The Clerk read as follows: OTTAwa, December20, 1866. re8spleRctiInghathvee ajupspthereaatidonine fth Felopraidpaerfsoyrotuhrerreemstaorrkastion of Grenfel from the Dry Tortugas. infamaodusthreebmeilsafosratu$ne.to"f.allofinwtoarthwehehnanhdeswoafstthhise adjutant general of John Morgan’s brigands. e is in my opinion one of the very worst men that lives on the face of the earth, and was known as a robber and murderer and the most conspicuous uerilla in all the rebellion. He should have been ung, Never allow him to be released; keep him on 3 iT. ortugas until he rots, is my desire for thescounYours very truly, A. B. MOORE, Late Colonel 14th Illinois infantry. Hon. John WENTwo RTH, Member of Congress. That, sir, is the way the mass of our soldfiersofeel respecting these men, and soldiers talk as they feel. Whether this man has been pardoned I cannot say, but this we do know: that men as bad as he is (and there can be none worse) have been pardoned. Under the late decision of the Supreme Court I understand that all such criminals are to be liberated by writ of habeascorpus. I have read both the majority and minority opinions of the court, and I find that for the most part they are both based upon the law of 1863. I have been looking over the law more particularly this morning and I cannot well see how respectable lawyers can attack that decision of the Supreme Court after having read this law. I refer to the points where both the majority and minority agree. I do not see how they could have done an; less than give that decision under that law. In view of that fact, I introduced a resolution yesterday calling upon the ComJudiciary of this House to report whether any measure was necessary to retain the assassins of President Lincoln and the conspirators who attempted to burn the city of Chicago where they are and where they belong. Now, let me state the facts in the Chicago case. This man Grenfel was an Englishman. Fighting and robbing seemed to be his profession. He was sent out by the JeffersonDavis f.to liberate the prisoners at Camp ouglas and afterward to burn the city. Had he succeeded, there is every probability that the Davis government would have employed him as one of the assassins of Mr. Lincoln. Now, this conspiracy was not discovered until the night but one before the election. At that time, of course, the most of the male citizens were engaged in matters incident to the election. The intention was to commence their work on Monday night preceding the election. On Sunday night all these men were ar rested. What chance for civil tribunals then? Many of them were citizens of our own State. In regard to others who escaped before arrest we do not know what States they were citizens of. Now, under the decision of the supreme Court, based unanimously upon the law of 1863, all those who were citizens of a State where the processes of the courts were not interrupted were liable to be tried only by civil tribunals. In that view of the case it was only necessary to employ citizens of free States (and God knows we have in the loyal States as mean rebels as can be found in the southern States) to do their fiendish work, and the otribunals were estopped from trying them. In view of these facts, I shall on the earliest occasion introduce a bill and have it referred to the ComJudiciary to repeal the law of 1863; and I hope when it shall be so referred that the able lawyers on that committee will sift the good (if there is any) from the bad in that law, and report back something to this House that will keep the assassins of the President, Chicago conspirators, and all others equally base where they belong. I know nothing about the passage of this law (as I was not then in Congress) and especially do I know nothing of the causes that led to the limitations that are placed in it making one provision for traitors, conspirators, and assas soitnhserins; some States, and another for those in and I make these remarks on this occasion expressly to call the attention of the many soldiers and able lawyers of this House to it, and also that the public may place the respon sibility of the origin of this law, upon the effect of which the opinion of the court is unanimous, where it properly belongs.