Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. President, the 1st section of this bill proceeds upon the predication that every individual who was engaged in the Army, and acted under orders of his supe prior was acting in the line of his duty, and acting innocently, and is entitled to protection, and we interpose it by this section, carrying it further than we did in 1363, for then we only made it a prqtection to the President and some of the principal Officers. Now we propose to protect those who didany act under the order of any military officer of the U.S. holdin the command of any military Dept, district, or place in which any Seizure. arrest or imprisonmentwas made, done or committed or any actswer os omitted tobedone. either by the icrson or officer to whom the order is aggresse d, or y any other person aiding or assisting You grant the protection of the Government to all individuals who obeyed their superior officers; you inte use that order as a protection to them, as artfefense for the acts for which the may be sued. If it so chances that they be no such orders, or that they did the acts complained of willfully and maliciously, and it is so proved to a jury, there will be verdicts against them, I have no doubt. Now, I think we have carried this a little too far we have made it broader than we need do. That is my principal objection to the bill. While this exemption wase onfined to the higher Officers and the military policy of the Government, as proclaimed and ordered to be carried out by them, I thought it was fair enough and right enough. But after you have inte osed these orders as a justification for your officer s, and yet on trial they are convicted, I am not for paying the expenses of trial nor for paying the verdicts out of the Treasury; and I do not want it to be held out that any other Congress may be appealed to to pay those judgments. That is not a principle that I wish to establish on the heel of this civilWar; and I he that the amendmentuow pendingwill not be pted. I think we are not prepared for it. I am perfectly certain that there are a great many places in the U.S. where there would be heavy verdicts against the officers if it was understood that the Government would ay them; and the plaintiffs and defendants wou d understand each other before they got through with these matters. I have no doubt about that. It is a question with me whether without this act it is not a defense that the thing complained of was done under the authority of the order of a uperior and that it was necessa to be done under that authorit. I am sure that our district judge in Kentuc y would hold it a de fense that it was done in pursuance of orden of a superior. Judge Graham has been referred to as having decided that the confederate soldiers who seized property under the order of Genera] Simon be ivar Buckner were protected by that superior order, and Judge ftobertson, of the supreme court of Kentucky, affirmed the decision, which is now before the SCOTUS, and he is one of our ablest jurists. I am sure he would not have confirmed Judge Grahams decision unless he had believed there was full foundation in law for it, and I do not believe either of them would allow arecovery where the party had the orders of a superior Officer in the Federal Army. I think a man in the service of his country, and bound to obey, is protected by the order of his superior officer, and cannot be held either criminally or civilly responsible for it. He ought not to be, and that is the justification of this act. Kentucky is a fruitful place for precedents as I find here. I did hot know when I la home that there was asingle solitary suit of this character in the city of Louisville. l have heard of some suits in other parts of the State, and there have been some criminal suits. The:on federate soldiers came in and they took horses and they alleged that they were se utin by their superior officers; and in some parts of the State we indicted them for stealing, and convicted them, and sent them to the penitentiary. Our Executive releiued all that class of men on the principle that they had acted under orders, whether right or wrong. We had both armies, as you nlldrnow, there; the confederate army was 11 n us, and the Federal army was upon us, a we were retty unceremoniously treated by both sides. on we have had errillas. Our people like to fight out their rights in the old way, and they love a lawsuit, I believe, for the excitement and the luxury of it, [laughter] and we would get all right if you would just give us back the courts and let us fight it out in the tribunals. We will never get right short of them, and I do not believe the U.S. will get right until we restore the writ of habzu scorpus, restore the right of suits for all wrongs that infringe a mans personal rights or his property. But I am decidedly against this amendment, tacking this system of expenditure at the close of the war on the finances of the country.