be prepared to show to the country that everything has been done that can be done to relieve the people from their suspicions that our citizens who are captured are needlessly suffering.

Now, I happen to have before me a newspaper containing an account of the sufferings of two citizens of Cincinnati who have been eight and ten months in Libby prison, and who have not been exchanged, and cannot be exchanged; and this paper, though friendly to the Administration, and to the gentleman having charge of the War Department, charges upon them that they have been derelict in duty. I am not prepared to say that the paper is right; I do not make any charge of that kind; but I say that we should furnish to the people of the country a knowledge of the facts, and the only way is to give the Administration and the War Department an opportunity to let the people see what efforts they have made to relieve the condition of affairs. I trust, therefore, that the resolution will not be referred, but that opportunity will be given to the War Department to do itself justice, if injustice has been done it; and if not, it will give us an opportunity to predicate that action which will require that || justice shall be done to our citizens.

Mr. COX. I think I can answer the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] in such a way as to get his assistance in the passage of this resolution. He thinks that there is some imputation in the introduction of this resolution, or by its terms, upon the Secretary of War. That is not the case. The resolution simply asks the Secretary of War, if not incompatible with the public interest, to send us all the correspondence upon this subject. There is no imputation contained in it, direct or implied; and if the gentleman from Pennsylvania is in favor of this system of retaliation

Mr. STEVENS. Let me say to the gentleman that if I were quite sure that the amendment would prevail I would withdraw my motion; and I will do so for the purpose of trying it.

Mr. COX. Very well. I will add but one more remark in response to another made by the gentleman. The resolution of the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. ROLLINS] has been referred, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania wants it considered. I am surprised that the gentleman from Pennsylvania justifies that resolution on the ground of retaliation as something known to the Jaws of civilized warfare. There are laws for war, and one of the laws of war provides for the humane, kind, and just treatment of all prisoners taken even in civil war. I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania would not put the torture or the thumb-screw or reduce to skeletons the prisoners in our hands because the other side have done it. I do not believe so illy of the gentleman from Pennsylvania as that. But as he wants the matter investigated by the committee, this correspondence would evidently assist that committee in the investigation. Let them have all the light which the War Department can throw upon the subject, so that the gentleman from New Hampshire may have the subject of his resolution properly investigated.

Mr. KASSON. Will the gentleman from Ohio allow me to offer an amendment, which he may accept or allow me to take a vote upon?

Mr. COX. I will hear it read.

The proposed amendment was read, as follows: And that he report therewith whether the treatment by the United States Government of rebel prisoners under its control is better in respect to food, clothing, care, and attention than the treatment extended by the rebel authorities to prisoners captured by them; and whether, in his judgment, the same provisions for the custody and care of rebel prisoners extended by these authorities to our captured soldiers may be properly extended to their soldiers when captured by us, with a view to secure more humane treatment of prisoners by the rebels.

Mr. KASSON. I desire to say to the gentleman from Ohio that my object is that his application for information, to which I think there is no valid objection, shall go to the same committee to which the other resolution was referred, so that we may have the benefit of a full statement from the Secretary of War of the facts upon each side, and that he may state the opinion of himself, as the head of that Department, whether the proposed measure would have the effect to increase humanity toward our prisoners in the South. I can see no objection to taking the opinion of the War Department upon that subject.

I renew the motion withdrawn by my colleague, [Mr. STEVENS,] to refer this whole subject to the Committee on Military Affairs.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] is on the floor.

Mr. COX. I only yielded to my friend from Iowa to offer his amendment.

administer the Government on any such false idea. It has been always administered heretofore on a totally different principle; and that principle has been that the people are entitled to and shall have full, complete, and perfect information on all matters relating to public affairs, so far as such information is not for the time being incompatible with the general interests of the country or the proper administration of the Government.

Mr. KASSON. I ought to add, in the hearing of the gentleman from Ohio, that the difference in the treatment of prisoners is notorious to the people of the United States, but my object is to get a specific statement of that difference not merely that it may go to the people of the United States, but to Europe, where there has been a recent manifesto of the rebel authorities touching our inhumanity toward these prisoners. I wish to call out a full statement, showing the rations, care, place of custody, and all the facts in contrast to the inhumanity practiced by the rebels. Mr. COX. I have no objection to the gentle-tleman from Ohio, and shall vote for it. man's amendment, except the last clause. I do not care, and I do not think the House would care, to have the opinion of the Secretary of War as to the subject of retaliation; whether it would bring about a more humane treatment of our prisoners or not. I will accept the first clause of the gentleman's amendment, so that the Secretary can report on the comparative treatment of prisoners on either side.

In my view, therefore, sir, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio calling for the correspondence on this subject conveys no imputation upon the Government. It calls for nothing that could be detrimental to the public interests. It calls for information on a subject in which the people of this country feel a very deep interest, and for the correspondence of their public agents upon that subject. For these reasons I am in favor of the amendment of the gen

Mr. KASSON. I suggest to him that the last clause is important, because we wish to know whether such action on our part would be practicable.

Mr. COX. I do not care anything about the opinion of the Secretary of War, with all due courtesy to him. I want the facts. I will accept the first part of the gentleman's amendment as an amendment to mine; but I cannot accept the last part of it.

The SPEAKER. Did the gentleman from Ohio yield the floor to the gentleman from Iowa to allow him to offer an amendment? If so, the whole of the amendment can be voted on. Mr. COX. I only yielded for the purpose of having it read.

The SPEAKER. Then the latter part of the amendment is not pending before the House.

Mr. COX. I modify my own.amendment so as to take in the first part of the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. CHANLER. Mr. Speaker, in regard to this resolution I accept the remarks of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYER] as the indication of a new era in the conduct of this war. He stands forth in bold relief on this floor and in this debate as compared with his colleague, [Mr. STEVENS.] It is impossible, on this or on any question relative to the treatment of men, prisoners or otherwise, arrayed in arms against us or with us, to separate the motive from the practice. I am astonished at the coolness and the somewhat callous character of the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] who, while defending by his words, though perhaps not by his motive, the barbarous resolution which gave rise to the present debate, introduced by the gentleman from New Hampshire, [Mr. ROLLINS,] favored the barbarous principle of the lex talionis, declaring it to be one of the principles of civilized war.

Retaliation is indeed practiced in civilized warfare, but there is a wide and clear distinction between such retaliation and the horrors which the resolution just introduced called on us to imitate in a spirit of resentment. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] to my astonishment, seems to make no such distinction in his remarks just made.

And I regret to say, sir, that his word has been, in more than one instance, carried out by a systematic practice during the whole course of this war with regard to the treatment of prisoners, not only on our side but also on the other side. It is under just this principle that the abominable acts described in the pamphlets which are circulated throughout the country have been brought about. The massacre at Fort Pillow and the outrages which have been carried on by the soldiery on both sides in the heat of conflict should not find support and palliation here. Sir, I should have been disposed to remain silent and wait until the accumulation of evidence had crushed the cruel spirit from the Administration party on this

occasion has occurred, and I deem it due to a portion of this House, on the other side as well as on this, to show a spirit to join them now, even at this late day, in an effort to stop the horrid system of carnage, torture, and barbarity which this civil war has developed.

Mr. THAYER. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to discuss at the present time the subject of retaliation. I do not understand that that question is properly before the House. When that subject shall be presented in any practical shape for the action of the House it will present a very grave and serious question; one which, I trust, this House will not act upon without due deliberation and consideration. But, sir, with reference to the resolution which is now before the House, I desire to say that it is a resolution which, in my opinion, is demanded by the public sentiment of the country. There is hardly a fireside, sir, in the land which is not painfully inter-floor by the mere weight of public odium; but the ested, immediately or remotely, in the question raised by this resolution-the question of a speedy and general exchange of prisoners. I do not regard the resolution or the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] as containing any imputation either on the Administration or on the War Department of the Administration. it conveys no such imputation. It simply calls for information with reference to that in which the people of the country feel a very deep and carnest interest. I have never yet seen the man who has been able to give me an intelligible account of what has occurred with reference to the negotiations that have taken place in regard to the exchange of prisoners, or what have been precisely the obstacles in the way of a general exchange of prisoners. The people of the country desire information upon this subject-nay, I may use a stronger term-they demand information on this subject; and the resolution being properly guarded so as not to require the Secretary of War to impart any information that may be detrimental to the public interests, I am in favor of the resolu tion of the gentleman from Ohio.

Sir, we cannot conduct the Government on the idea that a call for information from a Department of the Government is, as has been suggested, a reflection on the integrity of the Government or on the ability with which the functions of that Department has been discharged. We cannot

Upon the field of battle, and in the victory which follows, the soldier is comparatively safe from the infliction of these barbarities; but in the retreat, whether we look upon the record of the fearful consequences of the expedition on the Red river under General Banks, or whether we look to the fearful system carried on by our victorious generals in the State of Georgia, we find that the women and the children are the victims. While the brave men who do the fighting march in column in the discharge of their duty, the miscreant campfollower plunders, robs, and tortures, and he accepts the palliation given here, under the law of retaliation, as his shield. Under that he toils day and night with blood upon his hands without courage in his heart.

I am glad to find, sir, that gentlemen on the other side are ready to come forward and to vindicate their humanity on this question. Their courage has been proved here. Now, in the hour of triumph, amenity should crown their glorious deeds. We will give you all the credit of your achievements in this war; we will allow you to bestow on your successful generals the highest

honors; we will remain silent as you pass onward in your triumphal marches from the Alban mount to the Capitol. But do not let barbarity mark the train of your victories. Do not imitate, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] would seem to urge, the lex talionis of the Romans. Let no shackled victim, no bleeding corse, be chained to your car of victory. In that spirit I accept the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYER] who has last spoken.

But, sir, there is more. There is a future to which we must look. I would ask that hereafter, as now, that spirit might prevail on this floor. I deem it the duty of this House, without regard to what may be the private sentiments of the Secretary of War, to assert that, as men, we are opposed to any law which is not recognized as binding upon a Christian people. "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," should not be engraven upon our banners, nor practiced in our persons. Mr. COX. I call the previous question. Mr. SCHENCK addressed the Chair. Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman, and withdraw the call for the previous question.

Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, during the last session of this Congress a resolution was adopted directing the Committee on Military Affairs to inquire concerning the treatment of our prisoners in the hands of the rebels. In obedience to that order of the House the committee proceeded, as opportunity presented itself, in the midst of other engagements, to take a large mass of testimony, which accumulated upon their hands, in relation to this matter. The end of the session found us with this testimony partially arranged and with a report partly prepared. That report would have been made in the course of this session, and probably at an early day, with such material as we had then obtained for the purpose, if it had not been for the revival of the subject here at this time. Now it is hard to say when, where, and how we may report, for the subject of the inquiry is continually spreading itself as we turn our attention to it. The treatment of our prisoners-horrible enough, as it had come to our knowledge during the last session-has been increased in horror and barbarity since; and the testimony (much as there was of it) which we then obtained would be added to tenfold now if all the facts could be developed. Yesterday the House referred to that committee, or sent to that committee, a resolution directing them to inquire again in relation to this subject. The committee have already had the matter under consideration, and propose to make the examination as thorough as possible, and to report to the House according to the lights before them.

Now, sir, so far as this resolution is concerned, as a member of that committee, and its chairman,|| I must say to the House that I care very little whether the House makes the call directly upon the Secretary of War or leaves the committee to do so.

quiry, and that the committee were not directed absolutely to report any system of retaliation. I am glad of it because it will require a great deal of consideration by members of the committee, by the members of the House, and by the country, how far it will be proper to resort to any retaliatory measures. I confess that to myself the idea of retaliating in kind is abhorrent to every feeling of my nature. I do not propose to starve, to leave in nakedness, to pen up like cattle, to expose in every form to a lingering death, the pris-. oners in our hands. I would prefer to kill them at once; to look upon the war as a war of extermination, giving no quarter and expecting

none.

I admit that something must be done; but the nearer you approach the question, as we have discovered in some degree, you will find it surrounded with difficulties, and surrounded with difficulties arising out of this single fact, which gentlemen, some of them, in this Hall for the first time discover, that we are making war with savages and fiends, and that, therefore, so long as we recognize the rules of humanity it becomes difficult for us to meet those who know no such principles, no such rules of conduct, no such warfare as has been recognized heretofore between civilized nations. I know that I do not state the case too strongly. Gentlemen are mistaken-and I was sorry to hear a political view given to the subject by the gentleman from New York [Mr. CHANLER]-in supposing that we have just waked up to some new consciousness concerning the matter on this side of the House. It is themselves who seem now, for the first time, to have discovered the fact that we are dealing with savages and fiends who do not understand, and would repel approaches, when made, of a humane character. Within the last fifteen minutes I have conversed in the lobby of this House with a young man, the near relative of a member on this floor, who has just returned from Savannah, and who, when lying grievously wounded upon the ground, crippled for life, was stripped to the skin by a rebel major, and was then turned into one of these rebel pens where thousands of our brave fellows were confined, and where he saw eighty-six hundred of them die from starvation and exposure.

Mr. CHANLER. Honored by the notice of the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, I will for a moment, in reply to him, state why I spoke as I did. It was not alone with regard to our enemies in their treatment of our prisoners that I spoke, but it was to the systematic barbarity of the principles which have appeared in the reports emanating from the Military Committee, over which the gentleman from Ohio presides, that I referred in reference to the barbaric nature of the proposition for the enrollment of our troops; and I defy any civilized nation to surpass it, though some have equaled it, in the The House may be sure, and my ool- intolerable cruelty of the gentleman's own propleague and gentlemen upon both sides of the Hall,osition, when, upon this floor, in the face of the that that committee will seek from the proper Department, and from all quarters connected with that Department, all information on that subject, in order to an enlightened presentment of it for the consideration of the House. I have nothing further to say on that, The House may make the inquiry directly, or leave the committee to make the inquiry by referring this resolution to them with the others that have been referred; and I think that the House may be assured, if this resolution as it stands, indicating a direction of inquiry which gentlemen on either side of the House may think proper, be referred to that committee, the committee will follow that direction, as they probably would have done if the resolution had not been offered. On the whole, I prefer, however, that the subject should be referred to the committee, hoping that we shall make the earliest report possible after we have procured all the information on the subject.

Mr. THAYER. Does the resolution to which the gentleman refers provide for obtaining this correspondence?

Mr. SCHENCK. I do not know that it does; but we will get all the information we can. I believe that the resolution passed yesterday looks to an inquiry into the question whether we ought to resort to some form of retaliation by way of deterring the rebels from such treatment of our prisoners as have fallen into their hands. I am glad that it was referred only as a subject of in

American people, he declared-though it was voted down by the House as an indignity to itself-that he intended to kick the people on the one hand and coax them on the other. That was the sentiment I understood him to utter, and I refer to the records of the House to sustain my charge. By this proposition to exclude from any chance of obtaining substitutes all but sons and brothers he has branded his name with infamy.

Let him go to France. This country was made to glow with the torch of the French invader long before the system of political retaliation induced the court of Louis to take arms against England for vengeance for the loss of Canada, and this whole country was made red with the barbarities of the French army. And are we to follow the military system of that nation now and forever? Sir, there are two sides to this question of cruelty. Sir, I allude to this as the first instance-and I maintain that so far as the honorable gentleman from Ohio is concerned it is the first instance-of the manifestation of one glimmering ray of light in his own mind that we have as a nation a humane duty to perform in the conduct of this war. We have been instrumental, through the policy shaped in his committee, of reducing this war to one of extermination, and, in his own words, now propose to show no quarter or consideration to the enemy, and at the same time, as he has already shown, no consideration to the poor victims who under the enrollment law have been forced

into our armies against their will and contrary to their sense of right and duty.

Mr. SCHENCK. I did not intend to yield my time to the gentleman to discuss questions outside of the debate as it has progressed thus far.

Mr. CHANLER. I beg the gentleman's pardon, and I will not pursue the subject further. I was only answering the gentleman's imputations.

Mr. SCHENCK. If the gentleman wants to make any inquiry as to what I have stated, or any suggestion as to my statement about the treatment of prisoners, I will yield to him.

Mr. CHANLER. It was in regard to the allegation of the awakening sense of propriety upon my part that I was making my own defense. The SPEAKER. The gentleman has the right to the floor if he insists upon it.

Mr. COX. I believe I had the floor.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] has spoken once, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] has the floor by right.

Mr. SCHENCK. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I yield to any remarks the gentleman desires to make in regard to an awakening sense of propriety upon my part.

Mr. COX. For the information of my colleague I want to say one word. I intended to call the previous question before this debate took its present turn of a partisan character.

Mr. SCHENCK. The gentleman is not responsible for that.

Mr. COX. And I never have since this question was mooted in this Congress; I have always presented propositions in the interest solely of our soldiers, and I believe my colleague will so regard all that I have said, and I will accept all he says in the same spirit. I have had near and dear friends, as he has had, in these prisons, and from time to time I have been permitted to make inquiries, in order, if possible, to keep these Departments up to their proper work. Weary months have transpired without anything being done by the War Department to facilitate the exchange of prisoners, and although there are rebel barbarities, and although all my colleague may say is true, I am not sure that a large part of this responsibility may not rest upon the War Department for not exchanging prisoners; but in order to answer any such imputations made by the people and made by partisans, the gentleman, my colleague, should not seek to stifle any proper inquiry. He says he may make an inquiry for himself and for his committee. I prefer to have it made with more authority for the House and for the corresponding public, not only that Congress may know, but that the people and the friends of the prisoners may know, why this exchange has been so long obstructed.

Mr. SCHENCK. There can be no misunderstanding about this matter. I made the remark when I was up before-and if the gentleman from New York had not interrupted me I do not know that I should have continued these remarks further that I was perhaps almost indifferent upon the question whether the call be made directly by the House or be left to be made by the committee. I recognize the propriety of getting this information, and I only thought that it would expedite possibly the means by which it should be obtained if we should go on with our inquiry, and call, perhaps, the Commissary General of Prisoners before us, as well as make inquiries and seek responses from the head of the Department. But all that I leave with the House, promising only that we will go on to the best of our ability and make investigation of and report upon this subject in whatever form it comes before the committee.

Mr. GANSON. I would like to ask the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs whether he thinks that the Department would furnish this correspondence to the committee as readily as it would to the House.

Mr. SCHENCK. I should think they would not refuse it.

Mr. GANSON. I did not know whether any inquiry had been made by the committee for this correspondence.

Mr. SCHENCK. I confess, myself, that we are, up to this point, all of us pretty much in the dark in regard to knowing precisely what have been at least all of the obstructions in the way of exchange.

There is this, however, that I feel it due to the Department to state to the House, that while

during the past summer no exchanges had been made, and our friends, and the people at large, and all of us, were becoming impatient on that subject, and it seemed almost to be a fair conclusion that it would be proper to swap man for man, because we had more men to spare than the rebels, yet if any such policy or thought did impress itself upon the Department or those who have the administration of our military affairs, every such idea seems to be given up now, and I do not know that any such idea ever was really entertained. There has now been set on foot a system of exchange, and the matter is in some degree expedited and facilities are afforded upon the one side and the other looking to the better treatment of prisoners and to the continuance of the exchange, which indicates that the whole subject is upon a somewhat better footing than ever before up to this time. I do not say that it might not and may not be put upon a still better footing; but that being all that I can say upon the subject, said only in these general terms, I am not prepared to substitute it for the information which the House or the committee should seek in the matter.

One word only in answer to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CHANLER.] The House will bear me witness that the allusion that I made to this subject as having any political aspect given to it, was one only of regret. An honorable member from Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYER] had spoken upon the subject, and was congratulated then by the gentlemen upon the other side of the House with the assertion that there seemed to be, as indicated by his remarks, a new era arisen when gentlemen upon this side of the House were awake to the propriety of looking to the condition of our poor fellows held in this miserable and horrible bondage. I felt that that was an improper bringing in of a political view to be mixed up with this subject; and I thought I administered a very proper and deserved reprehension to the gentleman by turning his attention to the fact that, for the first time now, he seems to have waked up to the fact that we are dealing, as we have always said upon this side, with savages and fiends, in their conduct upon this subject which we are discussing, and they are yet the very men toward whom he has never thought of anything except breathing conciliation and kindness and sympathy, if not actual and direct coöperation.

Mr. CHANLER. I rise to a point of order. The gentleman has imputed motives to me with regard to this matter which is disorderly, according to my notion.

The SPEAKER. The words excepted to will be taken down.

Mr. CHANLER, (the words having been taken down.) The words excepted to are these," and they are yet the very men toward whom he has never thought of anything except breathing conciliation and kindness and sympathy, if not actual and direct coöperation." I claim, sir, that these words are out of order as imputing to me motives unworthy of a member upon this floor.

The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the point of order. The gentleman from New York in the course of his remarks stated that the gentleman from Ohio had branded himself with infamy. If the gentleman from New York had been called to order the Chair would have sustained the point of order. The words to which the gentleman takes exception the Chair thinks are in order and within the limits of legitimate debate. The Chair thinks they are certainly justifiable, on the principle of retaliation, which appears to be the subject of debate now. [Laughter.]

Mr. CHANLER. Retaliation as exercised by the Presiding Officer?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman must permit the Chair to finish the ruling on the point of order. The Chair does not think, even apart from the subject under discussion, that the words complained of are in violation of the rules of debate. They may be correct or not correct, but the Chair does not think that they come under the character of disorderly words.

Mr. CHANLER. I hope the gentleman will allow me to reply.

Mr. SCHENCK. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I am released from my parole. [Laughter.] The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio will proceed.

Mr. SCHENCK. Since the words have been brought so conspicuously before the House, let

me be clearly understood, so that the gentleman himself may not fail to have had due explanation. I had inferred from the previous course of that gentleman that he had manifested sympathy, kindness, and conciliation toward those rebels whose conduct is now, on all hands, admitted to be fiendish. I said, therefore, that those had been his relations to the rebels in my opinion, if there had not been direct coöperation with them on his part. I meant to distinguish between direct coöperation and the other. I have never suspected that the gentleman from New York would fight out his principles on the side of the rebels by direct coöperation. I wanted to draw that distinction clearly, that the gentleman, while not taking part by direct coöperation, while not carrying a musket to defend that which he contended for, has done all that he could, by a gentlemanly and amiable courtesy and sympathy with the rebels, to encourage those who carried muskets on their shoulders in that

cause.

The gentleman from New York went out of the way to charge me with tyranny, and I do not know but that on the next occasion I am to be introduced into some resolution of inquiry for having undertaken a system of savage tyranny over the people of the country, by seeking to make as stringent as possible a system of enrollment by which our Army should be kept full. Sir, I have heard all that before, inside of this House and outside of this House; and all that I have to say about it is that it is not the soldiers enlisted,not the soldiers in the field, not those who bear the brunt of the battle and who expose themselves to wounds, to death even, in this cause, who ever complain of the laws being too stringent to fill up the ranks of the Army. Those complaints never come from the parties directly interested, nor from their friends who hold up their hands while they are engaged in this great battle for liberty, for human rights, and for the preservation of the country and of its institutions. The complaints come only from political demagogues, who seek, by stimulating the soldier into dissatisfaction, and by inflaming the popular mind against legislators or against any one legislator, to prevent our giving this aid to our armies. They do not come from those who constitute the armies themselves. That is all that I have to say on that subject. I will not go into any discussion of the enrollment law here. I am much obliged to my colleague for having yielded to me on this subject. I regret that the debate should have taken this turn. It was provoked on the other side, but I am glad to say by only one gentleman on the other side. Whatever may be the course of the House, either in making this call for information directly or in leaving the Committee on Military Affairs to make it, I hope the information which my colleague seeks will be obtained, and that as much light as possible will be thrown on the subject for our guidance.

Mr. COX. I move the previous question. Mr. WABHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask to have the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio read now. I think the House on all sides will consent to the adoption of his amendment, pure and simple.

The amendment was again read.

Mr. COX. Before the previous question is seconded, my friend from New York [Mr. CHANLER] feels a personal grievance in the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK,] and I consent to yield to him for a reply.

Mr. CHANLER. Mr. Speaker, I shall say but a few words.

I deny any implied or direct coöperation with the enemies of my country at any time, in any place; and I demand the proof from the gentleman who has made this imputation. I hold his insinuation as unfair. Sir, I have borne a musket; and I never should have alluded to it but for the ungenerous and unjust imputation with which the gentleman from Ohio closed his remarks. I am ready now to do what I can for the defense of my country, as I was at the very first call. I was among the first who came here in response to that call. I slept in the Halls of this Capitol with the first regiment from my city. I came as a citizen, bearing a musket. I never expected to mention here this humble service to my country; but, in vindication of myself, I feel called upon now to say what, but for the peculiar circumstances, I never would have uttered. I did bear a musket,

and I was willing to act so long as I was able. I served out the time of the first call with my regiment. I went still further, (and General Dix can confirm what I now say:) I applied to that general for a position on his staff; but deeming my services not of sufficient importance, he not only refused that application, but was utterly silent as to another request which I made, that he would seek for me an appointment on one of the staffs under him. I blush that I am called upon to make these remarks, but they are in justification of myself. I hope that the gentleman from Ohio will be magnanimous, and apologize for the remarks which he has made.

Mr. COX. I suppose that this matter is now satisfactorily adjusted. No doubt my colleague on the other side [Mr. SCHENCK] is sufficiently ashamed of having attacked a soldier of the Republic. [Laughter.] I therefore call the previous question.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered.

The Clerk read the amendment in its modified form, as follows:

Resolved, That, if not incompatible with the public interest, all communications in reference to the exchange of prisoners, not heretofore published, be communicated to this House by the Secretary of War; and that he report therewith whether the treatment by the United States Government of rebel prisoners under its control is better in reference to food, clothing, care, and attention than the treatment extended by the rebel authorities to prisoners captured by them.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Some of us would desire a separate vote upon that portion of the amendment which proposes to inquire of the Secretary of War whether the Union prisoners have been treated any worse than the rebel prisoners in our hands. We do not want any information on that point. Everybody knows the fact.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] moved an amendment to the resolution of the gentleman from Illinois, (Mr. INGERSOLL,] and then surrendered the floor temporarily to the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. KASSON,] who proposed to move an amendment to the amendment, part of which was accepted by the gentleman from Ohio. The remainder was not accepted, and therefore was not moved, the gentleman from Ohio being in possession of the floor.

Mr. SCHENCK. Will we not have an opportunity to vote down the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa and permit the amendment of my colleague to pass?

The SPEAKER. No amendment of the gentleman from Iowa is pending. He did not obtain the floor for the purpose of offering an amendThere is only one amendment pending, that of the gentleman from Ohio, to which he added part of the amendment which the gentleman from Iowa desired to offer..

ment.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Is it too late to amend the amendment by striking out that portion?

The SPEAKER. It is too late. The main question has been ordered.

Mr. SCHENCK. I would ask whether this amendment is not susceptible of division, so that we can vote separately on the second proposition which was accepted as a modification. I prefer the amendment of my colleague precisely as he introduced it.

Mr. COX. The gentleman will see that the portion which I accepted at the suggestion of the gentleman from Lowa calls for some facts in addition to the correspondence. It does not deprive us of the correspondence.

A MEMBER. It interferes with the committee. Mr. COX. It does not interfere with the committee. The committee can use all the facts and correspondence.

The SPEAKER. The amendment of the gentleman from Ohio is not divisible. If the latter portion embraced the words "the Secretary of War" instead of the word "he," the amendment would be divisible. It embraces two different propositions, but the language is such that they must be voted on together.

The Clerk again read the amendment as modified.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It seems to me that the first part of that is a separate proposition.

The SPEAKER. But each part must be a substantive proposition. If the House should reject

the first part, the last, if adopted, would be a senseless proposition.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The Speaker will find, by examining the amendment, that if the last part be stricken out a substantive proposition will remain.

The SPEAKER. But suppose that the first part be stricken out and the last adopted.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. We do not ask that; we ask that the last part shall be stricken

out.

The SPEAKER. If it be divided, it must be so that either branch, if passed, will make perfect sense by itself. The last branch would not be a substantive proposition, because it says, " and that he report therewith." If, by unanimous consent, "he" were stricken out and "the Secretary of War" inserted, the amendment would be divisible.

Mr. COX. I withdraw that portion of the resolution suggested by the gentleman from Iowa. 1 want a vote on the resolution as I offered it, and on that I demand the previous question.

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection the gentleman will be permitted to withdraw that por tion of his resolution.

There was no objection; so it was ordered accordingly.

The SPEAKER stated that the question recurred on the following amendment:

Resolved, (if not incompatible with the public interest,) All communications in reference to the exchange of prisoners not heretofore published be communicated to this House by the Secretary of War.

The amendment was agreed to.

The resolution, as amended, was then adopted. Mr. COX moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT.

A message was received from the President of the United States, by Mr NICOLAY, his Private Secretary, notifying the House that he had approved and signed bills of the following titles:

An act (H. R. No. 380) for the relief of George W. Murray; and

An act (H. R. No. 465) for the relief of Deb

orah Jones.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message was also received from the Senate, by Mr. HICKEY, Chief Clerk, notifying the House that that body had passed, without amendment, an act (H. R. No. 618) to amend the act entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864.

DEFICIENCY BILL.

Mr. STEVENS moved that the rules be suspended, and the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union to take up and consider the special order. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it would be worth while for me to object to these several items, although they involve the appropriation out of the Treasury of $93,600,000, which is the sum total of the deficiencies provided in this bill. These items are not calculated to excite the attention of the House as compared with other and more exciting questions which have been brought before it. Millions have become things of minor importance. Therefore I do not propose to enter into any discussion of them; nor do I propose to renew at this day before this House the remarks I made at the last session of Congress upon these enormous deficiency bills; not only enormous in amount, but in reference to money which has been expended by public officers without any authority of Congress for so doing what

soever.

I shall not, then, enter into any analysis of this particular deficiency bill-this bill of millionsbecause I do not think it will avail anything further than the consumption of the time of the House. There are on bills like these only two courses for a member of the Opposition to pursue; and the first of them is to say nothing on appropriations like these, but to encourage gentlemen to offer amendments so as to exhaust as soon as possible the Treasury of the country, and to leave no means for carrying on this war. This is not my mode of opposition. I shall never enter into any opposition of the sort, and I only say that the most effective opposition would be to bankrupt the Treasury and deprive the country by the enormity of these expenditures of any means to carry on I repeat that this is not my mode of opposition. Mine would be to carefully analyze the bill, and call the attention of the House, and especially of the dominant party of the House, to the magnitude of its appropriations. I know if I entered into any such analysis at this time that but little attention would be paid to any exposure I should make. If I did it I'should only be wasting the time of the House which might be better appropriated to other purposes.

the war.

It is the misfortune of this House-I speak it with no disrespect to any member-that there is not upon that side of the House what has hitherto almost always existed in the dominant party of the country, having control of vast sums of money to appropriate, objectors, cavilers, and debaters of appropriation bills; such men as existed in the Democratic party in former times, when it was in a large majority; one gentleman from the State of North Carolina, one gentleman from the State of Virginia, and another still from the State of Tennessee; men who, though in the dominant party of analysis, by investigation, and thorough examthe country, yet by comparison, by estimates, by ination from beginning to end, unraveled every item of the appropriation bills, and made the Committee of Ways and Means throughout answer for every item of those bills, for their exactness and their fidelity, before they were satisfied with the appropriations and would assume the responsibility of voting for them.

With the exception of one gentleman on that side of the House, whom I will not name, I re

The CHAIRMAN stated the first business in order to be the consideration of the special order, being House bill No. 620, to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1865.

The bill was read through a first time for information.

Mr. BROOKS obtained the floor.

Mr. HOLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is understood that, by order of the House, the bill is open to points of order on the several items. I wish to raise a point of order, but do not wish to interfere with the gentleman from New York. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that by order of the House the bill is open to any exception as to relevancy of the items under the rules of the House.

Mr. HOLMAN. I have a point of order to submit.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be received when the paragraph to which it applies is reached.

Mr. HOLMAN. I suppose the gentleman from New York rises for the purpose of general debate, and I will not present my point of order at this time.

their own appropriation bills by the dominant party as has hitherto, through all eras of the Republic, been given by the Democratic party controlling this House, or by the Whigs when they had the majority here. It is a misfortune to the country that there are not more gentlemen upon that side of the House who will exert all their powers and information in investigating, studying, and thoroughly looking into all these bills; for, whatever I may say, and whatever vote may be given by this side of the House, will be imputed to opposition, and will not have respect given to them by gentlemen upon that side.

I see in this bill, as appropriations for deficiencies, four or five several items for this House alone, in the aggregate amounting to $65,000. One of them, without any detail whatever, is mentioned as "miscellaneous items, $34,005 52." The bill containing this miscellaneous item, without any specification of details so far as I know, without any report, without any explanation, was yesterday suddenly brought before this House and set down for action to-day.

"For folding documents, $25,000," is another item in the deficiency bill-an amount expended without any appropriation whatever-and the

I

House is called upon to make up that deficiency for documents already folded for the House. I will not say what the appropriation is for; and if I were to say it was solely for political purposes should disarm myself of all power of claiming that attention from that side of the House which ought to be given to an item like this. And if I belonged to that side of the House I would certainly condemn an expenditure of $25,000 in the recess of the House, without any authority of law whatever, and out of a fund to be appropriated here in a deficiency bill.

In an item to supply deficiencies for printing there is the enormous appropriation of $720,000. I do not doubt the expenditure was in a good degree necessary, but I do say that under a proper administration of this Government, when the public printer has not received authority for the expenditure of public money, it is quite time to stop the public printing until Congress again reassembles and names the necessary expenditure and makes the proper appropriation therefor.

The items of appropriations for the war are enormous, amounting in this bill, from a cursory examination and rough addition, to $92,000,000. I will enter into no examination of those expenditures or of those items, other than to comment upon one, because if I did it would be said that I was in opposition to the war. What I haye to say upon that subject is that the Secretary of War ought to comprehend the work which is before him, and in the annual estimates which he submits to Congress estimate sufficient in advance to meet what are likely to be his expenditures, and not, as now, present here this year a deficiency of $92,000,000, when in the deficiency bill of last year I think we appropriated over one hundred million dollars to make up the deficiency in the War Department of the year before. Sir, if there can be expenditures like these without responsibility, or like any of these without appropriations, the whole form of government is ended, and we are but the recording clerks to execute items of appropriation which the Secretary of War may desire, or which other branches of the Government may command.

The money is spent and gone. We shall be told that our generals have found it necessary to expend this money; but here is an expenditure of over $92,000,000, for war purposes without any authority whatsoever from this House, and without any responsibility upon the part of this House. We are called upon in this House to do what an omnipotent British Parliament alone can do, pass a bill of indemnity to the Government for a violation of law-an exercise of power never contemplated by our Constitution, and never intended to be exercised by the House of Representatives.

Mr. KASSON. Does the gentleman from New York mean to say that the proposed appropriation for a deficiency of $92,000,000 is to reimburse what has been already expended without authority of law? That is what I understand him to say.

Mr. BROOKS. What is a deficiency bill?

Mr. KASSON. It is a deficiency for the fiscal year ending the 30th of June next. The amount already appropriated is not yet expended, and this is an additional amount required to carry on the Government up to the 30th of June next. I certainly thought the gentleman from New York understood the terms of the bill.

Mr. BROOKS. How do I know that, and how does the gentleman know it?

Mr. KASSON. By reading the title of the bill. Mr. BROOKS. It is a bill for deficiencies, and a deficiency is a deficiency; I cannot define it further than that.

Mr. KASSON. Will the gentleman from New York be kind enough to read or to allow me to read the title of the bill? It is "A bill to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1865."

And so it is every year. These appropriations are to carry on the public printing office and the other Departments to the end of the current fiscal year, as on making estimates they find that the present appropriations are not sufficient.

Mr. BROOKS. That is the very same point the gentleman made last year, and he compels me to repeat what I said last year on that subject. The Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the Navy, and all the other Secretaries, in a book I have before me of no inconsiderable size,