CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



217 



" Tho act of March 3, 18C8, was confined to 

 searches, tieizurcs, arrests, and imprisonments 

 made by rn.-ii claiming to have military author- 

 ity and by virtue (if the order of the President. 

 Tliis bill goes further, and protects from pun- 

 i-hmeiit any art. dune under ' any order, writ- 

 ton or \i-rl.al, general or special, issued by any 

 military officer of tho United States holding 

 command of tho department, district, or place.' 

 I'ndcr this bill tho military officer commanding 

 any town, though he be only a corporal, will 

 bo protected from punishment, though he may 

 without authority have torn tho wife from her 

 Imsliaiid and plunged to her heart the deadly 

 knife of tho assassin. If a man can show an 

 order from any military authority, that order 

 pts him from all responsibility for any 

 outrage, however heinous, which he may have 

 committed. A private soldier can justify him- 

 self for rape, arson, murder, or any other out- 

 rage, if he can produce the order of his supe- 

 rior officer. 



" In addition to that, sir, this bill proposes to 

 legalize as proof that which is unknown to the 

 laws of evidence sanctioned by the common 

 law. A simple telegraphic dispatch, without 

 any proof of its authenticity, is to be received 

 as a defence against any charge. Is tbat the 

 way in which tho liberties of the citizen were 

 intended to be secured by the Constitution ? 

 Was it ever contemplated by tho franiers of 

 that instrument that such evidence should be 

 accepted to screen and protect tho midnight as- 

 sassin from punishment for the gravest crimes 

 of which humanity can be guilty? " 



Mr. McKee, of Kentucky, replied : " What 

 does this bill propose ? Merely to allow those 

 men who during the war have acted under or- 

 ders from superior officers, from the President 

 of the United States down to department com- 

 manders, and who have committed any acts 

 which could be recognized under the .laws of a 

 State as illegal, to be protected in the perform- 

 ance of a duty which they were required to 

 perform under their oath mustering them into 

 the Federal army. The question is, whether 

 wo shall protect them from malicious persecu- 

 tion instituted and carried on in the several 

 States by those who never had the interest of 

 the country at heart, and who have taken every 

 opportunity to assail, annoy, and trouble the 

 soldiers of the Federal army. It is a bill, sir, 

 to give them that protection which the Gov- 

 ernment owes to them. I say that the Govern- 

 ment is worthless unless it protects those men 

 to whom it intrusted its own protection, and 

 who saved it from the deadly stroke of treason. 

 This simply protects them in the courts of the 

 United States because the State courts have re- 

 fused and do refuse to give that protection to 

 these men. I contend, sir, that it is tho pecu- 

 liar province of the Government of the United 

 States in its own courts to guarantee that pro- 

 tection to the officers and soldiers who served 

 in any capacity in its service during tho rebel- 

 lion. There is where they are most likely to 



have their rights protected. Thei-o ia where 

 local prejudices are frowned down." 



Tho bill was further debated by members of 

 the llon-e fr. mi Kentucky, where three thou- 

 sand five hundred suits had been brought, and 

 finally passed by the following vote : 



YIAB Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, 

 Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, 

 Banks, Barker, Baxter, Bcaman, Bidwcll, Bingham, 

 Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buck- 

 land, Bundy, Reader W. Clark-Conkling, Cook, Cul- 

 lom, Delano, Ueining, Dixon, Drives, Dumont, Eg- 

 cleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farqunar, Ferry, Gar- 

 neld, GrinnelLAbncr ('. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Hen- 

 dcrson, Hill, Holmes, Hooper, Asalel W. Hubbard, 

 Chester D. Hubbard, Detnas Hubbard, John H. Hub- 

 bard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, 

 Kasson, Kelley, Kclso, Kctcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, 

 Latham. George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, 

 Loan, Lynch, Marston, Marvin, McClurg, McKee, 

 McRuer, Miller, Moorhead, Merrill, Morris, Moulton, 

 Myers, Newell, Noell, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham, 

 Phelps, Pike, Plants, Price, William H. Randall, Ray- 

 mond, John H. Rice, Rollins, Rosseau, Sawyer, 

 Schoficld, Shellabarger, Sloan, Smith, Stevens, Still- 

 well, Thayer, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernan, Burt 

 Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, 

 Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washbnrn, Welker, 

 Wentworth, Williams, James F. Wilson, Windom, 

 and Woodbridge 112. 



NAYS Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Borer, Brooks, 

 Chanler, Coffroth, Dawson, Eloridee, Glossbrenner, 

 Grider, Hale, Aaron Harding, Hogan, Edwin N. 

 Hubbell, James M. Humphrev, Jones, Kerr, Lo 

 Blond, Marshall, McCullongh, Nicholson, Samuel J. 

 Randall, Ritter, Rogers, Ros?, Sitgreaves, Strouse, 

 Tabor, Thornton, Trimble, and Winfield 31. 



NOT VOTING Messrs. Benjamin, Brandagee, Sid- 

 ney Clarke, Cobb, Culver, Darling, Davis, Dawes, 

 Defrees, Denison, Donnelly, Eckley, Finck, Good- 

 year, Griswold, Harris, Higby, Hotchkiss, James 

 Humphrey, Johnson, Julian, "Longyear, Mclndoe, 

 Mercur, Niblack, Patterson, Pomerpy, Radford, 

 Alexander H. Rice, Schenck, Shanklin, Spalding, 

 Starr, Taylor, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, 

 Henry D. 'Washburn, Whaley, Stephen F.Wilson, 

 and Wright 49. 



In the Senate, the bill was reported from the 

 Judiciary Committee on April llth, and post- 

 poned until the next day, when several verbal 

 amendments were made. 



Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, moved the fol- 

 lowing amendment : 



Or so far as it operates as a defence for any act 

 done or omitted in any State represented in Con- 

 gress during the rebellion, and in which, at the time 

 and place of any such act or omission, martial law 

 was not in force. 



He said : " Mr. President, I am not one of 

 that class of persons who are struck with con- 

 stitutional paralysis on every occasion when 

 some ncee<>ary law for the security of ihe pub- 

 lic is about to be enacted ; and therefore I am 

 willing to go as far as any reasonable degree of 

 patriotism, or even any reasonable degree of 

 courage, will permit into the debatable land of 

 eon>titutional doubt in passing acts of this kind, 

 A\ Inch are really designed for the security of 

 men who have been acting under the orders 

 of the Government in enforcing the laws ; but 

 it has appeared to me that there are limits be- 

 yond which it is not only unsafe, but unwise, 

 for those who represent the people to go. even 



