Mr. YATES. Yes, sir, “State rights” is again the bugle notel “State rights, ” as though one refractory child in a fami had the right to control not only all his brotiers and sisters, but the father from whom he derived being and support. I had in the simplicity of my heart supposed that “ State rights, ” bein the issue of the war, had been decided. I ha supposed that we had established the proposition that there is a living Federal Government and a Congress of the U.S. I do notwmean a consolidated Government, but a central Federal Government which, while it, allows the States the exercise of all their appropriate functions as local State governments, can hold the States well poised in their appropriate spheres, can secure the enforcement of the constitutional guarantees of republican government, the rights and immunities of citizens in the several States, and carry out all the objects provided for in the preamble of the constitution, “ provide for the common defense, “promote the general welfare, ” “ establishjus tice, " and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our osterity. Is it to be pretende now that we are to leave to 36 States the determination of the fundamental question of citizenship? Can it be expected that the local politicians of the States will adjust upon a rightbasis the relations of the freedmen? Why shall we throw this bone of contention again into the States to breed a new and dangerous agitation? If we leave these questions to an outside power, to the Congress of the U.S., who exercises its power according to the Constitution and under the Constitution, even if it confers suffrage upon the freedman, all will submit and rejoice in the end. They are even now prepared to surrender these questions upon the ground of the late conquest of the Government. But if we leave them to the States, then we have no securit for the citizen; we cannot have uniformityof legislation; if we give up to the States the power to decide the fundamental question of citizenship upon which the life of t to Government depends, then we must expect wrangling and distinctions of classes, which may result in a war quite as bloody and as fatal as that which recently has shrouded our land in the weeds of sorrow. Let us not commit the fearful error of our fathers by a departure from the organic principles of justice and equal rights, and sow the seeds of a future conflict of races, of future war and permanent disunion. Mr. President, while I do not a e with all the propositions contained in the able and mas terly speech of the Senfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. Doom nun] yet I do agree with him in one proposition, and that is, that those States are not out of the Union. That wagwhat we were fightin about. They appealed to the sword. They t rew all they had and all they were into the contest, and they lost, and these States are still in the Union, and by the blessing of Almighty God the shall ever stay in this Union. But I agree with our late President that this is a most pernicious abstraction. I presume that the ditlerence between gentlemen on this question results from impressions that the legislation of Congress for their reorganization depends upon their status in this regard. It is not so at all. To illustrate: both the Senators from Wisconsin, [Messra DQOLITTLE and Howz, ] while they disagree so widely on the question whether the States are in the Union, yet they sufficiently agree on all the questions which we are practically to consider. hey both agree upon the proposition that to Congress is left the question of reopening our doors to the admission of Sens&Reps from the rebel States. They both agree upon the other vital question, that these States are not to be permitted to resume their practical relation with the Union until they by their conduct sh0w that they are willingto give an unfeigned and heartfelt allegiance to the Union, or that they are willing to come into the Union upon terms which shall forever settle this question, and upon such a basis as will prevent the recurrence of another war, and secure, if not indemnity for the past, at least security for the future. But. sir, we can accommodate both of these gentlemen without any trouble whatever. The States are in the Union in law; they are out of the Union in fact. So far as any legislation that we propose to apply to them to reserve our territorial integrity and submission to the laws is concerned, they are in the Union, and yet we may regard the rebellious population as out of the Union for all purposes of representation until they comply with such just requirements as we may impose for securing protection to loyal men and punishment to criminals. The case is anomalous; national self preservation is the paramount law of ouraction. We have not treated them either as States in full fellowship, nor entirely as States without government. It is simply a question of fact whether they are in a condition to be restored to all their rights in the Union or not. Upon that question I am sorry to disagree with mfriendfrom Wisconsin, now in the chair, [Mr. DOOLITTLE.] I have regarded him as a statesman: I still so regard him; and since my acquaintance with him I have feelings for him warmer than admi ration. But I cannot account for the delusion I will take back that term, and say that he is vastly and lamentably at fault when he is willing to open our doors wide to the readmission of the rebellious States into full fellowship into the Union with their present hostile feelings to the U.S. without further guarantees on theirpart orprotective legislation upon our art. Why, sir. look at the facts that boldly an de fiantly stand out upon the record of southern disloyalty, and stare us like ghastly specters in the time. We see the Governor of Alabama appointing 2 rebel Senators judges of the supreme court but recently. We know that the only pass on to southern office, to the Legislature and )to Congress, is fidelity, in the rebel army and in the rebel cause. We know there is a bitter and unrelenting hostility toward the freedmen who have been emancipated by the constitutional amendment, as is proven by the orders of General Terry inIVirginia, GenlSickles in SCarolina, General Thomas in Mississippi, and by the general order of general Grant, interposing the strong arm of Military authority to prohibit oppressive discriminations against this freedmen in those States. They are as defiant in their dangerous dogma of State sovereignty as when the war began. They are clamoring for the payment of the rebel debt. They are opposing the payment of the debt incurred by the U.S. The are demanding compensation for their slaves. They treat our test oath as a nullity. They jeer our glorious flag. They caricature our institutions in theirtheaters and public assemblages; and in their hearts they curse the day they were made to submit to the authority of the Union. Mr. President, does that honorable Senator propose that these States shall be received into this Union, that the rebels shall be allowed to o to the polls and exercise the right of suffrage, while the loyal men who have bared their breasts to the storm of battle in obedience to the call of Abraham Lincoln, and with his promise that they should be maintained in their reedom, yes, “maintained, ” thats the word while they are disfranchised? While the tragedies of the cruel war, traitorously provoked, are fresh in our memories and the blood of our countrymen cries to us from the ground, is my friendfrom Wisconsin willing to turn over the vernment of those States to secessionists an rebels, to the virtual exclusion and disfranchisement of the brave Union men who have borne aloft our flag amid the storm and thunder of battle? Sir, until that promise of Abraham Lincoln is re deemed, that the freedmen shall be “maintained in their freedom, ” is made good to those men who wore the U.S. uniform, those men who rallied under the glorious folds of our old flag by the side of our brave boys and men led their worm blood in the same current with t eirs upon many a gory battlefield; those men who flashed 200,000 bayonets in the face of JeffersonDavis and traitors, I will never consent that those States he received into full brotherhood in the Union. They shall be Vouchsafed at least every right which the rebels themselves shall enjoy and I appeal to you, Mr. President, I appeal to Senators, by the bloody memories of the war; by the tears of the soldiers widow and the soldiers orphan boy; by the sufferings and miseries and death of those brave men who in obedience to God went forth to tight the battles of the country, and whose bones now lie in unmarked graves upon southern soil; by the grand solemnities which surround the murder and memory of Abraham Lincoln; by the love we hear our countr, for which they fought and fell; and by all our opes for lasting peace and permanent Union, that now, having the power, we will plant the pillars of the Government upon the granite foundations of Gods eternal justice and upon the undying principles of individual and universal human li crty. While I speak thus, I say to the Senfrom Wisconsin [Mia DOOIJTTLE] that I will be as prompt as he whenever they by their conduct evince the proper spirit; whenever they show that they renounce their old ideas of allegiance to the South alone, and will give nnfeigned heartfelt allegiance to the Government, and will present to us constitutions republican in form and laws equal and impartial to all, I will join that Senator and hail the auspicious day when as of yore, on the land and the sea, and over all the States reunited, high over all, shall float the star spangled banner. Sir, there is one basis upon which these dif ficulties can be settled, an only one, and thrit is to return to the fundamental principles which were aimed to be established by our fathers, and to give rights to those men whom in an evil hour the most reluctantly disfrauchised. Vain is the ope of the statesman, however high he may be, who expects that we can settle these questions upon any other basis than upon the basis of the principles laid down in the Declaration of lndependence. If this congress does not adopt it. the next Congress will. 1here is (I say it with defercucc in this great presence) only one salvation. If you do not seize the splendid opportunity, the next congress will. All your amendments must fail. hey lack the motive power. They are like a watch with all its machinery beautifully adapted. butwithout the inainspring. They are without the motive power, that living element of republican Governments, the opular will; and without that they cannot bea opted. Is it reasonable to suppose that even all the free States will adopt the amendment which has been reported igy the honorable chairman of the ComReconstruction? I simply submit the proposition, and know the answer of every gentleman. Is it reasonable to suppose that the slave States will either consent to curtail their representation one half, or that they will confer the right of franchise upon the freedmen? and in the mean time are we to keep up a standin army or Freedmens Bu tleniiLWJth thousanfis of officialsr to holdthern in subjection to the Government? I do not say now that I may or may not vote for any of these amendments. It is not material to my proposition whether I do or not. I may vote for them in view of the 1,000th chance that they may ass. I consider the whole of them impe ect, and as postponing the period of restoration to a day far too remote or the future security and peace of the country. It is entirely immaterial so far as the position I take is concerned, for I contend that congress has the power now as fully and as comp etely in every respect as it could be given to them by any amendment to the constitution, by general law, under the recent amendment, to secure the reorganization of the Government upon the basis of justice and equality. [LI believe it was the distinguished Senfrom Massachusetts [ML Winsos] who said that he did not expect to waituutil there was a change of heart in the southern people. Iagree with m, and more than that, I say that it we wait until the southern people shall learn to love the Yankees and to hate slavery and to love the Governmentby whose strong arm and christening rod they have been whied int obedience, the time will be long, and ) fear so fhr in the future that in the mean time our long and dangerous debt and our omission to use the power we alrea y clearly have might result in a calamitous change of parties and in the restoration of the rebellious States in a condition quite as objectionable as when they 1st rebeled with all the chances and probabilities of a future war and final separation. I he of that Congress will not attempt the im= possible task of making the South love the niou, but what I do hope, and what is reason able to hope, is that we shall remove forever the causes which have divided us, and settle all differences upon princisles which will prevent any cause of quarrel or ivision in the future, and lay the oundation for e etual peace and union, and which can only be done upon the principle of equality to all, and removing all distinctions of class, race, color, or any previous condition growing 0)1t of the institution of slavery. Sir, by the bill which I presented I nail the colors of universal suffr e to the mastheadnot in SCarolina or eorgia or Kentucky, but I meet the vital issue of the hour, and proclaim that under the Constitution as amended it is not only our right but our duty to extend the suffrage to every American citizen in every State, and to all the country subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. I also wish, by way of prelude to my argument, to remark that the questions at issue are fundamental; they are organic, and we can arrive at no correct conclusions without investigating all the rights natural, civil, and polit lfflth tt) which every American citizen is enti the It involves the settlement of several questions. What is slavery? What is freedom? Who is a citizen? Who makes, or how does a person become a citizen 7 What are the rights of a citizen? h.Hpw are the rights of a citizen secured to imThese questions are asked not in reference to citizenship in some foreign Government, not in reference to the common law, but in reference to the U.S.A., where we have founded a Government upon the basis of equal laws and universal libert. All these questions I shall not answer in etail, but all will be embraced in the positions I shall as sume. I will only remark generally thatin the U.S., on account of the democratic features thereof, all the terms I have used have a distinctive national meaning, a licable to our nation alone. For instance, ebster, in giving the various definitions to the word “citizen, ” defines that in the U.S. a.citizen means “a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for others and to purchase and hold real estate.” While I admit that in law others than voters may be citizens, in this country no man considers himselfa full citizen till he has the right to vote. The mine r does not consider himself free, “his own man, ” until he can vote. So of the foreigner; and by universal consent the ballot is recognized as the badge of the American citizen. Since I introduced my bill, the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Stxsna] has introduced a bill in which he founds the right to secure universal suffrage to all free men in the rebellious States upon that clause of the Constitution which “guaranties to every State a republican government, " and I understand him to found his argument upon the idea that before the adoption of the amendment to the Constitution, congress had power to enforce the pro visions of that guarantee in every State in the Union. I am sorry to disagree with the honorable gentleman, for the reason I have already stated, that under the late Constitution of the U.S., as I understand it, our fathers in an evil hour compromised, and recognized the existence of slavery, and that under a decision of the SCOTUS it was decided that a man who was a slave, or who was the descendant of a slave, or who was liable to be bought and sold, or who was excluded from the society of our fathers at the time the Constitution was adopted, was not a citizen, and therefore under that decision the States had the power to exclude black persons from the exercise of the right of stiff e. The Senfrom Massachusetts is righfa however, in presenting that clause as part of his argument because under the amendment abolishing slavery no State constitution can be republican inform which disfranchises any citizen of the U.S. The bill of the distinguished Senator is objectionable because it is partial and operates only upon the rebellious States. All, however turns a on the simple proposition contained in the bi l which I have offered, the guarantee to all citizens of their rights under the recent amendment to the Constitution. Then, sir, I come to the only proposition which is feasible, and which, if not adopted by this Congress, will be by the next. I say this with deference to others. The recent amendment abolishes slavery in all the States and Territories of the U.S.; not in SCarolina or Georgia alone, but in Illinois and every other State, and by that amendment, as I understand the distinguished Senfrom Kentucky [Mr. GUTHRIB] to admit and I honor and thank him for the admission all constitutions, laws, and civil regulations in support of slaver as a matter of course fall to the ground. congress by this amendment attempted, what? It undertook to secure fre om to 4 millions of who had formerly been in bondage; ouarnpehoopwle? It has beenasked, if slavery is already abolished and all laws and institutions growing out of slavery fall to the ground, why pass a law by Congress to enforce that provision of the constitution? Iwill tell you why. Because a law is necessary by the very terms of the 2nd clause of the amendment to give effect and operation to the clause abolishing slavery. Congress shall have power, ” to do What? “ To enforce;” enforce what? Enforce the foregoing clause of the Constitution abolishing gave. How shall it enforce it? By legislution. hat sort of legislation? By “ riate legislation.” How “ appropriate?apprBoy legislation appropriate to the end in view. What is the end in view? It is the freedom of these four million human beings, who have been eman ncipatd into the people of the U.S. y distinguished colleague asked the question, is it possible that we will set four million human beings free in the U.S and will not guaranty to them the protection of their civil rights? I extend the question, and I ask, shall we set 4 million human beings free in the U.S and not extend to them their political rights? But it is said the right to vote is a mere political right. At the ard of being a little tedious I shall attempt to show that civil and political rights, according to the construction of the courts, are entirely synonymous. Wendells Blackstone, volume one, page 123, says: “And, therefore, the principal view of human law is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect and enforcesuch rights IL! are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple; and then such rights as are relative, which arising flow a variety of connections will be far more numerous and more complicated." Does any Senator on this floor say that there is not the same dut to secure the relative or political rights to the citizen that there is to secure him in the enjoyment of his natural rights? The reason why it is made the 1st duty to secure to a man his natural rights is because they are 1st simply in order. 1st, natural rights from the necessity of the case, and then the relative rights. which are more numerous, are to be secured; not that one is more important than the other no more than in the orders of the Senate petitions are to be considered as more important than the consideration of bills because the are 1st introduced. They are alike e uul y important, and it is as much the duty of the Government to secure the political rights as it is the civil rights. On page 125, Blackstone says: "But ever yman when he enters into society gives up apart of is natural liberty us the part of sov alu a lo a purchase, and in considerationof receiving the advantages of mutual commerce obliges himself to conform to those laws which the community has thought proper to establish." What is a civil right? It is such a limitation or extension of the natural right as is conferred by statute. That makes it a civil regulation; that makes it a civil law; that makes it a civil right. For instance, every man in a state of nature has a right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, but when the Legislature interposes and by law says that he shall convey it by deed, or that the 1st deed recorded shall be evidence of title, that is a civil regulation. Now, let me ask you whether in a state of nature, when men have organized themselves into a community, is it not the natural right of every man to have a voice in the affairs of that community? Is not that a natural right? If he confers that right upon representatives or upon somebody else to administer, and a law is passed declaring that he shall give espression to that voice by the ballot then it becomes both a civil and political regulation at the same time. Sir, go back to the da s of our colonial history, and in all our colonial assembla es, where our forefathers met to discuss the a airs pertaihing to the colonies: where they fired their hearts for the great Revolution in which they were soon to be engaged, how did they decide all matters of controversy? By a show of hands. Each man raising his hand voted whether or not the measure for taxation or for public improvement or for educational purposes or for any other purpose should he adopted. When it is proposed that he shall exercise that voice by a statutory provision establishing a ballot, does it become any less a natural right? Is it any less a civil right? It is a natural, civil, and political right. But again, to show that this is a distinction without a difference, I refer you to Blackstone, on the same page, wherein he says: "Political, therefore, or civil liberty, which is that of a member of socictv, is no other than natural liberty sofar restrained y humanlaws(andno further) as is necessary and expedientfor the Generaladvan tage of the public." The meaning of that is, that civil and political liberty are synonymous terms. Blackstone applies the same definition to both. I hope I I shall be pardoned now if I refer to a decision of the Supreme Court which is conclusive upon that point. I quote from Judge Daniels, one of the assenting judges in the Dred Scott de cision. He says in 19 Howard, page 476: "Hence it follows necessarily, that a slave, the culiumur propertyofa.master, and possessing within liiinself no civil nor political rightsor capacities, cannot heauitizen. For who, it may be asked, is a citizen? What do the character and statusof citizen import? Without fear of contradiction, it does not import the condition of being rivute property, the subjectofindividual poweran ownersiin. Upon a priiici )IO of ctymology alone, the termcitizen, asde rived roni cioilnn, conveys the idcusofeonnectionor identification with the State or Government, and a ipsarntoicti, pitation of its functions, But beyond this thore is believed, to befound, in the theories of writers on governmentor in any actual experiment heretofore tried, an exposition of the term citizen which hasnot beenunderstoodasconferring the actual possession and enjoymentor the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment of an entire equality of privileges, civil and political." He declares it to be not only his own opinion but that it is the universal opinion of allegal writers upon the question, that by the term citizen is meant one who is entitle to both civil and political ri bias. The object of the constitutional amendment was to secure freedom to the slave and to those who have sutfeied from the institution of slavery. It will not be pretended that Congress ever meant to set 4 million slaves free, to emancipate them into freedom and at the same time leave them without the civil and political rights which attach to the free citizen and hence, sir, the Senate at this session have ussed the bill introduced by my colleague [Mr. RlMBULL] to protect all persons in the U.S. in their civil rights, and also to provide courts and laws with adequate penalties for the vindication of those rights. It provides that “the inhabitants, of every race and color, without any regard to the previous condition of slavery, ” shall have the same “right to make and enforce contracts, to sue and be pagties and giVe evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property; and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property.” ere, sir, I contend, we have fully established the principle, and upon the same principle have full right and constitutional power to pass the bill which I have proposed, protecting the inhabt outs, of every race and color, without reard any previous condition of slavery, in ii] their civil and political rights, including the right of suffrage. The Dred Scott decision is referred to, to show that the negroes are not citizens; but that decision was made under the Constitution of the U.S. before this amendment was adopted. That decision, overturning, as it did, the whole line of judicial authority, and abhorrent to the civilization and Christianity of the age in which we live, went so far as to say that the negro at the period of the adoption of the Constitution had no rights which a white man was bound to respect, and to in down the doctrine that slavery could O into a l the Territories of the pU.S., iudependent of popular sovereignty, of the Will of the people, or of the Constitution of the U.S. But, sir, that decision is wiped out; it has one down to a kindred doom with the institution which it was intended it should peretuate; and I now quote from the decision itself to show that under the existin state of affairsmnder the constitutional amendment, the freedmen are citizens by the irresistible deductions and inferences from the Dred Scott decision itself. In the celebrated case of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, which is reported in 19 Howard, page 404, is the following language; I read fro“m the opinion of Chief Justice Taney: The words. people of the U.S and citizens are synonymous termsand meanthesame thing. They both ascribethe political body, who, accordingto our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who holdthepowerapd conduct the Government through their representatives. They are wevheartywe familiarly call the sovereignpeople, and citizen is one of this people and are constit nent membersof this sovereignty." Now, sir, if that was the case, why was Dred Scott not a citizen? We shall find out. The decision then proceeds to state wh negroes were not inclued as a portion of the people and constituent members of the sovereignty: “Because they were at that time consideredas a subordinate and inferior class of  bein whohad been subjugated by the dominant race, an whethereman eipatedornot, yet remained subject the their authority, and had no right or privileges iit such M thosewho held the powerand t a Government might choose to gram them." I Is not the inference irresistible that if by any subsequent amendment of the Constitution they became a part of the people, they would be citizens and entitled to the some rights and privileges with all the other citizens of the U.S.? The decision goes on to quote the w“ords of the DeclarIndep: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, ” the The Chief Justice then proceeds to comment on that clause, as follows: “The general.words above quoted would seem to lembrpee the whole human famil, and if they wore usedin a similar instrumentat this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race were not intended to be in and formed no purt of the peoile whoframed and adoptedthis Declaration; for iftiio language.” understood at that day, would embracethem, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the DeclarIndep would have been utterly and figsmntly jncomistent with the principles they assert; and instead of thesym athy of mankind, to which they so confidently appeared, they would have deserved and receiveduniversal rebuke and repro bation." and now what shall be said of us atthis day, when they are clearl included in the terms of the Constitution, an by special clauses therein are made free people, i we fail to carry out the full spirit and fair interpretation of the Constitution of the U.S. with re rd to this long oppressed race of our fellow citizens? Will we not e utterly and flagrantly inconsistent if now, by the very terms of the Constitution we are required to treat them as people an as citizens, and we fail to do so?