Mr. MeKEE. Mr. Speaker, I only desire to make a few remarks on this bill because it is one which peculiarly affects the interests of my own people, those who during the war of the rebellion stood up in behal of the U.S. Now, sir, I admire the coolness and sincerity with which the Gentfrom NewJersey [Mr. Rooms] who sits in my rear, pledges to this House the support of the Democratic party to all measures necessary to secure all the rights and privileges of the soldiers. Iam gla to hear that declaration made that the Democratic party are willing in all time to come to pass all laws deemed necessa for the protection of those who engaged in the defense of the country. But the great difficulty lies right here. Since the beginning of the war the Democratic party has never decided anything was necessary to procure and aranty protection“ for those engaged in crushing out treason. Vhat does this bill propose? Merely to allow those men who during the war have acted under orders from superior officers, from the POTUS down to Dept commanders, and who have committed any acts which could be recognized under the laws of a State as illegal, to be protected in the performance of a duty which they were reqmred to perform under their oath mustering them into the Federal Army. The question is whether we shall protect them from mali cious persecution 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 Government owes to them. I say that the Government 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 U.S. because the State courts have refused and do refuse to give that protection to these men. I contend, sir, that this the peculiar provipee of the Government of the U.S. in its own courts to gnar anty that protection to the officers and soldiers who served in any capacity in its service during the rebellion. There is where they are most likely to have their rights protected. There is where local prejudices are frowned down. Mr. Speaker, in my own State law do we find the case existing today and the same rule which up lies to that Stateapplies all over the country where the theater of war has been, or will as soon as martial law is removed. There today we have upon the records of the State courts the enormous amount of 3500 suits against Federal officers and soldiers upon the civil and criminal dockets, brouflbt by the men who, during the late war, stoo arrayed against the Government. They are harassing, annoying, and even driving out of the State the men who stood true to the flag by suits under the legislation and judiciary rulings of Kentucky. There no protection is arautied to a Federal soldier. I hold in my find a letter received this morning. one of 40 on the same subject, in which it is stated suit has been broughtagainst an officer for pressing a horse under the order of the Dept commander, and that be has been convicted, the judge instructing the jury that even the President could not protect him from lia bility to the owner of the horse for its value. In the same court, and within the same week, in the cases brought there against a man who had been an officer in the rebelarmy, who had gone through the same country with these raiding bands of John Morgan, and had taken ten horses, the same judge instructed the jury that being a belligerent, and waging war against the U.S., they could not find against him, that he had a right to do this act anger the war power. That is the rule in Kentucky, except in one solitary district, and the Legislature at its last session inaugurated means of removing that judge, simply because he dared to carry out this act of the Federal Congress. This is the state of the case in my own State. It is all very well for gentlemen to talk about letting by gones to be by gones, nllowin all these things to pass, and letting the dead Iiury their dead. Sir, we want none of these bitter and malicious feelings that have been brought on our country for the last 4 years to be stirred up anew. It is a very beautiful theory to say, “ Let it all pass; let us forget every act that has been done.” It will do very well for men that have been waging war against the country to destroy our institutions to ask that all their acts be forgotten. But the disloyal people are not willing to forget what the soldiers of the Federal Army have done even to sustain the flag and the honor of the country. In my own State they preach the doctrine of forgetting all the past; and yet the moment a man returns to Kentucky from the southern confederacy, which has been crushed out, he at once seizes upon the 1st opportunity to harass in the courts of the State those who during the war have been engaged in defending the flag against the enemies of the country. Now, sir, the act to which this is an amendment is called an act to suspend the writ of habeascorpus guarantying indemnity in certain cases to officers of the Army of the U.S. The 1st section of this act, which the Gentfrom NewJersey [Mr. Roonns] characterizes in so odiouslanguage, is simply a reiteration of a section in the original act. It simply provides: That any search, seizure.arrest, or imprisonment made, done or committed or any nets omitted to be done during said rebellion by an officer or person under and by virtue of any order, written or verbal. general or special, Issued by any military cfiieer of the U.S. holding the commandof the depnrtl men district or place within which such seizure, se are, arrest, or imprisonment was made.done or committed or any acts were so omitted to be done. either by the personor officer to whom the order is addressed, or by any other personaiding or assisting him therein. &0. It only extends it to that class who are aiding and assisting and the original act was l passed by a vote of 90 to 30. I do not know 1 0w these gentlemen who now sit here on this, side voted then, but I have no doubt that then they were, as now, willing to extend all the protection they deemed necessary, and that they did not deem that there was any necessity to have protection extended. Now, sir, no man who has served in the Federal Army, or who has executed an order from a Dept commander, or even from the POTUS, or at the command of the “ tinkling bell” that the Gentfrom NewJersey talks about, is protected or can be protected in the State of Kentucky. No matter who issues that order, even the POTUS the State courts have universally held that it is no protection. to him; while at the same time they hold, as I have already stated, that those who made war against this Government are protected against prosecution for whatever acts they have done while lnarching under treasons banner. These are the facts, and it is the duty of the Government to provide this remedy. If the State courts will not give protection, then it is incumbent on the Congress of the U.S. to provide it in the courts of the U.S. his bill allows a pealsto be taken from the State to the Fedora courts. The gentleman on the other side says this is all wrong, to strip the State courts of the right that properly belon s to them. The State courts of Kentucky have decided this act unconstitutional. They have allowed no a peal to be taken. Therefore we propose by this bill that appeals may be taken independent of that fact. It y own State Legislature, atits recent session, passed an act which provided that an appeal might be taken from the decision of any court which authorized a transfer of a case from a State to a Federal court, thus overriding the jurisdiction of the courts of the U.S. by simple legislative enactment of a State. A man who has been a soldier in the Federal Army returns to my own State under an order from the SecyWar, sanctioned and ratified by the POTUS He is allowed to carry back with him, if he chooses, those arms that he has borne in de fense of his country; and upon the information of any man there, he is broughtup before a justice of the peace and fined ive dollars, and the unwhich he has paid for and has carried t rough the war is taken from him and confis cated. That is part of the law of Kentucky to day, and it is against such evils as this, against such acts on the part of the Legislature, discriminating in favor of treason and against loyalty, that this act is intended to provide. We ask it as aprotection to those men who periled their all in defense of the rights of our country. We ask it in favor of that llant hand of heroes who, all through these order States, left their homes and sacrificed every thing they had in order to save this country and now at the end of the struggle they are told there is no protection for them. Is this the part this great Government intends to play? Is this the way she intends to reward her scarred and war worn veterans; at the end of the struggle turn them over to the tender mercies of those who sought the life of the nation?