Congressional.
In the Senate, yesterday, nothing of general interest transpired.
Mr. Sparrow, of
Louisiana, from the
Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred a preamble and resolutions from the House of Representatives, (submitted in that body by
Mr. Rawis, of
Ala.,) reported the same with the recommendation that they do pass.
They express the sense of Congress in regard to rennion with the
United States, absolutely and emphatically declaring against such reunion.
The preamble and resolutions were unanimously agreed to by the Senate.
Several reports and resolutions were presented, but they were generally referred to the different committees.
In the House of Representatives, a resolution pledging the
Government to maintain its territorial integrity, was, on motion of
Mr. Bonham, of
South Carolina, taken up and adopted.
Mr. Royston, of
Arkansas, offered a resolution adopting rules for the
House, as reported by the committee, without debats, which was agreed to.
The remainder of the day was taken up by a lengthy and spirited debate on the bills introduced by
Mr. Miles, of
S. C., on the part of the Military Committee, and
Mr. Foote, of
Tenn., providing for the destruction of cotton and tobacco, and other property useful to the enemy, by our military commanders, and compensation to those whose property was thus destroyed.
Messrs. Miles,
Conrad,
Foots,
Curry,
Baldvin,
Smith of
Va., Boyes,
Pryor,
Dargan, Beiakall,
Davis,
Russell, and
Wright of
Ga., participated in the debate.
Mr. Curry said, if there be a man, or a woman, in
Alabama, who is not willing himself to put the torch to every lock of cotton, rather than it should fall into the hands of the enemy, he hoped the
Yankees might burn him. He did not approve of destroying property unnecessarily, and moved to amend the bill by substituting for the words ‘"about to fail into the hands,"’ &c., ‘"when it may be necessary to prevent the same from falling into the hands of the enemy."’
Mr. Conrad was satisfied with neither bill, one offering to do too much and the other too little.
He thought that to indemnify for all property destroyed, was a departure from the practice of all Governments.
It was the right and duty of a military commander to destroy all the property which would strengthen his enemy.
He might destroy provisions, a railroad, blow up a bridge, and so on — and no one would have any claim to be indemnified for such loss.--There were, however, certain descriptions of property which a military commander would have no right to destroy, because it would give no assistance to his enemy.--There had been too much twaddle in the newspapers and in legislative bodies about ‘"King Cotton."’ He was tired of it. We should not militate against neutral powers nor attempt to coerce them.
It was impolitic and unwise.
We should make war only upon our enemies.
He was in favor of including in the bill sugar, rice, naval stores, which are as much needed now as any article of commerce.
The bill does not provide for the indemnification of the man who voluntarily destroys his property, and he thought that provision should stand in the fore part of the bill.
Mr. Boyce said the
North had exhibited in this contest extraordinary energy, but the very exertions they had made would exhaust them.
The expenses of this war must exhaust the Morth.
That is the wound of which they must die. If we can continue to throw the expense of the war upon them, they must stop.
They dread to impose direct taxes — let us strike them at their vital part, which is money; but let us not deceive our own people, for we can never remunerate them for the sacrifices they must make.
Their lives have been freely poured out; and are not lives of more value than property!
Mr. Dargan said we should keep within our constitutional powers, and the destruction of cotton and tobacco can never be a military necessity.
He was in favor of their destruction, but wished it accompanied with a promise of compensation, whether that promise were carried out or not.
Mr. Miles, in defending the bill reported by him, said be confessed to a disappointment at the course pursued by
England and
France with respect to our recognition and the blockade.
He was not anxious to conciliate those powers.
There were a number of amendmets offered, but at the time of adjournment the bill had no; passed.
