=§ 95. Question discussed in Congress.=--As early in the war as 1861, a number of resolutions were brought into Congress, designed to meet this difficulty,[337] and Mr. Lovejoy introduced a bill making it a penal offence "for any officer or private of the army or navy to capture or return, or aid in the capture or return" of fugitive slaves.[338] The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which reported adversely upon it, April 16, 1862.[339] December 16, 1861, Mr. Hale had offered a resolution, which was adopted, looking toward a uniform method of dealing with the slaves of rebels.[340] Mr. Sumner brought in another on December 17, which forbade the employment of the armies in the surrender of fugitives.[341] "I ask, sir," said the writer of a letter read by Mr. Sumner, "shall our sons, who are offering their lives for the preservation of our institutions, be degraded to slave catchers for any persons loyal or disloyal? If such is the policy of the government, I shall urge my son to shed no more blood for its preservation."[342] Another protest came from two German companies in one of the Massachusetts regiments, who, when they enlisted, entered the service with the understanding that they should not be put to any such discreditable service. They complained, and with them the German population generally throughout the country.[343] Some proof that the owner of the slave was at least loyal to the government seemed necessary, if rendition were to be made at all; though antislavery men were determined to admit no return of fugitives under any circumstances. December 20, 1861, a resolution of Mr. Wilson's was adopted, for an additional article of war forbidding officers from returning fugitives under any consideration.[344] A bill was introduced, discussed, and somewhat amended, but never passed.[345] Mr. Blair's bill, of February 25, 1862, from the Committee on Military Affairs in the House, was to the same purpose.[346] This, however, was successfully carried in both houses, and signed by the President, May 14, 1862. In the discussion, Mr. Mallory opposed the bill, because it seemed to him that it would prevent the President of the United States from sending a military force into a State to aid the authorities in enforcing a national law which stands upon the statute-book.[347] Mr. Bingham answered this objection by saying that it simply determined that for the future, as in the past, the army and navy should not exercise functions which belong solely to the civil magistrates.[348]