Mr. HENDRICKS. It is engested that this bill contemplates no appeal. It is not a militn court, because among military men the highest honor is observed; no sides are taken, but they stand upon the highest pledge of honor to do justice as between one military man and another. But here is a court, not military in its character, not examining into a military offense at all, but examining into a civil offense the refusal to recognize a civil right and that trial is had before this irresponsible officer, and no appeal is allowed. one of the proceedings are defined. What evidence she be required to convict, what means of procuring witnesses, and how the sentence is to be executed these are all left to the discretion of the Dept. I ask Senators if they are willing to enact such a section into the criminal code of the country. My judgment is that under the 2nd section of the constitutional amendment we may pass such a law as will secure the freedom declared in the 1st section, but that we cannot go beyond that limitation. If a man has been, by this provision of the constitution, made free from his master, and that master undertakes to make him a slave again, we may pass such laws as are sutiicient in onr judgment to preventthat act; but if the Legislature of the State denies to the citizen as he is now called, the freedman, equal privileges with the white man, I want to know if that Legislature, and each member of that Legislature, is responsible to the penalties prescribed in this bill? It is not an act of the old master; it is an act of the State government, which defines and regulates the ciwl rights of the people. But, sir, I have occu ied more time)han I intended. lily purpose this morning was simply to call the attention of the Senate to the remark able provisions of this bill, and then if it is the pleasure of the Senate to enact it into a law, of course I shall submit. I regard it asvery dangerous legislation. It proposes to establish a government within a governmentnot a republic within a republic, but a cruel despotism within a republic. In times of eace, in communities that are quiet and order y and obedient to law, it is proposed to establish a government not responsible to the people, the officers of which are not selected by the people, the officers of which need not be of the people governeda government more cruel, more despotic, more dangerous to the liberties of the people than that against which our forefathers ought in the Revolution. There is nothing that these men may not do, under this bill, to oppress the people. ir, if we establish courts in the southern States we ought to establish courts that will be on both sides or on neither side; but the doctrine now is that if a man is apointed, either to an executive or a judicial ogce, in any lo cality where there are colored people, he must be on the side of the negro. I have not heard since Congress met that any colored man has done a wrong in this country for very many years; and I have scarcely heard that any white man coming in contact with colored people has done right for a number of years. Every body is expected to take sides for the colored man against the white man. If I have to take sides, it will be with the men of in own color and my own race; but I do not wish to do that. Toward these people I hope that the legislation of Congress, within the constitutional powers of Congress, will be just and fairjust to them and just to the white people among whom they live; that it will iromote harmony among the people, and not discord; that it will restore abor to its channels, and bring about again in those States a condition of prosperity and happiness. Do we not all desire that? If we do, is it well for us to inflame our own passions and the passions of the people of the drth so that their judgments shall not be equal upon never permitted to own anything. never the questions between these races? It is all veig well for us to have sympathy for the poor an the unfortunate, but both sides call for our sympathy in the South. The master, who, by his wickedness and folly, has involved himse f in the troubles that now beset him, has returned, abandoning his rebellion, and has bent down upon his humbled knees and asked the forgiveness of the Government, and to be restored again as a citizen. Can a man go further than that? He has been in many cases pardoned by the Executive. He stands again as a citizen of the country. What relation do we desire that the people of the North shall sustain toward these people of the South? One of harmony and accord, or of strife and ill will? Do we want to restore commerce and trade with them, that we shall pros perthereby as well as they, or do we wish permanent strife and division? I want this to be a Union in form, under the constitution of the U.S and in fact by the harmon of the people of the North and of? the South. I believe, as GenlGrant says, that this bureau, especially with the enlarge powers that we propose to confer n on it, Will not be an instrument of concord and armony, but will be one of discord and strife in that section of the count. Itcannot do good, but, in my judgment, will o much harm. “