Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1866-04-27

| He was opposed TO throwing the shield of an
erpOst facto law over officers who had transcend
ell their power in regions where there was no
occasion for it. He was not in favor Of shield
ing the man, while recruiting company in the
/ North, had stolen horse or committed some
other breach Of law. He saw no necessity for
it. He thought bill Of indemnity rather than
an edict Of defence would best accomplish the
purpose.
Mr.. Cowan Of Pa, endorsed the amendment
Of Mr.. Edmunds and the views expressed by
him. He was very well aware of the difficulty
Of protecting officers in the conscientious dis
charge Of their duty, and at the same time Of
protecting citiEons from the tyranny and oppres-
sion Of malicious officers The difficulty was
! how to draw the bill and accomplish both pur-
poses, protecting the officers and doing justice to
the citizen. He believed those most entitled to
the protection OF the government were the loyal
people Of the rebel States
Mr.. Clark hoped the amendment Of Mr.. Ed
munds would not be adopted. There were three
thousand suits pending in one State which hsd
never seeded against loyal men and Union
officers for acts done in putting down the re-
bellion. He was surprised that the amendment
should have come from Mr.. Edmubds. but he
was not surprised that it should be endorsed by
Mr.. Cowan.
Mr. Edmunds hoped Mr. Clark would not re-
lect the paper because Of the pOOrness CT the
endorsers
Mr.. Clark said that in one State a court had
ruled that an act done in aid Of the rebellion
was justifable; but an act done by Union off,
Ger was a crime.
Mr.. johnson Of Md, inquired what authority
there Was for that statement
Mr.. Clark said he had the authority Of a man
who was in the court when such a decision was
made
Mr. johnson said it must have been made by
some justice OF the peace.
Mr. Clark said it was not by al stice ofthe peace
lie continued his argument against the amend
ment OF Mr.. E1munds. Il was proposed only
10 protect men who had committed certain acts
10 obedience TO orders.
MIR. Conness, (rep) of California, said rebels
were being pardoned every day; amnesty was
being granted every day to rebels for the high
est Of crimes, and why not extend an smnesty
to men who had committed these ire,passcs in
the discharge Of loyal duties2
Mr. Elmunds resumed the floor in defence Of
his amendment
Mr.. Howard spoke against the amendment ss
calculated to do wrong to Union officers, by ex-
posing them to the political and personal preiu-
dic,> Of civil iuries.
The Boston Trarel.r's Washington cor
respondent says of Mr.. Edmunds' action in
the matter
The Democrats are elated by his conduct,
and the Baltimore Sun says, this A. NJ:
- The speech Of the new Senator from Yer
mont, Mr.. Eimunds, on the bill releasing mil
itaTy officers from al penalties for invasion Of
private rights, Was regarded very fsvoably by
the lovers Of the Constitution and the laws. Mr..
Edmunds advocated the passage Of his amend
ment excluding from the provisions Of the bill
acts committed in any Of the loyal States. His
reasoning was cogent and forcible. Although eI-
pressing his desire 10 extend all proper prOtec-
ton to these who had honestly done their duty,
he was opposed TO passing such sweeping law
as proposed by this bill. Mr. Eimunds' course
produced considerable surprise on the part Of
the radical majority in the Senate"
Mr.. Clark very deprecatirgly observed
hat such propositions as this had not here
toiOro come from Vermont.
rs general rule, we think the LEES COM
fort the democrats get out Of the action Of
our Vermont representatives, the better tor
the latter But those who suppose that Mr.
Edmund's course IN the matter indicates any
particular weakness Of the knees, OF inten
tion to eide with COwan, DOolittle, johnson
t Co., on the main question Of the session,
Will wc fancy. discover their mistake in time.