Mr. Breckenridge.  Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon is a very adroit debater, and he discovers, of course, the great advantage he would have if I were to allow him, occupying the floor, to ask me a series of questions, and then have his own criticisms made on them.  When he has closed his speech, if I deem it necessary, I will make some reply.  At present, however, I will answer that question.  The State of Illinois, I believe, is a military district; the State of Kentucky is a military district.  In my judgment, the President has no authority, and, in my judgment, Congress has no right to confer upon the President authority, to declare a State in a condition of insurrection or rebellion.

Mr. Baker.  In the first place, the bill does not say a word about States.  That is the first answer.

Mr. Breckenridge.  Does not the Senator know, in fact, that those States compose military districts?  It might as well have said “States” as to describe what is a State.

Mr. Baker.  I do; and that is the reason why I suggest to the honorable Senator that this criticism about States does not mean anything at all.  That is the very point.  The objection certainly ought not to be that he can declare a part of a State in insurrection and not the whole of it.  In point of fact, the Constitution of the United States, and the Congress of the United States acting upon it, are not treating of States, but of the territory comprising the United States; and I submit once more to his better judgment that it cannot be unconstitutional to allow the President to declare a county or a part of a county, or a town or a part of a town, or part of a State, or the whole of a State, or two States, or five States, in a condition of insurrection, if in his judgment that be the fact.  That is not wrong.

In the next place, it provides that that being so, the military commander in that district may make and publish such police rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to suppress the rebellion and restore order and preserve the lives and property of citizens.  I submit to him, if the President of the United States has power, or ought to have power, to suppress insurrection and rebellion, is there any better way to do it, or is there any other?  The gentleman says, do it by the civil power.  Look at the fact.  The civil power is utterly overwhelmed; the courts are closed; the judges banished.  Is the President not to execute the law?  Is he to do it in person, or by his military commanders?  Are they to do it with regulation, or without it?  That is the only question.