Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to state to my friend that northern citizens are notexempt from outrages at the South even now. I had a most extraordinary case presented to me last evening by a citizen of my own State, a member of an. regiment, a man by the name of Morey, who was early in the Army, and, on account of his intelligence and capa city, was detailed as a detective. After the surrender of Wicksburg he was ordered by the provost marshal of that city to go through the city and hunt up captured or stolen property of the U.S. He found in the possession of a Jew 2 Government tents, which, under the orders of his superior officers, he took and turned over to the provost marshal. But when the civil authority, about which we hear so much, was established, and the military control was to some extent withdrawn, this soldier was indicted in the local court at Wicksbur for robbery, and held to bail in the sum. $3,000. 'jhe had character and means enough to give security; otherwise he would have been in the jail at that place today or in the penitentiary at Jackson. When his case came up (and I speak this from the record which he exhibited to me, certified by the clerk of the court) the plea was put in that the act was performed as a soldier acting, under orders of a superior officer, and that he was protected by the act of Congress; but the court overruled the plea and held him on the indictment. Then his lawyer put in an application under the law to remove the case to the district court of the U.S.; that also the court overruled. Either by accident or design this last plea does not appear in the record. I do not know what existing remedy there is in the present state of things, under the recent decision of the Supreme Court, for that man. He has to choose whether to go back to Mississiippi. where the door of the penitentiary is awning for him, or remain at the North, have is cognizance forfeited, and pay his $3,000. As to his release by a U.S. judge on a habeas co, there is great doubt about his getting the writ allowed, and many think the Supreme Court will hold an indemnity act unconstitutional. And, in addition to that, he told me of another case. The man to whom I have referred is a constituent of my distinished friend and colleague before me, [Mr. ARNsworth, ] a Union soldier, who has been lying for months and months in jail at Wicks burg, upon the absurd and false charge that he had set fire to some buildings at the time when Wicksburg was besieged; a thing which it was impossible for him to have done; and even if he had done it he would not have been amen able to any civil tribunal. He says further, that the condition of every Union man in that section of the country is absolutely horrible, and that every northern man and every Union man is leaving as fast as he can get away. Sir, the case I have oS I presume is but the type of a very large class, and, as the gentlemen has said, there is scarcely an officer or soldier who fought in the Union ranks who can travel in the States lately in rebellion without subjecting himself to indictment and punishment. I see no existing adequate remedy for it. The judges disregard the U.S. law and trample it under foot, and there is no power that I know of to enforce it; and I say that this Congress must take prompt and effective measures to vindicate the rights of these men. We must have courage and ability and genius enough to devise something by which the lives and liberties of these loyal men shall be protected, and if we have not that courage, if we have not that ability, if we have not that disposition, our constituents will require us to leave our places here that our places may be filled by men equal to the exigencies of the times in which we live.