Mr. MOULTON. I want to call attention as briefly as I can to other objections to this bill by my friendfrom Illinois, [Mr. MARSHALL.] His principal objections to this bill were that the government proposes to put its hand into the pockets of his constituents for the means of supporting colored people, refugees, n o schools, Ave. New, permit me to say that this argument addressed to the pocket has always been the argument in the mouths of demagogues everywhere and on all occasions. We have heard itin this Hall. Whenever the gentleman desires to make a speech for consumption at home he always appeals to the pockets of his constituents rather than to their common sense and reason. Now, sir, permit me to inform that gentleman that the Freedmens Bureau has been in operation for about 9 months, and not a single dollar has ever been appropriated from t ie Treasury for the support of this bureau and let me tell another fact: that more than 4 million dollars are now placed to the credit of this bureau, not from the Treasury, to be expended under the officers and commissioners that may be appointed by this bill. So much for the expense. But admitting that appropriations are to be made, I say that a solemn duty devolves upon this Congress to make that appropriation and to see that it is aplied in accordance with the provisions of this bill. The gentleman says there is no limitation to the expenditures. hat is all true. ButI will assume that AndrewJohnson, their candidate, the man to whom they look for their position hereafter, is honest; and if so, that he will apoint honest men who will discharge their duty in accordance with the provisions of this bill and under the regulations of the War Dept. My friend further says that this bill is an in fringement of the local laws and usages of the States into which it goes. Permit me to say that this bill does not operate in that way at all. unjustly discriminated against, or where any attempt is made to enforce unjust and uneriual local civil laws against him, the military commission a pointe by this bill shall interfere in his behalf.) My colleague says that it is a civil right to sit on juries, and that it is acivil riflht for a black man to marry a white woman. Now, I deny that it is a civil right for anybody to sit on a jury; I deny that it is a civil right for a white man to marry a black woman or for a black man to marry a white woman. It is a simple matter of taste, of contract, of arrangement between the parties. No man has a right to marry any particular woman, black or white. It is a matter of inutual taste, contract, and understanding between the parties. Besides, there is no deprivation of that right. The law, as I understand it, in all the States, applies equally to the white man and the black man, and there being no distinction, it will not o crate injuriously against either the white or the black. So far as the matter of sitting on uries is concerned, it is not a civil right, and why? Because you cannot enforce it by a civil writ. I understand that the civil rights referred to in the bill are not of the fanciful character referred to by the gentleman, but the great fundamental rights that are secured by the constitution of the U.S., and that are defined in the DeclarIndep, the right to personal liberty, the right to hold and enjoy property, to transmit property, and to make contracts. These are the great civil rights that belou to us all, and are sought to be protected by this bill. It Mr. THORNTON. On the pointu on which my colleague is now speaking, civi rights. I would ask him if a marriage between a white man and a white woman is a civil right?. MOULTON. It is not a civil right.