Mr. CLARK. They are old arguments. I did not say when the Senfrom Indiana had given his attention to the bill; I was only arguing that he had, at some time, done so, and therefore did not require any more time for that purpose. it is very true they are old arguments; they are arguments which were urge against the passage of the act to which this bill is an amendment, more than 3 years ago. This bill does not confer any new powers upon certain officers of the Government; but it confers the powers which were granted to the President, and other officers who show an order from him, 3 years ago, upon certain other officers, thus enlarging the sphere and operation of the act. The Senfrom Indiana objects to the scope because he says that any search which may be made by any Federal otheer under the command of another officer, by his order, either in writin or verbal, specia or general, may be defened against by virtue of that order. That was exactly the provision of the act of 1863. Section 4 of that act provided: “ That any order of the President, or under his authority, made at any time during the existenceof the present rebellion shall be ii. defensein all courts to any action or prosecution.civil or criminal, pending or to becommenced, for any search” Precisely the same word used here "seizure" Precisely the same "arrest" Just the same “or imrisonment, made, done or committed, or acts omitte to bedone.under or byvirtueof such order." The same things were provided for 3 years ago, and it not only provided for search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment done or committed, but acts omitted to be done, and it provided also, in the same language with this liill, for other trespasses or wrongs done or committed. The Senator has only revived, I presume, the consideration which he gave to that old bill when it was passed 3 years a o, and alleged his objections to that against this bill. It certainly cannot be that he wants further time now for the consideration of this bill, and I do not understand that any other Senator desires time for its consideration. The Senfrom I ndiana says that be under stood I was to call up another bill; but he will remember precisely how that understanding came. It was nottoday, but esterday, when he asked me to take up another bill. I told him I proposed to take up a bill in regard to jurogs. this entirely true that I did say that yesterday; but on the suggestion of some senator that this bill was needed, that persons affected by it were anxious it should be passed, I concluded to ask the Senate to take up this bill as one of more pressing importance than that fixing the riglh of jurors. I think I was right in that regar. It is a bill of more pressing importance, and the attention of the senate should be 1st given to it. Now, Mr. President, n on this motion to postpone, if the Senate will pardon me, I will follow the course of the Senfrom Indiana a little. I know that it is not in order to debate the provisions of the bill on a motion to post pone, and if anybody objectsl shall not do so.