242 



CONGRESS, U. 8. 



the writ of habeas corpus ; nevertheless, I 

 concur with my friend from Pennsylvania 

 that a bill of this character is proper under 

 the circumstances. But while I thus concur 

 with him, I would regret above all things to 

 see a measure of this kind thrust through 

 the House without a moment's consideration, 

 and probably without ten members of the 

 House knowing the legal effect of the provis- 

 ions of the bill. This mode of legislation is 

 discreditable to the country, and discreditable 

 to this House." 



Mr. Colfax, of Indiana, urged the immediate 

 passage of the bill, thus : " I think a majority 

 of the House are prepared to pass the bill now. 

 Instead of being anything discreditable, I think 

 it would be highly creditable to the House to 

 pass the bill at this early stage of the session. 

 We all understand the whole question. It has 

 been discussed all over the land whether the 

 President should have authorized the suspension 

 of the habeas corpus as to persons charged with 

 treason, or with sympathizing with it during 

 this rebellion or not. All that has been done 

 has been done by his authority communicated 

 to his secretaries, and through them to others. 

 I stand ready to pass a bill indemnifying him. 

 We have either to vindicate him as now pro- 

 posed, or leave him to be persecuted as soon as 

 he retires from office by those whom he arrested. 

 I rejoice that I have this opportunity of voting 

 for this bill, and I hope it will pass at once." 



The bill stated that since the 4th of March, 

 1861, the United States have been in an insur- 

 rectionary condition ; that the public safety has 

 required the suspension of the writ of habeas cor- 

 pus ; that during that tune the privilege of said 

 writ had been several times suspended by the 

 President of the United States, and that several 

 arrests and imprisonments had taken place 

 under and in consequence thereof, and that 

 there was not entire unanimity of opinion as to 

 which branch of the government possessed con- 

 stitutional power to declare such suspension. 

 It, therefore, enacted that all such suspensions, 

 arrests, and imprisonments, by whomsoever 

 made or caused to be made under the author- 

 ity of the President, should be confirmed and 

 made valid ; and it indemnified and discharged 

 in respect thereof the President, secretaries, 

 heads of departments, and all persons who have 

 been concerned in making such arrests, or in 

 doing or advising any such acts, and made void 

 all indictments, informations, actions, suits, 

 prosecutions, and proceedings whatsoever, com- 

 menced or to be commenced against the Presi- 

 dent, or any of the persons aforesaid, in relation 

 to the acts or matters aforesaid, or any of them. 



The second section invested the President 

 during the existence of the war with authority 

 to declare the suspension of the privilege of 

 the writ of habeas corpus, at such times, and in 

 such places, and with regard to such persons, 

 as, in his judgment, the public safety might 

 require. 



Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, thus explained 



the bill : " It provides that the President and 

 cabinet, and all who, in pursuance of their 

 authority, have made arrests during the time 

 of the declared suspension, shall be indemni- 

 fied and saved harmless. That is the full 

 extent of the bill. It goes no farther in any of 

 its provisions." 



Mr. Thomas, of Massachusetts, objected to 

 the bill He said : " A bill of indemnity is that 

 which secures to an officer who may have, 

 through mistake or otherwise, violated the 

 law, an indemnity for that proceeding. It does 

 not necessarily deprive a party of his civil 

 remedy. If a man has been unjustly or 

 illegally imprisoned however long his im- 

 prisonment or grievous his injury he is de- 

 prived by this bill of any remedy or redress 

 whatever. He alone is to suffer, and not the 

 Government. If the gentleman from Penn- 

 sylvania will put his bill in such form as to 

 indemnify officers acting under the direction of 

 the President, still leaving the parties to their 

 civil remedy if they were illegally and without 

 cause imprisoned, I could support it. I could 

 not, without further opportunity for examina- 

 tion, vote for this." 



Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, replied: "The 

 gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Thomas) 

 will find on examination and I dare say that 

 he has examined it that I have drawn this 

 bill precisely according to the English prece- 

 dents ; that I have used precisely the language 

 used by all of the bills of indemnity for the 

 last two centuries passed by the English Parlia- 

 ment, except that, in their bills, they have con- 

 fessed the illegality of all of the acts which 

 have been done and for which ministers have 

 advised the passage of an indemnity. I have 

 not confessed the illegality of these acts, for 

 this reason : the Attorney General of the 

 United States and the Administration have 

 held that the President had, without such a 

 bill, full power ; and if he had the power to 

 order all these acts, then there is no remedy 

 for anybody. A remedy exists only where 

 there is a wrong. If the President had the 

 right to suspend, the writ of habeas corpus, and 

 under that these results took place, I should 

 like to know who had the right of action 

 against him ? There can be no such tiling. If 

 there be a remedy for these false imprison- 

 ments, it may extend to indictments as well as 

 to civil suits, and how is the Government to 

 indemnify the President for two years' imprison- 

 ment in the penitentiary ? What kind of in- 

 demnity is the Government to afford to men 

 thus prosecuted under these laws? But, sir, 

 if the President was right in supposing that he 

 had the authority to suspend the privilege i>f 

 the habeas corpus, I admit with my friend 

 from New York (Mr. Olin) that there would 

 be no necessity for this bill. But then it would 

 do no harm, it would confer no additional 

 power, it would do only what could be done 

 before. But I have recited that there is doubt 

 on that subject. 



