Mr. DELANO. I have no doubt the reason is as stated for introducin the words. I turn now to another O ause in the 1st section of the bill for the purpose of discussing the gentlemans explanation: There shall beno discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the citizensof the U.S. in any Stateor Territory. Now, I suppose that what follows after this is a limitation of this general declaration; and I do not see how the words that I have commented upon are a limitation, because they follow after giving the “ right to make and enforce contracts, to sue be parties and give evidence, to inherit, pure use, lease, sell, hold and conve. " Then is added this clause, “and to full an equal benefit of all laws and privileges for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens.” It seems to me. therefore, that in the connection in which the words on which I am speaking are found in the bill, they are an enlargement or extension of specific rights enumerated in the bill. The entire clause enumerating rights, appears to have been a limitation of the 1st great declaration in the bill, that f there shall be no discrimi nation in civil rights or immunities, among the citizens of the U.S. in any State or Territory.” The gentleman, of course, will have more time to explain it hereafter, but thus it strikes me, and in my brief moments I can only point out the dilIiculties that occur to me. Now, sir, if I am correct in this thou ht, I presume that the gentleman himself wills rink from the idea of conferring upon this race now, at this particular moment, the right of being urors, or from so wording this bilI as to leave it a serious question and render it debatable hereafter in c courts or elsewhere. But I proceed to another phase of this bill. These people are given the right to be parties to suits, to give evidence, to inherit, and so forth. Now, I desire to ask the honorable Will the gentleman chairman of the ComJudiciary underwhat clause of the Constitution he claims Congress to have power to declare who shall be competent to give evidence in the State courts? Here is an express right to be witnesses in the State courts, secured by penalties, to this race. I take the 1st grant for the sake of argument; theyare to have the right to bewitnesses; and the 2nd section, if it is not amendedas my hon omble colleague [Mr. BINGHAM] proposes, will make it a crime in a State court, in obedience to a State law, to refuse to give that right, and subjects the judges of State courts to punishment in the way pointed outin the bill, if they, under the laws of the States, refuse to let black men be witnesses. Now, sir, where is the authority in the fundamental law of this land for this Congressto declare who shall be witnesses in a State court? Is it in the old Constitution? and if so, in what clause? Or is it in the amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery I desire to hear from! the gentleman upon that point.,