Puslapio vaizdai

The committee review the case, and con

charged, would establish my action as within the legal con-
struction of the postal acts authorizing the transportation clude as follows:
of printed matter in the United States mails. It would set-
tle the right of this department and its various officers to
resist all efforts to make them particeps criminis of treason
and rebellion, by compelling them to circulate and distrib-
ute with their own hands the moral weapons which are to
bring civil war to their firesides, with its horrible train of
barbarities in the destruction of life and property.
Upon the like considerations I have, at different times,
excluded from the mails obscene and scandalous printed
matter on exhibition of its criminal immorality. If an un-
sealed printed publication were offered to the mails, insti-
gating murder, arson, destruction of railroads, or other
crimes, and advocating an organization for such purposes, I
should, upon the same principles, without hesitation, ex-
clude it from the mails as unlawful matter, in the absence
of a contravening act of Congress.

I do not wish to be understood, however, as indorsing, but rather as distinctly dissenting from, some of the arguments and conclusious, and from the extent to which preceding Administrations have gone, as indicated by some of the foregoing citations. The precedents and arguments go far

beyond any action which I have taken, or would be willing

to take, under the like circumstances.

1st. I reject that portion of the precedents which allows twenty-eight thousand postmasters of the country to judge, each for himself, what newspapers are lawful and what unlawful; what may go in the mails and what shall be excluded. I have refused to allow postmasters to sit in final judgment upon all the interests involved, subject as they are to conflicting local prejudices. The Postmaster General, who is more directly responsible to Congress, and more ac cessible to their inquiries, should alone exercise such authority, in whatever degree it exists, and should not devolve it on subordinates. Whatever control can be lawfully exercised over the mails by a postmaster may always be exercised or ordered by the chief, under whose direction the law expressly subordinates the postmaster. This is a self-evident proposition. It has, however, been sustained by the official opinion of the Attorney General of the United States, dated March 2, 1857.

2d. I dissent from the extent to which the doctrine has been carried by late administrations, that in time of peace, and in the absence of all hostile or criminal organizations, operating against Constitution or law, either a Postmaster General, or any postmaster, can at will exclude from the mails newspapers and other printed matter which contain discussions obnoxious to some special interest, but not aimed against Government, law, or the public safety. It is too dangerous a discretion to be exercised or desired by any executive officer attached to the constitutional freedom of the press. Such has been, in some cases, the action of this department in late years, and I take this occasion to break the too great uniformity of its decisions in this respect. Even in time of war, the power so long conceded should be used with great care and delicacy. I say in time of war, because the executive department has powers then which do not attach to it in time of peace. The Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Yet, in time of war, the life, liberty, and property of persons in the United States, being also insurrectionary enemies of the United States, are necessarily taken without any process except that of powder and the bayonet. And no man denies the right as an incident of war. Yet, in pence, it could not be done. These acts are as thoroughly constitutional in war as they are unconstitutional in peace. In harmony with this principle, I would give far greater latitude to alleged wrongful and obnoxious printed matter in a period of peace than would be justifiable in a time of war. This reply to the inquiry transmitted to me by the committee embraces the following conclusions:

First. That the exercise of the authority inquired of rests upon the Constitution of the United States, and the definition of mailable matter given in the postal law, as construed by past administrations of this department, enforced by the official opinion of a late Attorney General of the United States, and known to and recognized by former Congresses of the United States.

Second. That a power and a duty to prevent hostile printed matter from reaching the enemy, and to prevent such matter from instigating others to co-operate with the enemy, by the aid of the United States mails, exist in time of war, and in the presence of treasonable and armed enemies of the United States, which do not exist in time of peace, and in the absence of criminal organizations.

Third. That the present Postmaster General has restricted the exercise of the power during this war far within the scope claimed and allowed by former Administrations in periods of national peace.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, M. BLAIR, Postmaster General.

Your committee are not unmindful of the fact that too great caution cannot be exercised in arriving at a conclusion as to what is and what is not lawful mailable matter; or, in other words, what papers, publications, or messages are treasonable in their character, or for other reasons unlawful, and should, therefore, be excluded from the mails. In the case now before the committee the grand jury of one of the federal courts in the State of New York concur red in opinion with the head of the Post Office Department in the construction of the character of the publications, and the purposes of the publishers, it being, too, in a time when extreme vigilance was demanded in the executive department of the Government to preserve the integrity of the Union. And the object being to secure that noble and patriotic object, your committee believe the act of the Postmaster General was not only within the scope of his powers, but induced solely by considerations of the public good.

Mr. GEO. H. PENDLETON, of Ohio, (of the Judiciary Committee,) in his speech, March 3, 1863, in the House, quoted these two additional paragraphs from AMOS KENDALL'S opinion of 1835:


"After mature consideration of the subject, and seeking the best advice within my reach, I am confirmed in the opinion that the Postmaster General has no legal authority, by any order or regulation of the Department, to exclude from the mails any species of magazines, newspapers, or pamphlets. Such a power vested in the head of this Department would be fearfully dangerous, and has therefore been withheld. Any order or letter of mine directing or officially sanctioning the step you have taken would, therefore, be utterly powerless and void, and would not in the slightest degree relieve you from its responsibility. "The Postmaster General has no legal power to prescribe any rules for the government of postmasters in such cases; nor has he ever attempted to do so. They act in each case on their own responsibility; and if they improperly detain or use papers sent to their offices for transmission or delivery it is at their peril, and on their heads falls the punishment. If in time of war a postmaster should detect the letter of an enemy or a spy passing through the mail, which, if it reached its destination, would expose his country to invasion and her armies to destruction, ought he not to arrest it? Yet where is his legal power to do so?” He added:

In 1836, Mr. Calhoun, as chairman of a special committee of the Senate, reported a bill making it a penal offence for any postmaster to receive into the mails for transmission to any person within a State, or to deliver out of the mails to any such person, any publication the circulation of which was forbidden by that State. Subsequently the first clause of the bill was stricken out, and the latter, relating to the delivery of such matter, was retained. It gave rise to much discussion, and elicited an extremely able debate from the most eminent members of that then very able body. Mr. Calhoun, the zealous advocate of the bill, contended that a bill of this nature was the only one which Congress had the power to pass; that Congress could not discriminate in reference to character what publications shall or shall not be transmitted through the mail, without abridging the liberty of the press, and subjecting it to the control of congressional legislation; but that no such restriction applied to the States; they might forbid such publications as they thought dangerous, and that Congress had the power, and ought to exercise it, of co-operating with the States in repressing the circulation of publications thus prohibited.

The circulation of anti-slavery documents, tending to excite servile insurrection, had become a great evil. It had awakened fears of trouble among the slaves, and had therefore exasperated the people. Most of the slaveholding States had passed laws forbidding their circulation under severe penalties. They were still carried through the mails, and it began to be questioned whether the postmasters were not relieved from the penalties of the State law because they were acting under the sanction of Federal law. Great anxiety existed to relieve the apprehensions of the southern people. The President, General Jackson, recommended the subject most earnestly to Congress. He did not pretend that there existed any power of relief in any of the Executive Departments. Senators, almost without exception, expressed a determination to go as far as they could to apply a remedy. But the bill was most strenuously opposed. It was said to curtail the freedom of the press.


The bill was lost by a majority of seven: Messrs. Benton, Clay, Crittenden, Southard, Wall, Leigh, Goldsborough, among others from the slaveholding States; and Messrs.

Webster, Niles, Ewing, and Davis, with others from the non-slaveholding States voting against it. And yet it is in reference to this discussion and this action that the Postmaster General in his letter to the committee says "that Congress by its inaction seemed to concur in the right and the policy of excluding such alleged treasonable and insurrectionary publications from the mails." On the contrary, Congress expressly refused to sanction the idea that it had the power; and certainly no other department of the Government has.

that occasion or against any class of men. It is one of an enduring character, to be asserted at all times and against all condition of citizens, without favor or distinction. Unless all are made to bow to the law, it will be respected by none.

Unless all are made secure in their rights of person and property, none can be protected. If the owners of the above-named journals have violated State or national laws, they must be proceeded against and punished by those laws. Any action against them outside of legal procedures is criminal. At this time of civil war and disorder, the maly prohibit the circulation of certain newspapers anarchy. Our soldiers in the field will battle in vain for within the limits of their commands. Major constitutional liberty if persons or property, or opinions, General Wallace, May 18, 1864, suppressed the are trampled upon at home. We must not give up home freedom, and thus disgrace the American character while Baltimore Evening Transcript. Major General our citizens in the army are pouring out their blood to Rosecrans, May 26, 1864, prohibited the circu- maintain the national honor. They must not find when lation of the Metropolitan Record in the depart-they come back that their personal and fireside rights have

Generals commanding departments frequent-jesty of the law must be upheld or society will sink into

ment of Missouri. The circulation of the Cin

cinnati Enquirer has recently been prohibited, by the General commanding, in Kentucky.

[blocks in formation]

NEW YORK, December 9, 1859. MR. POSTMASTER OF LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA: SIR: I take leave to assure you that I shall do nothing of the sort. The subscribers to the Tribune in Lynchburg have paid for their papers; we have taken their money, and shall fairly and fully earn it, according to contract. If they direct us to send their papers to some other post office, we shall obey the request; otherwise, we shall send them as originally ordered. If you or your masters choose to steal and destroy them, that is your affair-at all events, not ours; and if there is no law in Virginia to punish the larceny, so much the worse for her and our plundered subscribers. If the Federal Administration, whereof you are the tool, after monopolizing the business of mail-carrying, sees fit to become the accomplice and patron of mail-robbery, I suppose the outrage must be borne until more honest and less servile rulers can be put into high places at Washington, or till the people can recover their natural right to carry each other's letters and printed matter, asking no odds of the Government. Go ahead in your own base way. I shall stand steadfast for human liberty and the protection of all natural rights. HORACE GREELEY.

Yours, stiffly,


1864, May 19-By order of the Secretary of War, the offices of the Journal of Commerce and the World-in which papers had appeared a forged proclamation of the President for 400,000 troops were seized by the military authorities and held for several days. This led to these proceedings:

Gov. Seymour's Letter to the District Attorney.
ALBANY, May 23, 1864.


District Attorney of the County of New York: SIR: I am advised that on the 19th inst., the office of The Journal of Commerce and that of The New York World were entered by armed men, the property of the owners seized, and the premises held by force for several days. It is charged that these acts of violence were done without due legal process, and without the sanction of State or national laws.

If this be true the offenders must be punished.

In the month of July last, when New York was a scene of violence, I gave warning that "the laws of the State must be enforced, its peace and order maintained, and the property of its citizens protected at every hazard." The laws were enforced at a fearful cost of blood and life.

The declaration I then made was not intended merely for

been despoiled.

In addition to the general obligation to enforce the laws held in the city of New York. If they are not, its commerce of the land, there are local reasons why they must be up

and greatness will be broken down. If this great center of wealth, business, and enterprise is thrown into disorder and bankruptcy, the National Government will be paralyzed. What makes New York the heart of our country? Why are its pulsations felt at the extremities of our land? Not through its position alone, but because of the world-wide belief that property is safe within its limits from waste by mobs and from spoliation by Government.

The laborers in the workshop, the mine, and in the field, on this continent and in every other part of the globe, send to its merchants, for sale or exchange, the products of their toil. These merchants are made the trustees of the wealth of millions living in every land, because it is believed that in their hands property is safe under the shield of laws administered upon principle and according to known usages. This great confidence has grown up in the course of many years by virtue of a painstaking, honest performance of duty by the business men of your city. In this they have been aided by the enforcement of laws based upon the solemnly-recorded pledges that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and that no one shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law."

For more than eighty years have we as a people heen building up this universal faith in the sanctity of our jurisprudence. It is this which carries our commerce upon every ocean and brings back to our merchants the wealth of every clime. It is now charged that, in utter disregard of the sensitiveness of that faith, at a moment when the national credit is undergoing a fearful trial, the organs of commerce are seized and held, in violation of constitutional pledges, that this act was done in a public mart of your great city, and was thus forced upon the notice of the commercial agents of the world, and they were shown in an offensive way that property is seized by military force and arbitrary orders.

These things are more hurtful to the national honor and strength than the loss of battles. The world will confound such acts with the principles of our Government, and the folly and crimes of officials will be looked upon as the natural results of the spirit of our institutions. Our State and local authorities must repel this ruinous inference. If the merchants of New York are not willing to have their harbor sealed up and their commerce paralyzed, they must unite in this demand for the security of persons and property. If this is not done, the world will withdraw from their keeping its treasures and its commerce. History has taught all that official violation of law in times of civil war and disorder goes before acts of spoilation and other measures which destroy the safeguards of com

[blocks in formation]


Remcon, J. Austin Stevens, jr., Amos H. Trowbridge, Sam-
uel A. Beekman, Seabury Brewster, Jacob D. T. Hersey,
Benedict Lewis, jr., Willard Phelps, Wm. T. Skeff, W. M. Letter from Governor Seymour to District Attorney Hall, of
Thurman, John P. Worstell, John Townsend, John D.
Welsh, Chris. Zabriskie, jr.

The grand jury having taken the usual oath, Judge Russell delivered a charge in which he thus alluded to the order for the arrest of the proprietors, and for the suppression of their journals:

The first part of the order was never fully executed. The latter part was, and the forcible possession maintained for several days. The author of the fraud, it is said, has been discovered, and the newspapers in question have been exonerated from all suspicion of guilt or blame. If this be so, this is an instance of innocent men being summarily interfered with, or trespassed upon, in the sanctity of their persons and property. As such, it is a violation of both the Federal and State Constitutions, and it is your duty to examine into it. This is not a self-imposed or self-assumed duty by this court. The facts were communicated to the Executive of this State, and he addressed to the district attorney of this county the communication I now read to


[The Judge then read Governor Seymour's letter.] Acting upon the duty this Court owes to the laws of this State, which is repeated in the official document I have just read to you, I beg to submit the matter to your calmest and most careful consideration. The Court is convinced that you will deal with it in such a manner as becomes the dutiful and loyal citizens of a dutiful and loyal State. Anything like political bias should be discarded. The question is mply thus: Have the laws of the State, in reference to the protection of person and property, been violated, and if so, who are the parties who have been concerned in it? No matter what their station may be, they must answer for the wrong, if there be one. If the President of the United States, or other officer who assumed to issue the order, had no such power or authority, those who obeyed and enforced it are clearly responsible.

For the purposes of this occasion, the Court instructs you that such an order as has been referred to would not, under the circumstances stated, be any protection to those concerned in its execution. This will raise the question at issue between the State and General Government in a legal way. Any attempt to interfere with freedom of speech or liberty of the press has been regarded and watched with the great est jealousy by the constituents of our Federal and State Governments. These invaluable privileges are protected in both the Federal and State Constitutions. Neither Congress nor our State Legislature can make a law abridging either right. In the year 1798, the famous "Sedition law" was passed by Congress, giving the Government extraordinary power in reference to publications calculated to weaken its authority. So unpalatable was this law that it was finally repealed. Two of the State Legislatures expressly declared against its constitutionality. At the time it was passed, the Government being in a state of comparaLve infancy, it ought probably to have been more favorably regarded; but it involved rights too dear to be trenched upon or surrendered. In reference to the alleged author of the spurious proclamation, you will receive evidence of the fact establishing his guilt, and if you are satisfied of it, you will present bim for such an offence as, under the advice of the district attorney, (to whom you are entitled to appeal for advice,) may be proper. At common law, the "spreading false news to make discord between the king and no bility, or concerning any great man of the reala," was au offence against the public peace, punishable with fine and imprisonment.

It may be that the elements of the common law will be invoked by the district attorney in reference to this offender. In reference to the parties engaged in taking and maintaining forcible possession of the newspaper establishments, the court instructs you that if there were three or more of them, they would be liable as for riot, which has been defined to be "where three or more actually do an unlawful act of violence, either with or without a common cause or quarrel, or even do a lawful act, as removing a nuisance, in

a violent or tumultuous manner."



New York.


ALBANY, June 25. District Attorney of the City and County of New York: SIR: In the matter of the seizure of the offices of The

World and Journal of Commerce, the grand jury, in disregard of their oaths, "to diligently inquire into and true presentment make of all such matters and things as should be given them in charge," have refused to make such inquiries, and declare that it is inexpedient to examine into the subject referred to in the charge of the court" with respect to such seizures. It becomes my duty, under the express requirements of the constitution, "to take care that the laws of the State are faithfully executed." If the grand jury, in pursuance of the demands of the law and the obligations of their oaths, had inquired into the matter given them in charge by the court and the public prosecutor, their decision, whatever it might have been, would have been entitled to respect. As they have refused to do their duty, the subject of the seizure of these journals should at once be brought before some proper magistrate. If you wish any assistance in the prosecution of these investigations, it will be given to you.

As it is a matter of public interest that violations of the laws of the State be punished, the views or wishes of the parties immediately affected must not be suffered to influence the action of public officers. If through fear or other motives they are unwilling to aid you in getting at facts, it will be your duty to compel their attendance as witnesses in behalf of the people. Respectfully yours,


The newspapers give this account of further proceedings:


The arrest of General Dix and several other officers on Friday, July 1, was made upon warrants issued by City Judge Russell. Several persons appeared before the city judge, in answer to subpoenas allowed by him, at the instance of District Attorney Hall, and had testified to facts relating to the seizure of The World and Journal of Commerce newspapers. The letter of Governor Seymour to the district attorney, condemning the grand jury for its return in the case of those newspapers, and saying that "the subject should be brought before some proper magistrate," is said to have induced the district attorney to procure the affidavits to be made before Russell. The district attorney first made an affidavit in the form of a complaint, dated 28th June, in which he declared that he had been informed and believed that "Hon. A. Lincoln" directed "John A. Dix" to do several acts against The World and Journal of Commerce, and the editors of those journals, enumerated in the complaint of the district attorney, and charging that the said Dix " feloniously ordered one William Barstow (Captain Barstow) to arrest the editors of the newspapers named, and "mischievously ordered one William Hays" (Acting Assistant Provost Marshal General Hays) to precure the closing up of the newspaper offices; that the arrest of Mr. Hallock was procured, and that gentleman kept for the space of about three hours; that "the said Hays instructed Major Powers, who caused one Fundy" (Captain Fundy) and some commissioned officers and privates, whom the district attorney names, to "go armed and equipped" to take possession of the Journal of Commerce office; and that the said Hays caused similar acts to be done to The World, through Lieutenant Gabriel Tuthill and several other soldiers. The district attorney then charges that John A. Dix and William Barstow are guilty of kidnapping, and the others, with John A. Dix, of inciting to a riot and forcibly detaining property; and the district attorney prays that action be taken to sustain the dignity of the State.

Judge Russell then issued subpoenas, directed to Messrs. William H. Hallock, of the Journal of Commerce; David G. Croly, of The World; William W. Jacobus, John 8. Betts, auctioneer, Daniel R. Kirwan, and Washington Hills, Jr., clerk in The World office, who appeared before the judge and made their several affidavits, the district attorney examining the witnesses.


Resolved, That the grand inquest respectfully represent to the honorable court that, in their judgment, it is inexpe- In accordance with the letter of Governor Seymour, didient to examine into the subject referred to in the commu-recting the matter of the suppressed newspapers to be nication of the Executive of the State and the charge of the brought before a magistrate, Mr. A. Oakey Hall commenced court, namely: the action of the General Government as to taking evidence and submitting testimony before Judge certain newspapers in this city. Russell on Tuesday. After examining the witnesses, Judge Russell came to the conclusion that it was a proper case for him to issue his warrant. Accordingly warrants were placed


in the hands of the sheriff, who arrested Major General Dix, Major Barstow, Captain Fundy, Major Powers. and other officers on guard at the offices of The World and Journal of Commerce.

The military gentlemen very courteously submitted to the arrest, and their counsel, E. Delafield Smith, appeared before Judge Russell. Mr. Smith asked for time to examine into the papers and consult with his associate, ex-Judge Pierrepont, as to the future course to be pursued by them. The matter was then adjourned, the defendants in the meantime being released on their own verbal recognizances.

First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress.



merce, newspapers in the city of New York, under circumstances which have been placed before the public, was an act unwarranted in itself, dangerous to the cause of the Union, in violation of the Constitution, and subversive of the principles of civil liberty, and as such is hereby censured by this House.

Several members objected. At a later hour he moved a suspension of the rules for the purpose of offering it, but this motion was rejected-yeas 54, nays 79, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. James C. Allen, Augustus C. Baldwin, Bliss, Brooks, James S. Brown, Chanler, Coffroth, Cor, Dawson, Denison, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Finck, Grider, Harding, Charles M. Harris, Herrick, Holman, Hutchins, Philip Johor

1864, May 26—Mr. POWELL offered this res-son, William Johnson, Kalbfleisch, Kernan, King, Knapp, olution, which went over:

Resolved, That the conduct of the executive authority of this Government, in recently closing the offices and suppressing the publication of The World and Journal of Commerce, newspapers in the city of New York, under circumstances which have been placed before the public, was an act unwarranted in itself, dangerous to the cause of the Union, in violation of the Constitution, and subversive of the principles of civil liberty, and as such is hereby censured by the Senate.


Law, Lazear, Mallory, Marcy, McAllister, Mc Dowell, William H. Miller, Morrison, Nelson, Noble, John O'Neill, Pendleton, Pruyn, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Robinson, James S. Ro lins, Ross, Scott, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Strouse, Voorhees, Wadsworth, Ward, Wheeler, Joseph W. White, Fernando Wood-54.

NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Ames, Arnold, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Jacob B. Blair, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Broomall, William G. Brown, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Cole, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Garfield, Gooch, Grinnell, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Loan, Longyear, Marvin, McMyers, Leonard Myers, Charles O'Neill, Orth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, William H. Randall, John H. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Smith, Smithers, Spalding, Stevens, Thayer, Thomas, Upson, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Webster, Whaley, Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge-79.

May 23-Mr. GRINNELL asked consent to offer Bride, McClurg, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Amos this resolution, but it was objected to:

[blocks in formation]

Same day, Mr. ARNOLD offered this resolution, which was adopted:

structed to inquire and report what, if any, additional legis

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be in

lation may be necessary to punish the forgery and publica tion of official documents, and what legislation is necessary to punish those who through the press or otherwise give information, aid, or comfort to the rebels.



First Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress. 1861, August 16-A bill was approved, of which these are the first and fourth sections: That if, during the present or any future insurrection against the Government of the United States, after the President of the United States shall have declared, by proclamation, that the laws of the United States are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course


of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals by law, any person or persons, his, her, or their agent, attorney, or employee, shall purchase or acquire, sell or give, any property of whatsoever kind or description, with intent to use or employ the same, or suffer the same to be used or employed, in aiding, abetting, or promoting such insurrection or resistance to the laws, or any persons engaged therein; or if any person or persons, being the owner or owners of any such property, shall knowingly use or employ, or consent to the use or employment of the same as aforesaid, all such property is hereby declared to be lawful subject of prize and capture wherever found; and it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to cause the same to be seized, confiscated, and conSEC. 4. That whenever hereafter, during the present insurrection against the Government of the United States, any person claimed to be held to labor or service under the law of any State shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or by the lawful agent of such person, to take up arms against the United States; or shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or his lawful agent, to work or to be employed in or upon any fort, navy-yard, dock, armory, ship, entrenchment, or in any military or naval service whatsoever, against the Government and lawful authority of the United States, then, and in every such case, the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due shall forfeit his claim to such labor, any law of the State or of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. And whenever thereafter the person claiming such labor or service shall seek to enforce his claim, it shall be a full and sufficient answer to such claim that the person whose service or labor is claimed had been employed in hostile service against the Government of the United States, contrary to the provisions of this act.

This bill, as reported from the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, did not contain the fourth section, and while it was pending in the Senate Mr. TRUMBULL moved to add this as a new section:

Toat whenever any person claiming to be entitled to the service or labor of any other person under the laws of any State, shall employ such person in aiding or promoting any insurrection, or in resisting the laws of the United States, or shall permit him to be so employed, he shall forfeit all right to such service or labor, and the person whose labor or service is thus claimed shall be thenceforth discharged therefrom, any law to the contrary notwithstanding.

Which was agreed to-yeas 33, nays 6, as follows:

YES-Messrs. Anthony, Bingham, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howe, Johnson of Ten

nessee, King, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Morrill, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Sherman, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trum

bull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, Wilson-33.

NAYS-Messrs. Breckinridge, Johnson of Missouri, Kennedy, Pearce, Polk, Powell-6.

The bill then passed without a division.


August 2-The House Committee on the Judicia y reported a substitute for the bill, which provides that whenever hereafter, during the existence of the present insurrection against the Government of the United States, any person held to labor or service under the laws of any State shall be required or permitted, by the person to whom such labor or service is due, or his legal agent, to take up arms against the United States, or to work, or be employed in or about any fort, navy-yard, armory, dock-yard, ship, or in any military or naval service, against the Government of the United States, or as the servant of any person engaged in active hostilities against the United States, then the person to whom such labor is due shall forfeit all claim to such service or labor, any law of any State, or of the United States, to the contrary notwithstanding; and, in case of a claim for such labor, such facts shall be a full and sufficient answer.

Which was rejected without a division; when, after debate, the bill was recommitted to the committee.

August 3-The committee reported the Senate bill with a substitute for section four, adopted above in the Senate, being the fourth section of the act as approved.

A motion to table the bill was lost-yeas 47, nays 66; and the amendment was agreed to, and the bill passed-yeas 60, nays 48, as fol


YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Arnold, Ashley, Babbitt, Baxter, Beaman, Bingham, Francis P. Blair, Samuel S. Blair, Blake, Buffinton, Chamberlain, Clark, Colfax, Frederick A. Conkling, Covode, Duell, Edwards, Eliot, Fenton, Fessenden, Franchot, Frank, Granger, Gurley, Hanchett, Harrison, Hutchins, Julian, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, William Kellogg, Lansing, Loomis, Lovejoy, McKean, Mitchell, Justin S. Morrill, Olin, Potter, Alexander H. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Sedgwick, Sheffield, Shellabarger, Sherman, Sloan, Spaulding, Stevens, Benjamin F. Thomas, Train, Van Horn, Verree, Wallace, Charles W. Walton, E. P. Walton, Wheeler, Albert S. White, Windom-60.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Ancona, Joseph Baily, George H. Browne, Burnett, Calvert, Cor, Cravens, Crisfield, Crittenden, Diven, Dunlap, Duun, English, Fouke, Grider, Haight, Hale, Harding, Holman, Horton, Jackson, Johnson, Law,

« AnkstesnisTęsti »