Mr. ROGERS then addressed the House. His remarks will be published in the Appendix.] Speech entitled Rights of Citizens. HoRep February 26, 1866. The House having under consideration the JtResolution (H. It. No. 63) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. Mr. ROGERS said: Mr. Speaker: I had hoped, after what has transpired in the last few days, that the time had come when the Constitution of the U.S. would be secure from invasion by congress. When I heard the words of the Presient of the U.S. in commendation of that sacred instrument, and as I rejoiced at the course pursued by conservative men on the other si e of the I House who are determined to sustain that instrument as it was given to us by our fathers, I had good reason to believe there would be no other amendments to it proposed by this body or the Senate. I felt that the agitation which had been kept up in this House against that instrument in order to amend it, as the President says, so that no more re spect would be paid to it than to a mere resolution of a town meeting, had gone by, and that we would now dedicate the balance of our time in Congress to the great doctrine of constitutional liberty that we might give power to a free and patriotic President in his great work of reconstruction, and proclaim to the civilized world that every star representing every State was a component part of the old ag, and that every Representative from every State had taken the vacant seats in Congress which had been intended by the Constitution should be filled by them. I do think, notwithstanding the position which has been assumed by the eloquent and learned Gentfrom Ohio [llIr. ING HAM] who reported this resolution, that no resolution proposin an amendment to the conmtitution of the U.S. had been offered to this Congress more dangerous to the liberties of the people and the foundations of this, Government than the pending resolution. When sifted from top to bottom it will be found to, lbe the embodiment of centralization and the disfrancishement of the States of those sacred land immutable State rights which were reserved ito them by the consent of our fathers in our forganic law. ", Vhen the gentleman says the proposed amendment is intended to authorize no rights (except those already embodied in the Constiltution, I have him the plain and emphatic an;swer if provides therequirementssentahwd i.n. th is amendment, why, i this time of excitement and mo, should we attempt to againingraft upon it what is already in it?