WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 16, 1866_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
A careful examination of the bill passed by the two Houses of Congress
entitled "An act to continue in force and to amend 'An act to establish
a bureau for the relief of freedmen and refugees, and for other
purposes'" has convinced me that the legislation which it proposes would
not be consistent with the welfare of the country, and that it falls
clearly within the reasons assigned in my message of the 19th of
February last, returning, without my signature, a similar measure which
originated in the Senate. It is not my purpose to repeat the objections
which I then urged. They are yet fresh in your recollection, and can be
readily examined as a part of the records of one branch of the National
Legislature. Adhering to the principles set forth in that message, I now
reaffirm them and the line of policy therein indicated.
The only ground upon which this kind of legislation can be justified is
that of the war-making power. The act of which this bill is intended
as amendatory was passed during the existence of the war. By its own
provisions it is to terminate within one year from the cessation of
hostilities and the declaration of peace. It is therefore yet in
existence, and it is likely that it will continue in force as long
as the freedmen may require the benefit of its provisions. It will
certainly remain in operation as a law until some months subsequent to
the meeting of the next session of Congress, when, if experience shall
make evident the necessity of additional legislation, the two Houses
will have ample time to mature and pass the requisite measures. In the
meantime the questions arise, Why should this war measure be continued
beyond the period designated in the original act, and why in time of
peace should military tribunals be created to continue until each
"State shall be fully restored in its constitutional relations to the
Government and shall be duly represented in the Congress of the United
States"?
It was manifest, with respect to the act approved March 3, 1865, that
prudence and wisdom alike required that jurisdiction over all cases
concerning the free enjoyment of the immunities and rights of
citizenship, as well as the protection of person and property, should
be conferred upon some tribunal in every State or district where the
ordinary course of judicial proceedings was interrupted by the
rebellion, and until the same should be fully restored. At that time,
therefore, an urgent necessity existed for the passage of some such
law. Now, however, war has substantially ceased; the ordinary course of
judicial proceedings is no longer interrupted; the courts, both State
and Federal, are in full, complete, and successful operation, and
through them every person, regardless of race and color, is entitled to
and can be heard. The protection granted to the white citizen is already
conferred by law upon the freedman; strong and stringent guards, by way
of penalties and punishments, are thrown around his person and property,
and it is believed that ample protection will be afforded him by due
process of law, without resort to the dangerous expedient of "military
tribunals," now that the war has been brought to a close. The necessity
no longer existing for such tribunals, which had their origin in the
war, grave objections to their continuance must present themselves to
the minds of all reflecting and dispassionate men. Independently of the
danger, in representative republics, of conferring upon the military,
in time of peace, extraordinary powers--so carefully guarded against
by the patriots and statesmen of the earlier days of the Republic,
so frequently the ruin of governments founded upon the same free
principles, and subversive of the rights and liberties of the
citizen--the question of practical economy earnestly commends itself to
the consideration of the lawmaking power. With an immense debt already
burdening the incomes of the industrial and laboring classes, a due
regard for their interests, so inseparably connected with the welfare of
the country, should prompt us to rigid economy and retrenchment, and
influence us to abstain from all legislation that would unnecessarily
increase the public indebtedness. Tested by this rule of sound political
wisdom, I can see no reason for the establishment of the "military
jurisdiction" conferred upon the officials of the Bureau by the
fourteenth section of the bill.
By the laws of the United States and of the different States competent
courts, Federal and State, have been established and are now in full
practical operation. By means of these civil tribunals ample redress is
afforded for all private wrongs, whether to the person or the property
of the citizen, without denial or unnecessary delay. They are open to
all, without regard to color or race. I feel well assured that it will
be better to trust the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizen
to tribunals thus established, and presided over by competent and
impartial judges, bound by fixed rules of law and evidence, and where
the right of trial by jury is guaranteed and secured, than to the
caprice or judgment of an officer of the Bureau, who it is possible
may be entirely ignorant of the principles that underlie the just
administration of the law. There is danger, too, that conflict of
jurisdiction will frequently arise between the civil courts and these
military tribunals, each having concurrent jurisdiction over the person
and the cause of action--the one judicature administered and controlled
by civil law, the other by the military. How is the conflict to be
settled, and who is to determine between the two tribunals when it
arises? In my opinion, it is wise to guard against such conflict by
leaving to the courts and juries the protection of all civil rights
and the redress of all civil grievances.
The fact can not be denied that since the actual cessation of
hostilities many acts of violence, such, perhaps, as had never been
witnessed in their previous history, have occurred in the States
involved in the recent rebellion. I believe, however, that public
sentiment will sustain me in the assertion that such deeds of wrong are
not confined to any particular State or section, but are manifested over
the entire country, demonstrating that the cause that produced them
does not depend upon any particular locality, but is the result of
the agitation and derangement incident to a long and bloody civil war.
While the prevalence of such disorders must be greatly deplored, their
occasional and temporary occurrence would seem to furnish no necessity
for the extension of the Bureau beyond the period fixed in the original
act.
Besides the objections which I have thus briefly stated, I may urge upon
your consideration the additional reason that recent developments in
regard to the practical operations of the Bureau in many of the States
show that in numerous instances it is used by its agents as a means of
promoting their individual advantage, and that the freedmen are employed
for the advancement of the personal ends of the officers instead of
their own improvement and welfare, thus confirming the fears originally
entertained by many that the continuation of such a Bureau for any
unnecessary length of time would inevitably result in fraud, corruption,
and oppression. It is proper to state that in cases of this character
investigations have been promptly ordered, and the offender punished
whenever his guilt has been satisfactorily established.
As another reason against the necessity of the legislation contemplated
by this measure, reference may be had to the "civil-rights bill," now a
law of the land, and which will be faithfully executed so long as it
shall remain unrepealed and may not be declared unconstitutional by
courts of competent jurisdiction. By that act it is enacted--
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any
foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to
be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race
and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or
involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right in every
State and Territory in the United States to make and enforce contracts;
to sue, be parties, and give evidence; to inherit, purchase, lease,
sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal
benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and
property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like
punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.
By the provisions of the act full protection is afforded through the
district courts of the United States to all persons injured, and whose
privileges, as thus declared, are in any way impaired; and heavy
penalties are denounced against the person who willfully violates the
law. I need not state that that law did not receive my approval; yet its
remedies are far more preferable than those proposed in the present
bill--the one being civil and the other military.
By the sixth section of the bill herewith returned certain proceedings
by which the lands in the "parishes of St. Helena and St. Luke, South
Carolina," were sold and bid in, and afterwards disposed of by the tax
commissioners, are ratified and confirmed. By the seventh, eighth,
ninth, tenth, and eleventh sections provisions by law are made for the
disposal of the lands thus acquired to a particular class of citizens.
While the quieting of titles is deemed very important and desirable, the
discrimination made in the bill seems objectionable, as does also the
attempt to confer upon the commissioners judicial powers by which
citizens of the United States are to be deprived of their property in a
mode 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." As a general principle, such legislation is unsafe,
unwise, partial, and unconstitutional. It may deprive persons of their
property who are equally deserving objects of the nation's bounty as
those whom by this legislation Congress seeks to benefit. The title to
the land thus to be portioned out to a favored class of citizens must
depend upon the regularity of the tax sales under the law as it existed
at the time of the sale, and no subsequent legislation can give
validity to the right thus acquired as against the original claimants.
The attention of Congress is therefore invited to a more mature
consideration of the measures proposed in these sections of the bill.
In conclusion I again urge upon Congress the danger of class
legislation, so well calculated to keep the public mind in a state of
uncertain expectation, disquiet, and restlessness and to encourage
interested hopes and fears that the National Government will continue to
furnish to classes of citizens in the several States means for support
and maintenance regardless of whether they pursue a life of indolence or
of labor, and regardless also of the constitutional limitations of the
national authority in times of peace and tranquillity.
The bill is herewith returned to the House of Representatives, in which
it originated, for its final action.