Scenes in the Federal Congress.
Drunkenness in the army — the negro question — Confiscation, &c.
Senate.
Mr. Hale, of
New Hampshire, offered a resolution as follows:
Resolved, That the
Committee on Military Affairs be instructed
General of the army of the United States be ore
Yorktown has exhibited himself drunken the face of the enemy, on duty, and if so, if any measures have been taken for the trial and punishment of such officer.
Mr. Hale read the statement made in the
House yesterday by
Mr. Morriti, stating the a commanding General before
Yorktown had been so drunk that he had twice fallen from his horse at the time of the engagement at Lee's Mills, in which some
Vermont troops were sacrificed for the want of timely succor.
He said this was another
Ball's Bruff affair, and there was no punishment known to the military law of which such a General was not deserving.
Congress ought to vindicate itself as a part of the governing power in these matters, and not permit our soldiers to be led into battle and shot down like dogs, while their General is too drunk to sit on his horse.
Mr. Foster, of
Connecticut, had no objection to the inquiry, but thought that before the Senate planed itself on its virtue, it ought to look at its own criminality in confirming men to such appointments who are known to be habitually intemperate at the time.
He though some blame thus rested upon the Senate and denounced the practice.
The Chair took occasion to say the
commanding General on the occasion referred to had not confirmed by the Senate.
Mr. Hale said he coincided in the general character of the remarks of the
Senator from
Connecticut, and related instances in the post, during the early pars of his Senate service, where in one case he had seen on officer so drunk at a private party that he had to leave, and stole an additional bottle of from the host as he went out, and yet when he mentioned the case in the Senate as a reason why the person should not be confirmed in the promotion then pending, he was old that these private matters were not to be tried here.
Mr. Sombar.--That was in the old pro-slavery days.
Mr. Hale.--I don't know that we are any better, in that regard, in the anti-slavery days.
Mr. Wilson, of
Massachusetts, he presumed the officer referred to before
Yorktown was
General W. F. Smith.
He had himself declined to vote to confirm any officer who was guilty of intemperance, and should to do so, as he had trusting the lives of American soldiers to any such unreliable and ding useful authority.
The resolution was then adopted.
Negro Colonization.
Mr. Sumner, of
Massachusetts, urged the adoption of the measure at some length illustrating the trade and productions, the general statistics, and commercial and political importance of those States of the colored The area of the territory of Hayti, embracing 35,000 square miles, was about equal to
Ireland; its soil was rich with tropical luxuriance, its productions abundant to profusion, with metallic treasures of gold, sliver, and platinum, and a population of 600,000.
The territory of
Liberia is 500 miles in length along the coast, with a breadth of about 50 miles, embracing an area of 30,000 square miles, containing a civilized population of American negro emigrants and their children of 1,000, and population, subject to their control and important — sugar, cotton, coffee, and In the production of sugar superiority above all others.
Among sixty countries with which the
United States maintain commercial relations, the
list being written in order of relative importance Hayti stands 27th and Liberty 29th, or, by a estimate, the 16th and 18th in importance.
The exports from Hayti to this country were greater than those received from
Russia, while the imports into Hayti from this country were $2,062,000 against $500,000 of similar imports into
Russia.
Yes
Russia.
Yet
Russia and each of these sixty countries, with three exceptions, were represented by diplomatic agents, while twenty one of them were lower in the scale of trade then those two negro States.
Our commerce with
Turkey and
China was inferior with Hayti, while expensive commercial agents were maintained there.
The measure was one also of political importance in adjusting the balance of power in the
west Indies.
The morning hour having expired, the subject went over.
The Confiscation bill.
The Confiscation bill came up, and
Mr. Davis, of
Kentucky, continued his speech from yesterday against it. He read an argument made by
Wendell Phillips, in a controversy with
Mr. Spooner, which he pronounced unanswerable, showing that the
Constitution fully recognized and protected slavery, and by using the term "free," in regard to persons, indicated the presence of slaves, for whom the privileges and rights of the
Government were not designed.
Therefore,
Phillips advocated the destruction of the
Constitution.--The legality of slavery was also shown under the
English and common law, all of which
Phillips admitted.
Phillips had declared he was willing to walk over the
Constitution for the destruction of slavery; and this is what his followers are doing, not in his bold and manly way, false presences and indirect legislation.
It was only this session that laws had been passed to obstruct and prevent the slave owner from recovering his property, though it had been decided by our highest tribunals that the owner was entitled to go into any tree State and recover his slave.
Mr. D. was not an advocate of slavery in the abstract; every slave would be allowed to go from the country if he could so decree it. He thought a plan by which, in some three generations, we should get rid of the institution was practiced.
Wendell Phillips had, however, recently charged his one somewhat — imaging, as he did, that his party was to power here, or at least that there were here of his own thought and sympathy (the
Senators from
Massachusetts and New --
Sumner and
Hale — among them) who would succeed by their arts draw the conservative Republicans to the overt carrying out of these destructive purposes.
He read from what he termed the and infamous declarations made by
Phillips when in
Washington, and that he should have been at once arrested by the
President or
Secretary of War and sent . He contended that slavery had always existed, and when the Saviour of mankind came earth he came among a slaveholding community, thought of the duties in the relation of man slave, and although the gentleman from
New Hampshire was so well versed in he (
Mr. Davis) challenged him to show any place where
Christ condemned slavery as a
Mr. Hale said he thought the command of God to all men now to go and repent applied to the care.
Mr. Davis feared the gentleman was too hardened then went on to remark upon the which had come up from the whole emancipation hive on the proposition to apportion the free slaves among the
Free States, and gave statistics the number that each State would have to accommodate.
He denounced this course a unjust and dishonest while manifesting a purpose return them loose to the others.
He believed that His providence, had to long permitted slavery, it would always exist among men in some form or other.
He referred to the pledges of Congress and the
President not to tolerate with slavery, made after the
battle of Bull Run, and by which the subsequent great army was raised, and desired that those pledges should be carried out in their true spirit.
If this was not done the war had only commenced.
But he wanted the rebellion put down, that all true Union men, of all sections, should mutually come together in a war upon the Abolition party.
In conclusion,
Mr. D. indicated the character of forfeitures against he would favor, by which the loyal sufferers by the war would be income with the property, including slaves, of those engaged in the rebellion — no slaves would thus be freed, in spit of the
Constitution.
The leaders, and those prominently guilty, might be punished to the of life and property, or be self banished from among us; but for the less intelligent and the deluded he would offer amnesty, and in passing a bill make it act prospectively, giving thirty days in which persons may have the opportunity to avail of it.
Mr. Sumner moved that the further consideration of the bill be postponed, and the Senate go into Executive session.
Mr. Trumcull protested against this recurrence of postponements of the bill, and after some conversation in which
Mr. Sherman (who had the floor on the bill,)
Mr. Collamer and others took part, the yeas and nays were demanded on the motion to go into Executive session, and the motion was rejected by a the vote.
Mr. Sherman (who has heretofore offered a substitute for the bill) then moved to amend the original Confiscation bill by striking out the features confiscating all the property of all the rebels, and substituting other matter naming certain classes whose property might be confiscated, as civil, judicial, military, and naval officers, &c.
Mr. S. conceded the truth of the declaration that so sweeping a confiscation had never been enacted by any Government as proposes in
Mr. Trumbull's bill, and he deemed it impracticable.
He urged the milder measure and declared he would be willing not only to see the property, but the lives of
Jeff. Davis,
Benjamin, and all such sacrificed, and was not opposed to employing the negroes against the rebels.
Mr. Wilson, of
Massachusetts, moved to amend Mr.
Herman's amendment by adding, after members of Congress, "and members of the
Cabinet."
The bill was further discussed by
Messrs. Hale and
Doolittle of
Wisconsin, the latter declaring that he could discover nowhere any lawful authority by which they could gain to rebel properly except by seizing it for taxes.
The Senate than adjourned.
House of Representatives.
debate on the Confiscation of Southern property.
The consideration of the subject of the confiscation of the property of rebels was resumed.
Mr. Hutchins, of
Ohio, moved to reconsider the vote where by the main question was ordered on the passage of
Mr. Bingham's substitute.
Mr. Sheffield, of
Rhode Island, moved to lay the bill on the table.
The bill was then laid on the table by a vote of 24 to 42.
The next bill taken up was reported by the Judiciary Committee to facilitate the suppression of the rebellion and prevent its return.
Mr. Olin, of New York, said never was such a monstrous system as his presented anywhere.
He would move that the whole matter be referred to a select committee to consist of seven, to be appointed by the
Speaker.
Mr. Dunn, of
Indiana, said the bill that had just been laid on the table would, if it had passed, have disgraced the civilized world.
He would make a distinction between the leaders of the rebellion and the people who had been forced and persuaded into it by these leaders.
Mr. Cortex, of
Indiana, favored the motion to refer to a select committee.
Mr. Hangnam, of
Ohio, advocated the passage of the bill.
Mr. Cebman, of
Pennsylvania, said owing to the temper of the
House he thought the subject ought to be referred to a select committee.
He would favor none of the general bills of confiscation by congress.
He contended that no man, however, experienced he may be, can lay down any formula for his action with regard convents which may attend the progress to this rebellion.
He contended that no legislation on this subject was necessary, because as the army advanced into the enemy's country the supremacy of the laws would follow.
He further maintained that it was not within the power of any legislature of the State to take a State out of the
Union.
He did not consider any of the states were out of the
Union.
Mr. Lovejoy, of
Ill., would inquire of the gentleman if the
President had a right to appoint a Governor for
Tennessee?
Mr. Lehman, of
Penn., thought the
President had a right in cases of necessity.
Mr. , of
Kentucky, said that
Gen. A. Johnson had been appointed by the
President, in his capacity as Executive, as a Military, and no as a civil Governor.
Mr. Lehman, of
Penn., resuming, considered that
South Carolina was much in the
Union as
Massachusetts.
Several members asked and obtained leave to have their remarks prepared and printed in the
Globe.
Mr. Hickman, of
Penn., favored the bill.
He was in favor of confiscating all the property of the rebels.
In conclusion, he said that the military process would reach where the civil process would not and the persons who had been impression of any civil law but he will never which the
President had a right to or force when the necessity
Mr. Crittenden, of
Kentucky, said the
President had no powers only those granted him by Congress disregarded all these to unconstitutional, because it authorizes the
President to manumit every slave in the
Union. Such power is not given to him by the
Constitution.
The President has sworn to administer the laws.
If a judge dies the
President has no right to preside of the clerk dies the
President cannot processes.
If the sheriff refuses to act, the
President has no right to arrest.
In all these cases the
President has a right to appoint and according to the . His main argument was the slave tax of the public mind by the possession of property and the respect and recognition of rights and property.
By the laws of
England and
America the dearest rights of man are those of his property, and he could not be deprived of it except by due process of law, and if any one attempted to take his property violently he had a right to take life.
The war was for the restoration of the
Union and not for the abolition of slavery, and if it was considered to be a war for the confiscation of property there would be nobody to fight but the
Abolitionists Congress at the extra session declared they did not end to assail the institutions of any of the States, but as soon as this rebellion was put down the war ought to end. We have ample means to put down this rebellion, and now gentlemen seek to throw in another object, to war, to abolish slavery.
He would beg them to let this unnecessary measure alone — there is no necessity for it.
Mr. Lincoln has an opportunity to occupy the place next to
Washington if he chooses to accept it, but if he makes it a party matter it is lost.
The
House then adjourned.
