Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I will occupya vegaefew moments of the attention of the Senate r this long harangue of the Senfrom Kentucky, which he closed by declaring that we are dumb in the presence of Military power. If he has satisfied the Senate that he is dumb, I presume he has satisfied the senate of all the other positions he has taken; and the others are just about as absurd as that declaration. He denounces this bill as “outrage ous,” “most monstrous,” “abominable,” “oppressive,” “iniquitous,” “unconstitutional,” “void.” Now, what is this bill that is obnoxious to such terrible epithets? It is a bill providing that all people shall have equal rights. 1s not that abominable? Is not at iniquitous? Is not that most monstrous? Is not that terrible on white men? [Laughter.] When was such legislation as this ever t iought of for white men? Sir, this bill applies to white men as well as black men. It declares that all persons in the U.S shall be entitled to the same civil rights, the right to the fruit of their own labor the right to make contracts, the right to bu an sell, and enjoy liberty and happiness; an that is abominable and iniquitous and unconstitutional! Could anything be more monstrous or more abominable than for a member of the senate to rise in his place and denounce with such epithets as thesea bill, the only object of which is to secure equal rights wall the citizens of the country, a bil that protectsa white man justas much as a black man? With what consistency and with what face can a Senator in his place here say to the Senate and the country that this is a bill for the benefit of black men exclusively when there is no such distinction in it, and when the vet} object of the bill is to break down all discrimination nlatueauhlech men and white men I whNew sir, what becomes of all the Senators denunciation? The bill is applicable exclusively to civil rights. It does not propose to regulate the political rights of individuals; it has nothing to do with the right of suffrage, or any other political right; but is simply intended to carry out a constitutional provision, and gnar anty to every person of every color the same civil rights. hat is all them is to it. That is the only feature of the bill, and all its provisions are aimed at the accomplishment of that one object. But, says the Senator, it breaks down the local legislation of all the States it consolidates the power of the States in the Flederal Government. Why, sir, if the State of Kentucky makes no discrimination in civil, rights hetmeenits citizens, this billihas no eperation whatever in the State of Kentucky. Are all the rights of the geople of Kentucky gone because they cannot iscriminate and punish one man for doing a thingthat they do not punish another for doing? The bill draws to the Federal Government no power whatever if the States will perform their constitutional obligations. But the Senatoroccupies an hour of his speech to show that certain cases which I thought proper to refer to in a few remarks, the other day, in o“rder to ascertain what was meant by the term citizen of the U.S., ” have no application to the rights of a citizen in a State. T 05c cases, he says, were based upon that clause of the constitution which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and they relate entirely to the rights which a citizen in one State has on going into another State, and not to the rights of the citizens belonging to the State. never denied that. I would have told the Senator in one moment that the cases were not introduced for any such purpose as he supposes, but they were introduced for the purpose of ascertaining, if we could, by judicial decision what was meant by the term “citizen of the U.S and inasmuch as thZaFhe ddbeen judicial decisions upon this clause of the constitution, in which it had been held that the rights of a citizen of the U.S. were certain great fundamental rights, such as the right to life, to liberty, and to avail ones self of all the laws pasSed for the benefit of the citizen to enable him to enforce his rights; inasmuch as this was the definition given to the term as up lied in that part of the constitution, I reasone from that, that when the constitution had been amended and slavery abolished, and we were about to pass a law declaring every person, no matter of what color, born in the U.S. a citizen of the U.S., the same rights would then apperAgiln to all persons who were clothed with American citizenship. That was the object for which those cases were introduced. The Senator seemed to sn pose, and ar nod to show what no one would controvert, list they were not cases deciding upon the rights of the citizen in the State in which he resided. But the Senator goes on to say that there is no such thing as naturalizing a person except he be a foreigner; that there is no authority in the Congress of the U.S. to declare a person a citizen exce it it be by way of naturalizing a foreigner. I are already said that in my opinion birth entitles a person to citizenship., that every freeborn person in this land is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the U.S and that the bill now under consideration is but declaratory of what the laiv now is: but, inasmuch as some persons deny this, I thought it advisable to declare it in terms in the statute itself. But, sir, this is not the 1st time that this has been done. If the Senfrom Kentucky had read the statutes of his country he would have ascertained that persons had been made citizens by act of Congress 3 score years and more ago. As long ago as 1802 the congress of the U.S. declared that the children of persons natufalized in this country, if the children were under age, should become citizens of the U.S. Without going through any process of naturalization at all, they were declared by not of congress to be citizens of the country. Again, sir, in 1843, Congress declared: "That the Stockbridtze tribe of Indians, and each and every one of them, shall be deemedto be and urelicreliy declured to be. Citizens of the U.S. to all intents and purposes and shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of such citizens. Untl shall hn Uni aspects be subject to the laws of the U.S. 47 That was in 1843. These Stockbridge Indians were born within the U.S., and congress declared by an act that without going through any process of naturalization they were and should be citizens of the U.S., with all the rights pertaining to citizens. This, sir, I believe answers the whole speech of the Senator. I think it was made up of statements that there was no precedent for an act of this kind, which is contradicted by a reference to the laws of denunciations