down the safeguards of liberty; can suppress insurrection, and put down rebellion, however formidable, without destroying the bulwarks of law; can, by the might of its armed millions, preserve and defend both nationality and liberty. Victories on the field were of priceless value, for they plucked the life of the republic out of the hands of its enemies; but

"Peace hath her victories

No less renowned than war,"

and if the protection of law shall, by your decision, be extended over every acre of our peaceful territory, you will have rendered the great decision of the century.

When Pericles had made Greece immortal in arts and arms, in liberty and law, he invoked the genius of Phidias to devise a monument which should symbolize the beauty and glory of Athens. That artist selected for his theme the tutelar divinity of Athens, the Jove-born goddess, protectress of arts and arms, of industry and law, who typified the Greek conception of composed, majestic, unrelenting force. He erected on the heights of the Acropolis a colossal statue of Minerva, armed with spear and helmet, which towered in awful majesty above the surrounding temples of the gods. Sailors on far-off ships beheld the crest and spear of the goddess, and bowed with reverent awe. To every Greek she was the symbol of power and glory. But the Acropolis, with its temples and statues, is now a heap of ruins. The visible gods have vanished in the clearer light of modern civilization. We cannot restore the decayed emblems of ancient Greece; but it is in your power, O Judges, to erect in this citadel of our liberties a monument more lasting than brass, invisible indeed to the eye of flesh, but visible to the eye of the spirit as the awful form and figure of Justice, crowning and adorning the republic; rising above the storms of political strife, above the din of battle, above the earthquake shock of rebellion; seen from afar, and hailed as protector by the oppressed of all nations; dispensing equal blessings, and covering with the protecting shield of law the weakest, the humblest, the meanest, and, until declared by solemn law unworthy of protection, the guiltiest of its citizens.

Ar the second session of the Thirty-eighth Congress, a resolution was adopted, directing the Military Committee to "inquire and report to the House what legislation or action, if any, is necessary to secure to persons

arrested and imprisoned by military authority a prompt examination into. the causes of the arrest, and their discharge if there be no adequate cause for their detention, and a speedy trial where there is such cause." Upon a motion to reconsider this resolution, January 18, 1865, Mr. Garfield said:

I WISH to make two observations. First of all, I agree with what the gentleman from Maryland 1 has just said; and in illustration of what I desire to say, I call attention to a bill that passed the House last session, but did not pass the Senate, and which, in my judgment, is vitally important as a means to preserve the independence of the officers of our armies. Early in the war, it will be remembered, Congress, for good reasons, gave to the President the power of summary dismissal when he believed the public service would be subserved thereby. At that time the army was full of traitors, and it was necessary that by a more summary process than court-martial they should be

driven out.

But it was thought last winter by the House of Representatives, that the danger had so far passed that we might safely repeal the law. Important as that law has been in some respects, and none will doubt its value and necessity at the time of its enactment, I am satisfied that in other respects it has had a very unfortunate influence. It has gone very far toward weakening the manliness and independence of the officers in the army. If, sir, I am in the army, and know that my superior officer can make such representations as will cause me to be dismissed without a hearing and without a trial, how strong is the tendency of that knowledge to make me a timid, subservient tool! The whole tendency of it is to take away the personal independence and manliness of the subordinate officer, because he has no guard for his standing and position except the favor of his superior, no right to demand, as the American officer always had in former times, that he should be speedily and fairly tried by a jury of his peers. For this reason we passed a bill last winter, by a very large majority, almost unanimously, I believe, to repeal the law giving this power to the President. That bill is dying a lingering death at the other end of the Capitol. I believe that the bill ought to become a law.

I desire, in the second place, to call attention to the fact that it is now the law, and has been since the foundation of our gov

1 Mr. Davis.

ernment, that when an officer of the army is arrested for any supposed crime or misdemeanor, he shall be held in arrest-it may be in close confinement and under guard, according to the enormity of the supposed offence— no longer than eight days without being furnished with a copy of the charges against him. The law also allows him a speedy trial.

Now, without trenching upon the business in which the Committee on Military Affairs was engaged this morning, I will say that one officer at least has been in confinement for five months within sight of this Capitol. Both he and his keeper declare that he has not been furnished with a copy of the charges against him. He says that he has again and again demanded in vain to know with what crime he was charged. He is a man who bears upon his person honorable scars received in the service of his country; he is a colonel; and the vengeance of some one fell upon him, like a bolt from a clear sky. He declares that he knows no reason for it and can learn none. An agent of the War Department, an officer unknown to the laws and Constitution of the country, lays his hand upon a man, puts him in prison, where he is kept until said agent, or some power above him, is pleased to release him. There are plenty of alleged cases where officers and citizens, after being confined for a long period, have been allowed to go out without a word of explanation concerning either the arrest or the discharge.

I ask the House of Representatives whether that kind of practice is to grow up under this government, and no man is to raise his voice against it, or make any inquiry concerning it, lest some one should say he is factious, unfriendly to the War Department, and opposing the Administration. Gentlemen, if we are not men in our places here, let us stop our ears to all complaints; let every department do as it pleases; and in meekness and in silence let us vote whatever appropriations are asked for. I do not say, for I do not know, that the head of any department is responsible for these things, or knows them. It may be they have been done by subordinates. It may be the heads of departments are not cognizant of the facts. I make no accusations; but I do say, that it is our business to see that the laws be respected, and that if a man has no powerful friend in court he shall at least find the Congress of the United States his friend. I hope the resolution will not be reconsidered.

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE

PAYMENTS.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 16, 1866.

IN the Thirty-eighth Congress, Mr. Garfield was a member of the Committee on Military Affairs; in the Thirty-ninth, he was transferred, at his own request, to the Committee of Ways and Means. This transfer marks a period in his mental history, and in the history of his public life. Now began his services in the field of economical discussion and legislation. "The Public Debt and Specie Payments" was the first of his Congressional speeches on this class of subjects. From this time on, he bore a prominent part in the discussion of loans, banks, taxation, tariff, paper money, and resumption, as these questions came before Congress and the country. As many of these questions were but phases of one great question as they grew out of the same general facts - it will be well here to set those facts down once for all : 1. The enormous expenditures of the war. 2. The imposition of heavy taxation. 3. The creation of a great public debt. 4. The abandonment of specie payments, and the issue by the national Treasury of legal-tender paper money. 5. The national banks, the creation of which involved the destruction of the old State banks of issue, and the assertion of exclusive jurisdiction over bank-note issues on the part of the general government. 6. The over-issue and consequent depreciation of the currency. The legal-tender notes and the national banks were new fiscal instruments to the American people. Of the two acts creating them, the Legal Tender Act was by far the more radical and dangerous measure. It involved a complete reversal of the national policy, since from the day that the Constitution went into effect gold and silver had constituted the sole tenders for debt. This reversal of policy was justified at the time by alleging, (1.) That the government could not maintain specie payments through the war, but must use a cheaper money; and (2.) That Congress had the constitutional power, in time of war, to make paper a

legal tender. Let it be noted that this power was expressly called a war power. Not only was the power thus limited, but it was held that, when the war was over, it would be the duty of the government to return to coin payments at the earliest practicable moment. The paper promises of the government - whether bonds or legal-tender notes must then be redeemed in coin.

The war over, the President, Secretary of the Treasury, and others who remembered and respected the promises of 1862 and 1863, thought that steps should immediately be taken in the direction of resumption. March 3, 1865, an act was approved which authorized the funding in six-per-cent gold bonds of the interest-bearing obligations of the government. At the opening of the next session, a more decided step was proposed; viz. to fund its non-interest-bearing obligations. February 1, 1866, a bill was reported from the Committee of Ways and Means that, after amendment, read thus: —

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act entitled 'An Act to provide ways and means to support the government,' approved March 3, 1865, shall be extended and construed to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury, at his discretion, to receive any Treasury notes or other obligations, issued under any act of Congress, whether bearing interest or not, in exchange for any description of bonds authorized by the act to which this is an amendment; and also to dispose of any description of bonds authorized by said act, either in the United States or elsewhere, to such an amount, in such manner, and at such rates as he may think advisable, for lawful money of the United States, or for any Treasury notes, certificates of indebtedness, or certificates of deposit, or other representatives of value, which have been or which may be issued under any act of Congress, the proceeds thereof to be used for retiring. Treasury notes or other obligations issued under any act of Congress; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize any increase of the public debt: Provided, That the act to which this is an amendment shall continue in full force in all its provisions, except as modified by this act."

This was a contractive measure. Its authors and defenders desired as early a return to specie payments as was practicable; and they held that this end could not be reached without reducing the volume of the currency. Hence it was a proposition to fund greenbacks, as well as to provide for other obligations of the government as they should mature. It was opposed on various grounds, but mainly because, as was held, it would disturb the business of the country. Mr. McCulloch, Secretary of the Treasury, was known to be a resumptionist and a contractionist; and it was well known that he would use whatever power the law gave him to carry out his ideas. The bill failed in the House, but was re