The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1866-04-21
CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS,
xxxIxTn ooNGREss-FIRsT SESSION
FRIDAr, ArnIL 20, 1866.

hFHlb 1000.
SENATE.
A number Of petitions were presented and ap,
propriatey referred.
THE PAbtFIc RAILROAD.
Mr. Howard asked that tho COMMITTEES on ths
Pacific Railroad be discharged from the further
consideration Of a bill to aid in the construction oil
the Southern branch Of tho Pacific railroad, upon
the ground that the committee are Of opinion that
no further pecuniary obligations ought to DO as.
sumed by the Government to aid in the construc.
ton Of the branches Of the Union Pacific railroad
The COMMITTEES was discharged as requested.
Mr. Howard, from the Committee on the Pacific
Railroad reported the joint resolution extending
the time for the construction Of the FIRST section
the Western Pacific railroad, with amendment;
which was agreed to. and the resolution was then
passed.
REWARDS or MERIT
On motion Of Mr.. Wilson, the joint resolution
manifesting the Of Congress towards the off.
GERS and seamen Of the vessels and Others engaged
In tho rescue OF the officers and soldiers Of the
army, the passengers, and the officers and crew Of
the steamship San Francisco from perishing with
that vessel, was taken up. III provides that the
President shall procure three valuable gold medals
with suitable devices, to DO presented to Captain
Creighton, Of the ship Three Bells, Of Glasgow;
Captain Low, Of the bark Rilby, Of Boston, and
Captain Stoufer, of the ship Antarctic as testmo-
mails Of national gratitude for their gallant con-
duct In rescuing 500 Americans from the wreck Of
the steamship San Francisco.l
Mr. johnson offered an amendment to pay
$50, 900 to the officers and Of the three yes.
sells for the part taken by them 10 the rescue the
same to be distributed by the President, tho re-
ward to be proportional according to the effort
made.
Mr.. johnson gave au account Of tho heroism and
gallantry Of the rescusrs, and the losses sustained
by them
The amendment was agreed to, and the joint
resolution was then passed.
| HABEAs CORPUS.
The unfinished business Of yesterday being the
bill to amend the act relating to the kabsas corpus
was taken up, the pending question being on the
amendment Of Mr.. Edmunds, excepting States
whore martial law did not prevail from the provis.
ions Of the bill.
The yeas and nays having been ordered on this
amendment II was disagreed to by tho following
vote:
YOas-Mossrs. Buckalew, Cowau, Doolittie, Ed.
munds, Guthrie Hendricks, johnson, McDougal
Nesmith, and Saulsbury-l0.
Nays-Messrs. Anthony Chandler, Clark, Con.
ness, Cragin Creswell, Foster, Grimes Henderson
Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane Of Indiana, Lane
of Kansas, Morgan, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sher.
man, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbul Van
Wrinkle, Wade, Wiley, Williams, Wilson. and
| YRteS-29
Mr.. Saulsbury moved to amend by striking out
the seventh section, which Is as follows:
| AHd Be further enacted, That IL the State court
shall, notwithstanding the performance OF all things
required for the removal OF the case to the circuit
court aforesaid, proceed further in said cause or
prosecution before said certificate Is produced then
In that case all such further proceedings shall be
void and Of none effect and all parties, judges,
officers, and other persons thenceforth proceeding
hereunder or by color thereof shall be liable In
damages therefor to the party aggrieved to be re.
covered by action in 4 court of the State having
| proper jurisdiction, or in a circuit court Of the
United States for the district in which such further
proceedings may have been had, or where the party
officer or other person so offending shall be found
and upon recovery of damages In either court the
parties plaintiff shall be entitled to double costs
Mr.. Salisbury sud this section was plainly un-
constitutional, and If he was Judge of a court in
his State he should not obey II.
| Mr. Clark said he should not have made any fur.
Their remarks upon this bill but for the character of
the utterances of the Senator from Delaware, fMr
salisbury They had had enough of this kind of
when the Civil Rights bill was passed, and Il was
time that rebellion, which had been crushed out.
side should cease its voice In this Chamber. The
enRtor has seen proper to rise here and repeat
again and again that he will oppose the authority
Of the Government
Mr.. Salisbury said he had merely given his opin.
ion that this section was unconstitutional he had
expressed no sentiments Of rebellion no intention
of resisting the authority OF the Government, and
he asked by what right the Senator from New
| Hampshire Mr.. Clark took upon himself to lecture
| Senators on this floor for their opinions There
was nothing in that Senator morally
or physically that gave him right to talk in such
| n manner.
Mr.. Clark said he had no wish to lecture tho
Senator, and did not claim any superiority, NOR.
ally, intellectually, or physically over any one
| but he loved his country, and would stand by il
against all assailants. Ho thought 1t was time
that all should know that the power of the Federal
| Government was supreme, and must be obeyed.
Mr. salisbury said he had not supposed that
any mind here was obtuse as to charge man
with being rebellious because he stated his opinion
that a law was in violation Of the Constitution.
The time had gone by when men were to BIO
charged with disloyalty merely because he hap.
penei to disagree with party opinions. lie did not
intend to submit to any such nspersions upon his
motives, and he desired the Senator from New
Hampshire to be more careful In the future.
| Mr. Clark said he meant nothing disrespectful tn
the Senator from Delaware, but no certainly had
nothing to take back. He should characterize
things Just as they occurred to him.
MIR. Hendricks was unable to see any thing In
the remarks Of the Senator from Delaware to call
forth such response from the Senator from New
Hampshire. The Senator from Delaware was of
the opinion that the section was unconstitutional
and he (Mr. entertained the same opinion. He
did not think that judge should be subject to
punishment because he acted according to oonsoi-
entlous convictions Of his duty. He desired to
know Of the Senator from New Hampshire what
necessity there was for this provision.
MIR. Wilson said there three thousand cases
pending against officers Of the Government for acts
done in the discharge Of their duty in the State
]
Mr.. Clark said that one Of these alto courts had
refused to admit in justification orders from supe.
rior officers Of the Union army, but accepted them
when from the rebel army. The legislature of Ken.
lucky had passed law protecting rebel officers
from the consequences of acts done by them during
the war, and when resolution was introduced to
extend tho same protection to Union officers it was
voted down.
MI Doolitte would suggest a substitute to the
Senator from Delaware, which he thought would
meet his views. He would move to strike out the
word Judges" in the 4th section. It certainly Is
novel case to punish judge for refusing to issue
awrit or decide upon question actually before
him.
Mr.. Trumbull said 1t was not novel thing to
punish judge in such There were both State
and federal laws providing for It, Mr.. Trumbull
read from Chancellor Kent and other authorities
to support his position.
Mr.. DoOlitte said the Senator from Illinois (Mr.
Trumbull,) had set down with an idea that his ar.
gument was conclusive but he had not really touched
upon tho point advanced by him (Mr. D. lie (Mr.
D. did insist that 1t was novel proceeding to hold
judge responsible for judicial act.
Mr.. Trumbull said the Senator from Wisconsin
had once told story of justice Of the peace to
whom, after rendering decision, an attorney had
read from Blaokstone's Commentary a different
ruling n similar Tho iuslica yyishad IN