Mr. ROSS. I think otherwise. I will not stop here to inquire as to the taste of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Set, FIELD] in his criticism of the action of the SecyState. I would have thought, taking every thing into consideration, he would have treated him a little more tenderly. He ought to have taken into consideration that Mr. Seward for 25 years furnished the brains for the gentleman's party. He denounced him as a trickster, as a man hostile to the Government; and he compared him to a dog. It created considerable amusement among the grave and distinguished gentlemen who sat near him when the leader of their party, who furnished it with brains for 25 years was compared in ridicule to a dog. I suppose it is all right. Congress can speak of the President as a usurper, compare the SecyState to a dog, and deride the authority and views of the Supreme Court, but when one member intimates another has not squared the mark on the subject of telling the truth, it is a grave question for the immediate action of this House. The 8th and last evidence I shall furnish to my Republican friends is the proclamation of emancipation. I do not profess to give it with accuracy, but it will be found in that proclamation issued by Abraham Lincoln, he gave notice that unless within a certain period the rebel States grounded arms, on the 1st of Jan uary, 1863, their slaves should be declared to be emancipated. He said he would regard it as an evidence of their return to the national authority that they should have rePresentatives here on the 1st of January, 1863. Was Abraham Lincoln opposed to their rePresentation in Congress? Did he believe the result of this war was to give us a dissevered Government? I do not think he did. I proceed now to show that if this were a new measure and were not a violation of the Constitution and of the principles of the republican party during the 4 years' progress of the war, it would still be unwise and inexpadient for us to adopt it. And in this connection I propose briefly to call the attention of the House to some of the provisions of this most extraordinary bill. The 5th section provides. That the word citizen, as used in this act, shall by construed to mean, all persons(except Indians hot taxed) born in the U.S or duly naturalized. The 7th section provides That no constitution shall be Presented to or acted on by Congress which denies to any citizen anyrights, privileges, or immunities which are granted to any other citizen in the State. All laws shall be impar tial, without regard to language, race, or former condition. If the provisions of this sectionshould ever be altercq, repealed, expunged, or in any way abro gated, this act shall becomevoid and said State lose its right to be rePresented in Congress. I understand from this section that the Gentfrom Pennsylvania o: STEVENs] means to incorporate a new doctrine, a doctrine that from his known gallantry it is to be Presumed he would favor, namely, female suffrage. It declares who shall be citizens, and that if any State shall deprive any of its citizens of the right of suffrage it shall lose its representation in Congress. I do not object to the bill on this score, only it is a little in advance of the party, I suppose, to confer suffrage on females now. But I call attention to the latter part of the 7th section: If the provisions of altered, repealed, expunthgiesd, section should ever be or in any way abro gated, this act shall becomevoid, and said State lose its right to be rePresented in Congress. What is that provision? Why, that if by any future amendment to their constitutions any of these States shall deprive any black man of the right of voting in those States, then they are to be deprived of rePresentation in Congress. Now, I submit to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania if he would apply a rule to those States which he is not willing to appl to his own State. Why, sir, the rule down in this bill for the government of these southern States would, if applied to Pennsylvania, deprive it of rePresentation in Congress. Is it possible that we will enforce upon the people of these States a doctrine so odious? I understand when States come into this Union they come in upon an equality, but here it is proposed to make an odious distinction between the States.. While the Gentfrom Pennsylvania will rePresent his district where the black man is still deprived of what the gentleman terms this invaluable right of casting his ballot for the choice of his own rulers and of those who make laws to govern him, when he comes to apply a rule to the ten States lately in rebellion. makes an entirely different one. desire now to call the attention of the House to some of the provisions of the 6th section. That section goes upon the hypoth esis that Congress possesses i. power to determine who shall be citizens of the U.S., or in other words to deprive individ uals who are citizens of the U.S. of their citizenship by a mere statute. I do not think we have any such right. I think it is only upon due trial and conviction that these rights can be taken from individuals. Now, suppose this doctrine is maintained, what will be the result during a high state of political excitement? The party coming into power will hold that all those who voted against them are not citizens of the U.S., but must remain for 5 years in tutelage before they shall be permitted to exercise the right of suffrage rights pertaining to citizenship. At the next election that takes !.the oppo site party gets into power, and those who voted against them will be declared to haye forfeited all their rights, as citizens. In this way the great mass of the people of this country might be cut off from the right of suffrage and representation. I object to the latter part of this section on the ground that it will encourage perjury by leading men to swear falsely in relation. matters. Now, for these reasons I judge that the calm and dispassionate consideration of this House will show in its action that they do not regard this bill as worthy of the American. Congress. Now, for what object was this war prose cuted? Was it prosecuted to overthrow or to save the nation? I understand that the vast sacrifice of men and money which we have made during the terrible struggle of 4 years was to save and not to destroy. That I understand to be the opinion of the officers and soldiers of our Army, of the men who went to the front. It was their intention to Preserve and perpetuate and hand down unimpaired this glorious legacy to those who come after us. But according to the theory of this bill the war destroyed this Union, at least to the extent that we should not, if the doctrine be true, continue upon the flag that waves over your desk, Mr. Speaker, the 6 and 30 stars which now adorn it. But I care not what may be the views of others upon the subject; I will never consent to blot out one star now upon our national banner. I believe this war was fought for the purpose of supporting and maintaining the national authority, for the purpose of Preserving and not of destroying shall we now by act of Congress strike down ten States of the Federal Union, 4 of the ten having been of the original States which formed the Constitution? I hope not. In this connection let me read a short extract from the opinions of GenlGrant upon this subject. e says: “My observationsleadme to the conclusionthat the Sitizensof the southern States are anxious to return to self governmentwithin the Union as soon as possible; that while reconstructing they want and require protection from the Government; that they are in earnest in wishing to do what they think is required by the Government nothumiliating to them as citizens; and that if such a they coursewaspointed out would pursue it in good faith. It is to be regretted that there cannot be a greater commingling at this time between the citizens of the 2 sections, and particularly of making power.’ those intrusted with the law Ah! GenlGrant; you think there should be a commingling between the people of the 2 sections, and especially between those intrusted with the lawmaking power. But Congress does not think so; Congress says that these people shall knock for 18 months and 2 years at our doors and still be refused admission. Congress not only puts itself in conflict with the principles enunciated in the ulessages and proclamations of o: Abraham opinions of the SCOTUS, but also the opinions held by GenlGrant, and also, too, by GenlSherman . I have not the letter of GenlSherman before me, but I recollect that he says that as a man and a soldier he would never strike a disarmed foe standing before him.. I think that is a good sentiment; I think this is the sentiment of a brave man. Where is the man who would desire to strike a fallen foe, lying prostrate and disarmed before him? " Perhaps there are some who may desire further strife and further conflict; if so, they are the men who were hunting for cotton and sil ver spoons; not those who went to the front to fight the battles of our country. I desire to call the House to another consideration in this connection. I hold that if the bill now under consideration should be adopted by the American Congress it will recognize a theory which will make this country responsible, at least to foreign nations, for the evidences of confederate debt held by their citizens. If these southern States are conquered provinces, then by the laws of nations we are responsible for all the debts and liabilities of the conquered country. I ask gentlemen to pause before we take so great a responsibility as this upon us. There are influences not made apparent in the House to keep these men out of Congress. I have noticed that the “high tariff” men are most anxious to exclude southern men from Congress. Why is this? They know that the great Northwest are “hewers of wood and drawers of water” to NewEngland. I do not wonder that they like to keep out these 50 members from the South. Their object is to perpetuate the power of the Northeast, and derive profit as long as they can from it. But the question is seriously mooted in this House that if we admit these 50 southern members it is going to endanger the perpetuity of our free institutions; that our Government is going to be overthrown. Now, can the Presence of 50 members here, added to the vote here already, either vote to indorse the confederate debt or to vote down the national debt. Our friends upon the other side tell us that by the abolition of slavery these rebellious States are entitled to 12 more members than they had before the war. Well, sir, we are not to have an apportionment of rePresentation before 1870, and before that time the black men of the South will abandon their Present position and flock like doves to the North east. They will then be counted as a basis of rePresentation, not in the southern States, but in the Northeast. In the apportionment of 1870 where will the black men b2e They will not be counted anywhere until 1870. But the distinguished Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SHELLABARGERJ amazed the House by a new constitutional amendment, which he got up, as applicable to the views of this side of the House, and he read it in the Presence of his friends who surrounded him. I would ask you if any member upon this side of the House has at any time at this or at the last session of Congress advocated the admission of disloyal men upon this floor. no such instance. I defy the gentleman to show any instance in which the question of the right of rePresentation upon this floor was not left free and untrammeled for the consideration of the House. After 1870 we shall have 5 members to their one. Hence I conclude there would be no danger by admitting loyal rePresentatives to their seats in Congress to deliberate upon these great questions which are claiming the attention of the country. But the SCOTUS does not escape the denunciation of the party in power; and an especial victim of this denunciation is the individual who delivered the opinion of that court in vindication of the great principle of constitutional law and individual right. Who is this man who is being denounced upon the other side of the floor as plotting to overthrow the Government? Why, sir, I have had the pleasure of knowing Judge Davis for a quarter of a century. He and I have always differed upon political questions; yet I have always recognized him as an honorable, high toned gentleman; and, sir, permit me to say that there was no man in all this country upon whom Abraham Lincoln more confidently leaned for counsel and advice than he did upon David Davis, of Illinois, the man who is now denounced by the other side of the House for making a decision which 999 out of every 1,000 lawyers in this country would have made before this rebel. lion took place. The war is also carried on against the President. He is a “white washer;” he is a “usurper;” a man who is plotting to overthrow the liberties of the country. Why, sir, what object has he in being untrue to his country? From the time when he attained man hood he has stood by the people. He has uniformly revered and venerated the Constitution of the country; and during the recentrebellion he manfully stood up and cast this Constitution in the teeth of southern rebels when they were attempting to overthrow our institutions. You may go on and pass your resolutions of censure, but I tell you, gentlemen, there is a day of reckoning coming. This is not the 1st time that a POTUS has been maligned by a Congress of the U.S. If memory serves me right about 1833 I say that you can find the Senate of the U.S. passed a resolution of censureupon Andrew Jackson. That resolution stood for some time; but, sir, the “sober 2nd thought” of the American people at length prevailed, and when it did prevail what was done? Why, sir, in 1837, through the exertions of Thomas H. Benton and other able statesmen of those days, that insult to the nation, that stigma upon the name of the great Jackson was wiped out. That resolution was expunged. The Journal upon which it was recorded was brought into the Senate Cham ber, and in the Presence of the Senate black lines were drawn around that resolution; as black as the iniquity of those who had concocted that slanderous resolution. I trust, sir, in God's name, that if liberty still lives in this country there will come a time perhaps when we shall, have passed away when the igno; miny and contempt sought in this hour of trial to be fastened upon the Chief Magistrate of the Government will be wiped out and atoned for. such is my faith, such my confidence in free Government, and the “sober 2nd thought” of the American people: The Senate of the U.S. Sies in these days is in the habit of rejecting the nominations of men whose opinions do not accord with theirs, and for no other reason. Why, sir, this experiment was tried once before by the Senate. When Mr. Van Buren was nom inated as minister to the Court of StJames the Senate of the U.S. rejected the nomination; and his unwarranted rejection by a partisan Senate caused Martin Van Buren, who otherwise would probably never have been thought of in connection with the Presidency, to be nominated and elected by the American people to the 1st office in their gift. Gentlemen are mistaken if they imagine that the people of this country are going to give up free government. They intend to stand by the Constitution of our fathers. They intend to let well enough alone, rejecting the revolution ary schemes of agitators and fanatics. They revere and venerate the memory of the patri otic men who established the form of government under which we live; and, in my judg: ment, they will still come to the rescue and maintain and uphold our institutions. This is my kope. Still, I am frank to confess, Mr. Speaker, that I have my fears; I have my apprehensions. This country is now passing through a most terrible ordeal. The great question whether civil liberty and the capacity of the people for self government can be maintained is now being tested. If the Congress of the U.S. can usurp 3 depts of the Government; if they can depose the President, paralyze the Supreme Court; if they can destroy civil liberty in this country, then when I look back into the history of the French revolution I sometimes think I see a little “mountain” on the other side, and I think sometimes I can pick out the Robespierres, the Dantons, and the Murats. I sometimes feel there is fear civil liberty is to be crucified in the house of its pretended friends. In my judgment the time has come when the American people should be aroused to the impending danger which hangs like a dark pall over our political institutions. The time has come, sir, when we must maintain and uphold and perpetuate those great principles of civil liberty for which our fathers fought. I appeal to my brother members, letus pause, let us reflect, let us consider that we have lived for a long time under a Government which has given us protection in our persons, our property, and in all that we hold dear shall we im: peril it? Where can we find a better one? Cast our eyes over the Governments of the world. Where can you find another comparing with this glorious Government of ours? shall we experiment with it? Let us leave well enough alone. I would– “Rather bear thoseills we have Than fly to othersthat we know not of.” I ask gentlemen to be careful how they strike down the great landmarks of constitutional government. See what a magnificent future we have before us! No such country was ever givento any other people. Look at its vast resources! It was a Government that rested so easily upon our shoulders that we hardly felt wewere governed. Now, what is the change? In a time of profound peace we have 90,000 soldiers in the field to support whom the people are heavily taxed. It used to be the pride of the American people that the humblest citizen in the country was protected. What is it now? A few days ago what did we do? We passed a law through Congress by which the acts of all our officers of every kind, including petty lar ceny and crimes of every description, are to be 'forgiven. All record of them is to be obliter ated, so that hereafter no one can prosecute thosewho committed them. Every man who during the war unjustly took away the property of a private citizen is to be protected under the bill of my colleague [Mr. Cook] from being calledto account. Indeed, in that bill it has also been held that where any of these offenses have been committedit must be taken for granted that the partywho committed the offense had full authority to do so. Is this the feast we have beeninvited to? Are we to ignore the rights of private citizens? Is there to be no redress, and are you not to stop even to inquire because the offensewas committed by some officer with epaulettes on his shoulders or by some ser geant or corporal? I tell you, gentlemen, it is time the American people were aroused to the impending dangers which imperil the liberties of this conntry.