Mr. HALE. I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to put myself in the position of the immortal gentleman to whom Goldsmith alluded in his retaliation, ” who only thought of cOnviucing while others thong it of dining, but I do beg the privilege of calling the attention of the gentleman who has just taken his seat, and who has made an argument which for elaborateness, learning, and fairness I have seldom heard equaled in this House, and in which I have been greatly interested, to one or 2 points. In regard to the proposition I made that the legislation which he proposes partakes of the nature of an expostfacto law, I submit it is not an answer to say simply, that section has nothing to do with the case. It is proposed by him, as a penalty of treason and recllion, that these men shall, by legislation of Congress at this day, be de rived of certain rights. I say that by all lega definition it is an expostfacto law and nothing else. Another point; in regard to the statutes passed by Congress since the rebellion, the act oflSG t, and others to which he has alluded, I submit to the gentleman, and I know his own fairness will lead him to the same conclusion, that every one of those laws was prospective in its Operation and not retrospective or retroactive. The law of 1864, which the gentleman read, about deserters, in which be emphasized the word “haic" “those who hav eI deserted or may desert "hus that word inserted in it for the express purpose of protectin it from the character of a retroactive law. It speaks of those who shall not return to their allegiance by a day fixed, making the prospective commission of the crime of desertion as the thing to be punished, and not the past offense. A single word more and I have done. I believe hold the crimes of rebellion and treason in as great detestation and horror as it is possible for a man to do. But there is one thing that I dread in this country more than armed rebellion, more than treason, and that is. to see true, honest, loyal, strong men of the nation, like the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SHELLABARGER] in their zeal to put their condemnation upon the crime of treason, override, or seek to override, the plain and palpable provisions of the Constitution. I regret that Iam notprepared to go through with the gentlemans arment and gpoint out where it seems to niche as departed from the true constitutional ground. I hope to be able to make that effort at some early day.