Mr. FESSENDEN. Iunderstoodhim, when he argued that we were bound to guaranty to every State a RFG, and that congress had power to make all laws necessary an proper to carry out the several provisions of the constitution, to hold, that for that reason Congress could legislate to see that no State whatever passed laws or attempted to execute laws which deprived free men of their natural inalienable rights. If I misunderstood him, I stand corrected. I did not hear all the Senator said, but I heard the greater part of it and listened to it very attentively. But let us take it on his own showing. The Senator says we may secure it in the States which have lapsed. That is a new phrase, but perhaps it is as good as any other. How does e propose to do it? By passing an act of Congress. Suppose we get them in. They have lapsed, but we avoid the lapse and take them back again, with an act of Congress providing that everybody shall have his rights under the constitution. What is to prevent a repeal of the act of Congress after they get here; and if guarantee? The Senator tells us that this proposuion of his is proposed mind you, is proposedas a substitute for the constitutional amendment which is proposed by the committee. Now what is there in it? Tint of that I shall speak by and by. I have been led aside from the line of my remarks. I was rocceding, in the 1st place, to speak of the rst objection, and that was, that we avoided the power already existing to legislate on the subject and to do everything by way of legislation. hat I have spoken of. another was that we deliver over these people bound hand and foot to their former masters. Does this amendment do any such thing? Are they not there now to the same extent? Take the constitution as it is, are they there or are they not? The States may legislate and exclude them if they please. when we simply. provide one safeguard for them by inflicting a penalty, a punishment if you please, in the loss of political power upon the abuse of that power which the States now have, are we handing these people over in a style werthy of such epithets as were applied by the Senator to those 707 who are the authors and proposers of this resolution? Sir, I am at a loss to understand how it accomplishes any such thing. The Senator did not explain. He stated the proposition, but he left it to stand upon the force o his own forcible and eloquent language alone. A more serious objection, in my mind, is the query whether it accomplishes in fact all that we desire to accomplish, whether it may not be avoided, whether by some trick of legislation, some form of specch which does not apply to the language of the resolution, it may not be led. to operate in fact in the direction in which we desi it should not, while the letter of the law is fo lowed. That is my fear with regard to it, and that is what I wish Senators to look at; and if those defects do exist, I hope, before the resolution goes from our possession, either to the people or the other House, that all these things will be provided for. I do not pretend to point them out. “he honorable Senfrom Massachusetts, in his very eloquent and able and exhaustive argument yesterday one for which I am very much obliged to him, for although he did not approve in terms of this resolution, yet the principles he advocated with so much force all went, in my judgment, to show its necessity and to give it strength, if rightly understood proposed something instead of the resolution. I have alluded to it. It is a proposed act of congress; and permit me to say a few words as to its force and ) effect, and let us see how far the remedy would be followed. If he will excuse me, I cannot help alluding to the fact that it is in one sense like a very small dipper with a very long handle, for the preamble is very much more diffuse than the proposed enactment itself. His preamble is in these words: Whereas it is provided in the constitution that the U.S shall guaranty to every State in the Union are RFG; nnd whareas, by reason of the failure of certain Statesto maintain governments which Congresscan recognize, it has become the duty of the U.S. standing in the place of guarantor. where the principal has made a apse. to secure to such States, accordingto the reqnircment of the guarantee, governments republican in form; and whereasfurther. it is provide in a reeent constitutional amendment. that Congressmay “enforce” the prohibition of slavery by “appropriate legislation and it all is important to this end that relics of slavery should be removed. including all distinction of rights on account of color; now, therefore. to carry out the guarantee of a RFG and to enforce the prohibition of slaI looked to see what came next. I supposed that after that reamble we should have some adequate machine provided for the enforcement and the security of these rights; that we should have the matter put to the courts, and if the courts could not accomplish it, that we should have the aid of the military power, thus shocking the sensibilities of myhonorable friendfrom Indiana [Mr. Hsxnmexs] again. I do not know what good it does to merely provide by law that the revisions of the constitution shall be enforce, without saying how, in what manner, by what machinery, in what we, to what extent, or how it is to be accomplished. Let me ask the honorable Senator this question: here is a legislative declaration; suppose the States say the will not do it, how can our bill prevent their having their own way? on do not send them to the courts. How does it read? That in all States lately declared to be in robellion there shall be no oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, or monopoly invested With peculiar privileges and pow eprosli. t iacnadl, tohnere shall be no denia of rights, civil or account of color or race. Let us take the 1st clause. Does not the constitution say that now? Does the constitution authorize oligarchies, aristocracies, me no olics? Not at all. Are you not as safe under the constitution as you are under an act of congress? Why reiinact the constitution tithe U.S and put it in a bill? What do you accomplish by it? How is that a rem edy? It is simply as if it read in this way: whereas it is provided in the constitution that the U.S shall guaranty to every State in the Uniona RFG, therefore we declare that there shall be a RFG, and nothing else. [but is all that there is of it in that particular. What it is to avail practically is more than I can tell. I presume the honorable Senator will very easily explain it to me, but it reminds me I say it with all respect of a sort of poetical travesty of a law argument of an eminent law yer of his own State, running somewhat in this way: “Let my o ponentsdo their worst, Still my rst point is point the 1st; A Wlhlich fully provesmy case, because statute laws are statutelaws.” The scquitur is obvious; the case is proved, because inasmuch as the constitution provides that there shall be no aristocracy, no o 1garchy, no monopoly, therefore Congress has resolved that there shall be not anything of the kind, but provided no mode whatever in which or by which to prevent it. Why not go further? f it is necessary to provide that there shall be no oligarchy, no aristocracy, no monopoly in the States once slave States why not. so provide for all the States? We have the same power of legislation.