Mr. THAYER. If Justice Curtis took any such view, the gentleman will have an opportunity to show it. I am not aware that he agrees with the Gentfrom NewJersey in that or any other of the extraordinary views lsay it with all deference which the Gentfrom NewJersey submitted to the House on yesterday. Now,sir, for myself, I can safel say I have no dificulty on that subject. I do not see any just ground of objection to that interpretation of the ConstitutionI have insisted on, and especially I do not see any ground of objection in view of the legislative precedents to which I have referred. f, then, the freedmen are new citizens, or if we have the constitutional power to make them such, they are clearl entitled to those guarantees of the Constitution of the U.S. which are intended for the protection of all citizens. They are entitled to the benefit of that guarantee of the Constitution which secures to every citizen the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and no just reason exists why they s on d not enjoy the protection of that guarantee of the Constitution. What is the necessity which gives occasion for that protection 3 Sir, in at least 6 of the lately rebellious States the reconstructed Legislatu resof those States have enacted laws which, if permitted to be enforced, would strike a fatal blow at the liberty of the freedmen and render the constitutiona amendment of no force or effect whatever. It is a matter of history that in 4 of these States at least the laws that they have passed have been of such an oppress ive and tyrannical character that the military comman ants of these districts have felt it to be their duty to prevent the enforcement of those laws. We know perfectly well that this has been done by the military commandersin Mississippi, in Alabama, in SCarolina, and in Virginia. Laws have been passed by the reconstructed Legislatures of those States of a character so oppressive and so cruel that the military commanders of the U.S. forces there have been obliged to issue peremptory prohibitions against the enforcement of those laws. That, sir, demonstrates the necessity for enforcing the uarantees of liberty and of American citizenship conferred by the Constitution. Now, sir, let me say a few words in regard to the details of this bill. A gieat clamor was raised against this bill by the Gentfrom NewJersey [ML ROGERS] because of what he called the military despotism which it created. Surely the gentleman could not have madehimself amiliar with the provisions of this bill or he would not have indulged in any such unfounded and exaggerated statements in regard to its effects.