am not one of those who can be alarmed, in a country of thirty million people and three million square miles, at an army of thirty or forty thousand men. Still, I do not desire a permanent increase of the standing Army if it can be avoided, and I am willing to adopt this amendment. I am willing that, in the bill increasing the Army, the Senator from New York shall put just such restrictions as he pleases; and I hope that will satisfy the Senator from New York. Or I am willing to leave it, and to trust the settlement of the question to those who come after us when we have achieved the victories that Senators have spoken of to-day; and, although some of us may not be here then, I take it there will be here men instructed by what they will see during the next two or three years, who will be as well able to legislate upon this subject as we are. But, sir, I accept cheerfully the proposition of the Senator from Maine.

Mr. KING. I am very happy to have the concurrence of the Senator from Massachusetts in this proposition. All 1 desired was the expression of the Senate on the question, whether this increase of the standing Army should be permanent or not. I expect the details will be determined by the bill providing for the increase of the standing Army, and I am happy now to understand the Senator from Massachusetts to say that he will go with me for limiting the duration of this Army to the emergency that calls it out. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the amendment as modified.

The Acting Secretary read it, as follows: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing a permanent increase of the Army or Navy beyond their present force.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I do not exactly see the effect of that amendment. If I understand this resolution, it declares that the Army and Navy were increased at a certain time; and now an amendment is offered in the shape of a proviso, declaring that this resolution shall not be construed to authorize their increase beyond what they at present are. They have already been increased. What, then, does this proviso

amount to?

Mr. SUMNER. "Permanent increase," the proviso says.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The word "permanent" is in. Mr. FESSENDEN. I thought I explained my own views on the subject. I will do it again if the Senator asks me the question.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not see that the proviso amounts to anything at all. It seems to me it has no meaning whatever, and does not change the joint resolution from what it was before the amendment was offered. The proviso, if I understand it, is, that nothing herein contained shall authorize an increase beyond "the present force." The "present force" is the increased force. You have already had added to your Army twentytwo thousand seven hundred and fourteen men, and to the Navy eighteen thousand seamen. The recital is, that the President" did, on the 3d day of May last, issue a proclamation calling into the service" these persons; and then the resolution ratifies that, and says that the calling these men into the service was legal. The Army is, therefore, already increased by that act and by this resolution up to forty-odd thousand men, and the Navy is already increased; and then you put on a proviso, providing it shall not be increased beyond what it is? It is already increased as you have recited; and it seems to me, really, that proviso means nothing at all. It is true, the word permanent" is there that it shall not be permanently increased. What does that mean? It is permanent until the law repeals it. Every law is permanent (unless there be a clause that it is to expire at a certain time, and there is no such clause here) until another law repeals it. It seems to me that, if there is any object in putting this limitation upon the resolution, it is not accomplished by the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine.

Mr. FESSENDEN. My object was simply to convey an idea. This is nothing but a resolution. The resolution says the President has issued his proclamation increasing the Army, and we make that valid and legal. That is what the resolution does. Now, certain gentlemen object that if we pass that, it is by law a permanent increase

of the Army; and therefore they want a limit. My answer to that is, I am for the limit too; but at present I am not advised how far that limitation should go, and how far even the increase should go, and that will come up properly for discussion upon a bill which has been introduced for that purpose; but in order to exclude the conclusion that by this resolution we mean to make this a permanent increase, I propose to say so in so many words. The proviso means that while we indorse and sustain to the fullest extent all that the President has done, and recognize those that he has brought into service as belonging to the Army, not by law, but by virtue of his proclamation, yet we do not recognize by our act that it is to remain so; necessarily thus calling for other legislation on the subject. That was my simple view. Now, sir, my friend from Illinois has made a long verbal criticism upon it. He is a master of words, keen, sagacious, and knows just what every adjective and every adverb means; and if he will only put the language into the right shape to convey that idea, I shall be much obliged to him. That is what it means to my mind; and if it does not to his, I hope he will make it better. The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Foor in the chair.) The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from New York, as modified on the suggestion of the Senator from Maine. Mr. KING. Does the Senator from Illinois desire to modify it?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think it means nothing

as it is.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish the Senator would make something out of it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. It is very difficult to make something out of that which meaneth nothing, although I think my friend from Maine has succeeded admirably in annexing a proviso here which really has no meaning at all. If it be the intention by this proviso simply to sanction what has been done, and to say that in doing this we do not mean to increase the Army or Navy, it would be pretty difficult to do that. I do not know how you can sanction an increase of the Army and Navy, and at the same time say you do not mean to sanction an increase of the Army and Navy. If the proviso had read; "provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing a permanent increase of the Army or Navy beyond what it was when this proclamation issued;" then it would mean something; but now it is "beyond the force now established by law." Will you say that the force now established by law is this increase, legal and valid? If it is intended to carry out the idea I have suggested, I think it would be accomplished by reading in this way; "provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing a permanent increase of the Army or Navy beyond what they were on the 3d day of May last," because they have already been increased.

Mr. KING. I trust the Senator from Maine will be content with that. I am.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I am content with anything; but I wish my very astute friend from Illinois to explain what the difference is between "shall not be construed to authorize an increase of the force beyond that now established by law, and "beyond what it was on the 3d day of May last?" That was the time of the increase. If he can show me the difference, I shall be much obliged to him.

Mr. KING. If the Senator will allow me, if there is any difference, I will take the last version of the Senator from Illinois to satisfy him, so that it will read:

Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing a permanent increase of the Army or Navy beyond what they were on the 3d day of May last. I wish simply to state that it was because there was a difference of opinion as to the construction and effect of the proclamation for the increase of the Army, that I desired to offer this amendment to the joint resolution. As I understood it, it rendered valid and legal the requisitions of these proclamations. I had not examined them as carefully and particularly as I might do. While I approved of the whole spirit and movement of the Administration to call out troops, in every shape and form, in order to suppress this rebellion, I desired to know exactly the effect of the law I was to vote for. I was unwilling to increase the standing Army, and I am glad to find that here,

by a pretty general agreement, it is understood that the standing Army will not be permanently increased beyond what it was before the emergency called for additional forces.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will withdraw the proposition I offered, and let gentlemen put it in a shape to suit themselves. My own apprehension is, that the effect of it might be to negative what we are before passing. I therefore withdraw it.

Mr. WILSON. The Senator from Maine has withdrawn his proposition, which, it seems, he could not frame to suit the Senator from Illinois. I hope the Senator from New York will not renew it in any form; because this controversy between these distinguised lawyers and statesmen here in in the matter of framing this provision, I think, shows that it never ought to be moved at all. I hope we shall have no more amendments moved to this joint resolution; and then, when we take up the bill for the increase of the Army, providing for all the details on that subject, the Senator from New York can offer an amendment that will reach all the purposes he desires; and I promise him here and now my vote for such a proposition.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I understand the opinion of the Senator from Maine-for whose opinion I have great respect-and that of the Senator on his left, [Mr. COLLAMER,] to be that this joint resolution does increase the amount of the standing Army without limitation; that is to say, it makes the present increase of the Army as permanent as the old establishment. I desire, as this act has been done, and this additional army created, that there shall be a notice given by our legislation that it is to be hereafter reduced; and I therefore prefer, notwithstanding the suggestions of my friend from Massachusetts, to have the resolution amended. I am not for any technical language; I am not particular what the language may be; but I will suggest that the words of the proposition of the Senator from Maine be

taken:

Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing a permanent increase of the Army or Navy.

Leaving out the other words. I am willing that the Senate should do what it pleases afterwards, when it comes to vote on the detail of the plan. This joint resolution is a general declaration of Congress ratifying the action of the President. I am disposed to limit it on this subject of the standing Army, and anything that does that in good faith I am satisfied will be carried out by subsequent legislation. I will ask the Secretary to read the words of the proposition of the Senator from Maine, which I have indicated, which I think will accomplish all the purpose in view.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Foor in the chair.) The Chair will state the present condition of the question before the Senate. There seems to be a little misapprehension on the part

of some Senators.

Mr. KING. If the Chair pleases, as I understand it, I offered a proviso as an amendment, to which the Senator from New Hampshire offered an amendment, and afterwards the Senator from Maine suggested a substitute. He then, after a conversation on the subject, withdrew it. I accepted the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire as part of my own. My proposition, therefore, is now before the Senate, and I take the words of the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine, up to the word "beyond," as my proposition. Let the Clerk read the proviso.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The position of the question, then, is this. The Senator from New York offers an amendment in the form of a proviso to the joint resolution. The Senator from Maine suggests a substitute for that, which forms a different proviso, which the Senator from New York accepts as a modification of his own. Mr. KING. Yes, sir.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It then becomes the proposition of the Senator from New York, and is subject to his control. He only can withdraw it. The Senator from Maine proposes to withdraw the proposition, but he cannot do it, it being accepted by the mover of the original amendment as a modification of his own.

Mr. KING. I am content with the proposition precisely as the Senator from Maine offered it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proposition will be read, as modified and accepted by the Senator from New York.

The Secretary read it, as follows:

Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing a permanent increase of the Army or Navy.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the proposed amendment now before the Senate. Unless the Senator from New York withdraws it, the question will be on agreeing to that amend

ment

Mr. FESSENDEN. There is one suggestion I wish to make in regard to my own proposition, which I wish gentlemen to consider. It did not occur to me when I offered it; but I suggest it to the Senator from New York. My object I explained. The object, however, of the resolution, is to decidedly approve and legalize what the President has done. Now, having done that, if we put in a proviso of this sort that it shall not be construed as authorizing a permanent increase of the Army and Navy, although the word " permanent" is in it the question presents itself to my mind whether it would not nullify the resolution itself. If the Senate is satisfied on that point, they may add this proviso. I confess that I am myself a little afraid of my own proposition.

Mr. KING. Idesire precisely the effect which the Senator from Maine suggests; but I am unwilling to vote to establish permanently this great increase of the standing Army, and rely upon the future action of Congress to reduce it. It is because I am unwilling to do that, while I desire to ratify and approve the action of the President, that I want this proviso inserted; for I do not understand that the President recommends this permanent increase of the Army. If he does, let us understand it. I do not understand that he does; and I do not understand, therefore, that I am coming in conflict with anything he has done, or any recommendation he has made, when I say here in advance, in the beginning, before it has been complicated by any action of the Senate, that I am unwilling that this increase of the standing Army should be permanent. I think the Senator from Maine, if he will look at it, will see that all this business is to be done by subsequent bills. The organization and distribution of officers and all matters of detail are to be done by a subsequent bill; and in that bill we propose to determine the time for which this increase of the standing Army shall continue. I think, therefore, we had better agree to the amendment I have offered.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I am satisfied if the Senator is.

Mr. KING. The Senator from Maine is satisfied. I think we had better agree to it. The amendment was agreed to.

The joint resolution was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in.

Mr. LATHAM. As indicative of my own views-not that I presume it will carry-I move to strike out the fourth proposition in the preamble of the resolution, in the following words:

"Fourthly. He did, by an order of the 27th day of April last, addressed to the Commanding General of the Army of the United States, authorize that officer to suspend the writ of habeas corpus at any point on or in the vicinity of any military line between the city of Philadelphia and the city of Washington."

The amendment was rejected.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the passage of the joint resolution. Mr. POLK. On that question I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. POLK. Mr. President, I cannot consent to the object and provisions of this joint resolution. As I cannot consent to them, and as I oppose them, I feel that it is my duty to state the grounds of my opposition.

It has been said by Senators on the other side, during the short discussion that has taken place on this joint resolution, that the country is engaged in a war. That is true, sir: the country is engaged in a war-a war in its character unparalleled in the history of this country. It is a sectional war; it is a civil and a fratricidal war. It is a war also enormous in its magnitude. There are more troops under arms probably to-day than there ever were before in this country during all its previous history. The equipments and prepar

arms.

This has all been brought about since the adjournment of the last Congress-since the 4th of March; indeed, since the 15th of April. Congress has declared no war. The Constitution of the United States says that Congress shall be authorized to declare war; and yet, sir, though Congress has declared no war, we are in the midst of a war monstrous in its character, and hugely monstrous in its proportions. That war has been brought on by the President of the United States since the 4th of March, of his own motion and of his own wrong; and under what circumstances? Before the close of the last Congress, as early as the month of January, secession was an accomplished fact. Before the close of the last Congress as many States had seceded from the Union, or had claimed to secede, as had on the 15th of April; and yet the last Congress made no declaration of war; the last Congress passed no legislation calculated to carry on a war; the last Congress refused to pass bills having this direction, or having any purpose of coercion. Now, sir, how has this war been brought on? I have said that, in my judgment, it has been brought on by the President of the United States; and a portion of the procedure which has resulted in it is named in the preamble of this joint resolution, which it is proposed that we shall approve and legalize.

Mr. President, the Constitution of the country was the great achievement of the Revolution. If that great struggle, heroic and sublime as it was, had not resulted in a Constitution which should have the effect of consolidating the liberties of the people, of establishing constitutional governments, and affording a basis for the tranquillity and prosperity of the country, it would have failed to accomplish the great end that those who waged it fondly anticipated would result from it. That Constitution has been framed by our fathers; and strictly construed, faithfully observed, and scrupulously obeyed by all those in authority under it, from the Executive himself down to the man who holds the lowest post of magistracy, what unexampled results of prosperity and glory might not have resulted from it! Administered as it has been, imperfectly perhaps in some respects, but still having the affection of the people, loved and revered by them, obeyed by them cheerfully, it has already produced results in the way of material prosperity, in the way of advancement, in the way of a progression in everything that can ennoble and exalt a nation, that are without a parallel in the history of the world. Under such circumstances, Mr. President, how carefully ought we to examine any proposition that proposes to approve or legalize anything that may be an infringement upon the plain provisions of that Constitution.

I wish, Mr. President, to call the attention of the Senate to a few words from Vattel on this subject of obeying the Constitution and observing the laws as they exist, and especially on the high duty that devolves upon those who administer the Government to see that they in no instance infringe upon that Constitution, or the laws that are made under it.

"But while these laws exist"

Says Mr. Vattel

"the sovereign ought religiously to maintain and observe them."

He is not speaking of a President of the United States, but he is speaking of a sovereign, where there is no written constitution that defines the authority and power that he is permitted to exercise in the Government.

"They are the foundation of the public tranquillity, and the firmest support of the sovereign authority. Everything is uncertain, violent, and subject to revolutions, in those unhappy States where arbitrary power has placed her throne. It is, therefore, the true interest of the prince, as well as his duty, to maintain and respect the laws; he ought to submit to them himself. We find this truth estab lished in a piece published by order of Louis XIV, one of the most absolute princes that ever reigned in Europe: Let it not be said that the sovereign is not subject to the laws of his State, since the contrary proposition is one of the truths of the law of nations, which flattery has sometimes attacked, and which good princes have always defended, as a tutelar divinity of their States.'"

Again:

"The constitution and laws of a State are the basis of

the public tranquillity, the firmest support of political authis constitution is a vain phantom, and the best laws are useless, if they be not religiously observed; the nation ought then to watch very attentively, in order to render them equally respected by those who govern, and by the people destined to obey. To attack the constitution of the State, and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are intrusted. The nation ought constantly to repress them with its utmost vigor and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires."

Sir, I indorse those sentiments in their fullest extent, and to the extremest point to which they may be applied. Now, sir, when we are examining the acts of the President on a joint resolution, which proposes to legalize what he has done, Í say that, for one, I cannot give my consent to vote for any approbation or legalization of those acts, if they, in the least degree, infringe the Constitution under which the President acts, and which he is sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend." I am one of those who believe that there is no necessity in peace or war that justifies a violation of the Constitution of the land. I believe that this Constitution was made for war as well as for peace. It provides in itself for a declaration of war. It provides how that declaration shall be made. It provides for waging a war. It provides for the repelling of invasion and the suppression of insurrection, and it was intended, as I believe, by the wise framers who made it, men who themselves, most of them, had just passed through the war of the Revolution, to provide for any emergency, warlike or peaceful, that might ever occur in the history of the Government. And yet, sir, "somehow or somehow else," since the adjournment of Congress, this war has been brought upon the country, The Congress of the United States, as early as 1795, for the purpose of carrying out a plain provision of the Constitution, passed the act of that day. That act I have here, and I wish to refer to it for a moment, however familiar it may be supposed to be to each Senator in the Chamber:

"SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execu-, tion thereof obstructed, in any State, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such State, or of any other State or States, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress.

"SEC. 3. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peacefully to their respective abodes, within a limited time."

I call attention to that third section now, inasmuch as it may bear on a portion of what I shall say hereafter. The President then, proceeding under this law, issues a proclamation on the 15th of April calling out seventy-five thousand men. Now, I ask in what one of the seven seceded States the President ever attempted the execution of the laws of the country? In what one of them, after the President attempted to execute the laws, when and where in any one of them was there such opposition or obstruction, such resistance to the execution of the laws, as could not be overcome by the ordinary judicial proceedings? Has any one been pointed out by the President? Has any one been pointed out by any Senator on this floor? And yet, under this act, which can be resorted to only where there is obstruction or opposition to the execution of the law by combinations of men which cannot be overcome by the ordinary judicial process-under this law it is that the first step has been taken which, as I think, has inaugurated this war which Congress refused to inaugurate.

But, Mr. President, I think that no such case as that contemplated by this act existed on or previous to the 15th of April. The case contemplated by this act clearly is one where there is resistance to some law of the United States in some one of the States, in some particular locality of a State, by the citizens of the State who combine together for the purpose of making effectual resistance. The law was intended to operate upon the individual citizen and to overcome resistance that might be made by the individual citizen or those that might combine with him under such circumstances as I have just indicated. It does not

contemplate the case of a State, or of seven States, assuming, in their corporate capacity, to withdraw themselves from the Union, and to say that the Constitution and the laws of the Union as a whole shall not operate over them. When a State assumes that attitude, and the attempt is made to enforce the laws under such circumstances, it is in effect and in fact a coercion of the State; and that proposition is the very proposition which was intended to be ignored and discarded by the framers of the Constitution, for it was presented and voted down repeatedly, in the different shapes in which it was offered, in the convention that adopted the Constitution. Sir, the wisdom of our fathers is shown in the fact that on the very first occasion in which this coercion of a State is attempted, the nation is involved in a war-a war of gigantic proportions, as has been well said on the other side.

Furthermore, sir, it is clear to me that this war is brought on under an act that contemplates no such a case as has existed since the 4th of March last, but an act that contemplates resistance or obstruction to the execution of the laws by individuals in a given State, and of a particular locality. The first step in bringing war on the country has been taken, therefore, it seems to me, (and I am sorry to say it,) under false pretenses.

vision which says that Congress shall have authority to raise and support armies.

The President, also, has no power to provide for or maintain a navy. That belongs exclusively to Congress; and yet, by this proclamation, the President assumes upon himself to add permanently to the Navy, for at least a term of three years, eighteen thousand men.

This resolution under consideration, also, in its preamble, admits that the President of the United States has authorized the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus between the city of Philadelphia and the city of Washington. It also admits that the President has authorized the commander on the Florida coast to suspend the writ of habeas corpus there; and by an order from the War Department, that same authority was extended to the commandant of the military division which embraces my own State of Missouri; and we know in the case at Baltimore of Merryman, in addition to the other cases referred to by the Senator from Maryland, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus has been actually suspended.

Mr. President, the King of England, monarch though he be, has no right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. That power belongs exclusively to the Parliament; and our fathers have limited and restricted the right of suspending this privi

United States. It has been given to Congress only in the way of an exception:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

I think, Mr. President, there is another point that ought to be noticed in regard to this procla-lege, in the very grant of it, to the Congress of the mation of the President-the opening wedge to the difficulty and strife in which the country is now thrown-and that is this: it is said that, upon the legality of calling out the militia, the President, by his proclamation, determines the whole question; that his proclamation is conclusive upon it. On the contrary, it is my opinion, that the President, by his proclamation, is not authorized to determine the case upon which, by the act, he may call out the militia of the several States; in other words, he cannot, by his proclamation, create an insurrection or a resistance to the laws. But, when the case exists, that is to say, when there is an insurrection, the President can determ-given, by way of exception, to suspend the writ ine whether the exigency is such that the militia ought to be ordered out to suppress it.

What next, sir? On the 15th of April, the President of the United States, claiming that the States of South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, are still a part of the Union, proceeds to blockade the ports of those States throughout the whole line of their coast; and, on the 27th of April, after North Carolina and Virginia had shown a determination not to submit to what they supposed to be the high-handed course of coercion which the President had resolved upon and had commenced, the President also blockaded the ports of Virginia and North Carolina. The Constitution of the United States says that no preference shall be given, by any regulation of commerce or revenue, to the ports of one State over another State; and yet the President of the United States goes far beyond giving a preference, and actually shuts up the ports, and that in a case in which this power of regulating commerce is confined to the Congress of the United States exclusively, and in which the President has no authority whatever. He can make no regulation of commerce that shall either close a port, or shall give preference to one port over another. Indeed, he has no power over the subject at all.

Still further, on the 3d of May the President of the United States issued a proclamation calling for an increase of the Army and the Navy to the amount of about eighty-three thousand mensome sixty-five thousand of the Army, and eighteen thousand of the Navy. There is no law for it. None is pretended. The very proclamation of the President on the face of it admits the fact that there is no law for the call. He says he will submit the question to Congress for its approbation; and yet this resolution proposes that that act also shall be approved and legalized.

It is given in the way of an exception to Congress itself; and when thus given, it is given under restrictions that confine it to a case where the public safety requires it, and to cases of rebellion and invasion only.

manifested in applying the plain principles of the Constitution, under the circumstances in which he was placed. He is a worthy head of the conservative branch of the Government.

I know, sir, that this conduct of the President is justified on the score of necessity. I have already said that I do not believe any such necessity has an existence. None has been pointed out. Has any person undertaken to show that it was in any way necessary for the public safety that Merryman should be arrested and incarcerated in Fort McHenry in the way that he was? No such case has been made out; no such case can be made out. This plea of necessity is the tyrant's plea the world over, and has been in all ages the tyrant's plea for the prostration of civil liberty, and it will continue to be so. When Cæsar marched his victorious Gallic legions across the Rubicon, he did it because it was "necessary" for the preservation of his country, as he alleged. But, sir, no such necessity, as far as I know, has ever existed in this country, and I do not believe that any such necessity ever can exist, whether the country is in a foreign or a civil war. I am not aware that the writ of habeas corpus was suspended for a single moment, or on a single occasion, during the whole course of the revolutionary war. If it was, I am not advised of the fact. I do know that, at one of the gloomiest periods of the history of Virginia, when it was supposed to be necessary to resort to extraordinary measures in order to preserve the public safety, it was proposed in the Virginia House of Delegates to confer dictatorial powers upon Patrick Henry. His patriotism had never been questioned; his jealousy of authority had extended as far as that of any other man during the revolutionary struggle, and he was not behind any one of the patriots who stood in resistance to the encroachment of British power. He was one of those who, in the Virginía convention, re

of habeas corpus, may be exercised by the President of the United States. Sir, the Constitution has not made him the judge of whether he is justified in the exercise of such a power as that. The Constitution has not invested him with the power of determining the legality of his own acts. It has erected another tribunal to determine questions of this sort, and that tribunal has determined that the power belongs to the legislative department of the Government alone to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. That has been solemnly determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, in a case in 7 Cranch; and in this very case of Merryman, the Chief Justice decided that neither the President, nor any subaltern of his, was authorized to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

Now, Mr. President, I am one of those who look upon the action of the President of the United States in this matter as of a character so grave, and, I will add, so perilous, that I cannot, by my vote on this resolution or on any bill or resolution that may be offered, consent to say that he has done right in suspending the writ of habeas corpus, or authorizing it to be suspended, or that that writ ought to be suspended, or can properly be suspended, under any state of circumstances that can exist in the country. As far as I know, Merryman is still incarcerated in Fort McHenry. If he has been released I have never known it. The Senator from Maryland [Mr. KENNEDY] says he has not been released. If he has been I have never known it. The liberties of that man, as I believe, are trodden down in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

I am sorry to see, sir, that there has been no small degree of outcry against the Chief Justice, who decided in that case that Merryman was entitled to the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and that the President of the United States had no Again, the Constitution of the United States right to suspend it either in his own person or by gives the President no power to raise and sup- the action of any subaltern of his. I honor him port armies. On the contrary, the Constitution for the brave and courageous discharge of his duty gives that power exclusively to the Congress; under the circumstances in which he was placed. and yet, by this proclamation, the President pro- He was in the midst of civil tumult; he was surposes to raise an army of sixty-five thousand rounded by soldiers, and by arms. While I honor men, to be enlisted for a space of not less than him for his profound learning, and his great knowlthree years; in other words, he proposes to in-edge; while I honor him for his sage wisdom and crease the regular Army about sixty-five thousand men, and that in the teeth of a constitutional pro

his long experience; I honor him also, and above all, for the simple and sublime courage that he

itself, because he supposed it infringed upon the rights of the States, and because he supposed that the liberties of the people of his State would not be safe after the adoption of that Constitution. It was proposed to give dictatorial power to him; but when a member of that House of Delegates, a bosom friend of Patrick Henry's, but still a greater friend to civil liberty, heard that proposition, he arose and said that, if he could not prevent it in any other way, he would prevent it by the point of his dagger. That House of Delegates never ventured upon so dangerous a proposition. Such power was never given. Martial law was not proclaimed; the writ of habeas corpus was not suspended.

Here, Mr. President, I take occasion to remark that the President has gone beyond the mere suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended, and yet municipal law in all other respects be allowed to have its free course; but, during the period that has elapsed since the 15th of April, the municipal law, in some cases, has been entirely swept by the board; martial law has been proclaimed in some places, and authorized to be proclaimed in others. It has been authorized in my own State of Missouri; so that we have cases in which not merely has the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus been suspended, but we have had a step taken far in advance of that, in the proclamation of martial law. The words "martial law" are not known in our Constitution. They do not occur there. Martial law is foreign to our system of government, as well as in direct antagonism to the spirit of civil liberty. A British Lord Chancelor, Lord Loughborough, said, in 1792, that for a century past martial law had not been known in the realm of England, and it has not been known there since, and I apprehend no person has known it in that kingdom since the revolution of 1688. And yet, sir, during the short period that has elapsed since the 15th of April, we have had martial law descanted upon and spoken about as flippantly as if it was the most harmless thing in the world; whereas, if you look to the ablest jurists to define it, there is not one of them that has ever been able to do it. About the sum and total of the best definitions you can get is that it is the will of the military commandant who does the act. His will becomes the law, and displaces the municipal law and every other kind of law. I believe it was said once by a distin

66

a

"The right of the people to be secure in their houses" that has been violated also in the case of Merryman; it has been violated in cases in my own State. The sanctity of the home has been violated by the force of the bayonet, and the occupant taken from the midst of his family and hurried beyond the reach of the writ of habeas corpus. Said a British orator on this subject, man's cabin might be so humble and so frail that the winds of heaven could whistle through it"I am not using, I fear, the eloquent language in which he clothed the idea-" but the British King had no right to put his foot in it." Sir, these things have transpired under this provision of the Constitution that guaranties to the people the right of security in their houses as well as in their persons.

So, also, Mr. President, this other guarantee for papers and effects has been disregarded. I think I am not wrong when I say-if I am wrong, I have been misled by the public prints on the subject that under orders from the President of the United States, telegraphic dispatches have been seized in different parts of the country. Now, those dispatches were the private property either of the offices or the authors; and yet they have been seized, when the Constitution says that the people shall be safe in their papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The seizure has been made without any warrant of law whatever. I have known an instance in my own State in which a search-warrant was prostituted to the purpose of gathering up evidence to be used in a prosecution for treason on a charge that had been previously presented. So far as I

FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1861.

know, or have heard, the seizure of these telegraphic dispatches has only compromised one person, and he a gentleman who has been sent by the Administration to represent the Government of the United States in a foreign country.

The fifth amendment to this Constitution provides that no person shall be "deprived of his life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This constitutional guarantee has also been trampled upon in the cases which I have referred to. In those cases both the fourth and fifth amendments of the Constitution have been violated. They are twofold violations of this sacred charter of the liberties of the citizen.

NEW SERIES.....No. 4.

which that tendency should not be permitted to be carried out in practice.

More than that; while these acts have increased the power of the President on the one hand, they have taken away powers that belonged and were appropriated by the Constitution to the legislative and to the judicial departments of the Government, so that there has been a usurpation of powers that belonged to the legislative and executive branches of the Government.

Thus the balance of powers intended to be secured by the Constitution has been broken up. By the action of the President of the United States in holding Merryman in confinement against the decision of the Chief Justice of the United States, this has extended to a usurpation of the judicial power of the Government; and as that citizen stands still in confinement, unreleased and undis

into conflict with another branch of the Government. Thus it seems to me, with great respect to the President of the United States, that he has usurped the war power of the Government; he has usurped the power which belonged only to the Legislature, of raising and supporting armies, and of providing and maintaining navies; he has usurped the commercial power of the Government; and he has usurped the power to dispense with the writ of habeas corpus.

Now, Mr. President, has the President any right to regulate commerce between the States or with foreign countries? Clearly not. And yet the commerce of the United States has been regulated since the 15th of April; and, in some in-charged, one branch of the Government is brought stances, restricted so that it has been well nigh destroyed between the States of the Union. Claiming that the whole of the States are still in the Union, yet this power of regulating commerce has been exerted by the President for the purpose of crippling, restraining, and almost destroying commerce between the States that were unquestionably loyal and those that claim to have seceded. Now, sir, the claim that they have seceded does not mitigate the crime of the President; because he has done these acts, and at the same time has said that these States are still in the Union. If they have seceded legally, then they are foreign States, and by the same clause of the Constitution to which have just now referred, the President has no right to regulate commerce between the United States and foreign Governments. If their secession be illegal, then the Constitution is still violated.

I say, then, Mr. President, while the Constitution of the United States provides that "the Congress shall have power ""to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States," and has given that power to Congress only, the President, notwithstanding this constitutional provision, has undertaken to regulate commerce between the States.

The Constitution of the United States again says that Congress shall have power to declare

war.

The President of the United States has involved the country in a war, notwithstanding this provision of the Constitution. The Constitution says that Congress shall have the power" to raise and support armies." The President of the United States has raised armies. The Constitution says that Congress shall have the power "to provide and maintain a navy." The President of the United States has attempted to provide a navy. It also says that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it," and that not even by the Congress of the United States. Yet the President has suspended the writ of habeas corpus. It says that "no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another." The President has by his own act, and without any regulation of Congress, blockaded ports, and not merely given a preference to some ports over others, but has actually suspended the commerce of certain ports entirely. The President of the United States has rendered "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and efects," a nulity, by infringing those rights without the warrant of law; and citizens have been deprived of liberty and property without due process of law.

These are instances of violation of the Constitution in which the President has assumed power to himself. The Constitution intended to limit the power of the President. It has put strict and stringent limitations upon that power, but these acts have had a tendency to increase that power. It is the nature of power, and especially executive power, to aggrandize itself; and the framers of this instrument intended that there should be limitations put upon the Chief Executive, by

This joint resolution, Mr. President, proposes to approve and legalize these acts. I cannot, as an American Senator, give my consent to approve and legalize them. I cannot do it especially under the circumstances in which these acts have been done. I am one of those who believe that there was no occasion for them; and I still further believe that the occasion in which any extraordinary power may be exercised by the Executive is specially marked out by the Constitution; and as I would support and defend the Constitution, I cannot vote to legalize anything that in my judgment is in violation of it, in any respect whatever.

Mr. President, there are some other remarks that I designed to make. As I said at an earlier hour of the session, I did not desire to discuss this joint resolution to-day. I would prefer now to say what I have to say to-morrow; but if it is the purpose of the Senate to continue in session, I will still go on as well as I may.

Mr. POWELL. At the suggestion of the Senator that he prefers to conclude his argument tomorrow, I move that the Senate do now adjourn. The motion was not agreed to.

Mr. POLK. I wish, Mr. President, to call the attention of the Senate, for a short time, to some of the acts of the Administration in my own State since the 15th of April. The Legislature of the State of Missouri, during the progress of the last winter, provided for the assembling of a convention in that State on the 28th of February, at Jefferson City, the capital of that State. They provided in that act, that that convention should proceed to consider "the then existing relations between the Government of the United States, the people and governments of the different States, and the government and people of the State of Missouri; and adopt such measures for vindicating the sovereignty of the State and the protection of its institutions as shall appear to them to be demanded." That convention met, proceeded to the discharge of the duties that were devolved on them by this act of the Legislature, and at a subsequent period they adopted these resolutions:

"Resolved, That at present there is no adequate cause to impel Missouri to dissolve her connection with the Federal Union; but, on the contrary, she will labor for such an adjustment of existing troubles as will secure the peace, as well as the rights and equality of all the States.

Resolved, That the people of this State are devotedly attached to the institutions of our country, and carnestly desire that by a fair and amicable adjustment all the causes of disagreement that at present unfortunately distract us as a people may be removed, to the end that our Union may be preserved and perpetuated, and peace and harmony be restored between the North and the South.

"Resolved, That the people of this State deem the amendments to the Constitution of the United States proposed by the Hon. JoHN J. CRITTENDEN, of Kentucky, with the extension of the same to the territory hereafter to be acquired by treaty or otherwise, a basis of adjustment which

will successfully remove the causes of difference forever from the arena of national politics.

"Resolved, That the people of Missouri believe that the peace and quiet of the country will be promoted by a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and this convention therefore urges the Legislature of this State to take the proper steps for calling such a convention, in pursuance of the fifth article of the Constitution, and for providing by law for an election of one delegate to such convention from each electoral district in this State.

"Resolved, That, in the opinion of this convention, the employment of military force by the Federal Government to coerce the submission of the seceding States, or the employment of military force by the seceding States to assail the Government of the United States, will inevitably plunge this country into civil war, and thereby entirely extinguish all hope of an amicable settlement of the fearful issues now pending before the country; we therefore earnestly entreat as well the Federal Government as the seceding States to withhold and stay the arm of military power, and on no pretense whatever bring upon the nation the horrors of civil war."

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS.

Mr. KENNEDY. With the consent of the honorable Senator from Missouri, I ask leave to make a motion to withdraw some papers from the files of the Senate.

Mr. POLK. Certainly.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move that Davidge Ridgely have leave to withdraw his petition and papers. The motion was agreed to.

dred thousand men, as he may deem necessary, for the purpose of repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, enforcing the laws, and preserving and protecting the public property; and that the sum of $500,000,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, &c.

Mr. SHERMAN. I see that the amendment proposes to appropriate money. I suggest to the chairman of the Military Committee that that is not proper, but that it is better to confine the bill to the purpose announced in the title, and to leave the appropriation to originate in the House of Representatives. In addition to this objection, a general appropriation of $500,000,000 would be a great embarrassment to the Treasury Department. The appropriation ought to be in details, and will no doubt come to us in due form in proper bills from the other House. I therefore move to amend the amendment, if it be in order to do so, by omitting the appropriation entirely. Let that be provided for by bills to come from the other

House.

Mr. WILSON. Do I understand the Senator from Ohio to move to strike out? I think the motion is a proper one, and I shall consent to it very cheerfully, as I suppose we shall have the appropriations from the House of Representatives in bills which will fix the details.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. POLK resumed the floor.

Mr. WILSON. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him a moment?

Mr. POLK. Always.

Mr. WILSON. On consultation with one or two Senators, I have thought that I would make a proposition to the Senator, as he seems to be very anxious to take until to-morrow to conclude his speech. I propose to let this resolution go over until to-morrow morning, with the understanding that we shall now take up the volunteer bill, go on with it, and finish it to-night, and let the Senator finish his speech on the joint resolution to-morrow.

Mr. POLK. I will accede to that proposition. Mr. WILSON. Then I move to postpone this resolution until to-morrow, so that we may now take up the volunteer bill.

The motion was agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. ETHERIDGE, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed a bill (No. 16) further to provide for the collection of duties on imports, and for other purposes; in which the concurrence of the Senate was requested.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.

The message further announced that the Speaker had signed an enrolled bill (S. No. 6) to refund and remit the duties on arms imported by the States; which thereupon received the signature of the Vice President.

THE VOLUNTEER BILL.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The next bill in order is the bill (S. No. 1) to authorize the employment of volunteers to aid in enforcing the laws and protecting public property, which is before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole.

The bill was reported by the Committee on Military Affairs and Militia with amendments; which were, in the first section, after the word "numbers," in line five, to insert" not exceeding five hundred thousand men," and in line eight to strike out "four" and insert "five;" so as to make the section read:

That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to accept the services of volunteers, either as cavalry, infantry, or artillery, in such numbers, not exceeding five hun

The VICE PRESIDENT. The first question on adopting the amendments reported by the Committee on Military Affairs. After that, the motion of the Senator from Ohio will be in order. The question now is on the amendment, to insert "not exceeding five hundred thousand men," after the word "numbers," in line five of section one. The amendment was agreed to.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The next amendment is, to strike out "four" and insert "five," in the eighth line of the first section; so as to make it read, "and that the sum of $500,000,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated.'

Mr. HALE. Now the Senator from Ohio can make his motion.

The VICE PRESIDENT: The amendments of the committee must first be disposed of. The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to add to the tenth section the following clause:

And when vacancies occur in any of the companies of volunteers, an election shall be called by the colonel of the regiment to fill such vacancies, and the men of each company shall vote for all officers as high as captain; and vacancies above captain shall be supplied by the votes of the officers above that rank; and the officers so elected shall be commissioned by the respective Governors of the States. Mr. COLLAMER. It seems to me, the words "in their respective companies" should be inserted.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to; and the amendment, as amended, was adopted. The section, as amended, reads as follows: SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That the general commanding a separate department, or a detached army, is hereby authorized to appoint a military board or cominission of not less than three nor more than five officers, whose duty it shall be to examine the capacity, qualifications, propriety of conduct, and efficiency of any commissioned officer of volunteers, within his department or army, who may be reported to the board or commission; and upon such report, it adverse to such officer, and if approved by the President of the United States, the commission of such officer shall be vacated: Provided always, that no officer shall be eligible to sit on such board or commission whose rank or promotion would in any way be affected by its proceedings; and two members at least, if practicable, shall be of equal rank of the officer being examined; and when vacancies occur in any of the companies of volunteers, an election shall be called by the colonel of the regiment to fill such vacancies, and the men of each company shall vote for all officers in their respective companies as high as captain; and vacancies above captain shall be supplied by the votes of the officers above that rank; and the officers so elected shall be commissioned by the respective Governors of the States.

The next amendment of the committee was to insert" and chaplain," in the fourth line of the eleventh section; so as to make it read:

SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That whenever a regiment of volunteers shall be mustered into the service of the United States, the colonel, lieutenant colonel, major, adjutant, quartermaster, and chaplain thereof, shall each have the privilege of franking any letter from any person belonging, in any capacity, to such regiment, not weighing over two ounces: Provided, That each letter, in addition to the proper direction to the person to whom it is addressed, shall bear on the envelope the name and rank of the writer, whether of the line or staff or of the company, and designating, in each case, the letter of the company, the number of the regiment, and the State to which it belongs: And provided, That the provisions of this section shall apply to all regiments of volunteers now in the ser

vice of the United States, and shall also apply to separate companies or corps, not having regimental organization, letters from any member of which may be franked by the commanding officer of such company or corps, ander the regulations above specified: And provided further, That any person found guilty of any abuse or violation of the privileges of this section shall forfeit and pay a fine of twenty dollars for the first offense, and for a second offense he shall be liable to be tried by a court-martial, and subject to be cashiered or dismissed from the service by the judg

ment thereof.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I am directed by the Committee on Military Affairs to offer this amend ment, to be added at the end of section five:

Provided, That such of the companies of cavalry herein provided for, as may require it, may be furnished with horses and horse equipments in the same manner as in the United States Army.

The amendment was agreed to.

The section, as amended, reads:

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the officers, noncommissioned officers, and privates, organized as above set forth, will, in all respects, be placed on the footing, as to pay and allowances, of similar corps of the regular Army: Provided, That their allowance for clothing shall be $3 50 per month, and that each company officer, non-commissioned officer, private, musician, and artificer of cavalry, shall furnish his own horse and horse equipments, and shall receive forty cents a day for their use and risk, except that, in case the horse shall become disabled, or shall die, the allowance shall cease until the disability be removed or another horse be supplied. Each cavalry volunteer who shall not keep himself supplied with a serviceable horse shall serve on foot. Every volunteer non-commissioned officer, private, musician, and artificer, who enters the service of the United States under this act, shall be paid at the rate of fifty cents in lieu of subsistence, and if a cavalry volunteer, twenty-five cents additional in lieu of forage, for every twenty miles of travel from his place of enrollinent to the place of muster-the distance to be measured by the shortest usually traveled route; and when honorably discharged, an allowance at the same rate, from the place of his discharge to his place of enrollment, and, in addition thereto, the sum of $100: Provided, That such of the companies of cavalry herein provided for as may require it may be furnished with horses and horse equipments in the same manner as in the United States Army.

Mr.SHERMAN. I move to strike out all of the first section that appropriates money.

The Acting Secretary read the words proposed to be stricken out, as follows:

"And that the sum of $500,000,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry this act into effect."

Mr. SHERMAN. To avoid misapprehension, I will say that I do not doubt the power of the Senate to appropriate this money; but all appropriations ought to be made in specific sums for specific purposes; and no large appropriation of this kind ought ever to be made, in my judgment. No doubt bills will be framed on the estimates of the Secretary of the Treasury, in detail; and they will be sent to us, and when sent, passed; but no general appropriation of this kind ought ever to be made; there should be details.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. RICE. I wish to call the attention of the chairman of the Military Committee to this clause in section five:

"Provided, That their allowance for clothing shall be $3.50 per month."

I wish to ask him if that does not include the officers? Was it the intention to allow a commutation for clothing for officers in the Army? It never has been done. I presume the language has been drawn in this way by some inadver

tence.

Mr. WILSON. That is a point that has not, to my knowledge, been considered by the committee; certainly I have not considered it. This portion of the bill was drawn up from the proclamation of the President calling some of those men into the field. The Senator may make any amendment he desires.

Mr. RICE. I propose, then, that it shall read: "The allowance for non-commissioned officers and privates, for clothing, shall be $3 50 per month. "

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. It seems to me that that leaves the bill without any provision for placing these volunteer officers on the same footing with the regular officers as to pay. This section does not allow clothing to the officers. The section reads thus:

"That the officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, organized as above set forth, will, in all respects, be placed on the footing, as to pay and allowances, of similar corps of the regular Army."

There is no allowance for clothing to commissioned officers of the regular Army. If the sec