Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I, as one of the committee from which is bill was reported, deem it my duty, as I have had probably more Opportunity to investigate the character of it than some other Genomen in the House, to exputiate somewhat upon the bill, not only with regard to its constitutionality, butits policy. Let me say, in the commencement, that there is no person in this House more willinglto extend to the a reall the rilghts of life, bei ty, and propertyt ian I am. am willin to treat him in temost kind] and Christian like manner, and extend to imoveiy privilege that On htto be guarantied to any man in the U.S. for the protection of his liberty, his life, and his property. But when I took my seat in this body took a solemn oath, which I implanted deeply in my heart and conscience, that I would support the Constitution of the U.S and defend it against its ene mies, whether within or without. Now, sir, it cannot be pretended by any lawyer in this House, whatever his litical opinions may be, who will base his integrity upon his professional experience, that there is any authority in the Congress of the U.S. toenter the domain of a State and interfere with its internal police, statutes, and domestic reulations. by, sir, the proposed amendment of the Constitution which as just been discussed in this House and postponed till April next, was offered by the earned Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] for the very purpose of avoiding the difficulty which we are nowmeeting in the attempt to pass this bill now under consideration. Because the amendment which he reported from the committee of 15 Was intended to confer upon Congress the power “ to make laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and to all rsons in the several States equal protection or the right of life, liberty, and property.” There is no protection or law provided for in that constitutional amendment which Congress is authorized to pass by virtue of that constitutional amendment that is not contained in this proposed act of Congress whichis no wbefore as. lheroi I decline to with That is what we fore we have the opinion of the majority of the committee of 15, and the o nion of the learned Gentfrom Ohio, [ Mr. BINGHAM] that in order to do what this bill proposes, Congress must be empowered by an amend;ment to the organic law. I affirm, without the fear of successful contradiction, that by the decision of the highest court of the U.S., that august tribunal to whose decisions every honest and patriotic man is bound to how, it has been eXpressl and solemnly decided. after the most mature elib eration, by a beach of the most enlightened and learned lawyers that ever sat upon it, that negroes in this country, whether free or slave, are not citizens or people of the U.S. within the meaning of the words of the Constitution, and that therefore no law of Congress or of an State can extend to the negro race, in the fa 1 sense of the term, the status of citizenship and the organic law, by its letter and spirit, and in view of the contemporaneous circumstances under which it was passed, fully vindicate the authority of this decision of the Supreme Court, declaring that no power within any State, much less in the Congress of the U.S., can change the flalus of the negro. That cannot be done until the requisite amendment is made to the Constitution, until some such article has been carried into effect by 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress and 3/4ths of the States. I ask gentlemen on the other side, because I treat them with the same respect that I would treat those who agree with me in political opinion I know them to be men of judgment and menof sense to discriminate between the great rights which are vested in the States and the rights and powers delegated by the States to the Federal Government. I am here today to ving dicate the doctrine of Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson, those great polar stars of State sovereignty, which State sovereignty has led this country in peace and prosperity for 75 years; which has made it what it is among the nations of the earth; that sustained the great elementary principles contained in the organic law, that when Congress undertakes to inflict legislation upon the reserved rights of the States it is a usurpation and it is the duty of every Representative, whatever his polities may be, to prevent any such usuration, and to maintainand preserve the sa egiiard and rights of the States unimpaired, as they were intended to be, by the framers of the or nic law when they assembled in the old Hal of Independence in 1789. Now, sir, no bill has been offered in this House or in the other, the freedmens bill not excluded, which proposes to give to Congress such dangerous powers overt eliberties of the people as this hi I under consideration, and if it can be constitutionally passed by the congress of the U.S., and is no infringement upon the reserved or undele ated powers of the States, then Congress hast e right, not only to extend all the rights and privileges to colored men that are enjoyed by white men, but has the right to take away. If Congress has the right to extend the great privileges of citizenship, which heretofore have been controlled by the States, to any class of beings, they have the right, by the same authorit, to take away from an class of ceple in any State the same rights that they have the right to extend to another class of persons in the same State. In other words, i the Congress has power under our present organic law to decide what rights and privileges shall be extended“) negroes, it has ta same power and authority no or that organic law to ext enditsl slation so as to take away the most inestim Is and valuable rights of the white men and the white women of is country, and not only take but destroy ever blessin of life, liberty, siagnns property, upon the principle that Congress has unlimited sovereign power over the rights of the States; and whenever, in its judgment, it may see fit, it may carry this power on to an unlimited extent. Now, air, is there any member on the other side of the House who, on the honor of a man i of conscience and integrity, can make himself believe that this Congress has the right to control the privileges and immunities of every citizen of these States, as contemplated in this bill, without a change in the organic law of the land“! Now, not only in the Dred Scott decision has l it. been expressly decided in the Supreme Court what the true status of the colored race is, but it. was decided early in the history of the country, in a free State, the State of Pennsylvania, that although the constitution of that State allowed every free man to vote, using the word “free man, ” which is not to be found in the Constitution of the U.S., yet the supreme court of Pennsylvania, then the highest court in that State, most solemnly and unequivocally decided that the negro was not included within the term “free man, ” whether he was free or whether he was a slave, and that under the clauses of the Constitution of the U.S. speaking of “citizens” and “ people” free no roes and slaves were never included within those terms. I will refer to the case which I have not produced before. I will not now read the Dred Scott decision, because I have read it here, and every one in the House is familiar with it. But I will read from the Penusylvania case of Hogg us. Fogg, which is to be found involume 6 of “aits Reports, page 553. The judges of election. when a free colored man, not a slave, offered himself to vote in Pennsylvania, under the constitution of the State which allowed every “free man” to vote, refused to receive his vote, and hence this action was brought on the plea of an invasion of property. The court says: “ In the 1st section of the 3rd article it is de clared that in clect ons bythocitizens eve free man of the ageof 21 years.having resied in the State 2 yearsbeforethe election.an having within that time paid a State or countytax, shall enjoy the rights of on elector. Now. the argument of thosewho assertthe claim of the colored population is. that the negro is human: and when not held to involuntary service, that he is free; consequently that he is a free man; and ifaffee man in the commonucccptotion of the term, then a freeman in every acceptntion of it. This pithy and sylloYislic sentencecomprises the whole arzuincnt. Whicln howcver clubornted. perpetu all ccts back to the point from which it started. The fallacy of it is its assumption that the term freedom lisrnities nothing but exemptionfrom inyoluiituryser vice; and that it has not a legalsi nitication .more specific. The freedom of a inuiiicipi corporation or body politic, implies fellowshp and a participation of corporate rights: but an inhabitant ofan incorporated place. who is neither servantnor slave. though bound by its laws. maybe no freeman in respect of its government. It has.indeed, been utiirmcil y t ext writers. that liobitiince and paying seat and lot. give an incidental right to corporate freedom; but the courts have refused to nckuoivledge it. even when the eharter seemedto imply it: and, when not derived from prescription or grant. Itwzis deemed a qualification mercl and not a iitle. (Wilcox. chapJ, p. 456.) Let it not lesaid that the local meaning oft io word free man is peculiar to British corporations, and that we have it not in the charters and constitutions of Pennsylvania." “But in addition to interpretation from use c.this anteedent legislation furnishes other proofs that no colored race was party to our social compact as was instly remarkedby PresidentFox. in the matter of the late contested elcclion. ourance storssettled the province as acominunity of white men: and the blacks were introduced into it.asa raceof slaves; where an unconqueiuble prejudice of caste.which has come down to our day. insomuch that a suspicion of taint still has the unjust elfectnfsinking the subect of it below the commonlcvel. Consistentlywith t isprejudice is it to be credited that garity of rank would be allowed to such nrnce? Lott e questionheanswered by the statute of 17, which denominated it an idle and aslothtul people: which directed the magistrates to bind out free negroos for laziness or vagrancy; which forbade them to harbor Indian or mulotto slaves. on pain of punishmentby fine or to dealwith negro slaves on pain of stripeswhich annexedto the interdict of marriage with a white the penalty of res ductionto slavery: which punished thein fortipplin. with stripes, pad even a white person with servitude for intermarriage with a negro. Ltffoomen in a political sense.were subieets of these ornelan degrading oppressions, what musthave been the lot of their brethren in bondage. It is also true that degrading conditions were sometimes assignedto white men, but never as members ufnenste. Insolvent.debtors, to indicate the worst of them were comgglled tomake satisfaction by servitude: but that was rrowed from a kindred and still less rational principle of the common law: This act of 1726.however. remained in force till it wasrepealed by the einancipating act of 1780, and it is ipatioaal to believe that the progress of liberal sentiment. was so rapid in the next tea years as to produeaadsterinination in the convention of ITPO.to raise this depressed race to the level of the whiteonc. Ifsuch wereits purpose it is strange that the Word chosen to effectitshould have been the very one chosenby the convention of 1776. to designato a white clect r. overyfree man. it is said. chapter two. section 6. of the full aeof 21 years, having resided in this State or a space of oiio whole ycnrbeforcthe day of clect on and paid taxes during that time, shall enjoy the rights of unclector." U iQIOfiDOQli “I have thoupht it fair to treat the question as 1it l stiiiids ntfected y our municipal rezulntions without illustrations from those of other States, where the condition of the race has been still lessfavored. Yet it is proper to snythat the 2nd section of the 4th article of the Federal Constitution, preventsan obstacle to the political freedom of the negro. which seems to be inseparable. It isto by rememberedthat citizenship aswcll us freedom is a constitutional qualilicution: and how it could he conferredso asto ever hear the laws imposing counties! disabilities on himing other Stotes is a problem of difficult solution. In this aspect the question becomes onc.uot of intuition, but of power; and of power so doubtful as to for bniedeethsositeyxoefrtchiseeso of it. Every man must lament the disabilities; but slavery is to be dealt with by thosewhose existence depends on the skill with which it is treated. Considerations of inere humanity. howcver. belong to a class with which, as judges. we have nothing to do and interprcting the Constitution in the spirit of our institutions, we are bound to pronouncethat men of color are destitute of title to the elective franchise." I want this question answered. Has congress the power to enter the domain of a State, and destroy its police regulations with regard to the punishment inflicted upon negroes? For instance, the State of Kentucky, provides by law that if a negro man commits a rape upon a white woman, he shall be punished by death; but a white man coniinittin a rape upon a white woman is to be punished by imprisonment and in the State of Indiana, by the organic law of the State, by the solemn enactment of the highestauthority of the State of Indiana, it is declared that no negro or miilatto shall come into the State and iircliase and hold real or personal property.The laws of nearly all the States prohibit a colored man from marrying a white woman. In the State of Pennsylvania there is a discrimination made between the schools for white children and the schools for black. The laws there provide that certain schools shall be set apart for black persons, and certain schools s iall be set apart for while persons. Now. if this Congress has a right, by such a bill as this, to enter the sovereign domain of a State and interfere with these statutes and the local regulations of a State, then, by parity of reasoning. it has a right to enter the domain of that State, and inflict upon the people there, without their consent, the right of the negro to enjoy the elective franchise to the same extent that it is accorded to the white men in that State, because there is nothing in the letter of the Constitution which gives this authority to Congress; nor is there anything in the letter of the constitution which gives authority to Congress to regulate the elective franchise in a State; and as the Constitution is equally silent with respect to each of these great rights, it follows. afor iiort, that if Congress has the right to enter the domain of a State by such a bill as this, it has the rieht to entera State for the purpose of extending the elective franchise to colored men, or of restricting the exercise of that right. by white men. Sir, this bill is broad and dangerous in the powers which it proposes to exercise. It is nothing but a relic of the Freediiiens Bureau bill, which was vetoed by the POTUS; and it strikes me that the object in attempting now to carry this bill through Congress is merely to compel that high functionary, that noble, honest, Constitution loving man, the POTUS, to put his veto upon it because it violates the wisdom of our fathers, and aims a blow at those principles of American liberty for the vindication of which they folight gaiust the tyranny of King George of Englan. I am ready to join in the passag of an law for the protection of every citizen of the U.S., provided such law comes within the constitutional power and legitimate jurisdiction of the Feds Government. But when an attempt is made to tear down those solid bulwarks of constitutional liberty which were erected by our fathers, I, as a representativ of NewJersey, one of the old 13, um here to protest against the consolidation of power in the federal Government. Why. sir, let me state it case which may arise under the Operations of this bill. Suppose that before a judge in the State of Delaware a lie proshould olfer himselfas a witness. The judge is bound to decide that a negro is not a cometent witness, because the law of the State of Delaware has expressly excluded the negro from giving testimony. Yet, ifthatjudge should conscientiously believe this bill to be unconstitutional, and should, in accordance with the law of his State, decide that that negro is not entitled to be a witness, he is liable, under this bill. to be prosecuted, and indicted as a crim inal, and sentenced to be incarcerated in the State prison, and lined in the sum of $1,000, simply for administerin7 the law of his own State according to his judgment and conscience and oath of Office. As a white man is by law authorized to marry a white woman, so does this bill compel the State to grant to the negro the same rightofmnrrying a white woman; and the judge who should declare the marriage void, in pursuance of the law of his State, is liable to e indicted, imprisoned, and fined. I do not wish to misreiresent any of the provisions of this bill. Let members calmly examinc for a moment the 2nd section of the bill, and see whether it is not justly liable to the objections which I urge whether it is not violative of those great principles which define the boundaries of State jurisdiction and protect it from the eneroachments of Federal power. I will read the 2nd section, and in view of its provisions, I ask the House to consider the consequences which must necessarily result from the passage of this bill. That section provides That any person who under color of any law.stat utc. ordinance. regulation, or custom, shall subject or cause to besubjectedany inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right securedor protccted by this act or to different punishment, pains, or penalties on account of such personhaving at any time been held in a condition o slavery or involuntary servitude. exceptas a punishment for crinio where of the partyshall have beenduly convicted, or by reasonof his color or race Here is the trouble than i prescribed for the punishment of white persons.snalbbe decmed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction shall be punished by fine not exceed iris $1.000o.r imprisonment not exceedingoneyear, or both, in the discrction of the court. I defy gentlemen on the other side of the House to deny the ropesition I now lay down. If the statutes of the State of Kentucky provide that the punishment of death shall he inflicted upon a negro who shall commit a rape upon a white woman, which is not imposed upon a white man for the same offense, this bill will prevent the execution of such a law, for the 2nd section of this bill provides that any person who, under color of any law. statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject or cause to be subjected any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any rightsecured or protected by this act, or to different punishment, pains, or penalties on account of such person having at any time been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall }have been duly convicted, or by reason of his color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, shall be deemed guilt of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be punished by a line not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both in the discretion of the court. I hope the honorable gentlenien on this side of the House will not allow so odious a bill as this to pass without at least raising their voices against it. This act of legislation would destroy the foundations of the Government as they were laid and established by our fathers, who reserved to the States certain privileges and immunities which ought sacredly to be preserved to them., I go farther, and say if we have a constitutional right to pass it, “civil rights or immunities.” then Congress is authorized to exercise s$ereign power and domain in the States in regard to the elective franchise; and that under it Congress may provide that a negro may go to the ballotbox and exercise the same political right of sntirage as is exercised by white men in all the States of the Union. The bill provides that There shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities limon the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the U.S. on account of race color or previous condition of slavery: but the inhabitants. of every race and color. without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary ser vitude. exccpt asapunishmont or crime whereof the party shall have beenduly convicted shall have the sameright to make and enforce contracts, to sue.be parties and giveevidence.toinherit. purchase.lease. sell. hold and conveyreal and personal property and to full and equal benefit of all laws an proceedings for the securityof personand property and shall be subject to like punishment.pains and penalties and to noneother.any law.stutute ordinance regulation or custom.to the contrary notwithstanding. What broader words than privileges and immunities are to be found in the dictionary? What right do we exercise under the Constitution, including that of the right of suffrage, that under this language Congress may not grant to the negro? The right of suffrage is not a natural right. It is a civil right. It is a right derived from the Government and municipal law, as laid doqvu in the organism of a Statg, and to extend to such persons as it may see t. There are only 2 kinds of right: one is that which a man acquires from the civil municipal laws. There is another right which God gives us, the right of self defense, the right to protect our lives from invasion by others. There are no other rights but the rights of na ture and the great civil rivhts, the privileges and immunities created an granted to citizens of a country by virtue of the sovereign power under which the citizen lives. All the rights that we enjoy, except our natu ral rights, are derived from Government. Therefore, there are really but 2 kinds of rights, natural rights and civil rights. This bill, then. would prevent a State from refusing negro suffrage under the broad acceptation of the term In fact, it. has been decided by the circuit court of the U.S., in the case of Corfield vs. Coryell, 4 Washingtons Circuit Court reports, pages 380 and 381, that the elective franchise is included in the words privileges and immunities. The court say: I “Theinguiry is, what are the privileges and immunities o citizens m the several States?" The court then go on to name the particulars, and include the elective franchise among them. I have another question to at to gentlemen on the other side. I ask the earned chairman of the committee, [Mr. Wusox, of Iowa] 11 man for whom I have as high a respect as any man in this House, believing him to be honest and sincere in reference to the positions which he assumes upon this floor, could Congress, before slavery was abolished in the country, have passed a lawmaking all the free negroes of the States citizens with all the rights of white citizens, in defiance of the laws or police regulations of a State? Could Congress 20 years ago have passed an act providing that the negroes in Virginia, in SCarolina, in Delaware, in NewJersey, and in all the other States of this Union, should have all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States? Could they have passed a law prohibiting a State from passing laws as many did, that the testimony of a negro should not be taken against a white man? Could they have passed a law annulling, for instance, the constitution of Indiana, which prohibits a negro from settling or ownin property in that State, or the law of Illinois which proibited a negro from coming within the limits of that State? Could Congress 20 years ago have a law passed annulling all those laws and setting at defiance the jurisdiction and powers of the States? Could ithave passed a law repealing the statute of a State which made it. penal for a negro to marry a white person? Could it have repealed allthe laws of all the States which l made a distinction between colored peeple and 1 white, which existed in the laws of every State 20 years ago? Could it have legislated for free negroes in the States then? If it had no constitutional power then it has none now. If you had attempted to do it in the days of those who were living at the time the Constitution was made, after the birth of that noble instrument the s wirit of the heroes of the Revolution and the g osts of the de rted who laid down their lives in defense oimtho liberty of. this country and of the rights of the States, would have come forth as witnesses against the deadly infliction and the destruction of the fundamental prinqple of the sovereignty of the States in violation of the Constitution and the breaking down of the ties that bind the States, and the violation of the rights and liberties of the white men and white women of America.