Mr. ROSS. I decline to yield. Mr. Speaker, through the courtesy of my colleague am permitted to occupy the attention of the House on this question for a few moments. I take no part in the Kentucky fight. I look upon the law in reference toits application to other parts of the country. IfIunder stand it, it does in 2 important and material respects enlarge the act 01 1863. 1st, it enlarges the provisions of that act so as to extend this law over every portion of the country; for if I am not mistaken in relation to the provisions of that act of 1863, they are confined to the places where the writ of habeascorpus has been suspended, and do not ap1y to other places In the Union. But according to the provis iops of this act reported by the ComJudiciary, they extend the provisions and operations of that law over every portion of the U.S. That, sir, is one objection I have to it and 2ndly, it makes a material change in itthea pdreofveinssioen of the act of 1868, which made in the courts of the country to have an order of the POTUS Why, sir, that not itself was an act which ought never to have been put upon the statute books of the country, giving any man, be he President or any other individual, the right by his simple order to provide for any mans defense, an order by which any man should be exon erated. Now, what is the proposition we have submitted in the provisions of this bill? Whv, to extend that power to every Officer in the U.S. without regard to his position or his rights. If this bill becomes a law of the land, why, then, sir, from the POTUS down to the lowest officer, provost marshals, and even Government detectives, I suppose, are to have authority by their orders to exonerate an individual in the commission of any crime, owever heine us, against the rights and liberties of the country. know the disposition of this House is to enlarge the powers of military authorities, while it limits and curtails the rights of private citizens. Against that I enter my solemn protest. It will be seen, sir, by reference to this bill, all the power which was conferred upon the POTUS under the original bill is now conferred upon any officer of ihe U.S.; so that any provost marshal or corporal, or any subordinate whatever, may infringe upon the rights of any citizen, and the citizen is to be remediless. According to the provisions of this bill, the citizen is to have no remedy at all. such is the plain, simple provision of the bill, as introduced by the ComJudiciary, and attempted to be forced upon the consideration of this House. Gentlemen have spoken of hardships. Distinguished gentlemen from Kentucky say that the officers must be protected. Sir, I have thought it was the duty of a Representative of the people to give a little attention to the protection of the rights of his coustituenc, however humble they may be. I suppose it was our duty to see that every citizen of the country received a fair trial by jury, and to see when his rights were invade by any person, however high he may be, that he should be protected. But the officer is to be protected; and the man who has been run over and trampled upon with impunity has no rights to be respected, according to the judgment of this House. But the Gentfrom Kentucky [Mr. Mc Kee] says that the courts disregard the law of 1863. why, sir. under the old practice we used to have different remedies from what are provided in this bill. We used to think when a judge decided against us that the true remedy was by writ of error or an a peal to some other court for the purpose of raving the case reviewed. Bnt in these latter days new light has broken upon the country. This bill proposes thatifa judge decides against the constitutionality of this law he is to be tried and fined, and he is to have double costs assessed againsthim. Instead of taking an appeal, or by writ of error carrying the case into some other court, the gudge who under the solemnity of his oath has declared the law unconstitutional is to be tried and fined. This is a very summary way of disposing of cases of this kind. Why, sir, we need only the addition of the Freedmens Bureau hill to make this perfect. With that added it would work admirably. According to that negroes were entitled to be among the military otheers who were to try white men; so that under the operation of the 2 bills together a negro might sit upon the rights of these judges, might take ajudge from the bench, try him, tine him $1000, and incarcerate him. Sir, the State of Illinois has not been exempt from these eneroachments upon the rights of its citizens. A short time ago, in the district of one of my colleagues, one of the ablest, purest, and most distinguished judges of the supreme court of the State was taken by force by a file of soldiers, because he gave a decision that was disapproved by a military gentleman and as gentlemen have alluded to cases of this sort, will give one or 2 that have occurred within my own knowledge. A year or 2 ago, 3 honest quiet, law abiding citizens, in the county of. aodonough, in Illinois, were taken one night by some of these petty officers to StLouis an put in prison. The people had to send and app y to a distinguished citizen before they could get the men released and when the facts came to be made known it was ascertained that one of these men swore against one of the rovost marshals that he had been guilty of stcaing something a year or 2 before, and so the provost marshal took this method of visiting his private vengeance upon these honest, law abiding citizens by taking them out of the State.