SPEECH ON PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MISCELLANEOUS BILL PROHIBIT- THE trials of citizens by military commissions, especially within the States not in rebellion, where the courts of the United States were open, had from the beginning been opposed by Mr. Davis. He had, as early as December, 1861, in his speech at Brooklyn, protested against such misuse of power as tending to increase the strength of the enemies of the government, and to bring the administration into disrepute through an implied avowal on its part that the laws of the land did not provide an adequate remedy and punishment for those offenders, in favor of whom their mere trial by a military commission raised a sympathy, and the desire to relieve which inseparable from a view of oppression. At the close of the Thirty-eighth Congress (March 2, 1865), when the Miscellaneous Appropriation Bill was on its final passage, Mr. Davis moved an amendment thereto (given below) prohibiting such trials, and spoke in support of his proposition as set forth in the following speech, being the last delivered by him in Congress: SEC. And be it further enacted, That no person shall be tried by court-martia', or military commission, in any State or Territory where the courts of the United States are open, except persons actually mustered, or commissioned, or appointed in the military or naval service of the United States, or rebel enemies charged with being spies; and all proceedings heretofore had contrary to this provision are declared vacated'; and all persons not subject to trial, under this act, by court-martial or military commission, now held under sentence thereof, shall be forthwith discharged or delivered to the civil authorities, to be proceeded against before the courts of the United States according to law. And all acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. I wish to say merely a few words in explanation of this amend ment. Mr. Chairman, I do not desire, at this period of the session, to detain the House even by an argument in favor of the amendment I have submitted. I desire to state merely what it contemplates, and to beg the House to give a direct vote upon it. It is a measure which touches the very foundation of republican government, the liberty of the citizen, nothing more, nothing less. I do not think it is exclusively, perhaps not chiefly, the fault of those in authority that military commissions have tried, contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States, many of its citizens. It began first in the rebel States, then spread to the border States, the theatre of armed conflicts, then invaded Pennsylvania, Indiana, and New York, amid the general acclaim of the people; and now that it reaches as far north as Boston, we hear the first murmur of its advocates or instigators. What that amendment contemplates is, not to cast imputation upon any administration or any officer, but, recognizing the error which the people, as well as the government, have in common committed against the foundation of their own safety, now, before the very idea of the supremacy of the law has faded from the country, to restore it to its power. This amendment is confined rigidly to the loyal States, to the States in which the courts of the United States are open, to the States whose governments the United States guarantee, so that it does not strip the government of any power, legal or usurped, which it has thought necessary in its efforts to suppress the rebellion. It leaves every body to be tried by court-martial who is actually in the military service of the government, or who, being a rebel enemy, is arrested as a spy. But it annuls every thing that has been done heretofore under illegal military commissions, directs all persons now in illegal confinement under sentence of illegal military commissions to be either discharged, or delivered to the civil tribunals, to be there proceeded against according to law. There the amendment stops. I desire to make an imputation on no one. This amendment. is proposed for the benefit of every party and of every administration; and I trust that the House will allow it to be incorporated into this bill, that it may become the acknowledged, as it is now the supreme, law of this land and the right of the citizen. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. Washburne, of Illinois, and Davis, of Maryland, were appointed. The committee divided; and the tellers reported—ayes, 50; nays, 65. So the decision of the Chair was not sustained. The question was upon the amendment of Mr. Davis, of Maryland, who spoke as follows: : Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the weight of the criticism of the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens], and I am sure that nobody will say that I have ever embarrassed the proceedings of this House by any pertinacious adherence to schemes of my own. I have never embarrassed the House week after week by motions to tax or exempt whisky on hand. That would have been a more appropriate subject of criticism than such an amendment as this, which is never too early, and can never be too late, until the voice of liberty shall cease to be heard in the United States. Then it will be impertinent to arrest the progress of supplies for the government by calling the attention of the representatives of the people to the freedom of their constituents. Let this bill perish a thousand times rather than that any vote should go on the records of this House declaring that the protection of the liberties of the citizens of Massachusetts and citizens of Maryland are not of paramount importance to a vote of money for the violators of their rights. There has been no other period, sir, at which I could obtain the ear of the House on such an amendment. I have had my eye on the gradual intrusion of the military authority on the rights of the citizen from the outbreak of the rebellion. It was first instigated by the people; and the most eminent jurists of the land converted their clamor into the semblance of the voice of the law by maintaining the right of the President to suspend the habeas corpus without the authority of Congress-in the face of John Marshall's judgment. Gentlemen of the opposition, on this topic, have no right here to cast imputations on the administration. George B. M'Clellan first set the bad example in an order illegally suspending the writ of habeas corpus in Maryland. I refer to that not as an imputation. on them, but because it shows that it is no party question with which we are dealing to-day, but an American question, a question of republican liberty endangered by the common madness of government and people. The evil has gone so far that to-day every man feels, without the necessity of an argument, that there must be a stop put to military trials of citizens in the States here represented, or there is no law or liberty in the land. The honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania has said that these convictions have taken place under laws passed by Congress. I admit it in some cases; but that proves only that Congress is also guilty of the usurpation. And the honorable gen tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Dawes] has told us that the law which he introduced has failed to serve the purpose contemplated, while it has developed consequences of which he did not dream. The honorable gentleman says that it ought to be repealed; and if it ought to be repealed, then carry the remedy to the root of the grievance, and discharge the men who were convicted under what was in form a law, but in fact a usurpation which had not the authority of the Constitution. But, sir, have prosecutions stopped within the limits of the acts of Congress? If they had, I could have heard with more patience the appeal of my honorable friend from Pennsylvania. But every one knows that they have not. We in Maryland have known it by sharp castigation now for three years. It is now being known in New York. And in Boston men have turned gray under persecutions not according to those laws. But, sir, what do you say of trials for things that are not crimes under any law, for things that are not defined to be crimes, civil or military? What do you say to the trial of a loyal citizen in the city of Baltimore upon the charges and specifications which I hold in my hands, for forging Jefferson Davis's currency? One of my constituents is now in jail under those specifications, having been tried and condemned by a military tribunal for attempting to break down the rebel currency! I can state no other fact that will better illustrate the insolence of irresponsible military tribunals, known to no law, appointed under no law, restrained by no law, authorized by nobody, bound by no law but the will of the men who sit in their uniforms to try the rights of American citizens according to the law of the sword. Mr. STEVENS. Do I understand the gentleman to say that this man was convicted on the ground of having counterfeited rebel currency? Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. He was condemned for that, and is now in jail. Mr. STEVENS. Well, I think that a man who was fool enough to spend his time in such work ought to suffer some severe punishment. Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. If all fools are at the mercy of the military courts, and they are to judge of it, they have a wide jurisdiction. (Laughter.) Then there is the case of Weisenfield. This man was not charged with defrauding the government under the act of Congress; he never placed himself within the reach of the law to which the gentleman from Massachusetts has referred. He was charged, and in my judgment charged falsely, and convicted on testimony which no jury in the world, of any political complexion, would weigh an instant, of having sold a few hundred dollars' worth of goods to a government spy to be sent across the lines to the Southern Confederacy. That trial by military commission was authorized by no law known to any statute-book in the United States. The crime of trading with the rebel States is punishable by law only as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and that is expressly directed to be tried and punished by indictment before the United States courts for a misdemeanor merely; but he now lies in a New York penitentiary, herding with felons, murderers, and thieves, though, if legally convicted before Chief Justice Chase, he could by law have been sentenced only to fine and imprisonment in jail! I am daily beset by letters and solicitations of loyal gentlemen, my firmest and best personal friends in the world, to go to the President and beg as a boon that this man be pardoned! I have had no stronger pressure brought upon me since I have been in public life. My reply is, If a petition is gotten up for Mr. Weisenfield to pardon the President for his illegal oppression, I will sign it; but I will not degrade the name of an American citizen by signing a petition to beg as a favor the personal liberty of an American citizen, illegally and oppressively condemned by a military commission, and that at the hands of the President, who twice refused to refer his case to the courts of the United States, wide open for his protection, and in the face of the laws and Constitution of the United States subjected him to this illegal persecution. Sir, let him stay where he is till the voice of public indignation or the whispers of conscience compel his honorable dischargenot his pardon. Till they who illegally confined him shall beg him to come forth. Mr. Chairman, the alarming fact is this-military commissions do not even profess to be governed by the laws of the United States enacted by Congress. They have created a department of jurisprudence unknown to the laws of the United States, nowhere embodied in statutes or decisions, called the "customs of |