Mr. HENDRICKS. I should think it but reasonable that the consideration of the bill should be postponed until tomorrow. It is a very important hill indeed, and I presume, like most bills, has been printed, laid upon our tables, and gone among our files, without attracting very particularly the attention of Senators; but no bill can go much further than this proposes to go. It not only takes awa the right of action in cases not brought, but presume will have the effect to take away the right of action in cases already pending in the courts. I cannot think it is the intention of Congress to go so far as this bill does go. I resume it is the intention of Congress to in demnify the officers of the Government who have done acts with a propermotive and for a proper purpose under the exigencies of particular cases; but this bill proposes to in demnify against all acts, provided they were authorized by any officer of the Government nigher in command than the party who executed the order. The bill scarcely requires discussion, for it is so lain in its provisions that the very reading of p it is a full argument upon it. It covers cases of search, seizure, arrest, and imprisonment, and as if it were not sufficient, more general words are then used, “or other trespasses or wrongs done or committed.” It is intended to cover everything that any military Officer may have done, or any person not a military officer, under the command or authority of any military Officer, for the language is, “or any acts done or omitted to be one during the said rebellion." It not only protects against wrongful acts done, but against cases of neglect to do duty, cases of omission. Is it the intention of Congress to indemnify any officer of the Government for a ne lect of duty? Where the law commands the ting to be done, and the officer refuses to obey the law, and thus is guilty of an act of omission, is it the intention of Congress to indemnif him in a cause between him and the citizen that is injured by his refusal on his part to obey the law? Not only this, but Any actsdoneor omittedto bedone during thesaid rebellion by any officeror person, under and by Virtue of any order, writtea or verbal, generalorspecial. issued by the President or SecyWar or y any military officerof the U.S. holding the commood of the Dept. district, or place within which such seizure, search.arrest or imprisonment was made, done, or committed or any, acts were so omitted to bedone, either h the personor officer to whom the order is addresse, or by any other person siding or assistznghim therein, shall beheld, and are hereby declarec, to comewithin the purview of the not to which this is amendatery, and within the purVIOW of the 4th. 5th and 6th sections of said act, for all the purposes of defense, transfer, appeal, error, or limitation provrded therein. I have read this section with a view to call the attention of the Senate to the magnitude of the proposition, and then that the Senate may say whether it is an unreasonable thing that on the motion of the Senfrom Delaware the further consideration of the bill be postponed until tomorrow. This bill proposes to take away from the citizen an action in the courts for a violation of his most important rights, those rights that are protected in exress terms by the Constitution of the U.S.tates. It applies 1st to any search. Is it competent for the Congress of the U.S. to interpose a defense when the injured citizen brings is action in the courts for a search of his omicile made in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the U.S.? Our fathers thought, and all the men of distinction that have been connected with public affairs since their day have thought, that it was an important and wise provision that a mans house shall be sacred to him and his family, unless the search be authorized by some process of the law, and that that process shall be based upon complaint made Unier oath, that no mans residence shall be invaded unless there be reason for that invasion presented to some Officer of the law under the resonsibility of the oath of the party making the c arge, and that then no olllcer shall make invasion of the domicile except by authority of a writ. New, Mr. President, if the Constitution of the U.S. in exress terms prohibits a search except upon sufficient authority, and a search has been made withoutthat authority and against the provision of the Constitution, can Congress interpose a defense when the injured citizen brings his action for damages in the courts? and yet this is proposed. Next, it applies to all seizures. Seizure of the person is also protected againstin the constitution so that a mans person shall be sacred and free from arrest. except upon properwrit to be issued upon proper comlaint under oath; and yet it is propose that where a seizure has been made without this authority the order of some sufferior military officer shallbe a sufficient de ease. I submit to Senators whether this can be. Does the provision of the Constitution of the U.S. indeed protect us? If the Constitution be violated in the casesmentioned in this bill, is it possible for congress to say that that violation of the Constitution of the U.S. against the person or the domicile of the citizen shall be justified in a proceeding in court by the mere fact that some superior military authority has authorized it? This bill goes much further than the act of March 3, 1863. That act, ifI recollect it correctly, only allowed the order to be a defense when the wrong was by virtue of the authority of the POTUS The authority had to come from the President or perhaps one of his Cabinet. Now it is proposed that where a mans house has been invaded, where his person or property has been seized, where he has been arrested, where he has been imprisoned without the process which the constitution requires before this shall be done, not only that it shall be a defense if the POTUS commanded it, but it shall be a defense if these wrongs were done by the commander of the Dept, or of the district, or of the particularlocality where the out ra e was committed. Mr. President, I would desire to vote with Senators in favor of a bill protecting military Officers and other Officers in their acts thatwere done in good faith for the public good and without any bad motive; but if this bill passes, the motiveof the Officer will be unimportant. He may have been governed by ever so bad a motive, and yet the mere fact that he commanded an inferior officer to do the act is to be a defense in the courts. Without reference to the motive that governed the party in making the command, it is to be a defense. I resume so, because the words are general. T a Senfrom NewHampshire smi es atthis suggestion. This is my reading of the bill, because there are no exceptions in this section. It is a defense if the acts were done or omitted “b virtue of any order, written or verbal, genera orspecial, issued by the President or SecyWar, or by any military officer of the U.S. holding the command of the Dept, district, or place within which such seizure, search, arrest, or imprisonment was made, done, or committed.” Mr. President, let me state one case that occurred in the State of Indiana, by way of illustration. The commanding Officer issued a written order to a sergeant or lieutenant directing him to go down to the county of Martin and arrest and bring to Indianapolis under arrest such person or persons as a detective, naming him I for et his name might point out. With that erior in his pocket the lieutenant or sergeant, accompanied by the detective, went down to Martin county and there made arrests. The detective pointed out the parties to be arrested. Among others they arrested a Gentleman of very high position, unquestionable integrity and honor, recently beiore that a member of the Indiana Legislature, and but a short time returned from the war, having commanded a company in one of the Indiana regiments. The returned soldier and captain was brought to Indianapolis and confined in one of the military prisons, and for a number of days was not allowed to address any friend that he had, and none ofus that knew him and esteemed him knew that he was in the city. There was an arrest made by virtue of an order from the head of the Dept or district of Indiana. The lieutenant or sergeant would justif under that order, if sued. I do not know that any suit is based upon that proceeding. There ought to be. Against that military commander there are suits pending. If he did right, I want him to be justified in the courts. If he did wrong, he ought not to have a defense in the courts. Men are appointed to high military commands, as is supposed, because of their intelligence and their qualifications for the position. It certainly ought not to be a defense that they have wantonly disregarded the provisions of the constitution or the laws of the land. Again, sir, I wish to submit to the gentleman having this bill in charge, whether, if an act such as is described in this section be committed with rudeness, cruelty, and outrage, he intends that in such a case as that there shall be adefense in court. If the citizen be arrested without the authority of law and inst the provisions of the Constitution, and instead of being treated kindly and carefully he be placed in irons and be brought through the country in irons when it is unnecessary, merely for the purpose of cruelty toward him, is it intended thatthis outraged citizen shall nothave a remedy in the courts for the abuse of the authority that it is supposed the command of the superior officer conerred? If a sherill have in ishandsa writ to be executed, and he executes that writ with a degree of harshness not required under the circumstances of the case for the purpose of gratifying personal malignity, althoug he be authorized to execute the writ, still, for the outrage which he does in its execution he shall be held responsible in the courts. Will you say, then, that a man who does an act without the authority of law shall be held to a greater indemnit and protection for this outrage and excess of abuse and wrong than the man who executes a writ? and yet, sir, I take it that would be the effect of this bill. Whatever is done by virtue of the command of a superior officer may be justified under this bill. It was not my purpose to argue the bill at this time, because I did not know that it was to come up. I understood from the Senfrom NewHampshire that he expected to call up a bill regulating the selection of jurors in the U.S. courts. So I was not looking for this bill to come up at this time; and I should be very glad indeed if the bill were postponed until tomorrow. I do not want to delay its passage if it is the pleasure of the majority to pass it, but I think the motion of the Senfrom Delaware is a reasonable motion. There are other important provisions in this bill as to the character of e evidence that shall be produced in court, how it shall be established that the act was done under the command of a superior officer, and all that which on ht to be considered; and it seems to me that the Senfrom NewHampshire himself will concede that there ought to be some provision taking away the defense from men who have committed wanton and cruel outrages even in the execution of orders from sufferior military officers. I cond illustrate my views by a number of cases that have come under my own observation. I willmention one that I recollect just now. A very excellent citizen who formerly resided in the same town with myself moved out to the State of Illinois, and for some reason or other it was supposed that he was giving information to somedeserting soldiers in the neighborhood. A company of soldiers arrested him, broughthim from Illinois to Indianapolis, and broug t him in irons. He was placed in a dungeon in that city for ten days within 3 quarters of a mile of my law office, and that man was denied the right to send me word or to drop me a line. I never dreamed that he was in one of those dungeons, or I certainly should have done everything for his relief, because I knew him to be an honest and worthy man. After he had been kept in the dungeon for ten days he was put in irons again and taken through the village in which he formerly lived in irons, for no purpose (inasmuch as he was surrounded by a sufficientard of soldiers) except to degrade him in the eyes of the people among whom he had once lived. ow, sir, suppose that there were an order from a superior officer to arrest him, is this cruelty that was practiced upon him and It give it as but one instance of 1,000this cruelty in excess of obedience to the authority and mandate of a superior officer, to go unpunished, when the sufferer brings his suit in court? Why, sir, men have been put to the torture to make them confess their own guilt, and it was under the command of the commanding officer, tied by their thumbs and held in that position until compelled to confess. It is said that this is to be justified because it was done under the command of the commanding officer. The officer in command at Indianapolis, I dare say, never did himself tie any poor creature up by the thumbs, and make him stand u n his toes until the agony became so horrible that the innocent had to confess to the guilt of bount juireiiping; but these cruelties that cast a dar sbu e upon our records as a people were executed by inferior officers or the command of superiors. New, sir, is it intended that there shall be a justification in court for such horrible out rages as that? I was very slow myself to believe that such things were being done until one day an attorney who has his office across the hall from mine came into my office in great excitement, and said that he had witnessed what he hoped neverto see again; he had been called by professional duties to what is known as the “Soldiers Home, ” under which there is a dungeon, in that city. He told me that he saw 2 alleged bounty jumpers, and there was not evidence against them, and they were tied with cords by their thumbs and made to stand in that position in the most horrible agony. I know it cannot be the purpose of Senators to justify such cruelty as this. These things are recorded in history as having been indulged in former times, and stand in history but to be condemned by the civilization of this age. When they are repeated among us shall an act of Congress be read in the courts as a defense for such conduct? Mr. President, I only intend to urge the a peal made by the Senfrom Delaware, that some further time should be given for the consideration of this bill, that its immediate passage today is certainly not called for, and that it be deliberately considered by the senate. I cannot believe that it is the purpose of the Senate to enact a bill so general and so sweepinglin its provisions as this, and without any of the limitations usually found in acts intended to indemnify public Officers.