CONGKESS, UNITED STATES. 



229 



shocking to morals; that it is an offence against hu- 

 man nature itself; that it adds new guilt to the great 

 crime of the rebellion, and constitutes an example 

 from which history will turn with sorrow and disgust. 



And be it further resolved, That any attempted imi- 

 tation of rebel barbarism in the treatment of prison- 

 ers would be plainly impracticable, on account of its 

 inconsistency with the prevailing sentiments of hu- 

 manity among us ; that it would be injurious at home, 

 for it would barbarize the whole community ; that it 

 would be utterly useless, for it could not affect the 

 cruel authors of the revolting conduct which we seek 

 to overcome ; that it would be immoral, inasmuch as 

 it proceeded from vengeance alone ; that it could 

 hare no other result than to degrade the national 

 character and the national name, and to bring down 

 upon our country the reprobation of history ; and 

 that being thus impracticable, useless, immoral, and 

 degrading, it must be rejected as a measure of retali- 

 ation, precisely as the barbarism of roasting or eating 

 prisoners is always rejected by civilized powers. 



And be it further resolved, That the United States, 

 filled with grief and sympathy for cherished citizens 

 who, as officers and soldiers, have become the victims 

 of Heaven-defying outrage, hereby declare their sol- 

 emn determination to put an end to this great iniqui- 

 ty by putting an end to the rebellion 01 which it is 

 the natural fruit; that to secure this humane and 

 righteous consummation, they pledge anew their best 

 energies and all the resources of the whole people, and 

 they call upon all to bear witness that in this necessary 

 warfare with barbarism they renounce all vengeance 

 and every evil example, and plant themselves firmly 

 on the sacred landmarks of civilization, under the pro- 

 tection of that God who is present with every prisoner 

 and enables heroic souls to suffer for their country. 



He said: "Now, sir, I believe that the Sen- 

 ate will not undertake in this age of Christian 

 light, under any inducement, under any provo- 

 cation, to counsel the Executive Government to 

 enter into any such competition with barbarism. 

 Sir, the thing is impossible ; it cannot be enter- 

 tained; we cannot be cruel, or barbarous, or 

 savage, because the rebels whom we are now 

 meeting in warfare are cruel, barbarous, and 

 savage. We cannot imitate that detested ex- 

 ample. Sir, we find no precedent for it in our 

 own history nor in the history of other nations." 



Mr. Wade, of Ohio, replied: "The Senator 

 from Massachusetts has proved, in the course 

 of his argument, what I supposed was well-set- 

 tled international law, that the principle of re- 

 taliation is part and parcel of the law of war. 

 It has been practised by all civilized nations, as 

 often as there have been occasions for it. The 

 first example that the Senator read was that of 

 the Father of his country in the revolutionary 

 war. Very early in the struggle, at the very 

 outset of the war, as soon as it came to his ears 

 that the British were maltreating our men who 

 were prisoners in their hands, he gave them to 

 understand that their treatment of our prison- 

 ers in their hands would be the measure that he 

 would award to their prisoners in our hands. 

 That he lays down clearly as a principle, and 

 he deduced it from the well-settled laws of na- 

 tions. He did not lay down any limitation of 

 it. He simply went on to sum up what he un- 

 derstood to be their treatment, and said that he 

 should observe the same toward them. Does 

 the Senator believe that if their treatment had 

 been infinitely more inhuman than it was, that 



fact would have induced Washington to drop 

 the principle altogether ? Would it not rather 

 have been a seven-fold reason why he should 

 enforce it with greater vigor ? He did not lay 

 it down as a limitation, but as a settled princi- 

 ple of law which he would adhere to, that his 

 treatment of prisoners in his hands should be 

 precisely the same with the treatment by the 

 enemy of the prisoners in their hands." 



Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, followed, say- 

 ing : " Mr. President, I am one of those, unibr- 

 nately, perhaps, who differ with a great many 

 Senators on this side of the chamber, in be- 

 lieving that in the distribution of powers and 

 authorities under this Government this is a 

 question which does not belong to this Senate 

 to consider. I have understood it to be admit- 

 ted in the course of this debate by the honor- 

 able Senator from Ohio, as it must be admitted 

 by all men who know of our Constitution and 

 the peculiar organization of our Government, 

 that if we retaliate at all we retaliate according 

 to a law already in existence, not one which is 

 to be made. What is meant when it is said to 

 us that we are to retaliate according to the law 

 of nations ? Is that a law in existence, or is it 

 a law to be enacted ? If it is a law in exist- 

 ence, this not being an executive body, but legis- 

 lative, there must be some other power, and 

 some other authority in this Government to ex- 

 ercise it. As I understand this question, it is a 

 question for the Commander-in-chief of our 

 armies and his subordinates. It is an authority 

 to be exercised by them according to the exi- 

 gencies which arise, and to be abandoned by 

 them as the exigencies fail to happen." 



Mr. Wade said : " Do I understand the Sen- 

 ator to lay it down that Congress has no power 

 to prescribe the principles upon which the war 

 should be conducted ? " 



Mr. Cowan answered: "I have repeatedly 

 upon this floor given my opinion distinctly upon 

 that subject. So far as all foreign Powers are 

 concerned, and so far as all belligerent Powers 

 are concerned, at war with this Government, 

 our only point of contact with them is in the 

 Executive. We are a part of the legislature of 

 the country ; we are a part of the law-making 

 power. Our powers and authorities are muni- 

 cipal. Our enactments reach those against 

 whom we can enforce them, and those against 

 whom we can enforce them are, of course, 

 those who owe us allegiance and are citizens ; 

 but as against belligerents and as against foreign 

 Powers they can have no possible operation 

 whatever. But I answer the question sufficiently 

 when I say that the honorable Senator from 

 Ohio himself has repeatedly said that we do 

 this thing because we have a right to do it, by 

 a law preexisting, heretofore made, and that is 

 the law of nations. Then, if we have a right to 

 do it by the law of nations, we need no addi- 

 tional law to do it. We make laws ; we do not 

 execute laws. 



" I say that as the matter now stands I can- 

 not believe that the President has in his posses- 



