206 



CONGKESS, UNITED STATES. 



hardship to him to stand within them than to 

 the honorable Senator or myself." 



Mr Kirkwood : " We do not act nnder a 

 threat of the penitentiary. This section cre- 

 ates a crime." 



Mr. Bayard : " The difference of opinion be- 

 tween Senators, let me further say, has really 

 nothing to do with the execution of the laws. 

 We differ in our views as to their expediency ; 

 we even differ as to their constitutionality; 

 but nevertheless they become the law, and 

 when they are the law then our duties are de- 

 fined to us, whether we voted for them or 

 against them. Whatever may be our opinion 

 of them, so long as they stand on the statute- 

 book unreversed and unquestioned by the ju- 

 dicial branch, they are law unto us, and we 

 obey them, or disobey them at our peril." 



Mr. Kirkwood : " I say that this section cre- 

 ates a crime. Our crimes are created by law. 

 This section creates a crime, and it punishes it 

 by fine or imprisonment or both. All statutes 

 creating crimes should define them so clearly 

 that they shall not become a trap and a snare 

 to those who may be prosecuted under them ; 

 and that I fear and believe will be the effect of 

 this measure. 



" I believe it is the duty of Congress, a duty 

 that has been perhaps too long delayed, to de- 

 fine with much more clearness and much more 

 precision than it has heretofore been the con- 

 stitutional limits within which the army may 

 be used. As indicating my view upon that 

 subject, let me allude to a single point. Last 

 year we had unfortunately for some weeks an 

 interruption of the whole business of the 

 country by what were called railroad strikes. 

 The idea appears to prevail in some places, 

 and I find it was somewhat yesterday in the 

 mind of the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 

 Wallace), that these are mere local matters, 

 affecting only the locality where they exist, 

 and that they are to be dealt with by the local 

 authorities only. I do not subscribe to that 

 view. Let me explain what I mean. 



" The State of Pennsylvania lies right across 

 the pathway of the people of Iowa to the sea- 

 board. The railroads by which we reach New 

 York and Philadelphia pass through the State 

 of Pennsylvania. If a riot or an outbreak 

 occurs in Pennsylvania affecting only the peo- 

 ple of Pennsylvania, we, the people of Iowa, 

 are perhaps only indirectly concerned with it ; 

 but if a riot in Pennsylvania obstructs the 

 passage of the people of Iowa to the seaboard, 

 the passage of our products to the seaboard, 

 the passage of the people of Iowa who may 

 be in New York back to Iowa, and the passage 

 of what we buy in New York back to Iowa, 

 then we are concerned in that which other- 

 wise would perhaps be merely a local matter 

 in Pennsylvania. I, for one, am utterly un- 

 willing to subscribe to the doctrine that we 

 must depend upon the ability or the will of the 

 people of Pennsylvania as to whether or not 

 we shall pass through other States to and from 



the seaboard. It is the duty of the Govern- 

 ment of the United States to see that we have 

 free passageway through all the States. It is 

 the duty of the Government of the United 

 States to see that our mail passes back and 

 forth freely through Pennsylvania and every 

 other State we may wish to go through. It is 

 the duty of the United States to see that our 

 persons and our merchandise shall pass back 

 and forth free and unobstructed through every 

 State of this Union. I do not subscribe to the 

 doctrine which has been set forth here. It 

 may be that a law must be passed to enable us 

 to do this ; and that is an additional reason 

 why the matter involved in this section should 

 be deferred until upon careful consideration 

 we can define the circumstances under which 

 the army can or can not be used, so as not to 

 set a trap for these men who are to some 

 extent the preservers of the peace of onr 

 country. I am afraid of it ; and reluctantly, 

 because the case as stated by the Senator 

 from Delaware is a self-evident proposition, 

 I shall be compelled to vote against the sec- 

 tion." 



Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin, said : " Mr. Presi- 

 dent, I want to say two or three things about 

 this section. It seems to me very certain that 

 this section is intended to do one or the other 

 of two things. It is either intended to define 

 anew the duties of the military forces of the 

 United States, or it is intended to provide new 

 penalties for a violation of duty on the part of 

 these forces. The Senator from Delaware just 

 now intimated that, according to his construc- 

 tion of it, it did not propose any new definition 

 of duty, did not mean to change the law con- 

 trolling the action of these forces; and he as- 

 serted a principle which I think can not be as- 

 serted too often and can not be too religiously 

 believed, and that is that all human force in this 

 country and under our system of laws is regu- 

 lated by law, no matter what that force may be ; 

 that the law to-day says to every man that what- 

 ever force he has got within his control must 

 be employed only in obedience to the law; 

 says that to an individual who weighs two 

 hundred pounds ; says that to the captain of a 

 company who commands one hundred men ; 

 says that to the colonel who commands a regi- 

 ment, to the major-general who commands a 

 division; says that to the President of the 

 United States, who commands the whole mili- 

 tary and the whole naval force ; says it as dis- 

 tinctly and unequivocally as it can be said. '. 

 believe that; and if this section is intended 

 merely to reaffirm that, I have only three ob- 

 jections to it : First, that it is offensive to the 

 military organization. It is not right, it is not 

 decorous, to put upon your statute-book this 

 special command addressed to one of the or- 

 ganizations of the country. If it were pro- 

 posed to say in this statute that no Senator 

 and no combination of Senators should employ 

 any part of their force except in obedience to 

 law, every Senator .here would consider it a 



