New York Times, Senate, Washington, Jan. 28, 1865
The chair then decided that the order of the day, which was the resolution advising retaliation upon the rebels for the cruelities inflicted upon our prisoners, must be considered.
The retaliatory resolution was accordingly taken up.
The question pending was the motion to recommit the whole subject to the Committee on Military Affairs.
Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, (Union,) took the floor in advocacy of retaliation.
Mr. Clarke, of New Hampshire, (Union,) was warmly in favor of retaliation. He would take Roger A. Pryor, whom we had in our hands and commence the work of starving him, if the rebels still refused to treat our men more justly and humanely.
The remark was followed by an attempt on the part of some soldiers in the gallery to applaud, which the Sergeant-at-Arms suppressed.
Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, (Union,) said that the resolution had been altered so much in the course of the debate, that nothing remained of it but the name. It was no longer for retaliation in kind, as at first introduced, but now it proposed to be a conformity with the laws of nations. He would, at the proper time, propose an amendment to make it conform to the usages of civilized society. He solemnly protested against retaliation in kind.
Mr. Hale ws for retaliation for cruelties inflicted on soldiers, white or black.
The debate was further continued by Messrs, Johnson and Davis.
Pending the consideration of this subject, the Senate adjourned.