right to do it by voluntary enlistment or by compulsory process. If men cannot be raised by voluntary enlistment, then the Government must raise men by involuntary means, or the power to raise and support armies for the public defence is a nullity."

Numerous amendments were made to the bill.

Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, moved to make the period of service for the conscripts one year. This was rejected by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Foot, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Hicks, and Trum

ball-10.

NATS-Messrs. Anthony, Arnold, Chandler, Clark, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foster, Harding, Harlan, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Latham, McDougall, Morrill, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Rice, Sherman, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Wade, Wilkinson, and Wil

son of Massachusetts-26.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and read the third time and passed. The vote is not given in the official report.

On the 23d of February, the bill was considered in the House.

Mr. Olin, of New York, who had charge of the bill in the House, thus stated the course he proposed to pursue: "I propose to move to commit the bill to the Committee on Military Affairs, and on that motion to permit discussion upon the merits of the bill for a reasonable length of time; then, after such discussion, if I can obtain the floor, I propose to withdraw that motion, and to ask the House to vote upon the bill as reported from the Senate.

"My reasons for adopting this course are simply these: the bill, in some of its details, I consider more or less imperfect; but all these details are of minor consequence when compared with the great importance of the measure itself; and so far as these details are conterned, if any of them are objectionable, they can very easily be remedied by a supplementary bill. These defects or imperfections are, in my judgment, of infinitely less importance than that this measure, or one substantially like this, should be secured and passed into law by the present Congress. I am, therefore, not willing to hazard the loss of a bill which I deem so important by opening it to the various propositions which may be made by way of amendment to this bill. The Committee on Military Affairs have carefully considered this measure. It has been a measure of vital interest from the commencement of the session to the present hour. Our attention has not been diverted from this measure since the Commencement of the session.

"Now, although the committee would, if the time permitted, alter some of its minor provisions, yet I think as a whole they agree with me in the propriety of asking this House to pass this bill without amendment, and thus to secure with certainty the measure, and clothe the Government with power to exercise this

necessary authority under the present situation of our public affairs. I intend, if there shall be time during the present session, to introduce a bill into the House, open for discussion and amendment, to allow us to perfect, if it is thought we can perfect, some of the details of this bill. I mean that the House shall have an opportunity to do so if this bill shall become a law.

Mr. Olin then noticed the chief objections to the bill thus: "Some objections are made to this measure. First, that it does not ask the coöperation of the States, and invite the inthese troops conceded to be necessary at this strumentality of State organizations in raising time. My first answer is, there is no time to employ such instrumentality. Many of our State Legislatures would not and could not perfect such measures within the next twelve months. In the mean time untold disasters would very likely befall our arms by reason of such delay. All concede the present is the critical period of the war, and that the present exigency demands imperiously that whatever of vigor, whatever of authority, whatever of power the National Government has as a Government, should be exerted at this time.

"My second answer is, that this 'power to raise and support armies,' expressly given by the Constitution to Congress, should be exercised by Congress, and not petitioned for as a boon from the State Governments. This idea of calling upon the Governors of the States to furnish troops had its origin in that accursed doctrine of State rights, State sovereignty, which has been chiefly instrumental in bringing upon the republic our present calamity. It is high time the Federal Government exerted every power clearly and expressly granted to it. And if the Government cannot exercise those powers, the sooner we know it the better, and let us resolve again into that Confederacy which existed before the formation of the Federal Constitution. I am unwilling to rely upon State instrumentality for the exercise of this sovereign power. I wish now that the Government, as a Government, should be felt in the exercise of its rightful authority. This is not the time to abdicate any of the sovereign powers granted in the Federal Constitution, or to withhold their exercise."

Mr. Holman, of Indiana, said: "I wish to ask the gentleman from New York, whether I understood him to say that he should not give opportunity to offer amendments to the bill?"

Mr. Olin replied: "The gentleman certainly could not have misunderstood me if he had listened to my remarks. I stated that I was unwilling to hazard the passage of this bill by putting amendments to it, and thereby sending it back to the Senate at this late hour of the session.

"I stated further that I intended, if the House would give us the liberty to do so, to bring in a bill speedily, and thereby afford

an opportunity to perfect or modify the bill, as the House thought proper."

Mr. Holman further said: "There is no intention, or at least wish, to fillibuster upon this bill, and there is no gentleman, I presume, opposed to its details who cares to discuss it, unless an opportunity to offer amendments is afforded. For what can debate amount to without an opportunity to amend? It is not for the mere purpose of expressing opinions hostile to the measure that discussion is desired, but for the purpose of perfecting the bill, so that, shorn of its objectionable features, it may pass with some degree of unanimity through this house. It is important that a well-digested militia bill should be passed by Congress, curing the defects in the existing law."

Mr. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, moved to amend the motion to refer by instructing the committee to report back the bill with the following provision:

That it shall be the duty of the commander of troops at any post, in any State, on the days of election, by the citizens of such State, held for the purpose of electing State officers, or officers of the United States, or Representatives to Congress, or electors for the President and Vice President, to remove and keep his troops at least one mile from the place of voting during said election.

Mr. Cox, of Ohio, moved to amend by adopting the following proviso:

Provided, That no one shall be enrolled under this act except able-bodied white male citizens of the United States.

An extended discussion ensued, involving the general administration of public affairs rather than the points of the bill, which were only incidentally mentioned. Mr. Biddle, of Pennsylvania, urged objections to the bill as follows: "This is part of a series of measures, which, to my mind, seem materially to alter the construction of the Government under which we live. The bill to transfer to the President, without limitation of time or place, our power over the writ of habeas corpus, the bill of indemnity which, to use the words of the Senate's amendment, secures for all wrongs or trespasses committed by any officer of the Government full immunity if he pleads in the courts of justice the order of the President, and which also deprives State courts of their jurisdiction in such cases; the bank bill, which puts the purse strings in the same hand with the sword-these bills, to my mind, couple themselves with this bill, and they seem to me, taken together, to change the whole framework of this Government, and instead of the constitutional Government which was originally so carefully devised for this country, they leave us a system which does not materially differ, according to any definition I can frame, from the despotism of France or of Russia.

This particular bill, to sum it up in a word, for I shall not continue at any length these general objections, turns the militia of the United States into a regular army. That is

its leading feature. I do not intend to animadvert upon small particulars, such as, for instance, that while the executive departments of the Government are exempted from the draft, members of Congress are made subject to it. I allude to that merely as one of those straws which shows which way the wind blows in these times. But the two sections to which I hoped to offer amendments successfully are the fifth and seventh sections of this bill.

"Look at these provisions: a provost-marshal in every congressional district, to inquire into and report all treasonable practices,' arresting summarily under this act, or under no act, but under some order or proclamation, any one who may be obnoxious to him or his superiors. Five of these functionaries will reign at once in Philadelphia-twenty-five in Pennsylvania; a proportional number in all the other States. Why, Athens had but thirty imposed on her by military power, and such was their rule that, in Grecian history, the year of the thirty tyrants was known as 'the year of anarchy.'

"These two sections, Mr. Speaker, cover the whole country with a network of military authority. For the first time this new character in civil society, the provost-marshal, is recog nized by law, and without those limitations on his authority which are necessary for the protection of the citizen from those extraordinary abuses of power of which we have already seen so many examples. I do not speculate on what will be the construction of the authority of these officers. I have no occasion to speculate on it. I presume that we may fairly 'judge the future by the past.'

"In order, Mr. Speaker, to exhibit the more clearly the aim of the course of argument which I am pursuing, I will state to the House the general purport of the amendments which it is the object of my remarks to recommend to its favor. At the end of the seventh section, which gives vague powers to provost-marshals to inquire into the vague offence of treasonable practices, I propose to add a proviso, that nothing in this act contained shall authorize the arrest or trial by military authority of any person who is not in the military service of the United States, nor drafted into the same under the provisions of this act; nor shall the said provost-marshal, or any other officer of the United States interfere with the lawful exercise of the elective franchise in any State or Territory wherein the execution of the laws of the United States is not obstructed by force of

arms."

Mr. Wright, of Pennsylvania, also objected to it as interfering with the personal liberty of the citizen, thus: "There is, then, the great question involved in the bill of depriving the citi zen of his personal liberty without a trial by jury or even without the ordinary forms of law; and that citizen may be the most loyal man in the land. You put at defiance the constitutional safe guards which have been wisely placed around him. This House cannot have forgotten the

bad feeling which grew up all over the country in regard to arrests made, not in accordance with, but in opposition to, the law; and in my judgment it now behooves this legislative body to act with caution in regard to all authority conferred for the arrest and imprisonment of citizens of the United States. The provisions of the last section of the bill, to which I have already referred, put it in the power of the provost-marshal to arrest and imprison citizens of the United States on his own motion. That is wrong. It ought not to be so. If there is to be any charge of disloyalty against any citizen of the Government, there are other ways in which it may be fairly tried and decided, and that, too, according to constitutional law. I do not think that when gentlemen come to reflect on the vast power which this bill confers upon any one of the provost-marshals created under it to go into any one of the sovereign States of the Union, and arrest on his own motion, and imprison under his own construction of what may be treasonable practices,' they will be willing to retain such power in the bill. "This is one of the insuperable objections I see to the bill. I am willing, and I say it with candor, to send every man in the loyal States into the field, if necessary. I am willing to devote every cent of the nation's money, and every drop of blood to put down this rebellion. But, sir, you must not put the life and liberty of the citizen under the whim and caprice of every upstart officer who may take upon himself under this bill to judge as to what is treason and what is not treason."

Mr. Sargeant, of California, thus urged the importance of the bill: "The practical question arises, will this bill increase the efficiency of the national forces? Will it place more men in the field, and enable the Government to carry on the war upon sounder and surer principles It must be admitted that the successful raising of armies by the rebels has been accomplished by the conscription principle. By no other could they have kept full half a million men in arms-so large a proportion of their available population. As we must fight, we must begin to fight upon effective principles. We must gird up the loins of the nation for a conclusive struggle. The enemy have made their last effort. It is now with them a question of endurance. If they can keep us at bay until our present enlisted men are discharged with the expiration of their short terms of enlistment, and their allies in the North can defeat the refilling of our armies, they have gained their purposes, and the Union is dissolved. It matters little upon what pretence this or a kindred bill is opposed, the effect is the same. Some such measure is imperative, and no one can be devised which a fault-finding ingenuity cannot fill an hour in condemning. One gentleman objects because the patronage of Governors of States in the appointment of officers is abridged, while it has full scope under the volunteer system. Yet gentlemen know that a curse of that

system is that militia appointments have gone more by favor than fitness, and the Government is compelled to pay thousands of officers who curse the army by their inefficiency. Another thinks the Constitution gives no power to Congress to summon the people to the army unless they volunteer to come; as if the founders of this Government erected this beautiful fabric of liberty and national glory, and provided no means to secure its safety. The Constitution confers the right to summon every man, whether from the plough, the workshop, or the pulpit, to press back invasion or crush insurrection; and gives to Congress the power to pass laws to see that that summons is effectual. Else we are secured by a rope of sand, and are dissolved into chaos at the first jar of war."

Mr. White, of Ohio, opposed the bill as being unconstitutional. He said: "Mr. Speaker, if there was anything of which our fathers were jealous, and against the dangers of which they sought to provide, it was the power of an overshadowing standing army. The writers and commentators on the Constitution, contemporaneous with its adoption, have written on the subject and elucidated the meaning, the intent, and the spirit of that instrument. The power is clearly given to raise and support armies. How are they to be raised and supported? I admit the power of the General Government, independent of the States, to get all the men into the army that it can by voluntary enlistments. But when it goes beyond that, you have to resort to the militia of the States and call them into the service of the United States as such. You have no power to force soldiers into the service of the United States in any other way than through and by means of the militia organizations established under the laws of the States.

"After granting the power to raise and support armies, the Constitution further provides that Congress shall have power

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrection, and repel invasions.

"There is no other conceivable purpose for which a military force could be used than those here enumerated. And in order to make the militia when called into the service efficient, the further power is given Congress

the militia, and for governing such part of them as To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

"These are plain, practical provisions incorporated into the Constitution in order to establish that uniformity in the organization, arming, and discipline of the militia of the different States necessary to make them efficient when brought into the service of the United States, so that when placed under the governing power of Congress and fused into one mass, they

should have arms of the same caliber adapted to the use of the same kind of fixed ammunition, and they should be subject to the same organization, discipline, and drill. Here we have not only the power given to raise and support armies, but the mode, means, and purposes by and for which they are raised is clearÎy defined and prescribed; and I maintain that every other mode and power is excluded. The great point to be attained by the framers of the Constitution was to provide for every exigency that might arise, and at the same time to guard against the dangers of a large standing army, the bane of republics, and always dangerous to liberty. Another point to be attained was to provide against undue encroachments on the rights and sovereignty of the States by the General Government. It was thought, and so argued in the Convention that formed the Constitution, that these provisions effected all these objects; that every power was granted necessary to make the militia thoroughly efficient and effective; the President is made their commander-in-chief when called into the service of the United States, and Congress is vested with exclusive power to organize, arm, discipline, and govern them; reserving to the States the power, equally exclusive, of appointing the officers, and training according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

"This bill takes away from the States the right to appoint the officers, while it subjects the entire militia of every State in the Union to be brought into the service at the pleasure of the President, giving him the power to appoint every officer from second lieutenant up to major-general, thus breaking down that barrier erected by the founders of the Government to prevent Federal encroachment upon the rights of the States, the very object for which this provision, reserving to the States the exclusive right to appoint these officers, was incorporated in the Constitution. A proposition was made in the Constitutional Convention to strike this clause out of the Constitution. It was voted down. A proposition was offered giving the General Government the appointment of all officers above the rank of colonel, and that proposition was also voted down. It was claimed by the members of that body that the militia of the States, officered by the State authorities, would always be a sure check against the encroachments of Federal authority upon the vested rights of the States."

Mr. Mallory, of Kentucky, asserted the following as the reasons for the passage of the bill: Mr. Speaker, why is this measure called for at this time? The answer, sir, is one which must be very galling to the pride of the Administration and its supporters. It is a complete confession of incompetency to manage the stupendous war in which it finds itself involv ed-a most humiliating and reluctant acknowledgement that its measures have been mistakes, its policy a blunder. We were told by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Stevens),

the other day, that no more volunteers could be had from the North. We have seen that no reliance can be placed on the negro troops. We know that desertions from the army in great numbers are of daily occurrence. Indeed, this evil has become so extended and alarming that especial provision is made to cure it in this very bill by the agency of these provostmarshals. The expiration of the terms of service of thousands of volunteers is rapidly approaching, and it is known that among them an almost insuperable objection to reenlisting exists, and is increasing.

"These, Mr. Speaker, are the reasons why the Administration now comes to Congress and asks for this enormous power. We are told that this measure will remove all the difficulties that surround us, and enable the Govern ment to carry on the war with renewed vigor to a successful termination. Sir, if this were all true, I could not support the bill. Believing, as I do, that its provisions are subversive of the Constitution, and that its passage would establish a precedent dangerous to the liberties of the people-if not directly destructive of those liberties--I could not, in view of my oath to support the Constitution of the United States, give the bill the sanction of my vote. But I do not believe that this bill would remove the difficulties in the way of the Govern ment. I believe that it would increase and multiply them. Mr. Speaker, let us examine into the cause of this dead lock of the Government. Let us inquire why it is that no more volunteers can be obtained; why it is that our soldiers are so much dissatisfied; why desertions are daily occurring, and why those whose terms of service expire will not reënlist? Sir, I charge that the cause of all this is to be found in the measures of policy of the President and the party in power. It is to be found in the fact now patent, that the whole policy of the President and his party, in the conduct of the war, has been changed; that this change has been both in the object of the war and in the means used for conducting it."

Mr. Dunn, of Indiana, thus urged the neces sity for the adoption of the measure: "The necessity is upon us to pass a bill of this character. We have many regiments in the field greatly reduced in numbers, some to four hundred rank and file, some to three hundred, some to two, and a gentleman behind me remarks, some to one hundred. These reductions have not all been caused by the casualties of war, but by various circumstances combined. It is due to the gallant men remaining in these regiments that their numbers should be promptly filled up. This cannot be done by voluntary enlistment, on account of the influence of just such speeches as are made here and elsewhere denouncing the war. Many make a clamor against the war as an excuse for not volunteering. Moreover, a draft is the cheapest, fairest, and best mode of raising troops. It is to be regretted this mode was not adopted at first.

Then all would have shared alike in the perils and glories of the war. Every family would have been represented in the field, and every soldier would have had sympathy and support from his friends at home. The passage of this bill will give evidence to the rebels that the nation is summoning all its energies to the conflict, and it will be proof to foreign nations that we are preparing to meet promptly any intermeddling in our domestic strife. The Government has a right in war to command the services of its citizens, whom it protects in war as well as in peace. We, as legislators, must not shrink from the discharge of our high responsibility. This Congress will be memorable in the annals of our country and the history of the world. The fiery trials through which we are passing will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation.' If we cannot 'escape history,' let us make our record right, and display that patriotism, wisdom, and energy which history cannot fail to commend." Mr. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, next took the floor in opposition to the bill, saying: "We have in this country, under our Constitution and system of government, but two classes of military men-one the regular army, and the other the militia. Volunteer soldiers are militia. You have a regular army, and then you have a volunteer army, which is composed of the militia. This bill proposes to give you an army of conscripts; and I should like to know what then becomes of the militia which belongs to the several States of this Union.

"Now, sir, let us see what power this Government has over the militia of the States. Here is the power granted to Congress by the Constitution:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.

"I do not care how they are brought into the service of the United States, whether they volunteer or are drafted; when you have got 'the soldier, you must treat him as a militiaman under the Constitution. But the clause goes

on thus:

Reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Con

gress.

"When you call the militia into the service, who is to appoint their officers, under the Constitution? Why, sir, such was the feeling upon this question, that in 1812 some of the States -Massachusetts, I know, was one-took the ground that they had not only the right to organize their militia and officer them, but that the Government of the United States had no right to march them outside the limits of the State for the defence of this Union in the contest then waging with Great Britain.

"Now, I beg the advocates of this bill to look at its provisions. The provost-marshals are to enroll the militia in every State and district, all the able-bodied men between the ages

of eighteen and forty-five. These men are subject to be called from their homes, unorganized even into companies. They are to be taken by the order of the President and driven to the army like cattle or mules to market. I ask you whether you are prepared to say to the people, to the fathers and mothers, the wives and relatives of the men whom you thus enroll, that you will take them in this way from their homes, without even giving them the poor privilege of electing their company officers." The gen

Mr. Thomas, of Massachusetts: tleman from Kentucky has adverted just now to the power to organize the militia. I ask the gentleman from Kentucky what limitation he finds in the Constitution on the power 'to raise and support armies?' and whether there is anything in the Constitution to require that an army raised by the Government of the United States shall be raised by voluntary enlistment, as distinguished from the conscription? What is the limitation of that power to call out the citizens in defence of the Government, and against a foreign enemy?"

Mr. Wickliffe: "I answer that question by saying that the power of Congress to raise an army, a regular army, is unlimited."

Mr. Thomas, of Massachusetts: "What limitation has the regular army?"

Mr. Wickliffe: "None in number." Mr. Thomas, of Massachusetts: "What limitation in quality?"

Mr. Wickliffe: "None in quality. The laws, however, have prescribed the qualifications for a man in the army as well as in the militia."

Mr. Thomas, of Massachusetts: "I understand that a practice has been observed by the Government heretofore in regard to enlisting men in the army; but does that interfere with the constitutional power of the National Government to raise armies?"

Mr. Wickliffe: "Sir, the contemporaneous exposition of the Constitution ought to have some weight with a jurist of such eminence as the gentleman from Massachusetts. The interpretation of the powers of the Government under that Constitution as adopted, explained, and acted upon since 1789 down to the present day, is not to be disregarded by those who have any regard for the men that have passed before us, and who are presumed to have understood the intention and purpose of that instrument which they themselves made or assisted in making. Refer to the first legislation under Washington's Administration, and see what he thought and what Congress thought was the meaning of the clause in the Constitution in regard to organizing the army of the United States.

"Has Congress, ever since the adoption of the Constitution, left it to the executive to settle what should be the strength of the military force of the United States? And is Congress now prepared, when authorizing the raising of an army, to surrender the right of fixing the number of that army, and to leave it to the dis