

C()N(iI!KSS, TNITKI) STA'I !>. 



Mr. Howard, of Michigan, -aid: "Mr. I'n-i- 



I hail intended to speak briclly on the 

 ibis hill when it was called up ; hut 

 ! shall ivt'raiii, ami content myself \vith 



;'tcr looking it over as carefully > I can 

 1 am satisfied that then- i 



,. hidi i-; unconstitutional, and that, in my 

 opinion, it ought to pa lor tin- purpo.-e. as an- 

 nounced liy tin.- Iionoralilc Senator from Ne- 

 vada, of enacting at least an amnc-ly to llio 

 I'liion soldiers and olliccrs, \vho have carried 



,-oui?h this war. I am unwilling that 



henceforth there should he outstanding against. 



them, either in the North or the South, any 



of litigation by which they may bo 



harassed and put to trouble and expense. I 



; i; a^ a simple duty that Congress should 

 establish and enact this most necessary bill of 

 indemnity in favor of all persons who have 



concerned necessarily in the prosecution 

 of this war. 



"I will say furtber, that this bill does not in 

 any of its clauses cover the case of a private 

 trespass, \\hieh seemed to exercise the imagina- 

 tion and the feelings of the honorable Senator 

 from Delaware. It does not relate to any case 

 of a mere private trespass, but only to such 

 orders as have been issued by the President 

 of the Tinted States, or by his authority, 

 and to acts which have been done colore officii 

 under that authority. Thus far we surely have 

 the right to go, and there I am content." 



Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, said: "Mr. 

 j 'resident, there is an inconvenience attend- 

 ing the consideration of this bill. It is intro- 

 duced for actual consideration on the last day 

 of the present session, when we are crowded 

 with other engagements, and when it is impos- 

 sible to investigate carefully and critically the 

 propositions which it contains, and to examine 

 the former legislation upon this subject with 

 care and with exactness. But, sir, the debate, 

 so far as it has progressed, has exhibited to 



, era! salient points which cannot escape 

 attention. In the first place, the motion of the 

 Senator from Maryland covers the latter por- 

 tions of the bill, and can be considered dis- 

 tinctly from the other portions of the bill and 

 the former laws. This bill, for the first time as 

 I understand in our history, forbids the courts 

 of the country to look into or investigate a case 

 introduced or brought before them by a citizen. 

 We may have had some such measures during 

 the war, within portions of the country, and 

 with reference to military operations ; but I 

 believe it has never been proposed to place 

 upon th.e statute-book of the United States a 

 law forbidding our courts, and forbidding all 

 courts in the country, from taking cognizance 

 of a case brought regularly before them in the 

 usual and accustomed manner by a citizen. I 

 may be mistaken upon this point, but I believe 

 I state the fact correctly. Whether it be an 

 unexampled provision or not, it is one, in my 

 judgment, objectionable in the highest d 

 one which ought not to receive the sanction 

 VOL. vii. 12 



either of the Senate or of the people < 

 country. 



" I5y the law of the 1 111. of Maj, 1866, very 

 largo and extensive provision-* \\ t -re placed 

 Upon the statute book with ! 

 general subject. That law provided that i 

 of any prosecution or action for any arrest, im- 

 prisonment, or other proceeding to the injury 

 of the citi/.en, a defence that the act done or 

 committed was under an order of tin- I'r> 

 of the 1'nited States, or by his authority, should 

 be a sufficient defence. Nay, sir, that law went 

 so far as to provide that even verbal authority 

 from the President, directly or through any 

 head of a department or other oft'cial author- 

 ized by him, should be sufficient upon the de- 

 fence. Certainly, that was a very remarkable 

 and a very extensive provision for the protec- 

 tion of the class of persons covered by the law. 



t% I need not refer to other provisions contain- 

 ed in that and in other laws which are likewise 

 very extensive and protective in their charac- 

 ter; but that law did not close the doors of the 

 courts. That law left them wide open to the 

 citizen. He could go into court, but he would 

 be deterred from going (although he had the 

 liberty of approach) in any case where public 

 authority had in due form sanctioned the pro- 

 ceeding against him. Even parole authority 

 was made sufficient to the vindication of the 

 officer and all who assisted him. 



"What mor'e did we do by former laws? I 

 believe there are two or three statutes on the 

 subject. We have provided that where a suit 

 is instituted in a State court in any part of the 

 country it may be removed into the courts of 

 the United States. We have most extensive 

 and most stringent provisions drawing within 

 the jurisdiction of the Federal courts and with- 

 in the protection of the United States laws all 

 cases whatsoever arising under military juris- 

 diction or under alleged authority, military or 

 civil, proceeding from the United States. Now, 

 what more can be asked for the protection of 

 nil those who have served the Government, 

 either in a military or in a civil capacity, either 

 as officers or citizens, in any possible case 

 which has arisen or can arise ? Sir, I am op- 

 posed to closing the courts of the country; I 

 am opposed to a flat, open, shameless denial of 

 justice to the citizen ; I am opposed to closing 

 the mouth of any complainant, in any part of the 

 country, who, in a regular, orderly, peaceful, 

 and lawful manner approaches any tribunal of 

 justice, demanding an investigation of a com- 

 plaint which he has to prefer against either 

 officer or citizen. Is it not sufficient when, 

 with all your power, you arm your officer and 

 the citizen who has assisted him with the right 

 of defence in a regular, in a legal, in a usual, 

 and ordinary manner? 



"Besides, sir, if there should be some omis- 

 sion in former laws, we might adopt ne\v pro- 

 visions hereafter; or, if some officer or citizen 

 of merit, who has acted lona fide, should hap- 

 pen to be cast in damages in the performance 



