Mr. MCDOUGLLI. very often says, the old faters were wiser than we are; the men who founded this Republic the men who made its Constitution and “ there were giants in those days” provided much more aptly and quite as fully or this question as it was possible in the nature of things and from the machinery with which we administer our Government could be done. What did they do? They provided that whenevera defendant in any court set u a jus tification under the laws of the U.S or under the Constitution of the U.S., and the State court refused that defense, de cided against it, decided against the constitutionality of the law under which he set it up, in such case he should have a writ of error to the SCOTUS What could e plainer and wiser? If it be true that under the laws of the U.S. these officers are justifiablein any particular case, where is the objection to their making that defense in the State court, and, if it is not allowed, give them the right to appeal to the SCOTUS What can be plainer than that? I have another word to say about the policy of this law. The danger to the Union, the danger to the existence of this fabric today, is quite as great as it ever was, and why? The danger is that the several constituent parts of it will not keep each within its own sphere. The dangeris that the States will assume to enlarge tgheirreserved rights, and paralyze the General Government; and on the other hand the danger is that the General Government will eneroach, swallow up the State rights, and centralize and despotizeif I may be allowed to make a new word for the occasion this Government. What is our duty? Our duty is to keep both in the line of their original creation, kee them where the fathers put them. Let the U.S. be supreme in all that relates to the whole; let it rave no concern whatever in that which relates to the particulars. One of the great pervading principles of the Constitution was that whatever a State could do better of itself than could be done by the whole Union was not delegated to the Union; whatever the Union could do better than a single State was delegated to it, and I fancy that everything was delegated which is proper to give the States the advantages of united action. To the U.S. was dele gated the power of making war and of dealing with foreign nations. Why? Because 13 united weak colonies could transact that business better, and secure the public welfare, and provide for the public defense much better than they could do it separate and apart. That was the reason. Take another instance. The postal communications from one State to another are far better in the hands of the General Government than they would be in the hands of the several States, by which we should have at the present time 36 different and distinct postoffice Depts in the Union, and therefore the postoffice was given to the U.S. Then the power of passing naturalization laws, of removing the disability which is attendant upon being foreign born, was given to the U.S., and w 1y? because it was a general subject, and could be better administered by them than by any other authority. The right to maintain armies and navies was given alone to the U.S., and why? Because they are arms by which the general defense and mutual welfare of the who O are to be protected and so upon consideration of the instrument which created this Government, and a careful consideration of it, it will befound, I think, to be as I have stated it, that wherever the thing to be done is for the general good of the whole, and which can be one better by the united action of the whole, and which cannot be done by the individual action of the States, there the General government has authority; but wherever the State can administer the law, wherever the State can administerjustice between her citizens, there the U.S. is never allowed to interfere, and she has no machinery by which she can interfere. A very forcible illustration of that maybe readily given. In order to transact the usiness of the people, in order to administer justice to the people in the several States, you have to have at least 2 or 3 inferior magistrates in every precinct, ward, or township. You huve to have an orphans court, a court of common pleas, a court of oyer and terminer, a court of quarter sessions, and you have sometimes to have courts of equity, in every county in every State. What for“! In order that justice may be brought to the doors of the people. Now, think of the madness of executing that great governmental function, which is really and truly the very governmental function, by means of the U.S. machinery. The U.S. have no magistrates; that is, they have no jus ticesof the peace, no “squires;” they have no county courts; they have no machinery in the world by which they can administer justice among the people except the courts created under the Constitution, one or 2 in a State. Think of this; and it gives us, above perhaps anything else, a better notion of the extent of the general power of the U.S. over the people; and when we think of the irritating e ects of this kind of legislation otruding itself within the domain of State Jurisdiction, where the people have always been accustomed to have justice administered, and where they have always been in the habit of relying on having it administered fairly, the question whether they will submit to it ought to make. I think, any prudent man hesitate and if we come to reflect for one moment on the extent of the combinations that will be made against it, no matter how salutary it may be, no matter how wholesome it may be, no matter how much you may think it is required, if it is against the enius of our institutions, if it is against that which the people believe in the administration of the laws, your statutes will be wiped out, and they will never be of any avail to anybody. Now, sir, I am, nsI said, in favor by all means of protecting the officer in the honest, conse ientious discharge of his duties while in e service of the U.S. No man can feel the necessity of that more than I do. No man, I think, is more sensible of the anno ances, of the wrong and injury, that would be one to the faithful servant of the U.S. if he was to be dragged here and there and subjected to actions for what he did in the honest, conse ien tious discharge of his duties. At the same time when a man mm on the uniform of the U.S., when leaccepts her service and marches under her flag, if he is guilty ofo pressing the citizen, of gratifying his private may ice wantonly and without the welfare of the country constantly in view, then I have no kind of charity for such a man. I think that he is fitly and appropriately the victim of the severest laws that can be made to prevent wrong and oppression. Sir, what is the mission of this man when he enters our service? It is to defend and protect the people, not to oppress and injure, rob and louder them. Can anything be plainer I and if he so far forgets himself as to lend himself to wrong and injury and oppression, ruthlessly, wantonly, and maliciously needlessly, I won (1 have him punished, and punished severely. A double punishment should be his, because he not only shows the dearavity of his own nature, but he disgraces the government under whose flag he fights and whose commission he carries about with him. But, Mr. President, that is neither here nor, there. I suppose upon these topics nobody will differ; I am not able to see how anybody could differ upon them; but the nestion is, how are we to make a remedy? hat is the remedy todayl The remedy is just as well settled in the State courts and by the State law, I think, as you can possibly settle it by the U.S. law. I I sue a man for an not done against me while he is acting under a commission, under authority derived from the law and the Government, he justifies himself by that authority in all cases if the act is warranted by the authority. There can be no diiliculty about that. The sheriffs writis good as a justification for him against a trespass. So the commission of the soldier is good as a justification for him against a trespass." But suppose that he exceeds his authority if he has authority to take a fort, that ives him no authority to murder risouers O war; if he has authority to assaiFa town, it gives him no authority to violate women; if he has authority to march through the country, that gives him no authority to take private property without such an emergency as excuses th)e act, and when the emergency is an excuse for the act the court is always willing to give him the benefitof it. That is the law now. It is the law everywhere throughout the civilized world, and wh I Because it is common sense. Iv know that in States where the rebellion has prevailed, and in the border States where the people have been very much excited, and where they have been divided into angry, hostile parties, these actions will be frequent, and a great deal of difficulty and a great deal of trouble will arise out of them. But these are troubles which are not to be cured by legislation; not to be cured even by State legislation. They are the troubles of a community, out of which it must emer c with the trials or punishments which result from them. It must acquire wisdom from experience. After awhile the people will learn that their true interests are not promoted by the ratification of their evil assions and by the orgetfulness of the great nws of charity, man for man; and these things will be avoided; but they are not within the domain of law; they are not curable by legislation. For instance, it is utterl impossfiile by legislation hererthnt we should prevent the prejudices ofajury in one section of the country from dening to one man justice and giving an over mee ot itto another. We cannot prevent that. It is utterly impossible that we can by legislation here eradicate the prejudices of judges, that we can influence their leanings. We cannot provide for that by statute. That is to be the work of time, and the gradual operation of the goodsense of our people who here after will no doubt discover teevils and folly which exist in all this, and they will come back to that sensible, wholesome operation of their laws which is the only thing after all that we have to rely u on. Mr. President, in conclusion I have only to say that I think it is clear, beyond uostiou, that the judges of a court acting nu er State authorit Y, acting conse ientiously in deciding cases, a though they may act erroneously, are not for that reason to be made criminals, nor are they to be mulcted in damages for their erroneous judgment. The remedy for that in ourjnrisprudence is a writ of error. If they refuse to transfer a cause from the State court to the circuit court of the U.S. when it is the law, and the SCOTUS shall declare it to be the law that the case shall be transferred, then the case will of there, and it will go there without staining t ic judge with criminality, without subjecting him as a trespasser for what may have been an honest mistake of judgment on his art.