Mr. COOK called up hill of the House No. 298, to amend an act entitled “ An act relative to the Itabeascorpus and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases, ” approved March 3, 1863, which was reported from the ComJudiciary with an nmendmentin the nature of a substitute. Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, the object of the bill reported from the ComJudiciary is twofold: 1st to relieve all officers and persons rioting under military authority from responsibility, when sued for acts done during the late rebellion, when done by order of superior officers. It also provides that the question, whether acts complained of have been doneunde{1propermilitary authority, may be tried in the U.S. courts instead of in the State courts, if the party desires it. The principle upon which the bill is founded was established in what is commonly known as the “force bill " of 1833, which was nssed when SCarolina 1st claimed the right to nullify the laws of the U.S. The same principle is embodied in the law of 1863, of which this bill is amendatory. The law of 1863, sections 4 and 5, reads as follows: "$110.4. Abife: That any order of the President, or under his authority. madeat any time during the existence of the presentrebellion, shall be pdefcnse in all courts to any action orprose cution, civil or criminal, pending ortobecommenced. for any search.seizure.arrest or imprisonmentmiu.lc. done or committed or acts omitted to he done under and by virtueof such order or undercolor of any law of Congress, and such defensp may be made by sp"ecial plea or under the general issue. SEC.5 Abife: That if any suit or prosecution. civil or criminal. has beenor shall be commencedin any State court against any officery civil or military, or against any other personfor any arrest or imprisonment made or other trespassesor wrongs done orcommitted or any act omitted to be done at any time during the presentrebellion, by Virtuo or under color of any authority derived from or exercised by or under the POTUS or any act of Congress, and the defendant shall at the time of entering his appearancein Iich court and such appearanceshall have been entered beforethe pass of of this act, then at thenextsession pfthe courtin which such suitor prosecutionispending, file a petition stating the facts and verified by uthdavit for the removal of the causefor trial at the next circuit court of the U.S. to be holdon in the district ivhere the suit is pending and odor good and sufficientsurety for his filing in such court, on the 1st day of its session.copies of such process and other proceedingsagainst him and also for his appearing in such court and entering special bail in the cause if special boil was or inally required therein. It shall then be the dut of the State court to accept the surety and procee no further in the cause or prosecution and the bail that shall have been originally taken shall bedischarged." The 1st section of this bill provides that an order from any military officer of the U.S. holding to command of the Dept, district, or place ivithin which the act complained of shal have been done, shall be a defense. This provision is rendered necessary from the fact which appears in evidence before the committee that the State courts in some of the border States have held, under section 4 of the act of which this is an amendment, that the order of the POTUS is necessary to justify the party doing the act, and as it is scarcely possible for a party sued to produce an order from the POTUS directing him to do the particular act complained of, the law became in many in stances a dead letter. The principle thataGovernment shall relieve its Officer from individual responsibility for any not done by the command of a military superior has been settled so long and so well that I do not propose to discuss it now. In order to make that principle operative in the act to which this is an amendment, the provision contained in the 1st section of this bill is indispensably necessary. where the State courts hold that the order of the POTUS himself must be produced to justify the impressment of a horse or seizure of forage or military supplies, the protection designed to be given by the act is taken entirely away. The spirit of the 1st act it is believed is met by the words of this amendment, which provides that a military order is sued by any person having the command of the district, Dept, or place where the act complained of is done shall be a defense. The soldier or subordinate officer must at his peril obey without question the order ofhis superior, and that order should protect him from individual responsibility for acts done in pursuance of it The 2nd section of the bill has reference merely to the character of the evidence of the existence of this order which shall be produced. It provides That when said order is in writing it shall be sufficient to producein ovulencethe original with proof of its authenticity or a certified copy of the same; or if sent by telegraph the production of the telegram pnr orting to emanatefrom such military officer shall epmmafacieevidence of its authenticity; or ifthe original of such order or tclegramis lost or cannot beproduced, 2ndary evidence thereofshall be admissible as in other cases. The 3rd section of the bill provides for the removal of the action from the State to the federal courts at any time before the jury was imaneled to try the same. By the original act it was necessary that the motion for a change of venue should he filed at the term that the appearance of the defendant was entered. evidence is before the committee tending to show that in the State of Kentucky alone 1500 suits have been brought against citizens who acted or claimed to act in behalf of the U.S., for acts done by command of military officers. In the vast majority of these cases the defendants were not aware that it was necessary that the motion to change the venue should be made at the appearance term. In some cases the suits were brought before the act became generally known, and in consequence thereof many are prevented from takin (the change of venue to the Federal court whi they desired to do. I find by reference to the act of 1833, called the “ force bill, ” irecisely such a proviswn m inserted to meet tm state of facts in SCarolina in nullification times. That act proVIde! that the change of venue maybe take“ 5 an! time before trial. To meet this difllculty, and to secure to those who were intended to be protected by the law of 1863 the benefit of that protection, it is provided in the 3rd section of this act that the change of venue may be made after the appearance of the defendant and before the impaneling of the jury tot the cause. That applies to suits pending as we his to suits to be commenced hereafter. The object of the section is to give relief to those men who have been sued there, and who, not understanding that it was necessary to file a petition for a change of venue at the appearance term, have suffered that term to pass. Section 3 provides for a state of fact like this: there was evidence before the committee tendm to show that in some of the State courts of Kentucky the courts have refused to grant a change of venue after aplication has been made precisely in accorance with the terms of the act of 1863. The reasons assigned, so far as I have heard them, are two. The 1st is that the act of 1863 is unconstitutional; and the 2nd is that the court has a discretion which it may exercise to refuse to approve the security which is offered by the defendant that he will file the recbrd in the U.S. com t. The 4th section of this bill provides that If the State court shall notwithstanding the performance of all things required for the removal of the ease to the circuit court aforesaid, proceed further in said causeor prosecution, beforesaid cer tificate is produced.then in that caseall such further proceedings shall be void and of none effect; and all nrtics. judges, officers and other persons, thence orth proceeding thereunder, or by color thereof, shall be liable in dam cs therefor to the party ag ricved. to be recoverdllby action in a court of the State having proper Jurisdiction or in a circuit court. of the U.S. for the district in which such further proceedingsmayhave beenhad. Orwbare the party cfiicer, or other person.so offending, shall be ound: and upon a recovery of damp. es in either court, the party plaintiff shall be eatied to double costs. There are such cases. The evidence is conclusive that there are cases in the State courts where parties have sought to have this question tried in the Federal court, and have performed every act specified in the act of 1863, and yet have not. been able to have the venue changed after all. It was considered necessary by the committee that after the petition had been filed and verified as required by law, the State court should have no further jurisdiction of the case and that its acts should be void in case it should assume to proceed further and assume jurisdiction to try the case. The 5th section of the bill provides for cases which have occurred in which the clerks of the State courts have refused give certified copies of the record to be filed in the U.S. courts, and to prevent the right to a change of venue being defeated by any efault of the clerk of the State court. It provides that It shall be the duty of the clerk of the State court to furnish copicsoft epapersand files in the caseto the party so petition imifor the removal; and upon the rcfusal or neglect oft eclerktofurnishsuchccnics, thesaid party may docket the casein the circuit court of the U.S.: and thereupon said circuit court shall have Jurisdiction therein and may, upon proof of such refusal or neglect of the clerk of the State pwlua inrtt.i ffn, nrdeupuoirner heiamsotnoafiblleenaodtieccelabreaitniogngiovrepnettoititohne therein: an upon his default, may order n nonsuit and dismiss the case at the costsof the plainriff; which dismissal shall be a bar to any further suit touching the matter in controversy. There is another important revision of this bill which I failed to explain. he law of 1863 provides that at the time the defendant shall file his petition for a change of venue he shall give security, to be approved by the State court, conditioned that he Will at the next term of the Federal court file a copy of the record in that court. There was evidence before the committee tendin.to show that the courts have exercised a discretion to refuse the security when tendered, for the purpose of embarrassing the defendant in securing this change of venue, and conseauently it is required in this bill that “ on the lin of the tition, verified as provided in said 5th section, the further proceedings in the State court shall cease, and not be resumed until a certificate under the seal of the circuit court of the U.S., i stating that the petitioner has failed to file copies in the said circuit court, at the next term, is produced.” The venue is not to be changed unless the party at the next term of the U.S. court files his cop of the order of the State court. There ar. but 2 principles embodied in this bill. Both principles are embodied in the bill of 1888, which received the sanction of Congress and the assent of President Jackson. The 1st principle is that the U.S. will protect its officers in executing its laws and maintaining its authority and the 2nd principle is, that in testing the question whether a man has been acting under the authority of the U.S. the question shall be tried in the courts of the U.S. Those 2 principles, I conceive, cannot be surrendered without surrendering entirely the power to adpiinister the Government and to execute the ewe. I now move to recommit this bill. Mr.HARDING, of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I could give my hearty support and aproval to a bill which was frame to secure to all parties fulljnstice, without any 5 ecial regard to either the defendant or the plaintiff. In regard to the bill now under consideration, it is possible that some member of the ComJudiciary may be able to remove the objections which it seems to me pertain to the provisions of this bill. I think it. needs much more explanation than it has yet received. This bill is professedly for the purpose of amending the act of the 3d of March, 1863. But it goes far beyond the provisions of that act. At the time that act was passed, some very good lawyers thought there was no constitutional power in Congress to pass it; others gave a very reluctant assent to the provisions of that act. But it will be found, upon examination, that the act of 1863 is guarded in some respects; it does not wholly ignore the rights of the defendant. The main provision of that act makes it a substantial defense. in all cases where a party is sued for trespass in causing the arrest, seizure, or imprisonment of another, to show that that arrest or impris onment was made under the order or authority of the POTUS Now, sir, there was lausiblo ground to be taken in an port of such a measure as that in times of reliellion. it was not supposed that the POTUS would act indiscreetly or rashl; it was not supposed that the President would order the arrest and imprisonment of a citizen without mrleast some probable ground or cause for suspicion and ence that extraordinary power was conferred upon the President; and it was made an absolute defense in all cases where the party de fending could show that the act comp ained of was done under the authority or order of the POTUS If that act is carefull examined, it will be found that there is no efense in favor of any party sued, unless he can justify the act by showin that the act. complained of was done under teorder or authority of the POTUS It is mainly the 4th section of the act of 1863 which this bill seeks to enlarge. That section provides "That an oiider of the President, or under his authority, e at any time duriup the existenceof the present rebellion, shall be a “e ensein all courts to any action or prosecution, civil or criminal. pending, or to be commenced, for any search, sciiurc, arrest, or imprisonment. made, done, or committed, or acts omitted to be done under and by virtue of suchorder." The defense must necessarily show that the act was done under the order, the authority of the POTUS It will be found moreover that that act is guarded in other respects. The interest of the plaintiff was thought of as well as the interest of the de fendant. It provides that the party availing himself of that defense mustfile his tition for the removal of the cause at the time e entered his appearance in the State court; he must give buid and good security that be will enter histhan committing the original outrage. opponmiceatthe 1sttarm of the circuit court; and that be will himself procure and file a copy of the record, and give bail if bail was origi nally required in the State court. Nowl call the attention of this House to the 1st section of this bill, in order to show how recklessly the provisions of the act of 1863 are extended. That not can be construed in no other way than that it requires the special or der of the POTUS to justify a seizure, arrest, or imprisonment. But the bill under consideration goes far beyond that, and gives the party proceeded against a much more extended defense; it enables him to plead in justification the order of a corporal, or sergeant, or lieutenant. Ay. it goes even further than that. What is the 1st section of this bill? I will read it: That any search.seizure, arrest or imprisonment made, done, or committed or any actsomitted to be doneduring the said rebellion, by any ofllcer orperson under and by virtue of any order, written or verbal. general or special, issuedby any military 0& cciof the U.S., holding the commandof the Dept, district, or placewithin which such seis urc, scarch. arrest or imprisonmentwasmade, done, or committed, or any actswere so omittedto bedone, either by the person or omcer to whom the order is addressed, or y any other person siding or assisting him therein shall be held, and no herebydecla, to comewit in the purview of the act to which this is amendatory, and within the urview of the 4th, 5th, and 6th sectionsof and act, for all the purposesofdefense, transfer, appeal, error, or limitation provided therein. Under the oriual act, to make a valid defense required esecial order or authority of the POTUS. But by this bill any order, verbal or written, Generalor special, by any officer in comman of any district, Dept, or place, any kind of order is made to justify the act complained of: Now, I beg that this feature of the bill will be noticed, and it will be seen that it is framed wholly in the interests of one of the parties litigant. Congressisaskedtoiiitervenehciween parties litigant after the suit has been commenced, and to act exclusive! in favor of one of the parties, and ignore the rights of the other party altogether.I learn new for the 1st time, by the ntle mans remark, that there was evidence cfore the committee. But what sort of evidence was it? Strictly and rigidly exparte evidenceevidence in favor of the defendants in all cases, but not a word in favor of the plaintiff. The result is what might have been expected. The bill before us is strictly framed in the interest of the defendant, utterly ignoring the rights of the laintiff. ow, sir, is it not worth while to consider the fact that there may be cases in which the plaintiff is not exactly a criminal because he rings a suit. but may have a just cause of action? This bill seems to treat the act of coin in the State courts as but little less crimina Every provision in this bill, from 1st to last, is man ifestly framed in the interest of the defendant, to the utter exclusion of the rights of the plaintiff. Sir, I would be willing to give my support to a bill which should fairly attempt to promote the ends of justice, without regard to the parties litigant. But look at this bill; compare it with the original act. That act requires a special order of the President. It is to be presumed that the President would not act rashly would not order the arrest of a person without some evidence, or at least some reasonable ground of suspicion. But under the provisions of this bill, it it be passed, any more law student can, I affirm, frame a defense and exonerate any defendant. though he may have committed rob bery, murder, or other high crime; because the defendant is not required to state or to prove that there was any ground of suspicion, or any probable cause whatever for the seizure, arrest, or imprisonment complained of; the order of any Officer in command at any place, either general or Special, verbal or written, is made a full defense. But the Gentfrom Illinois FMr. Coos] says that there was evidence he ore the committee of the necessity of the bill.