Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, in the course of my time I have heard a good deal about the dignity of Senators. I never made any pretension of that sort m self; but I do claim that I have reached the ignit of true manhood, and that dignity impels me whenever ablow is aimed at the constitution of my country and the liberties of the people, or my State, or myself, always to rope it with another blow, and when the aggressive blow comes from any citizen of my own State, I do not care whether his positionbe private or official, I am impelled to hit him with all the vigor I can throw in the repel ling blow. I stated last night when the Senate adjourned the points of opposition upon which I objected to the passage of this measure. As they are short, will state them again. 1st. I object to the passage of this bill, because a majority of the Senate exclude Senators from c even States from their seats for the purpose of securing the passage of this and other measures. 2nd. The measure is unconstitutional, because it proposes to invest the Freedmens Bureau with judieial powers; because it authorizes the President to assign Army Officers to the exercise of those judicial powers; because it breaks down the partition of the powers of the Government made by the constitution, and blends and concentrates in the same hands executive and judicial powers; and because it deprives the citizen of s right to trial by jury in civil cases. 3rd. It onght not to pass, because it is a scheme devise to practice injustice and oppression upon the white people of the late slaveholding States for the benefit of the free negroes, to engender strife and conflict between the 2 races, and to prostitute the powers of the Government for the impoverishment and degradation of the white race, and the enrichment and exaltation of the negro race. 4th. It will produce a profligate, wasteful, and unnecessary expenditure of the public money. 5th. It is one of the bold, reckless, and unconstitutional system of measures devised by the radical party to enable it to hold on to power and Office. If these objections are well stated, they are certainly sufficient to defeat this or any measure to which they can be made. I pledged myself yesterday and heretofore in relation to this measure that I would prove its unconstitutionality, and I think I am now ready to redeem that pledge. But in relation to the 1st ground of objectionthat it ought not to pass because the majority of the Senate have resorted to a revolutionary measure and have dissolved the Union to secure its passagecan any proposition be more true or selfevident than that, when a majority of the Senate or of the HoRep, for the purpose of passing any measure, deliberately, wantonly, and in defiance of the constitution and of the rights of the States to be represented in the 2 Houses of Congress, exclude from that representation in the 2 Houses 11 States, they have exercised and cut off those 11 States from the Union? Have they not dissolved the Union? If that does not amount to adissolution of the Union, or a lawless, unconstitutional exercise of power by an oppressive, tyrannical majority, I o not know what can produce such a result? What right have the majorit in this Senate to exclude the Senators from e even States? They are entitled to representation here by the Constitution of our country. They are entitled to it by all the laws of justice and of sound policy. What extraordinary motive but the one which I have imputed to them can operate upon this majority to induce them to resort to this revolutionary measure, by which they have dissolved the Union and cut off 11 States from it, and from participation in its government? Is this to be a new principle of party tactics? When a majority in ongress desire to pass revolutionary measures upon which hang the permanence of the party and their hold of power and of the possession of the Government, are they to resort to the extraordinary and revolutionary measure of excludm from the Senate and the HoRep, Sens&Reps of 11 States who are as much entitled to seats in the 2 bodies as they are, in order that they may be able to pass their unconstitutional measures? My honorable friendfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. COWAN] said the other day that there were some 80 propositions to amend the constitution pending before this Congress, and the c is, still they come. Look at this measure ook at the measure that is immediately to follow it, which the honorable chairman on the ComJudiciarya says, co instanti, when this bill is disposed of jhe intends to press upon the attention of the Senate for its adoption; look at the bill to confer upon the negroes of this District the right of suffrage. I say thin the object and sole purpose of this revolutionary movement of keeping out the Representatives, of 11 States from the HoRep, and 22 Senators representing 11 States out of the Senate, is simply to enable the party in power to pass these measures. Are not these 11 States severed from the Government and the Union? What is the severance of the Union but the severance of the States from participation in the Government? That is the very essential definition of a severance of the Union. Are not these States, which are thus severed from the Union by the lawless will of the dominatin majority here, as much interested, and tenfold more interested, in the measures to which I have adverted, and the pending one than the States who are permitted to retain their places in the Union, and who by the Representatives and Senators presume thus to revolutionize the Government and to cut them 05 from its benefits? In the name of the constitution, which has been violated by the lawless and inexcusable and unauthorized dismemberment of the Union that has been made in the way that I havementioned, in behalf of the deep, vital, permanent interest which the people of those 11 States have in these measures, I protest against the passage of this bill, or its consideration until those States are allowed to come into the Union and to have their representatives in the Senate of the U.S. Sir, by what authority is this revolution effected by the majority? What a fearful precedent it will establishl If it is to prevail, as prevail I suppose it will, how alluring to future parties to tread the same bold and revolutionary path. They will exclaim to the party now in power, “Thou didst marshal me in the way I am going:" and the time will come when this bitter chalice with all of its poisonousin redients will I be tendered to your own lips. hen that day comes, ifI should live and be in public or private life, and this poisonous chalice is offered to you, I will dash it from your lips ifI can with the same will and readiness that I would now dash it from the lips of the southern Statesnot for your sake, but for the sake of my country, the constitution and the liberties of the people. For myself, for my posterity, for the pos terity of the American people, I retest against the passage of this measure unti the Union is restored. You have dissolved the Union. It is an act of your own will. You may restore the Union and repair the infliction which you have made upon it. any moment you please. I ask you if those States are not entitled to representation in the Senate, and if they were here would you dare tofiress this infamous and iniquitous measure? f you did, with the concentrated power of those 11 States it would be deeated, and all your party advantages and all your perpetuity in office and power would be stricken to the ground. I have said that this measure ought not to pass because it was unconstitution al, because it invests the Freedmens Bureau with judicial powers. I understood my friendfrom Illinois at 1st to assume the position that it did not invest or propose to invest udicial powers in the bureau, but he afterward, told me that I had misapprehended him, and conceded eXplicitly thatit does invest judicial powers in this bureau. I say that that is a palpalile and flagitious in fraction of the constitution. Iwill now read some of the provisions of this bill upon which I intend to comment: $30. 7. Abife: That the Commissioner. with the approvalof the President, may divida each district into a number chub districts, not to c x tereicetd, the number of counties or parishm in such disagenta, enidthsehraall caistisziegnn, tocfleiacccrhosfutbh –edi Astrrmicyt, aotrleeanslitsotende man.” and the POTUS, through the War Dept and the Commissioner shall extend military Jurisdiction and protection over all employee s, agents, and officers of this ureau. I ask the especial attention of the Senate to the 7th and 8th sections: Sm. 7. Abife: That whenever in any State or district in which the ordinary course of ibudliiiul proceedings has been interrupted by the ree 1011, I moved an amendment excepting from the operation of the bill, and from the tyranny of this bureau, the States where the courts were now o en, and where justice could he administered in them according to the course of the civil law but the (IOlnlllLlllnY party in this senate voted it down by a solid phalanx. I will comment upon that in a moment and wherein, in consequenceof anyState or local law. ordinance. police or other regulation. custom or rejurliee. any of the civil rights or immunities c onging to white persons, including the right the and enforcecontracts. to sue. beparties and givme eavkie dance. to inherit. purchase. lease, sell. hold and convey real and personal property and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the serentity of person and estate, are refuse or denied to negroes. muluttoes. freedmen. refugees or any other persons. on account of race. color or any previous condition of slavery or ipvoluntary sorVitude. except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have beenduly convicted or wherein they or any of them are subjectedto anyother or different punishment, pains or penalties. for the commission of any act or otfeuse than are prescribed for white persons committing like acts or offenses. it shall be the duty of the POTUS through the Commissioner. to extend military protection and jurisdiction over all cases uffecting such personsso discriminated against. Was there over such afearful, tremendous and mostunsuthorized investiture of judicial powers in a mere executive bureau of the Government before? The next section is in these words: SEC. 8. Abife:. That any person who. Under color of any Stateor local law. "ordinance. gotalitcoeo. Rordoist thriecrt irnegwuhlaicthion the orored uinstaormy c, oshuarslle, official proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion. subject or cause to be subjected. any negro, mu latto. freedman, refugee or other person, on account of raceor color or any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. except as punishment for crime whereof the party shal have can duly conavnicyted or for any other cause. to the deprivation of civil right secured to white persons or to any other or different punishment than white persons are subjectto for the commissionof like actsor otfenses shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and bepunished by fine not exceeding $1000 or imprisonment not exceedinfiono year or both; and ist all be the duty of the o icers and agents of this bureau to take Jurisdiction of Yes, sir, vesting in them, in express and explicit language, the judicial power in all the class of cases herein describe and bearanddetermineall odenses committed against the provisions of this section, and also of all cases nffectingnegroes, muluttocs. freedmen. refugees or other personswho are discriminated against in any of the particularsmentioned in the precedingsection of this act. under such rules and regulations as the POTUS, through the warDept shall prescribe. Through the head of that Dept, the Hogan of our country, who will stay there until e rots of?! But here is the end to which all this systematic tyranny is to be pressed here are the results to the party and to the free no prothat are to be broug tu out by the puni ti e character of this measure, and y the punishment which it authorizes the Freedmens Bureau and its agents to inflict upon all the authorities of State governments: The jurisdiction conferred by this section on the officers and agentsof this bureau to ceaseand deter minewheueverthe discrimination onaccount of which it is conferredeeases and in no event to beexercised in any State in which the ordinary course of judicial iroceedings has not been interrupted by the rebellion. nor in any such State after said State shall have beenfully restoredin all its constitutional relations to the U.S and the courts of the State and of the U.S. within the same are not disturbed or stoppedin the peaceable course of justice. “Here is the deceitful language of this provision. It gives to this bureau this irresponsibleaction, backed by the bayoncts of the Army of the U.S., in every State where the proceedings of the courts have been interrupted y the rebellion. They have been interrupted, I presume, in the State of my honorable friendfrom Delaware; at any rate, they have been interrupted in Kentucky. Cur State was in vaded, and 3/4ths of it at one time was occu ied by the rebel armies. Our Governor and legislature and all the officers of our government were driven from Frankfort the seat of government, and compelled to take refuge in Louisville, under the protecting Wing of General Buells army. With a view to meet this case, I proposed that this measure should have no application to States where the courts were now open and where the laws could be executed by the civil courts as those laws have been enacted, and the domineering majority here, for its own bold and revolutionary purposes, to a man voted down thatjust proposition. Here is the State of Kentuck, in which there has been this interruption of the civil courts; and the Senfrom Illinois well knows it. He does not propose that this bill shall operate in the States where that interrution has been made and where it continues. o will not allow that it shall be restricted to the States in which the interruption now exists. He will not allow, and his friends, the united majority here will not allow that the operations of this bill shall be inhibited from the State of Kentucky where the courts are now open and the laws maybe enforced according to the constitution. The honorable Senator knew the full force of these words; he knew that the design of this bill. framed as it was byhis great legal acumen and ability and his comprehensive sweep of mind, was to entrap Delaware and Kentucky. Mr. President, I say that this is a flagrantly unconstitutional investment of power. The Senfrom Illinois deliberatel concedes that this bill invests the Freedmens arena with judicial wers. He ciguld got deny; it]becausle that an a e is embrace in it ain, exicitl anf unmistakably. Judicial power is invested in this bureau by this bill, an this bureau may be composed, to such an extent as the President shall o oose, of Army of the ers, of Officers not in the civil service, who, when so appointed, are to hold their places at his will, who are not apart of the judicial Dept of the Government, but an a endage to the executive dept of the Rivernment. This bill provides that such officers may be assigned to the performance of these judicial powers. If the Senate will excuse me, I will read from a book that has almost become obsolete, especially in the Senate of the U.S. the Constitution of the U.S.: "The judicial power of the U.S shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish. the judges both of the supremeand inferior courts shall hold their officesduring goodbe havior and shall at. stated times. receive for their services a compensation. Which shall not be diminiahed during their continuance in office. The judicial power shall extendto allcases. in law and ciiity, arising under this constitution the laws of the U.S and treatiesmade, or which shall be made. under their authority, ” Ate. Here is the judicial power of our Government as it is organized in the constitution. That judicial power is vested by the letter of this constitution, and where is it vested? It vested in the Supreme Court and in such infe or courts as Congress may from time to time establish. It is not vested by the constitution in a military bureau; it is not vested in an executive bureau it is not vested in the POTUS much less in any of his subordinate odi cers. This bill flagrantl, palpably, in direct and open conflict with the constitution, proposes to divest the courts of the U.S. of a portion of the judicial power which, by the letter of the constitution, is vested wholl in them, and to vest it in this negro bureau, an then provides that this ne probureau may be constituted and organized o military officers. In this conu ection, in relation to what is the judicial power, I will read an extract from the opinions of ct ief Justice Marshall in the case of eston and others vs. The City Council of Charleston, to be for adin 2 “ Peters, 463: In this case" says “ the learned judgeI will not call lim learned.” It is superfluous to attach my phrase to the name of ilnrshall for the purpose of exalting his eminent judicial learning. that is necessary is to pronounce his name “In this case the city ordinance of Charleston is the exercise of an autherity under the State of SCarolina. “the validi of which has been drum in question on the grouu of its being ropu nant to the constitution and the decision is in avor of its validity. the question. therefore, whichwasdeci led byxthe constitutional court is the very question on which the revising]power of this tribunal is to be oxercisedmndtheun v intpuryis. whetherit has by Gen decided in a case (lCSCllJlftlin the section which authorizes the writ of crror that has been awarced. Is a writ of prohibition a suit 1" I wanted so to amend this bill that the c itizen, the State judge, the Federal judge of he 1866. 411 U.S., the marshal of the U.S. in the execution of the judgment of the Federal judge, the sergeantatarms of the court of a pools, or the s eriff of the circuit court in which there was interference by this freedmen s Bureau to impede and obstruct and divide them in the exercise of their judicial functions, could apply for a writ of prohibition to the proper court, and to insert a declaration in the hill itself that that writ should be observed and respected and obeyed by the Freedmens bureau, and you deliberately voted down that proposition.” The term is certainly a very comprehensive one, and is understoodto apply to any proceeding in a court of justice by wtheli an individuul pursues thnt remedy in a court of justice which the law uffords him.” That is a concise and clear definition of a suit, and a suit iuvolves, necessarily, judicial power.” The modesof proceding may bevarious: but if a right is litizated betwcen parties in a court of justice the proceeding by which the decision of the court is sought is a suit. The questionbetween the parties is precisely the someas it would have been in a writ of repleving or in an action of trespass. The constitutionality of the ordinance is contested: the party aggrieved by it applies to a court: and at his surgestion a writ of prohibition, the appropriate reniedy is issued. the opposite party iippea s. undin the hirhest court the judgment is reversed and judgment given for the defcndant. Thisjudgmentwas, wethink, remdered in a suit.” The supreme Court, then, Chief Justice marshall reu ering the opinion, proceed to decide this suit and to reverse the judgment of the court in SCarolina. They decide that a prohibition is a suit; that any mode of proeeeding. whatever may be the form, in which one party is pursuing a right under the law in a court of justice, is a suit. The suits under this Freedmens Bureau bill will be thick as leaves in Vallambrosa. A writ of error or an appeal from the judgment of an inferior court of the U.S. to the Supreme Court is notal lowed unless the matter in controversy is of the value of $2,000. But here you do not organize a court; you do not profess to organize a court; and if you did, our organization of a court would be laughc to scorn by any countycourt law or in America. The idea of the congress of the U.S. organizing a court o? the Freedmens Bureau an authorizin the president to assign Army officers as judges of the court! Do you call the ta court? I offered an amendment providing that from that court miserable, farcical, and grotesque as it would be, there should be allowed a writ of error or appeal from its decisions to the district or circuit court of the U.S and then to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court and these inferior U.S. courts are branches of the Government of which you are a branch; they are the appropriate judicial tribunals; they are a part of the constitution of our country in the organization of the judicial Dept, to exercise exclusively the very jurisdiction with which you have attempted to invest this freed negro bureau. I appealed to your justice, to your magnanimity, to your sense of right, in order to prevent the abuse of power so anoma lous, somn constitution al, vested in this bureau by your bill, to allow appeals or writs of error from the judgmentsno, I will not so desecrate the term judgments the beliests, the decrees, or whatever you may call them, of this anoma lous, unconstitution al, and most contemptihle tribunal to the courts of the country; and in the solid, undivided strength of party you voted that proposition down. 1 is abominable measure is unconstitutional in another important feature. It violates article 7 of the amendments of the constitution, which is in these words: “In suits at common law. wherethe value in controversy shall exceed 20 dollars. The right of trial by jury shall be preserved: slinll and n9facttried by atjury e other wrse reexamined in any court of the U.S. than according to the rules of the common law.” Here, sir, is your warrant of authority, your pewer of attorney. All the little, brief, transitory power with which you are clothed, and which you are now exercising in a manner to shock the world, you hold from the Constitution of the U.S., and that Constitution declares explicitly that: “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shrill exceed 20 dollars. The right of trial by jury shall be preserved;and no fact tried by a "my shall e otherwise recxamined in any court of the U.S. than accordingto the rules of the common law.” In exposition of this provision of the constitution I will read an extract from the opinion of Mr. Justice Story in the case of Parsons vs. Bedford et (11., to be found in 3 Peterss reports. page 433. Let us see what the right of the citizen to have all matters of controversy in which 20 dollars are involved tried by a jury means by the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court, and that interpretation written by Justice Story, with the concurrence of the court. He was once great authority all over the U.S., and he is yet in the West and in the great middle States; but he has lost his power and his weight as a great judicial light in Yankee land: and why? Because his opinions and the principles which they established are incompatible with the present o litical systems of Yankee land. ore is what Mr. Justice Story says: "The trial by ury is justly dear to the American people. It has a waysbeen an object of deep interest and solicitnde and every eneroachment upon it has been watched with greatjealousy, The right to such it trialis. it isbelieved. incorporated into and secured in every State constitution in the Union; and it is found in the constitution of Louisiana.” The case came up from Louisiana. “One of the strongest objections originally taken against the constitution of the U. S. was the want of unexpress provision securing the right of trial byjury in civil cases.” and that objection was so strong and deemed to be of such vital importance that it was at once obviated by the adoption of the 7th amendment to the constitution, which I have road, which securesthat right. “As soon as the constitution was adopted this right was secured by the 7th amendment of the constitution proposed by Congress: and which received an assent of the co lo l0 general, as to establish its importance as a unamentalgnsrantee of the rights an liberties of the people. This amendmentde olares, that in suits at common law, wherethe value in controversy shull exceed 20 dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be reserved; and no fact once tried by aju shall beot erwisereexaminsbloin any court of the U.S. than accordingto the rules of the common law. At this time there were no Statesin the Union the basis of whose jnrisprudence was not essentially that of the common law in its widest meaning: and probably no States were contemplated in which it would not exist. The phrase common law, found in this clause is usedin contradistinction to equity and admiralty and maritime jurisprudence. The constitution hiid declared. in the thi article that thojudicial powershall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution. the laws of the U.S., and treaties madeor which shall be made under their authority, 810 and to allcuses of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. It is well known that in civil causesin courts of equity and admiralty juries do not intervene, and that courts of equity use the trial byjury only in extraordinary casesto inform the conscience of the court. “When, therefore. we find that the amendment requires that theright of trial byjury shall bepreserved in suits at common law. the natural conclusion is that thisdistinction was present to the minds of the frumers of the amendment. By common law theymenntwhut the constitution denominated in the 3rd article law; notmerely suits which the common law recognized amongits old and settledproceedings. but suits in which legul rights were to be ascertained and determined: in contradistinction to thosewhereequitablerights alone wererecognizedand e nitable reme dies were administered:orwhere. asin the udmiralty m mixture of publiclaw and of maritime law and equity wasoften foundinthesamesuit. Probably there were few ifsny Statesin the Union in which some new legal remedies differing from the old common law forms werenotin use; but in which however. the trial by jury intervened, and the general regulations in other res sets were according to the course of the comnion law. roecediniisin cases of partition and of foreign and domestic attachment, might be cited as examplesva riously adopted and mo ified. In a just sense, the amendment then may well he construedto embrace all suits which are not of equity and admiralty uris diction, whatovermaybeth e cculiur formwhic they may assume tosettle legal rights and Congress seems to have acted with reference to this exposition in the judiciary act of 1780. chapter 20, (which was contemporaneous with the proposal of this amendment; for in the 9th section it is provided. that the trial ofissucs in fact in the district courtsin all causes exceptcivil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction shall be by jury; and in the 12th section it is prov1ded. thatthe trial ofissuesin fact in the cir cuit courts shall in all suits, except thpseof equity and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. be by H jury: and, atainain the 13th section. it is provided that the trial of issuesin fact in the Supreme Court in all actionsat law against citizens of the U.S shall be bymry.” I have read the provision of the constitution, which is as plain and as explicit and as clear as language can express it. I have read the exposition of that amendment giiorantyin to every citizen the right of trial byjury in all civil cases when the amount involved in contest is as much as 20 dollars, by the SCOTUS, the opinion remdered by Mr. Justice Story; and they decide in conformity to the plain and explicit provision of the constitution and in conformity to the provision of the judiciary act of 1789, passed, as they say, simultaneously with the a option of this amendment. They show that by common law suits were meant all suits contradistinguished from equity and admiralty suits. All this mass of suits, it is provided by the constitution, where the amount is above 20 dollars, shall be tried by a ury. They decided that the congress oft c U.S. in passing the judiciary act of 1789expressly provided that in the district and circuit courts and in the Supreme Court itself, wherever there is a common law issue of the amount exceeding 20 dollars, either party to that issue is entitled to his constitutional privilege to have it decided y a No1w, 11. think, Mr. Presid ent, that I have well made out my position, and that the honorable Senfrom Illinois, with all his legal ability, cannot shake it, that this bill invests or attcm ts to invest not in a court but in an executive dept judicial powers; that it blends and confuses the Depts of the Government by authorizing the President to make this bureau consist, if c pleasesnof Army officers who hold their office and position by his will. The constitution directs that all udicial power shall be vested in the Supreme ourt an such inferior courts as congress may from time to time establish; and it is a flagrantassumption of power, a flagitious infraction of the constitution, to attempt by this bill to invest this bureau with anyjudicial power. In addition to the violation of the express assignment of power by the constitution to the courts of the country, it violates the 7th amendment, which guaranties to every American litigant who has a common law suit, a right to a trial by jury when the amount involved in the contest is 20 dollars or upward. Let us now examine for a short time what is the object of passing this enormous, outrageous, and monstrous measure. Let me give you an example or two. Here are provisions that would deform an court in the world in any civilized country. he courts of Russia, all the grand courts of the Ottoman Porte, of the leuden espot of Austrin, any Government in the world, would be deformed and outraged by the introduction of such a feature as this. read from the 8th section of this bill: Any person who. under color of any Stateor local law, ordinance. police, or other regulation or custom, shall in any State or district in which the ordinary courseof udicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebelion Not where it continues to be interrupted, but where it has been interrupted, no odds how long before subject, or causeto be subjected, any negro, mulatto, freedman Jefuge or oother person. on account of race orcolor, orany previous condition of slaveryor involuntary servitu o, except as n punishment for crime whereof the party shall have beenduly convicted, or for any other cause. to the deprivation of any civil right secured to white persops, or to any other or different punishment than white personsare subjectto for the commissionof like actsor offenses shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be punished by finenot exceeding$1.000o, imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both; and it shall be the duty of the officers and agents of this bureau to tako jurisdiction of and hear and determine all offenses committed against the provisionsofthis section and also of all cases affecting negroes. mulattocs freedmen refugees or other persons who are discriminated againstin any of the particulars mentioned in theme cedingsectionof this act. under speh rulesand regulations as the POTUS, through the War Dept, shall prescribe. The previous section provides that the freedman shall be entitled to all the civil rights and privileges that a white person is entitled to. glow let me give you an example. It has been made nerime in Kentucky and I hOpe italways will be; it shall never cease to be With my consent. at leastfor any negro to interma with a white person. it is made apenal offense or our county court clerk to issue a license to a negro to intermarry with a white person. It is made a enal offense for a preac er of the Gospel to so emnize the rites of marriage between a negro and a white person. Suppose that under is famous bill a negro applies to the count court clerk of Bourbon county for amarriage icense to intermarry witha white woman, and the clerk refuses because the law does not permit such an allianceit denounces it as a crime, and it punishes all persons who assist in the perpetration of that crime as criminals, enally. He refuses under the sanction of the laws to grant the license. What does the negro do? He goes and makes complaint to this bureau; this ureau sends its corporals guard with fixed bayoncts to the clerks office and commands the clerk to issue this license against the highest penal sanctions of our law. The clerk refuses; what do they do? They imprison him, they take him into custody, the bureau assumes to adjudge the case, to punish him for obedience to the laws of his own State which he has sworn to support and which he has given bond that he wrl rapport. This is one of the consequences of this law, and it will speedily arise in our State. It will give rise to inevitable conflict between the jurisdiction of our State officers and courts and the Freedmens Bureau. What does the clerk do? He applies to a judge for a writ of prohibition to prevent this interference by the freedmens Bureau with his official duties, which he is performing according to the laws of the State; the judge rants the writ of prohibition. What then takes place? This freedmens Bureau sends an additional military guard; they seize upon the judge. they strip the ermine ofiustice With which his shoulders have been clothed by as gallantti State as there is in America; and because he issues a writ of prohibition to prevent this Freedmens Bureau from compeing one of the ministerial officers of the State to violate his oath of office and his duty underthe law, because he issues his writ of prohibition to prevent the bureau from interferin without any authority of valid law in such a agrant case, they carry that judge to a prison. I will give you another example. It is there made a capital offense for a negro to violate the person of a white woman. The Gentfrom Kansas who replied to my onornble colleague the other day [Mr. Posisaov] may exgect the day to come, but he will never live, an the man is not now born who will live, to see the day when there will be an alteration of the law of Kentnck in that respect. The same offense committed y a white man is a felony, punishable by confinement in the ommitted by anegro, it is punisha pelenibtyendteiaartyh.; and in some cases the offense is committed under circumstances of atrocit that a mob lashed to fury by the enormity of the crime, as in StLouis a few years ago, seize the criminal, wrest him from the hands of justice, and burn him at the stake. I do not know, and I do not believe that such an outrage upon the forms of justice was ever peretrated in Kentucky; but sir you may passt is measure, on may send yourFreedmens Bureau there backed by a standing army; but whenever the case occurs the people of Kentucky will punish the black crimina by hanging him, and all the Freedmens Bureaus that could be created by congress will be in sufficient to give him immu nitly from such a just punishment. Couldmention a few other cases in our penal laws. I couldmention man cases in which there would be controversies between a free negro and awhite man involving contract, property rights, in all the varioua forms which they assume in courts of justice, and in which the white man and the negro are equally by the constitution guarantied the right to trial by jury ifthe amountin controversy exceeds 20 dollars; and yet the honorable Senfrom Illinois vaunted so boldly and defiantly ester day that the law was constitution al! Iy said, and I now repeat that this measure was designed for Kcutnc y; it was concocted by the honorable Senfrom Illinois with the assistance of the degenerate son of Kentucky who now occupies the position of Attorne General. I have heard of no individual case a may nan imity, of mercy, of justice, being a plied or to the executive Dept of the government from Kentucky, with 2 or 3 exceptions, where he has not thrown his whole influence, personal and official, against it. I have known of no outrage upon the constitution of Kentucky or upon the constitution of the U.S.; I have known of no law of Congress since he has been in office; I have known of no administrative measure of policy that could at all be brought to bear upon Kentucky, that was cal culated to dishOnor, to degrade, and to outrage his native State, that has not received the sanction and the earnest support of this unlineal son of that noble State. Sir, I cannot express the depths of my scorn and detestation toward a Kentuckian who can play such a part. I car. only excuse it upon the plea that he knoweth not what he is doin. Mr. President, Iiave not the bill to which this is an amendment before me, but it restricts, by its terms, the Freedmens Bureau to the States that were in rebellion. By its terms it exonerates and excludes Kentucky. Some month ago the Freedmens Bureau was introduced into Kentucky, as I have understood, with the official and personal sanction of the AttyGen, whon it was without the authority of a figment of law; when it was a nakedand monstrous military usurpation; when there was not even an unconstitutional and Invalid law to give it any sanction or any excuse and what was done? I will read what I understand to be a creation, in part, of the brain of the AttyGen: "Agency of the Freedmens Bureau for Covington and vicinity.” This was published some 3 or 4 weeks " Ifursuantto orders from Brevetlifaior General0. B. Fiske. asst. commissioner of the Freedmens Bureau forKentucky and Tennessee. datedNashville. Tennessee. December 25. 1865. the undersigned as sumes the officeofsuperintendent of the affairsof the bureau for Covington and vicinity. ". There was no bureau at Oovington, there was none in the State by authority of law, and where there was no law it was a plain, naked, flagrant usurpation, which anybody had a right to resist.” The principal objectsof this bureau are the ra motion of prouctiveindustr. The settlement Of those so lately slaves in homesoft eir own. with the guarantee of tbeir absoluto freedom and their rights to Justice beforethe law. as set forth in the proclamation of the President and the laws of Congress. the dissemination of virtuous intelligence and to aid in permanently establishing cares and securing prosperity to thosewho wereunti lntcly slaves. “The ratification of the constitutional amendment forever abolishing slavery in the U.S.” I am not disposed to dispute that proposition "having been officially announced to the country by reclamation of the SecyState. Dated December 18. 1865, this bureau extends its supervision over persons recently held as slaves in the State of Kentucky. In the further dischargeof the duties of this office the following rules and regulations will be observed:" Now, I will read the rules and regulations that this satra, this military minion of power, dared to promulgate in the State of Kentucky for the overthrow of its government and its laws: “1. No fixed rates of wages will be prescribed by the superintendent of affairshere. but no community ortgppibination of people will be permitted to fix rs That may be ver well; but by what authority, by what warrant oes he assume to make such a regulation? If it was to become necessary our State Legislature would do it. They are the judges whether it shall be done or not. I have seen 100 slaves and free negroes parties to suits, and more in my State; I are been the counsel of 50 myself; and I never saw a negro, slave or free, in a court in Kentucky that he did not receive the fullest justice from a court and jury, and never, where c had a s ccious case, t iat he did not enlist the sympathies of the entire courthouse, With the exception of his adversary and the counsel of his adversary. But I will read on: “2. Parties can make any trade or agreement that is satisfactory to themselves and so long as advantage is not taken of the ignorance of the freedpeople to deprive them of a fair and reasonable compensation for their Iabor. thore will be no interference. wattes will be secured by a lien on the crops raised or by goodsuretics. if the employers circumstances are such as to make it doubtful uto his ability to meet the contract.” Are not these legislative powers? Are they not legislative powers to govern a State that maintains the same relations toward the Union and the General Government that the State of Illinois does? By what right does this military dictator presume to promulge his code of laws in that State? But shall read on: “4. Contracts hereafter must be in writing: but contracts at present exislinz:. whether verbn or otherwise. will not be interfered with except to compel. if necessary. both parties to comply in good faith with agreements" Oh. what a chancellor he is to execute specifically a contract l " and to settlo disates when they may arise. It will be a part of t a business of this o cc to fairly adjust the labor question and to see that contracts are equitable and their invioability enforced agnins ttho employer and employe.” He is absorbing all power, legislative, judicial, and executive playing the nutocrnt.” Persons who neglect or refuse to make written contracts With the freedpeople employed by them will be should any dispute arise as to compensation to pay the highest wages given for vthe same kind of labor in their neighborhood or section of country.” He dictates how the contract shall be made, whether it shall be in writing or verbally.” The laborer must work under the direction of his employer. must be industrious and faithful and not leave the plantation or place of his employment in working hours, without permissmn. unless e is cruelly trciiled.” 5. Parents are advised that the are responsible for their children, and the children or their used and decrepit parents and must labor for their suppprt: and in making contracts this fact must be taken into consideration. Aged and infirm freedmen. who have no means of support. nor any relationsto whom they can rightfully look for the sume. Will be provrded for by the county authorities: The county authorities do it and have always done it; have done it from the origin of our State, and they are not to be hastened and will not be hastened by this military dictator, nor by his bayonets, however sharp they may be “but the compulsory removal of the lured and infirm ctcorlsowreildlnpoetob pelpec from inchdeairnhcolpmloenst by their former inas and homes. From which the old and faithful freed people are driven away will be seized and treated as abandoned Illbdl and property. for the benefit of this homeless and helpless class of people.” My county was the 2nd slaveholding county in the State in point of numbers. I have never known there 1 e owner of an infirm or decrepid slave that did not make provision for his support; and where the owner refused to da so the law was compulsory. We have a; not of the Legislature which imposes the duty upon the county court to see that the obligation is enforced upon the owner of old, infirm, and decrepid slaves to support them; and if all these resources fail, if a decrepit slave becomes a county pauper, he is supported in the poor house of the county, or by a charge upon the levy of the county. That is the case all aver the State of Kentucky; and yet, with all t iese revisions, this AttyGen urges or the Senfrom Illinois to report such:1 mos ture as this. But here you have long ago, 1by our military officers, in defiance of the constituion and law, wrested from the owners of sl: you their property in those slaves. We cared n ithing a out our law of Congress freeing the wives and children of slaves who had enlisted in the Army. We knew that was a brutum Ful men; and our supreme court have already decided that it is unconstitutional and ine pera ive. We knew thatany court ofany intelligence whluld render the same decision; and if that deciion was not rendered there couldbe a revisory tribunalreached that would decide it to be unconstitutional. We maintained, too, atleastit was my position, but that is now superseded and absorbed by the amendment to the constitution which, I admit, has the effect to liberate all slaves, but without that amendment to the constitution you had no slave, not a solitary one, in America liberated. But I care not new for that question; I consider now that they are all liberated. There is a widow and there is an orphan, there is an old and decrepit white man who has s out his life in industry and toil; he has a little and and he had some slaves. You have taken all his slaves from him except the old and decrepit; and if he is not able to maintain them, here is a provision of this Government in Kentucky, which a military subordinate has organized to override the constitution and laws and courts of that State which declares that if his old and decrepit slave, from whatever motive, inability or another motive, is forced to leave the house and the home of his owner, that house and that home shall be treated as abandoned property, shall be seized, and that aged owner who has earned it by the sweat of his brow and by the exertions of his arm and his sinews and muscle, shall be deprived of it, and it shall be given up to these negroes. "6. Judicial officersand magistrates are requested to signity their acceptance or rejection of the proposition that they act as agentsfor this bureau in the administration of justicc and in all caseswhere the civil officersdecline such adjudication it will become necessary for this uilice to administer justice in all casesas would otherwisebe adjudicated by such civil officers, ” This office to administer justice in such cases as otherwise would be adjudicated! The At torney General knows the state of things in Kentucky. He. knows that this arrangement is in force; it has received his sanction, personal and official and now you are to pass this law to give a semivalidity to this mon strous system of tyranny and oppression under the guise of a military bureau backed by bay o“nets, in the State of Kentucky and in sodoing will be governedby the lawsofthis State, exceptso far as those laws make a distinction on account of color.” Oh, yes! and here the honorable Senators bill says to Kentucky, "Whenever you shall reform and modify your laws so as to give the negro equal civil rights”and the next demand will be equal political rights“ we will then remove this screw from you.” Sir. this measure is intended to place Kentucky and the southern States on the rack; the thumbscrew and the pincers are to be applied to their muscles and nerves for purposes of torture, and this torture is to be continued and applied, and aplied until these States are subjugated, enslave, unmanned, ignobly whipped into a compliance with these degrading conditions. Why, Mr. President, I should suppose that this terrible contest had caused the people of the different States and sections of the U.S. to become acquainted with each other. Is that the way to reunite the States, to introduce once and fraternity and brotherhood among the ately warring States and sections? How long has that system been attempted in Ireland? irorn the days of Henry H, and especially from the time that William of Orange crossed the Boyne water and what was the effect? There were discriminating laws made there against the Catholic Irish. They felt that those laws were in violation of all their natural rights, and in degradation of all their manhood. They opposed them from century to century, from a c to age, from generation to generation; and the Iron Duke himself, when Prime Minister of England, was at length made, by the determination and constancy of this long struggle of a brave and a gallant and an nnconquered and an unconquerable people against tyranny, to yield to their just demands. What did he say? Said he, I have seen as much waras most men; he had been the conqueror of Napoleon, and the honors and rewards of Europe and its potentates were being showered down upon him; he was the acknowledged greatest military captain of the age, if not of any ago; an, said he, “The most of my military service has been in civilWar; and I tell you, in lords” making a speech in the House of Lords“ that if the sacrifice of my life would prevent civilWar in this empire only for 6 weeks I would cheerfully make that sacrifice.” Do the men that urge forward this measure by a disfranchisement of 11 States by a dismemberment of the Union think that the representatives of those States when they get into their places here, and their people, will ever recognize the validity, much ess the justice and the binding obligation, of your amendments to the constitution and these measures of policy that are adopted to grind them to the dust? No, Mr. President; they will regard them as the Irish did the oaths excluding Roman Catholics from office, from a share in their Government from a right to vote, and justly. These men do not want fraternity; they do not wish a reunion not for the present. It is not their purpose. Their purpose is to keep up the fury and the tempest of passion upon the cry that the war is not yet over, although the President has proclaimed it to be so, and although you are uppointing and approving appointments into all the southern States daily. they want this commotion, this turmoil, this fury of passion that dethrones reason, that destroys all the charities of the human heart, that subverts patriotism and every dut of life, private or publicthey want this may frenzy of passion to continue and they want under it to be justified or excuse by their States and constituency for the dissolution of the Union that they have made, and for this lawless, violent, unconstitutional exclusion of 11 States from their representation on the 2 floors of Congress. Oh, say gentlemen, they will come in after a while; it shall be done. When will it be done? When you have passed through the 2 Houses of Congress by avote of2/3rds some of the most obnoxious propositions as amendments to the constitution; when you have passed your despotic suffrage bill for this District where there are scarcely ten white citizens who are not opposed to negro suffrage; when you have imposed the same odious principle upon the southern States which most of the northern States reject with scorn; when you have authorized this infamous Freedmens Bureau, the very device of the spiritofoppression and of injustice, to go into all the States; when you have passed the kindred measure to give the negro “equality before the law, ” in the hackneyed phrase of the Senfrom Massachusetts, an when you have passed all the other unjust and out rageous measures which you may deem necessary for the preservation of your party ascend ency that you may hold on to power. Mr. President, I tell these gentlemen they do not want reunion at present. Why? You, sir, [Mr. HOWE in the c air] represent a great and growing and gallant young State of the North west. Suppose all NewEngland was held out of its representation in the Senate and in the other House as the 11 States are, where then would be the sonorous voice of the Senfrom Massachusetts? Where would be his protest, delivered in thunder tones in this Chamber and resounding through all the mountains of NewEngland? Suppose the great Northwest were excluded. Mr. President, there are many ups and downs in life. Political parties in countries having the form of free government are especially liable to vicissitude. It is an acci,dent almost that the party who are now in power are not the party in rebellion. If the ecompton constitution, against which I was a determined foe, had been passed, and Kansas had been admitted into the Union under that constitution, a revolt of the free States would certainly have taken place, and every man, not excepting the honora le Senfrom Illinois, who is now shouting for these monstrous infractions of the constitution, these fearful usurpations of power, all these measures of oppressron which we are denouncin, would have been loud in denouncing them. n the hps and downs of parties. it may come to pass in a few years that the tables will be turned, and then the gentle i men who constitute the Black Republican party, and who are now so magisterially wielding power in this Government and all over the U.S., may be made to take that very procrustess bed which they have constructed for their adversaries. How would the lien on it? I hope to live to see this party urle from power; but I hope never to give to see the day when any party, its successor, shall seek to practice the same enormous abuses of power, and the sameoppressionu on its members, that they have practiced upon ose who are opposed to them. Mr. President. I am no party man. I am fighting this battle upon my own hook. I am fighting it under the inspiration and the teachings of Mr. Clay, when he proclaimed his noble sentiment that ought to be deeply graven upon the heart of every American statesman and legislator: “I would rather be right than be president;” and it. was true as it was noble. Sir, if in the short remnant of life thatis left to me any party should dethrone the Present party in power, and should seek to turn the same engines of oppression upon it that it has so lav ishly and unscrupulously attempted to enforce against others, I would be as much opposed to the exercise of those powers and the toleratioa of those abuses then as I am now. Mr. President, that great man to whom I have referred, in 1821, averted one civil convulsion on the Missouri question, enforcing by his matchless eloquence and his irresistible power over men that compromise measure through Congress. In 1833, when the clouds of war rose again in the South and threatened to burst in fury over the whole land, he averted a 2nd time the terrible calamity of civilWar. In 1850. after the Mexican war had closed by the acquisition of a large scope of country, no man had wisdom or statesmanship or courage or power to adjust the vexed question that then arose except Mr. Clay. He a ain commanded the tempest not to rise, and the country had a further continuance of eaee. Mr. President, if it had pleased Provience in its bounty, in its goodness, to this country, to have spared the life of that great man, and also Mr. Webster, they would have averted vain the terrible calamity that has convulsed this country and that has imperiled, I fear forever, constitutional government and the liberties of the people., Mr. President, it was the matchless eloquence and the unequaled statesmanship of that great man that enabled him to achieve those great results for the common good and peace of our country. It was his might power over men, it was the breadth and dept 1 of his patriotism, it was his genius and the fiery grandeur of his soul, and his most marvelous command over men, that enabled him to effectthese great consummations. He was always for comromise, for peace, for pouring oil on the trouble waters. He wanted no civil strife, no sectional war, no war that would shake the pillars of the constitution to their dee hate, and perhaps bring down the edifice of liberty forever. If the present generation would loo back to his example, his noble principles, and his peerless and expanding patriotism that knew no section, no parties whten the country and its Government were in peril, and would act a little in the spirit of tc example and counsels of that great man, itseems to me thntthe wounds deep, bleeding, and immedicable as they seem to be, of the country might speedily be healed.