Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 10.
Frank Moore, Ed.

---

“ [47] by land and by sea, as long as may be necessary to crush out the rebels themselves, and all their sympathizers at home and abroad.” Mr. Wright, of Pennsylvania, was not opposed to the spirit of the bill, but he thought some of its provisions in conflict with the Constitution, and he desired to amend it. Mr. Sargent, of California, was in favor of the bill, “because it distributes equally the burdens of the war, laying them as well upon the lukewarm friends or the open opponents of the Government as upon the. true and faithful; because it prevents the possibility of demagogues, who seek the ruin of the republic, longer preventing the enlistment of soldiers to fight this great battle of freedom.” Mr. Sheffield, of Rhode Island, thought the law would put to a severe test the loyalty of the people; in their submission to its provisions was involved the question of their devotion to their country. Mr. White, of Ohio, bitterly denounced the bill as an arbitrary measure. Mr. Vallandigham denounced the bill as a measure “to abrogate the Constitution, to repeal all existing laws, to destroy all rights, to strike down the judiciary, and erect upon the ruins of civil and political liberty a stupendous superstructure of despotism.” Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, replied to Mr. Vallandigham in a speech of great power. Mr. Voorhees, of Indiana, declared that the administration would deceive the country no more, nor coerce or intimidate it with its measures.

On the twenty-fourth, the debate was resumed by Mr. Mallory, of Kentucky, in opposition to the passage of the bill. Mr. Dunn, of Indiana, declared that the necessity was upon us to pass a bill of this character. Mr. Pendleton, of Ohio, and Mr. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, spoke in opposition to the passage of the bill. Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, advocated the passage of the measure with some amendments. Mr. Steele, of New-York, objected to the bill “as one of a series of measures which centralize power in the Federal Government.” Mr. S. C. Fessenden, of Maine, and Mr. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, advocated the measure, and Mr. Cox, of Ohio, and Mr. Norton, of Missouri, opposed it. On the twenty-fifth, Mr. Thomas, of Massachusetts, opened the debate in favor of the passage of the bill: “You die,” he said, “without this measure; you can no more with it, except you die as cowards die, many times.” Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, followed in opposition to the measure. “A negro army,” he declared, “is a weakness in your country. It unnerves the white man's hand; it unnerves the white man's heart. White men will not fight by the side of negroes.”

Mr. Olin moved to amend the bill by striking out of the seventh section the words, “to inquire into and report to the Provost-Marshal General all treasonable practices; to detect, seize, and confine spies of the enemy,” and inserting in lieu thereof, “To detect, seize, and confine spies of the enemy, who shall, without unreasonable delay, be delivered to the custody of the general commanding the district in which they may be arrested, to be tried as soon as the exigencies of the service permit;” and the amendment was agreed to. On motion of Mr. Olin the bill was amended by adding as a new section, that all persons who, in time of war or of rebellion against the supreme authority of the United States, should be found lurking or acting as spies in or about any fortification, post, or encampment of any of the armies of the United States or elsewhere, should be triable by military commission, and, upon conviction, should suffer death. Mr. Cox moved to insert the word “white” before “able-bodied.” Mr. Lovejoy demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered — yeas, fifty-two; nays, eighty-five.

Mr. Holman, of Indiana, moved to amend by inserting as a substitute a new bill of eleven sections — yeas, forty-five; nays, one hundred and seven; so Mr. Holman's amendment was rejected. The bill was then passed — yeas, one hundred and fifteen; nays, forty-eight.

On the twenty-eighth, the Senate, on motion of Mr. Wilson, proceeded to the consideration of the House amendments. Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, moved the indefinite postponement of the bill, and spoke at length against its provisions. Mr. McDougall, of California, followed in support of the bill. Mr. Turpie, of Indiana, declared that “the opposition to this measure was made because it was palpably in violation of the Constitution of the United States.” Mr. Carlisle spoke in opposition to the measure. Mr. Hicks, of Maryland, spoke for the bill, and Mr. Kennedy, of the same State, against it. Mr. Davis and Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, Mr. Richardson, of Illinois, and Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, spoke in opposition to the bill. The question was then taken on Mr. Bayard's motion to indefinitely postpone it, and it was lost — yeas, eleven; nays, thirty-five. The several amendments of the House were then concurred in, and the bill was approved by the President on the third of March, 1863.

No. Xlvi.--The Act to amend an Act entitled “An Act to authorize the Employment of Volunteers to aid in Enforcing the Laws, and Protecting Public Property,” approved July twenty-second, 1861.

In the Senate on the twenty-fourth of February, 1863, Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin, from the Committee on Pensions, reported a bill to amend the act to authorize the employment of volunteers, approved the twenty-second of July, 1861. The bill provided that every non-commissioned officer, private, or other person who had been, or might thereafter be, discharged from the army within two years from the date of his enlistment, by reason of wounds received in battle, should be entitled to receive the same bounty as was granted, or might be granted, to the same class of persons who were discharged after a service of two years. It was read three times, engrossed, and passed without a division. In the House, on the second of March, it was taken up and passed. It was approved by the President on the third of March, 1863.