Mr. RAYMOND. Mr. Speaker, I supposed it was a matter of very lit the consequence to an one but myself what my record might be. I db not wish here to enter into a detaied examination of that record. Those who are more concerned in regard to it than myself will probably do that for me here or elesewhere. But with regard to my position upon this civil rights bill and the principles involved in it, I think I can explain in a very few words what it is so as to be understood by all. Almost at the very outset of this session, before the civil rights bill, which ussed here and which is now the law of the and, had been reported, I introduced a bill proposing, 1st, to strike out the word “white in the naturalization laws, and, 2ndly, declaring that all persons born in this country heretofore, or hereafter to be born, should be, and were thereby declared to be, citizens of the U.S. In some remarks that I submitted u n the subject I stated that my object was either to recogize the citizenship of the men lately free from slavery if that citizenship existed already, or to coner upon them citizenship if they were not new citizens, and Congress adpower so to confer it. I also said that I proposed a section in the bill which declared them to be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of other citizens of the U.S., whatever those rights may be and it olyowed as a necessary inference that they were to have the same security for the enjoyment of those rights and the same rem edy for their violation as any other citizen had; whatever laws Congress might make to protect other citizens in the enjoyment of their rights, they were also entitled to the protection of those laws. But the civil rights ill, when it came before us for our action contained not only this declaration, in which I fully agreed, but it contained a provision by which the government of the U.S. undertook to secure to them and to all other citizens the enjoyment of certain rights, and to provide for their violation certain remedies within State jurisdiction, where it seemed to me Congress under the existing Constitution had not the right so to act. It was this provision which rendered it impossible for me, with these opinions, to vote for the bill. It was the remedy provided, one feature of which was giving power to the judiciary of the U.S. to imprison officers of the State courts for enforcin State laws, which 1 did not think Congress his the right to do; it was this lgfifir., ms consummate ores; 2513, exercise of a slower which I did not think that Congress uu er the Constitution possessed which constituted the reason why I voted against the bill, and I see nothing Whatever in that vote inconsistent with my oft repeated declaration that l was in favor of the principle of the bill, which was also embodied in the bill which I introduced for the purpose of securing to all the rights of citizenship with whatever power we possessed. But now it comes before us in the form of an amendment to the Constitution, which proposed;to give congress the power to attain this precise result. Is all vote or that amendment cheerfully, because I think Congress should have that power. Now I do not think there is any inconsistencyin these 2 positions. If there is. the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. will Ise x] is welcome to all he can make out of it. do not feel at all embarrassed by it myself and I submit to him that it is hot of very rent consequence to anybody but myself wile er I am consistent or not. w