Mr. LATHAM obtained leave to print the following remarks: Mr. Speaker, I use to o pose this bill, and in doing so I shall detain the House but a short time. Somb legislation by Congress may become necessary under the 2nd section of the amendment to the constitution abolishing slavery; butin my opinion the right of congressional interference attaches only by virtue of local obshuction to the great amendment. But in my opinion this bill goes far beyond anything contemplated or justified by this amendment. The 1st section provides That not sub iaelclttpoearnsoynfosrbeoirgnniPnowtheer, U.S. excluding Indians not taxed. are herebydeclared tobe citizens of the U.S. without distinction of color. &0. I renew the motion to It is very difficult to ascertain exactly the meaning and scope of this provision. Honor able gentlemen, the friends of the bill, are not aeed upon this point. I propose to take what I conceive to be a practical view of the matter. The provision means either somethingor nothing. Should the bill become a law, rights will attach by virtue of this provision or else they will not. Can Congress confer citizenship upon persons who are excluded by the Constitution? The courts have uniformly de cided that negrees are not citizens under the Constitution. I know that gentlemen profess no respect for these decisions; a pool to the tribunal of party politics, and tel us the people have reverse them. I most respectlully submit, however, that while a legitimate appeal lies from Congress to the people upon questions of governmental policy. no such appeal lies from the Supreme Court upon questions of law. If we are dissatisfied with one decision of the court, and the matter is beyond the reach of ordinary legislation, our only legitimate remedy is to go back into court and reverse the decision there. What may be or is the effect of universal emancipation is equestion of constitutional law to be ecided by the courts. Believing, as I do, that the Constitution confers upon Congress no power to confer citizenship except upon naturalized foreigners, I believe such rights conferred by this act to be in violation of the Constitution, which is “the supreme law of the land.” But I am told the act confers no right, but is only declaratory of rights which have already attached. How attached, and by what instrumentality? By constitutional provision abolishing slavery? Without expressing an opinion as to whether citizenship attaches by virtue of this amendment or not, I am very decided in the opinion that its interpretation is matter for the judiciary and not. for the legislative Dept of the Government. Congrew may declare what interpretation shall be put upon their own acts but not upon the Constitution of the U.S., otherwise the 11th amendment to the Constitution need never have been adopted and if this revision is only declaratory of rights which have already at tached, I ask gentlemen to define “the situation, ” provided the judiciary Dept of the Government should interpret the Constitution differently? This, then, is in my opinion simply a question of constitutional law, which cannot be effected by any declaratory act of Congress. I know such declarations may frighten the timid, but hold men will bring them to a judicial test. Blackened wood in imitution of guns around a camp may frighten cow ards, but brave men will test their caliber. I object, then,to Congress professing to do what I believe they cannot do. This section provides further “that there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants ofany State or Territory of the U.S. on account ofracc, color, or previous condition of slavery.” Though by the wording of this clause it might not refer to discriminations by the State or otherlocal law, yet it is very evident from its connections, and from the entire bill, that its reference is to such discriminations. No one, I presume, doubts the power of Congress to place all the inhabitants of the U.S. upon an equal footing as to all matters within the legitimate scope of congressional legislation, and consequently Congress may proVide that there shall be no discrimination on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery in civil rights or immunities which maybe constitutionally defined or regulated by congress; or in other words, that al may stand it on an equal footing in the Federal courts. at as the right to define and regulate the “civil rights or immunities” of the inhabitants in the several States is not among “ the powers dele gated to the U.S. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, ”it is by the 10th amendment “reserved to the Smffi le spectively or to the people.” conVImonf the n, is that Congress as no rightunder the Constitution to interfere with the internal of the several States so as to define an(porleicgy ulate the “civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants” therein. If Iain correct in this opinion, this clause is without constitutional warrant, and the balance of the section, being based upon it, necessarily falls with it. I object to the entire 2nd section of the bill as a departure from the principles and pradtice of the Government. such might be said upon this section, but I propose to dismiss it With the simple remark at it has been long determined that U.S. laws must be executed by U.S. officers, coupled with the opinion that where there is a conflict between the State and U.S. laws, the legitimate remedy is civil and not penal; or in oter words, that the legitimate remedy is by appeal to the U.S. courts instead of by penalty upon the State officer executing the State law; and further, that the provisions of this bill, being without constitutional warrant, no such conflict can legitimately arise, and no such appeal can legitimately lie under it. I consider this as one of a series of measures which have been introduced into this Congress, which, if adopted, would change not only the entire policy, but the very form of our Government, y a complete centralization of all power in the national vernment, and as most dangerous to the liberties of the people and the reserved rights of the States and I cannot dismiss this subject without expressing my astonishment an concern that the representatives of the people, With so short a tenure of power, should be engaged in this work. Were this Congress composed of an hereditary aris weracy such action would be but natural. Let us consider that the liberty of the people is the liberty of ourselves and our posterity, and that its preservation demands the exercise of “ eternalvigilance” by the people, not only with regard to invasions from without, but also with regard usurpations within the Government. his disposes of my objections to the fundamental principles of the bill. The details I object to entire. because they provide for carrying into effect fundamental principles to which I am opposed. I would have been pleased to address the House at greater length upon these points, to have elaborated my reasons, and spread the authorities upon which they are based upon the record. but time fails, and I give them as they are to the House and country as the reasons which shall control my vote upon this most important measure.