Mr. DAVIS. IVell, Mr. President, in 1790 NewHampshire had as many slaves as the honorable gentleman concedes she had. She had altogether 633 negroes; but in the presence of the refined and delicate Senfrom Maryland [ML Jousson] I am almost afraid to articulate the word “negro, ” it seems to shock his nerves so much, [Laughterfl but I hope he will get used to it before I am one with this subject. I believe it is the properterm. I believe that ethnologists and anatomists and naturalists all classify the races into the white race, the negro race, and the colored race; all theintermediate races between the white and the negro are called colored. Now, however, some gentlemen are becoming so polite that they cannot afford to use the term “negro” as applied to an African either by nativity or descent. I have not got quite that far et. ere were 8 States that held nevroes which munumitted them, set them free. fillint were the consequences of these acts of mann misson in the 5 NewEngland States, in NewJersey, in NewYork, and in Pennsylvania? What was the legal effect of these acts of manumission? What results and rights did they bring to the negro? Did they do anything more or less than simplyto destroy his slavery; that is, the subjection of the negro to the white master? Was there any other result or another right that came to a single negro in ul those States when their acts abolishing slavery passed and became operative, and some of them did not become operative fully, were not consummated into action for very many years. There was a ne prosold in the State of my honorable friendfrom Pennsylvania in the year 1823 under execution to pay a debt, and the reports of his courts show it. But I ask Gentlemen what legal results, what privileges, what rights ensued to the negro upon the consummation of the several acts of manumission by those States? Slavery is the subjection of one man to another. Slavery may be legal, or it may be viclent and lawless. Where one man by superior force subjects another to him without authority of law, that is unlawful slavery; but where one man or class of men are subject to another man or class of men by authority of law, that is lawful slavery. Anything that destroys this lo I slavery of one man to another mannmits im. If it is done under the authority of the laws of the States that authorize owmers to emancipato slaves, in relation to an individual master and an individual negro, it destroys the slavery of the individual negro. If it is done by the properauthority, legislative or sovereign, of the State in relation to all no cos, the only effect of this general and multitudine us act is to effect for aIsimply what had been effected for one by the private act of emancipation of the owner for an individual slave. Suppose the one mode or the other had been adopted in Kentuck; suppose all the owners of slaves there, by eeds of manumisson authorized by our legislation, had liberated all their slaves according to the forms required by ourlaw whatwould have been the result? They would have been free. Here you have intervened, and you have passed an amendment to the constitution whic, Isay, violates the fundamental law of the land and the principlea upon which our Government is based; but do not make that question at all. I concede it to be concluded against me. I have to receive it as being properly done, and I do so. Then, conceding that you have passed a valid constitutional amendment abolishing slavery in the State of Kentucky and throughout the U.S., I ask the 2 fathers of this proposition, the Senfrom Missouri and the Senfrom Illinois, would or would not slavery in every solitary instance in Kentucky, if the mode had been by private acts of manumission by the own ers, have ceased? How would it have ceased 7 The legal obligation of all men to serve other men, or the legal right of all the owners of slaves to require their slaves to serve them and command their time and the fruits of their labor, would have been extinguished, whether the one mode or the other had oen adopted. It would have been extinguished if all the slaves had been manumitted by deeds of manumission. It has only been extinguished by the adoption of the constitutional amendment which just read. The 2 modes are different, but their results their legal consequence s, and the rights and privileges which i ey bring to the negro, are precise y the same. The learned lawyer and Senfrom Maryland cannot draw a distinction rightfully taken between the leml effects of the 2 modes of manurnission. I have known 1,000s of slaves to be liberated by deeds of manumission in Kentucky, and I have advorted to the conventional acts of 7 States in relation to the some matter and to bring about the same result. I ask any candid and intelli gent lawyer or historian of either of the States I have named, was it ever contended in any court by any lawyer that any other consequence had ensued on the abolition of slavery by a private deed of emancipation or by an act of the Legislature or the convention of a State abolishing slavery generally in the State than the sim i e abrogation of slavery, that is, the legal subjection of the negro to the owner? What rights, civil or political, did a negro ever acquire heretofore under or by either mode of emancipation? The onorable Senfrom Maryland not only concedes that these civil rights may all be nted, but as I understood him last evening, e conceded that Congress could confer on the free negro a right to vote. The amendment of the constitution makes the negro free. according to his principle and his theory, but not according to mine, it makes the negro a citizen. I an it does no such thing. It simply abolishes the legal servitude of one man to another; it severs all connection between the slave and the master. Where the act is general, applying to all the slaves in the U.S., it has that effect and only that effect as between all owners and all recent slaves. It simply destroys the legal subjection of the slave tot e master. That was its sole object. It never was contended for until these times of fanaticism and of Unrea soning philanthropy for the negro, that it ever had any other result heretofore. Suppose a negro liberated by deed of manu mission in Kentucky, having got it under the seal of the county, executed according to the forms of the law and enrolled in parchment that he might carry his charter of freedom with him, and with that charter of freedom ten or 15 years ago he had gone up to a poll where an election was going on in the State of Kentucky, and had claime a right to vote because the deed of manumission admade him a citizen and invested him with a part of the political sovereignt of the State and of the U.S. ueh a claim never was thought of and never was made and it is just as baseless to attempt to make it a ply to civil rights or to political rights or the right to vote under this amendment of the constitution, as it would be underthat deed of manumission. In NewYork, in Massachusetts, in any other State of the Union where slavery has been abolished by the authority of the State, was any such claim ever made? Was it ever allowed? Did your Par sons and your other great lights of the law in Massachusetts ever rule that by the abolition of slaver by her constitution of 1776, or by the bill oiYrights, one of the consequences and legal effects of thatbill of rights or of that constitution in addition to manumitting the slave, was to make the slave n citizen and to confer upon him all civil and political rights? The thin never was thought of. These are errors that very sprun u in the hotbed of fanaticism and fierce politica contention. They are not sound principles of law; they will abide no tests of logic or of law that can be brought to bear upon them. A few days a I begged, almost implored, the honorable c airman of the ComJudiciary to insert a few words in his freedmens Bureau bill, which is in fact a part of this. Indeed they might both have been incor porated into the same)ill. I importnned him, almost implored him to allow the insertion of a clauseprovidmg that that bill should have no application in any State where the courts were open, and where the civil law could be enforced by the courts. I assured him that that was the condition of Kentucky as much so as it was the condition of lllinms. I thought Iapealed to him in terms that might almost have iironght iron tears down his cheek, but he remained firm and fierce and obdurate. Here is my State that has givenhalf of her white military population to the Army; and about 3/4ths of her negro population have been stolen and taken into the Army, makin, out of about 180,000 military population, something like 100,000 soldiers, white on black. My State has stood by the constitution. I have stood byitthrough sun shine and storm, through good and through evil report: On the one hand, my life has been imperiled by the secesswnists and their thizers, and on the other sympa it has been imperiled by the lawless military tyrants that have appeared in my State and tram led under foot its constitution and laws and teliberties of its peole. But I defy them all. I am still true to the constitution, and I intend to be and all its enemies, whether the are from JeffersonDavis s host, or whethert ey are from the civil and military officers of the U.S., are eoually my foes; and I will strike them with all the feeble force that Ican, let the foe to the constitution and liberties of my count men come from the one camp or the other. will do so while there is a pulsation in my heart, and while a muscle can move in this feeble arm. But I could not induce the honorable Senfrom Illinois to give any immunity whatever to my State; he got u and in his magis terial way he proclaimed e condition of the rebel States (which did not apply to Kentucky) and askedthat was the substance of his interrogatoryare you not in favor of a measure that is so necessary to preserve the order and eace and security and liberties of the people in the rebel States? Letine give you a picture of the condition of things in one of those States. I have before me an a dress issued by Messrs. Byers, Kyle, and Johnson, Representatives elect from the State of Arkansas. What do they say in relation to that State, and her claim to be represented in the 2 Houses of Congress, and in relation to the condition of the courts, and the ability of the courts there to enforce the civil laws? These gentlemen say: "January. 1861t, heloyal citiiens of theState of Arkansaselected delegates held a convontion formed a constitution and establisheda provisional State government. until the proper Officers under the constitution could be electedandqualified. This constitution 1st. abolished slavery; 2nd. declared void thee inunce of seeession:3rd. repndiatedtho rebel war debt 4th. provided for the election of otheers and for the ratification or rejection of the constitution by a vote of the citizens.” Was that not submission enough? In the name of reason and of justice, what more can be asked from a people? “The State legislature assembled and passedslaw which provided that no person shall vote at any election untilho has 1st taken and subscribed an oath that he will support the constitution of the U.S and the constitution of the State of Arkansas, and that he has not voluntarily home arms against the U.S or the State of Arkansas or aided, directly or indirectly. the rebellion since the 18thday ofApril, l864. the liegislature alsoratified the amendment to the constitution of the U.S.abol ishing slavery.” Ever county in the Statehas been regularly organized by the election of county and local officers. The courtshave beenhold and taxes assessed and eollected. “Th U.S. district court for the State has beenhzld and the laws administered therein, for more than one your past.” That is the condition of Arkansas; and yet the honorable Senfrom Illinois inexorably insists that the Freedmans Bureau shall not only go into ruthless o ration in the State of Kentucky but also in teState of Arkansas. I have sai here on this floor that gentleinen do not wish reconstruction. They o not intend that Arkansas and the other States lately in rebellion shall be represented in the 2 Houses of Congress. Why? They have certain favor ite party measures, violating the constitution, vie atin all justice and the soundest policy, which t iey are determined to Missmeasures oflegislation, amendments of the constitution. They know that if these States are once admitted to representation in the 2 Houses, if the Union is restored, if it is not kept dissolved by their own arbitrary majority, if the States become reunited in the Union and under the Government, theRepresentatives and Senators from the late rebel States would defeat all their enormous party measures and all their amendments to the constitution, that have no other purpose whatever than to enable them to hold n on to power perfas aut nefas, without regard to consequences. I objected the other day that the bill to enlarge the powers of the Freedmens Bureau, and this bill, and the various amendments to the constitution, should not now be passed; and I said that no legislative measure which vitally and deeply affects the southern States should be passed until those States were admitted by their Sens&Reps to their just influence and power in the Government. I have stated hereto ore, and I believe it, that all those States have a truer loyalty now, and a doe r and more faithful devotion to the constitution and to all of its principles, to our form of government, to the just authority of the Government and all of its officers, than have the mass of the radical party. I may be mistaken in expressing that belief, but it is my deep conviction. hen I stated this objection the other day the honorable Senfrom Illinois au swered me thus: “What is the Senfrom Kentucky here for? Why doeshe not go home? Why is be sitting here but to passlaws? Is it unconstitutional to passthis bill becausesome States are not represented here? Why, on. what sort of a Government would it be if, someState. by withdrawing its representation, could take away the constitutional power of the conre! of the U.S. to passa law? The absurdity of the proposition is such that. it needsnot to be argued to be refuted.” That is not my proposition; it is his own proposition. He builds up a man of straw to knock him down. I did not say that if one State or many States chose voluntarily to ab sent themselves from the halls of legislation therefore legislation should cease. That is the case which tehonorable Senatords presenting, but it was not the case which I presented, nor is it the case in fact now existing in the country. Here are 11 States that have acknowledged in every form in which it is possible to make the acknowledgment, their subjection to the constitution and the laws, their willingness and purpose to abide by the constitution and laws, and to sn port them. I have read from the address of 516 representatives from Arkansas, showing how that State has presented her self.” In the form substantially in which that State comes they all ask to be admitted totheir share and position in the Government; they ask to have their representatives in the Senate and in the other House. Why should they not have them? Is there any principle of constitutional law or of sound policy that would still exclude them? That is the case which I put and why are they now in that predicament? Why are they standing out in the cold, unrepresented and paying taxes to this great Government, all their most vital and essential interests being subjected to its legislation, their institutions and their political power in the Government being operated upon permanentl in their absence by the passage of constitution s. amendments through the 2 Houses of Congress? Why are they in that predicament. shorn of their constitutional rights and of all their power under the Government? The honorable senator need not shake his gory looks at me, nor at the southern States; it is not they that keep themselves in that position. It is he and his associates here who have dissolved the Union and who kee it dissolved by shutting the door of the 2 Houses of congress upon the thee of the Representatives hog: of the States and of the people of those States. They keep it shut, and they can laugh and they can Lcjojce at the writhings of their victims. They would feel differently if the occupied their position. Why do you not a mit their members? Can you expect that 11 States thus lawlessly and outrageously and tyrannically excluded from all part in their Government will acquiesce under measures that are passed by you after you have thus dissolved the Union y excluding them, and when your sole purpose in thus excluding them and dissolving the Union was to impose uion them unjust and oppressive measures wltheli you could not pass if they were here present? 7Mr. President, I objected to the Freedman s 5 78 Februlry 1, ” Has the Senfrom Bureau bill upon several constitutional grounds. One was that it blended 2 of the Depts of the Government, and authorized the president to transfer military officers to those quasi courts, and empowere those quasi-courts to hear judicial cases and questions that can go constitution ally only before the courts of the U.S. created in conformity to the constitution. How did the honorable Senator an swer that objection? He said: “But he says [alluding to myself] that there is a clear violation of the constitution in this bill because judicial power is by it conferredupon thee coreand agents oi2 the Freedmens Bureau. He saysit is admitted that such poveris conferred and thenhereads the clause of the constitution of the U.S. which declaresthat the judicial powershall bevested in a SupremeCourt and inferior courts. to be established by Congress; and he says these officersof the Freedmens Bureau are not the courts contemplated by the constitution and he reads another clauseto show that the right of trial by jury is securedto parties: and he so s no jury trial is provided for here. Of coursenot at how plain a statement shall an swer that whole argument.” Now, let us hear the plain statement of the gentleman that was intended to answer the whole argument: “Are therenot other revisionsof the constitution 7 Kentucky never read that the Congressof the U.S. egall have authority to call forth the militia to put down insurrection and rebellion 7 Doosnot the Senfrom Kentucky know that from 11 Statesof this Union every court has been expelled and driven out?". No, sir; I know no such thing. I know the contrary and I have proved the contrary in relation to Arkansas by the testimony of her Representatives elected to Congress. What is true of Arkansas is substantially true of the other States lately in rebellion. There is not a State in the Union now where the civil law and the civil courts we not be reestablished and put into complete an eaceful operation. There is not a State in which the civil courts and civil law are now deposed by the rebellion. But even if the fact were so in the rebel States, does that prove that Kentucky should be subjected to the Freedmens Bureau? and 1y;et what I have read is the sole answer which the gentleman deigns to make to all the constitution alobjections which Iraised to that bill. Another one was that it created a court of a military bureau, thatit made the Commissioner, asst commissioners, and agents of this bureau judges, and that it invested in them judicial powers, and I read the constitution to prove that all judicial power in and under the Goyernment of the U.S. wns to be exercised by the Supreme Court or by such infe prior courts as Congress may from time to time establish. I showed, or attempted to show, that this reason of “military necessity” never had any application in Kentuck, or, if any. but for iifew ays. It has no a peation in fact and in truth an where; and when I object to a Military drumhead eourtmartial thathave not sense enough or information enough to know what a writ of habeascorpus is, and on what terms and conditions a writ of habeascorpus should be granted, that are themselves members of a perlect despotism, because every army is a despot ism, that know nothing of the principles or essences o f libert; when I object to such men as these being clothed with the fj udicial powers cre ated by the constitution of the U.S., and invested specially in courts, the Senfrom Illinois as s me this question: “Aretherenot other provisionsof theOonstitution ! Has the Senfrom entueki Congress never read that the of the U.S. is all have authority to call forth the militia to put down insurrection and rebellion I". The insurrection and rebellion has been put down long enough fora crop to grow and mature; and all nature s sleeping now, to prepare her ecuperative energies to ring onauother crop, in the depths of Winter; and yet when I object to military bureaus and militag satra s exercising the judicial powers of the nited tales that are vested by the constitution in the courts, the gentleman asks me, have I not read the provision of the constitution which authorizes the President to call out the militia to put down insurrection?Mr. President, I took another objection, and a very grave objection, to the Freedmens bureau, to its exercise of any jurisdiction in Keatucky, inArknnsas anywhere. It deprives the citizen of his constitutional right to trial by jury in cases where the matter in contest amounts to 20 dollars. I read the learned opinionsI of the Supreme Court establishin that inval uable, inappreciable principle of the Constitution. Who would be willing to exunge that principle from the constitution, the right to trial by jury? In criminal cases it has passed from us so long that we have almost forgotten that it ever ha any practical existence. We have had the practical enjoyment of the right of trial by jury in civil cases in Kentucky. but here comes forward this measure of despotism, of iron military despotism, backed up by the 1st lawyer of this body, and who ravelyno, not gravely, but with perfect indifferencein troduces a bill into the Senate of the U.S. to abolish our courts, State and Federal, in Kentucky, so far as controversies between the free negro and the white man may arise, and to vest them, against the plain and positive provisions of the constitution, in a sort of military subordinates. I objected, in addition that it deprives the people of the right of trial by jury. To these, another grave objections which I make to the bill, the honorable Sena Senfrom Kentucky not read the provision which authorizes the militia to be cal edout to tor contents himselfwith this reply: “Has the Senfrom Kentucky not read the provision which nuthorizes the militia to be called out to put down insurrectionY" Was ever such a profound and able argument made in an bod as that? But, Mr. resi out, I will hurry on to consider the provisions of the pending bill. The Senator says that the principal matter, the gravamen of the bill, is in the 1st section. I will read it: That there shall beno discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of anyState or Territory of the U.S. on account of race, color or previous condition of slavery. I will ask the honorable Senator, what rights do these words establish? The section goes on afterwards and specifies: But the inhabitants of every race and color. without regard to any irevious condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. except asa punishment lorcriiiie whereof the party shall have been duly convicted shall have the sameright to make and enforcecon tracts, to sue, beparties and give evidence. to inherit, purchase, lease, sell hold, and convey real and personal property. an to full and equal benefit oall laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, and shall be subject to li e punishment, pains, and penalties and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding. Again: SEC. 2. Abife:, That any person who under color of any law, statuto, ordinnuce. regulation. oreustom. Shall subject or causeto besubjected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the dep rivation of any right securedor protectedby this act or to differentpunishment, pains or penalties on account of such persen having at any time been held in a condition o slavery or involuntary servitude. except asa punishment for crime whoroof thoparty shall have beenduly convicted or byreasonof is color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, shal be deemedguilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction shall be punished by fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisunment not exceeding one year or both, in the iseretion of the court.