Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, to be able on this occasion to answer some of the positions taken by the Gentfrom Ohio, [HTDELANO] who addressed the House yesterday, but I find that his remarks are not contained in the Globe this morning; apd as I do not wish to misrepresent any of his positions, I shall forego the answer I had intended to make to his most remarkable State rights speech. his bill, sir, has met with opposition in both Houses on the same ground that in times gone by, before this land was drenched in blood by, the slaveholders rebellion, was urged by thosm who controlled the destinies of the southern portion of the country, and those who adhered to their fortunes in the North, for the purpose of rivetingthe chain of slavery and converting this Republic into a great slave nation. The arguments which have been urged against this bill in both Houses are but counterparts of the arguments used in opposition to the authority the Government sought to exercise in controlling and preventing the spread of slavery. But I have not time in the few minutes allotted to me to go overThe general ground, and I shall confine myself to the points which have been made by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. BINGBAM] who addressed the House this morn in. glow, sir, I do not intend tobe driven or lured from the position I took at the opening of this discussion in justification of this bill by any of the “glittering generalities” which have been drawn into the discussion. I aflirmed on that oc casion, and I reaffirm here today, that citizens of the U.S., as such, are entitled to certain rights; and I stand here today to affirm that being entitled to those rights it is the duty of the Government to protect citizens in the perfect enjoyment of them. The citizen is on titled to life, liberty, and the right to property. The gentlenfln from Ohio tells us in the protection of these rights the citizen must de pend uponithe “ honest purpose of the several States, and that the General Government cannot iuterpose its strong right armto defend the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and in possession of property. In other words, if the States of this Union, in their “honest purpose, ” like the honesty of purpose manifested y the southern States in times past, should do rive the citizen, without due process oflaw, dfiife, liberty, and property, the General government, which can draw the citizen by the strong bond of allegiance to the battlefield, has no power to intervene and set aside a State law, and give the citizen protection under the laws of Congress in the courts of the U.S. that at the mercy of the States lie all the rights of the citizen of the U.S., that wilile it was deemed necessary to constitute a great Government to render secure the rights of the people, the framers of the government turned over to the States the power to deprive the citizen of those things for the security of which the Government was framed. In other words, the little State of Delaware has a hand stronger than the U.S.; that revolted SCarolina may put under lock and key the great fundamental rights be longing to the citizen, and we must be dumb; that our legislativepower cannot be exercised; that our bourts must be closed to the appeal of our citizens. That is the doctrine this HoRep, representing a great free people, just emerged from a terrible war for the maintenance of American liberty, is asked to a o t. T to Gentfrom Ohio tells the House that civil rights involve all the rights that citizens have under the Government; that in the term are embraced those rights which belong to the citizen of the U.S. as such, and those which belong to a citizen of a State as such; and that this bill is not intended merely to enforce equalitygof rights, so far as they relate to citizens of the U.S., but invades the States to enforce equality of rights in respect to those things which properly and right fully depend on State regulations and laws. My friend is too sound a lawyer, is too well versed in the Constitution of his country, to indorse that proposition on calm and deliberate consideration. fie knows, us every man knows, that this bill refers to those rights which belong to men as citizens of the U.S and none other; and when he talks of setting aside the school laws and jury laws and franchise laws of the States by the bill now under consideration, he ste s beyond what he must know to be the rule of construction which must apply here, and as the result of which this bill can only relate to matters within the control, of Congress. He says that we cannot interposein this way for the protection of rights. Can we not? What are the great civil rights to which the 1st section of the bill refers? I find in the bill of rights which the gentleman desires to have enforced by an amendment to the Constitution that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property Without due process of law.” I understand that these constitute the civil rights belonging to the citizens in connection With those which are necessary for the protection and maintenance and perfect enjoyment of the rights thus specificall named, an these are the rights to which this bill relates having nothing to do With subjects submitted to the contro of the several States and now, sir, we arenot Without light as to the power of Congress in relation to the protection of these rights. In the case of Prig vs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and this it will be remembered was uttered in be halfof slaver l I find this doctrine, and it is perfectly app 1cable to this case. The court said: "The fundamental principle applicabletoallcnses of this sort would seem to be that where the end is required the meansare given; and when: the dot is omoined the ability to perform it is containilatedto exist on the part of the functionaries tow iom it is intrusted. hoclause is found in the national constitution and notin that of any State. It do not point out any State functionaries or any St O action to carry its provisions into effect. The States cannot, therefore. be compelled to enforce them and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exerciseof the power of interpretation to insist that the Statesare bound to provide meansto carry into effectthe duties of the nationulGovernme ntnowhere deiu ated or intrusted to them by the Constitution. On t a contrary, the natural. if not the necessary, conclusion is. that the national Government, in the absenceof all positive provisions to the contrary, is bound, through its own properDept. legislative, judicial or executive.its the casemayrequir to carry into client nll the rights and duties impose upon it by the Constitution. The remarks of Mr. adison.in the Federalist. (No. 43.)would seem in such casestoapply with peculiar force. “A right, says he. implies a remedy; a d whereelsewould the rem edy be deposited than where it is deposited by the Constitution t meaning, as the context shows. in the Government of the U.S. " Now, sir, in relation to the great fundamental rights embraced in the bill of rights, the citizen being possessed of them is entitled to a remedy. That is the doctrine of the law as laid down the courts. There can be no dispute about this. The possession of the rights by the citizen raises by implication the power in Congress to provide appropriate means for their protection; in other words, to snppl the needed remedy. The citizen is entitle to the right of life, liberty, and property. Now, if a State intervases and deprives him, without due process of law, of these rights, as has been the case in a multitude of instances in the past, have we no power to make him secure in his priceless possessions? When such a case is presented can we not provide a remedy? Who Will doubt it? Most we wait for the perpetration of the wrong before acting? Who will aflirm this? The power is with us to provide the necessary protective remedies. I not, from whom shall they come? From the source interfering With the right? Not at all. They must be proVided by the Government of the U.S., whose duty it is toprotect the citizen in return for the allegiance he owes tovthe Government. Justice, reason, everything, asserts this asthe true theory for the guidance of our action. This is in accord with the dignity of government. Without it the Republic becomes an oppressor, exacting a discharge of duty by the citizen, in the absence of the power to return a protective compensation. I will now notice particularly the provisions of the amendment proposed by the Gentfrom Ohio EMr. BINGHAM] to the motion to recommit. want no more complete assertion of the power to pass this bill as reported from the committee than the gentlemans own amendment. What does he propose? To instruct the committee to report back this bill, striking out of the 1st clause the words “ and there shall be no discrimination of civil rights or immunities nmong citizens of the U.S., in any State or Territory of the U.S. on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery;" and to insert in the 8th line of the 1st section, after the word “right.” the words “in ever State and Territory of the U.S.;” leaving the section in every other repect precisely as reported by the committee. Now, sir, what rights does the gentleman propose to protect? Let his own instructions answer for im: and such citizens of every race and color. without regard to any previous condition of slaveryv or involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted shall have t 0sameright in everyState and Territory of the U.S. to make and enforce contracts, to sue.bepartiesand give evidence.to in herit. purchase.lease.sell. hold and conveyreal and piersonalproperty I and to have equal benefit of all weand proceeings for the security of person and property ssis enjoyedby whit p citizens and shall be subjectto likepunishment. psins and penalties and to none other. any law. statute. ordinance regulation or customto the contrary notwithstanding. Now, I want to know whether these rights are any greater than the rights which are included in the general term “life, liberty, and property.” and yet the gentleman admits y his instructions, and asks this House to indorse his admission, that the General Government may secure to citizens of the U.S. in every State the possession of these enumer ated rights. I take the gentlemans own instructions, and his argument in favor of them and I apply them as arguments in support of the report of the ComJudiciary. They O as far as we have gone, and assert the identical powers and principles which we have asserted. But he says the 2nd section is objection able. Well, I want no more direct authority than his own in vindication of the principle involved in the 2nd section. What does he propose in regard to it? He moves Also to strike out all partsof said bill which are penal and which authorizecriminal proceedin and in lieu thereof to igiveto all citizens iniured?y denial or Violation O any of the otherrights securedor protected by said not an action in the U.S. courts.with doublecostsin all casesof reeovery.without regard to the amount of damages: and also to secure to such persons the privilege of the writ of habeascorpus. What difference in principle is there between saying that the citizen shall be protected by the legislative power of the U.S. in his rights by civil remedy and declaring that he shall be protected by penal enactments against those who interfere with his rights? here is no difference in the principle involved. If we may adopt the gent emans mode we may also so act the mode provided in this bill. There is a ditierence in regard to the expense of protection. There is also a difference as to the effectiveness of the 2 modes. Beyond this, nothing. This bill proposes that the humblest citizen shall have full and ample protection at the cost of the government, whose duty it is to protect him. e amendment of the gentleman recognizes the principle involved, but it says that the citizen despoiled of his rights, instead of being properly protected by the government, must press his own wa through the courts and pay the bills attenant thereon. This may do for the rich, but to the poor, who need protection, it is mockery. The highest obligation which the Government owes to the citizen in return for the allegiance exacted of him is to secure him in the protection of his rights. Under the amendment of the gentleman the citizen can only receive that protection in the form of a few dollars in the way of damages, if he shall be so fortunate as to recover a verdict against a solvent wrong deer. This is called protection. This is what we are asked to do in the way of enforcing the bill of rights. Dollars are weighed against the right O hfe, liberty, and property. he verdict of a jury is to cover all wrongs and discharge the obligations of the Government to its citizens. Sir, I cannot see the justice of that doctrine. I assert that it is the duty of the Government of the U.S. to provide proper protection, and to pay the costs attenant on it. We have gone out with the strong arm of the government and drawn from their homes all over this land, in obedience to the bond of allegiance which the Government holds on the citizen, 100s of 1,000sof men to the battle field; and yet while we may exercise this extraordinary power, the gentleman claims that we cannot extend the protecting hand of the government to these men who have been battling for the life of the nation, but can only send them at their own cost to juries for verdicts of a few dollars in compensation for the most fia grant wrong to their most sacred rights. Let those support that doctrine who will, I cannot. Sir, int c votes upon the several propositions now bef e us I expect to have the indorsoment of must, ifnot (tllk ofllle members of this House of the great principle involved in the bill. Of course our Democratic friends will vote for the motion of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BING RAM] to recommit the bill with instructions, and thereby direct the committee to report a bill which shall declare all persons, negroes included, citizens of the U.S., and we shall have the Gentfrom Ohio who addressed the House yesterday voting in favor of instructing the committee to report the bill back so amended as to still embrace all the specified rights to which he objected and we shall have the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. RAYMOND] who addressed the House yesterday, voting in favor of instructions which will compel the ComJudiciary to report back a bill which shall involve the identical principle of the 2nd section of this bill, upon which be based his opposition. Every vote in favor of these instructions will be a vote in favor of the principles of this bill. and, sir, although it may result in the defeat of what I regard to bemost important legislation, I shall at least have the consolation of knowing that this intelligent House accc ts the conclusion that the ComJudiciary arrived at that all these rights belong to the citizen and should be protected, the only difference between us being that the committee in sists that the protection should be extended at the cost of the Government, while those in f: vor of the instructions believe that we should compel the citizen to seek his remedy at his own cost. Now, sir, in relation to the remainder of the bill which the Gentfrom Ohio proposes to strike out, we have had an indorsement of that by our Democratic friends for very many years. These provisions are made up of the several sections of the old fugitive slave law, modified in such a manner as to exclude there from the features to which many of us formerly objected. I am not prepared to cast a vote which shall declare tint all the powers exercised by this Government in former times in behalf of slavery shall not be exercised in be half of the freedom of the citizen and his ample protection in all his fundamental rights. [Here the hammer fell.]