Mr. JOHNSON. That may be; but it is not necessarily the law of Illinois. Thatis the law of Illinois, and Illinois has a right to make it her law; butl am speaking now of the question of power. Illinois has a right now to repeal What Illinois has done has not been done by a great many of the States, or perhaps by a majority of the States. They willnotper mit aliens to purchase or to hold, or if theydo, they do not permit others to inherit through them; It is subject nowin all the States as far as I am awarein the absence of legislation I am sure it must be soto cscheat at the instance But that is not all. That observation:1 plies to everybody, without distinction of colhr or without reference to their antecedent condition; but in terms we are not left to infer that it was not intended to apply it to the blacks, because that is its chief provision, and no doubt is the provision for which the billwas supposedto be necessary. Itake it for granted that neither thought it necessary to introduce such a billas this but. for the condition in which the blacks are; so that the object of the bill is mainly to provide foithe case ofblncks. Now, what does it do “I There exists in the States of the Union, and there must exist in every Government clothed with the power of governing well and of pre. serving the peace and harmony of society, in police power; there exi stsaJiower tolegjslate 11mm to the prejudices of the Vpmpleya power iiolTto Icgislate againsttheir prejudices. l5 knows that if a Legislature blindly legislates upon a subject which is obnoxiousto the whole community that is subject to its power for a time, it is an act of no practical importance. How has it been in the eastern States with regard to the fugitive slave law of 1850? Imention it not with a view to find fault with the feeling on the subject that has existed in what have been call the free States. The original fugitive slave law of 1793, which was passed at the instance of General Washington, was of itself very obnoxious at the time to a great many; but the author of the law of 18501 do not like to name him, because Iain willing, for his sake, that his name in that connection should be forgottenadmitted, as we have it from the authority of Mr. Clay, that he had made that law as obnoxious as he could in order to prevent its being observed in the State where slavery did not exist, and he accomplished his purpose. The law in one or tw instances was enforced in one sense, but ho enforced? Enforced by power, by military or civil power, threatening upon each occasion when resort was had to it to involve the particular communit where the attempt was made in civil strife an bloodshed. The result was that no man who lost a slave, unless he wanted to make it the subject of political agitation in the South, dreamed of going to the North to recover him; it could not be done. Even the honorable member from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] here upon the floor of the Senate, as he has over and over admitted, said that he was not a dog, and not being a dog, he would not comply with the provisionsof that law; and he spoke, no doubt, the sentiment of a large proportion of the people of Massachusetts and perhaps what is the universal opinion of the people of that State at this moment and of all the 10al States. The law, therefore, become a den letter, not because Congress had not the authority to pass it, for, as was stated just now in debate, the Supreme Court by a unanimous decision ruled that that law was constitution al, and Mr. Webster, whose feelings were all the other way no doubt, and who said his feelings were all the other way, admitted in his cele brated speech of the Tth of March that it was a constitutional law, however muchhe regretted its provisions. Imention that for the p ose of np lying it to onaof thesions of this bill. Vhat is to be its apphcation? There is not a State in which these negroes are to be found where slavery existed until recently, and I am not sure that there is not the same legislation in some of the States where slavery has long since been abolished, which does not make it criminal for a black man to marry a white woman, orfor a white man to marry a black woman; and they do it not for the purpose of denying any right to the black man or to the white man, but for the purpose of preserving the harmony and peace of societ. The demonstrations going on now in your e States show that a relation of that description cannot be entered into without producing some disorder. Do you not repeal all that legislation by this bill? I do not know that you intend to repeal it; but is itnot clear that all such legislation will be repealed, and that consequently there may be a contract of marriage entered into as between persons of these ditlerent races, a white man with a black woman, or a black man with a white woman? If you are prepared to repeal it, do you think that the repeal will answer any practical purpose? Are on not, on the contrary, rather inclined to behave that, like the fugitive slave law of 1850, if enforced at all, and if theso parties are to be protected at all, it must be enforced and the protection must be given by the bayonet? Is not that the effect of the law? Still confining my self to the 1st section, it says that these parties, without distinction of color, “shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts, ” to make contracts of any and every description.