that by virtue of the Constitution, and as a great military necessity, it be enacted that there shall be no slavery in any of the States that claim to have seceded from the Government, and are in open and armed resistance to the laws and Constitution of the United States. The bill was read twice, and ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

On the 5th of December, 1861, Mr. Trumbull (Rep.) of Illinois introduced a bill, which provided that the slaves of persons who shall take up arms against the United States, or in any manner aid or abet this Rebellion, shall be discharged from service or labor, and become for ever thereafter free, any law to the contrary notwithstanding. In presenting his bill, Mr. Trumbull said, "The right to free the slaves of rebels would be equally clear with that to confiscate their property generally; for it is as property that they profess to hold them but, as one of the most efficient means for attaining the end for which the armies of the Union have been called forth, the right to restore to them the God-given liberty of which they have been unjustly deprived is doubly clear. It only remains to inquire, whether, in making use of lawful means to crush this wicked Rebellion, it is policy to confiscate the property of rebels, and take from them the support of unrequited labor. Can there be a question on this point? Who does not know that treason has gained strength by the leniency with which it has been treated? We have dallied with it quite too long already. Instead of being looked upon as the worst of crimes, as it really is, it has come to be regarded as a trivial offence, to be atoned for by a promise to do so no more. The despoil

man claimed as a fugitive from service or labor, until it is first proved to your satisfaction that the claimant is and has been loyal to the Government.' That is the intention of the provision." Mr. Pomeroy was opposed to the section favoring the colonization of the emancipated slaves. If that provision was insisted on, he should feel called upon "to offer an amendment for the transportation, colonization, and settlement, in some country beyond the limits of the United States, of such slaveholders as have been engaged in the Rebellion." Mr. Willey (Union) of Virginia thought an immense number of negroes would be enfranchised before the close of the war, and thrown upon the community. He was "in favor of colonization; but where was the money to come from?"—"I may be in error," said Mr. Ten Eyck (Rep.) of New Jersey; "but, for one, I should be opposed to the second section, which provides for the enlargement or liberation of persons held to service or labor, unless the third section, or a section similar to it, becomes a law also at the same time.". "I concur," said Mr. Sumner (Rep.) of Massachusetts, "with the senator from Kansas in all he has said in relation to the Fugitiveslave Bill. I have never called that a law, or even an act. I regard it simply as a bill; still, a bill having no authority under the Constitution of the United States. There is no fountain in that instrument out of which that enormity can be derived. That is my idea: I believe it is the idea of the senator from Kansas. I therefore propose an amendment which shall remove all such implication or possibility of recognition, on our part, of that bill; while at the same time I believe it will carry out completely, adequately, in every respect, the

idea of the senator from Illinois in the measure which is now under consideration. I propose to strike out all after the word 'before,' in the sixteenth line, down to the word 'that,' in the nineteenth line, being these words, 'Any order for the surrender of the person whose service is claimed, establish not only his title to such service, as now provided by law, but also,' and, instead thereof, insert, 'proceeding with the trial of his claim, satisfactorily prove:' so that the sentence will read, 'He shall in the first instance, and before proceeding with the trial of his claim, satisfactorily prove that he is, and has been during the existing Rebellion, loyal to the Government of the United States." Mr. Trumbull was entirely willing the Senate should adopt it; and it was agreed to.

Mr. McDougall (Dem.) of California, on the 3d and 4th of March, addressed the Senate in a speech of great length in opposition to the enactment of the pending bill or any kindred measure. He was followed by Mr. Cowan (Rep.) of Pennsylvania in opposition to the measure. "If it passes," he said, "I think it will be the great historic event of the times, times which are as fruitful of events as any the world has ever witnessed. Upon the disposition we may make of it, perhaps the fate of the American Republic may depend; and no one surely can overrate the magnitude of any thing which may be attended with such consequences. . . Pass this bill, and the same messenger who carries it to the South will come back to us with the news of their complete consolidation as one man. We shall then have done that which treason could not do we ourselves shall then have dissolved the Union; we shall have rent