_, and regulating
judicial proceedings in certain cases." The President had ordered
for the public safety, and as an act necessary to the successful
prosecution of the war, the arrest and confinement of certain
persons charged with disloyal practices. No punishment was attempted
or designed except that of confinement in a military fortress of
the United States. It became a matter of argument not only in
Congress but throughout the country, whether the President was
authorized by the Constitution to suspend the writ of _habeas
corpus_. In order to set the question at rest it was now proposed
to pass an Act of indemnity for past acts to all officers engaged
in making arrests, and also to confirm to the President by law the
right which he had of his own power been exercising. The bill
declared that "during the present Rebellion the President of the
United States, whenever in his judgment the public safety may
require it, is authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of
_habeas corpus_ in any case throughout the United States or any
part thereof; and wherever the said writ shall be suspended no
military or other officer shall be compelled, in answer to any writ
of _habeas corpus_, to return the body of any person or persons
detained by him by authority of the President."

The bill was stubbornly resisted by the Democratic party, and after
its passage by the House thirty-six Democratic representatives
asked leave to enter upon the Journal a solemn protest against its
enactment. They recited at length their grounds of objection, the
principal of which was "the giving to the President the right to
suspend the writ of _habeas corpus_ throughout the limits of the
United States, whereas by the Constitution the power to suspend
the privilege of that writ is confided to the discretion of Congress
alone and is limited to the place threatened by the dangers of
invasion or insurrection," and also because "the bill purports to
confirm and make valid by act of Congress arrests and imprisonments
which were not only not warranted by the Constitution of the United
States but were in palpable violation of its express prohibitions."
Mr. Thaddeus Stevens peremptorily moved to lay the request on the
table, and on a call of the ayes and noes the motion prevailed by
a vote of 75 to 41. The division in the House by this time amounted
to a strict line, on one side of which was the war party and on
the other side the anti-war party.