Again, sir, when a military commander advances, as I trust, if there are no more unexpected great reverses, he will advance, through Virginia and occupies the country, there, perhaps, as here, the civil law may be silent; there perhaps the civil officers may flee as ours have been compelled to flee.  What then?  If the civil law is silent, who shall control and regulate the conquered district, who but the military commander?  As the Senator from Illinois has well said, shall it be done by regulation or without regulation?  Shall the general, or the colonel, or the captain, be supreme, or shall he be regulated and ordered by the President of the United States?  That is the sole question.  The Senator has put it well.

I agree that we ought to do all we can to limit, to restrain, to fetter the abuse of military power.  Bayonets are at best illogical arguments.  I am not willing, except as a case of sheerest necessity, ever to permit a military commander to exercise authority over life, liberty, and property.  But, sir, it is part of the law of war; you cannot carry in the rear of your army your courts; you cannot organize juries; you cannot have trials according to the forms and ceremonial of the common law amid the clangor of arms, and somebody must enforce police regulations in a conquered or occupied district.  I ask the Senator from Kentucky again respectfully, is that unconstitutional; or if in the nature of war it must exist, even if there be no law passed by us to allow it, is it unconstitutional to regulate it?  That is the question, to which I do not think he will make a clear and distinct reply.

Now, sir, I have shown him two sections of the bill, which I do not think he will repeat earnestly are unconstitutional.  I do not think that he will seriously deny that it is perfectly constitutional to limit, to regulate, to control, at the same time to confer and restrain authority in the hands of military commanders.  I think it is wise and judicious to regulate it by virtue of powers to be placed in the hands of the President by law.

Now, a few words, and a few only, as to the Senator’s predictions.  The Senator from Kentucky stands up here in a manly way in opposition to what he sees is the overwhelming sentiment of the Senate, and utters reproof,malediction, and prediction combined.  Well, sir, it is not every prediction that is prophecy.  It is the easiest thing in the world to do; there is nothing easier, except to be mistaken when we have predicted.  I confess, Mr. President, that I would not have predicted three weeks ago the disasters which have overtaken our arms; and I do not think (if I were to predict now) that six months hence the Senator will indulge in the same tone of prediction which is his favorite key now.  I would ask him what would you have us do now—­a confederate army within twenty miles of us, advancing, or threatening to advance, to overwhelm your Government; to shake the pillars of the Union; to bring it around your