CONGRESS, U. S. 



243 



" Then it seems to me that we would have 

 the right to give him that power. As there 

 has been an illegal exercise of the power 

 before, one arising from necessity, a bill of 

 indemnity is the proper remedy which has 

 been practicable for the Government, where 

 it was necessary for the Executive, for the 

 safety of the country, to assume the responsi- 

 bility of acts not contemplated by the Consti- 

 tution." 



The previous question was then demanded, 

 and the bill passed by the following vote : 



YEAS Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Arnold, Ashley, Bab- 

 bitt, Baker, Baxter, Bingham, Jacob B. Blair, Samuel 

 S. Blair, Blake, William G. Brown, Buffinton, Burn- 

 ham, Campbell, Casey, Chamberlain, Clark, Colfax, 

 Frederick A. Conkling, Roscoe Conkling, Cutler, Da- 

 vis, Delano, Duell, Dunn, Edgerton, Edwards, Eliot, 

 Ely, Fenton, Samuel C. Fessenden, Thomas A. D. Fes- 

 senden, Franchot, Frank, Gurley, Hale, Harrison, 

 Hickman, Hoopefl, Horton, Hutchins, Julian, Kelley, 

 Francis W. Kellogg, William Kellogg, Lansing, Loo- 

 mis, Lovejoy, Low, McKnight, Moorhead, Anson P. 

 Morrill, Justin S. Merrill, Nixon, Noell, Olin, Patton, 

 Pike, Pomeroy, Porter, Potter, Alexander H. Rice, 

 John H. Rice, Riddle, Edward H. Rollins, Sargent, 

 Sedgwick, Segar, Shanks, Shellabarger, Sherman, 

 Sloan, Spaulding, Stevens, Stratton, Train, Trimble, 

 Trowbridge, Van Horn, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, 

 Wall, Wallace, Washburne, Wheeler, Albert S. White, 

 Wilson, Windom, and Worcester 90. 



NAYS Messrs. William J. Allen, Ancona, Baily, Clem- 

 ents, Cobb, Gonway, Cox, Cravens, Crisfield, Critten- 

 den, Dunlap, English, Fouke, Goodwin, Granger, Gri- 

 der, Harding, Holman, Johnson, Knapp, Law, Lazear, 

 Mallory, Menzies, Morris, Noble, Norton, Pendleton, 

 Price, Richardson, Robinson, Sheffield, Shiel, Smith, 

 John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Stiles, Benjamin F. 

 Thomas, Vallandigham, Voorhees, Chilton A. White, 

 Wickliffe, Woodruff, Wright, and Yeaman 15. 



On the 22d of December, Mr. Pendleton, of 

 Ohio, submitted the following resolution, in the 

 nature of a protest against the above proceed- 

 ings : 



Resolved, That the following protest of thirty-six 

 members of this House against the passage of House 

 bill No. 591 be entered upon the Journal : 



On the 8th day of December, A. D. 1862, and during 

 the present session of Congress, Mr. Stevens, of Penn- 

 sylvania, introduced the bfll No. 591, entitled " An act 

 to indemnify the President, and other persons, for sus- 

 pending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and 

 acts done in, pursuance thereof," and after its second 

 reading moved that its consideration be made the spe- 

 cial order for the Thursday then next ensuing, which 

 motion being objected to, he moved the previous ques- 

 tion, and this being sustained, under the operation 

 thereof the bill was read a third time, and passed. 



This bill involves questions of the gravest import- 

 ance. It provides that all suspensions of the privilege 

 of the writ of habeas corpus, all arrests and imprison- 

 ments upon whatever pretexts or by whomsoever made, 

 under the authority of the President, however arbitra- 

 ry or tyrannical or unjust, are confirmed and made val- 

 id ; and that all persons who advised or executed or 

 assisted in the execution of any such acts are discharged 

 from all liability, whether to the State or to individu- 

 als, "in respect thereof ;" and that all proceedings 

 against them of every nature, whether for the recovery 

 01 damages or for the infliction of punishment, " com- 

 menced or to be commenced," are discharged and made 

 void. It also provides that the President may, during 

 the existence of this rebellion, at any time and any- 

 where throughout any of the United States, and as to 

 any person, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas 

 corpus. 



The bill is framed upon the idea that the acts recited 

 were illegal, and without just cause or excuse ; that 

 they were violations of the rights of the persons arrest- 

 ed and imprisoned ; and that for them redress might 

 be had in the courts of the United States, by resort to 

 the peaceful, regular, and ordinary administration of 

 the law. It is framed upon the idea that the citizen 

 was arrested without the existence of crime on his 

 part, or even probable cause to suspect it, and that in 

 making such arrests, the substance, as well as the form, 

 of those provisions of law intended to secure personal 

 liberty were entirely disregarded. It makes no excep- 

 tion of those cases in which the arrests have been 

 made with malice, and the imprisonments have been 

 inflicted with circumstances of brutality and cruelty 

 in which the " public good " has been made the cloak 

 wherewith to cover the gratification of political ani- 

 mosity or private hatred. It distinguishes in nothing 

 between the cases in which an honest mistake has been 

 followed by its immediate correction, and cases in 

 which malignity has been enabled, by false pretences, 

 to procure the arrest and to prolong the imprisonment, 

 to the loss of property, the destruction of neajth, and, 

 in some instances, the insanity, suicide, or lingering 

 death of the unhappy victim. It distinguishes in noth- 

 ing between the active officer, zealous in the full dis- 

 charge of his official duties, and the base miscreant 

 who volunteers to assume the degrading character of 

 spy and informer, that he may, with more effect, and 

 secretly, use the falsehood which the venom of his 

 heart prompted him to invent. It proposes to condone 

 all offences, to protect all offenders, and to take away 

 all redress for injuries, however great, or with what- 

 ever circumstances of aggravation or bad motive in- 

 flicted. 



If these acts had been done in all cases from the 

 purest motives, with an eye single to the public good, 

 with as little aggression as possible on private rights, 

 with all circumspection ana care that only those who 

 were really guilty should suffer such confinement as 

 would prevent the commission of an unlawful act if 

 the public good were in fact subserved by them it 

 might be proper to protect the President, and those 

 acting under nis authority, from criminal prosecution 

 and penal sentence ; it might be proper to protect them 

 from pecuniary loss, by the payment, from the public 

 Treasury, of the damages assessed against them. Even 

 then, whilst admitting that circumstances like these 

 would in seasons of great public dangers negative all 

 wrongful intent in the commission of these illegal acts, 

 it would be the duty of the representatives of the peo- 

 ple to affirm that at all times the President of the Uni- 

 ted States, before all other men, should adhere most 

 strictly to the forms of legal procedure when directing 

 his powers against the personal liberty of the citizen. 

 It could never be proper to indemnify the President, 

 and those acting under his authority, at the expense 

 of the citizen whom they had injured, or to add to their 

 security by the destruction of his remedies. 



The Constitution of the United States guards most 

 carefully the rights of the citizen ; it was ordained " to 

 establish justice," " insure domestic tranquillity," and 

 to "secure the blessings of liberty;" and so steadily 

 was this object kept in view, that in addition to the re- 

 servation of all powers not granted, there are special 

 prohibitions of seizures without warrant, detentions 

 without indictment, imprisonment without a speedy 

 and public trial, and deprivation of life, liberty, or 

 property without due process of law ; and there are 

 clauses which extend the judicial power of the United 

 States to all controversies between citizens of different 

 States, and secure a trial by jury in all cases in which 

 the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. Con- 

 gress has hitherto uniformly maintained, and, as far as 

 was necessary, has perfected by its legislation these 

 guarantees of personal liberty, and the courts have en- 

 forced them by the assessment of damages for their 

 infraction. This bill proposes to deprive the courts of 

 the power to afford such protection. It will, if carried 

 out into practical and general operation, release the 

 people from the duty of appealing to such peaceful and 



