Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, it has always up cared to me in the brief experience I have had in this world, that in the long run, passionate legislation, if I may so describe it, comes back to plague those who enact it, and it has generally happened in the history of civilize communities, that legislation which has been enacted under the influence of feeling, no matter how pure, under the influence of passion, no matter how complete and perfect might be the beauty of the object of it, returned futile and nugatory upon the heads of those who undertook to carry it through. New, sir, I do not yield to the Senfrom NewHampshire in my devotion to the interests of the loyal men who have fought the battles of the country. Where I am known it would not be necessar for me to justifv myself on such a mint as t at. I do not yiel to any man in my desire, to use the language of my friendfrom NewHampshire to protect the soldier who has fought the battles of the country, whether in Illinois, or Ohio, or Kentucky, or SCarolina and it is because I desire to protect him that I am desirous that this bill should he put in such a shape that it will stand the searching investigation of a court of law. I do not think he can be accounted the true friend of the soldier who holds out. to him the ashes of disap ointment in asecics oflegislation which, while it looks we l, will not bear the test of actual experiment. My way of protecting the soldier is to give him a protection which will be real, to hold up to him a security which is something more than a mere fulmination, and which shall answer to him with the certainty of a positive defense. How is that to be done? That is the question. It is useless to waste our time in vague dis cussion about who is the best friend to the soldier, or whether the Senfrom Vermont happens at this moment to be on the wrong side of the Senate Cliamber. That is nothing to the question. The question is, how shal we reach the end which we all desire in the safest and in the most positive way? It be ens that the Senfrom NewHampshire t inks that the best way to do it is to go directly at it, as he says, and to declare by an act of Congress that an act which was guilty yesterday, which was a wrong lyesterday, an invasion of private rights yester ay is right today, and is therefore justitied. That is all there is in this act. I am not speaking of thosequestions of excess which seem to have trouble some gentlemen; I am speaking of the cases where an aetwhich was wrongful in itself has been committed, and where, therefore, the ersou who was wronged has as much right to claim our protection as the person who wroned him, whether he acted under orders or whether he did not. Now. I undertake to declare with the little knowledge which I have on subjects of this description, and to defy contradiction, that there is not an instance in the histor of legislation which has been practically followed and justified in law, that went beyond simply this: providing an indemnity, as I said a little while a o, by way of securing to the party accused whether in a criminal information or in a civi suit, for a wrong done, the benefit of an impartial trial in the courts of the country, as this bill very properl provides, providing that he shall be efende at the public expense, and if it happens that in the execution of his duty he has invaded private rights, let the public, for whose sake and at whose.cominund he has invaded them, foot the bill. That is the way to defend a loyal soldier in myjudgment, and I do not care to have my patriotism impugned because I think it the better way than it is to enact a nu tor law to protect him.