THE SENATE AND THE VETO MESSAGE.
Mr. Trumbull on the amendments of the House -- Mr. Guthrie
exhibits feeling -- Mr. Sherman's deliberate conclusion --
Mr. Henderson's sovereign remedy -- Mr. Trumbull on patent
medicines -- Mr. McDougall a white man -- Mr. Reverdy
Johnson on the power to pass the bill -- Concurrence of the
House -- the Veto Message -- Mr. Lane, of Kansas -- His
efforts for delay -- Mr. Garrett Davis -- Mr. Trumbull's
reply to the President -- The question taken -- Yeas and
Nays -- Failure of passage.
On the 7th of February the amendments of the House to the Freedmen's
Bureau Bill were presented to the Senate, and referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
On the following day Mr. Trumbull, chairman of this committee,
reported certain amendments to the amendments made by the House of
Representatives. Mr. Trumbull said: "The House of Representatives have
adopted a substitute for the whole bill, but it is the Senate bill
_verbatim_, with a few exceptions, which I will endeavor to point out.
The title of the bill has been changed, to begin with. It was called
as it passed the Senate 'A bill to enlarge the powers of the
Freedmen's Bureau.' The House has amended the title so as to make it
read, 'A bill to amend an act entitled "An act to establish a Bureau
for the Relief of Freedmen and Refugees," and for other purposes.' Of
course, there is no importance in that.
"The first amendment which the House has made, and the most important
one, will be found to commence in the eighth line of the first
section. The House has inserted words limiting the operation of the
Freedmen's Bureau to those sections of country within which the writ
of _habeas corpus_ was suspended on the 1st day of February, 1866. As
the bill passed the Senate, it will be remembered that it extended to
refugees and freedmen in all parts of the United States, and the
President was authorized to divide the section of country containing
such refugees and freedmen into districts. The House amend that so as
to authorize the President to divide the section of country within
which the privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ was suspended on
the 1st day of February, 1866, containing such refugees and freedmen,
into districts. The writ of _habeas corpus_ on the 1st day of February
last was suspended in the late rebellious States, including Kentucky,
and in none other. The writ of _habeas corpus_ was restored by the
President's proclamation in Maryland, in Delaware, and in Missouri,
all of which have been slaveholding States.
"As the bill passed the Senate, it will be observed it only extended
to refugees and freedmen in the United States, wherever they might be,
and the President was authorized to divide the region of country
containing such refugees and freedmen, and it had no operation except
in States where there were refugees and freedmen. The House has
limited it so that it will not have operation in Maryland, or
Delaware, or Missouri, or any of the Northern States."
After Mr. Trumbull had stated the other and less important amendments
made by the House, the Senate proceeded to consider the amendments
proposed by the Judiciary Committee, the first of which was to strike
out the words "within which the privileges of the writ of _habeas
corpus_ was suspended on the 1st day of February, 1866."
Mr. Trumbull said: "I wish to say upon that point that the bill as it
passed the Senate can have no operation except in regions of country
where there are refugees and freedmen. It is confined to those
districts of country, and it could not have operation in most of the
loyal States. But it is desirable, as I am informed, and it was so
stated by one of the Senators from Maryland, that the operations of
this bill should be extended to Maryland. It may be necessary that it
should be extended to Missouri, and possibly to Delaware. I trust not;
but the authority to extend it there ought to exist, if there should
be occasion for it. The only objection I have to limiting the
operation of the bill to the late slaveholding States is, that I think
it bad legislation, when we are endeavoring to break down
discrimination and distinction, to pass a law which is to operate in
one State of the Union and not in another. I would rather that the law
should be general, although I am fully aware that there is nothing for
the law to operate upon in most of the States of the Union. I do not
feel quite willing to vote upon Kentucky, for instance, a law that I
am not willing to have applicable to the State of Illinois, if such a
state of facts exists as that the law can operate in Illinois. I
prefer, therefore, to have the bill in the shape in which it passed
the Senate, and such was the opinion of the Committee on the
Judiciary."
Mr. Guthrie, of Kentucky, spoke with much feeling upon the bearings of
the bureau upon his State: "You will have to acknowledge these States
or you will have to do worse. The passage of this system of bills is a
dissolution of the Union, and you can not help it. It will be
impossible for you to carry on this Government under any such system.
When the Union is not to be restored, when there is nothing of that
feeling to make the people endure, do you suppose they will endure
forever? Do you suppose this bill will attach the people in these
eleven States more thoroughly to the Union than they felt when they
reörganized their State governments, passed laws manumitting their
slaves, electing their Legislatures, and doing all that was indicated
as necessary to be done? Do you suppose that there will ever come a
time, under this bill, that they will desire to become members of this
Union once more? I see in this bill exactly how Kentucky is tolerated
here; for as to having part in this legislation, when she is charged
openly with being ruled at home by rebels, our counsels can be of no
good here; but still we are not to be driven from the Union, and from
raising our voice in favor of it, and raising it in favor of
conciliation and confidence from one section to the other. Gentlemen
do not get these doctrines of hatred and vengeance from the Gospel.
These are not the doctrines taught by the Savior of the world. While
you cry for justice to the African, you are not slow to commit wrong
and outrage on the white race.
"Sir, there were rebels in all the States, and will be again if you
drive these people to desperation. The Senator from Massachusetts, if
I understood his language aright, threatened us with war or worse if
we did not yield to his suggestions, and the Senator from Indiana
intimated very strongly the same thing. You have strength enough to
carry these measures, if it is the sentiment of the nation; but we are
not a people to be alarmed by words or threats."
Mr. Sherman had been, as he said, "during this whole debate, rather a
spectator than a participant." Not desiring to commit himself too
hastily, he had reserved his opinion that he might act and vote
understandingly, without feeling, or prejudice, or passion. It was
after full reflection that he voted for the bill so harshly
characterized by the Senator from Kentucky, who had evinced a degree
of feeling entirely uncalled for. Mr. Sherman said further: "I look
upon the Freedman's Bureau Bill as simply a temporary protection to
the freedmen in the Southern States. We are bound by every
consideration of honor, by every obligation that can rest on any
people, to protect the freedmen from the rebels of the Southern
States; ay, sir, and to protect them from the loyal men of the
Southern States. We know that, on account of the prejudices instilled
by the system of slavery pervading all parts of the Southern States,
the Southern people will not do justice to the freedmen of those
States. We know that in the course of the war the freedmen have been
emancipated; that they have aided us in this conflict; and, therefore,
we are bound, by every consideration of honor, faith, and of public
morals, to protect and maintain all the essential incidents of freedom
to them. I have no doubt that in doing this we shall encounter the
prejudices not only of rebels, but of loyal men; but still the
obligation and guarantee is none the less binding on us. We must
maintain their freedom, and with it all the incidents and all the
rights of freedom."
Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, like the Senator from Ohio, had hitherto
taken no part in the discussion. He was opposed to the limitations
placed upon the bill by the House of Representatives. "I would not
have voted for it if it had not been carried to my own State; and if
this amendment of the House of Representatives is to be adopted, I
will not vote for the bill. I want the bill to be made general. If it
is to be made special, if it is to be applied to Kentucky only, I
appreciate the feeling that drove my friend from Kentucky to make the
most unfortunate remark that has been made upon the floor of the
Senate since 1861. I sincerely hope, for the good of the country, that
the distinguished Senator may see fit to take back what he said a few
moments ago.
"Sir, we have had enough of disunion. I hope that no Senator in the
future will rise upon this floor and talk, under any circumstances
whatever, of another war of rebellion against the constituted
authorities of this country. My God! are we again to pass through the
scenes of blood through which we have passed for the last four years?
Are we to have this war repeated? No Freedmen's Bureau Bill, no bill
for the protection of the rights of any body, shall ever drive me to
dream of such a thing."
Mr. Henderson thought a better protection for the negro than the
Freedmen's Bureau would be the ballot. He said: "I live in a State
that was a slaveholding State until last January a year ago. I have
been a slaveholder all my life until the day when the ordinance of
emancipation was passed in my State. I advocated it, and have
advocated emancipation for the last four years, at least since this
war commenced. Do you want to know how to protect the freedmen of the
Southern States? This bill is useless for that purpose. It is not the
intention of the honorable Senators on this floor from Northern
States, who favor this bill, to send military men to plunder the good
people of Kentucky. It is an attempt to enforce this moral and
religious sentiment of the people of the Northern States. Sir, these
freedmen will be protected. The decree of Almighty God has gone forth,
as it went forth in favor of their freedom originally, that they shall
be endowed with all the rights that belong to other men. Will you
protect them? Give them the ballot, Mr. President, and then they are
protected."
In reference to the remarks by Mr. Henderson, Mr. Trumbull said: "The
zeal of my friend from Missouri seems to have run away with him.
Having come from being a slaveholder to the position of advocating
universal negro suffrage as the sovereign remedy for every thing, he
manifests a degree of zeal which I have only seen equaled, I confess,
by some of the discoverers of patent medicines who have found a grand
specific to cure all diseases! Why, he says this bureau is of no
account; give the negro the ballot, and that will stop him from
starving; that will feed him; that will educate him! You have got on
your hands to-day one hundred thousand feeble indigent, infirm colored
population that would starve and die if relief were not afforded; and
the Senator from Missouri tells you, 'This is all nonsense; give them
the right of suffrage, and that is all they want.' This to feed the
hungry and clothe the naked! He has voted for these bills; but if you
will only just give the right of suffrage, you do not want to take
care of any starving man, any orphan child, any destitute and feeble
person that can not take care of himself! It is the most sovereign
remedy that I have heard of since the days of Townsend's
Sarsaparilla."
Referring to the feeling manifested by Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Trumbull said:
" God forbid that I should put a degradation on the people of
Kentucky. I never thought of such a thing. I would sooner cut off my
right hand than do such a thing. What is it that so excites and
inflames the mind of the Senator from Kentucky that he talks about the
degradation that is to be put upon her, the plunder of her people, the
injustice that is to be done her inhabitants? Why, sir, a bill to help
the people of Kentucky to take care of the destitute negroes, made
free without any property whatever, without the means of support, left
to starve and to die unless somebody cares for them; and we propose in
the Congress of the United States to help to do it. Is that a
degradation? Is that an injustice? Is that the way to rob a people?"
Mr. McDougall having subsequently obtained the floor, made the remark:
"I, being a white man, say for the white men and white women that they
will take care of themselves. This bill was not made for white women
or white men, or white men and women's children."
This brought out the following statistical statement from Mr.
Trumbull: "I have before me the official report, which shows the
consolidated number of rations issued in the different districts and
States during the month of June, July, August, September, and October,
1865. In June there were issued to refugees three hundred and thirteen
thousand six hundred and twenty-seven rations, and thirty six thousand
one hundred and eighty-one to freedmen. In August, in Kentucky and
Tennessee, there were issued to refugees eighty-seven thousand one
hundred and eighty rations, and to freedmen eighty-seven thousand one
hundred and ninety-five--almost an equality."
Mr. Johnson, of Maryland remarked: "The object of the bill is a very
correct one; these people should be taken care of; and as it is
equally applicable to the whites and to the blacks, and the whites in
many of the States requiring as much protection as the blacks, I would
very willingly vote for the bill if I thought we had the power to pass
it; but on the question of power I have no disposition now or perhaps
at any time in the present stage of the bill to trouble the Senate."
The bill soon after passed the Senate as amended in the House, and
reämended in the Senate, by a vote of twenty-nine to seven.
On the following day, the amendments of the Senate were concurred in
by the House without debate, and the Freedmen's Bureau Bill was ready
to be submitted to the Executive.
Ten day's after the final passage of the bill, the President sent to
the Senate a message, "with his objection thereto in writing."
The Senate immediately suspended other business to hear the VETO
MESSAGE, which was read by the Secretary, as follows:
"_To the Senate of the United States:_
"I have examined with care the bill which originated in the
Senate, and has been passed by the two houses of Congress,
to amend an act entitled 'An act to establish a Bureau for
the relief of Freedmen and Refugees,' and for other
purposes. Having, with much regret, come to the conclusion
that it would not be consistent with the public welfare to
give my approval to the measure, I return the bill to the
Senate with my objections to its becoming a law.
"I might call to mind, in advance of these objections, that
there is no immediate necessity for the proposed measure.
The act to establish a Bureau for the relief of Freedmen and
Refugees, which was approved in the month of March last, has
not yet expired. It was thought stringent and extensive
enough for the purpose in view in time of war. Before it
ceases to have effect, further experience may assist to
guide us to a wise conclusion as to the policy to be adopted
in time of peace.
"I share with Congress the strongest desire to secure to the
freedmen the full enjoyment of their freedom and property,
and their entire independence and equality in making
contracts for their labor; but the bill before me contains
provisions which, in my opinion, are not warranted by the
Constitution, and are not well suited to accomplish the end
in view.
"The bill proposes to establish by authority of Congress,
military jurisdiction over all parts of the United States
containing refugees and freedmen. It would, by its very
nature, apply with most force to those parts of the United
States in which the freedmen most abound; and it expressly
extends the existing temporary jurisdiction of the
Freedmen's Bureau, with greatly enlarged powers, over those
States 'in which the ordinary course of judicial proceeding,
has been interrupted by the rebellion.' The source from
which this military jurisdiction is to emanate is none other
than the President of the United States, acting through the
War Department and the commissioner of the Freedmen's
Bureau. The agents to carry out this military jurisdiction
are to be selected either from the army or from civil life;
the country is to be divided into districts and
sub-districts; and the number of salaried agents to be
employed may be equal to the number of counties or parishes
in all the United States where freedmen and refugees are to
be found.
"The subjects over which this military jurisdiction is to
extend in every part of the United States include protection
to 'all employés, agents, and officers of this bureau in the
exercise of the duties imposed' upon them by the bill. In
eleven States it is further to extend over all cases
affecting freedmen and refugees discriminated against' by
local law, custom, or prejudice.' In those eleven States the
bill subjects any white person who may be charged with
depriving a freedman of 'any civil rights or immunities
belonging to white persons' to imprisonment or fine, or
both, without, however, defining the 'civil rights and
immunities' which are thus to be secured to the freedmen by
military law. This military jurisdiction also extends to all
questions that may arise respecting contracts. The agent who
is thus to exercise the office of a military judge may be a
stranger, entirely ignorant of the laws of the place, and
exposed to the errors of judgment to which all men are
liable. The exercise of power, over which there is no legal
supervision, by so vast a number of agents as is
contemplated by the bill, must, by the very nature of man,
be attended by acts of caprice, injustice, and passion.
"The trials, having their origin under this bill, are to
take place without the intervention of a jury, and without
any fixed rules of law or evidence. The rules on which
offenses are to be 'heard and determined' by the numerous
agents, are such rules and regulations as the President,
through the War Department, shall prescribe. No previous
presentment is required, nor any indictment charging the
commission of a crime against the laws; but the trial must
proceed on charges and specifications. The punishment will
be, not what the law declares, but such as a court-martial
may think proper; and from these arbitrary tribunals there
lies no appeal, no writ of error to any of the courts in
which the Constitution of the United States vests
exclusively the judicial power of the country.
"While the territory and the classes of actions and offenses
that are made subject to this measure are so extensive, the
bill itself, should it become a law, will have no limitation
in point of time, but will form a part of the permanent
legislation of the country. I can not reconcile a system of
military jurisdiction of this kind with the words of the
Constitution, which declare that 'no person shall be held to
answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless upon
a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases
arising in the land and naval forces, or in the militia when
in actual service in time of war or public danger;' and that
'in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of
the State or district wherein the crime shall have been
committed.' The safeguards which the experience and wisdom
of ages taught our fathers to establish as securities for
the protection of the innocent, the punishment of the
guilty, and the equal administration of justice, are to be
set aside, and for the sake of a more vigorous interposition
in behalf of justice, we are to take the risk of the many
acts of injustice that would necessarily follow from an
almost countless number of agents established in every
parish or county in nearly a third of the States of the
Union, over whose decisions there is to be no supervision or
control by the Federal courts. The power that would be thus
placed in the hands of the President is such as in time of
peace certainly ought never to be intrusted to any one man.
"If it be asked whether the creation of such a tribunal
within a State is warranted as a measure of war, the
question immediately presents itself whether we are still
engaged in war. Let us not unnecessarily disturb the
commerce and credit and industry of the country by declaring
to the American people and to the world, that the United
States are still in a condition of civil war. At present
there is no part of our country in which the authority of
the United States is disputed. Offenses that may be
committed by individuals should not work a forfeiture of the
rights of whole communities. The country has returned, or is
returning, to a state of peace and industry, and the
rebellion is in fact at an end. The measure, therefore,
seems to be as inconsistent with the actual condition of the
country as it is at variance with the Constitution of the
United States.
"If, passing from general considerations, we examine the
bill in detail, it is open to weighty objections.
"In time of war it was eminently proper, that we should
provide for those who were passing suddenly from a condition
of bondage to a state of freedom. But this bill proposes to
make the Freedmen's Bureau, established by the act of 1865
as one of many great and extraordinary military measures to
suppress a formidable rebellion, a permanent branch of the
public administration, with its powers greatly enlarged. I
have no reason to suppose, and I do not understand it to be
alleged, that the act of March, 1865, has proved deficient
for the purpose for which it was passed, although at that
time, and for a considerable period thereafter, the
Government of the United States remained unacknowledged in
most of the States whose inhabitants had been involved in
the rebellion. The institution of slavery, for the military
destruction of which the Freedmen's Bureau was called into
existence as an auxiliary, has been already effectually and
finally abrogated throughout the whole country by an
amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and
practically its eradication has received the assent and
concurrence of most of those States in which it at any time
had an existence. I am not, therefore, able to discern, in
the condition of the country, any thing to justify an
apprehension that the powers and agencies of the Freedmen's
Bureau, which were effective for the protection of freedmen
and refugees during the actual continuance of hostilities
and of African servitude, will now, in a time of peace and
after the abolition of slavery, prove inadequate to the same
proper ends. If I am correct in these views, there can be no
necessity for the enlargement of the powers of the bureau,
for which provision is made in the bill.
"The third section of the bill authorizes a general and
unlimited grant of support to the destitute and suffering
refugees and freedmen, their wives and children. Succeeding
sections make provision for the rent or purchase of landed
estates for freedmen, and for the erection for their benefit
of suitable buildings for asylums and schools, the expenses
to be defrayed from the Treasury of the whole people. The
Congress of the United States has never heretofore thought
itself empowered to establish asylums beyond the limits of
the District of Columbia, except for the benefit of our
disabled soldiers and sailors. It has never founded schools
for any class of our own people, not even for the orphans of
those who have fallen in the defense of the Union; but has
left the care of education to the much more competent and
efficient control of the States, of communities, of private
associations, and of individuals. It has never deemed itself
authorized to expend the public money for the rent or
purchase of homes for the thousands, not to say millions, of
the white race, who are honestly toiling from day to day for
their subsistence. A system for the support of indigent
persons in the United States was never contemplated by the
authors of the Constitution, nor can any good reason be
advanced why, as a permanent establishment, it should be
founded for one class or color of our people more than
another. Pending the war, many refugees and freedmen
received support from the Government, but it was never
intended that they should thenceforth be fed, clothed,
educated, and sheltered by the United States. The idea on
which the slaves were assisted to freedom was that, on
becoming free, they would be a self-sustaining population.
Any legislation that shall imply that they are not expected
to attain a self-sustaining condition must have a tendency
injurious alike to their character and their prospects.
"The appointment of an agent for every county and parish
will create an immense patronage; and the expense of the
numerous officers and their clerks, to be appointed by the
President, will be great in the beginning, with a tendency
steadily to increase. The appropriations asked by the
Freedmen's Bureau, as now established, for the year 1866,
amount to $11,745,000. It may be safely estimated that the
cost to be incurred under the pending bill will require
double that amount--more than the entire sum expended in any
one year under the administration of the second Adams. If
the presence of agents in every parish and county is to be
considered as a war measure, opposition, or even resistance,
might be provoked, so that, to give effect to their
jurisdiction, troops would have to be stationed within reach
of every one of them, and thus a large standing force be
rendered necessary. Large appropriations would therefore be
re-required to sustain and enforce military jurisdiction in
every county or parish from the Potomac to the Rio Grande.
The condition of our fiscal affairs is encouraging, but, in
order to sustain the present measure of public confidence,
it is necessary that we practice not merely customary
economy, but, as far as possible, severe retrenchment.
"In addition to the objections already stated, the fifth
section of the bill proposes to take away land from its
former owners without any legal proceedings being first had,
contrary to that provision of the Constitution which
declares that no person shall 'be deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law.' It does not appear
that a part of the lands to which this section refers may
not be owned by minors or persons of unsound mind, or by
those who have been faithful to all their obligations as
citizens of the United States. If any portion of the land is
held by such persons, it is not competent for any authority
to deprive them of it. If, on the other hand, it be found
that the property is liable to confiscation, even then it
can not be appropriated to public purposes until, by due
process of law, it shall have been declared forfeited to the
Government.
"There is still further objection to the bill on grounds
seriously affecting the class of persons to whom it is
designed to bring relief; it will tend to keep the mind of
the freedman in a state of uncertain expectation and
restlessness, while to those among whom he lives it will be
a source of constant and vague apprehension.
"Undoubtedly the freedman should be protected, but he should
be protected by the civil authorities, especially by the
exercise of all the constitutional powers of the courts of
the United States and of the States. His condition is not so
exposed as may at first be imagined. He is in a portion of
the country where his labor can not well be spared.
Competition for his services from planters, from those who
are constructing or repairing railroads, and from
capitalists in his vicinage or from other States, will
enable him to command almost his own terms. He also
possesses a perfect right to change his place of abode; and
if, therefore, he does not find in one community or State a
mode of life suited to his desires, or proper remuneration
for his labor, he can move to another, where that labor is
more esteemed and better rewarded. In truth, however, each
State, induced by its own wants and interests, will do what
is necessary and proper to retain within its borders all the
labor that is needed for the development of its resources.
The laws that regulate supply and demand will maintain their
force, and the wages of the laborer will be regulated
thereby. There is no danger that the exceedingly great
demand for labor will not operate in favor of the laborer.
"Neither is sufficient consideration given to the ability of
the freedmen to protect and take care of themselves. It is
no more than justice to them to believe that, as they have
received their freedom with moderation and forbearance, so
they will distinguish themselves by their industry and
thrifty and soon show the world that, in a condition of
freedom, they are self-sustaining, capable of selecting
their own employment and their own places of abode, of
insisting for themselves on a proper remuneration, and of
establishing and maintaining their own asylums and schools.
It is earnestly hoped that, instead of wasting away, they
will, by their own efforts, establish for themselves a
condition of respect, ability, and prosperity. It is certain
that they can attain to that condition only through their
own merits and exertions.
"In this connection the query presents itself, whether the
system proposed by the bill will not, when put into complete
operation, practically transfer the entire care, support,
and control of four million emancipated slaves to agents,
overseers, or taskmasters, who, appointed at Washington, are
to be located in every county and parish throughout the
United States containing freedmen and refugees? Such a
system would inevitably tend to a concentration of power in
the Executive which would enable him, if so disposed, to
control the action of this numerous class and use them for
the attainment of his own political ends.
"I can not but add another very grave objection to this
bill: The Constitution imperatively declares, in connection
with taxation, that each State shall have at least one
Representative, and fixes the rule for the number to which,
in future times, each State shall be entitled. It also
provides that the Senate of the United States shall be
composed of two Senators from each State, and adds, with
peculiar force, 'that no State, without its consent, shall
be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.'. The
original act was necessarily passed in the absence of the
States chiefly to be affected, because their people were
then contumaciously engaged in the rebellion. Now the case
is changed, and some, at least, of those States are
attending Congress by loyal Representatives, soliciting the
allowance of the constitutional right of representation. At
the time, however, of the consideration and the passing of
this bill, there was no Senator or Representative in
Congress from the eleven States which are to be mainly
affected by its provisions. The very fact that reports were
and are made against the good disposition of the people of
that portion of the country is an additional reason why they
need, and should have, Representatives of their own in
Congress to explain their condition, reply to accusations,
and assist, by their local knowledge, in the perfecting of
measures immediately affecting themselves. While the liberty
of deliberation would then be free, and Congress would have
full power to decide according to its judgment, there could
be no objection urged that the States most interested had
not been permitted to be heard. The principle is firmly
fixed in the minds of the American people that there should
be no taxation without representation.
"Great burdens have now to be borne by all the country, and
we may best demand that they shall be borne without murmur
when they are voted by a majority of the Representatives of
all the people. I would not interfere with the
unquestionable right of Congress to judge, each house for
itself, 'of the elections, returns, and qualifications of
its own members,' but that authority can not be construed as
including the right to shut out, in time of peace, any State
from the representation to which it is entitled by the
Constitution. At present, all the people of eleven States
are excluded--those who were most faithful during the war
not less than others. The State of Tennessee, for instance,
whose authorities engaged in rebellion, was restored to all
her constitutional relations to the Union by the patriotism
and energy of her injured and betrayed people. Before the
war was brought to a termination, they had placed themselves
in relation with the General Government, had established a
State government of their own; as they were not included in
the Emancipation Proclamation, they, by their own act, had
amended their Constitution so as to abolish slavery within
the limits of their State. I know no reason why the State of
Tennessee, for example, should not fully enjoy 'all her
constitutional relations to the United States.'
"The President of the United States stands toward the
country in a somewhat different attitude from that of any
member of Congress. Each member of Congress is chosen from a
single district or State; the President is chosen by the
people of all the States. As eleven are not at this time
represented in either branch of Congress, it would seem to
be his duty, on all proper occasions, to present their just
claims to Congress. There always will be differences of
opinion in the community, and individuals may be guilty of
transgressions of the law; but these do not constitute valid
objections against the right of a State to representation. I
would in nowise interfere with the discretion of Congress
with regard to the qualifications of members; but I hold it
my duty to recommend to you, in the interests of peace and,
in the interests of union, the admission of every State to
its share in public legislation when, however insubordinate,
insurgent, or rebellious its people may have been, it
presents itself, not only in an attitude of loyalty and
harmony, but in the persons of Representatives whose loyalty
can not be questioned under any existing constitutional or
legal test.
"It is plain that an indefinite or permanent exclusion of
any part of the country from representation must be attended
by a spirit of disquiet and complaint. It is unwise and
dangerous to pursue a course of measures which will unite a
very large section of the country against another section of
the country, however much the latter may preponderate. The
course of emigration, the development of industry and
business, and natural causes will raise up at the South men
as devoted to the Union as those of any other part of the
land. But if they are all excluded from Congress--if, in a
permanent statute, they are declared not to be in full
constitutional relations to the country--they may think they
have cause to become a unit in feeling and sentiment against
the Government. Under the political education of the
American people, the idea is inherent and ineradicable that
the consent of the majority of the whole people is necessary
to secure a willing acquiescence in legislation.
"The bill under consideration refers to certain of the
States as though they had hot 'been fully restored in all
their constitutional relations to the United States.' If
they have not, let us at once act together to secure that
desirable end at the earliest possible moment It is hardly
necessary for me to inform Congress that, in my own
judgment, most of these States, so far, at least, as depends
upon their own action, have already been fully restored,
and»are to be deemed as entitled to enjoy their
constitutional rights as members of the Union. Reasoning
from the Constitution itself, and from the actual situation
of the country, I feel not only entitled but bound to assume
that, with the Federal courts restored, and those of the
several States in the full exercise of their functions, the
rights and interests of all classes of the people will, with
the aid of the military in cases of resistance to the laws,
be essentially protected against unconstitutional
infringement or violation. Should this expectation unhappily
fail--which I do not anticipate--then the Executive is
already fully armed with the powers conferred by the act of
March, 1865, establishing the Freedmen's Bureau, and
hereafter, as heretofore, he can employ the land and naval
forces of the country to suppress insurrection or to
overcome obstructions to the laws.
"In accordance with the Constitution, I return the bill to
the Senate, in the earnest hope that a measure involving
questions and interests so important to the country will not
become a law unless, upon deliberate consideration by the
people, it shall receive the sanction of an enlightened
public judgment.
"ANDREW JOHNSON."
[Illustration: Hon. S. C. Pomeroy.]
The majority of the Senate was in favor of proceeding immediately to
the consideration of the message, and to have a vote as to whether the
bill should be passed, "the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding." To this Mr. Lane, of Kansas, was opposed.
He said: "There are several Senators absent, and I think it but just
to them that they should have an opportunity to be present when the
vote is taken on this bill. I can not consent, so long as I can
postpone this question by the rules of the Senate, to have a vote upon
it to-night." Mr. Lane accordingly made four successive motions to
adjourn, in each of which he called for the yeas and nays. Finally,
the motion for adjournment having been made for the fifth time, it was
carried, with the understanding that the bill should be the pending
question at one o'clock on the following day.
On that day, February 20th, the bill and the message came duly before
the Senate. Mr. Davis obtained the floor, and made a long speech in
opposition to the bill and in favor of the Veto Message. He expressed
his aversion to the bill, and the objects sought to be attained under
it in very emphatic terms, but added nothing to the arguments which
had already been adduced.
Mr. Trumbull replied to the objections urged against the bill in the
President's Message. The President said, "The bill, should it become a
law will have no limitation in point of time, but will form a part of
the permanent legislation of the country."
"The object of the bill," replied Mr. Trumbull, "was to continue in
existence the Freedmen's Bureau--not as a permanent institution. Any
such intent was disavowed during the discussion of the bill. It is
true, no time is expressly limited in the bill itself when it shall
cease to operate, nor is it customary to insert such a clause in a
law; but it is declared that the bill shall operate until otherwise
provided by law. It is known that the Congress of the United States
assembles every year, and no one supposed that this bill was to
establish a bureau to be ingrafted upon the country as a permanent
institution; far from it. Nor is it a bill that is intended to go into
the States and take control of the domestic affairs of the States."
"There is no immediate necessity for the proposed measure," said the
President; "the act to establish a Bureau for the Relief of Freedmen
and Refugees, which was approved in the month of March last, has not
yet expired. It was thought stringent and extensive enough for the
purpose in view in time of war."
Mr. Trumbull replied: "By the terms of the act, it was to continue
'during the present war of rebellion and for one year thereafter.'
Now, when did the war of rebellion cease? So far as the conflict of
arms is concerned, we all admit that the war of rebellion ceased when
the last rebel army laid down its arms, and that was some time in the
month of May, when the rebel army in Texas surrendered to the Union
forces. I do not hold that the consequences of the war are over. I do
not understand that peace is restored with all its consequences. We
have not yet escaped from the evils inflicted by the war. Peace and
harmony are not yet restored, but the war of rebellion is over, and
this bureau must expire in May next, according to the terms of the act
that was passed on the 3d of March, 1865, and according to the views
of the President as expressed in his Veto Message."
"The bill," said the President, "proposes to establish by authority of
Congress, military jurisdiction over all parts of the United States
containing refugees and freedmen."
"I would like to know," said Mr. Trumbull, "where in that bill is any
provision extending military jurisdiction over all parts of the United
States containing refugees and freedmen? The bill contains no such
clause. It is a misapprehension of the bill. The clause of the bill
upon that subject is this:
"'And the President of the United States, through the War
Department and the commissioner, shall extend military
jurisdiction and protection over all employés, agents, and
officers of this bureau in the exercise of the duties
imposed or authorized by this act or the act to which this
is additional.'
"Is not the difference manifest to every body between a bill that
extends military jurisdiction over the officers and employés of the
bureau and a bill which should extend military jurisdiction over all
parts of the United States containing refugees and freedmen? This bill
makes the Freedmen's Bureau a part of the War Department. It makes its
officers and agents amenable to the Rules and Articles of War. But
does that extend jurisdiction over the whole country where they are?
How do they differ from any other portion of the army of the United
States? The army of the United States, as every one knows, is governed
by the Rules and Articles of War, wherever it may be, whether in
Indiana or in Florida, and all persons in the army and a part of the
military establishment are subject to these Rules and Articles of War;
but did any body ever suppose that the whole country where they were
was under military jurisdiction? If a company of soldiers are
stationed at one of the forts in New York harbor, the officers and
soldiers of that company are subject to military jurisdiction; but was
it ever supposed that the people of the State of New York were thereby
placed under military jurisdiction? It is an entire misapprehension of
the provisions of the bill. It extends military jurisdiction nowhere;
it merely places under jurisdiction the persons belonging to the
Freedmen's Bureau who, nearly all of them, are now under military
jurisdiction."
"The country," objected the President, "is to be divided into
districts and sub-districts, and the number of salaried agents to be
employed may be equal to the number of counties or parishes in all the
States where freedmen and refugees are to be found."
Mr. Trumbull replied: "A single officer need not be employed other
than those we now have. I have already stated that it is in the power
and discretion of the President to detail from the army officers to
perform all the duties of the Freedmen's Bureau, and, in case they are
detailed, the bill provides that they shall serve without any
additional compensation or allowance. But, sir, is it necessary, or
was it ever contemplated, that there should be an officer or agent of
the Freedmen's Bureau in every county and every parish where refugees
and freedmen are to be found? By no means. What is the bill upon that
subject? Does it make it imperative upon the President to appoint an
agent in each county and parish? It authorizes him 'when the same
shall be necessary for the operations of the bureau;' not otherwise.
He has no authority, under the bill, to appoint a single agent unless
it is necessary for the operations of the bureau, and then he can only
appoint so many as may be needed. Sir, it never entered the mind, I
venture to say, of a single advocate of this bill, that the President
of the United States would so abuse the authority intrusted to him as
to station an agent in every county in these States; but it was
apprehended that there might be localities in some of these States
where the prejudice and hostility of the white population and the
former masters were such toward the negroes that it would be necessary
to have an agent in every county in that locality for their
protection; and, in order to give the President the necessary
discretion where this should be requisite, the bill authorized, when
it was necessary for the operations of the bureau, the appointment of
an agent in each county or parish. In order to vest the President with
sufficient power in some localities, it was necessary, legislating by
general law, to give him much larger power than would be necessary in
other localities.
"Sir, the country is not to be divided, I undertake to say, into
districts and sub-districts unless the President of the United States
finds it necessary to do so for the protection of these people; and if
the law should be abused in that respect, it would be because he
abused the discretion vested in him by Congress, and not because the
law required it. It makes no such requirement."
"This military jurisdiction," said the President, "also extends to all
questions that may arise respecting contracts."
"So far," replied Mr. Trumbull, "from extending this military
jurisdiction over all questions arising concerning contracts, and so
far from extending military jurisdiction anywhere, it is expressly
provided, by the very terms of the bill, that no such jurisdiction
shall be exercised except where the President himself has established,
and is maintaining military jurisdiction, which he is now doing in
eleven States; and the very moment that he ceases to maintain military
jurisdiction, that very moment the military jurisdiction conferred
over freedmen by this act ceases and terminates.
"Sir, the whole jurisdiction to try and dispose of cases by the
officers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau is expressly limited to
the time when these States shall be restored to their constitutional
relations, and when the courts of the United States and of the States
are not interrupted nor interfered with in the peaceable course of
justice. So far, then, from the bill establishing a military
jurisdiction, upon which the Senator from Kentucky and other Senators
have so much harped, it confers no jurisdiction to try cases one
moment after the courts are restored, and are no longer interrupted in
the peaceable administration of justice. Let me ask by what authority
is it that military tribunals are sitting to-day at Alexandria,
Virginia? By what authority is it that the writ of _habeas corpus_ is
suspended to-day in eleven States, when the Constitution of the United
States says that the writ shall not be suspended except when, in cases
of rebellion and invasion, the public safety may require it. By what
authority does the President of the United States object to the
exercise of military jurisdiction by that part of the army charged
with the execution of the provisions of the Freedmen's Bureau when he
exercises that military jurisdiction himself by other portions of the
army? But a few days since a military commission was sitting in
Alexandria, trying persons charged with crimes--and they are held all
over the South--and yet that part of the army connected with the
Freedmen's Bureau can not exercise any such authority because it is
unconstitutional--unconstitutional to do by virtue of a law of
Congress what is done without any law!
"Where does the Executive get the power? The Executive is but the
Commander-in-chief of the armies, made so by the Constitution; but he
can not raise an army or a single soldier, he can not appoint a single
officer, without the consent of Congress. He can not make any rules
and regulations for the government of the army without our permission.
The Constitution of the United States declares, in so many words, that
Congress shall have power 'to make rules for the government and
regulation of the land and naval forces' of the United States. Can it
be that that department of the Government, vested in express terms by
the Constitution itself with authority to make rules for the
government and regulation of the land and naval forces, has no
authority to direct that portion of the land and naval forces employed
in the Freedmen's Bureau to exercise this jurisdiction instead of
department commanders? Sir, it is competent for Congress to declare
that no department commanders shall exercise any such authority; it is
competent for Congress to declare that a court-martial shall never
sit, that a military commission shall never be held, and the President
is as much bound to obey it as the humblest citizen in the land."
The President said: "The trials having their origin under this bill
are to take place without the intervention of a jury, and without any
fixed rules of law or evidence."
"Do not all military trials take place in that way," asked Mr.
Trumbull. "Did any body ever hear of the presentment of a grand jury
in a case where a court-martial set for the trial of a military
offense, or the trial of a person charged with any offense cognizable
before it? This Freedmen's Bureau Bill confers no authority to do this
except in those regions of country where military authority prevails,
where martial law is established, where persons exercising civil
authority act in subordination to the military power, and where the
moment they transcend the proper limits as fixed by military orders,
they are liable to be arrested and punished without the intervention
of a grand jury, or without the right of appeal to any of the judicial
tribunals of the country. I would as soon think of an appeal from the
decision of the military tribunal that sat in the city of Washington,
and condemned to death the murderers of our late President, to the
judicial tribunals of the country! Where military authority bears
sway, where the courts are overborne, is it not an absurdity to say
that you must have a presentment of a grand jury, and a trial in a
court."
"I can not reconcile a system of military jurisdiction of this kind
with the words of the Constitution," said the President.
"If you can not reconcile a system of military jurisdiction of this
kind with the words of the Constitution, why have you been exercising
it," asked Mr. Trumbull. "Why have you been organizing courts-martial
and military commissions all over the South, trying offenders, and
punishing some of them with death? Why have you authorized the present
Freedmen's Bureau to hold bureau courts all through the South? This
has all been done by your permission, and is being done to-day. Then,
sir, if you are still in the exercise of this power now, if you have
been exercising it from the day you became President of the United
States, how is it that you can not reconcile a system of jurisdiction
of this kind with the words of the Constitution?
"Sir, does it detract from the President's authority to have the
sanction of law? I want to give that sanction. I do not object to the
exercise of this military authority of the President in the rebellious
States. I believe it is constitutional and legitimate and necessary;
but I believe Congress has authority to regulate it. I believe
Congress has authority to direct that this military jurisdiction shall
be exercised by that branch of the army known as the Freedmen's
Bureau, as well as by any other branch of the army."
"The rebellion is at an end," said the President. "The measure,
therefore, seems to be as inconsistent with the actual condition of
the country as it is at variance with the Constitution of the United
States."
Mr. Trumbull replied: "If the rebellion is at an end, will anybody
tell me by what authority the President of the United States suspends
the writ of _habeas corpus_ in those States where it existed. The act
of Congress of March, 1863, authorized the President of the United
States to suspend the writ of _habeas corpus_ during the present
rebellion. He says it is at an end. By what authority, then, does he
suspend the writ? By his own declaration, let him stand or fall. If it
is competent to suspend the writ, if it is competent for military
tribunals to sit all through the South, and entertain military
jurisdiction, this bill, which does not continue military
jurisdiction, does not establish military jurisdiction, but only
authorizes the officers of this bureau, while military jurisdiction
prevails, to take charge of that particular class of cases affecting
the refugee or freedman where he is discriminated against, can not be
obnoxious to any constitutional objection."
"This bill," said the President, "proposes to make the Freedmen's
Bureau, established by the act of 1865, as one of many great and
extraordinary military measures to suppress a formidable rebellion, a
permanent branch of the public administration, with its powers greatly
enlarged."
"This is a mistake," replied Mr. Trumbull; "it is not intended, I
apprehend, by any body, certainly not by me, to make it a permanent
branch of the public administration; and I am quite sure that the
powers of the bureau are not, by the amendatory bill, greatly
enlarged. A careful examination of the amendment will show that it is
in some respects a restriction on the powers already exercised."
"The third section of the bill," the President objected, "authorizes a
general and unlimited grant of support to the destitute and suffering
refugees and freedmen, their wives and children."
"What is the third section of the bill," asked Mr. Trumbull, "which
the President says contains such an unlimited grant of support to the
destitute and suffering refugees, their wives and children? I will
read that third section:
"'That the Secretary of War may direct such issues of
provisions, clothing, fuel, including medical stores and
transportation, and afford such aid, medical or otherwise,
as he may deem needful for the immediate and temporary
shelter and supply of destitute and suffering refugees and
freedmen, their wives and children, under such rules and
regulations as he may direct: _Provided_, That no person
shall be deemed "destitute," "suffering," or "dependent upon
the Government for support," within the meaning of this act,
who, being able to find employment, could, by proper
industry and exertion, avoid such destitution, suffering, or
dependence.'
"Does the President object to this bill on the ground that it
authorizes medical aid to be furnished the sick? Or does he object to
it because of the proviso which limits its operation, and declares
that nobody shall be deemed destitute and suffering under the
provisions of the act who is able, by proper industry and exertion, to
avoid such destitution? Why, sir, it is a limitation on the present
existing law. Does that look much like taking care of four million of
people--a provision that expressly limits the operations of this act
to those only who can not find employment? A statement of the fact is
all that is necessary to meet this statement in the Veto Message."
"The Congress of the United States," said the President, "has never
heretofore thought itself empowered to establish asylums beyond the
limits of the District of Columbia, except for the benefit of our
disabled soldiers and sailors. It has never founded schools for any
class of our own people. It has never deemed itself authorized to
expend the public money for the rent or purchase of homes for the
thousands, not to say millions of the white race who are honestly
toiling from day to day for their subsistence."
"The answer to that is this," said Mr. Trumbull: "We never before were
in such a state as now"; never before in the history of this
Government did eleven States of the Union combine together to
overthrow and destroy the Union; never before in the history of this
Government have we had a four years' civil war; never before in the
history of this Government have nearly four million people been
emancipated from the most abject and degrading slavery ever imposed
upon human beings; never before has the occasion arisen when it was
necessary to provide for such large numbers of people thrown upon the
bounty of the Government unprotected and unprovided for. But, sir,
wherever the necessity did exist the Government has acted. We have
voted hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars, and are doing it
from year to year, to take care of and provide for the destitute and
suffering Indians. We appropriated, years ago, hundreds of thousands
of dollars to take care of and feed the savage African who was landed
upon our coast by slavers. We provided by law that whenever savages
from Africa should be brought to our shores, or whenever they should
be captured on board of slavers, the President of the United States
should make provision for their maintenance and support, for five
years, on the coast of Africa. He was authorized by law to appoint
agents to go to Africa to provide means to feed them, and we paid the
money to do it. And yet, sir, can we not provide for these Africans
who have been held in bondage all their lives, who have never been
permitted to earn one dollar for themselves, who, by the great
Constitutional Amendment declaring freedom throughout the land, have
been discharged from bondage to their masters, who had hitherto
provided for their necessities in consideration of their services? Can
we not provide for these destitute persons of our own land on the same
principle that we provide for the Indians, that we provide for the
savage African?"
"But," continued Mr. Trumbull, "the President says we have never
rented lands for the white race, we have never purchased lands for
them. What do we propose to do by this bill? This authorizes, if the
President thinks proper to do it--it is in his discretion--the
purchase or renting of lands on which to place these indigent people;
but before any land can be purchased or rented, before any contract
can be made on the subject, there must be an appropriation made by
Congress. This bill contains no appropriation. If the President is
opposed to the rent or purchase of land, and Congress passes a bill
appropriating money for that purpose, let him veto it if he thinks it
unconstitutional; but there is nothing unconstitutional in this bill.
This bill does not purchase any land; but it prevents even a contract
on the subject until another law shall be passed appropriating the
money for that purpose.
"But, sir, what is the objection to it if it did appropriate the
money? I have already undertaken to show, and I think I have shown,
that it was the duty of the United States, as an independent nation,
as one of the powers of the earth, whenever there came into its
possession an unprotected class of people, who must suffer and perish
but for its care, to provide for and take care of them. When an army
is marching through an enemy's country, and poor and destitute persons
are found within its lines who must die by starvation if they are not
fed from the supplies of the army, will any body show me the
constitutional provision or the act of Congress that authorizes the
general commanding to open his commissariat and feed the starving
multitude? And has it not been done by every one of your commanders
all through the South? Whenever a starving human being, man, woman, or
child, no matter whether black or white, rebel or loyal, came within
the lines of the army, to perish and die unless fed from our supplies,
there has never been an officer in our service, and, thank God! there
has not been, who did not relieve the sufferer. If you want to know
where the constitutional power to do this is, and where the law is, I
answer, it is in that common humanity that belongs to every man fit to
bear the name, and it is in that power that belongs to us as a
Christian nation, carrying on war upon civilized principles.
"If we had the right then to feed those people as we did, have we not
the right to take care of them in the cheapest way we can? If, when
General Sherman was passing through Georgia, he found the lands
abandoned; if their able-bodied owners had entered the rebel army to
fight against us; if the women and children had fled and left the land
a waste, and he had, as is the fact, thousands of persons hanging upon
his army dependent upon him for supplies; if it was believed that it
would be cheaper to support these people upon these lands than to buy
provisions to feed them, might we not do so? May we not resort to
whatever means is most judicious to protect from starvation that
multitude which common humanity requires us to feed?
"Nor, sir, is it true that no provision has been made by Congress for
the education of white people. We have given all through the new
States one section of land in every township for the benefit of common
schools. We have donated hundreds of thousands of acres of land to all
the States for the establishment of colleges and seminaries of
learning. How did we get this land? It was purchased by our money, and
then we gave it away for purposes of education. The same right exists
now to provide for these people, and it is not simply for the black
people, but for the white refugees as well as the black, that this
bill provides."
Said the President: "The appropriations asked by the Freedmen's
Bureau, as now established, for the year 1866, amounts to $11,745,000.
It may be safely estimated that the cost to be incurred under the
pending bill will require double that amount."
Mr. Trumbull replied: "A far larger sum, in proportion to the number
that were thrown upon our hands, was expended before the creation of
the Freedmen's Bureau, in feeding and taking care of refugees and
freedmen, than since the establishment of the Freedmen's Bureau. Since
that time, the authority of the Government has been extended over all
the rebellious States, and we have had a larger number of refugees and
freedmen to provide for, but in proportion to the number I have no
doubt that the expense is less now than it was before the
establishment of the bureau."
"The query again presents itself," said the President, "whether the
system proposed by the bill will not, when put into complete
operation, practically transfer the entire care, support, and control
of four million emancipated slaves to agents, overseers, or
taskmasters, who, appointed at Washington, are to be located in every
county and parish throughout the United States containing freedmen and
refugees."
"I scarcely know how to reply to that most extravagant statement,"
said Mr. Trumbull. "I have already shown that it would be a great
abuse of the power conferred by this bill to station an agent in every
county. I have already stated that but a small proportion of the
freedmen are aided by the Freedmen's Bureau. In this official document
the President has sent to Congress the exaggerated statement that it
is a question whether this bureau would not bring under its control
the four million emancipated slaves. The census of 1860 shows that
there never were four million slaves in all the United States, if you
counted every man, woman, and child, and we know that the number has
not increased during the war. But, sir, what will be thought when I
show, as I shall directly show by official figures, that, so far from
providing for four million emancipated slaves, the Freedmen's Bureau
never yet provided for a hundred thousand, and, as restricted by the
proviso to the third section of the present bill, it could never be
extended, under it, to a larger number. Is it not most extraordinary
that a bill should be returned with the veto from the President on the
ground that it provides for four million people, when, restricted in
its operations as it is, and having been in operation since March
last, it has never had under its control a hundred thousand? I have
here an official statement from the Freedmen's Bureau, which I beg
leave to read in this connection:
"'The greatest number of persons to whom rations were
issued, including the Commissary Department, the bureau
issues to persons without the army, is one hundred and
forty-eight thousand one hundred and twenty.'
"Who are they? I said there were not a hundred thousand freedmen
provided for by the bureau.
"'Whites, 57,369; colored, 90,607; Indians, 133. The
greatest number by the bureau was 49,932, in September. The
total number for December was 17,025.'
"That sounds a little different from four millions. Seventeen thousand
and twenty-five were all that were provided for by the Freedmen's
Bureau in the month of December last, the number getting less and less
every month. Why? Because, by the kind and judicious management of
that bureau, places of employment were found for these refugees and
freedmen. When the freedmen were discharged from their masters'
plantations they were assisted to find places of work elsewhere.
"The President says," continued Mr. Trumbull, "that Congress never
thought of making these provisions for the white people. Let us see
what provisions have been made for the white people. Major-General
Fisk, Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau for the State of
Tennessee, in his testimony given before the Reconstruction Committee,
said:
"'During the last year, the rations issued to white people
in Tennessee have been much in excess of those issued to
freedmen. When I took charge of my district the Government
was feeding twenty-five thousand people; in round numbers,
about seventeen thousand five hundred white persons and
seven thousand blacks. The month preceding the establishment
of the Freedmen's Bureau, for rations alone for that class
of people the sum of $97,000 was paid. My first efforts were
to reduce the number of those beneficiaries of the
Government, to withhold the rations, and make the people
self-supporting as far as possible; and in the course of
four months I reduced the monthly expenses from $97,000 to
$5,000.'
"In addition to the objections already stated," said the President,
"the fifth section of this bill proposes to take away land from its
former owners, without any legal proceedings first had."
"I regret," said Mr. Trumbull, "that a statement like that should
inadvertently (for it must have been inadvertent) have found a place
in this Veto Message. The fifth section of the bill does not propose
to take away lands from any body. I will read it, and we shall see
what it is:
"'That the occupants of land under Major-General Sherman's
special field order, dated at Savannah, January 16, 1865,
are hereby confirmed in their possession.'
"Is not this a different thing from taking away land from any body? Do
you take a thing away from another person when you have it in your
possession already? This fifth section, so far from taking land from
any body, provides simply for protecting the occupants of the land for
three years from the 16th of January, 1865, a little less than two
years from this time. If the section does any thing, it simply
prevents the restoration of this property to its former owners within
that period, except upon terms to be entered into, satisfactory to the
commissioner, between the occupant and the former owner. This is all
there is of it. It is a very different thing from taking away land
from its former owners."
"Undoubtedly," said the President, "the freedmen should be protected
by the civil authorities, especially by the exercise of all the
constitutional powers of the courts of the United States and of the
States."
"Let us see," replied Mr. Trumbull, "how they are protected by the
civil authority." After having read from documents setting forth laws
in reference to freedmen in force in Texas and Mississippi, Mr.
Trumbull continued: "I have here a number of communications of a
similar character, showing that, by the laws in some of the Southern
States, a pass system still exists, and that the negro really has no
protection afforded him either by the civil authorities or judicial
tribunals of the State. I have letters showing the same thing in the
State of Maryland, from persons whose character is vouched for as
reliable. Under this state of things, the President tells us that the
freedman should be protected 'by the exercise of all the
constitutional powers of the courts of the United States and of the
States!'"
"He also possesses," said the President, referring to the freedman, "a
perfect right to change his place of abode; and if, therefore, he does
not find in one community or State a mode of life suited to his
desires, or proper remuneration for his labor, he can move to another
where that labor is more esteemed and better rewarded."
"Then, sir," said Mr. Trumbull, "is there no necessity for some
supervising care of these people? Are they to be coldly told that they
have a perfect right to change their place of abode, when, if they are
caught in a strange neighborhood without a pass, they are liable to be
whipped? when combinations exist against them that they shall not be
permitted to hire unless to their former master? Are these people,
knowing nothing of geography, knowing not where to go, having never in
their lives been ten miles from the place where they were born, these
old women and young children, these feeble persons who are turned off
because they can no longer work, to be told to go and seek employment
elsewhere? and is the Government of the United States, which has made
them free, to stand by and do nothing to save and protect them? Are
they to be left to the mercy of such legislation as that of
Mississippi, to such laws as exist in Texas, to such practices as are
tolerated in Maryland and in Kentucky? Sir, I think some protection is
necessary for them, and that was the object of this bureau. It was not
intended, and such is not its effect, to interfere with the ordinary
administration of justice in any State, not even during the rebellion.
The moment that any State does justice and abolishes all
discrimination between whites and blacks in civil rights, the judicial
functions of the Freedmen's Bureau cease.
"But," continued Mr. Trumbull, "the President, most strangely of all,
dwells upon the unconstitutionality of this act, without ever having
alluded to that provision of the Constitution which its advocates
claim gives the authority to pass it. Is it not most extraordinary
that the President of the United States returns a bill which has
passed Congress, with his objections to it, alleging it to be
unconstitutional, and makes no allusion whatever in his whole message
to that provision of the Constitution which, in the opinion of its
supporters, clearly gives the authority to pass it? And what is that?
The second clause of the constitutional amendment, which declares that
Congress shall have authority by appropriate legislation to enforce
the article, which declares that there shall be neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude throughout the United States. If legislation be
necessary to protect the former slaves against State laws, which allow
them to be whipped if found away from home without a pass, has not
Congress, under the second clause of the amendment, authority to
provide it? What kind of freedom is that which the Constitution of the
United States guarantees to a man that does not protect him from the
lash if he is caught away from home without a pass? And how can we sit
here and discharge the constitutional obligation that is upon us to
pass the appropriate legislation to protect every man in the land in
his freedom, when we know such laws are being passed in the South, if
we do nothing to prevent their enforcement? Sir, so far from the bill
being unconstitutional, I should feel that I had failed in my
constitutional duty if I did not propose some measure that would
protect these people in their freedom. And yet this clause of the
Constitution seems to have escaped entirely the observation of the
President.
"The President objects to this bill because it was passed in the
absence of representation from the rebellious States. If that
objection be valid, all our legislation affecting those States is
wrong, and has been wrong from the beginning. When the rebellion broke
out, in the first year of the war, we passed a law for collecting a
direct tax, and we assessed that tax upon all the rebellious States.
According to the theory of the President, that was all wrong, because
taxation and representation did not go together. Those States were not
represented. Then, according to this argument, (I will not read all of
it,) we were bound to have received their Representatives, or else not
legislate for and tax them. He insists they were States in the Union
all the time, and according to the Constitution, each State is
entitled to at least one Representative.
"If the argument that Congress can not legislate for States
unrepresented is good now, it was good during the conflict of arms,
for none of the States whose governments were usurped are yet relieved
from military control. If we have no right to legislate for those
States now, we had no right to impose the direct tax upon them. We had
no right to pass any of our laws that affected them. We had no right
to raise an army to march into the rebellious States while they were
not represented in the Congress of the United States. We had no right
to pass a law declaring these States in rebellion. Why? The rebels
were not here to be represented in the American Senate. We had no
right to pass a law authorizing the President to issue a proclamation
discontinuing all intercourse with the people of those rebellious
States; and why? Because they were not represented here. We had no
right to blockade their coast. Why? They were not represented here.
They are States, says the President, and each State is entitled to two
Senators, and to at least one Representative. Suppose the State of
South Carolina had sent to Congress, during the war, a Representative;
had Congress nothing to do but to admit him, if found qualified? Must
he be received because he comes from a State, and a State can not go
out of the Union? Why, sir, is any thing more necessary than to state
this proposition to show its absolute absurdity?"
The President said: "The President of the United States stands toward
the country in a somewhat different attitude from that of any member
of Congress. Each member of Congress is chosen from a single district
or State; the President is chosen by the people of all the States. As
eleven States are not at this time represented in either branch of
Congress, it would seem to be his duty, on all proper occasions, to
present their just claims to Congress."
"If it would not be disrespectful," said Mr. Trumbull, "I should like
to inquire how many votes the President got in those eleven States.
Sir, he is no more the representative of those eleven States than I
am, except as he holds a higher position. I came here as a
Representative chosen by the State of Illinois; but I came here to
legislate, not simply for the State of Illinois, but for the United
States of America, and for South Carolina as well as Illinois. I deny
that we are simply the Representatives of the districts and States
which send us here, or that we are governed by such narrow views that
we can not legislate for the whole country; and we are as much the
Representatives, and, in this particular instance, receive as much of
the support of those eleven States as did the President himself."
Mr. Trumbull finally remarked: "The President believes this bill
unconstitutional; I believe it constitutional. He believes that it
will involve great expense; I believe it will save expense. He
believes that the freedmen will be protected without it; I believe he
will be tyrannized over, abused, and virtually reënslaved, without
some legislation by the nation for his protection. He believes it
unwise; I believe it to be politic."
Without further debate, the vote was taken on the question, "Shall the
bill pass, the objections of the President of the United States
notwithstanding?" The Senators voted as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness,
Cragin, Creswell, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harris,
Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Lane of
Kansas, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman,
Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Williams, Wilson, and
Yates--30.
NAYS--Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle,
Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson, McDougall, Morgan, Nesmith,
Norton, Riddle, Saulsbury, Stewart, Stockton, Van Winkle,
and Willey--18.
ABSENT--Messrs. Foot and Wright--2.
The President _pro tempore_ then announced, "On this question the yeas
are thirty and the nays are eighteen. Two-thirds of the members
present not having voted for the bill, it is not a law."