Mr. ROGERS. No, sir; nor do I sustain him, or anybody else, in committing malicious arrests. 1 will come to that directly, when I come to discuss the merits of this bill. I am here to perform a duty which I believe I owe to the great masses of the Democratic The time has gone by when party strifparty. e and passion should rule the hour; that we should revert to higher principles and motives, to nobler and more lofty ambitions than to charge upon men who happen to disagree with us with intending to destroy their country. Now. sir, I think the truth of history demon strates that when the party which I happen to represent was in power, public liberty was secure, and no legistion like that contemplated by this bill would have been toicrated or even seriously entertained. During that period every mans house was his castle; the courts were open to all; every citizen was secure under the protection of the law. When that party was in power no passport was necessary to enable a man to travel unmolcsted; no secret police was organized; no system of spies and informers was instituted; no bastilcs were maintained for the incarceration ofcitizens, untried and unaccused. When that party was in power, the fight 0! Pe tition, the iberty of conse ience, the freedom of the ballet and of the pres! were 20, meled. It was only during the last 5 years that the American people have been called upon to tolerate and approve the most diabolical out rages upon the rights and liberties of the people, offenses outrivaling in enormity the dark est deeds of ancient barbarism. Sir, I affirm and I feel that I can do so without fear of successful contradiction that the provisions of this bill are contrary to the fundamental principles of our Government; and without regard to any express prohibitions of the Constitution, they are vio ative of those great rights of property, libErty, and life which the Governmentwas founded to secure. When this Congress undertakes to trample upon and override the elementary principles of society, it saps the foundation principles of our government; and it. requires no express restraining clause of the Constitution to forbid such an outrage. The provisions of this bill are inimical to those great doctrines of republican liberty which vevitality to the Constitution of the U.S.ignites, and which our revolutionary fathers intended to hand down unimpaired as a priceless jewel to their posterity. Sir, the act of March 3, 18138, to which this purports to be a supplement, made “any order issued by the President or under his authority a complete defense for any search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment made, done, or committed, or act omitted to be done.” This bill oes much further than that act. It not only dispenses with the kindof proof which was required by that act, but it substitutes a new species of proof. It authorizes the commission of trespasses that were not authorized by the act of March 3, 1868. This bill proposes to legalize “ any search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment made, done, or committed, or an acts omitted to be done during the said rebellion, by any Officer or person under and by virtue of any order, written or verbal, general or special, issued 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, or any acts were so omitted to be done, either by the person or officer to whom the order is addressed, or by pnyother person aiding or assisting him there in. The act of March 8, 1863, was confined to searches, seizures, arrests, and imprisonmcuts made by men claiming to have military authorit and by virtue of the order of the President. This bill goes further, and protects from punishment any act done under “ any order writ ten or verbal, general or special, issued by any military officer of the U.S. hofdin command of the Dept, district, or place. Under this bill the military officer command in any town, though he be only a corporal, Wi 1 be protected from punishmeut, though he may without authority iave torn the wife from her husband and plunged to her heart the dead] knife of the assassin. If a man can show an or or from any military authority, that order exempts him from all responsibility for any outrage, however heine us. which he may have committed. A private soldier can justityhiin self for rape, arson, murder, or any other out raflge if he can produce the order of his superior o cer. In addition to that, sir, this bill proposes to legalize as proof that which is unknown to the laws of evidence sanctioned by the common law. A simple telegraphic dispatch, without any proof of its authenticity, is to be received as a defense against any charge. Is that the way in which the liberties of the citizen were intended to be aced by the Constitution? Was it ever CONGRESS( by the framers of that instrument that such evidence should be accepted to screen and protect the midnight assasstn from punishment for the gravest crimes of which humanity can be guilty? Sir, the act of 1863 requires surcties in the State court for filing copies of the process and other proceedings against the defendant, and for his appearance and entering special bail in the cause, if special bail was originally required. This bill requires no surety in the State courts for filing copies of removal or entering special bail. The old act provides that the bail taken in the State court shall be discharged when the defendants appearance is pertected. Therefore you deprive a man not only of proper rem edy against those who underta e to inflict unlawful injury upon him, but you deprive him of that security which, under the law, has been handed down from the most ancient times. No special bail, nothing of the kind is required here, and the defendant gets clear of all bail. It does not require of him the bail that is required of all others in like cases. When a Judgment is obtained against him all he has to do is to leave the jurisdiction of the court and no process can touch him. Let me say, when the act of 1863was passed it created great eXcitement in the country. There were men on this side of the House then as now, who loved constitutional liberty, an who stood u and combatted the outrageous doctrine lai down in that act of Congress. But, sir, that act is tame in comparison to the bill which is now under consideration. If the fundamental principles of this Government will allow acts of this ind to be passed by congress; if Congress has the constitutional power to take away the rights from our citizens to life, liberty, and property, without due process of law, then I say liberty will have flown from the lumine us sphere of American freedom, never more to see its light again in this country; then the people will have closed their eyes to the teacings of ages, and only wait for shackles and chains to let them know that their slavery has begun. I, for one, am not willing to allow the vultures of despotism to crucify liberty afresh, and prey upon the bleeding vitals of u once free people, without protesting against it. I lay down this broad proposition, and to that proposition I don there can be any successful o jection, that eLegislature of a State or of the U.S. is not omnipotent. absolute, and without control although its authority should not be restrained by the Constitution or fundamental law. The people, accordin to the preamble of the Constitution, ordainedt at instrument to establish justice, insure domes tic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, romote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of 1i erty to them and their posterity forever. Now, the purposes for which the people enter into society determine the nature and terms of the social compact. This fundamental principle fiows from the very nature of our free republican Government. An act of Congress contraryto the 1st great principles of the social compact cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative power. The obligation of a law in Geiernuients established on express compact and on republican principles must be determined by the nature of the power on which it is fouude. It is against all reason and justice for a people to intrust a Legislature with such powers as contained in this bill, and therefore it cannot be presumed that. they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit of our Government amount to a prohibition of such an act of legislation as this, and the general principles of law and reason forbid it. A law that punishes a citizen for an innocent action, or for an act which when done was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys or impairs the private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a, man a judge in his own case; a law that takes property from A and gives it to B; a law that authorizes the murder of inno cent women, men, or children, the committing of rape, arson, robbery, or theft, or one that attempts to legalize such acts when done, is in violation of the social coinpact and the republican principles upon which the Government is founded, and is void, without any restraint in the organic law. expostfacto law literally is a law passed concerning and after the fact or thing done or action committed. The prohibition in tholetter is not to pass any law concerning and after the fact; but the meaning and intention, as construed by the courts, are that no law shall be passed after a fact done by a subject or citizen which shall have relation to such fact, and shall punish him for having done it. The following are expostfacto laws: 1. An act which was innocent when committed, and afterward made criminal. 2. One that aggravates the crime. 3. One that changes the punishment. 4. One that alters the rules of evidence. I do not 51 that this is technically nu expostfacto law undier the constructions given to those words by the courts. Yet to declare that an act which was murder when committed was no offense at all, would appear to be expostfacto within the intent of those words. The power to pass such laws under the de nomination of bills of attainder and bills of sins and penalties was exercised and carried into effect by the British Parliament. They were legislative judgments and an exercise of judicial power. The advocates of such laws were stimulated by ambition, personal resentment, and vindictive malice. To prevent such and similar acts, bills of attainder and expostfacto laws were forbidden in our Constitution because the Parliament undertook to violate the fundamental principles of liberty. Although there was no written constitution to prohibit it the people of England saw that it was contrary to t c fundamental priuciples of their unwritten constitution, and hence arose the rebellion of 1688 and the era of English liberty. Since the memorable rebellion in 1069against William the Conqueror, England has had 40 one rebellions, all grcwin out of the idea. that the Parliament of lauglau could exercise powers despotic, omnipotent, unlimited, and uncontrolled, merel because there was no written constitution which prevented it from carrying into effect the most despotic and outrageous acts of which it was susceptible; and any man who knows the history of England will hear me witness that because King John refused the great principles of the Magna Charts which guarantied to every man the right to life, liberty, and procrty, the British people assembled on the p ains of Runnymede more than 600 years ago and wrested from him the Great Charter from which our bill of rights is taken. It is not necessary for me now to argue whether this is technically an expost facio law, because there are certain fundamental principles laid down in the Constitution, one of which is that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, which forbid the passage of this bill. Due process of law means judicial process; that there shall be anaflidavitiiled against the defendant; awanant issued setting up the cause and accusation, and an indictment by the rand jury; a trial by a petit jury of his own district or neighborhood; the privilege of calling witnesses and cross examining those that are brought against him; and the privilege of counsel for his defense. These are the great principles which constitute due process of law, as laid dewn in the Constitution of the U.S. Not one of these principles is guarantied or authorized to be exercised by any of the people on whom injury has been indicted by the military authorities who have ridden over the people for the last 4 and a half years. I will now refer to the case of Calder and wife vs. Bull and wife, 3 Dallm, U.S. Supreme Court Report, ages 388 and 397. In this case there is no issenting voice. The opinion was given as early as 1798, only a very short time after the formation of the fundamental law: “There are actswhich the Federal or State Legislature cannot do Without exceeding their nuthonty. There are certain vital principles in our free republican Governiiients which Will determine and over rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power, as to authorize manitest injustice by positive aw, orto take awaythat security for personal liberty or private property for the protection whereof Governmentwas the established." Sir, will any man upon the other side of the House dare say to me that this bill does not protect those who have taken away the personal liberty and private property of citizens of the U.S., which, according to the decision of the SCOTUS, in 1798.the Government was organized to protect? The court further say: “The Legislature may enjoin permit forbid punish they may declare newer imes; and estabalinsdh rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong: at they cannot change innocence into guilt or punish innocence as a crime or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal or State Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained, would, in my opinion be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican Governments.” The court say further: "There is neither policy nor safetyin such laws; and therefore I have always had a strong aversion ainst them. It may. in general. be truly observed 2? Retrospective laws of everydescription. that they neither accordwith sound legislation, nor the fundamental principles of the social compact.” It. cannot be denied that this law is retrospective and retroactive. I put this question to the other side of the House. Could congress, under the Constitution of the U.S. pass a law that would authorize any military officer to enter the domain of a State, where her courts were in full operation and where the laws were in full force, and there, by virtue of any orders to be issued by him, order any citizen of that State to enter the home, the fireside, the domicile of a quiet and peaceable citizen and take him away, if you please. in the dead hours of the night, without any process oflaw, carry him to some rison, dungeon, or cell, and there incarcerate him to such an extentas some satrap who held a governmental office might see fit? It could not be done for this reason, that the Constitution says that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without “ due process of law.” Due process of law, as I before said, means judicial process and when by congressional action we authorize military men to enter the domain of a State and the domicile of a citizen and drag him from his wife and family undera mere military order, it is not ajudicial recess; it is depriving him of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. I appeal to lawyers upon the other side of the House, men whom I know to be men of sense, of integrity and of judgment, honor able men, men for whom I have as high a respect as for any men upon this side of the House, would it be judicial process to deprive a man of the safeguards of life, liberty, and property, as laid down by our fathers, without the privileges of a hearing and trial according to law? Those safeguards of civil liberty are the heritages dese ending from the blood and valor of the fathers of the Revolution. They handed down to us the briht heritage of human liberty which I, in the ear of God, will stand here and sustaiu as long as the power of my voice will allow. Governmentwas established for the protection of society, and it is not the business of Government to fashion and form society. When the Legislature of a State or of the U.S. undertakes to interfere with the elementary foundations of society, it is despotism and tyr anny that on ht to be resisted by the people and by the states with all the constitutional means in their power. I cannot believe that there is any authority to pass such a bill as this. There is no power to authorize a man, merely because he wears shoulder straps, to enter the domicile of a man in NewJersey or in the city of NewYork or in Harrisburg and arrest him in violation of the great rights laid down in the Constitution of t ie U.S., and handed down to us by Magus Charta. Now, in regard to the constitutionality of this bill, it has been decided by the courts of the different States, as I have opinions here to show, and as was shown by that learned law yer, the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. BINGHAM] who had too much res set for the Constitution and law to vote for the civil rights bill, that the civil rightsmentioned in our bill of rights had no application to States, but only to the action of the Federal Government. his bill isbaeed upon the action of the Federal government in allowing officers who claim to be Federal officers to be protected by the production of the order under which they enter into a State and arrest such persons as in their judgment they may see fit. I am in favor of and will vote for a bill protecting officers in the authority which they may exercise under the Government of the U.S. so far as it comes within the letter and spirit of the organic law of the land. I will lend a.helping hand to the framing of any law by Congress, which is authorized by the constitution, which may be necessary to give full effect to their acts properly done under the Federal Government. at when you say that persons may be imprisoned without due process of law, and held without any indictment, process, or affidavit, in places where the courts are open and the laws unobstructed, and out side of the land and naval forces and without any right to be heard, even denying them that which 2000 years ago was the birthright of every Roman citizen, the right to know the nature of the offense with which he was charged, then, with all courtesy toward Gentlemen on the other side, I must refuse to give my acquiescence or consent. Let me present anothernrgument to lawyers upon the other side of the House. The 1st amendment to the Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Now, can Congress make a law respecting the establishment of religion? If not, can it authorize any Federal officer, by virtue of any order of a military commander, verbal or written, to prescribe any person in any part of the dominions of this country for his religious creed? Can any officer be authorized to refuse to allow any man to exercise the right given him by his Creator to worship Almighty God accoring to the die States of his own conse ience? That could not be done, because the Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Constitution also says that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shallissue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or aflirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” and in another place it says, “Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life orlimb; nor shall he be compelle in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Under this bill it is proposed to give indem nity to officers in Kentucky and in NewJersey and in other States, where the courts were open, and where all the avenues of litigation were free to every citizen, in their violation of every one of the principles which I have referred to as being embraced in the guarantees of the organic law, and which have existed in England more than 600 years. This bill goes so far as to allow murder, rape, arson, and all the abominable crimes in the long cate gory of crimes ofancient times. Sir, pass such a bill as this, and the enemies of freedom can exult over the downfall of those principles of liberty which our fathers have ren cred venerableand valuable. Pass this bill, and we shall depart from all the principles of jurisprudence as initiated in this country more than 80 years ago; we shall overthrew the bulwarks of truth and justice, and, invite the barbarism of former days to thunder at the gates of American liberty. Sir, I am willing to protect men in all their lawful acts. But when you come to inflicting punishment upon private individuals; men who are done no wrong; menwho happened simply to disagree with you upon the great questions which have agitated the country for 4 and a half years, I cannot give my sanction to it. If you will bring these individuals before courts, indict them, and convict them according to law, I will stand by the law. But I am opposed to the exercise of such arbitrary, unlimited, despotic, supreme, and omnipotent power as is given by this bill. Why, sir, my own little State of NewJer sey a State that freely furnishedher sons for the defense of the Union, and whose citizens have been foremost in the ranks a State whose soldiers saved the capital of the neighboriu State of Pennsylvania from capture by the robe forces; a State whose citizens have always ral lied for the defense of the Constitution; aState who sent her soldiers to lay down their lives on the Elaine of Virginia in order to protect the the constitution and the Government has had her borders entered by military men under the mere tap of a bell controlled by an official exercising here at Washington the power of a tyrant and a despot, who, exulting in lawless power, asked the British minister whether the Queen of England could wield such tyrannical sway over the liberties of her subjects. No, sir, the Queen of England could not exercise such power as this bill proposes to legalize. The common law ofEngland protects the Brit. isli subject against any such arbitrary power. In view of the liberty defending principles of the British unwritten constitution, the cottage of the poor peasant is his castle. It may be mean and humble, and insufficientfor his shelter against the storms; the wind and the rain may enter there; but the King of England dare not enter, because that obse ure subject is under the protection of the law. If the tenement of the poorest man in England should be entered by the King himself without due process of law, the Parliament of that kingdom would rise in indignation, and the offender would meet a fate similar to that of Charles I, whose head was brought to the block. Sir, peace has come; the war has ended, and I want tranquillity and hop iness to pervade this whole land. “ Let the dead past bury its dead.” Let the transactions of the last 5 years be buried in oblivion. Let us begin an era of m. nunimity and brotherly feeling; and let us all do what we can for the protection of the glorious flag of the Republic.“ Why should we seek to deny to men who have been incar cerated without authority of law that redress which any man subjected to such treatment would desire to have? Sir, an American citizen values nothing so much as his liberty; he feels that this is too sacred to be infringed without due recess of law. The people of Kentucky another States, where a system of cruel and wicked despotism has prevailed, desire that they shall have the right to obtain redress for their wrongs in a courtoflaw, with an important judge and jury. Or, ifyou please, authorize the case to be carried, as this bill does, to the circuit or the district court of the U.S., where there can be no prejudice or local feeling against the defendant. But, in the name of the Constitution, in the name of liberty. in the name of humanity, I ask you to allow to the man who feels himself aggrieved the right to have a suitable tribunal decide in a legal way whether his rights have been in vaded. Sir, shall men whose outrageous crimes are such that the enormities of bfero and Caligula become mild in comparison; men who have violated the dearest right of life, liberty, and property without even the sanction of a court martiol, be permitted to setatdefiauce the retrib utive justice of the law? Why, sir, the laws of nature, irrespective of any human enactment, give a man the right to protect himself fiom the invasion of hispersonal liberty. By a law of nature handed down to us by the Ruler of the universe, if one man undertakes to violate the personal libertv of another that other has the right to defend himself. Sir, this bill proposes tolegalize and exempt from punishment acts which were comes at the time when they were committed, The "as of trespass and robbery and false Imprisonment which this bill proposes to legalize were at the time of their commission offenses against the law and the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. Coon.]