ed, and that is made an objection to this bill. I admit
that a ministerial officer or a judge, if he acts corruptly or
viciously in the execution or under color of an illegal act, may be
and ought to be punished; but if he acted innocently, the judge would
not be punished. Sir, what is a crime? It is a violation of some
public law, to constitute which there must be an act, and a vicious
will in doing the act; or, according to the definition in some of the
law-books, to constitute a crime there must be a violation of a public
law, in the commission of which there must be a union or joint
operation of act and intent, or criminal negligence; and a judge who
acted innocently, and not viciously or oppressively, would never be
convicted under this act. But, sir, if he acted knowingly, viciously,
or oppressively, in disregard of a law of the United States, I repeat,
he ought to be punished, and it is no anomaly to prescribe a
punishment in such a case. Very soon after the organization of this
Government, in the first years of its existence, the Congress of the
United States provided for punishing officers who, under color of
State law, violated the laws of the United States."

Mr. Trumbull then read from an act of Congress passed in 1790,
providing for the punishment of certain offenses against foreign
ministers, and said: "By this provision all officers executing any
process in violation of the laws of the United States are to be
subject to a much longer imprisonment than is provided by this bill.

"But, sir, there is another answer, in my judgment, more conclusive,
to all these objections to this second section, which is the vital
part of the bill. Without it, it would scarcely be worth the paper on
which the bill is written. A law without a penalty, without a
sanction, is of little value to any body. What good does it do for the
Legislature to say, 'Do this, and forbear to do that,' if no
consequence is to follow the act of disobedience? This is the vitality
of the bill. What is the objection that is made to it, and which seems
even to have staggered some friends of the measure? It is because it
reads in the first section that any person who, 'under color of law,'
shall commit these offenses, shall be subject to the penalties of the
law. Suppose those words had been left out, and the bill read, 'any
person who shall subject any inhabitant of a State to different
punishment by reason of his color shall be punished,' would t