It is remarkable that so many good things have been said, and so few things done, by our national statesmen, in favor of education. If we inquire what has been done by the governments of other countries to support and advance public education, we are compelled to confess with shame that every government in Christendom has given a more intelligent and effective support to schools than has our own.

The free cities of Germany organized the earliest school systems after the separation of Church and State. The present schools of Hamburg have existed more than one thousand years. The earliest school codes were framed in the duchy of Würtemberg in 1565, and in the electorate of Saxony in 1580. Under these codes were established systems of schools more perfect, it is claimed, than the school system of any State of the American Union. Their systems embraced the gymnasium and the university, and were designed, as their laws expressed it, "to carry youth from the elements to the degree of culture demanded for offices in Church and State."

The educational institutions of Prussia are too well known to need a comment. It is a sufficient index of their progress and high character, that a late Prussian school officer said of his official duties: "I promised God that I would look upon every Prussian peasant child as a being who could complain of me before God if I did not provide for him the best education as a man and a Christian which it was possible for me to provide." France did not think herself dishonored by learning from a nation which she had lately conquered; and when, in 1831, she began to provide more fully for the education of her people, she sent the philosopher Cousin to Holland and Prussia to study and report upon the schools of those states. Guizot was made Minister of Public Instruction, and held the office from 1832 to 1837. In 1833 the report of Cousin was published, and the educational system of France was established on the Prussian model. No portion of his brilliant career reflects more honor upon Guizot than his five years' work for the schools of France. The fruits of his labors were not lost in the revolutions that followed. The present Emperor is giving his best efforts to the perfection and maintenance of schools, and is endeavoring to make the profession of the teacher more honorable and desirable than it has been hitherto.

Through the courtesy of the Secretary of State I have obtained a copy of the last annual report of the Minister of Public

Instruction in France, which exhibits the present state of education in that empire. At the last enumeration there were in France, in the colleges and lyceums, 65,832 pupils; in the secondary schools, 200,000; and in the primary, or common schools, 4,720,234. Besides the large amount raised by local taxation, the imperial government appropriated, during the year 1865, 2,349,051 francs for the support of primary schools. Teaching is one of the regular professions in France; and the government offers prizes, and bestows honors upon the successful instructor of children. During the year 1865, 1,154 prizes were distributed to teachers in primary schools. An order of honor, and a medal worth two hundred and fifty francs, are awarded to the best teacher in each commune. After long and faithful service in his profession, the teacher is retired on halfpay, and, if broken down in health, is pensioned for life. In 1865 there were 4,245 teachers on the pension list of France. The Minister says in his report, "The statesmen of France have determined to show that the country knows how to honor those who serve her, even in obscurity." Since 1862, 10,243 libraries for the use of common schools have been established; and they now contain 1,117,352 volumes, more than a third of which have been furnished by the imperial government. Half a million text-books are furnished for the use of children who are too poor to buy them. It is the policy of France to afford the means of education to every child in the empire.

When we compare the conduct of other governments with our own, we cannot accuse ourselves so much of illiberality as of reckless folly in the application of our liberality to the support of schools. No government has expended so much to so little purpose. To fourteen States alone we have given for the support of schools 83,000 square miles of land, or an amount of territory nearly equal to two such States as Ohio. But how has this bountiful appropriation been applied? This chapter in our history has never been written. No member of this House or the Senate, no executive officer of the government, now knows, and no man ever did know, what disposition has been made of this immense bounty. This bill requires the Commissioner of Education to report to Congress what lands have been given to schools, and how the proceeds have been applied. If we are not willing to follow the example of our fathers in giving, let us, at least, have the evidence of the beneficial results of their liberality.

Mr. Speaker, I have thus hurriedly and imperfectly exhibited the magnitude of the interests involved in the education of American youth; the peculiar condition of affairs which demands at this time an increase of our educational forces; the failure of a majority of the States to establish school systems, the long struggles through which others have passed in achieving success; and the humiliating contrast between the action of our government and those of other nations in reference to education: but I cannot close without referring to the bearing of this measure upon the peculiar work of this Congress.

When the history of the Thirty-ninth Congress is written, it will be recorded that two great ideas inspired it, and made their impress upon all its efforts; namely, to build up free States on the ruins of slavery, and to extend to every inhabitant of the United States the rights and privileges of citizenship. Before the Divine Architect builded order out of chaos, he said, 'Let there be light." Shall we commit the fatal mistake of building up free States, without first expelling the darkness in which slavery had shrouded their people? Shall we enlarge the boundaries of citizenship, and make no provision to increase the intelligence of the citizen? I share most fully in the aspirations of this Congress, and give my most cordial support to its policy; but I believe its work will prove a disastrous failure unless it makes the schoolmaster its ally, and aids him in preparing the children of the United States to perfect the work now begun.

The stork is a sacred bird in Holland, and is protected by her laws, because it destroys those animals which would undermine the dikes, and let the sea again overwhelm the rich fields of the Netherlands. Shall this government do nothing to foster and strengthen those educational agencies which alone can shield the coming generations from ignorance and vice, and make it the impregnable bulwark of liberty and law?

I know that this is not a measure which is likely to attract the attention of those whose chief work it is to watch the political movements that affect the results of nominating conventions and elections. The mere politician will see in it nothing valuable, for the millions of children to be benefited by it can give him no votes. But I appeal to those who care more for the future safety and glory of this nation than for any mere temporary advantage, to aid in giving to education the public recognition and active support of the Federal government.

THE JURISDICTION OF MILITARY

COMMISSIONS.

ARGUMENT MADE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN EX PARTE L. P. MILLIGAN,

W. A. BOWLES, AND STEPHEN HORSEY.

MARCH 6, 1866.

THE efforts made by the government to suppress the Southern Rebellion early encountered serious opposition in some of the loyal, and even in Northern States. The nature and the extent of this opposition fills large space in the history of the time. Sometimes it went as far as the charges made against the petitioners in the cases argued by Mr. Garfield in this speech; but in a far greater number of instances the opposition fell short of the crimes therein charged. Unpatriotic and disloyal practices became so numerous, were carried to such an extent, so weakened the government, and so disturbed the public peace, that the national authorities felt compelled to deal with their perpetrators. In that day of excitement, stress, and violence, the authorities sometimes, proceeded to extremities. Commonly these extremer measures were taken by the military commanders in the several military districts. The slowgoing processes of the civil courts, it was held, were insufficient to punish, and so to prevent treason. Hence martial law sometimes took the place of civil law, and military commissions the place of civil courts. The Milligan, Bowles, and Horsey cases originated in an attempt to suppress alleged treason. Their history, to the time when they appeared in the Supreme Court at Washington, is given by Mr. Garfield in the first paragraphs of his speech, and the facts need not be here recited. The question of the guilt or innocence of the petitioners, Milligan, Bowles, and Horsey, was not in issue before the court, but solely the question of the legality of their trial and condemnation by a military commission. More specifically it was this: Shall a writ of habeas corpus issue, taking the prisoners out of the custody of the military authorities? The petition of the prisoners was granted. This is the order of the court, as announced by Chief Justice Chase; the decision was given the next term. "I. That on the facts, as stated in said petition and exhibits, a writ of habeas corpus ought to be issued, according to the prayer of said petition.

"II. That on the facts stated in the said petition and exhibits, the said Lambdin P. Milligan ought to be discharged from custody as in said petition is prayed, and according to the act of Congress, passed 3d March, 1863, entitled, 'An Act relating to Habeas Corpus, and regulating Judicial Proceedings in certain Cases.'

"III. That, on the facts stated in said petition and exhibits, the military commission mentioned therein had no jurisdiction legally to try and sentence said Lambdin P. Milligan in the manner and form as in said petition and exhibits are stated.

"And it is therefore now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that it be so certified to the said Circuit Court."

This was Mr. Garfield's first appearance in the Supreme Court of the United States. He was associated with Hon. J. E. McDonald, Hon. J. S. Black, and Hon. D. D. Field. The United States was represented by Hon. James Speed, Attorney-General, Hon. B. F. Butler, and Hon. Henry Stanberry.

Mr. Garfield's appearance in these cases subjected him to severe criticism in Ohio, and especially in his own district. His appearance was held, by those thus criticising, inconsistent with his political and public character. The criticism was sharpened by the popular feeling that the prisoners were guilty of the crimes charged. Replying at Warren, Ohio, September 19, 1874, to certain attacks upon his public character, Mr. Garfield thus referred to his connection with these cases:

"Just about that time there had been in Congress a very considerable discussion concerning the arbitrary conduct of some of our officers in carrying, in civil communities, the military jurisdiction and rule further than they were warranted by the Constitution, and I had taken strong grounds in Congress against the exercise of military power in States not in rebellion. It being generally known that I had resisted what some of the more extreme of our own party thought the military authorities might safely do, I was asked if I would be willing to argue the case of Bowles and Milligan before the Supreme Court. I answered, 'If the case turns on the justice of those men being punished, I will not defend them in any way whatever, for I believe they deserve the severest punishment; but if it turns on the question as to who has the power to try those men, I will. I believe that there is no authority under the Constitution and laws of the United States to take a citizen of Indiana not a soldier and import a military tribunal to his home to try him and punish him.' So important did I regard this principle to the future of this country in that exciting time, that, with my eyes open to the fact that I took a very great political risk in defending, not Bowles and Milligan, but the right of every citizen in a civil community where war is not raging to be tried by the courts of the country and before juries of his own land, and not to be dragged away outside of his own doors to be tried by a