Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, Iwill statethe various points which I made yesterday in the course of the desultory and running conver sation between various Senators and myself, and shall then proceed to express my views in opposition to the bill. I hold: 1. 2 centuries ago, and upward, the continent of North America was settled and taken possession of by the Governments and people of Europe, English, Irish, Scotch, fieuch, Netherlanders, Germans, Swedes, Danes, Nor wegians. Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese, all of the white race. 2. The negro, or any other race, had no Ownership, proprietory power or government in their respective settlementsa] was exclusivel with the particular European nationality that admade the settlement. 3. All these settlements within the bound ary of the original 13 States had become, many yearsbeforethe DeclarIndep, possessions and colonies of the British empire, each one being a slaveholding community and owning negroes of African birth and descent as property and chattels. 4. While all the colonies were thus slave holding, the troubles between them and England began, to redress no wrongs or oppressions of the negroes; free or slave, in all or any of the colonies; but to redress the wrongs and Oppressions of the white people alone inflicted by the Government of England. 5. This long and obstinate struggle was undertaken. managed, and adjustedliy the white people exclusively, as their own quarrel and for their 0W1] benefit; and in this great and complex transaction the negro and Indian were ignoredthey were not parties to it. If a few hundred of both those races appeared occasionally in the battlefields on the side of the colonies it was as their slaves and allies, and not as coparties. 6. The 1st or revolutionary Confederation among the colonies, then their Articles of confederation, then their DeclarIndep, and then the present constitution of the U.S., were all acts of the white people of the colonies, undertaken and performed by them exclusively for no object or benefit but their own. The negroes or Indians were not parties to them or either of them; and they were intended to be and were not affected or reached by them. But theywere undertaken, done, and performed, and produced precisely then the same results as though the ne reand the Indian had not been in being; an those results were intended to be and were limited to the white people alone. 7. No slave negro was made free, or had any addition whatever to his privileges by the Articles of Confederation, or the DeclarIndep, or, the constitution of the U.S.; nor were the rights or liberties of any free negro added to by either of those instruments. The condition of both slave and free negro, in every State, continued precisely the same after the Articles of Confe oration, the DeclarIndep, and the constitution that it had been before. 8. Naturalization is the admission by Government of a foreigner to the privileges, or a portion of the privileges, of a citizen. Before the present constitution this power was exer cised by each State for itself, which produced diverse and discordant systems. For the purposes of uniformity the power of naturalization was by the States surrendered to the Government of the U.S. by the constitution. That the power was delegated and reserved to the extent that the States had exercised. That they had exercised it only to naturalize foreigners, and foreigners of the European nation alities and the U.S. receiving from them this power as they had always exercised it were also imited to foreigners of the European branches of the Caucasian race of men. 9. That the fundamental, original, and Universal principle upon which our system of government rests, is that it was fouu edby on for white men; that it has always belonged to and been managed by white men; and that to preserve and administer it now and forever is the right and mission of the white man. When a negro or Chinaman is attempted to be obtruded into it, the sufficient cause to repel him is that he is a negro or Chinaman. Having thus stated my positions in a short compass, I proceed tolny before the Senate my objections to this most offensive measure. To me this measure and its twin sister that was passed a few days ago by the Senate are the most otfenslve of all the measures that have ever been before Congress and upon which I have been called to act. The 1st was intended to have a peculiar application to my State. As the honorable chairman who reported it avowed frankly it was intended to entrap Kentucky and Delaware, and it is designed especially, as I know byan interview with the commissioner of the freedmens Bureau for that State, that I had a few moments ago, to punish Kentucky; not because Kentucky went into the rebellion, not because Kentucky was true to the constitution and true to her rights. Yes, Mr. President, my gallant and true State is now an object of more, and is more the special subject of vengeance upon the part of the majority who have possession of this Government than is any State in the Union; and the sole cause of offerise the sole reason for these particular feelings o revenge and ven canoe is simplythat she would not how her necIt to Baal. t is because she had the manliness and the intelligence and the courage to stand by the constitution, and stand for her rights under the constitution; and I hope and I believe that she will continue to do that forever. M Mr. President, the honorable chairman of the ComJudiciary, who introduced this measure, the other day attempted to respond to and obviate an objection of mine to the introduction of the Freedmen s Bureau into the State of Kentucky, and he read an extract from the act of Congress passed at the last. session, establishing the F freedmensBureau, and relied upon that law as justification and authority for carryin the Freedmens Bureau into Kentucky. He read this clause in the 1st section of the ac“t of last year: That there is herebyestablishedin the War Dept. tocontinuedunng the presentwar of rebellion and for one year thereafter. a Bureau of Refu ccs, Free dmen, and Abandonedliands. to which shall 9 committed, as hereinafter provided. the supervision and manazement of all a and onedlands and the controLof all subjects relating to refugees and freedmen fro mrebel States, or from any district of country within the territory embracedin the operations of the Army.” That learned and profound lawyer assumed that the latter words which I have read authorized the introduction of the Freedmens bureau into Kentucky. Takin the whole sentence, it simply authorizes tcestablishment within the ll ar Dept here in the city ofWashington of aFreedmens Bureau. The War Dept and other Depts of the Government have different bureaus. Does an act of Congress which authorizes the establishment of anyone or all of those bureaus, or, if you please, of another bureau in any dept in Washington city, autliOrize a brnnc of that bureau to be carried into Kentuck, or into all the States? Certainly not. An yet that is the absurd and reosterous conclusion to which the honorab ecairman of the ComJudiciary leaped, that because this law authorized the establishment of a freedmens Bureau in the War Dept, which bureau should take cognizance of freedmen and refugees from any State that had been affected by the rebellion, therefore the SecyWar was authorized by this law to carry the freedmens Bureau into each and all the States that had been reached by the enemy and had been invaded by the enemy. Sir, it authorizes no such conclusion; but here is the letter of the law itself in another section which places this m"atter beyond all doubt or cavil: SEC. 3. Abife: That. thoPresident may. by and with the advice and consont of the senate. appoint an asst commissioner for each of the Statesdeclared to be in insurrection, not exceeding ten in number.” It was this section of the law to which I had reference when I admenished the honorable Senator that the Freedmens Bureau was established in Kentucky without the authority or the semblance of law; and I read the law now to show that it only authorized the sending of as sistant commissioners into the rebel States and Kentucky never having been a rebel State there was no authority whateverto ca the bureau into that State and yet, General rHTiske, who is now in this city, uuder the direction, I suppose, of the SecyWar, has established agreed mens Bureau, and a military government connected with it, in the fitate of Kentucky, without authority of law, and invested, or attempted to invest, that Freedmens Bureau there with the power of striking down the whole fabric of our State government and all of its officers. executive, judicial, and legislative, of prescribin laws repugnant, not only to the laws of ourState at to our constitution, requiring the arbitrary, despot ic, military edictswhich he has dared topromulge in a State that has always been loyal, to be executed, and denouncing as criminals the courts and the executive oficers of the State who presumo to execute her constitution and her laws where they arein conflict with this military code. I read the other day and I am not going1 to repeatthe code, the unmitigated military despotism that the SecyWar, by his Military satrap, General Fiske, has proclaimed, not for the government of, but to tyrannize over and oppress, the people of Kentucky, and to overthrow their government. Mr. presiout, I think the gentlemen wrll learn something after awhile from experience, llicy will learn that the constitution is a very important instrument, that it was most nicely on artistically and ably put together, and that it was at together by master workmen. The will find, I think,:is time and events roll on, that as they make one eneroachment upon it 2 or 3 more will be made necessary, and they will find “ confusion worse confounded” the more eneroachments and the more innovations they make upon the constitution. I think that they ought to be admenished now of the folly of persevering in the reckless innovation that so many constitution tinkers are endeavorin to bring upon that sacred instrument. Mr. President, here is one of them: “I. That neitber slave nor involuntary servitude, exceptas a punishment or crime whereof the party shall have beenduly convicted, shall citist within the U.S. ornny places ubject totheir jurisdiction. 2. Congresss shall have power to enforcethis article by appropriate legislation.” I assume that the 2nd clause does not give aparticle of power to congress which Congress did not possess before. ere is a clause which I will read in the original text: “Congress shall have powertomake all lawswhich shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the forcgoin powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitut on in the Government of the U.S or in any Deptor office thereof.” When this amendment which I have read was pending before the Senate, the 2nd section attracted my attention, as it doubtless did that of every gentleman; and the reason that it was not specially objected to was that the oriinal constitution contained the clause which I have just read, and the original constitution gave every power that Congress now has under the 2ndJ section of this amendment. If this 2nd section had not been attached to the amendment, what powers would Congress have had in relation to the abolition of slavery? It would have had toe power to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the 1st ection of the amendment which abolished slavery. Does the 2nd section give any added power to Congress? I say it does notnot one particle. The honorable Senfrom Illinois has at temted to scatter wide the effect and operation of the 2nd section, but I think that he is uilty of an error in attempting any such eu argement of power from that section of the amendment. I hold that under that 2nd section Congress can pass only such laws as are necessary and proper for carrying the 1st section into effect, and that Congress would have every tittle and iota of that power without the 2nd section, under the clause which I have read, and therefore, that that 2nd section is more tautology, it is a more investment of power which the original text of the Constitution would have invested Congress with without the 2nd section. I may ask the honorable Senator and all the members of the Senate who voted for this constitutional amendment if their single and iso lated purpose was not to free the negro? Had they any purposebeyond manumittingor freeing the negro? will answer that question for them. They had none other. They could have had none other. Then the effect and meaning of the amendment is just the same as though the negro” had been inserted in the amendment. I will insert that phrase by way of testing the true meaning and the utmost scope and operation of this amendment, and let me read it in that way: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude of the negro, exceptas a punishment of crime whereof he shall have beenduly conVicted shall exist within the Ii U.S or any placesubjectto thfilfjlllls diction. I ask the honorable Senator if that is not a fair rendition of the amendment. I ask him whether the purpose and the intention, whether the language and operation of this amendment iIsf not limited strict y and literally to the negro. so, it might have been worded just as I have now read it, and it would not have modified the sense or meaning of the amendment a particle. This is. simply, then, an amendment to the constitution declaring that the negro shall no longer be a slave in the U.S., and that is the whole of it., The honorable Senator himself, I suppose, will not attempt to derive the power to pass this bill from any other clause of the constitution than this amendment. If the power exexisted before, and from the adoption of the constitution, why has it not been attempted to be asserted before? If all the rights with which this bill seeks to invest the negro might have been conferred uponhim by other clauses of the constitution than this amendment, I ask the honorable Senfrom Illinois why he and his coadjutors, the friends of the negro, have not in bygone years and from the time of the frenzy of the public mind in the U.S. in favor of manumission, asserted the power to confer these privileges and theseriggts upon the negro? [here can be but one answer to that question, and that answer is that these powers were not conferred by the constitution until this amendment was adopted. Now, let us examine and see whether this amendment of the constitution confers any such powers. Mr. President, I stated yesterday that there were 8 States in the U.S. that had abolished slavery 5 NewEngland States, and NewYork, NewJersey, an Pennsylvania. I ask the honorable Senator if the measures of those States to abolish slavery were not effective? Did they not achieve the purpose for which they Were intended? Did ticy not abolish slavery? Tohear the honorable Senfrom NewHampshire, [Mr. CLARK] paperson who had read nothing about the subject would come to the conclusion that there never was but one negro in NewHampshire, or at least that the honorable Senator had never heard of or come across themention of but one as re.