Mr. THAYER. There is nothing in this bill in this respect that is not alread in the Constitution of the U.S. the power here conferred is expressly ven by that instrument, and has been exercise upon the most stupendous scale in the suppression of the rebellion. What is this bill? I be e gentlemen, even on the opposite side of the ease, will not suffer their minds ta be influenced by an such vague, loose, and groundless denunciations as these which have proceeded from the Gentfrom NewJersey. the bill, after extendingthese fundamental immunities of citizenship to all classes of people in the U.S., simply provides means for the enforcement of these rights or immunities. How? Not by military force, not through the instrumentality of Military commanders, not through any military machinery whatever, but through the quiet, dignified, firm, and constitutiona terms of judicial recedure. The bill seeks to enforce these rights in the same manner and with the same sanctions under and by which other laws of the U.S. are enforced. It imposes duties upon the judicial tribunals of the country which require the enforcement of these rights. It provides for the administration of laws to protect these rights. It provides for the execution of laws to enforce them. Is there anything appalling in that? Is that a military despotism? Sir, it is a strange abuse of langauge to so that a military despotism is established by wholesome and equal laws. Yet the gentleman declaimed by the hour in vague and idle terms against this bill, which has not a single offensive, oppressive, unjust, unusual, or tyrannical feature in it. These civil rights and immunities which are to be secured, and which no man can conscientiously say ought to be denied, are to be enforced through the ordinary instrumentalities of courts of justice. Where, then, is this great military power which so alarms the indignation of the gentleman? All that there is of military power in the bill is simply this: the last section of the bill contains a provision “that it shall be law ful for the POTUS, or such person as he may empower for that purpose, to emplo such art of the land or naval orces of the U.S., or of the militia, as shall be necessary to prevent the violation and enforce the due execution of this act." It clothes the POTUS with power to enforce the laws of the U.S. if necessary by the military power of the U.S. It confers power upon the POTUS to enforce the laws of the U.S., if necessary, by the whole military powerof the Government. Who objects to that? What good objection can be made to the enforcement of the laps of the U.S. by all the power of the U.S., whether it be military or civil? Why, sir, the framers of the Constitution, as I have already stated, put that very power into the Constitution in order that there might be no doubt upon the subject. Here the hammer fell.]