Mr. ROGERS. The case decided that the person, Dred Scott, was not within the jurisdiction and powers of the court, for the reason given, and which lay at the very foundation of the question of jurisdiction, that he was not a citizen of the U.S., and was in no condition, according to the laws of this country, to at himself in the place of an actor in acourt of Justice. I stand here today to affirm, without fear of contradiction, that that decision is the supreme law; and I defy any man to point to the opinion of an single judge, in that case, (as I have frequent y had my attention drawn to this point) who dissented from the opinion of the court, as I have read it, upon the status of the colored race at the formation of the constitution of the U.S and now, while upon this subject, I proceed further to review the radical notions which the gentleman has attempted to get adopted by this house, with reward to what the framers of the DeclarIndep meant when they made that immortal instrument. Those framers appealed to the civilized world, and enunciated the reasons which they assigned for making the assertion that all men were born equal, with certain inalienable rights, among which were life, liberty, and the pursuit of he piness. Now, if the theory of the gentleman e true, that the negro race, the Africans in this country who were then in slavery, were included in the word “ people, ” then the DeclarIndep was a falsehood and a fraud; and it appealed to the people of the civilized world upon a false ground when it asked for their 8 mpathy and consideration, when at that very e 1,000s of negroes were held in slavery and had no liberty. I am not willing to believe that the sages and heroes of the Revolution, the men who were covered With its glories, who assembled in the old Hall of lndependence and formed the constitution of the U.S., were so base as to proclaim that all men were entitled to certain inalienable rights, among which was liberty, while at that very time the whole 13 of the colonies held almost every African man and woman in the bonds of slavery. Now let us see what the Supreme Court says about this DeclarIndep: "The lanirunrzcoftho Declaration ofIndependence ll “equally ronclunve. t begins by declaring that when in the courseof human events it becomes neccssa for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them With another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth the soparate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of natures God entitle them. a do cent respectto the opinions of mankind requires that. They should declare the caucus which impel them to the separation.” It then proceeds to say: We hold these truths to heselfevident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creatorw1 the ertain ina lienable rights; that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure thesp rights, Governments arginst itiited among men, deriv1n their just powers from the consent of those governed. be general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute that the Afrioan race were not intended to be inc uded and formed no part of Declaration the people who framed and adopted this for it the language. As understood in that day. would embracethem. the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the DeclarIndep would have been utterly and flagrant inconsistent with the principles they assertc: an instead of the sympathy of mankind to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and reccived universal rebukc and r c robation. “Yctt ii great men mhigehn who framed this DeclarIndep; mqmremontsh. urliin their senses of honqr and incapable of nsscrting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. lhey perfectly undorstood the meaning of the language they used nd how it would be understood by others; and the new that it would not in any part of the civilise world be supposed to embrace the u rerace, which by common consent had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations and doomed to slavery. The; spoke and acted oe cording to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the do, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by in clihle marks and laws long before establishe, and were never thought of or spoken of except as procrty and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.” This decision refutes the whole idea which has been advocated by the honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mia KELLEY] when he says that he stands upon the round of Madison and Jefferson. I want to reor him to James Madison, as one of the fathers of the Democratic party. He was the man who wrote the memorable resolutions of Virginia of 1798. He is the man who proclaimed to the world at that time that the acts of the John Adams administration were violative of the rights of the States and tended to imperial despotism and centralization of power; who announced to the world that the centralization and consolidation of power in the Federal Government were sapping the liberties of the people: and at the very next election contested, upon the principleso those resolutions, the Adams or Federal party was removed from power and the great Democratic party was inaugurated by the election of Thomas jefferson, which party carried on the Government in domeste peace and happiness for 24 yearsivithout interrntion. I do not want such men as the honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] to cfile the graves of the men who stood hy their country in the hour of its peril, who planted the 1st flag of freedom on this continent. It is a slander upon the proud record of Madison to charge him with advocating the doctrines of radicalism, as enunciated by the honorable gentleman on this floor when the record and, history o that man an this country, as known to every honorable gentleman here, show that there is no foundation for such an assertion. Why, sir, we have been charged with being secessionists and sympathizers with treason for advocating these very resolutions Which James Madison drafted, advocattd, and carried through the Legislature of Virginia. Although James Madison was POTUS for 8 years, never did he attempt to promulgate or indoctrinate into the country or 1 5 party any such creed or dogma as has been advocated here by the honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania. If Madison, whose memory is now enshrined upon the highest pinacle of fame, in speaking ot the mass of citizens in the letter which the honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] has read, intended to include the colored race, he was false to his principles for advocating the doctrine that this was a white mans Government solely, when he was placed in the "ITOSltleIlllfll chair by a very large majority of the States and people. The honorable Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. wHSON] says the constitution seems to invite the passage of this bill and a general law giving negroes all political rights demanded by the radicals in power. I thin it will not be seriously denied by any of the honorable gentlemen on the other side of the House (for whom I have as much respect as for gentlemen upon this side, only dis, avreeing with them in politics) that the men who founded our Government and proclaimed their independence of GreatBritain, or when they framed the constitution, never intended, by an word or letter, to countenance the idea that the constitution should be at some time changed, or a law passed so as to allow to the race then held in bondage, of whom the present race are the descendants, the exercise of the highest political function that can be given to any man upon earth. I cannot sympathize with the spirit of sarcasm and disparagement in which the honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOFIELD spoke of the “mere droping of a slip of paperin a box, ” ridiculing the high perogative which the political system of this country has given to the masses, rich and poor, to exercise the right of suffrage and declare, accordin to the honest convictions of their hearts, who shall be the otheers to rule over them. There is no privilege so high; there is no right so grand. It lies at the very foundation of this Government; and when you introduce into the social system of this country the right of the African race to compete at the ballot box with the intelligent white citizens of this country you are disturbing and embittering the Whole social system; you rend the bonds of a common political faith; you break up commercial intercourse and the free interferances of trade and you degrade the people of this country before the eyes of the envious monarchs of Europe, and fill our history with a record of degradation and shame. Why, then, should we attempt that this time to inflict the system of negro suffrage upon those who happen to be so unfortunate as to reside in the DistCol. This city bears the name of George Washington, the father of our country; and as it was ounded by him, so I wish to hand it downto those who shall come after us, preserving that principle which declares that the sovereignty is in the white people of the country, for whose benefit this governrnent was established. I am not ready to believe that those men who have laid down their lives in the battles of the late revolution, who came from their homes like the torrents that sweep over their native hills and mount ains, those men who gathered round the sacred precincts of the tomb of Washington to uphold and perpetuate our proud herita e of liberty, intended to inflict upon the people of this District, or of this land, the monstrous doctrine of politicalequality of the negro race with the white at the ba lotbox. No such dogma as this was ever announced by the Republican part in. their platforms. hen that party met at hicago, in 1860, they took pains to enunciate the cat principle of selfgovernment which underlies the institutions of this countrythat each State has the right to control its own domestic polio accordingto its own judgment exclusive. Task the gentlemen on the other side of the House to a low the people of the DistColto exercise the same great right of selfgovernment; to determine by their votes at the ballotbox whether they desire to magurate a system of, pollfiCBl equality with the colored people of the district. Selfgovernment was the great principle which impelled our fathers to protest against the pewers of Kin George. lhat was the principle which led the brave army of George ashing ton across the ice of the river Delaware. It was the principle which struck a successful blow against despotism and planted liberty upon this continent. It was the principle that our fathers claimed the Parliament of England had no right to invade, and drove the colonies into rebellion, because laws were passed without their consent by a Parliament in which they were unrepresented. I am here today to plead for the white people of this District, upon the same grounds taken by our fathers to the English Parliament, in favor of selfgovernment and the right of the people of the District to be heard upon this allimportant question. Although we may have a legs, yet we have no moral, right, according to the immutable principles of justicc, and according to the declaration of oly Writ, that we should do unto others as we would they should do unto us, to inflict upon the people of this District this fiendish doctrine o political equality with a race that God Almighty never intended should stand upon an equal footing with the white man and woman in social or civil life.