Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the President in his annual messagesai to us “ That good faith requires the security of the freedmen in their liberty, their right to labor, and their right to claim the Just return of their labor. I cannot toostron l y urge a diapasslonatetreatment of thissubject. which should be carefully kept aloof from all party strife.“ In pursuance of this recommendation, congress passed a measure known as the “civil rights bill, ” the essential purpose of which is declared in these words: “Sec. 1. That all persons bornin the U.S., and not subJectto any foreign Power. excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the U.S.; and such citizensof ever and color. ivithout regard to any previous conirtaioene of slavery or involuntary servitude. exceptas a unisliment for crimewhereof the party shall have conduly convicted, shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue to besued, be parties and give evidence.to in herit. purchase.lease.sell. hold, and convey real and personal property and to be entitled to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for these curity of personand property as is enjoyedby white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment. pains, and penalties.aridto noneother.anylaw, stat ute, ordinance.regulation, or custom to the contrary notwnlistanding. “SEC. 2. That any person who. under color of any law, statute. ordinance.regulation, or custom shall subject, or causeto be subiccted "any citizenpf any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right se ciired or protectedby this act, or to differentpunishment. pains or ])0ufll.18olln account of such person having at any time beenheld in a condition of sla very or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been diily convicted, or by reasonof his color or race, than is prescribedfor the punishment of white persons, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction shall be punished by fine not exceeding 81,000 or imprisonment not exceedingone year or both. in the ise retionof the court.” This bill has met with the executive veto. When it passed the House I was satisfied to record my vote in its favor without consuming time in discussion, leaving the measure to commend itself to the Judflment of the world. It has already been debated somewhat at large. (See speeches of it iisoN, and others, March 1, Globe, March 2; of BINGHAM, February 28, Globe. March 1; of Blxensii and SHELLABAR can, March 9, Globe, March 10; DELAXO, March 8, Globe, March 13.) I will not therefore attempta full discussion of it now, but content myself With briefly presenting some of the grounds upon which I will again perform the proudest act of my political life in voting to make this bill the law of the land. It is scarcely less to the people of this country than Magna Charta was to the people of England. It declares who are citizens. It does not affect any political right, as thatof suffrage, the right to sit oiiJurics, hold office, &c. This it leaves to the States, to be determined by Foch for itself. It does not confer any civil right, but so faras there is any power in the States to limit, enlarge, or declare civil rigits, all these are left to the States. at it does provide that as to certain enumer ated civil rights every citizen “ shall have the same right in every State and Territory.” That is whateverof certain civil rights may be enjoyed by any shall be shared by all citizens in each State, and in the Territories and these are: 1. To make and enforce contracts. 2. To sue, to be sued, and to be parties. 8. To give evidence. 4. To inherit, purchase, lease, sell. hold, and convey real and personal property. 5. To be entitled to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property. The bill does not declare who shall or shall not have the right to sue, give evidence, in herit, purchase, and sell property. These questions are left to the States to determine, subject only to the limitation that there are some inherent and inalienable rights, pertaining to every citizen, which cannot be abolished or abridged by State constitutions or laws. The 1st clause of section one provides: “That all personsborn in the U.S and not subject to anyforei a Power. excluding Indiana riot.taxed. are hereby declared to be citizens of the U.S. ” This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by the distinguished chairman of the ComJudiciary, (Mr. Winsoxs speech, March 1) and by the authorities he has cited. (1 Sharswoods Blackstone, 364; Naturalization Act of April 14 1802; Act of February28, 1803; Brightlys bigest, 487; Section 10 of Act of September 4, 1841; Opinions of Attorneys General, vol. 4, p. 147, (Legare;) 1 Bouviers Law Dictionary, title Denizen; 2 Kent Com., 278, itote; Marcy, SecyState, March 6, 1854; AttyGen Bates, Opinion, November 29, 1862; Rawle on constitution, 80; State vs. Manuel, 3; Deveraugh & Battles N. C. IL, 26.) In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law “declaring citizenship by birth, it must be reg ulated by some rule of national law” “coeval with the existence of the Union, ” which was and is that all “children born here are citizens without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” (1 Sandfords Ch. R., 583.) This was the common law of England, and “the statute (25 Edward Ill, St2, De nalis pltraimare) was declaratory of the old common aw. It has also been sufficiently demonstrated that the nation may by solemn act of Congress, or even by treaty, declare that classes of people collectively, shall be citizens. (Louisiana treaty, April 30, 1800; Florida treaty, 1817; Mexican treaty, 1848; Choctaw treaty, September 27, 1830; Resolution March 1, 1845, annexing Texas; Act of December 29, 1848, admitting Texas; Cherokee treaty, December 29, 1855; Act of March 3, 1843, Stoclrbridge Indians; opinions of Attorneys General, vol. 7, p.746, ( ushing;) Lawrences Appendix to Wheaten on International Law.) It is an exercise of authority which belongs to every sovereign Power, and is essentially a subject, of national jurisdiction. The whole power over citizenship is intrusted to the national Government, which can make citizens of any foreign people as an exercise of sovereignty, or on er the power, “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” (Constitution, art. 1, section 7.) There is, then, a national citizenshi and citizenship implies certain rights which are to be protected, and imposes the duty of idle.giance and obedience to the laws. There is in this country no such thing as “legislative omnipotence.” When it is said in State constitutions that “all legislative power is vested in a Senate and HoRep, H authority is not thereby conferred to destroy all that is valuable in citizenship. Legislative powers exist in our system to protect, not to destroy, the inalienable rights of men. (1 Story Constitution, sec. 207; Taylor vs. Porter, 4 Hills re 0rts, 147; 2 Dallas, 471; People vs. Morris, 13 lendell, 328.) This has been the common understanding in our whole history and upon which governments have been created. The Continental Congress of 1774, composed of delegates from 12 colonies, in their Declaration of Rights, among other things, declared: “That the inhabitants of the English colonies of North An icrica. by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution and the sevgral charters or compacts. have the following rii“r s: clofoclf. That they are entitled to life liberty and property and that they havenever cededto niiy sovereign Power whatever a right todispose of either without their consent." Hurd on Habeuc Corpus. chap. 5. p. 101. The DeclarIndep aflirms "That all men are created equal: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that anipng these are life liberty and the figrsuit of happiness. That to secure these rights. vernments are instituted amongmen." The Constitution was established, as its preamble declares, to "Promote the general welfare and secure the blessingsof liberty." All the law writers agree that every citizen has certain “absolute rights, " which include “The richt of personal security. the right of personal liberty and the right to acquire and enjoyproperty. These rights have beenjustly considere and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural. inherent and innlienable." 1 Kentl (hmnientaries. 599; Federalist, No. 84. In Wilkinson vs. Leland, 2 Pet. 667, Judge Story said: "The fundamental maxims of a free Government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and privateproperty shouldbe held sacred. Atleust no court of justice in this country would be war ranted in assuming that the power to violate and disregard them a power so repurrnantto the common principles ofiustice and civil liberty lurked under any general grant of legislative authority." (See Turrett rs. Taylor, 9 Crunch, 43; People vs, Morris, 13 Wend., 328; Taylor vs. Porter, 4 Hill, 147; Fletcher vs. Peck, 6 Crunch, 87.) The bill of rights to the national Constitution declares that: "No person” “ "shall be de prived of life liberty or property without dueprocess of law. nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. It has never been deemed necessary to enact in any constitution or law that citizens should have the right to life or liberty or the right to acquire property. These rights are recognized by the Constitution as existing anterior to and independently of all laws and all constitutions. Without further authority I may assume, then, that there are certain absolute rights which pertain to every citizen, which are inhe rent, and of which a State cannot constitution ally deprive him. But not only are these rights inherent and indestructible, but the means whereby they may he possessed and enjoyed are equally so. We learn from Coke that “ when the law grantcth anything to anyone that also is granted without which the thin: itself cannot lief (lath beforethe.huttcca.12 (10. 130;Heard vs. Pierce. 8 Cult. 333 345. In law the incident always adheres to and accompanies the (principle. (Brooms Legal Maxims, 198; 20 hio IL, 409.) It is idle to say that a citizen shall have the right to life, yet to deny him the right to labor, wherehy alone he can live. It is a mockery to say that a citizen may have a right to live, and yet deny him the right to make a contract to secure the privilege and the rewards of labor. It is worse than mockery to say that men may be clothed by the national authority with the character of citizens, yet may be stripped by State authority of the means by which citizens may exist. Even Shylock, when the decree of confiseation was pronounced against him, reasoned better; for he said: "Nay. take my life and all. pardon not that: You take an honse.when you do take the pm That doth sustain my house; you take my life. Whoa you do take the meanswherebyI live." Every citizen, therefore, has the absolute right to live, the right of personal securit, personal liberty, and the right to acquire an enjoy property. These are rights of citizenship. As necessary incidents of these absolute rights, there are others, as the right to make and enforce contracts, to purchase, hold, and enjoy property, and to share the benefit of laws for the security of person and property. Now, there are 2 ways in which a State may undertake to deprive citizens of these absolute, inherent, and inalienable rights: either by prohibitory laws, or by a failure to protect anyone of them. If the people of a State should become hostile to a large class of naturalized citizens and should enact laws to prohibit them and no other citizens from making contracts, from suing, from giving evidence, from inheriting, buying, holding, or selling property, or even from cominginto the State, that would be prohibitory legislation. If the State should simply euact laws for native born citizens and provide no law under which naturalized citizens could enjoy an one of these rights, and should deny them a l protectionb civil process or penal enactments, that would O a denial of justice. Yet 12 years have not passed since these and other hostile measures against naturalized citizens were gravely discussed in several of the States, and beyond this, it. was urged that their political rights should be denied or so abridged as to be useless. History is full of instances where all this has been done or attempted. (Com. vs. York, 9 Metcalf Rep. 116; 2 Bennett 82 Heards Lead. Crim. Casesi This bill, in that broad and comprehensive philanthropy which regards all men in their Clvl fights as equal before the law? Is not made son. in granting pardonsand amnestics to ihc rebels. had them fleetin. youropinien. to increase or decrcase i the feeling of respect toward the Government of the for any class or creed, or race or color. but in the great future that awaits us will, if it become a law, protect every citizen, including the millions of people of foreign birth who will flock to our shores to become citizens and to find here a land ofliberty and law. But there is a present necessity for this bill which I find forcibly stated thus: “The fact. that no single southern Legislature has yet recoized the rig ht of blacks to the civil rights accorde to every white alien. suflices to prove the needofsuch legislation by Congress. We believe no single southern State has yet enabled blacks to sue an be sued.to give testimony and rebut testimony on equal terms with whites. All that they do. under the pressure of iicccssily is meanly grudgingly.shab bily done. What can be more a surd than to provide that a block maytestify in cases betweenblacks aIfnd whites.but notwhen the parties are both white! he would even swear falsely. would he not be likelyto do soin a casebetweena white and a black? and if his oath can be taken in caseswhere he will naturally have a.bias. why not in caseswhere he is likely to have none?" “Consider the caseof a riotous white attack on a coloredse hool kept by a white woman. A black who witnessed the outrage is called totell what he knows, and turned off becausethe schoolmaam was white, like the rowdics; so he is notacoinpetent witness. unlesshe can swear that the ten lis assaulted also a upil; then he maybe. Why ist io distinction made iit to insult and deizradethe blocks? “The Cincinnati Commercial has a lctter from a correspondent traveling through Mississippi, who states that the barbarous vagrant law recently passed by the rebel StateLegislature is llllldly enforced and underits provisions the freed slaves are rapidly being reenslaved. No negro is allowed to buy real or lease any real estate; all mine rs of any value are taken from their parents and bound out to planters: and every freedman who does not.contract for a years labor is taken up as av rant. The officers of the Freedmens Bureau are O u not accessible and the freedmen are kc it back, by the distance. from complaining. Finally. As the writer estimates. it would take an armyof 20,000 men to compel the planters to do justice to the freedmen. “This bill takes right hold of this matter and subjects the oppressors to paius and penalties which they will seldomchooseto invoke." Since this statement of the condition of southern law, I believe Georgia, by an act of March 17, 1866, has made provision for the enforcement of civil rights. It is barbarous, inhuman, infamous, to turn over 4 million liberated slaves, always loyal to the Government, to the fury of their rebel masters, who deny them the beucfit of all laws for the protection of that civil rights. To do so, would make the age of Draco and Nero respectable in comparison with the infamy of this. It is partly because there k3nosiwh law that the Freedmens Bureau now, by order of the President, interposes military authority to secure the civil rights of the white Union population, and of the freedmen, the wards of the nation, in their new born liberty. I, find in the testimony of Major General Alfred H. Terry, commanding the Dept of Virginia, which was taken before the reconstruction comniittee, hlareh, 186ti, the following; Question. What. Is the political character of the presentIiecislgiturcof Virginia? Answer. I Judge. by its actions arid by the language used by many of its membersin debate, that it is not a loyal Legislature. Question. In case of the withdrawal of military protection from Virginia. whatwopld be the congillff? of the loyal people in Virginia and of the Ill. 5! Appear. I think they Would be in n lamentable condition. so great is the prejudice entertained. especially against those who were faithful in their obligations to the Government during the war. that do not think they would receive any adequate protection for their rights of person and property from the courts and I think that they would be persecutedthrough the machinery of the courts. as well as privately. Even now. when military law prevails in the State and when military authority is supreme.attemptsweremade in the courts to punish the Unionistsfoi acts done by them under military nuiliorily during the war and I have been obliged to interfere and releasefrom prison men thusprose cuted. Question.Has that beenof frequent occurrence? Ansiver. I have directed the cessation of proceedings in some 5 or 6 casesof this kind. In someof them the parties hadbeen admitted to bail: in sonic. they were imrisoned. I have released those in prison.andin alrcase s havetaken possession of the indictments and warrants and when bonds liud beengiven. of the bonds. Question. Would the Unionists be safein case of the removal of the protecting troops Allflbfil. I think not and in that opinion I am supported, by. as I think. the unanimous tccling of the niouists themselves.which has beenfrequently and still continues to be expressedto me. Question.Has the liberal policy of president John U.S. on the part of the peopleof Virginia? Answer. am unable to trace results to their causesin that matter: but since the time when I 3 took command. especially since military restraint has beenso much relaxed as it has beenduring 2 or 3 months. disloyal publications have very much increased. They seem to have increased in proporton to the relaxation of military restraint. Question. Tho newspaper known as the Richmond Examiner has been recently suppressed by an order emanating from GenlGrant Answer. Yes. sir. Question. For the utterance of disloyal sentiments and of language insulting to the nionists and to the northern section of the country? Anmer. Yes, sir. Question.How is it regarded 7 Is it regarded as one of the loading exponents of public feeling and opinion in Virginia? Amwer. It seems to be an exponent of the seces sion feeling. Quection.Did you execute the order of GenlGrant? Ansim. Icaused it to be executed. I gave the order to General Turner. who commands in Richmond and he executedit. Question. Has theorder beenrevoked or modified in any way? Amwer. It has.quention. llywhoseorder. so far asyou know? iinucr. So far as I know officially. by GenlGrants order. (cation.Has it been revoked P iiawrr. It has been revoked. temporarily. by order of GenlGrant and as I understood.on the condition that in the future it will not pursue a course detrimental to the Government or the growth or expression. in acts and words. of Union sentiment amen the people of the States lately in rebellion, or tot c cultivation of friendly relations between the geoplo of those States or any oftl icm.nn d the other States of the Union; and that itw ill not.in any way. fail in its editorial correspondence mrtransferof arti clcs from other newspapers to give support. countenance and friendship to the nionand its supporters. Quenlion.What is theirl the late rebelsj treatment. generally. of the freedmen? Answer. It is very various. Many persons are treating the freedmen kindly and justly. endeayormg to accommodate themselvesto the changed eircumstances of the times and to enter into the proper relations between them. as between the employer! and the employed. Many others. on the contrary treat them with great harshnessand injustice. an seek to obtain their service without just compensation and to reduce them to a condition which will give to the former masters all the benefits of slavery and throw upon themnone of its responsibilities. Question. So for nsyou can judge.which class is the most numerous.thosewho treat the freedmen kindly or those who treat them with injustice and severity? Answer. The latter. Question. Do you think they greatly predominate in numbers? Answer. I can hardly estimate thcvrelative propoptaon. I thould think they prodominato. Moon. Do you suppoeo. ToIlIWhM Yol haw. seen and heard and from what you know. that it would be safe to intrnst the great body of freedmen in Virginia or elsewhere in the South to the care of the local authorities or the local legislation? 1mm. do not. I Question. Suppose this were done. what consequence in your judgment would be like to follow? they not inaltrent the black race. deprive them of thoir rights, embarrass them in the enioyment of their property if they slionld have any provoke theni. goad tticm if necessary to actsof violence which the blacks might.suppose they were performing in their interests and in this way. Within some short time, bring about an open bloody resistance on the part of the black population? Answer. I should say there would be danger that the blacks would commit those acts which an oppressed people, sooneror later. commit against their oppressors. Question. Have you reason to believe that the blocks possess arms to any extent at the present tiinc Answer. I have been told they do. I havereceived that information from citizens of Virginia. including State officers. who have entreated me to take the armsof the blocksaway from them. Question. Who were those officers? newer. Some we remembers of the present Legislature. I have also been asked to do so by public meetingsheld in one of the counties. Question. Have you in any case issued orders for disarming the blacks? Amwer. I havenot. Question.The blacks, I suppose are almost unanimously loyal?. Answer. I think there is no questionabout that queslion. How do the Virginians feel in regard to the educationof the blacks? Amwer. There is a great differenceof opinion in that respectin different communities. In someplaces the peoplecordially aprove of it. Many have taken art in it. In other places the reverse is the case. ases have come to my nowledge. where persons coming to teach the blacks were not crmitted to rent a place, either for schoolor persona occupation, and it has beenreported to me that teacherssent to teach the blacks have been treated with great contempt and in someplacesthreatened. Again. in the city of Lynchburg. for instance.the city authorities cordially entered into the arrangementfor teaching the blacks. in connection with the military authorities. There is this variation of feeling and what is the predominating feeling I cannot tell." and Major General Custer has given his evideaeewitb regard to affairs in Texas, as follows: " He testifiesthat he has been over the greaterportion of that State and he also instructedhis Officers in various parts to report to him the Viewsof the wople and their disposition toward the Government. le thereforesays he has greater opportunities than any other officer there to know the situation. In reply to a direct question, he says. I do not. regard the disrosition of the pee In as at all friendly to ward the Government. "0 use their own words, they accept the situation but I think their motives are entirely selfish, and t cy acknowledge that it is from a desiro to obtain the benefit of the Government rather than give the Governmentany support. The feeling is more hostile now than it was 3 or 4 months ago. They nflirm. as a reason for this hostility that theyare kept in an unsettled condition and are particularly dissatisfied with the Government because they are not allowed to resume their Klaces in Congress. General Custer adds that it is ardl possible to find a man whohas been loyal to the nion and remained so during the war. He say I do not consider that it would be safe for loya men to remain in Texas if the troops should be removed. There is new little or no intercourse between loyal and disloyal men. When our troops 1st entered the Slate. He says thnt the Aieoples eemed as loyal as the most loyal man could wish. They expected the leading rebels hung and the property of the rebels confiscated; but when they saw a len ient policy pursued. They assumed a different position and assailed the Government and especially de nounced the provisional State government." Many peeple suppose that because flagrant war has ceased actual peace has returned. But peace has not yet come in fact. The President maintains the exercise of military power as fully as during the conflict of arms, unless it has been moderated since his peace proclamation of April 2. Mr. Seward in his 5 eech in NewYork on the 22d of February declared that a state of peace had not been restored. He said: " Now. if you will refer to the old bill creating the Freedmens Bureau. you Wlll find it is limited by the laws of enactmentto the warof the rebellion undone yearthercafter. Is the war ended? Practically it is. lostilities haveccased.ls peace restored? No: prac tniecacellyss itthye States are still disturbed and there is a for military force. The peace hasnot abso Iatelycome. Co ming, but not come the President says. The proclamation of 1861 announced civilWar. A proclamation of the President will announce that the waris at an end. Now. if I am right in this.then peace in alegal sense wlll come to bein the U.S. just at the day when the President issues a proclamation or Congresspassesitlaw declaring that peacehas came and not before. It the proclimation should be made lli llll). then by the terms of the act creating a Freedmens Bureau, we Will have one whole year thereafter. At the endofthat time we shall havethe benefit.“ experience. If Wea the continuation ! of the Freedmens Bureau. Congress will then be in sessionto enact a bill and if so we all trust we shall haveitfrorn them. The 22d of February will be a very good day, the mostglorious of all days. for a proclamation that the rebellion is ended, that the freedmen. of this country are restored to their own natural I roifgdhutlsy.lWe What this btehieng difference between the President and Congress? The President says.I have got 50,000 men and I do not want an more I can executethe duties of the Freedmens urcau. I have got $11,000, 00u0nder the old law and I do not want any more. 1 can administer the Freedmens Bureau with $11.00!).0taXn), d I have got 500 agents military and civil; With their salaries they are sumeient to executethe administration of the Freedmens Bureau. I do not want any more agents!" GenlGrant, in his report to the President in December last, said: “In some form. the Freedmens Bureau is an absolute necessityuntil eivil law is established and enforced.securingto the freedmentheir rights and full protection." "It cannot be exeeted that the opinions held by men at the South or yearse an bechanged in a day and thereforethe freedmen require. for a fewyears, not only laws to protect them.but the fosteringcare of thosewho will give them good counsel and on whomtheycan rely." and the manner in which military authority is exercised proves that the civil rights of all Union men are denied by law and courts and juries in the rebel States. Here are some of the evidences of it found in military orders, as follows: [General Orders.No. 3.] Win DEPT. ADJUTANTGl INERALSOiricii. wAHHINGTOX January 12.1866. To protectloyal person! against iniproger civi! mile a penalties tn late rebellious ales. Military division and Dept commanders, whose commands embraceor are composedof any of the late rebellious States and who have not already doneso, will at once issue and enforce orders prdtcctin from prosecution or suits in the State or municipa courtsof such State all officers and soldiers of the armiesof the U.S and all p.ons thereto attached or in anywise thereto belonging. subject to military authority. charged with offenses for acts done in their military capacity, or pursuant to ordersfrom propermilitary authority, and to protect from suit or prosecutionall loyal citizens orpersons charged with o flense sdone against the rebel forces directly or indirectly, during the existenceof the rebellion and all persons, their agentsand employees. charged with the occupancy of abandoned lands or plantations or the possessionor custody of any kind of property whatever, who occupied.used. possessed or controlled the same. pursuant to the order of the President or any of the civil or military Deptsof the Government and to protect them from any penaltiesor damagesthat may have been or maybe pronouncedor adjudged in said courts in any of said cases; and alsot protecting colored persons from prosecution in any of said States charged with offenses for which white persons are not prosecuted or punishedin the samemanner and degree. By commandof Lieutenant GenlGrant:. D. TOWNSEND. AsstAdjutant General. [General Orders, No. 7.] Hssnouarsns Darin rum" scorn Cisousi, Caaaassros. S. 0. March 4, 1866. I. In order that the loyal people of this State may be relieved from all unnecessaryrestraints incident to the existenceof martial law. the administration of civil affnirsin the several districts. parishes and municipalities. respectively. will be remitted by commanding officers of military districts to the civil officers therein, duly qualified to perform such duties. No person shall be deemed eligib cto hold Office unless he shall havetaken the amnesty oath last prescribed and if they belong to eitherof the classes excepted from shall have received executive pardon. Civil officers will in all cases respect and obe the proclamations of the President. the laws of ongress, and all orders relating to the government of this Dept, iwued by competent military authority. H. To aid the local functionaries in resumingtheir proor duties. it is ordered that hereafter.without authority from these headquarters.no military tax, assessmento.r chargeof any kind whatsoever shall be levied upon citizens. except fines and penalties imposed by the provostcourtsor other competentmili tary tribunals. for offenses whereof the part shall have beenduly convicted; and with the further exception of the ground rents at the post of Hilton Head. that being a military rucrvatidn. H. No prosecution or suit shall be entertained in the courts of SCarolina against officers or soldiers of the armies of the U.S., or persons in anywise thereto belonging. subject to military authority, charged with actsdone in their military capacity or pursuant to ordersfrom proper military authority: nor against loyal citizens or persons charged with acts done againstthe rebel forces.directly or indirectly. during the rebellion: and all persons their servants or servants, charged with the occupation of abandoned lands and tenements, or the possession or custodyof any kind of property what in cases wheresuch occupation. use or possession was authorized by the President, or by any of l the end or military Deptsof the Government shall beprotected from any recoveries. penalties or damages that may have been or may be imposed or adfVu.dSguedptehreiorerfoarnidn csiarieducitouprrtosv. ost courts wi ll continue in operation as heretofore and shall have. as against any and all civil courts. exclusive jurisdiction in all cases where freedmen and other persons of color are directly or indirectly concerned. until such persons shall be admitted to the State courts as parties and witnesses with the samerights and mm edics accorded to all other persons. It shall nevertheless be competent for a State court to hear and determine a causeor proceedingwherein persons of color are parties to the record. when they shall tile a written stipulation to submit the causeor proceeding to a State court. By commandof Major GeneralD. E. Sicklcs: W.L. M. BURGER. Asst Adjutant General. BUREAUor Rizrmszs. FBEEDXBK, sap AHANDONEDlimos. HlAnQUAnrita s AssSmrirri szivorr COMMISSIONER. RICHMOND, VIRGINIA. dlurch 11 1866. I. The following portion of an not entitled “An act relative to the testimony of colored persons."passed February 23.1866.by the Legislature of Virginia, is published for the information of the officers and agents of this huresu: “ lie it enacted bulbs General Assembly.That colored persons and Indians shall if otherwise competent and subject to the rules applieiibledo other persons, be admitted Witnesses in t ie follownig case s:" 2. In all criminal casesand proecedings at law or in equity in which a colored person or an Indian isa party or which arise out of an injurydone. attempted or threatened to the person property or rights of a colored personor Indian or in which it is alleged in the presentment information or indictment or in which the court is of opinion.fronithe otherevidenee. that thereis probable cause to believethat the offense was committed by a white person in conjunction or cotiperatiorr with a colored personor Indian." Also. the following portion (itAn net to amend and reenact then int sectionof chapter 100 an“d 3 of the Code of Virginia of 1860."km: Be it enactedby the General Assembly.That any personhaving one4th or more of negro blood shall e deemed a colored person, and every person. not a colored person. having one 4th or moreof Indian blood. s iall be deemed an Indian. “All laws in respectto crimes and punishments and in respectto criminal proceedings, applicable to white persons shall apply in like manner to colored persons and to Indians. unless when it is otherwise specially provided." From and afterthereceptionof this order.until further orders.no criminal caseswill betried by any officer or agent of the bureau in this State. except suIcIh I.asItmay at that time have beencommenced. will henceforth be the duty of the asst superintendents to attend in person the trials of all criminal cases within their Jurisdiction. including criminal trials or preliminary hearings betore justiees of the peace or magistrates.to which acolored ierson may be a party, or in which accordin to the law above quoted, the testimonyofa cclore person may be taken. When present at such trials or hearings the asst superintendent will notinterfere at the time with the action of the court or magistrate, but will confinethemselvesto such friendly suggestions.made to a colored party concerned or the counsel for the same.as maybe necessary. They will not act as at torneysin such cases.orarguewith the courtor may gistrate. They will. However make immediate report of any instanceof oppression or injustice against a colored party. Whether prosecutor or defendant and also in case the evidence of colored personsshould be improperly reee tedor neglected. n such cases.all details possible will be forwarded. V. They will also carefully examine and report if in any instancea justice of the peace attorney for the Commonwealt grand jury or other authority vestedwith the power of allowing or regulating the institution of criminal proceedings has refused justice to a colored person by improperly neglecting a complaint or declining to receivean oath or sworn information tendered by such person. whereby a trial or prosecution might be prevented through partiality or prejudice. I. All superintendents and asstsnperintend cuts Will. on the last day of each month. make a detailed report of the manner in which this order. by icstoiingto the State authorities jurisdiction in crim inal cases over colored persons has resulted. with respective to editshtreicitnstearnedstssoufb tdhiestrlaictttse.r whether they have been treated with impartiality and fairnem and the law respecting their testimony carried out in good faith or otherwise. 0. BROWN. Gilead and Aunahml Olmnusnoner. Acting JAMES A. BATES. Asst Adiutant General. HILDQUARTERS Dp.crsnrimsr or Vine niii. V IRGINIA. March 12.1866. The foregoing order is agproved. but no personof color will be examined or rought to trial on a crim inal charge until he shall have had sufficient time and of p ortiini to notify the asstsuperintendent otic Free mens Bureau for the sub district of the time when and place where.such examination or trial is to tulre place. By commandof Major General A. H. Terry: LDAW AmRI) W. SMITH. Adeutaiu Governor Brownlow. of Tennessee, gives us some information in a letter, as follows: NASHVILLE. March 8. DEA): Sin: InelosedI sendyou a copy of my proclamation. from which you Wlll learn that a faction of 21 disorganizers here. in the true spirit of the late iniquitous rebellion. have withdrawn and reduced our HoRep below a quo rum. I need not add further remarks. as the proclamation fully discusses the points at issue. On Friday last the election of count officers took ulase teiceths.rtoruugstheoeust. a the States leuccthorass;calenrdksin. sMheidrdiflfes and West Tennessee the rebels have made aclcan sweep turning the Union menout and electing their own candidates who electioneered for office on the ground that they were rebels and had either served in the rebel army or in some other capacity had tgivetntheir influence to the cause of treason and rai ors. When Richmond fell and Lee surrendered, rebels and many who sympathized with them. were very respectful to Union men often obsequious: guilty culprits. they evidently feared arrest and punishment and felt that to be let alone and allowed to live was all they had a right to expect. But since pardons have been so multiplied and no man is punished. they have everywhere become impudeut and defiant. until in most counties in Middle and Wheat Tennesseeit is disreputable to have been a Union map. or as a southern man. to have served in the Union Army and matters are rowing worse the reconstructed traitors openly cursing loyal men and threatening them with shootingor hanging. boasting that they have the President on their side. while we all feel that the Presidents policy is ruine us to us. There is twice the amount of bitterness and intol crance in the South today toward the Union and everything northern. that there was at the time of Lees surrender. Abuse of Union men. of the rad ical majority in Congress and self assumed superiority on the iart of southern chivalry. have arisen to such a hcig it that loyal men cannot travel on a steamboat or in ii. railroad car. without being in sulted. As it was during the war so it is now all concessions from the North or from the majority in Congress areregardedas evidencesof fear. All the old rebel papers of lfilil and many new ones.are in full blast, threatening Congress and the North with ultimate vengeance and boastingof southern prowess the most popular men in the largest portion of Tennessee tor ay are the men most dlistinguislied for their hostility to the North and what they are pleased to call the “radical congress.” and they are the class of men selected to tillo ccs.as the late county elections show. The same is true of the entire South only to a greater extent. In a word. they are resolved on breaking up the Government and they expect to carry out their schemes through the ballot box and howmenof candorand intelli gence can represent them as loyal and kindly disposed is a mystery to me. even in this a e of rebelion and treachery. I do not understan them and my opportunities for learning their temper and ultimate purpose s are as goodas those of most men. Why. 511.many of them are expecting the President to disperse Congresswith the bayonet. as Cromwell dispersed the long Parliament. The southern heart is rapidly being tired to deedsof war and all this and more. as I believe. has been caused by the mistakes of the President. His plan of trusting rob cls with their State governments has had an effect exactly the opposite of what he intended. It has ruined the prospects of the Union men and they feel that there is no safetyfor them unless Congress shall choose to protect them. Even 3 da s agoGea cral Thomas had tosend troops into Mars allcounty some 60 miles distant. to protect loyal men an freedmen. who were fleeing for safety and comingto this city. So far as I am individuallyconce rned. the intem perate abuse of rebels.the denunciation and black guardism of their reconstruetedjournals. the threats of personal violonce from the amnestied patriots and the anonymous letters of cowards threatening my assassination mllfallliarmlcssatinyfcet. No carthly power can drive me from thosupport of the men and party who fought the battlesof the late war and put down the rebellion. “ Very respectfully. your obedient servant. W. G. DROWNLOW. Governor of Team. Hon. iViLLiiui D. KELLEY HoRep. In the Cincinnati Commercial of February 26 I find these facts stated: “ FnzspxrzsixKasro exY. More than halfa dozen letters were today received by Representative Mc KlZB, of Kentucky. detailing outragesagainst freedmen of that State in various parts of his district. One case of the shooting of 2 negroesand robbing them of all their families had occurred and upon the arrest of the perpetratorsof the actby the agents of the bureau they were discharged on a writ of habeascorpus sued out and tried before the circuit judge of the State court. Anothercase where a party of white men went to the house of an old negro nearly 80 years of use and a free m annearlyall hislife. robbed him ofhis money and kicked him to death. They then raked coals from the fire and putting him on them, roasted 1st one side.then the other. They also burnt 2 othersnearly todeath.pnttingoutthe eye (if one and boasted that they had not only intended to driveout the negiocs.but intended also to drive out certain whites." The Raleigh (NCarolina) Progress of 1tarch 21 under the caption, “ The Exodus ntinue, " says: “We havealready noticed the arrival of a party of some 25 persons belonging to the Society of Friends. in Wasingtoii city. onroutefor theNorth and now we learn that on Monday night about 80 more passedthrough this city for the same destination and that 150 more will follow in a few days. This is a cheerful picture. truly. While while laborers are invited from abroad the best white laborers already here are leaving us and leaving because they are denied that equality and protection which they feel they ought as loyal citizens to enjoy. Are Tahpe aQtuieankte. rpse. aacse tahbelsee. people are commonly called. industrious. law abidingse t of peg:lo; they will have no strifes among themselves or Wit i other people: they took no part in the late war ho ond what they were forced to do at the point of the bayonet; they were true to the U.S. Government a they arhtaainled dinthneetdaasyfoafr athsepior sdseiblilve earlance as an era of groat joy. They did their own work. would never own slaves and did not look on slavery as the greatest of blessingsor slaveholders as being any better than otherrespectablepeople. They have not given anyone just cause of offense and yet. be caaguasinest they would take no voluntary part in the waring of the Government and hailed with joy the com their delivercrs. they are driven out from the land of their nativity and the homes of their childhood by persecutions and oppressions heaped upon them by the disaffected. These Quakers are honest and straightforward. frank and truthful; these are the tales they tell here before leaving and they will repeat the same at Washington and as they Journey North; and the simple recital will have n.more pow erful effect ugon the northern mind and the Congress of the U.S. than the studied stories of all the Witnesses that have beenbefore the JtComReconstruction relative to the condition of affairs in NCarolina. They tell that they are driven out by persecutions and that they have been hunted down because of their opposition to the war ianng dotvheerir odfeMvrotion to the Union and all the smooth Graham and others asto the harmony and loyalty which they assert exists here will not counteract their simple narrative." Maor General George H. Thomas, in comman of the Dept including Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, in his evidence before the reconstruction committee, testified in relation to Alabama as follows: “ I do notthinkit would beexpedientto remove the troops until the people show that they arcthemse lves willing and determined to execute civil law with impartinl iustice to all parties. I think public sentiment is divided on the subject of allowing freedmen to become freeholders. I havehcard of no legislation on that subJeet either to empower them to become freeholders or to prohibit themfrom becomings uch. the national troops and Freedmens Bureau were to be withdrawn from the State at this time.I do not. Believe the Union men or the freedmen could have justice done them. Injustice toward them would enoemigmhbeonrcheoiond suits in courts tor petty offenses and combinations to annoy them so much that they could not reside among them. I am satisfied, until a better state of feeling shall arise. that if all restraint should bere moved.the freedmen would be thrown back into a condition of virtual slavery: that is. theywould be compelled by legislative onnetments to labor for little or no wages and legislation would assume such form that they would not dare to leave their employers for fear of punishment and unless men who had been Union men through the war had very strong personal friends they con(1not live in the State rthey would be annoyedso much in various ways that they could not live there in any peace or comfort. I think emigrants from abroad would be kindl received.but I think emigrants from the North or men men would be coldly received and treated with indifference. I donot know whether any efforthas beenmadepr not to aseertain whether the negroes would be willing to remove to anyTerritory assigned to them.ilthat wasto be done. but from ombyje knowledge of appro character, I think they would to it. I think the mass of them (ICSHOvery much to continue to live in their old neighborhoods and with their old masters – invariably where they have been treated well as slaves. was born in a southern State and reared.to the age of 19. in that country. Since I have been in the Army my service has been mostly in the south (emStatesand on the frontier bordering on southern States. But we are gravely told that “ The Constitution does not delegate to the U.S. the power to punish offenses againstthe life liberty or property of the citizen in the States. nor doesit prohibit that power to the States. but leaves it as the reservedpower of the Statesto be by them exercised."Specchin Congre". March 7 citing 1 Kent. lecture 19.section 446;Globe. March 10. This does not quite meet the question. The bill does notundertake “to pnnis offenses against the life, liberty, or property of the citizen in the States.” If States should undertake to authorize such offenses, or deny to a class of citizens all protection against them, we may then inquire whether the nation itself may be destroyed by this insidious means. The question before us now is this: When the States deny to millions of citizens the means without which life, liberty, and property cannot be enjoyed, is the nation powerless to punish the rent crime of denying civil rights constitutionally recognized and affirmed by national authority? That is, if a State, by her laws, says to whole classes of native or naturalized citizens, “ You shall not buy a house or a homestead to shelter our children within our borders;" “you shallbe deprived of the means whereby life is preserved, whereby liberty is a boon, and whereby property is held sacred; ” “you shall have no right to sue in our courts or make contracts in such cases, is the nation powerless to intervene in behalf of her own citizens, in behalf of humanity itself, to avertthe annihilation of citizenship? Now, when this condition of affairs has been reached, I maintain that Congress may by law secure the citizens of the nation in the enjoyment of their inherent right of life, liberty, and property and the means essential to that end, by pena enactments to enforce the observance of the provisions of the Constitution, article 4,section 2, and the equal civil rights which it recognizes or by implication ailirms to exist among citizens of the same State. Congress has the incidental power to enforce and protect the equal enjoyment in the States of Civil rights which are inherent in national citizenship. The Constitution declares these civil rights to be inherent in every citizen, and Congress has power to enforce the declaration. If it has not, then the Declaration of Rights is in vain, and we have a Government powerless to secure or protect rights which the Constitution solemnly declares every citizen shall have and now let us consider these propositions briefly. The Constitution declares that “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all grivilcfies and immunities of citizens in the several tatos. I will concede that the courts have by construction limited the words “allprivileges” to mean only “ some privileges.” In a note to this section of the Constitution, inBrightlys Digest, it is said: "This is confined to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental. which belong of right to the citizens of all free Governments and which have at all timesbeen enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which composethis Union from the time of their becoming free. independent mnd sovereign. They may all be comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the Government the enjoyment of life and liberty. with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind and to pursue and obtain happi ness and safety subject nevertheless to sucb restraints as the Government may Fstly prescribe for the General good of the whole. ho rl ht of a citizen of one State to pass throgih or to rum O in any other State. for purpose of tr e. agriculture. professional pursuits or otherwise. to claim the benefit of the writ of habeascorpus to institute and maintain actions of anykind in the courts of the States.to take. hold and dispose of property.cither real or personal and an exemption from higher taxesor impositionsthan are paid by the other citizenspf the State. maybe mentioned assgme of the particularprivileges and immunities of citizens which are clearly embraced by the tion of principles deemedto be fundamental.": (boner vs. Iliotl. 18 [Import], 591; Murray vs. Mean 1y. 2 Man. 393: U.S. vs. “illmmmJ American Law (caialcr.19: Peoplevs. Lemrnon.51.0w 1tcp. 486:Lawrences Wheaten on Inlemotionol, w. 909: Gillionna S ch. Senate. April 2. 1836: Sergeant on(bustilutionm ap.3l.p.348; O up.31 p. 39:22.ded. 6 Pickering IL. 92; 2 Storyon C(mslitutwn. 603. Kent says that if citizens “ Remove from one State to another they are entitled to the privileges that personsof the some description are entitled to in the State to which the removal is made." I That is, distinctions created by natureof sex, age, insanity, &e., are recognized as modllying conditions and privileges, but more race or color, as among citizens, never can and this view Kent proceeds to recognize as to funda.7 general dese rmental rights by citing with approml the case of Corfield cs. Coryell, 4 Wash C. C., 380, and stating the rule of constitutional law to be “That the privileges and immunities concededby the Constitution of the U.S. to LlllZLnrl.lD the several States were to beconfined to thosewhich were in their nature fundamental and belonged of right to the citizens of all free Governments. Suck are the rights of protection of lifo and liberty, and to acquire and enjoyproperty, " lieu 2Kant, 72 and Judge Story, in commenting on article 4,section 2, of the Constitution, says: “The intention of thise liiuse was to conferon them. [citizens.]if one may so say. a general citizenship; and to communicate all the privileges and immunities which the citizens of the same State would be entitled to under the like circumstances."Se rgo.n Cuiintimliba, chap. 3!, p. 384 chap. 33 p. 393; Livinnstonvs. Van.lngen, 9J0hm 13., 50?; A6601!vs. Bag leu, ti Peck, 572. This clause of the Constitution asserts 2 things: 1. That there are “privileges and immunities of citizens.” 2. That “the citizens of each State" if they remove from one State to another “shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens” of the U.S. “in tho” State to which they remove. The Constitution does not define what these privileges and immunities are; but all privileges and immunities are of 2 kinds, to wit, those which I have shown to be inhereutin every citizen of the U.S., and such others as may be conferred by local law and pertain only to the citizen of the State. But conceding, as the courts have held, that the privileges referred to in the Constitution are such as are fundamental civil rights, not ical rights nor those dependent on loca 1plaowlit, then to what extent shal they be enjoyed by a citizen of one State removing into another? Not simply so far as they may be enjoyed by “some portion” or “ some description” of citizens, but “all the privileges an immunities of citizens;” that is, all citizens under the like circumstances. This section does not limit the enjoyment of privileges to such as may be aecored only to citizens of “some class, ” or “some race, or “of the least favored class, ” or “of the mostfavored class, ” or of a particular complexion, for these distinctions were never contemplated or recognized as possible in fundamental civil rights, which are alike necessary and important to all citizens, and to make ine qualities in which is rank injustice. This clause of the Constitution therefore recognizes but one kind of fundamental civil privileges equal for all citizens. No sophistry can change it, no logic destroy its force. There it stands, the palladium of equal fundamental civil rights for all citizens. Any law that invades its fundamental equality is void, and so it has always been understood. In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, 1 Sandfords Chancery Reports, 645, the court says: " The Articles of Confederation between the States Statewnaos criet vtiosiiotsnofwonr nleagtiusrlaathizoinngon(tthhaetms.ubEicaocth; and the laws of the several States on thatbehalf prevailed Within their own bounds until the 4th of Inroh, 1789 or until the legislation of Congressin IND when the Constitution took effect; therefore, it found the cristing mass of citizens of the U.S. ascertained and defined. It was not necessary to enact anything further in referenceto those citizens than was done in the section which gave themimmunities as citizens alike in all the States. But as we have seen. it wasaccessoryto provide for the boundlessfuture. State laws and State legislation could not in the natureof things be longer permitted to define.abridge, or enlarge the important privilege of citizenship in the U.S. Itwas urely a national right and onewhich must for the utuie be governed by rules operating alike upo. every part of the Union." My learned and able colleague [Mr. SHELLABABGER] has furnished unanswerable authorities on this point. (Speech of March 9.) The national Goycrnment is the depositary of the power to enforce the enjoyment of these fundamental rights when denied or destroyed by State authority. In Prigg vs.Pennsylvania, 16Peters Reports, 639, the Supreme Court, in discussing the fugitive slave c ause of the Constitution, said: "The fundamentalprinciples applicable to all cases of this sort would seemto be that where the end is required the means are given; and wherethe datyis enjoined the ability to perform it is contemplated to cXiston the part of the functionaries to whom it is intrusted. The clause is found in the national constitution and not in that of any State. It does not point out any State functionaiics Or on low M uontocarry its provisions into eleut. O States i Ienumera cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them: I and it might well be deemedan unconstitutional exerciseof the power of interpretation to insist that the States are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of thenational Geveramentnpwhere delegatedor intrusted to theiriby the Constitution. On the contrary, the natural, if not the necessary, conclusionis. that the national Government, in the absence of allfiositive provisions to the contrary, is bound, throng its own properDept, legislative, judiciiil, or executive, as the case in ay require, to carry into effectall the rights and duties imposed upon it by the Constitution. The remarks at Mr. Madison, in the Federalist, (No. 43.)would seemin such casesto npplywithpeculinrforco. Aiight, says he, implies a remedy;and whereelso would thorein edy be deposited than where it is deposited by the Constitution 1 meaning, as the context shows in the Government of the U.S. ” Even State constitutions and laws cannot stand in the we of the constitutional power of Congress. (Je person Branch Bank vs. Skelly, 1 Black, 436; Franklin Branch Bank vs. Ohio, 1 Black, 474.) Certainly then in aid of article 4,section 2, of the Constitution, Congress has large incidental powers to enforce its observance, so essential to preserve the national hfe and the means of national existence. In McColloch vs. Maryland (4 Wheaten, 316) the general principle is announced that“ the Stateshaveno power" o "to retard, impede, hinder, or in any manner control the operationsof the constitutional lawsenacted by congressto carry into otfectthe powersvestedin t9national Government. “If a certain meansto ca into effect.any of the overs expresslg glivenby the Constitution to the government oft c nion bean i ipproriato measure, not prohibited by the Constitution. the degreeof its necessityis a question of legislative discretion. not of Judicial cognizance." The same principle is affirmed in Bank of Commerce vs. NewYork City, (2 Black, 620;) Dobbins cs. Commissioners of Erie Co., (16 Peters, 435;) Weston vs. City Court of Charles ton, (2 Peters, 449 489.) It is by virtue of these principles that a State may not prohibit a national bank from locating therein; that a State may not prohibit national officers from exercising their duties; that we enact (penal laws against the people of the States, an punish them if they "Intimidate or impedeanyjuror, witness, oroficer in any court of the U.S. in the dischargeof his duty.” Act aMarch 2, 1831; 1 Briphllil. 213. No statesman orjurist has ever doubted the power of Congress to enforce the eflicacy of the Constitution by enal enactments against all who would foreib y or otherWise molest or impede national officers in the exercise of their official duties. All this is done under the authority of incidental power and why 7 Because these are means appropriate to carry into effect the powers of Congress. Protection byredress in courts and penal enactments are just as cssential as the power to create officers and clothe them with authority and rights and duties. Yet, when an alien who by law may be denied all rights, and who cannot e guilty oftreason, becomes naturalized, and thus is clothed by national authority with all the rights of an American citizen owing allegiance to the government, invested with civil rights declared to be inherent and inalienable, shall Congress have no authority to protect him in the enjoyment of these rights whenthey are stricken down by State laws? As an alien may be deprived of all rights by law, and even excluded from the country, it is the act of naturalization, the condition of national citizenship, that confers on him the civil rights recoized by the Constitution. It is citizenship, erefore, that gives the title to these rights to all citizens. From the very nature of citizenship, the avowed purpose of the founders of our Government, and the interpretation put upon the Constitution, it must be clear that this bill creates no new right, confers no new privilege, but is declaratory of what is already the constitutional rights of every  citizen in every State, that equality of civil rights is the fundamental rule that pervades the constitution and controls all State authority. Now, assuming that in each State every citi with banks created therein. citizen has nally and alike all the civil rights:3! in this bill, there are 2 legal modes of meetin any and every willful deprivation of these rig its: one by action for damages at common law in the courts, which, however, will not lie against judicial officers; and another by making it a penal offense, as the 2nd section of this bill does, to “Subject or cause to be subjectedanyinhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation ofany right securedor protected y this" bill or by the Constitution. As the remedy by action at common law involves a construction of the Constitution, the national courts will have ultimate jurisdiction of these questions, for the Constitution provides that “The [national] judicial powershall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the U.S., ” &c. If riehts of citizens are recognized by and secured to citizens by the nations. Constitution, cannot Congress declare an invasion of these rights a crime? The whole questionof the (power of Congress to enact this bill is resolve into this: when the Constitution recognizes and secures rights which are denied by State laws, may Congress declare it a crime to execute or enforce unconstitutional laws, to deprive a citizen of a constitutional right? There is no solitary right which the Constitution sanctifies, the invasion of which may not be declared criminal, or be otherWise enforced. The Constitution declares that "This Constitution and the laws of the U.S.States which shall be made in pursuance thereof" “shall be the supremelow of the land and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby.anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This, sir, “invades the judicial power of a State” whenever it undertakes to disregard the national Constitution and shall it be said there is no power to enforce this Constitution against all who would intentionally defy and willfully disregard its provisions? On the 26th of March the SCOTUS, in the great bank case of Van Allen vs. Nolan, affirmed the powerof Congress to declare that banks created under national law should share equal immunities in the States The court say: “The decreeof the court of up cals [of must bereversedon the round! iatthe eNnaebwlinYograkn! of the State of NewYork]of March 9, 1865.does not conform to the limitations prescribed by the act of congress )asse dJunc 3. 1864o. rganizing the national bun s on providing for their taxation. The defect is this: one of the limitations in the net of Congress is that the tax so imposed under the laws of any Sbtyate upon the sharesof any associationauthorized this act shall not exceed the rate imposed noon the shares of an of the banks authorized under the authority of the Statewhere such association is located. The enabling act of the State contains no such limitation; the banks of the State are taxed upon their capital; and although the act provides that the tax on shares of the national banks shall not exceedthepar valuo, yet inasmuch as the ca ital of the State banks may consist of the bonds of the U.S. which are exemptfrom State taxation, it is, easyto see that atax on the capital is not an equivalent for the tax on the sharesof thestockhold ers. This is but an unimportant question.however, as the defect may be readily remedied by the State Legislature." and will itbe said that Congress may require its corporate persons to share equal privileges and immunities with the corporate persons of the States and that laws making discriminationa are unconstitutional and voi, yet. that State laws when applied to citizens of the nation de nying them equal civil rights are valid I Are the rights of persons less sacred than the rights of property? and if Congress may prohibit the States from interfering With the rights, powers, and duties of national officers by pena enactments, may we not in the same mode protect citizens in the enjoyment of civil rights secured to them by the Constitution? Are the rights of citizens less sacred than the privilege of exercising national otheial functions? A State which denies to half its citizens not only all political, but their essential civil r hts, recognized and confirmed by the national constitution and described in this bill, has ceased to be republican in form, and the Constitution has may c it the duty of Congress to “guarant ” such form of government. This it may do y law in this form. (Constitution, article fouIrf, section 4.) a State may divest natural citizens, or large classes of t cm, of every civil right, the nation itself cannot survive. Shall it be said that Kentucky may deprive her naturalized citizens of all civil rights and that there is no redress? In the last extremity the instinct of self preservation, which is the 1stlaw of nature, would invoke our sympathies. The Constitution itself, clothing Congress as it does with all the incidental powers necessary to the preservation of the national life, would invoke that legislative discretion as to the meansof self preservation which would sanction measures beyond this. But it is objected “Tho legislation thus proposed invades the judicial power of the State. It says to every State court or judge, if you decidethat this act is unconstitutional, ifyou refuse under the prohibition of a State law to allow a negro to testify." [or refuse to allow a poor, white naturalized citizen to sue in your courts for wages or refuse to permit him to recover possession of the house hehas purchasedin defiance of a wicked State law declaring he shall own no home.1"ifyo u hold that over such asubject inatter the said law is paramount, and under color of a State law refuse the exerciseof the right to the negro, " [or to a naturalised oitilen.I “your error of judgment. however conse ientious, shall subjectyou to fine and imprisonment." Veloillcamac. I answer it is better to invade the judicial power of the State than permit it to invade, strike down, and destroythe civilrights of citizens. A judicial power perverted to such uses should be speedily invaded. The grievance would be insufficant. A single case tried and finally decided by the SCOTUS would determine the right justas all at rights are settled. This is better than to cave millions of citizens de rived of civil rights to such an extent as to ring disgrace upIon even a barbarous age. concede that in ordinary times it might be well to await the slower forms of the civillnw to reach the final decision of fundamental constitutional questions. But we now employ military power to reach the same results, to secure civil rights., If penal enactments enforced by civil tribu nals, can reach the same result, this is better than the exerciseof military power. The necessity which justifies a military enforcement of these rights will sanctity penal enactments for the same purpose. The penal section of the bill is made for a great emergency, when the rights of millions are imeriled or totally de nied, as a temporaryexpedient, justified by the times and the circumstances, and which may be modified or abandoned when the necessity for it has ceased. It is again objected that " An crror of judgment, however conscientious, shall subject [judicial officers]to fine and imprisonment" under this bill. This is bv no means its purpose or its legal effect. The universal rule of law is that there can be no crime unless there be willful wrong. In the books this has become a settled maxim: " Achur nanfacitreummnme naftren. "The not itself does not make a iran lty unless his "Intention were so." BroomI Legal a:iuu.226 is therefore a principle of our legal system, as probably everyother. that the essenceof an offense is the wrongful intent without which it cannot exist.” 1 Bialapp on Crim. Law, see.370. These simple, elementary principles, supported as they are by an unbroken" current of authorities cited by Bishop, completely answer this objection and if an officer shall intentionally deprive a citizen of a right. knowing him to be entitled to it, then he is guilty of willful wrong which deserves punishment. The speech of my distinguished colleague, [Mr. BINGHAX, March 9] has been extensively published in a mode to mislead the public Judgment. The great weight of his argument was leveled against a single provision of the bill as it on ginally came from the Senate. he used this language: “It [the bill] provides that There shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities uine ng citizens of the U.S. in any State or Territory of the U.S., on accountofraeo, color, orprevious condition oislavery." Having quoted this provision, he proceeds to remar on it as follows: “ That is as obligatory as any other portion of the section. If it is not obligatory. what objection has the gentleman to striking it out? If it is obligatory, it must be stricken out or the constitutions of the States are to be abolishedby your act, or, what is the samething, their enforcement by the State officers chargedWith that dut madea crime for which they are tobe imprisoned. Now, sir, he placed upon this provision of the bill an interpretation different from the committee who reported it. But for the purpose of obviating iis objection this clause was stricken out and forms no part of the bill as it finally passed. Mr. Speaker, this nation must settle the question whether among her own citizens there may he a discrimination in the enjoyment of civil rights. It should not be settle( in the spirit of passion or prejudice, but in the light of liberty and justice. Nothing ever can be finally settled until it rests on the broad basis of eternaljustice. If States may deny to any class of our citizens the right to make contracts, to own a homestead; may strip men of all that is valuable in life; if we shall sanctify this as the mission of the American Government, some friendless class or race may suffer today, but as sure as retributivejustice exists the terrible wrong will sooner or later “ return to plague the inventors, ” and we who have “sown the wind" may “reap the whirlwind.” But if we shall give to the Constitution thatinterpretation which its language requires which is approved of justice, humanity, and God, then may we hope that the men of today and of all time will enjoy its benefits and blessings forever. In his speech RECONSTRUCTION.