Mr. TRUMBULL. That was the language of Senator and AndrewJohnson, now POTUS [Laughter] That is probabl the best answer to this objection, though should hardly have venture to use such harsh language in reference to the president as to accuse him of quibbling and of demagoguery, and of playing the mere 01 itician in sending a veto message to the Congress of the U.S. The President also makes some other allusions in this veto message of a similar character. For instance, he speaks of the impropriety of marriages between whites and blacks, and then he goes on to say, “I do not say that this bill repeuls State laws on the subject of marriage between the 2 races.” Then for what plurpose is it introduced into this message? 0t surely as an adeaptandum argument to excite prejudice the argument of a demagogue and a politician? Mr. Johnson could not do that, having condemned such “quibbles” in Mr. Buchanan. "TIhfe President further says”: it be granted that Congresse an recal all State laws discriminating betweenwhitesand lacks in the subjects covered by this bill, why, it may be asked, may not congress repeal, in the sameway, all State laws discriminating between the 2 races on the subjects of suffrage and olficc? If Conrrcss can do. clnre by law who shall hold lands, who shall testify. who shall havecapacit to makea contract in a State. then Congress can by law also declare who, without raejgiiarordr to color orrace, shall have the right to sit as o r usajndzo. to hold anypflicc, and, finally to vote, in every State and Territory of the U.S. " Perhaps the best answer I could give to this would be the answer of AndrewJohnson himself. 7He undertook to reorganize State governments in the disloyal States. When he did so, to whom did he extend the right of suffrage? To the blacks? N 0, sir; but he extended the right of suffrage to those who were authorized to vote under the laws of those States before the rebellion; and when urged to allow loyal blacks to vote, what was his answer? That he had no power; it was unconstitutional; but he has claimed and exercised the power to protect colored persons in their civil rirhts, and if it be true that protection in civil rights carries with it the right of suffrage, what becomes of the position which he assumed when be extended civil rights to the negroes that he had no constitutional power to extend to them the right to vote; that it was a right vested in the States with which he could not interfere? But, sir, the granting of civil rights does not, and never did in this country, carry with itrights, or, more properly speaking, political privileges. A man may be a citizen in this country without a right to vote orwithout a right to hold office. The right to vote and hold office in the States depends upon the legislation of the various States; the right to hold certain o the cs under the Federal Government depends upon the Constitution of the U.S. he Bresident must be a natural born citizen; and a Senator or Representative must be a.citizen of the U.S. for a certain number of years before he is eligible to a seat either in this or the other House of Congress; so that the fact of being a citizen does not necessarily qualify a person for an office, nor does it necessarily authorize him to vote. Women are citizens; children are citizens; but they do not exercise the electivd franchise by virtue of their citizenship. Foreigners, as is stated by the President in this message, before they are naturalized are protected in the rights enumer ated in this bill, but because they possess those rights in most, if not all, the States, that car ries with it no right to vote. But, sir, what rights do citizens of the U.S. have? 10 be a citizen of the U.S. carries with it some rights; and what are they? They are those inherent, fundamental rights which belong to free citizens or free men in all countries, such as the rights enumerated in this bill, and they belong to them in all the States of the Union. The right of American citizenship means something. It does. not mean, in the case of a foreignor, that when he is naturalized he is to be let entirely to the mere of State legislation. He has a right when uly naturalized to go into any State of the Union and to reside there, and the U.S. Government will protect him in that right. It will protect a citizen of the U.S., notonly in oneof the Statesof the Union, but it will protect him in foreign lands. Mr. Marcy, when SecyState, held that a citizen in a foreign country was entitled to the same protection 1.int was extended by that government to its own citizens. These rights belonging to the citizen, and known as natural rights, are defined by Blackstone in his definition of civil liberty to be: No other than natural liberty, so far restrained by human laws and no further, as is necessary and expedient to the general advantage of the public. In this definition of civillibort it ought to be under stood, or rather expressed, that the restraints introduced by the law should be equalto all, or as much so as the nature of things will admit." “The equality of rights is the basis of a commonwcalth” is said in a notet o Kent, and Kent himself, in speaking of these rights, says: “The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty and tiio right to acquire and enjoy property. Theserights have conjustly considered, and frequently declared, by the people of this country to be natural. inherent, and inalienable." What are they? “ The right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy propert;” and these are declared to be inalienable rights, belonging to every citizen of the U.S., as such, no matter where he may be. In the 2nd volume of his Commentaries