Mr. ROSS. I did not give way for the Gentleman for any such statement and now I will give another case. There was a sick soldier in my county who came home on leave of absence. On reaching home he found that one of these provost marshals had been paying rather too much attention to the soldiers wife, and took exception to it. “Yell, the rovost marshal became indignant, rallied his orces and had the soldier arrested, intending to send him down to the front in order to get him out of the way while he continued to pay his addresses to the soldiers wife. But unfortunately he shot and crippled the man. Now, should he have no remedy? Sir, an honest jury in my OWn county, with an honest prosecuting attorney and an honest judge sent that provost marshal to the penitentiary. Ihat, sir, is the properremedy in such of case. But another case. A soldier came home to Mason county with a discharge on account of disability. A short time before the November election the provost marshal in that district concluded it was better to have this man out of the way as he was likely to vote the Democratic ticket. So be arrested him and examined him and decided that his discharge was not according to the regulations. Well, after keepin him a week or 2 and taking him to Springfiel he came in collision with an Officer who had more brains than himself, who declared that the discharge was regular and proper and when I left home there was a case pending in one of the courts against that provost marshal for false arrest and imprisonment. Now, according to this law, you wipe out the complaint or cause ofaction, remove it entirely and leave no remedy, and the illegal acts of these petty officers are to be sustained by not of Congress, while individual rights are to be trampled under foot. Sir, I shall give my sanction to no such provision as this. But the Gentfrom Kentucky says that some of his constituents have been robbed of their horses, and they want pay for them; and he wants Congress to inlerpose and prevent people from stealing horses. Why, sir, accoring to this bill it is only necessary to have an order from some officer to do anything you please. Suppose one of his constituents should steal a horse, all he has to do is to get the provost marshal to certify that he ordered him to do it, and according to the provisions of this bill be has a perfect defense. But, sir, it is not confined to an order in proper form. A certified copy of an order, urnished by the provost mars al, authorizing a person to commit a most egregious offense stands as a defense between the man nrraied and justice. I ask if this is to be tolerate in abfree country, if we will submit to things like these. But it even goes further; it does not even require a peopv of an order a telegram is sufficient, and if it has been lost, evidence of the loss is sufficient. Now, these provost marshals, scattered as they are through the country, can telegraph from one county to another to do this act or that, and the offense is all wiped out by this law. Having thus called the attention of this House to the provisions of this bill. I propose to say no more. I have not intended to elaborate them. I expected as a matter of course that the gentlemen on the opposite side would vote for the bill or against it on the principle enun ciated by the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. COXKLING] yesterday, namely, that they would vote against everything that we on this side voted for, because they did not want to be found acting with us. I am not surprised that that speech does not appear in the Globe, and that the gentleman proposes to revise it before it goes to his constituents. Having said this much, I yield the remainder of the time to my colleague, [ML Comp]