the freedmen and refugees at once. These dependent people are to be placed in possession at a rent, and the Government of the U.S. is to become a landlord to this large class of people. It is to become a freeholder and land, renting out lands upon fixed terms to a portion of the population. Who ever heard of this Government occupying that relation to any portion of the people? and yet that is the provision of this iiill That is very different from the provision that we should set a art 3 million acres of the public lands or the benefit of these people. I am willing to do that, as we give homesteads to the white men, and encour age the settlement of the lands, and encourage tbfir development if we can. (I doubt the development somewhat.) I do not object to giving them homes upon the public lands; but when we come to appropriating money to buy lands that the Government may become the landlord and 1,000s of people the tenants under it, it seems to me to be a very startling proposition. What will it cost? Under the old system, the expenses of the bureau amounted to nearly $12,000,000, and under this bill an army officers is to be added to the system, and then comes this general proposition to buy homes, asylums, an schools for these people. In what instance, I will ask the chairman of the ComJudiciary, has the Government of the U.S. gone into the States to buy lands and establish sch001s in a time of peace? During the war it was claimed that within the sphere of the operations of the Army almost anything could e done; but now, sir, we are in a state of peace; these States are within the Union; their civil governments have been restored. How is it that within these States we. llOW propOse to buy lands and erect school bouses? I know of no power conferred upon the General Government authorizing it. The mostreinarkable sections of the bill, however, are the 7th and 8th, and to those sections I will ask the very careful attention of Senators; for I think if we can pass those 2 sections and make them a law, then indeed this Government can do anything. It will be use less to speak any longer of limitations upon the powers of the General Government; it will be idle to speak of the reserved power of the States, State rights and State power will have nssed away i we can do what is proposed in the 7th and 8th sections oi“1 this bill. The 7th section is in these words: Ste. 7. Abife: That whenever, in an State or district in which the ordinary course of LI; lhicoianl, apnrodeweehdeirnegins, hianscboenesneiqnuteernrcuepotfeadn by State or local law, ordinance, police or other regulation, custom or pruu the c. nny oftiic civil rights orr or diliciiiit pii r the prescribed for white versoiiscorn initting like acts qr eases, itshall bet oduty of the POTUS, through the Commissioner, to extend military protection and jurisdiction oavgearinasltl. Cases alfecting sue persons so discriminated The language is very comprehensive. We propose, 1st, to legislate against the effects of local law, ordinance, police, or other regulation f then against “custom, ” and lastly, against “preiudicc, ” and to provide that it lany of the CIVIL Rights or immunities belonging to white persons are denied to any person because of color. then that person shall be taken under the niiliuiry protection of the Government. I do not know whether that will be understood to extend to Indiana or not. That will be a very nice point for the bureau to decide, I presume, after the enactment of the law. The section limits its operation to “any State or district in which the ordinary course of ju dicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion.” It will be a little difficult to say whether in the State of Indiana and Ohio the ordinary course of judicial proceeding has or has not been interrupted. We had some war in Indiana; we had a very great raid through that State, and some fighting; and I presume that in some cases the proceedings of the courts, were interruted and the courts were unable to go on with their business, so that it might be said that even in some of the northern States this provision of the bill would be applicable. suppose that it were applicable to the State of In must, then every man in that State who at teinted to execute the constitution and laws of the State would be liable for a violation of the law. We do not allow to colored people there man civil rights and immunities which are enjoye by the white people. It became the policy of the State in 1852 to prohibit the immigration of colored people into that State. I am not going to discuss the question whether that was a wise policy or not. At the time it reccived the aproval of my judment. Underthat constitution a provision, an the laws enacted in pursuance of it, a colored man comin into the State since 1852 cannot acquire a title to real estate, cannot make certain contracts, and no negro man is allowed to intermarry with a white woman. These are civil rights that are denied, and yet this bill proposes if they are still denied in an State whose courts have been interrupted by the rebellion, the military protection of the Government shall be extended over the person who is thus denied such civil rights or immunities. understand from the remarks of the Senator who introduced this bill when he gave notice of its introduction, that he places the power of Congress to enact this law under the amendment to the constitution abolishing slavery}. I will consider that ar iment very briefly. hat constitutional amendment was in these words: "Neither slave nor involuntary servitude, except its a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have beenduly ecuvictedmhall exist within the U.S., or any placesubject to theirjurisdiction. SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforcethis article by appropriate legislation.” It is claimed that under this 2nd section Congress may do anything necessary, in its judgment, not only to secure the freedom of the negro, but to secure to him all civil rights that are secured to white people. I deny that construction, and it will lie a very dangerous construction to adopt. The 1st section abolishes slavery. The 2nd section lilillli("slillll (oii gross may enforce the abolition of slavery “ by appropriate legislation.” What is slavery? It is not a relation between the slave and the State; it is not a public relation; it is a relation between 2 persons whereb the conduct of the one is placed under the will of the other. It is purely and (entirely a domestic relation, and is so (l;. “bfytl fill lav.writers; the law regulates I that relation as it irgnlntes other domestic relations. lliis constitutional amendment broke iter and his slave, and the slave then, so far as lilt right of the master was concerned, became from but did the slave, under that amendment, acquire any other right than to be free from the control of his master? The law of the State which authorized this relation is abrogated and annulled by this provision of the Federal constitution but no new rights are conferred upon the free man. Then sir, to make a contract is a civil right which has ordinarily been regulated by the States. The form of that contract and the ceremonies that shall attend it are not to be regulated by Congress, but by the States. suppose that it becomes the judgment of the State that a contract between a colored man and a white man shall be evidenced by other solemuities and instruments than are required between 2 white men, shall not the State be allowed to make such a provision? Is it a civil right to give evidence in courts? Is it a civil right to sit upon a jury? If it be a civil right to sit upon a ju, this bill will require that if any negro is ad the privilege of sittingnpon a jury, he shall be taken under the military protection of the Government. Is the right to marry according to a mans choice a civil right? Marriage is a civil contract, and to marry according to ones choice is a civil right. suppose ii State shall deny the right of amalgamation, the right of a negro man to intermarry with a white woman, then that negro may be taken under the military protection of the governmeut; and what does that mean? Under the 7th section, in such a case as that, when you have taken the negro under the military protection of the Government, perhaps sent a s and of men after him, what is then to be done whn he is thus protected? What is meant by taking him under the protection of the Government? Does it mean that this military power shall enforce his civil right, Without respect to the prohibition of the local law? In other words, if the law of Indiana, as it does, prohibits under heavy penalty the marriage of a negro with a white woman, may it be said a civil right is denied him which is enjoyed by all white men, to marry according to their choice, and if it is denied, the military protection of the colored gentleman is assumed, and what is the result of it fall? I suppose they are then to be married in the camp of the protecting officer without regard to the State aws. The next section of the bill provides punishments where any of these things are done, where any right is denied toacolored man which under State law is allowed to a white man. The language is very vague, and it is very difficult to say what this section will mean. If it has as broad a construction as is attempted to be given to the 2nd section of the constitutional amendment, I would not undertake to guess what it means. The section is in these words: 8:o. 8. Abife: That any person who, under coloro any Stateorlocal law. ordinance, olicc, or other regulation or custom, shall in any State or district in which the ordinary course of judicial proccedings has been interrupted by the rebellion. subject or cause to be subjected, any negro, mulatto freedman, refugee, or other person. on account oi race or color or any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, exceptas a punishment for crime whereof the party shallehave been duly convictedIor for any other cause, to the deprivation of any civil right securedto white persons or to any other or different punishment than whitepersonsare subjectto for the commissionof like actsor olTenses, shall be decmed guilty of a misdemeanor and be punished by fine not exceeding 1.000, or imprisonment not exceedingone year or th; and it shall he the duty of the officers and agents of this bureau to take jurisdiction of, and hear and deter mine all offensescommitted agains the provisions of this section, and alsoof allcases a ectim;negroes, mulattocs, freedmen. refugees, or other personswho are discriminated against in any of the particularsmentioned in the preceding section of this not, under. such rules and regulationsas the POTUS, through the War Dept, shall prescribe. There, sir, is the court and the punishment. r Any man who shall deny to any colored man I any civil rights secured to white persons shall be liable to be taken before the o cers of this bureau and to be punished according to the provisions of this section. In the 1st place, now that peace is restored, now that there is no war, now that men are no longer under Military rule, but are under civil rule, want to know how such a court can be organized: how it is that the citizen may be arrested Without indictment and be brou t before the officers of this bureau and tric without a iury, tried without the forms which the constitution requires. But, sir, this section is most objectionable in regard to the offense that it defines. If any portion of the law ought to be certain, it is that which defines crime and prescribes the punishment. What is meant by this generat expression, “the deprivation of any civil right secured to white persons?” lhe agent in one State may construe it to mean one thing, and the agent in another State another thing. It is broad and comprehensivw“ the deprivation of any civil right secured to white persons.” That not of deprivation is the crime that is to be punished. fake the case that I have just referred to: suppose a minister when called upon should rese to solemuize a marriage between a colored man and a white woman 1866. 319 because the law of the State forbade it, would he then, refusing to recognize a civil right which is enjoyed by white persons, be liable to this punishment?