244 



CONGRESS, U. S. 



legal means of redress, aud will provoke more summa- 

 ry and less constitutional measures. Yet this bill, 

 without precedent in our history, suggesting such 

 grave Questions of constitutionality ana expediency, 

 Believed by many members to be utterly subversive 

 of the rights of the citizen and of the express provis- 

 ions of the Constitution, by the force of mere num- 

 bers and against the remonstrance of the minority, 

 was passed within one hour of its first introduction, 

 without having been printed, without having been re- 

 ferred to any committee, select or standing, and with- 

 out any opportunity for consideration or discussion. 



The undersigned, members of the House of Repre- 

 sentatives, do therefore most solemnly remonstrate 

 against this action of the House, and respectfully ask 

 that this their protest may be entered upon the Journal. 



They protest against the refusal of the House to per- 

 mit consideration and discussion of the bill, as an arbi- 

 trary exercise of power by the majority, unjust to the 

 members, unjust to their constituents, and derogatory 

 to its character as a deliberative legislative body. 



They protest against the passage of the bill 



1. Because it purports to deprive the citizen of all 

 existing, peaceful, legal modes of redress for admitted 

 wrongs, and thus constrains him tamely to submit to 

 the injury inflicted or to seek illegal and forcible reme- 

 dies. 



2. Because it purports to indemnify the President 

 and all acting under his authority for acts admitted to 

 be wrongful, at the expense of the citizen upon whom 

 the wrongful acts have been perpetrated, in violation 

 of the plainest principles of justice, and the most fa- 

 miliar precepts of constitutional law. 



3. Because it purports to confirm and make valid, by 

 act of Congress, arrests and imprisonments which were 

 not only not warranted by the Constitution of the Uni- 

 ted States, but were in palpable violation of its express 

 prohibitions. 



4. Because it purports to authorize the President, 

 during this rebellion, at any time, as to any person, 

 aud everywhere throughout the limits of the United 

 States, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas 

 corpus, whereas, by the Constitution, the power to sus- 

 pend the privilege of that writ is confided to the dis- 

 cretion of Congress alone, and is limited to the places 

 threatened by the dangers of invasion or insurrection. 



5. Because, for these and other reasons, it is unjust 

 and unwise, an invasion of private rights, an encour- 

 agement to lawless violence, and a precedent full of 

 hope to all who would usurp despotic power and per- 

 petuate it by the arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of 

 those who oppose them. 



6. And finally, because in both its sections it is " a 

 deliberate, palpable, and dangerous " violation of the 

 Constitution, " according to the plain sense and inten- 

 tion of that instrument, and is therefore utterly null 

 and void. 



Geo. H. Pendleton, W. A. Richardson, J. C. Robin- 

 son, P. B. Fouke, Jas. R. Morris, A. L. Knapp, C. L. 

 Vallandighain, C. A. White, Warren P. Noble, W. Al- 

 len, ^Vinlam J. Allen, S. S. Cox, E. H. Norton, Geo. 

 K. Shiel, S. J. Ancona, J. Lazear, Nehemiah Perry, C. 

 Vibbard, John Law, C. A. Wickliffe, Chas. J. Biddle, 

 J. A. Cravens, Elijah Ward, Philip Johnson, John D. 

 Stiles, D. W. Voorhees, G. W. Duulap, Hendrick B. 

 Wright, H. Grider, W. H. Wadsworth, A. Harding, 

 Cbas. B. Calvert, Jas. E. Kerrigan, Henry May, R. H. 

 Nugen, Geo. H. Yeaman, B. F. Granger. 



Mr. Stevens : "I move to lay the resolution 

 on the table." 



The yeas and nays \vere ordered. 



The question was taken ; and it was decided 

 in the affirmative. Yeas, 75 ; nays, 41. 



In the Senate, on the 22d of December, a 

 motion to strike out the third section of their 

 hill to provide for the discharge of state pris- 

 oners, &c., was considered. The section to bo 

 stricken out was as follows : 



SEC. 3. And be it further enacted,, That it is and 

 shall be lawful for the President of the United States, 

 whenever, Congress not being in session, and iu his 

 judgment, by reason of "rebellion or invasion, the 

 public safety may require it," to suspend, by procla- 

 mation, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in all 

 cases of political offences throughout the United States, 

 or in any part thereof, until the meeting of Congress 

 thereafter; and whenever and wherever the said writ 

 shall be suspended as aforesaid, it shall be unlawful 

 for any of the judges of the several courts of the Uni- 

 ted States, or of any State, to allow said writ, as to such 

 offences, anything in this act or in any other act to the 

 contrary notwithstanding. 



Mr. Lane, of Indiana, took the floor against 

 the entire bill. He said : " Mr. President, the 

 bill under consideration contemplates a provis- 

 ion for the release of political prisoners under 

 certain circumstances, and also to authorize the 

 President of the United States, under the condi- 

 tions of the Constitution, to suspend the writ of 

 habeas corpus. If any such legislation be proper 

 and constitutional, the provisions of the bill 

 seem aptly drawn to effect the object. I be- 

 lieve, however, that no such legislation is 

 either proper or constitutional; that it is an 

 improper interference with the duties and pow- 

 ers of the executive office. 



"I shall attempt no finely drawn distinc- 

 tions upon this occasion between the acts of 

 the President of the United States which are 

 justifiable and acts which are excusable. All 

 the political arrests which the President of the 

 United States, in the discharge of his sworn 

 duty, has made, I justify and defend, in the 

 widest and broadest sense of that term. Nay, 

 more,. I believe that the President, if he had 

 not made those arrests under the circumstances 

 under which they were made, would have been 

 unworthy of the high position he occupies, and 

 recreant to his duty to the Constitution and the 

 country." 



He then proceeded to show that the power 

 existed in the President to suspend the privil- 

 ege of the writ of habeas corpus, and also the 

 right to make military arrests. The latter was 

 an inference from the powers already conferred, 

 and the duties enjoined in the Constitution. It 

 also followed from the great right of self-pres- 

 ervation, the great law of self-defence, known 

 and recognized everywhere. He then proceed- 

 ed to examine the circumstances of the arrests 

 made in Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky, 

 and the proceedings in foreign countries in 

 cases of rebellion, and thus expressed his views 

 of the means which the Government should use 

 to secure success : 



"Another fact I learn from history that 

 in the suppression of rebellions in other coun- 

 tries, there is no single instance in which the 

 Government has not called to its aid every 

 description of persons and every possible des- 

 tructive agency known to civilized warfare 

 for the purpose bf putting down the rebel- 

 lion. I use that in answer to the imputation 

 upon the Republican party that they are will- 

 ing to use slaves in the suppression of this 

 rebellion. I have no concealment upon that 



