Mr. DAVIS addressed the Senate in support of the Presidents veto. [His speech Will be found in the Appendix] SPEECH entitled Civil Rights Bill Veto Message., In U.S. April 6, 1860. The senatehaving under consideration the bill (S. No.61)to protect all personsin the U.S.in theircivil rights and to furnish the meansof their vindication: which had been returnedby the Pros. ideutwith his ohieotionl Mr. DAVIS said: Mr. President: I intend tosay something upon the subject under debate. We have heard the POTUS de nounced in the Senate on this occasion by men who were lately his friends, by men who have approved of the entire course of the POTUS, u to the time of the introduction of this act. If the President, in accordance with the importuuities of men in the Senate, and out of it, in addition to the conditions which he urged upon the southern States, had also required them to confer suffrage upon the negro, neither those Senators nor one of their radical associates would have made any opposition to the President. He in sisted that those States, by provisions in their constitutionsil should prohibit slavery perpet equally, that they should accept the proposed amendment of the Constitution abolis in sla very throu hout the U.S., an that they should repudiate their debt created in the cause of the rebellion which they, one and all, accepted; and his on, but with them great, short coming was that he did not require them to confer upon the freed negroes the right to vote. Their objection is not that he did interfere with the States lately in rebellion as to those matters, but that he did not go far enough, and use all his influence and power to force them to extend suffrage to the negro race. I know from the best authority that this last condition was endeavored to be enforced upon him by Senators who are now in their seats, and by a member of the SCOTUS; and it was said to him that if he would make this condition a sine qua non-of the readmission of the southern States into the Union, he would do all that they expected of him, and satisfy the utmost demands of the I do not approve entirely the course of the POTUS in relation to the conditions that he did require the southern States to come under. The most satisfactOry explanation of that line of policy that I have heard was from the honorable Senfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. DoourrLr. ] in a speech in this Chamber some weeks since. It was to this effect: that the POTUS had the right, and it was his duty, to offer his counsel to these States to a tee to terms of pacification; that they had teoption to accept or reject the advice which he gave them; and that by their acceptance of the conditions proposed to them the effect was the same and no more, than if the terms had originate with them. I agree to that general truth. g? further, and say, that if the POTUS, or any other man in the nation, had drawn up a constitution in extensofor each and all of those States, and they had by their popular conventions accc ted and ratific those constitutions, they would have been legally and validly the constitutions of the respective States for which they were thus made. The acceptance or rejection was a matter for the people of the States to decide for themselves respect ively, in view of the terrible dangers that en vironed them. That the conditions were not more element and maguauimous was because the President was beset and constrained by the wicked, revengeful, and furious leaders of the peg? which had elected him. Mr. President, we have been together long enough in this Chamber to understand each other. I think I understand most of the men in it and their particular sentiments and o in ions, and the principles and considerations upon and the ends for which they act. If the southern States had presented their constitutions here with the additional provision that the freedmen should be entitled to political suffrage, which is so intensely desire by the majority in this Chamber, we would not have heard an objection to the admission of their members into this Chamber or the other House of congress. I have heard it passionately exclaime in this debate, “Will you admit upon the floors of the two Houses of Congress men murdered countrymen? If those red handshad clas ed the black hand of the ne re and there hatlbeen inscribed upon the unite hands “We are men; we are brothers; concession of equal political rights, ” we never would have heard in either lfouse the language, “Notwithstanding this concession our Sens&Reps must stand back, because your hands are dripping with the blood of our murdered brothers!" The blood stainedv hand of the southern rebel thus interlocked with the black hand of the negro freedman, to the radical statesmen of Congress would have looked as pure as the white lily. The same men who appear here to represent those States in the two Houses and have had the doors slammed in their faces would have found them wide open, and been warmly welcomed by every Republican member. I will say one word upon the subject of. the admission of these States into the Union, a matter so frequently broughtup in debate. They have been admitted once into the Union, and all the power of Congress in reard to their admission was then exhausted. he State is not to be admitted again. She is in as one of the U.S. forever, or until she is torn away by revolution. The idea that Congress may require these States again to present their constitutions, as they did origina ly, and that it has the right to pass upon these constitutions and the admission of the States into the Union as members of the Confederacy, is altogether false and unfounded; it has no authority whatever in the Constitution. If every State in the Union during the existence of this war, and while it hung in doubt whether it would result favorably to the rebels or to the U.S., had chosen to change her constitution, each State that was in relations with the Government and acknowledged obedience to it would have had the perfect right under that condition of the case to change her constitution. Suppose your own State, sir, [Mr. CLARK in the chair, ] had changed her constitution during the pendency of this war; suppose all the New whose hands are.reekin with the blood of their, Eu land and all the loyal and adherin States ha changed their constitutions, won d they not have had a perfect right to do so? Would not the action of the conventions and people of those States changing them have been regular and valid? Who would have had the folly to say thataState thus having changed its constitution would be required by the Constitution of the U.S., or by any precedeut in the history of our Government, to rin that constitution before Congress and submitit to their judgment to determine the question, whether It was a RFG, and ask for readmission into the Union? Who would question the right of their Sens&Reps to be admitted to seats upon the presentation of their proper returns, as the members from the States that had not changed their constitutions. A State whose people are in rebellion can do no valid actw ile she is in the insurrectionar condition. All changes and alterations in her constitution and awe which she may then make are void. Her people have a perfect right to abandon their revo t, and re turn to their obedience to the U.S.; and on its termination in that way, or by Military coercion, as to their constitution and laws, they revert back to the exact position which they occupied before the revolt. The State is as much in the Union as though she and her people had not resisted the authority and laws of the U.S. As a State s lehas forfeited or lost nothin, because as to the State the Constitution dee ares no forfeiture or loss, and confers upon the General Government no power to punish a State; but the people who were engaged in the revolt may be treated, tried, an punished as criminals in the mode provided for by the Constitution and laws of the U.S., but in none other. The honorable Senfrom Illinois has made along argument:1 ainst the veto and in support of this bill. I have great respect for that Senatoras a man, as a Senator, and as ajurist. The ability and fidelity with which he sustained the right of the ejected member of the Senate from gNewJersey to his seat challenged my admiration. I only regret that the intellect and the legal ability that be displayed through out that contest should, upon so important a measure as this act, be withdrawn mm the cause of his country and his countrys Constitution and be given to faction and the interests and fortunes of a reckless faction. The honorable Senator complains that the Presidents judgment of this bill has under gone a change since it was 1st drawn up by those who gave it form. I ask that Senator if the POTUS was satisfied in his judgment and conse ience by his subsequent examinations of the bill, that it was in conflict with the Constitution, if it was notthe highest duty which he owed to the country to place his veto upon it? I believe myself, not withstanding the fling which the honorable senator made at the Senfrom Maryland, [Mr. JOHNSON] that the principles and arguments embodied in this veto message are sufficient to satisf any unprejudiced man that the bill itself, in a] of its essential provisions, flagrantly infracts the Constitution. If it be true that the President at the 1st was predisposed and desired to approve both this measure and the bill to increase the powers of the Freedmens Bureau, but on their deliberate examination reached the conclusion that duty required him to put his veto upon both, it proves him to he possessed of the very highest order of moral courage, inteity of intellect, and patriotic purpose; and teable and unanswerable arguments against their constitutionality and policy, embodied in his veto messages, afford the most satisfactory testimouy of his preeminent fitness for the office which he fills. I havea stron conviction that if that honorable Senator had brought to the investigation of these two measures the same impartial and independent reason, the same unselfishness and rectitude of purpose, as did the President, he too would have been constrained by the power of truth to have come to the same conclusions. I doubt not that if life is spared to the Senator, as I hope it will be, until the assions and madness that rule the day shall have subsided, that his cum reflections will bring him to acknowledge that the President was right and he was wrong. Mr. President, the title of an act is a sort of label of what it is. The title of this act, and its text also, is delusive. There is a studied want of clearness, a studied ambiguity, I think, in the language in which both are expressed. If I, after the best examination which I can give to this act, was asked for an appropriate title, I would propose to the Senfrom Illinois, “An act to abolish and modify all laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, and customs throughout the U.S., so far as they make any discriminations for the white against the black or colored population thereof; to punish by tine and imrisonuient all persons who may enforce such discriminations; and requiring ccrtaine fficers to institute criminal and civil pjroceedings against them, at the cost of the U.S. The Senator might object to this, as he does sometimes to my speeches, that it is too long. I would then give him a shorter title in these words: “An act to consolidate all the reserved sovereignty and powers of the several States into the congress and Government of the U.S. Thatis a concise title, and one which, in my judgment, truly speaks the true character of this bill. I have heard no plausible, much less any satisfactory, defense of this measure. I have not heard it attributed to any source of power which, in my opinion, furnished it with a ecent covering. The honorable Senfrom Illinois said truly that the gram men, the chief cflicacy of this bill, was in the 1st section; and the power of Congress to pass it was that it is in the nature of a declaratory law. That position was swept away by the Senfrom h ary land yesterday, so as not to leave a vestige behind, and it would be superfluous to say another word in refutation of it. But I will read the 1st section, or its substance: All persons born in the U.S and not subject to unv foreign Power. excluding Indians not taxed. are ereby declared to becitizensof the U.S., without distinction of color, and there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any Stateor Territory of the U.S. on account of raceor color or previous condition of slavery; but the inhabitants of every race and color, without regard to any condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be partica, give evidence, toinherit. purchase, lease.sell, hold and conve real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedi for the security of personand property and claim subject to like punishment.pains, an penalties, and to none other. any law, statute ordinance regulation, or custom to the contrary not withstanding. I propose to discuss the principal features of this section; and 1st, the one which declares all persons born in the U.S., except untaxed Indians, to be citizens. I deny wholley the power of Congress to make citizens of the U.S. It is a principle of universal law that every person born in a country, who is not a slave, is a citizen or subject of that country and unless excluded by special laws is entitled to all the rights and privileges of its citizens and subjects. All white persons born in the U.S and not having become the citizens or subjects of some other country are citizens thereof. The only authority conferred by the Constitution upon Congress, relating to citizenship, is embodied in this clause: " Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization and uniform laws on the subject of bankrupteies throughout the U.S. " Congress at an early day passed a naturalization law, and from time to time have enacted amendments in it. These laws formed “the uniform rule of naturalization” which Congress was authorized to establish. Having only the power to make the rule, it has none to may 7ethe citizen, cither individuals or classes, any more than after enacting uniform laws on the subject of bankrupteies it would have the powerto adjudge individuals to be bankrupts, and issue them certificates. This provision of the Constitution is conceded by alFto apply to none others but aliens. The treaty making power may make citizens of aliens by acquiring foreign territory, and stipulating that the persons inhabiting it shall be citizens of the U.S. There is, then, but the 3 modes of becoming citizens of the U.S.: by birth, according to the naturalization laws passed by Congress, and by treaty. The special laws referred to by the Senfrom Illinois, which made citizens of the people of Louisiana and of the small remnants of Indian tribes, were either in execution of treaties or without authority on the part of Congress, and inconsiderately passed. My further position is that the States have no power whatever over the subject of citizenship. To have perfect uniformity of law and rule upon this important subject, the States by the Constitution surrendered to the General Government all and exclusive power over;it as they did all power in relation to coin. The citizens of all the States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, became citizens of the U.S. Their deseendants, and all foreigners conforming to or coming within the naturalization laws passed by Congress, and their dese endants, and all native born whites are citizens of the U.S.; none others. There is no distinctive State citizenshi. There is in our country but one citizenship, that of the U.S., and every person that is entitled to the denomination is a citizen of the U.S., resident in some particular State or Territory. Every State may confer in its own mode local rights and privileges on whom it may please, butthat does not constitute any person a citizen of the U.S. in the sense of the Constitution or entitle such person to anjy; rights, immunities, or privileges under it. nt the matter of citizenship in anyaud all its aspects, barely touches the question of the propriety of this veto; that is a question to be ecided by the power of Congress under the Constitution to pass it, and the policy of the measure. This section assumes for Congress jurisdiction over all the inhabitants, of every race and color, of all the States and Territories of the U.S., over all their civil rights and immunities, and over all the penalties and punishments to which they may be subjected. In the simulation of imperial will and power in relation to all those most interesting concerns, appertaining to every human being in America, it declares there shall be no discrimination as to persons on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery. This general an sweeping language is used for a purpose; it is a sort of mask to cover partially totrue beneficiaries and objects of the measure, the negro race and their aggrandizement. There was no call, or need for such a law for the white race; and if there had been no blacks in the U.S., it never would have been devised. In many, if not most of the States, there are discriminations in relation to some of those important concerns against the negro race made by their constitutions and statutes; and this act abrogates not only those constitutions and laws to that extent, but makes their exc cution by the State officers appointed for that purpose, a high misdemeanor, and punishes them heavily by fine and imprisonment. Let us see what would be the effects, to a limited extent, of this measure in Kentucky and the State of the honorable Senator, Illinois. A few weeks since, in Louisville, a negro man violated a girl of only 8 years of e; and Within a few days, in my county. a simi or out rage was committed on a white girl ten years 01(, after which the black monster cut her throat and disemboweled her. This crime, in Kentucky, when perpetrated by a negro upon a white woman is punishable with death . but when by a white man, by confinement in the penitentiary. The judge, the prosecuting attor ney, the grand jury who preferred the indict ment, the petit jury who might find a verdict and the sheriff who should execute a criminal guilty of this shocking crime, by the terms of this act would be ilty of a high misdemeanor against the U.S., an it is the duty of the U.S. district attorney, marshal, deput marshal, and commissioner to have each and a lof them prosecuted in the U.S. courts, at the national expense, and those crim inals would be each subject to be fined not exceeding $1,000, and to be imprisoned for any period under 12 months, or both, at the discretion of the court. By the laws of Kentuckya negro is not permitted to give evidence in a suit in which a white man is a party; but a free negro has always had the same right to sue as a white man; in such a suit, by this bill, the negro party would have the right to introduce a negro witness, because the white man would have that privilege. But the law of that State denying it to the negro party, the judge would refuse to permit his witness to testify; and for thus executing the law of the State, accordin to his official oath, he would under this act is prosecuted exofficio by certain U.S. officers, in a Federal court, at the national expense, as a criminal. Both in Illinois and Kentucky the State laws make it a penal offense for a negro to marry or to contract to marry with a white person. The laws of those States also declare ita enal offense for the clerk to issue a license, an the minister of the gospel, or other person, to solemnize the rites of marriage between a negro and a white person. Marriage is a contract; the right to marry is a civil right. A white person in Kentucky and Illinois has the right to marry another white person; and this act guarantying the same right to negroes, the clerfiwho refused a license to a negro to marry a white person, the preacher who would not perform the ceremony, and the officers of the law who would enforce its penalties against persons who had violated it, would themselves become criminals, and subject to punishment under this act. Unfortunate menl if they refused to execute the laws of their own States, in conformity to their oaths, they become crim inals against them, and liable to unisliment by their respective authorities; an the execution of those laws would make them criminals against the U.S., and subject them to punishment under this act. The honorable Senator fell into a paroxysm of exultation over the President, because in his veto message he named legislators as one of the classes of State officers whom this measurewould punish. The Senator referred to the verbiage of his bill in the 2nd section, and vociferated, “No such thing?” and declared that it proposed to punish only those who act under color of law, and does not include the law makers. Is the Senator entitled to that triumph? His bill says: That an person who. under color of any law. statute, or iuaiicc, 16"}llll tl0onr, custom, shall subject or causeto be subiccted, any inhabitant of any Stateto the deprivation of any right securedor protectedby this act, or to dificrent punishment, pains or penulties on account of such personhaving been heldin acondilion of slaveryor iuvluutary servniide or by reasonof his color or race, than is prescribe for the punishment of white person is, shal be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on convrctionshall be punished by tinenot exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not exceedingoneyear or both. in the discretion of theIfcourt. in the future the Legislature of a State were to pass laws to secure any right to white persons and Withheld it from negroes, or to subject negroes to a different nnishment from white persons who commit the same oiienses. I wonder if the legislators who might asssuch laws would not cause the negrecs, wh0 would be by them deprived of civil rights assured to white persons or have different punishments inflicted upon them from white people who had committedithe same offenses, would not have caused these discriminations against negroes; and would not, therefore, come within the pur view of the penal section of this bill. The Sea ators triumph over the President is but his own self delusion. Butthis measure prescribes all discriminations against negroes in favor of white crsens thatmay be made anywherein the U.S. by any “ordinance, regulation, or custom, ” as well as by “ law or statute.” I never heard, until the Senator informed us in his speech, that punishment of negroes, free or slave, had ever been authorized by any custom in any of the late slave States: an be will pardon me, I hope, for telling him that he has been misinformed. The owners. by authority of law, both universal and local, were authorized to inflict reasonable personal correctien upon their slaves; and this was all of it. The same principle applies to children and apprentices, and how long has it been since it was in force, in man cases with rent severity, in the Army and Cary of the U.S.? and it still exists in extreme rigor in every other military and naval service. But there are civil rights, immunities, and privileges “which ordinances, regulations, and customs" confer upon white persons every where in the U.S., and withhold from negroes. On ships and steamboats the most comfortable and handsomely furnished cabins and state rooms, the 1st tables, and other privileges; in public hotels the most luxuriously appointed parlors, chambers, and saloons, the most sumptuous tables, and baths; in churches not only the most softly cushioned pews, but the most eligible sections of the edifices; on railroads. national, local, and street, not only seats, but whole cars, are assigned to white persons to the exclusion of negroes and mulattoes. All these discriminations in the entire society of the U.S. are established by ordinances, regulations, and customs. This bill proposes to break down and sweep them all away, and to consummate their destruction, and bring the two races upon the same great plane of perfect equality, declares all persons who enforce those distinctions to be criminals against the U.S., and subjects them to punishment by fine and imprisonnient, and directs the appointment of legions of officers to prosecute, both penally an civilly, for the nent of the favored negro race, at the cost of the U.S., and puts at the disposal of these ellicers the posse comitatus, the militia, and the Army and Navy of the U.S., to enable them to execute this bold and iniquitous device to revolutionize the Government and to humiliate and degrade the white population, and especially of the late slave States, to the level of the negro race. Vain effort! All the forces summoned by this measureto insure its execution would fail. The mass of them would ultimately turn with loathing and horror from the detestable enterprise to Overwhelm its authors an enterprise not only against the instincts and customs of the whole white race, but also against the unchangeable laws of nature. Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to pass this monstrous measure T If it has the power to take up the revision, generally and indefinitely, of the State constitutions, “laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, and customs" that establish and control all the civil rights, all the crimes and misdemeanors, pains, penalties, and punishments for the entire people of the U.S., which the re visions of this bill recklessly arrogate; if on gress possesses the severei a power to abolish, reform, and conform at its will throughout that vast and varied domain oflegislation, to re peal, to restrict, to lop elf, tochange, to alter and modify the entire body of State laws, constitutions, statutes, ordinances, regulations, and cus toms, and to declare what parts shall remain and be executed, and what parts shall cease to be and shall not be executed; and that all enforcement of the portions it prescribes shall constitute crime, and the State officers executing them shall be criminals and tried by courts created by it, and punished according to the measure it may prescribe, what is there to prevent Congress from passing an entire and exclusive civil and criminal code for all the 36 States? Grant to Congress the principles and the amount of power embodied in this bill and it cannot be successfully denied that it does possess all that would be required to force upon the States their entire civil and criminal bodies of law. But the Constitution created no such a hydra headed monster as a Congress with such enor mous power would be. Every man with ordinary knowledge of the civil history of our country knows that before the adoption of the Constitution all the States were sovereign and independent, and that their Articles of confederatien were only a league, terms of federation, made by independent nationalities. The people of the several States formed a common Government by surrendering parts of that whole political sovereignty, which each one of them possessed, and all the powers which they parted with they expressed in the Constitution and by its provisions organized them into a Government of 3 Depts. This new government being formed, not by one people of their original and plenary political sovereignty, but of particular powers, elegated by 13 separate and independent States, the people of each of which were possessed of fulfipelitical sovereignty, the same powers being surrendered by each State to a common Government according to the provisions of the Constitution, one of its necessary and fundamental principles was that all sovereignty, rights, and powers not delegated by the Constitution to the common Government, nor prohibited to the States, were retained by them respectively and separately. The Constitution thus divided all political sovereignty and power between the States and the common Government. " The exact line of partition, what powers were delegated to the General Government, and what were retained by the States, was a most interesting problem, that was early and generally discussed by the people, and particularl by the conventions of teseveral States which adopted the Constitution. This discussion has continued ever since, without a full and satisfactory solution having been reached. I will read some extracts from several of those able fiapers over the signature of “ Publicus, ” by amilton, Madison, and Jay, urging upon the people of the States the adoption of the constitution; and which numbers were, soon after they were published, compiled into a book with the title of “ Federalist. Those letters were written before the Constitution was adopted, and were of course restricted to the exposition of the oriflinal text. The passages Ivnll read, bear with directness and conclusive force on the question of the constitutionality of the pending act: Hamilton, in No. 17 of the Federalist, page 76, says: " Commerce, finance, negotiation 8nd war, seemto comprehendall the objectswhich have charms for mingovernedby that passion.[ambition:] and all the powers necessaryto theseobjects ought, in the 1st instance, to be lodged in thenational depository. The administrationofprivatejustice betweencitizens of thesameState, the supervisionof agriculture and of other concernsof asimilar nature, all those things in short, which are proper to be ITOVldQdfor by loca legislation, can never bedesira locaresof a general jurisdiction. It is therefore improbable that there should exist a dispositionin the Federal councils to usurpthepowerswith which they are connected, "550. On page 77, the same writer says: "There is one transe endent advantage beloning to the province of the Stategovernmentswhich a one I ladies: to placethe matterin a clear and sausfactory light: I mean.the ordinary administratiop of crim inal and civiliusticc. This, of all others.is the most powerful, the most universal, and most attractive source of popplar obedienceand attachment. It in to hfis which.being the immediate and visible uardiim life and property; having its benefitsan itster rarein constant activity beiore the public O e. regulating all thesepersonalinterest and fami iar concerns to which the sensibilitiea otin iduals are moro immediatelyawake, contributes in than any other peilrocauflmcsotatine enee, tsoteimempr, and surpeovenrtchnecmeindsof the co toward the government. This great cement of society, which will diffuseitself almostwholly through the channels of the State governments nndependent of all other enuses of influcucc, would insure themsodecidedan empire over their respective citizensasto renderthemat all timesa completecounterpoise and not unfrequontly dangerous rivals to the powerof the Union." Again, Hamilton, in No. 23 of the Feder alist, page l0}, says, in speaking of the powers proiosed to be cenlerred on the Government of the " U.S. by the Constitution: The principal purposes to he answeredby union aprreestheervsaet:io the common defenseof the members: the of the public peace.as well against in ternnl convulsions as external attacks; the regulation oi commerce with othernationsnnd between the States; thesuperintendenceoipur intercourse.political and commercial, Withforeigncountries." The same, No. 83, on page 144, says: I “If the Federal Government should overpass the Just boundsof its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is mustno cal to the standard they have formed and take such measuresto redress the injury doneto the Constitutiori us the enigency maysuggestand prudencojustily. The proprict of a law,inational light, must constitualwaysbe determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded. Supposethat by some iercede onstruction of its authority which. indeed, cannot easily beimagined the federal Legislature should attempt to vary the law of dese ent in any State, would it not heevidentin makingsuch an attempt.it had exceeded its jurisdiction and in fringed upon that of theState? Suppose, again, that ppon atprctense of an interference with its revenue it shou] undertake to abrogatea land tax imposed by the authority of a State, would not it be equally evident lbiltdhls was an invasion of that concurrent Jurisdiction in respectto this speciesoltax which the Constitution plainly supposes to exist in (no State governments“I” In the same number of the Federalist, page 145, is this passage: “Though a law. therefore, laying a tax for the use of the U.S., would bosiipremcin itsnuturc, and could not belegally opposedor uOllilOllEdy, et a llaaiwdnb by rtohgeatingor prevenTTng the collectionof a tax authority of a brutel unlcss upon imports and exports) would not be the supremelaw oi the land. but a usurpation of a power not granted by the Constitution.” Mr. Madison wrote No. 39, and on page 178 it says: " But if the Government be national with regard to the operation of its powers (Millifl individually and personally on all citizense omposing the nation) it changesits aspectagain when we contemplate it in relation to the extent of its powers. The ideaof a national Government involves in it authority not only an over the individual citizen, but an indefinite supremacyoverall personsand things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidatedinto one nationhis supremacy is completely vested in the national Legislature. Among communitiesunited for particular purposes it is vestedpartly in the uencrnl and partly in the municipal Legislatures. In the formercaseall local authoritiesare subordinated to the suprww and may be controlled, directed, orabolishedby it at pleasure. In the latter the local or municipal authoritiesform distinct and independent partiesof the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the gcucral authoritythan the general authority is subicctio those within itsowu sphere.1nthisrelution, the p, the proposedGovernmenteannot be deemed a national one, sipeo its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerutedvobjcctsonly, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all otberobjects. It is true that in controversiesre lating to the boundary between the two jiirisdictions the tribunal which is ultimately to decide is to be established under the General Government. But this does not changethe principle of the case. The de cision is to beimpartially madeaccordingto the rules of the Constitution.” We have in these extracts a clear and precise statement of important principles of the Constitution; and an elimination of some of the powers of both the U.S and the States, by the two greatest intellects and states men of the Convention. Accordin to their authority, the enactment and the a ministration of all laws regulating the affairs of citizens of the same State, and all other things which it is proper to be provided for by local legislation; the ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice, which is the imme diate and visible guardianship of life and property, having its benefits and its terrors in constant activity before the public eye, regulating all those personal interests and familiar concerns to which the sensibilities of individuals are more immediately awake; these various and great interests belong exclusively to the States. They any further, that the power and jurisdiction of the General Government “extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.” “That the principle purposes to be answered by the General Government are the common defense, the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks, the regulation of commerce with other nations, and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political an commercial, with other countries, ” and that all the powers necessary and proper to give effect to those purposes are conferred on the General Government. That the General Government is supreme within the sphere of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution, and that all other powers were retained by the States, and within that sphere the States are possessed of distinct and independent supremacy, and no more subject to the authority of the General Government than it, within its appropriate sphere, is subject to the authority of the States. These authorities further announce in plain language, that if Congress should pass an act impinging on any of the reserved powers of the States, it would be no law because of its wanting the sanction of the Constitution. Hamilton tests the point by putting the ease of one of the classes of civil rights, which this bill secures to the negro race and all other persons. He says: “Suppose that by some forced construction of its authority. which indeed cannot easily be imagined. the Federal Legislaturewereto pass an act to vary the law of dese entin any State. would it not beevi dentin making such an attempt. it itsjurisdiction had exceeded Suppose and infringed uponthat of the State? aiu, that upon a pretenseof an interferencewit its revenue. it should undertake to abrogute a land tax imposedby the authority of a State, would it not be equally evident that this was an invasion of that concurrentjurisdiction in respect to this speciesof tax, which the Constitution plainly supposes to exist in the Stategovernments?" An act of Congress, to abrogate a State law upon any subject, of which the Federal and State Legislature were invested with concurrent juris diction, Hamilton expressly concedes would be void; and if that position is evidently true as to such an act of Congress, in all cases where it held a concurrent jurisdiction, how much clearer is its truth in all cases where it has not a vestige of jurisdiction. In what terms could an act of Congress which assaults all the laws of all the States relating to the civil rights, and the penal sanctions of all their people, according to the principles of those two greatest of the great architects who built n the Constitntion, be too strongly condemne. the people generally were not altogether sat isfied Witht eConstitutiou, asit had been offered to them for their acceptance and ratification. The ratifying conventions of most of the States proposed amendments to it and but for the perectly moral certainty that the most important of them would be proposed by congress and ratified by the requisite number of the States the Constitution would have been rejected. he ten amendments 1st made were within the two years next succeeding its adotion. The great jealousy of the people of the powers of the General Government and of what would be the tendency of its administration to encroach on the reserved sovereignty and rights of the States, was the cause that the 10th amendment was framed expressly as a check ii on ils supposed inherent proc Wity to centralization, in these words; “ The powersnot dole “ed to the U.S.by the constitution nor "0 iibited by it reseryedo um totheStates.are tatoii respectively. orto the people." Many years atter this amendment was made Chancellor Kent wrote his Commentaries. In his chapter on Congress is this paragraph: " The power of making luiYs is the supreme power in a State, and the Dept in which it resid will naturally have such a preponderance in political system, and actwith such mightyforcc upon the public mind. that the line of separation between that and the other branches of governmentoughtto be marked very distinctly and With the most eareful precision. The Constitution of the U.S. has effected this purpose with great felicity of execution and in a way well calculatedto preservethe onan] balance of the Government and the harmon of its operations. It hasnot only modea.genera delegationof the legislative power to one branch of the Government.of the executive to another and of the indicial to a 3rd; but it has especiallydefined the general powers and dutiesof eachof theseDepts. This is essential, to peace and safetyin any Government and especially in one clo the donly Withspecified powers for national purposes and erectedin the midst of numerous Stategovernments, retaining the exclusive control of their local concerna." 1dvol. 231, (223 ) This I considera clear and most satisfactory summar of principles that utterly condemns the ening measure. the divisionof sovereignty, of all of the powers of government, between the U.S and the several States, as stated by Hamilton, Mad ison, and heat, have often been recognized in the SCOTUS, an all the courts, Federal and State, that have passed upon them. In the case of hIcCul ough vs. The State of Maryland the opinion of the court pronounced by Chief Justice Marshall. principles of constitutional law in accordance with those recognized by Hamilton, Madison, and Kent, are thus stated: In America the powersof sovereignty are divided between the COvernment of the U niouand those of the States. They areeachsovereignwith respect to the objects committed to it. neither with respect to the objects committedto the other.” “This Government is acknowledged by all to be oneofenuuiernted powers.The principle that it can exercise only the powers grnnted to it would ssecintoo apparentto hive requirodto beenforced by arguments which its enlightened all these friends.w ile itwus depending before the people, found it necessaryto ur a The 10th amendment.which wpsframed for the purpose of quicting the excessiveJealousics which ad been excited.declaresthat the powers not delegated lothe U.S.by the Constitution. nor prohibited by it to the States. are reservedto the States respectively, or to the people." " We admit. all mustaduiit.the owersof the Government are limited. But within a sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national Legislature the discretion Withrespectto themeans by which the powers it confersare to be carried into execution. Which will enablethat bodyto perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most bone licial to the people. Let the endhe legitimiite, lct it bewithin these opeof the Constitution, and all mcans which are appropriate.which are plainly adaptedto the end. which ago not prohibited, but consonant to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.are constitu“tionul." Should Congress.in the execution of its powers. Adopt measureswhich are prohibited by the Constitution; or should Congress under the pretextofexc cuting its powers passlaws tor the accomplishment of obJects not jnirusted to the Government, it would become the paintuldutyofthistribunulghould acase requiring such a decision come beiore it, to say that such an act was not the law of the lund. As to all these principles the great authority of Judge Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, was in perfect accordance with Hamilton, Madison, arshall, and Kent; as were every judge and jurist of national reputation before the rebellion. How could it be otherwise with men of enlarged minds deeply learned in the science of the law an statesmanship, since those principles are so lainly embodied in the Constitution, in the ea in and impartial reason and judgment that had ever betore characterized the great and virtuous judges of the U.S., who were previous to that time imperturbed by passion, unper verted by seetionalism and fanaticism, not debauched by ambition? But the chairman of the ComJudiciary claims for Congress the power to pass this act under section two, article 4, of the Constitution, in these words: " The citizensof each State shall be entitled to all the privilegesand immunities of citizensin the su oral States." That provision relates exclusively to the privileges and immunities guarantied to the citizen 0?;2oneState in some other State, and it. does not touch the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a State within the one in which he resides. It refersto and provides for relations of [Emma and property between two or more States, not at nllto those which are local, domestic, and wholly within the limits of one State. This construction was certainly given to it by Hamilton and Madison, otherwise they would have referred to it as qualifying the exelusive power which they attributed to each State over all its citizens and their concerns within it. The honorable Senator and his friends are proved to have had purposes in this act for transcending the scope of that provision of the Constitution. by the fact, that I twice offered amendments to it, limiting its effect and operation to the execution of that constitutional provision, and he and they, on both occasions, unanimously voted them down. The Senator also assumes that the 2nd section of the amendment of the Constitution aliolishine slavery invests Congress with power to enact t iis measure into a law. The 1st section of that amendment can have no other effect than to give freedom to the persons who were then slaves. By its language it “ merely declares: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shull wrist in the U.S. ” This provision can operate only on persons who were then in slavery or involuntary servitude and how many were in such condition? In 1860 there were in the U.S. 482,122 free negrocs. Before this amendment Maryland hud liberated her 87,187 slaves, Missouri 114,931, and Tennessee 275,719; and at that.time. by the census of 1860, there were in the U.S. 927,890 free negrocs, who had been liberated by the States or their owners and estimating the entire black population besides to have been slaves, and there were 8, 023, 686 in the U.S. It is utterly unsound and absurd to contend that the 2nd section of this amendment would authorize Congress to pass this measure to comprehend those slaves, and confer upon them the same civil rights and punish ments as appertained to white persons; but if that were even true, there is no color of authority for extending it to the 929,899 blacks who were free before the adoption of this amendment, and also tomore than 80,000,000 of white people, and the civil rights and punishments of this aggregate people. The whole effect of the 2nd section by its language clearly is restricted to the persons made free by the 1st, and cannot be made to comprehend any other persons whatever. In this aspect also the passage of the act by Congress was a flagrant, reckless, and enormous usurpation of power by the majority of the two Houses. This measurcinits every provision is violative of the Constitution, and also of all statesman ship and sound policy. In the extensive conflict it seeks with the State laws and authorities in the transfer of all enal prosecutions and civil suits instituted in the State courts for offenses and trespasses committed under color of it into the Federal courts; in empowering and requiring “district attorneys, marshals, commissioneis, the officers and agents of the Freedmens Bureau, and every other officer who may be specially authorized by the President, to institute both penal and civil proceedings at the cost of the U.S., against all persons who may be charged to have violated it, and to cause them to be arrested and imprisoned, orbuiled; in empowering the courts to increase the number of commissioners without limit to execute it, and conferringu on such commissioners judicial powers; in out orizmg these commissioners to appoint persons without limit to execute warrants and ot or process that may be issued under it, and giving authority to the persOns so appointed to call on the bystand; ers, or ossecomilatus, the land or naval forces of the U.S., or the militia, to enable them to perform their duty, and insure afaithful observance of the clause of the Constitution which prohibits slavery; in providing that the fees of the cormorant officials who may do anything under this act, and ten dollarsin every case to the commissioner, and 5 dollars for every arrest to the person making it, shall be paid out of the Treasury of the U.S.; in requiring that any person who shall harbor or conceal another against whom any warrantshall have been issued. without regaid to the guilt or innocence of the person charged shall be subject to a fine not exceeding $1,000, and impris onment not exceeding 6 months; in empowering the President to make any district court ambulatory throughout the district, to administer the justice no. the terrible injustice and oppression organised by this act; and finally, in providing for asiecial standing army, a permanent force, lan, naval, and militia, to enforce its execution. All this extraordinary, extensive, costly, stern, and despotic organism, has been devised to pamper and exalt the negro, and to abuse, degrade, and oppress the white race! The honorable chairman has quoted laws and precedents to justify the pains and penalties which his measure has provided to be inflicted on State officers, who may execute State laws inconsistent with its strange and revolting features. Those laws were directed against the more forms of law, which were in conflict with the Constitution, and therefore utterly nulland void; and against persons who submitted themselves to be made tools and petty tyrants to eipetrate wrong, oppression, and crime under t m euch wicked devices as this act. If the States should resort to similar legislationas that relied upon by the honorable Senator to punish thOsewho attempt to execute this measure, it would be a timely, wise, and constitutional remedy. I hope all the States concerned will. Ican confidently assure him that at least one will. As I understand the pending measure, and the act to lcrease the powers of the Freedmans Bureau, if they were rmanently establilshed as the law, they wou d establish principles that would wholly absorb all reserve State sovereignty and rights, establish a centralized and aristocratic despotism iinpersonated in the members of the two Houses of Congress, and so much the more oppressive and galling to the people because instead of a single tyrant there would be many. To such a monster Governmentl would prefer a limited monarchy, but being the enemy of both, I am much more the enemy of the former; and whenever it raises its horrid form, I declare myself beforehand to be its mortal foe, and I will dedicate what of life and energy remains to me to its overthrew and the reinstatement of the Constitution and liberties of my country. The radical party, who are now striding on to consolidation and despotism to perpetuate their possession of power and office, have able, unse rupulous, and aring leaders. In 1560 61 they would listen to no Just and constitutional terms of compromise. Two or 3 days after the 1st disastrous defeat at Bull Run, they male fide voted for this resolution offered by AndrewJohnson then a Senfrom Tennessee. I will read the resolution and the yeas&nays on its passage in the Senate: " Remlved by (heSennle, That the present deplorablo civilWar has been forced upon the country ytho disuniouists of the southern States, now in arms against the constitutional Government, and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all feelings of more passion or resentment, willrecollect only its duty to the whole:ountry; that this war is not waged on their part in nnyspmt of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or suhiiization mr purposeot overthrowingor interferingwith the rights or establishedinstitutions of those States.but to defend and inmntain the sufiremacy of the Constitution, and to reserve the nion with all the dignity, equality, an rightsof the severalStates unimpaired: and that assoonasthose objectsare accomplished the war oughtto cease. "Yit is Messrs. Anthon, Browning. Chandler, Clark. Cowan. Dixon, Doohtt o.Fcasendon, Foot. Fos. ter, Grimes, Harlan Harris, Howe. Johnson of Ten nossee, Kennedy. King Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Luthum Morrill. Nesinith. Pomeroy Suuls bury S herinan. TenEyck, Wade, Wilkinson, Willcy, and Wilson 30. “Nivs Mcssrs. Brcokinridge Johnson of Kil sodri, Polk, Powell and Trumbull 5." The armies of the U.S. have conquered the rebellion, and the southern people have submitted and sued to come back to their allegiance and position in the Union and the Government, given up slavery, both by provisions in their own constitutions and ratifving an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. abolishing it throughout the land, and repudiated the debts incurred to sustain their revolt. These are conditions beyond the just and constitutional principles upon which you declared you would make the fight and make the peace. The President, whom your party elected, offered those mngnanimous termsto the insur gents, and all of you in this Chamber but two, and all ofyour party in the other House, I be; lieve, with him pledged yourselves to their main tenance; and now, because he will not go with you in their flagitious violation, you turn upon im, denounce iim, and threaten his impeach ment. Two sessions ago you passed an enabling act to authorize Nebraska, With a poulation of 22, 841, Colorado, with 34, 277, an Nevada, with 6, 857, according to the census of 1860, to form constitutions preliminary to their admission as States in the Union. Their aggre gate population was but little more than half the ratio for one He Representative; but the great consideration was that each one of these infant Territories that assumed the name of State would bring to its patronizing party two senators and one Representative, and add that much to the material of a 2/3rd s majority in both Houses. The war terminated more than 6 months before the be nning of the present session of congress. The magnitude of the conflict, and the erce and determined energy with which it was fought on both sides, imparted to it a terrible grandeur; and the suddenness of its termination, the completeness of the submission of so many million insurgents, and their universal desire to return to the Government against which they had risen, and the obstinate purpose of the majorit of Congress to reject their overtures, are not ess strange. The latter aspect seems surpassingly sinister and inexplicable, except on considerations of excessive selfishness and criminal ambition. Whenever the rebels grounded their arms, and the authorities of their respective States in good faith offered to place the States and themselves in proor relations with the Government of the U.S., such States and their people had a perfect right to have their Sens&Reps in Congress. Individual Sens&Reps might be excluded for suliicient causes personal to each; but a valid objection to keep the State out is impossible under such a state of fact. Her citizens now loyal, having the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution, and the proper returns of thcir election to the Senate or HoRep, may rightfully demand their admission to their seats; for a ruling majority to keep them out is revolutionary. A majority of the Senntors who have taken the oath of office and been admitted to their seats have assumed by this revolutionary act, not merely to mutilate the Senate, but to sunder the Union and subvert the Government by closing the doors of this Chamber against the Senators of 11 States, which States and their people are at peace with the U.S. an obedient to their authority. You are responsible for this disorganized condition of the Senate, for you have made it. You further aggravated it Within the last few days by ejecting from his seat the model Senfrom NewJersey, when every intelligent reader of the newspapers in America knows that he was legally and constitutionally elected by the majority of the Legislature of that State. In the House the some process is oing on in a more aggravated form; your po itienl friends are more than decimating their and your oppponents, without sufficient cause, while they hold in their seats theirpoliticul friends against whose election valid constitutional and legal objections have been established. In the mean time you are recklessly passing propositions to amend the Constitution, and overriding the Presidents veto of this flagitious measure, which requires 2/3rds of both Houses. You are rushing onward from outrage to outrage with terrible rapidity. You delude yourselves if you believe such a career can long continue. The courts will decide that you being the wrong doers, having mutilated Congress, and having passed your revolutionary measures by less than a majority, by a plurality which you created for your purposes in excluding 23 Senators from their seats, your acts are revolutionary and void. Public justice is often slow, but generally sure. Thin you that the people will look on with folded arms and stolid indifference and see you subvert their Constitution and liberties, and on their ruins erect a grinding despotism. No; ere long they will rise up with earth uake force and fling you from power and place. I commend to your serious meditation these words: “ Go tell Sylla that you saw Cains Marius sitting upon the ruins of Carthage!” {End of Davis speech from Appendix.}