Mr. TRUMBULL. Well, Mr. President, the opinion of Judge Curtis, from which the senator read, was the opinion of. a dissenting judge, entitled to very great credit on account of the learning and abilit of that judge, but it was not the opinion of the court, and an examination of the entire Opinion. which is very lengthy, would perhaps not sustain the precise principles the Senfrom Maryland aid down. But, sir, I have another authority which I think of equal weight with that of Judge Curtis not pronounced in a judicial tribunal it is true, but by one of the most cm ineut members of the bar in this nation; I may so by a gentleman who stands at the head of the bar in America at this time, an prinion pronounced, too, in the exercise of officeial duties; and I propose to read a few sentences from that opinion, for it is to be found reported in the Globe containing the proceedings of this body, less than 90 days ago. This is the language: "While the negroes were slaves it was 9 very different question: but now, when slavery ister minated and byterminating it you havegotrid of the only obstaclein the wayof citizenship. 2 questions arise: 1st. whether that fact itself does not make them citizens? Before they were not citizens. because of slavery and on] because of slavery. Slavery abolished.why are t oy not Just as much citizens as they would have been had slavery never existed? My opinion is that they become citizens and l hold that opinion so strongly that I should consider it unnecessaryto legislate on the subicct at iill, asfar as that class is concerned.but for the ruling of the Supreme Court. to which I have advertod." Sir, that opinion was held by the honorable Senfrom Maryland who made this speech today. He holds the oginion so strongly now that slavery is abolishe, which was the only obstacle in the way of their being citizens. that he would want no legislation on the subject but for the Dred Scott decision! What further did the Senfrom Maryland any less 90 days ago? It ispossible doubtless, it is not only possible but it is certainly true, that the Senfrom Maryland by reading the conclusive arguments of the veto message in regard to Chinese and Gypsies has discovered that he was in error 90 days ago. I by no means mean to impute any wrong motive to the Senfrom Maryland, but simply to ask that he will pardon me if I have not been able to see the conclusive reasoning of the veto message. I will read a little further from this opinion. In alluding to the view of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, the Senator said: “They held that the Constitution of the U.S. in no part of it in which the word citizen was used was intended to embrace the African: or to state it still more strongly. but not more strongly than the court statedit. they hold that lookiniztothe contemporaneous history and to the contemporane ous legislation of the several Statesat the time the Constitution was adopted.the useof the word citizen as employed in that Constitution was to exclude the African. “