Mr. JOHNSON. I think, with you, just as constitutional whether they are in or whether they are out; that is to say, it is not constitutional whether they are in or out. Where is the occasion for it? Does anybody suppose that the rights of the black man are not just as safe in the southern States as they are now organized, whatever those rights may be, as the rights of the white man in many of the loyal States? Go to Missouri; what do we see there? Under a constitution which makes it a crime to pray or to preach in public without taking a certain oathprescribed by it, preachers are actually taken out of the ulpit, punished. thrown into prison. Why do you not legislate to protect them? Is it because you go upon the assumption that the State has a rig it by its own constitution to provide that no man shall preach unless he takes such an oath as the constitution of the State may prescribe? What I mean to say is, that if unconstitutional interference with private rights justifies an appeal of this description, then I invoke my friendfrom Illinois to draft a bill which will cover the cases that are occurring now in the State of Missouri. I refer to that State with no view to disparage the State. In my judgment her constitution in that particular is clearly invalid. Whether it is or not will be ascertained at a future day by the de cision Of the Supreme Court. But one thing is certain, that, apparently, rights are invaded; and if the existence of an authority in the States to invade rights clothes the Congress of the U.S. with authority to legislate on the subject of rights, then we ought to legislate with regard to that State. But that is not the only State. Are not horrid enormities practiced every day, robberies unheard of, murers more atrocon than perhaps the World has heretofore witnessed, in some of the loyal States of the East, robberies in broad day? With just as much constitutional authority might we claim a right to legislate and appoint commissioners and sub commissioners for the purpose of making arrests throughout the loya States in cases of that description, as we have in the cases provided for in this bill. I was about to advert to a speech made in another Dept of the Government, but perhaps that would not be strictly in order. It is sufficient for my purpose to say that a gentleman of legal ability, who has been called upon to examine this question, and under official responsibility too, concurs in o inion with the President that the bill is who ly unconstitutional, and he not among the friends of the President. I have but a word or 2 more to say. It}? honorable friendfrom Illinois, as it seemed to rue his nature is impulsive, and perhaps he was carried further than he intend; l seemed to intimate that the POTUS had not acted sincerely in this matter, that his usurpation was a clear one, and that he was to be censured for that usurpation. What has he done? He has vetoed this bill. He had a constitutional right to do so. Not only that; if he believed that the effect of the bill would be that which he states in his veto message, he was not only authorized, butbonnd, to veto it. His oath is to “ preserve” as well as to “ protect and defend” the Constitution of the U.S.; and believing as he does, and in that opinion I concur that this bill as sails the Constitution of the U.S., he would have been false to his plighted faith if he had not returned it with his objections. As to his intending or being capable of intending anything that could be tortured into disloyalty, anything that could be construed as an unjust interference with the legislative Dept of the Government, it is sufficient to refer to his whole political career. I believe the honorable member from Illinois was a member of this body in 1860 61, when the rebellion was inaugurated. I was here, nota membe, but as a spectator and I saw him, on that si e of the Chamber, in words that burned, and in asirit ofiudignant eloquence rarely if ever exceiled, say to the men who were about to inaugurate the insurrection that they were traitors to their country, standing in the midst of them face to face, periling life for anght that he knew