328 



CONGRESS, U. S. 



the property of rebels goes upon this idea : that 

 the Constitution of the United States, which 

 guarantees a jury trial, and which declares that 

 no mau shall be deprived of life, liberty, or 

 property without due process of law, has no 

 application whatever to a district of country 

 where the judicial tribunals are utterly over- 

 thrown, and where the military power is called 

 in for the purpose of putting down an insurrec- 

 tion, just because the judicial authorities are 

 overthrown. That is the very point where the 

 military may begin to operate." 



Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, expressed his as- 

 tonishment at the bill, saying : "It seems to 

 me that this bill is a very extraordinary one. 

 It has taken me by surprise. I believe that it 

 was only laid on our tables yesterday. If it 

 were confrhed to the States in secession I should 

 make no objection ; but I confess I am appalled 

 with the idea of giving the Executive such an 

 enormous power as this over States which are 

 not in insurrection, which may not be in in- 

 surrection, and in which there is not a fortieth 

 part of the people who desired it ever should 

 get into insurrection." 



Mr. Pearce also said: "But further, sir 

 you authorize them to place under military 

 control all the officers, agents, and employes be- 

 longing to the telegraphs and railroads thus 

 taken possession of by the Government, so that 

 they shall be considered a part of the military 

 forces of the United States, subject to all the 

 liabilities imposed by the rules and articles of 

 war. Where do you get the authority to 

 make these civil employes of these railroads 

 subject to the rules and articles of war ? They 

 are only military men who are subject to them. 

 These persons have not made themselves sub- 

 ject to them by enlisting in the military ser- 

 vice of the United States, or by volunteering 

 into its service, or by being drafted into the 

 militia ; and yet you take these poor civilians, 

 the whole business of whose lives is railroad 

 transportation for passengers and freight, and 

 make them subjects of military law." 



Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, was of the opinion 

 that the exception taken to the bill by the 

 Senator from Maryland was well taken. He 

 said: " He objects to that portion of it which 

 proposes 'to place under military control all 

 the officers, agents, and employes belonging to 

 the telegraph and railroad lines thus taken 

 possession of by the President.' I say that that 

 is wholly an unauthorized power. Congress, 

 the law-making power of the United States, 

 cannot invest the President with that author- 

 ity. He has no right to assume that persons 

 who are in civil employment, either in a State 

 or in a State corporation, or in their own pri-. 

 vate and individual capacity, can be seized by 

 authority of a law of Congress, and appro- 

 priated to and made a part of the military 

 power of the United States, and subjected to 

 the military law. I utterly deny that that is 

 constitutional." 



Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, thus expressed his 



opinion: "I am for punishing a man in the 

 loyal States who interferes with a telegraph 

 line or a railroad line as severely as in the dis- 

 loyal States. I am for punishing them all. 

 The constitutional point is simply this : can you 

 punish a citizen by military court martial in a 

 loyal portion of the country ? " 



Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, followed: 

 " What is the whole object of this bill ? What 

 is the reason why it has been introduced here, 

 and why does the new Secretary of War desire 

 a measure of this kind ? We have assembled 

 large armies ; it is expected that these armies 

 are to move ; the public voice demands action ; 

 they have to move over vast spaces of country ; 

 railways must be a great means of transporta- 

 tion for them. Now, the object is to have the 

 control of the railway lines for the purpose of 

 moving these masses of men. The object is to 

 concentrate our forces, to move large masses 

 of men without the knowledge or consent of 

 anybody, without negotiating with railway di- 

 rectors as to how many men are to be moved, 

 or where they are to be moved, or what rolling 

 stock is wanted, or anything of the kind." 



Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, said: "It is 

 unquestionably true that the power to do these 

 things exists at the present time. Nobody can 

 doubt not even my friend from Maryland, who 

 says that he is appalled by the principles enun- 

 ciated by this bill that, in a time of war, when 

 the necessity exists, the Government may seize 

 upon property ; may seize upon men ; may 

 seize upon anything and everything which is 

 necessary to accomplish its war purposes. In 

 seizing private property your authorities do 

 not stop to call a jury to estimate its value 

 under that clause of the Constitution which 

 provides that private property shall not be 

 taken for public use without compensation. 

 They take it when the necessity arises ; take 

 the man, the horse, the grain, the railroad, the 

 large thing as well as the small. There is no 

 doubt about the power." 



Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, said: "If you mean 

 only to give power to impress a certain class of 

 your fellow citizens, under a given state of 

 facts, into the military service of the country, 

 I am willing to do it if it is recommended by 

 the proper anthorities, and it is thought ad- 

 visable that it should be done by general law, 

 instead of leaving the power to be exercised in 

 each case where an emergency may present it- 

 self, We have just as much right to consider 

 men who are employed for the purpose of this 

 bill, in the military service, as to provide that 

 men shall be drafted for our armies. -That is a 

 power that exists in the Government, undoubt- 

 edly. It is within the war-making power ; and 

 if that is the design, I do not know that I have 

 any objection so far as that point goes." 



Mr. Wade, of Ohio, argued in reply : " The 

 Senator declared that the war power was vested 

 in the President. There is no such power as 

 that in the President. It is in the Congress 

 in the representatives of the people and of the 



