Mr. HALE. Then I will again modify my correction and say that it is intended to apply to every State which, in the judgment of the honorable member who introduced this measure, has failed to provide equal protection to life, liberty, and property and here we come to the very thing fidr which I denounce this proposition, that it takes away from these States the right to determine for themselves what their institutions shall be. Oregon has not been contumacious toward this nion; Oregon has not been in rebellion; the gentleman has no charge to bring against her, except that she has incorporated into her constitution and llaws provisions that to him are distasteful, and which he thinks unjust. I submit that that should never be aquestion for us to pass upon here in Congress. It is a question under the Constitution of the U.S., and under the whole theory of our Government, for the people of Oregon to ss upon and to remedy, if remedy is requir, and not for the gentleman. from Ohio in his capacity as a member of this House, or for Congress. If he claims that those provisions of the conflitution or the laws of Oregon are inconsistent with the bill of rights contained in the Constitution of the U.S., then I answer that his remendy is perfectand ample, and the courts may be appealed to toviudicate the rights of the citizens bothe under civil and criminalipro cedure. their powers are ample; it never wasquestioned, it never could bequestioned, that tedecrees of the courts, in all the States at least where slavery did not exist, have been theroughly and suflieientlyQenforced. But the gentleman says there is, and there has been from 1st to last, a violation of the a nmvwmofthis bill ofvightiba; thereun l istence of nhwery itself; that the institution of slavery itself has existed in defiance of the provisions of the bill of rights; that all the anom alies and all the enormities that have grown out of that institution have been equally in violation of it. I concede there is much force in that reasoning. Slavery was an anomaly under the Constitution; under the strict language of the Constitution I cannot see how it ever could have been claimed to exist. But nobody doubts that it did exit; that it existed when the constitution was made; that the Constitution was made with knowledge of its existence, in full contemplation of it and the most marked evidence of the full weight and appreciation given to that subject by the framers of the constitution is the great care with which the dissevered the national Governmentfrom al connection with the institution of slavery, except in the 2 or 3 instances where they were forced into it, and then they onlymentioned it by a circumlocution. I contend, as I have always contended, that under the Constitution as originally framed slavery was intended to be solely and exclusively a State institution, under the jurisdiction of State laws, and removed from Federalauthority in every respect except in the instances in which it is referred to in the Constitution; once in relation to the basis of representation and taxation; again in regard to the rendition of fugitives; and again in regard to the prohibition oi imcitation. If that construction, which I hold to e the true State rights doctrine from the beginning, if that doctrine had been persisted in and adhered to, I believe this war of the rebellion neverwould have occurred: that slavery never would have been found ushing itself into the Federal Territories; the Iissouri question never would have arisen; the Kansas question never would have arisen; and I believe that slave confined to the States as our fathers intondhd it should be confined, would have long since died out, and we would have enjoyed all the blessings of a free, eaceful, strong, national existence, without the fearful tribulation through which we have passed in this war of the rebellion. But by constructions of Courts and of Legislatures, by artificial constructions, and, if I may say it without disrespect to the powers that have been, by the constructions and decisions of the courts, which I believe to have been radically unsound in principle, slavery was cut loose from this confinement under State laws, and connected with the Federal government as nnational institution. I believe it was a departure from the spirit of the Constitution when it was held that Can ss had Werto legislate upon the subject of the ten ition of fugitive s avos, although IJ rnow that at 2 difierent times Congress did consider that whole subject and pass laws for such rendition. It was not, in my opinion, within the powers conferred upon Congress. It was a part of the compact between the States, and I believe was intended to be left solely to State action. But all this referenceto the subject of slavery by the gpntleman, by which I have been led into snc a digression, only enforces the point that the time when an amendment like that under consideration was ever requisite or desi rable, has passed. The monstrous anomaly of slavery in a free Republic has ceased to exist. Slavery is dead by constitutional enactment, and by the same enactment full poweris to Congress to enforce its extinction by geivgeisnlation. At such atime and under such circumstances, it seems to me most unfit that such a sweeping amendment as that now proposed should be adopted, which could onlyIic justified by the existence of that system now swept away forever. 182 I refer a to this digression merely to an that it is teinevitable tendency of power a ways to augment itself; to acquire additional power by mere amplification and accretion. power goes on to increase and arrogate to itself power,from time to time, by extension and enlargmnent. That has been the tendency under it axistai. The principk that it is the part of a good judge to amplify his jurisdiction has been not only a maxim of the courts but it also seems to haverbeen the principle and maxim upon which the Federal Government has operated. Now, I put it to the gentleman [Mr. BING nAn] if at a single stride we take such a step as this, if we coner upon the Federal Congress powers, in such vague and general language as this amendment contains, to legislate upon all matters ertaiuing to the life, liberty, and property of althe inhabitants of the several States, I put it to the gentleman, whom I know some times at least to be disposed to criticise this habit of liberal construction, to state where he apprehends that Congress and the courts will stop in the powers they may arm to to themselves under this proposed amendment. Ithas been settledjudicially, as well as legislatively, that the words “necessary and proper, ” which are found in this amendment, as well as in the original Constitution, by no means imply indispensable necessity; that the legislation “necessary” for carrying into execution powers is not the legislation without which the thing cannot be done. But ithas been exp"ressly settled thatit means simply “ needful, " requisite, ” “ conducive to, ” and under that settled interpretation of his language I ask the gentleman where he will draw the line as to the powers which Congress may exerciseas the “necessary and proper" legislation to attain these very genera results I It seems to me, sir, that this is, of all kinds of legislation, the most dangerous. I believe that the tendenc in this country has been from the 1st too much toward the accumulation and strengthening of central Federal power. During the last 5 years ofwar and rebellion, that tend ency has necessarily and inevitably increased. It must always be pen that when the life of the nation is menaced the strength and extent of central power will be augmented. In such emergencies the nation arrogates to itself powers which it never thought of possessing or exercising in time of peace. We have become habituated to yielding to such things as matters of inexorable necessity. I submit to gentlemen whether it is not now time that we should check that current. I believe that this is, of all times, the last when we should undertake a radical amendment of the Constitution, so immensely extending the power of the Federal Government, and derogating from the power of the States. Sir, I concede every disposition and every wish on the part of the gentleman to protect the liberty of tecitizen the humblest as well as the highest the negro, the late slave, as well as others. In every such desire on his part I most fully and cordially concur. But at me warn gentlemen that there are other liberties as important as the liberties of the individual citizen, and those are the liberties and rights of the States. I believe that whatever most clearly distinguishes our Government from other Governments in the extent of individual freedom and the protection of personal rights we owe to our decentralized system, to the fact that the functions of government with which the citizen has immediate relation are broughthome to him, that he operates imme diateIy upon them and thq immediatel upon him, instead of there being that long c ain of communication which in a centralized government must extend from the fountain of power, whether despotic or republican, whether executive or legislative, to the citizen. I appeal to gentlemen whether we ought not now to seek tostrengthen the liberties of the States and the rights of the States as well as the liberties of the citizen. It is true that this doctrine of State rights, like any other doctrine carried beyond its due measure, maIv, when pushed to extremes, Generate evil. this true that the orthodox, sound, fundamental doctrine of State rights may, by proessing beyond the properline, become the eretical and dangerous doctrine of State sovereign. Thank, air, that heresy has been put own. Let us see that a more dangerous heresy be not allowed to rise in its place. I will not spend more time upon this subject. I oppose the resolution as unsound in substance, as impolitic in itself, as not in confor mity or harmony with the theory of the constitution under which we live. I o pose it. as uncalled for at all times, as especial y uncalled for now when our tendencies oughtall to be the other way. and, sir, I particu arly oppose it in view of the manner in which it is now brought before this House and is now progressing here. Gentlemen will not, I trust, understand me as making any personal complaints. I am doing no such thing. I simply say that in my judgment the course taken is not acourse promotive of that calm, deliberate, fair, full consideration which a constitutional amendment always demands. This resolution was in fact 1st brought to the notice of the House yesterday morning. It had previously been reported and printed; but we a 1 know how little attention is paid to these files upon our desks; how little we know of the mere routine business of the House. yesterday mornin this resolution was brought before the House by the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] for debate, with the proposition that he would have it debated yesterday, and perhups toda, and that on one of those 2 ays the vote should be taken. Now, is that the way in which great questions of constitutional law ought to be considered and decided by this Congress? Should we, on the few hours asty examination which we can give to such a question, amid the noise and confusion, the disturbance and excitement of this Hall, under take to pass upon such questions? Should we not take time for ample, careful deliberation, and seek in some degree, at least, to overcome those external influences here which are so well calculated to disturb our action? More than that, alarge part of the little time which we have had devoted to this question has been occupied by discussion entirely aside from the subject. I regret that my friendfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanpur] should have seen fit to criticise what he with such pointed irony termed my “generosity, ” in yieiiiin a half hour to the continuation of his learne but general disquisition upon constitutional law. The point which I raised upon him I raised in entire good nature and good faith, and I think with entire prietyvthat his speech, however learned and owever interesting, was not addressed to the subject before the House. If I had had the same opportunity, I should have raised the same point ufion my esteemed friendfrom California, [Mr. less.) However interest in the discussion of these gentleman may have en to the House, it a peared manifest to me that the greater part of their remarks were not ger mane to the question under consideration. as I submit if we are to have but some 6 or 8 hours discussion of this constitutional amendmentitoughtatleastto be devoted to that subject and not range over the whole field of constitutional relations and personal relations between congress and the president. I do not believe the present time favorable to that calm and disassionate consideration which should always e given to a subject of such momentous imrtance as a change of the undamental prinnciples of our fundamental law. do not believe the circumstances today surrounding this House conducive to that de liberation. Conceding this House to be awise, discreet, and virtuous House beyond all precedent, still I be leave to say, if I may do it Without a breati of its privileges, Iapprehend that its members are human, subject to like fiflSSlOllS and infirmities as others and be eving that excited feeling and amine passion may even now unconsciously be so far influencing some of us that we are not in proper tone or temperto Weigh the full importance of our vote upon the subject before us, I again appeal to gentlemen not to pass this amendment until at east time shall have been allowed for aareful examination and (lisp sienna reflection. tl.:vbib11 sou, Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, it was not until the last 15 minutes that I had the least intention of saying one. syllable on this subject. I will say in advance, sir, that I am one of the few men, the very few men, who live in this day who do not claim to be a constitutional law yer. The last 4 years have beenprolific in producing that article. I lookatthis Jtresolution in a common sense view, I haveread it and res read it with the intention to get at what it really means. It provides that Congress shall have powerto may c all the laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. When I read it the 1st time I gathered from it this idea, and I havenot changed myo inion in reading it half a dozen times over. Iunderstand it to mean this, and in my 5 minutes I shall confine myself entirely to the question involved in the resolution. I understan it to mean simply this: if a citizen of Iowa ora citizen of Pennsylvania has any business, orifcuriosity has induced him to visit the State of SCarolina or Georgia, he shall have the same protection of the laws there that he would have had had he lived there for ten years. The reason why my mind naturally came to that conclusion was simplythis: for the last 30 years that has not been the case. I but state a fact well known to every man who has taken the trouble to know anything, that for the last 30 years a citizen of a free State dared not express his opinion on the subject of slavery in a slave State. I know that to be true; and there are 100s of men who know it to be true from experience. A citizen of a slave State could come into a free State at any time during the last quarter of a century and express his opinion on any subject connected with State rights or any other which agitated the public mind; but if a citizen of a free State visiting a slave State expressed his opinion in reference to slavery he was treated without much ceremony to a coat of tar and feathers and a ride u n a rail. Now, Genemen may say that slavery is abolished, that the institution is dead, and therefore there is no danger in the future from this cause. I do not so understand it. I have learned within the last 2 weeks from a man who went from the State of Illinois into the State of mississippi with 7 companions, making eight in al, to work in a machine shop, and t. at there came back only 6 of them, the other 2 having been murdered between the shop and their boarding house. Slavery may be dead so far as the law is concerned.