Mr. ROSS. In view of the magnitude and importance of the legislation proposed by the bill now before us I have thought it my duty to submit a few considerations to the House upon the subject. The objections which I shall present to this bill will be, 1st, that there is no constitutional power or authority in the Congress of the U.S. to pass such a measureas this; 2nd, that it is in conflict with the principles and doctrines enunciated by the Republican party during the progress of the war; and 3rd, that if these objections did not exist, it would be unwise and inexpedient to act upon the subject in the manner proposed. 1st, then, upon the question of the power and the right Congress to pass the bill before the House: I hold that the powers of Congress are limited by the Federal Constitution; that while the General Government is supreme and paramount to the extent of the delegated powers, it is equally clear that the powers not conferred upon it are by the exPress terms of the Constitution reserved to the States and the people thereof respectively. The national government has supreme authority to the extent of its delegated powers; but those powers are defined in the written Constitution establish ing the Government. Mr. Speaker, I do not recognize the soundness of the doctrines enunciated by the able and distinguished Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. RAYMoND] who discussed this question the other day, that we have an unwritten Constitution by which we are to be governed. I am somewhat relieved, however, to find that gentlemen on that side of the House are in clined to thus justify their action. I had felt some o, that in our congressional action here we might be trenching upon the Constitution of our country. But when I learned from the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. RAYMoND] that all these measures which we suspected to be infringements upon the Constitution are to be passed under the authority of an unwritten Constitution I felt greatly relieved, at least upon that particular oint. I p do not recognize any such doctrine. The written Constitution of our country is the guide by which we are to be governed and controlled in our action. I am aware that this is a doctrine which commands but little attention in Congress at the Present time. But a few days ago, when a distinguished and able member from the State of Kentucky was discussing a constitutional question, a gentleman near me said, “Why, he must evidently be a new member; if he had been here any length of time he would have learned long since that no attention is paid by this Congress to the Constitution of the U.S. ” Having said this much upon the constitutional question, I propose briefly to call the attention of the House to what I suppose will be arguments of greater weight with the majority in this House than the Constitution of, the country. I submit that this bill is in clear conflictwith the action of the party in power duringthe entire progress of the war; it is in conflict with the clearly exPressed opinions of the Executive of the nation, the Supreme Court, and the Congress of the U.S. If I succeed in satisfying the majority in this House that their policy is in conflict with the teachingsand principles of the party in power duringthe last 6 years, I am satisfied that as honorablemen they will refrain from Pressing this measure upon the consideration of the House. The 1st evidence to which I desire to call the attention of members is the resolution whichhas been so frequently alluded to in this House, known as the “Crittenden resolution.” I do not propose to give the language of the variouspublic acts to which I may refer, be causethey are not before me; but it is well knownthat the honorable Speaker who presidesoverthe deliberations of this House, as well asa large number of the gentlemen upon thisfloor, gave their solemn pledge to the countrythat they would stand by that Critten den resolution, which declared in substance thatthe war was to be waged for the purpose of maintaining the national authority and put ting down the rebellion; not for the purpose of subjugation or to overthrow any of the Statesof this Union, but to guaranty to them their equality and rights within the Union. That resolution, Mr. Speaker, was a national pledgemade to the country by the party in power, declaring the purposes and objects for which the war was prosecuted. The 2nd evidence which I Present for the consideration of the House, showing that it was never contemplated by the party in power during the progress of the war that States engaged in the rebellion were out of the Union and not entitled to rePresentation, is the fact that they permitted Sens&Reps from those States to retain their seats in Congress until the time for which they were elected had expired; and there was no complaint upon that subjectfrom any member of either House. Congress continued during the whole progress of the war to recognize the right of those States that were in rebellion against the national au. thority to send Sens&Reps toCongress. The Present POTUS continued to hold his seat as a Senfrom Tennessee; a Senfrom the State of Virginia continued to rePresent that State; and there were several.such instances which I do not now recollect. I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether this would have been the fact if it had been contemplated during that time that the war was to dissever the bonds of the hion. The 3rd proposition to which I call the attention of the is, that in 1862 or 1863, during the progress of the rebellion, Congress passed an act by which they assessed taxes upon the States which were in rebellion. This would certainly never have been done had it not been clearly recognized that those States werewithin the Union. Now, sir, it could not have been expected that in so brief a period of timeyou would have abandoned the doctrines for which our fathers fought the battles of the Revolution, and imposed upon 8 million peopletaxation without rePresentation. This could not have been contemplated by the Congress of the U.S. in the passage of the act apportioning taxation among the States in rebellion. The 4th proposition to which I propose to all the attention of the House is, that in 1862, if my memory serves me right, Congress passed an act apportioning rePresentation among the severalStates of this Union; and in that act about 50 members of Congress were assigned to the ten States which now, according to the theory of this bill, are outside of the national Union. Sir, those acts apportioning taxes and rePresentation were concurred in by the 2 branches of Congress. Nor is this all. They had the approbation of President Lincoln, who signed and approved them. Thus, in addition to the congressional recognition of the right of rePresentation as belonging to those States, there was executive action equally emphatic in the same direction. The 5th evidence is, that the action of the Supreme Court is against this bill. The order of that court last winter to take up the cases from these States upon the docket and dispose of them is evidence that it does not consider this Union dissevered. The action of Congress assigning circuits to the judges of the Supreme Court is additional evidence of the opinion of Congress on this subject. And, in addition to this, the civil rights bill, giving power to these courts within those States, shows that the action of Congress contemplated these courts were to be in existence to exercise these powers during this time. The 6th evidence I will offer to the House will be found in the correspondence of our Government with the French Government, in which President Lincoln, through the SecyState, Mr. Seward, informs the French Government this was a mere rebellion in this country, and that the seats of the southern members are awaiting their return to be occupied by them. I say this is the opinion, not of the SecyState, but of the POTUS through his chief clerk, the SecyState, enunciating the doctrines of the American to the French Government. In the 7th place I refer to the fact that the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery in this country was submitted for ratification to the States which had been in rebellion as well as to those which had not. Gentlemen cannot avoid the force of this position by saying with the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Scofield] it was the SecyState who published this. He acted under the authority and direction of the Congress of the U.S., which determined this measure should be submitted to all these States.