a precedent which, in my judgment, is eminently dangerous, if not entirely subversive of a fundamental principle of representative government. With a firm conviction that your decision inflicts a vital wound upon free representative government, I cannot, by continuing to hold the seat I now occupy under it, give my personal assent and sanction to its propriety." Still another illustration of the extended and minute ramifications of slavery in the body politic, so long as it was a recognized fact in the nation and government, of the wide sweep of the principle of freedom, even though but partially admitted, and of the difficulty and delicacy of adjusting legislation to the new order of things, was afforded by a debate in the Senate upon a bill to provide a temporary government for Montana, begun on the 31st of March, 1864. An amendment, offered by Mr. Wilkinson of Minnesota, to strike out the words "white male inhabitant," and to insert "male citizen of the United States," had been agreed to; but on reading the bill a third time, and on a call of Mr. Saulsbury for the yeas and nays, a sharp debate arose, in which Mr. Johnson of Maryland and Mr. Sumner of Massachusetts spoke with some sharpness, not to say acerbity of feeling. Mr. Johnson having suggested that if it was the object of the mover to "put beyond all doubt" that Africans should be permitted to vote, he had better substitute the words, "all black men" for "all citizens," because the Supreme Court had decided, in the Dred Scott case, that a person of African descent is not a citizen of the United States." Mr. Sumner said: "I take it that each branch of the government can interpret the Constitution for itself. I think that Congress is as good an authority in its interpretation as the Supreme Court, and I hope that Congress, in its legisla tion, will proceed absolutely without any respect to a decision' which has already disgraced the country, and which ought to be expelled from its jurisprudence." Subsequently he expressed the thought still more strongly, adding: “And God forbid that Congress should consent to wear the strait-jacket of the Dred Scott decision!" "Mr. President," responded Mr. Johnson, "if the opinion of the Senator of Massachusetts was conclusive upon all such questions, guided, and controlled the public mind, it might be considered now as settled that the decision of the Supreme Court in that case was a disgrace. But I have yet to be advised that the honorable member, either by nature or education, has attained so much intellectual celebrity or possesses such transcendent mental ability as to be able to pronounce ex cathedra against a decision pronounced by the Supreme Court of the United States. There are many men, the equals of the honorable member, to say the least, intellectually, who think that that decision was anything but an outrage." Mr. Hale, with his unfailing wit and good humor, however, came to the rescue. "I do not," he said, "propose to enter into this discussion, but simply to make a single remark, in which I am compelled to differ from my honorable friend from Massachusetts. He says that the Dred Scott decision was a disgrace to the Supreme Court of the United States. I do not believe that I think any better of that decision than he does; I think it was an outrage upon the civilization of the age, and a libel upon the law; but I do not think it was a disgrace to the Supreme Court of the United States." He expressed, however, with Mr. Sumner, the conviction that the amendment involved an important principle, and that, while the colored men were fighting the nation's battles, the nation should thus recognize their manhood and rights as citizens of the Republic. Others, however, equally earnest and decided in their antislavery convictions and purposes, like Trumbull and Wade, doubted the policy of urging it at that time; the former declaring it to be "the merest abstraction," from which no good could arise. After long discussion, however, the amendment was lost. Another illustration of the stern conflicts of opinion and feeling between Republican members, of the radical nature of many of the discussions of the session, and of the freedom. with which many of the acts of the President were criticised by the leaders of his own party, was afforded by a long and vigorous debate on a proposition to amend the Confiscation Act of July, 1862, proposed in the House from the Committee on the Judiciary on the 13th of January, 1864. The question at issue was, whether the forfeiture on account of treason, provided for in that act, "may be in fee or only for life." The discussion of that question naturally demanded both knowl edge of constitutional subjects and judicial acumen. Mr. Orth of Indiana gave a sketch of the British law of treason, and pronounced the position "absurd" that "such forfeiture shall only extend to the lifetime of the traitor and then cease." Mr. Cox of Ohio, in reply, accused him of drawing "from the old feudal system, from the black-letter laws, from the whole history of our common law with reference to forfeiture to show that there should be another and a different interpretation given to the Constitution from that which was given by the men who made the Constitution." Mr. Kernan of New York also contended that the punishment for treason, "like the punishment for any other crime, should fall upon the guilty party only, and that we should not seek to affect his innocent children and heirs." "I agree," he said again, "with the President that the true construction of the Constitution is, that we have no power to cut off the inheritance of innocent heirs as part punishment for treason." This last sentence from Mr. Kernan's speech refers to a fact which reveals the complications and embarrassments of the administration growing out of the frequent differences of opinion between Mr. Lincoln and the leaders of his party. The fact referred to was a veto prepared by the President for the act of July, 1862, as it originally passed Congress; but which was averted by the passage of an explanatory resolution which relieved the original bill of its objectionable features. In his message to Congress on that occasion the President had said: "For the causes of treason, and the ingredients of treason, not amounting to the full crime, it declares forfeiture extending beyond the lives of the guilty parties; whereas the Coustitution of the United States declares that no attainder shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.' True, there is to be no formal attainder in this case; still, I think the greater punishment cannot be constitutionally inflicted, in a different form, for the same offence." Congress having passed this explanatory resolution: "Nor shall any punishment or proceeding under said act be so construed as to work forfeiture of the real estate of the offender beyond his natural life," the President was satisfied, and signed the bill. The purpose of the amendment now before the House was the modification of this explanatory resolution. During the debate H. Winter Davis of Maryland made a very vigorous speech in opposition to the proposed amendment. He spoke of the "intolerable folly" of such a construction of the Constitution, that "for any ordinary crime Congress may prescribe any punishment they please; take the land in fee; but in providing for the punishment of treason, the greatest crime, the most dangerous crime, it has feebly attempted to protect innocent offspring by saving the lands of the convict, but leaving his life and all his personal property at the mercy of the law." Calling it an "unrepublican discrimination between real and personal property," he said: "And this anti-republican view is urged to fetter us in breaking the power of an aristocratic rebellion founded on land in large bodies and on negroes. Were there no other objection than this, that simple reductio ad absurdum disposes of the argument." Thaddeus Stevens spoke with more than his usual and biting force, declaring that, in his judgment, the Constitution had nothing to do with the act of July, 1862, which had been, he added, with sharp, not to say harsh, criticism of the majority," modified by a resolution which, it has been truly said, was passed under duress very little to the credit of the Congress that passed it." That act, he continued, was simply the exercise of the war power," a proceeding under the laws of war and under the law of nations over which the Constitution has no control, and in regard to which it has no effect whatever." CHAPTER XXXII. - AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. Passed. - -South Proclamation incomplete. — Legislation required. Ashley's proposed amendment.-Joint resolution. - Referred. Similar action in the Senate. — XIIIth Amendment. - Debate. Trumbull, Wilson. - Opposition. - Davis, Powell, Saulsbury, McDougall, Hendricks. Factious amendments. ern support. Henderson, Johnson. - Reverent references and appeals. — Hale, Sumner. House. Morris. Opposed by Wood, Holman, Pendleton, Kalbfleisch. - Supported by Shannon, Higby, Kelley, Arnold. — Failure. XXXVIIIth Congress. President's message. -Debate. - Brooks, Stevens. Ashley's motion to reconsider. Debate. Orth, Scofield, Davis, Kasson, McBride, Baldwin, Jenckes, Grinnell, Woodbridge, Morris, Patterson, Stevens, Yeaman, Smithers, Smith. Change of votes. -McAllister, Crof forth, Herrick. - Bitter opposition by Brooks, Bliss, Rogers, Ward, Mallory, Clay, White, Townsend, Voorhees, Holman, Cox, Pendleton, Harding. Democrats supporting. — Rollins, King, Odell. — Closing vote. — Great ex citement. Passed. - Accepted by the States. — Proclamation. — Various motives. Radical character of the result. - New departure. THE Proclamation of Emancipation contained not only the announcement that "all persons held as slaves shall be free." but the assurance that "the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons." The one was a necessary complement of the other, the last as binding and essential as the first. This, if not fully foreseen at the outset, soon became apparent. And it became as evident that while the first was but the work of a moment and of a single individual, the latter was to be the work of years and of the nation too. A "scratch of the pen was sufficient to set the bondman free; it was only by competent and carefully considered legislation, by many and va ried enactments, that his freedom could be assured, become the promised boon, and be made a blessing instead of a curse. 99 |