216 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



tee tending to show that the courts have exer- 

 cised a discretion to refuse the security when 

 tendered, for the purpose of embarrassing the 

 defendant in securing this change of venue, and 

 consequently it is required in this bill that ' on 

 the filing of the petition, verified as provided 

 in said fifth section, the further proceedings in 

 the State court shall cease, and not be resumed 

 until a certificate, under the seal of the circuit 

 court of the United States, stating that the pe- 

 titioner has failed to file copies in the said cir- 

 cuit court, at the next term, is produced.' 



" The venue is not to be changed unless the 

 party at the next term of the United States 

 court files his copy of the order of the State 

 court. There are but two principles embodied 

 in this bill. Both principles are embodied in 

 the bill of 1833, which received the sanction of 

 Congress and the assent of President Jackson. 

 The first principle is, that the United States will 

 protect its officers in executing its laws and 

 maintaining its authority. And the second 

 principle is, that in testing the question whether 

 a man has been acting under the authority of 

 the United States, the question shall be tried in 

 the courts of United States. Those two prin- 

 ciples, I conceive, cannot be surrendered with- 

 out surrendering entirely the power to admin- 

 ister the Government and to execute the laws." 



Mr. Harding, of Kentucky, replied : " Under 

 the original act, to make a valid defence re- 

 quired the special order or authority of the 

 President of the United States. But by this bill 

 any order, verbal or written, general or special, 

 by any officer in command of any district, de- 

 partment, or place, any kind of order is made to 

 justify the act complained of. Now, 'I beg that 

 this feature of the bill will be noticed, and it 

 will be seen that it is framed wholly in the in- 

 terests of one of the parties litigant. Congress 

 is asked to intervene between parties litigant 

 after the suit has been commenced, and to act 

 exclusively in favor of one of the parties, and 

 ignore the rights of the other party altogether. 



" I learn now for the first time, by the gentle- 

 man's remark, that there was evidence before 

 the committee. But what sort of evidence was 

 it ? Strictly and rigidly ex parte evidence evi- 

 dence in favor of the defendants in all cases 

 but not a word in favor of the plaintiff. The re- 

 sult is what might have been expected. The bill 

 before us is strictly framed in the interest of the 

 defendant, utterly ignoring the rights of the 

 plaintiff. 



" Now, sir, is it not worth while to consider 

 the fact that there may be cases in which the 

 plaintiff is not exactly a criminal because he 

 brings a suit, but may have a just cause of ac- 

 tion ? This bill seems to treat the act of suing 

 in the State courts as but little less criminal 

 than committing the original outrage. Every 

 provision in this bill, from first to last, is mani- 

 festly framed in the interest of the defendant, 

 to the utter exclusion of the rights of the 

 plaintiff. 



" Sir, I would be willing to give my support 



to a bill which should fairly attempt to pro- 

 mote the ends of justice, without regard to the 

 parties litigant. But look at this bill ; compare 

 it with the original act. That act requires a 

 special order of the President. It is to be pre- 

 sumed that the President would hot act rashly 

 would not order the arrest of a person with- 

 out some evidence, or at least some reasonable 

 ground of suspicion. But under the provisions 

 of this bill, if it be passed, any mere law stu- 

 dent can, I affirm, frame a defence and exon- 

 erate any defendant, though he may have com- 

 mitted robbery, murder, or other high crime ; 

 because the defendant is not required to state 

 or to prove that there was any ground of sus- 

 picion, or any probable cause whatever for the 

 seizure, arrest, or imprisonment complained of; 

 the order of any officer in command at any 

 place, either general or special, verbal or writ- 

 ten, is made a full defence." 



Mr. Rogers, of New Jersey, followed in oppo- 

 sition, saying : " Sir, I affirm and I feel that 

 I can do so without fear of successful contra- 

 diction that the provisions of this bill are con- 

 trary to the fundamental principles of our Gov- 

 ernment ; and without regard to any express 

 prohibitions of the Constitution, they are vio- 

 lative of those great rights of property, liberty, 

 and life, which the Government was founded 

 to secure. When this Congress undertakes to 

 trample upon and override the elementary prin- 

 ciples of society, it saps the foundation-princi- 

 ples of our Government ; and it requires no ex- 

 press restraining clause of the Constitution to 

 forbid such an outrage. The provisions of thia 

 bill are inimical to those great doctrines of re- 

 publican liberty which give vitality to the Con- 

 stitution of the United States, and which our 

 Revolutionary fathers intended to hand down 

 unimpaired as a priceless jewel to their pos- 

 terity. 



" Sir, the act of March 3, 1863, to which thia 

 purports to be a supplement, made 'any order 

 issued by the President or under his authority 

 a complete defence for any search, seizure, ar- 

 rest, or imprisonment made, done, or commit- 

 ted, or act omitted to be done.' This bill goes 

 much further than that act. It not only dis- 

 penses with the kind of proof which was re- 

 quired by that act, but it substitutes a new 

 species of proof. It authorizes the commission 

 of trespasses that were not authorized by the 

 act of March 3, 1863. This bill proposes to 

 legalize ' any search, seizure, arrest, or impris- 

 onment made, done, or committed, or any acts 

 omitted to be done during the said rebellion, 

 by any officer or person under and by virtue of 

 any order, written or verbal, general or special, 

 issued by any military officer of the United 

 States, holding the command of the depart- 

 ment, district, or place within which such 

 seizure, search, arrest, or imprisonment was 

 made, done, or committed, or any acts were 

 BO omitted to be done, either by the person or 

 officer to whom the order is addressed, oi % by 

 any other person aiding or assisting him therein.' 



