Mr. NIBLACK. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution and laws of Indiana relating to negroes and mulattoes have been so often referred to in the debates during the present session of Congress, and are so different from those of i most if not all, of the other northern States, that, as one of the Representatives from that State, feel called upon to define more accurately than has yet been done the action of our State in regard to this race of people, and to vindicate, so far as I am able, the policy which our people have seen proper to pursue in that respect. I feel it the more incumbent on me to attempt this vindication because I favored the adoption of our constitution containing the peculiar provisions of which I propose to speak, and because of my personal participation in the legislation necessary to give full effect to these provisions. This subject has a renewed interest to the people of our State on account of the action of the present Congress, which in many respects changes, or at least attempts to change very materially the status of the negro race every where in the U.S., an which, if sustained by the courts and people of the country, will override all State laws and State regulations in regard to that class of persons, and practi cally annul all that the people of Indiana or any other State may have done to separate the white and black races within its territorial limits. This question does not affect the State of Indiana alone, however, but involves principles important, if not vital, to the good order and wel being of all the States, an hence has become a question of national importance. It is really for this reason that Iask the indul gence of the House today, and enter upon the discussion of a subject to which I had hoped I never would feel called 11ion to recur again in public debate. In thus discussing the local affairs of in State, I shal doubtless find it necessary as incidental thereto to refer to some other matters of public interest at this time. The present constitution of Indiana which was ratified by the people of the State at a Generalelection in August, A. D. 1851, and which went into effect on the 1st day of the succeeding November, contains, among others, the following separate article: “An'ricai: XHI. Neproea and Miilattoen. “8:9. 1. No‘xcizro or mulatto shall comeinto or settle in the S to after the adoption of this constitation. “no.2. All contractsmadewith anynegro or mu lattocomini; into the Statecontrary to the provisions of the forcgoing section shill be void; andeve person who shall employsnchnegroor miilatto, or otherwise encourage him to remain in the State, shall be fined ii any sum not less than ten dollars nor more than “ Site.3. All fineswhichmaybecollectedfor a violation of the provisions of this article, or of any law which may hereafter be passedfor the purpose of carrying the same into exccution, shall be set apart and appropriatedforthe colonization ofsnch negroes and mulattoes and their descendantsus may be in the State at the adoption of this constitution, and may be willing to emigrate. "Sic. 4. The General Assembly shall pass laws to carry out the provisions of this article.” This article was, by order of the convention which adopted the constitution containing it, submitted to a separate vote, so that the sense of the people could be taken on it alone, and so that it might or might not become a part of that constitution, according as the people of the State might desire. On this separate vote 181,040 votes were cast. Of that number 109,076 votes were in favor of the adoption of this article and 21,004 against it, making a majority in favor of its adoptionof 88,012 votes. To those who are dispose to criticise the action of our State in regard to the policy it thus in au urated, or to regard the provision a hard and unjustifiable one, I respond that no political party, as such, was responsible for it, but that the people of the State sanctioned and ratified it by an unprecedented majority, a majority approaching very nearly unanimity. The 1st Legislature of the State which as sembled after this new constitution went into force enacted laws to carry this article into full clfeet, prescribing penalties against those who might violate its revisions, and making ample arrangements or the colonization o sue negroes and mulattoes of the State as might be willing to emigrate. I might very naturally be expected, air, a policy so important as this was not entered upon by our State without the most thorough discussion and the maturest deliberation. The debates of the convention which adopted it fully sustain this assertion. The 1st question which is presented in reviewing the action of the convention on this subject is, did it possess the power, representing the sovereign power of the State as it did, to adopt and render effective this policy of repression and exclusion as to the negro race? I insist, sir, that it did possess this power, and that the position I thus assume can be sustained both on principle and by well establilshed authorities. I go further, sir, and insist that this convention possessed the power, if sanctioned and sustained by the people of the State, to have adopted a similar policy of repression and exclusion as to any other class of people who might have been regarded by it as an undesirable population, or if the best interests of the State had, in the opinion of the convention, demanded such a course. The authority of any State, acting through its organic law, to do anything it may choose to do which falls within the range of powers possessed b any sovereignty or political community, an about which it is not restrained by the Constitution of the U.S., is, in my judgment, undeniable. The 10th article in the amendments to the Constitution of the U.S. is as follows: "The powersnot delegatedto the U.S.by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States. are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Now, sir, the States have delegated to congress the power “ to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” The Constitution of the U.S. also provides that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” The power of a State to adopt “a uniform rule of naturalization” is therefore impliedly denied to it. As I interpret the provision lastly above quoted there are certain ““privileges and immunities” pertaining to citizens in the sev1 States" which each State is bound to respe, “but so far as more rights of persons are concerned, the provision in question is confined to citizens of a State who are temporaril in another State without taking up their residence there. It gives them no political rights in the State, as to voting, holding office, or in any other respect.” (See Howard’s U. S. Reports, vol. 19, page 422.) Beyond these provisions in relation to “a uniform rule of naturalization, ” and the “ privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States" to which the citizens of each State are entitled, I find nothing in the Constitution of the U.S., either as a delegated power or as a restriction, bearing on the question of citizenship. Section ten of that instrument, in enumerating the powers denied to the several States, does not allude to the subject of citizenship at all, and denies nothing to the State in relation to it. HenceI affirm that all questions relating toState citizenship, to dom icile, or residence, whether tempora or other' wise, within the States, rest with to States alone, and are among the powers reserved to the “States respectively, or to the people.” If Iam right in this conclusion, sir, then the power of Indiana is as ample and unrestricted over these matters as if; she were an independent State, and not a member of the federal Union. What, therefore, may an independent State do in excluding lpersons from its territorial limits or in repe lin persOns desirous of mi grating into it? In determining this question ive have to look to the law of nations, to the decisions of the courts, and to those principles which underlie all legitimate Governments. Vattel, in his Treatise on the Law of Nations, (see book two, chapter 7, section 94,) says: " the sovereign whiohin our form of government means the people may forbid the entrance of his territory. either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certniii persons, or for certain pin ticular purposes, according as he may think it advantageousto the State." Quotations of similarimport might be drawn from other writers on international law, but i regard it as unnecessary to multiply them hire There is no conflict of authorities on this poin. that I am aware of. In the case of the City 01' NewYork vs. Miln. found in volume elevei of Peters’s U.S. Reports, commen cing on page 102, the powers of the severa‘. States of the U.S. over the quest ioi. under discussion is very ably and very fully treated. It is a leading and well known cast of its class, and arose 0n the power of the state of NewYork to exclude or impose conditions on emigrants from foreign countries or the ports of other States arriving in vessels under certain circumstances. The court in its opin‘ ion 1st argued to show that there is no conflict between the law of NewYork and the law of Congress governing the transportation of passengers and the navigation of vessels, and intimates that on that ground, perhaps, the law of NewYork might be sustained. After disposing of that point, however, the court say: “ But wedo not place our opinion on this ground. We chooserather to plant ourselveson whatwecon sider impregnnble positions. They are these: that a statehas the undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all personsand things within its territorial limits as any foreignnation; wherethat jurisdiction is not surrenderedor restrained by the constitution of the U.S. That by virtue of this it is not only the right. but the bonnden and solemn duty of a State to advancethe safety, hap iness, and pros, perity of its people, and to provi o for its general welfareby any and everyact of legislation which it may deem to beconducive to theseends. where the powerov crthe particular subject or the manner 011' its exercise is not surrenderedor restrained in the manner Just stated. That all those powers which relate merely to municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly becalled internal police.are not thussurrenderedor restrained; and that consci guently, in relation to thesethe authority of a State is complete.unqualified, and exclusive." Further on in the same case the court say: “ We suppose it to be equally clear that a State has as muchright to guard, by anticipation, against the commission of an offcnseagainst its laws as to inflict punishmept upon the ofiender after it shall have beencommitte." In a more recent case this question as to the power of a State to exclude persons from its territorial limits was a sin considered by the SCOTUS. It arose upon a law of the State of Massachusetts imposin certain restrictions or conditions upon the a mission of emigrants arriving in vessels from other countries. The case I refer to is that of Norris vs. The City of Boston, found in Curtis’s U.S. Reports, volume 17, and commencing on page 122. In this case the question as to the power of a State Over the subject under discussmn was not only considered, but the power of the Federal Government to control the action of the several States in the premises was also discussed. I read from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, delivered in this cause. Alter reciting the history of the case, he says: "The writ oferror. however.bringsup nothing for revision here but the constitutionality of the law underwhich this ine nc was demanded and paid, and that question 1 proceei to examine. "And the 1st inquiry is whether underthe constitution of the U.S. the Federnl Government vhea, s the power to compel the several States to and suffer to remain in associationwith its citizens, every person or class of iemonswhom it may bgthelpolicy or pleasureof the U.S.sto admit. n inyjudgment this question lies at the foundation of the controversyin this case. I do not mean to say that the General Government have by treaty or act of Conirress, required the State of nssachn settsto permit the aliens in question to land. I think there is no treaty or act of congress which can beso construed. But it is not necessary to examine that questionuntil wehave 1st inquired whether congresscanlawfully exercise such a power, and whether the States are bound to submit to it. For if the peeill: of the several States of this Union reserved to t cmsclvesthe power of expelling fromtheir bor ders any person or class of  persons. Whom it might deem dangerousto its peaceor likely to producea physical or moral evil among its citizens, then any treaty or law of Congress invading this right. a nd anlhnnzing theintroduction ofany person or description of persons against the consent of the State. would be a usurpation of power which this court could neither recognizenor enforce. I had supposed this question not now open to dispute. It was disfl i:‘Q::rritorial limits of the State, but Congress having, ns I have already stated, given a na.onal importance to ever branch of this subject, I hope I will be par oned for attempting.01: a hriefresponso to that inquiry. The people of Indiana were from the begin.iin, and still are, as I have nodoubt, opposed to the introduction of negroes into the State in any gent number, in any capacity, and for any purpose. They resolved at the start that slavery should not exist within the State. They also early enacted la'ws tending to discourage the immigration of free persons of color into is. In these early times the public mind was impressed with the idea that s avery would not, probably, be a perpetual institution in the country, and that some provision would ulti mately have to be made by many of the States, if noo by the U.S. Government itself, for ths free people of color, and our State being a bdrder free State, and liable always to an influx by that class of people, the future status of the free people of color within her borders was from the 1st a matter in which our people felt a most lively interest. They early im ibed the idea which seemed to so generally prevail during the last generation, that a sep oration of the races was best for both whites 1nd blacks, and that both humanity and good policy demanded that such a separation ought to beinevery suitable way encouraged. They.lwnys protested against having our State made an asylum for the free blacks of other States, where they had from any cause become an undesirable population., 1.Any policy we might adopt, therefore, which prevented the people of the slave States south.of usfrom throwing this class of people upon an we concluded would tend to induce the people of these slave States to make provision for file colonization of their colored people when any of them might be emancipated) from whatever cause or whatever motives. We felt, too, shat. naive had not enjoyed any of the direct benefitaof the institution ofslavery we ought not.to be subjected to the burden of providing for defenseless population thrown upon us by the institution. Only the year before the convention assembled which adopted our present constitution, an earnest canvass had been made ine u raister 'ofKonta oky as hominiolpdiomy 8nd rioty of shell“ing alumni that State. T re.ihseussionsiu that convnulat.oooo brought up thoqueatimi as mwhrrellonld'be done width thisl slaves Iprepose 3“.cmweipate that;, an W08 the documentation of the peoples“ India. LWHiIerthe mass of'Our people were entirely, willinglto see Kentucky inaugurate a system mleinaacipation, and very many of them were anxiouszfor it, we felt that she ought not to colonize, any of her free blacks upon us, as had in many individual instances already been done. To put the matter at rest so far as we could, and to give notice to all concerned as (in our wishes in regard to these people of color, an made the provision which I have read in regard to negroes and mulattoes a part of our oowitption. Our policy as to these people, 4 became a part of the organic law of our and as such still remains in force. “i flioriittotives which may have had Uh. dlkrilsduciQg, our people to enter 9R4 @f mason and exclusion as $0, one motive unquestionably I!“ '0; this I!) a to strengthen 11M! was tiop system which.lookodto an n timate separation of the races M.ia this country. Whether this scheme of sep and colonization was ever a practice rm: shall not now stop to inquire. Suppose I say that it was one which received on“: gement from some of the greatest minds Ih' he country has produced, and which only ! tfew years since was looked upon with less favor in almost every portion of the U.S. It was to this end that colonization societies were formed and that so 8m": and means have been devoted to the “of colonization throughout the country. But it may he saw, an., ever desirable it may be in some acts to separate the races, and however practicable it may have seemed at one time recent events have destroyed all the hopes of success which may have ever clustered aropnd that idea. I regret to have to concede that such may be the case. In the present condition of the public mind and the present exhausted financial and physicul condition of the country, I grant that separation and colonization are now practically out of the question. Some portions of the country need the labor of the freedmen. Other portions want their votes and desire them to remain as a political power. All of our surnlus means are absorbed by our public debt. The negro is therefore now, to aIup earances, as permanently domiciled within the U.S. as any of us. If he must remain among us, the it?!“ practical question in regard to him is, what shall be his position in the future, and as incidental to that, who must determine and define that position? As I have been endeavoring to show, it is contended on the one side that the General government posseaes this power and ought to exercise it. On the other side, it is insisted that this power restssvith the Sgates respectively, and ought to r'emain with them. Because, however, sir, the condition and future respects of the colored race have been great y changed as one of the results of the civilWar from which we are just emerging, it does not follow that the colonization scheme was not a humane and benelicent one. It is sufficient to say that in times now passed it was regarded by the people of Indiana as affording the best solution that could be then devised as to the future disposition of the negro race on this continent. The earnest and honest desire which was then entertained by the people of Indiana to assist in carrying it out and to make it a practical success, constitutes a sufficient defense of their policy in reward to that race of people. It is not their fault, certainly, that colonization has failed to accomplish what they so much desired of it. The action of our State in regard to the unfortunate colored race Mr. Speaker, can be defended, and success ully, too. as I hope to show, on other grounds than as a colonization measure merely. I refer now to the inequality and 1physical difference between the white and blue: races. I have always maintained, and certainly a very large majority of the people of Indiana have, heretofore at least, also main tained, that in the grand scale of humanity the negro race is iuferiorto the white race, and that anything like social or political equality between the 2 races is neither practicable nor desirable. Our whole system of laws in relation to the negro, from the 1st organization of the State to the present time, has been based on that theory. I am aware that in as suming this position nowI am entering the regions of controversy, and that a different theory seems now to prevail in many sections of the country. I have not time now to go into this question in all its details, nor to answer many of the arguments urged with so much earnestness of late in favor of the equality of all men without reference to race or color. That all human beings, however low in the scale of humanity, have certain rights which on ht not to be, and cannot be with impunity, is regarded, I frankly concede. That the strong ought not out of mere wantonnessto tyrannize over the weak is equally evident. That the negro, in his present condition in this country, is entitled to certain civil rights wherever he may be lawfully domiciled, is as fully and freely admitted. In Indiana all the civil rights of ncgroes and mulattoes, lawfull within teState, including the right to testiy as witnesses, are by law fully recognized. But there is a very broad distinction between the protection of a person in his civil rights, his personal and property rights, and the conferring of political power upon him. This distinction e laws of In l8 ‘0. uisoinctw 3215 be kept steadily in view wfine‘regsfsthrgaat 0' regard to the negro race on this continent. This distinction between civil rights and political rights, this inequality between the races, was fully considered and discussed in the Indiana convention which formed our constitution. One of the leading members of that convention, (Mr. Loekliart,) afterward amem her of this House, in discussmg the relations between the 2 races, and in referring to the negro race, said: “If citizensin a full and constitutional sense, why were they not permitted to participate in its formation? They certainly werenot. The Constitution was the workof the white race: the Governmentfor which it provides, and of which it is the fundamentallaw, is in their hands and under their control: nndit couldnot have been intended to place a different race of people iInndaelletdh,ings upon terms of equalitywith themselves. ifsuch had been the desire, its utterimprao ticability is too evident to admit of doubt. The 2 races, differing as theydo in complexion habits.con formation, and intellectual endowments, could not, nor over will. live to other upon terms of socialor political equality. A iighor than human power has so ordered it. A greater than human agency must change the decree." DebalewIndiana Convention, page627. Imight give other extracts of like import showing that this alleged inequality between the races was swell recognized fact by leading members of the convention, of all parties, and by an overwhelming majority of that body. But that I regard as an unnecessary labor here. Indeed, sir, until a very recent period, this inequality between the races was regarded as a recognized and conceded fact by nearly all the‘ representative men of all parties and of all sections of the country. Those who insisted otherwise were but rare exceptions to t be general rule. It is only a brief period since none denied more indilgnantly the charge of favoring the equality o the races than did most of the leaders of the party now in the majority in this House. It was treated by many of them as an insult to be'resented by 9 probrious words and burning epithets. In ifustration of the truth of these remarks, I Will quote from a speech made by Mr. Lincoln, late POTUS, at Columbus, Ohio, in September, 1850. On the morning of the day on which he spoke, on that occasion, one of the papers of that city charged that, “in dehating with Senator Douglas, during the memorable contest of last fall, Mr. Lincoln declared in favor of negro suffrage, and attempted to defend that vile conception against the Little Giant." In the commencement of his speech, Mr. Lincoln noticed this charge and complained of it. He said it was a mistake and a misrepresentation, and, to vindicate himself, pi'oceeded to read from his preVious speeches. e 1st read from his celebrated Ottawa speech of the preceding year, as follows: "New gentlemen I don’t want to readatnnyli eater length, but this is the true‘complexion of a have oversaid in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anythin tphoalittiacrairlues me into this idea of perfect socialan equality with the negro is but ii. specious and fantastic arrangementof words, by which a man 'canp‘rove a horse chestnutto bea chestnuthorse." "I have no purposeto introduce political and social equality betweenthe white and lack races. There is a physical difference between the 2 which. in myJudgmont, will probably forbid their ever living together upon the footing of perfect equality and inasmi icbas it becomesa neces city that there must be a difference, I, aswell nsJudge Douglas.am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior DOSIUOD.” After insisting that notwithstanding this in e nality the negro has certain natural rights of which he ought not to be deprived a fact which I have already fully conceded in my remarks today Mr. Lincoln continues: “I agreewith Judge Douglas, lie [thenegro] is not my equalin many respects. Certainly, not in color, perhapsnot in moral or intellectual endowments.” Mr. Lincoln also then quoted from another speech he had previously made, as follows: “While I was at the hotel today iin elderly gon tle man called uponmeto know whether I wasreally in furor of producing negrocs and white poop 0. While I hadnot proposed to myself on this occasionto any much on that subject, yet asthe question was as L crfoot equality betweenthe I. ed me, I thought I] 7. A F b ‘If these the . arr rumba..c. 1. oi Pennsylvania. 15Pet. 539..1503are to stand.the right of the State is undoubted. And it is equally clear that if it may remove from among its pitizensany person or description of personswhom it regards as imurious to its welfare. it follows that it may meet them at threshold and prevent them the from entering. For it will hardly besaid that the U.S. may permit the iu to enter and compel the State to receive tchxepmel and that the Statemayimmediatelyafterward them. There could beno reason of policy or humanity for comelling the States.by the power of Congress.to imbi e the poison and then lcaifing them to find a remedyfor it by their own exertions and at their own expense.” “ the State has the power to determine whether the persons objected to shall remain in the State in asso ciation with its citizens.it inust.as an incident inscpariibly connected with it. have the right to deter mine who shall enter. Ipdeed. in the caseof Groves pa. Slaughter.theMississippi constitution roliibited he entry of the objectionable persons.on the o pinions of t ccourt throughouttreat the exerciseof this power as beingthe same With that of EXDCHIX‘ItKhem after they have entered." " f f “I think it authorityto be very clear. both on principle and the of adjudged cases. that the several States have a right to remove froni among their people and to prevent from entering the State. any person or class or description of persons whom it may deem dangerousuriajiirious to the interestsand we fareof its citizens, and thnt the State hasthe exclusiveright tdoandgeeter rmine. in its sound diseretion.whether the does or does not exist. free from the control of the General Government." These latter extracts, I concede, are taken from a dissenting opinion delivered in the cause, and as to how far they are pertinent to the points that were lllVOlVEdllll it is a question about which there was a difference of opinion among the judges of the court in which the case was considered. I submit, however, that the views of the learned judge who delivered this dissenting opinion are amply sustained by the authorities already cited, and whether strictly pertinent to the case then under discussion or not, are undeniably correct as abstract propositions of law, and fully meet the approbation of myjudgment. I could cite other authorities of like import and still further corroborating the positions I have assumed, but my time will not permit me. The authorities I have referred to I maintain fully sustain me as to the power of a State to determine who shall enter its territorial limits, and to exclude alfpersoas whom it may regard as dangerous or iiijurious to its interests, for whatever cause, whether real or imaginary. In the o iinion, however, of the convention to which I owe referred, and of an overwhelming maijority of the people of our State at the time of the adoption of our present constitution, the power to exclude negroes and mulat toes rested on much stronger rounds than the power to exclude people of al classes of other countries and other States, which Ilinve shown eXists in all the States ehoosin to exercise it. The convention acted upon the theory that negroes and mulattoes were not citizens of the U.S., were not parties to the political compact which formed the Constitution and Government of the U.S., and were not entitled to become citizens of the U.S. under. the then existing laws of congress and Without a radical change of policy on the part of the General Government. In this assertion Iain also sustained by the debates of the convention to which I have referred. In this theory our people were then supported by the long continued and‘ almost uniform usages and practices of the U.S. government, by the opinions of many of the most eminent men in the country, and by the solemn adjudications of the courts of several of the States of the Union. I am aware that the impression prevails to a very considerable extent lllali‘llo respectable court had ever rec ogiiized this theory until the opinion in the celebrated Dred Scott case was pronounced by the SCOTUS This impression is erroneous, however, as I all attempt to show. i Kentucky, it had been decided in the case of Ely cs. Thompson, 3 Man, 71, that "Although free personsof color are not parties to the social compact, yet they are entitled to repose or its shadow.". “mm conLitt. Rep, 327, the court said that“ Prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution States had a right to make citizens of any person theypleased;but as the Constitution does not authorize any but white personsto becomecitizens of the U.S. it furnishesa presumption that none others werecitizens at the time of its adoption." In Arkansas, on the 20th of January, 1843, an act was approved entitled" An ncttoprohibit emigration.820.o.f freenegroes or free personsof color. into this State", Soon afterward a man of color was indicted, tried, and convicted for coming into that State contrary to the provisions of that not. In reviewing this case the supreme court of that State say: “The Legislature, no doubt.intendednot only this sceecstsiaornybut the entire act asa measureof olice ne to the security and well beinizof the people of the State. In this viewwe are unable to perceive any clauseor provision of eitherthe Federal or State constitutionwith which it conflicts. If any, it is that clause of the former which declares that the citi lens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens inthe severalStates.’ Are free negroes, or free colored persons u citizens within the meaning of this clause? We think not. In recurring to the past histo of the Constitution and prior to its foundation.to that of the Confederation. it will be found that nothing beyond a kind of quasicitizenship haseverbeenrecognisedin the ease of colored persons." In Connecticut, in 1833, a law was passed, which made it enal to set up or establish any school in that State for' the instruction of the African race notinhabitants of the State, or to instruct or teach in any such school or institution, or board or harbor for that purpose any such person, without the previous consent in writing of the civil authorities of the town in which each school or institution might be sit tinted. Prudence Crandall was prosecuted for boarding and harboring a person of color, not an inhabitant of the State, contrary to the provisions of this law. One of the points raised in the defense was, that the law was a violation of the Constitution of the U.S., and that the person instructed, although of the African race, was a citizen of another State, and therefore entitled to the rights and privileges of citizens in the State of Connecticut. But Chief Justice Dagget, who presided at the trial of the cause, held that persons of that description were not citizens of a State, within the meaning of the word “citizen” in the constitution of the U.S., and were not, therefore, entitled to the privileges and immu nities of citizens in other States. The case was carried to the supreme court of errors of that State. But it went off there on another point, and no opinion was expressed in that court on the question of negro citizenship. The rulings of Chief Justice Dagget in the case have long been quoted with approbation, however, by many of the courts of the country, and the case itself, in Indiana at least. has long been regarded as a leading one of'its class. (See Crandall vs. The State, 10 Conn. Rep., 340.) Before the assembling of our convention, similar decisions on the question of negro citizenship had been made, I believe, in Georgia and Mississippi, and perhaps other States, but I cannot now give a reference to the cases from those States. In 1821 the late William Wirt, then AttyGen of the U.S., in a case referred to him, decided that “citizens of the U.S.” were used in the acts of Congress in the same sense as in the Constitution; and that free persons of color were not citizens within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the U.S. The conduct of the executive dept of the Government, so far as I am advised on the question, has, with some trivial exceptions, and until a recent period, been in strict conformity with this opinion of Mr. Wirt. Again, sir, the act of Congress passed in 1790, during the 2nd session of the 1st Congress which assembled after the adoption of the Constitution of the U.S., providing “a uniform rule of nutnralifion, confines the right to become citizens “ to alien being free white persons.” A large‘numbe of those who, as members of Congress, enee thislaw were members of the Convention wh' adopted the Constitution, and thus gave wh we must in fairness concede their interpre rtion to that instrument as to what classes 0 persons were citizens, and as to who we entitled to become such under it. “ In 1813 another act of, Congress was providing “ That from and afier the termination of ‘l" " I in which the U.S. are now engaged wi GreatBritain. it shall not be lawful to emgxloy board of any public or private vesselsof the I States.any person or personsexcept citizens of U.S or persons of color, natives of U.S." This act clear] makes a distinction, citizens 'of the U.S and persons color, although natives of the U.S and is certainly a very plain legislative in pretation of the Constitution, that persons i color, though born in the country, are not citizens of the U.S. within the meaning of that phrase. These authorities with many othe. lar import which I have not the space to ref to, all preceded by many years the Dred Scott decision, and were to a reateror less exte referred to and discussed by the Ii vention during its deliberations. these authorities have been review firmed in this Dred Scott case, and question of non-citizenship of announce no new doctrine. I knm, case has been and still is bitterly denounced, and that terrible words have been pronounced against the learned judge who delivored the i opinion of the court in that cause. These have been and still are but the cbullitions of frea zied partisanship, and will perish with the pas 1 sions which evoked them. Judge aney will be revered as one of the most learned, distinguished, and incorruptible judges that has yet ever adorned the American judiciary long after most of his assailants have been forgotten. Whatever objection has been made to the opinion of the court in that case, in other respects, but few eminent lawyers have ever within in knowle e denied its correctness in so far as it decides that persons of African descent were not citizens of the U.S. within the meaning of the Constitution. The action of the present Congress in endeavor ing to confer citizenship upon that class of people I mgartl it! a concession of its correctness on that point. The negro, then, not being a citizen of the U.S., and hence not shielded as such by the Federal Constitution, but constituting an anomalous and quasi foreign element, dom iciled in the States respectively, and whether as a slave or freeman peculiarly within the jurisdiction and under the control of the States, it irresistibly follows that each State may for itself determine whether or not such negro shall enter its territory, and if he shall be so permitted to enter, then to determine the conditions upon which he shall beallowed to remain, and to fix and define his status while he does so remain within it. I have so far, Mr. Speaker, discussed the more question of the power of a State in cer‘tain matters within its own territorial limits. I concede, however, that because a State or a Government may possess the' power to do a particular thing, it does not at all follow that it is always either wise or just to exercise that power. How far a conceded power on lit to e exercised, or whether exercised at a], is ei question of policy to be determined byjeach State for itself from time to time as emergen cies may arise. Was it good policy, therefore, for the people of Indiana to exercise the power the State possessed in regard to the negro race in the manner they did? To this I might reply that it is a domestic question alone about which no other State has any vell grounded reason to complain, and hence not a proper subject of discussion outside of the E. I would occupy, perhaps. 5 minutesin saying something in regurdto it. I will say, the nth, at I nui not annoryweaveyr have been in ta ' oort bringing about in the social and IOllilCill equalityot the white and black races: that aiii notor ever have beenin favor of illiikillfl voters or Jurors of negroes, nor of tTTe plawlthlyitjengptchoepmletoanhdoIld wo iillilcscayoIrni and tedriitiiioanrrytowthitish that there is a physical ditle rence between the white and black race s. whichI believe will foreverforbitl the tworaees living togetheron terms 0! social and piolitical equality. And inasmuchas they cannot so i'c wlnle they do remain together, there must be the position of supenor jind inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in tavor of having the supe rior position assignedto the white race." After r'easserting his belief that there were certain rights, however, that ought not to be denied to the colored man, and alter indulging in some pleasantrics at the expense of Judge Douglas, Mr. Lincoln, on that occasion, further proceeded to say: “There. my friends, you have briefly what I have, on former occasions.said upon the subject to which this newspaper, to the extentof itsability. hasdrawn the public attention. In it you not only perceive, as a probability. that in that contest I did not.at any time say I was in favor of negro SttiIflltt‘O but the absolute proof that twice once substantially and once expressly I declaredagainstit. Llaving sliovIn you this. there remains but a.word of commentupon that newspaper article. It is this: that. I iresume the editor of that paper is an honest an truth loving man, and that 0 will be greatly obliged to me for tarnishing him thus early an opportunityto correct the misrepresentation he hasmade, before it alilrruyr so long that malicious peoplecan call him Mr. Lincoln’s name will go down to os terity as the great emancipator and fricn of the African race, and I quote him therefore as a representative man of his class and of his times. And while I was, during his eventful life, especially the last years 0t it, unable to agree with him in man things, I am gratified with the opportunityo saying that in his views thus expressed, as to the differences between the races, and as to the impructicability of their livin together or terms of equality, I fully and licarti y concur with him. Mexico, sir, is a living example of the folly of trying to commingle essentially different races of people together upon terms of equality. I do not claim that all the troubles of that unfortunate country result from that cause alone, but I am quite sure it is one of the great disturbing causes, which will not, and I fear cannot, be easily removed. Many colored men, it is true, have given evidence of superior talents, and some of them have risen to a comparative degree of eminence. But they are the exceptions, not the rule. An admixture of white blood is discernible in most of those who have‘in any laudable way distinguished themselves. As a class I have failed to see in them any of those high traits of char aciei which indicate them as fit to become a governing race anywhere. So far as we know, the African race had as fair a chance in the earlier ages of the world for improvement in the arts and sciences and for advancement in civilization as did the white race. If we are all the children of Adam, they certainly had; and yet what have they of themselves accomplished? What progress they have made has resulted from their having been, against their will, brought into contact with white people. It is true that they have recently obtained their freedom, and are now in a condition to demonstrate better than ever before to what extent they are capable of accomplishing great results. But, sir, they did not win their freedom, and had but little agency in shaping the events which conferred it upon them. It came to them as one of the results of and as incident to a great civilWar in which white men contended for power, and in which colored men played buta subordinate part. It came to them on the demand of white men who wielded the power of the Government, 1st as a measure of war, and afterward as a condition of peace. As the war progressed, many of them under the great enticements held out for their encouragement, did from time to time enter the ranks of the Union Army and rendered such assistance as they were capable of affording. Others of them, howcver, adhered to the cause of their late masters to the last, and I think I am justified in saying that, whatever their sympathies as a class may have been, a majority of them either adhered from 1st to last to the rebellion or aided and assisted by their labor or otherwise those who did so adhere. One of the most remarkable developments of the late war in connection with this race of people was the fidelity and personal devotion to their late masters, exhibited by a great proportion of them in the seceding States when the strong est inducements to freedom were held out to them b the Federal Government. The teachings 0 history, sir, are in vain if white men would have so acted under similar circumstances. I think, therefore, Mr. Lincoln has been amply sustained by this circumstance alone in saying that there is a physical difference between the 2 races; that there is a difference in their moral and intellectual endowments. And, when I hear it asserted with so much confidence by gentlemen on the other side, that the colored people of the South constitute ii. Unitedly loyarelement, I confess I am unable to understand upon what authority the assertion is made. I am inclined to think, sir, it is one of those poetic licenses that visionary men are too apt to indulge in when treating of solid realities. Now, sir, I have attempted to show, and I shall assume for the purposes of my argument that I have shown it, that there is an inequality between the 2 races, physical and intellectual; the white man occupying the superior and the colored man the inferior position. have also shown, and before I conclude will, attempt further to show, that this difference was | recognized and acted upon when our matchless Government was instituted, and that it has been observed and perpetuated, in a greater or less degree, by every dept of the Government to the present time. In view, then, of these facts, in view of this anomalous and inferior condition of the colored race in this country, it is no matter of surprise that negroes in any considerable numbers, especially in States where their labor is not needed, should be regarded as an undesirable population. In In ions. the kind of labor to which these people are peculiarly adapted was nowhere needed when her policy in regard to them was adopted. Even yet there is no special demand for that kind of labor. Our climate is unsuited to them as a race. There was room, and to spare, for them elsewhere under a more genial sun, and where their labor was, and perhaps always may be. needed. Was it strange, then, that our people should desire to provide against an increase of this population, and shed d be anxious, even, at the same time to devise some humane plan to induce those already among us to emigrate? It was to accomplish these results that the provision in our constitution in relation to negroes and niulattoes was inserted. To refuse a negro the right of immigration into the State can at best, under the circumstances of his position, be no more than an inconvenience to him. To receive him into the State might be much more than an inconvenience to its people. Neither was there then, nor is there now, any inhumanity in holding out pecuniary inducements to those already in the State to emigrate, and this is all that the provision in relation to colonization amounts to. On the score of policy, therefore, I announce it as my deliberate conviction that the people of Indiana were justified in the course they saw fit to pursue in regard to the colored race. I now proceed, Mr. Speaker, to discuss another question which at once presents itself in connection with what I have already said, and one of more practical and general importance to all the States than anything I have yet offered, and that is as to the elfeet of the recent action of Congress in passing the so ealled civil rights bill on State laws and State regulations imposing disabilities on its negro population. The 1st and 2nd sections of the act of Congress to which I refer read as follows:. “ Be it enacted by the Senate and HoRep of the U.S.A. in Congress assembled. 'That all persons born in the U.S and not subicctto any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be Citizens of the U.S.: and such citizens, of every race and color, without regardto any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude exceptas as an disuhliynent for crime whereo fthe party shall have been convicted shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the U.S.to make and enforce contracts, to sue. be parties and give evidence, to inherit. purchase, lcnsc, sell, hold and convey real and personal property and to full and equal benefitof laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be sulnect to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other. any law, statute. ordinance, renulution, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.:‘Site. 2. Abife: That any person who, under color of any law. statute, ordinance, resolution or custom shall subject or cause to be subjected.any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right securedor protected by this act, or to different punishment. pains, or penalties on accountof such personhaving at any time been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, or b reason of his color or race, than is prescribed for t a punishment of white persons shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be punished by fine not exceeding 81.000, or imprisonment not exceedingone year, or both, in the discretion of the court." The language employed leaves no doubt, sir, as to the intention of Congress in enacting this law. If Congress possesses the constitutional power to enact such a law, then all persons born in the U.S., and not subject to any foreign Power, except Indians not taxed, of whatever race or color, are citizens of the U.S., and entitled to full protection as such. And all State constitutions and State laws making any discrimination against negroes, mulattoes, Indians who pay taxes, Chinamen, or Gypsies, on account of their color or race, are null and void; and any State judge or other State oliicer who shall attempt to.eutorcc the law of any State making such discrimination is liable to “ be punished by fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court.” Take the case of the State of Indiana as an instance. As I have shown, any negro or mulatto who may come into the State since the 1st day of November, A. D. 1851, is liable to a fine; and all contracts made within the State with such negro or mulatto are void under the constitution and laws of that State. such negro or mulatto thus coming into the State intion of its laws is not a cot witnma to testify against white persons “under the State law. Yet ifthis law of Congress shall be held valid'. than if any judge of any of the 'State courts in that State shall assess a one“ is inst any negro or mulatto for comin int the State in violation of its laws, or s 'lateihse to permit any such negro or mulatto to testify against a white person in any case, then stic judge is liable to be indicted for thus actirig in one of the Federal courts at Indianapolis, to be taken to that city for trial, and to be punished under this law of Congress. Every other officer of the court who may assist the judge in thus enforcing the State law is liable to be punished in the same way, astounding as it may seem. Has Congress, then, the constitutional power to enact such a law? The people of every State in this Union are interested, either directly or indirectly, in the answer to this question. The people of these States in which there is any discrimination against negroes or mulattoes are especially interested in it. To every judge and officer of any court in Indiana it is a most important question, because until it is judicially settled citier the one way or the other such judge or other officer of his court cannot know whiat his duty is in such a dilemma. I have no hesitation in announcing it as my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that Congress does not possess the power it has attempted to exercise in the passage of this civil rights bill. I shall endeavor very briefly to give some of the reasons for the epinion I thus entertain. I have already attempted to show that at the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution none but persons of the white race were recognized by that instrument as citizens of the U.S. As this construction of the Constitution is an important question in connection with the subject I am now discussing, I hope I will be pardoned for again alluding to it. It is objected that this construction is in oppOsition to the plain words of the DeclarIndep, and hence inadmissible. If this were true the Constitution, being later in date, and the real bond of union between the States, would have to revail. That there is, however, no such conflict between the Declaration and the Constitution I shall attempt to show. It is true the DeclarIndep contains these memorable words: “We hold thesetruths to he self evident. that all men are created equal; that they are e‘ndowedby their CreatorWith certain unalienable rights: that among them arelife liberty and the pursuitofhap piness: that to securethese rights governments are instituted. derivmg their Just powersfrom the consentof the governed." In commenting on these words the SCOTUS say: "The generalwords above quoted would seemto embracethe whole human family and if they were usedin a similar instrument at this day would be so understoood. But it is tooclear for disute that the enslaved African race were not inteni ed to bein cluded and formedno partot‘the peoplewhoframed and adopted this Dec aration: for if the language as understoodin that day would embrace them the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the DeclarIndep Would have been utterly and flagrantly incoiisistentwith the principles they assorted; and insteiid of the sympathyof man kind. to which they so confidently appealed, they would havedeservedand receiveduniversal rebuke and reprobution. gr"eYaetmt ethne mheignhwho framed this Declarationwere in literary acrguirements highin theirsenscof honor.u ndincupable of nsscriingprinciples inconSistentWith those on which they were acting. thcy perfectly understood the meaningof the languagethey used, and how it would beunder stood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposedto cm bracothe negrorace, which by commonconsen had beenexcludedfrom civilized Governments.an the family of nations and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrine and priiiciples and iii theordinnr 'langunge of the day) and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks and laws long beforc established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposedto need protection. “This state of public opinion had undergone no chine when the Constitution was adopted. as is equal evidentfrom its provisionsand language.”red i'coll case, 19 Hoioard a U.S. Reports, page410. ‘The court, in the same case, in considering whether the African race were recognized by the Constitution as citizens of the U.S., say: " The words people of the U.S and citizens ‘are synonymous terms and mean the samc thing. They both describe the political body who ccording to our republican institutions. form the sovereignty and wholiold the power and conduct the Government through their Representatives. They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovcrcigm people." and every citizen is one of this people and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of  personsdescribedin the plea in abatement (that is, personsof African descent)compeso a portion of this people and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are and that theyare not incliidcil.und werenot intended to lcincluded under the word ‘citizens’ in rtihgeh Constitution, and can thereforeclaim nonc of the DI]Vll03L E Will that instrument provides for and securesto citizens of the U.S. On the contrary, they were at the time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings.who had been subjugated by the dominant race and whether omanncipatd or.not yet remained subject to their authority and had no rights and privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government mi'ghtphoose to grant them. It is not the province of the conrtto decide upon the justice or injusticc. the policy or inipolicy. of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power; to thosewho formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed.with the best lights we can obtain on the su cot and to administeritus wefind it. accord aa‘to gas H011 intent and meaning when it was adopt imd, It may be also added, Mr. Speaker, that when our national Government was instituted, degrading laws as to the African race existed in nearly all the States which were then in existence. Even u to and as late as 1848, in no State except i ainc did the African race, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites in the exercise of civil and political rights. (See Kent’s Commentaries, 6th edition, vol. 2, 258, note b.) he Constitution itself allowed the continuation of the African slave trade until 1808. In view of these historical facts, and in the light of the authorities I have cited, it could not have been that the rent men who formed our Government should have intended that the African race should participate in it as the equals of the whites and have full protection as citizens of it. They could not have intended so Igreat an inconsistency. do not refer, sir, to this treatment of the African race with any pleasure. I do so only because my line of argument seems to require it. If it shall be said that our fathers sinned in their treatinent of this unfortunate race, then I answer that they sinned not alone, but that the whole civilized world, to a greater or less extent, participated in the sin, and that all sections and portions of our country were alike involved in it. Now, therefore, sir, as persons of African descent, though born in the country, are not by virtue of the provisions of the Federal constitution citizens of the U.S., by what power and in what way, if at all, can this class of persons be such citizens? The States cannot by any separate or State action make them citizens of the U.S. While, as I have shown, a State may impose disabilities on this class of persons within its jurisdiction, it may at the same time confer any privileges and immunities on them or any portion of them as it may seem proper within its own territorial limits. A State may make them jurors, witnesses, voters or office holders if it choose, but such disabilities on the one hand, and such privileges and immunities on the other, do not extend beyond the bound cries of the State imposing or conferring them. The SCOTUS, in commenting on the power of the States in this respect, say: "The Constitution upon its adoption obviously took from the States all power by any subsequent legislation to introduceas a citizen into the political family of the U.S.anyone.no matterwhere he was born or what might be his character or condition. And no law of a Satdaotpet.e therefore. Passed since the Constitution was can give any right of citizenship outsideof its own territory." On the same subject that court also say: “ No Statewas willing to permit another State to determinewho should or should not be admitted as one of its citizens, and entitled to demand equal rights and privilegeswith their own people, within their own territories. The right of naturalization was.therefore.with one accord. surrenderedby the Statesand confided to the Federal Government."19Howard, pages 417and 418. All the power, therefore, that exists any where to introduce any person as a citizen into the political family of the U.S. rests with the Federal Government. This power is embraced in the grant of authority to Congress, to which I have before alluded, “to establilsh an uniform rule of naturalization.” What, then, is the extent of this authority thus conferred on Congress? Under this power may congress make everybody it chooses citizens of teU.S., or can it under it only make certain classes or descriptions of persons sneh citizens? The American definition of the word “ naturalization” is found in Bouvier’s Law Dicetionary, and is as follows: “ Naturalization The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the U.S.A.” Bouvier also defines a “naturalized citizen” to be “ one who, being born an alien, has law fully become a citizen of the U.S. under the Constitution and laws.” The same author defines an “alien” to be “one born out of the jurisdiction of the U.S., who has not since been naturalized under their Constitution and laws.” Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, (see volume two, page 12,) says: “An alien is a orsonborn out of the jurisdiction and allegiance o the U.S." The SCOTUS, in considering the power of Congress on the subject of naturalization, also say: “Apd this power granted to Congressto establish a uniform rule of naturalization is. by the well understoodmeaning of the word. confinedto persons born in a foreign country. under a foreign overu ine nt. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen anyone born in the U.S., who. from birth or parentage. by the laws of the country. belongsto an inferior and subordinate class." Chancellor Kent, in treating of this subject of naturalization, also says: “The act of Congress confines the description of aliens capable of naturalization to free white persons. I presumethis excludes the inhabitants of Africa and their descendants; and it may becomea question to what extent personsof mixc blood are excluded and what shades and degrees of mixture of color disqualify an alicn from application for the hen efits of the act of naturalizution. Perhaps therc might be difficulties also as to the copper colored native of America or the yellow or tawny races of the Asiatics and it may we] be doubted whether any of them are 'whito persons‘within the pnrvicwof the law.” Kent's Comnwntaries v.ol. 2. page38. Under the construction of this act of Congress thus foreshadowed by Mr. Kent, Chinamen have been denied naturalization in California, and nowhere, within my knowledge, have the courts of the country extended its benefits to any but persons of the white race. To the inquiry propounded as to the power of Congress over this subject of naturalization I respond, that this grant of authority “to, establish a uniform rule of naturalization" only confers on the Federal Government the power to admit“alieiis, "’ that is, persons born out of the jurisdiction and allegiance of the U.S., to citizenship, and does not confer on it the power to elevate to the rank of citizens persons of an inferior race born within its jurisdiction and allegiance. If I am right in these conclusions, then it follows, irresistibly follows; I submit, that so much of the civil rights bill as attempts to confer citizenship on the class of colored people which is inlended to be embraced with iin its provisions is wholly ine perative and void within the territorial limits, at least, of the several States of this Union, and only efficient, if any where, in those places to which the exclusive jurisdiction of congress extends. Now, it has been shomi, Mr. Speaker, and I hope satisfactorily shown, that poisons of the African race never have been and still are not citizens of the U.S. by virtue of the provisions of the Federal Constitution. I have shown, or at least attempted to show, that the States cannot by any separate action on their part confer national citizenship on that race of people. I have also endeavored to show that Congress cannot make citizens of the U.S. of negroes who were born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the Federal Government. My position in relation to that portion of the African race who were born in this country, then, is, that they were left by the Constitution of the U.S., and as one of the results of our peculiar institutions, in an anomalous and subordinate condition, from which Congress by an ordinary act of legislation cannot relieve them. I do not say that Congress might not by an amendment of the naturalization laws provide for the naturalization of persons of color born out side ef the jurisdiction and allegiance of the U.S., who might arrive here as emi grants in the ordinary way. My argument is not now addressed to that question, and I affirm nothing in regard to it, either the one way or the other. What I do insist on is, that Congress under the pretense of naturalization cannot confer citizenship on native born persons of an inferior race of people not recognized as citizens by the Constitution. It may be asked how these persons of African descent, born in the country, can be made citizens of the U.S. if the‘people shall really desire to make them snob. I answer that this can only be done by an amendment of the Federal Constitution. In this declaration I feel that Iain sustained by the recent action of the ComReconstruction in the proosed amendments to the Constitution which t lat committee have reported, and which have recently passed Congress in a modified form. The 1st of the series of the proposed amendments is intended to confer citizenship on that very class of persons. Why, then, is such an amendment to the Constitution necessary if the civil rights bill already confers citizenship upon them? I have heard no satisfactory response to that inquir' yet, and I know of none that can be given. Hence I infer that the majority here in Congress doubt the constitutionality of the civil rights bill, at least in so far as it attempts to confer citizenship on the native colored race. but it is insisted that these disabilities imposed by many of the States upon their colored population are in opposition to the prevailing sentiment of the times in which we now live, and ought to be at once removed. This I maintain is a question for the States themselves to discuss and to determine. What is best for the colored people in some States may not be best or them in others, and hence the States can best respectively determine the necessities of these people within their own limits. If let alone by the General Government, these matters will soon adjust themselves. In the present altered and defenseless condition of the negro race the highest impulses of humanity will impel the white people every where, I firmly believe, to provide what is necessary to their prosperity and comfort. To doubt this is to cast suspicion on the fitness and capacity of the white people as a governing race. To allege the unfitness and incapa city of the white race to govern this country in any of its parts is to assert that republican institutions are a failure. For under Provi dence, this country is indebted for all its grand eur and glory to the genius and energy of the white man. To him the jewels of liberty, progress, and civilization were confided on this continent, and upon him devolve their preservation and transmission to posterity. He cannot, if he would, evade his responsibility. Despite the discouragements of the vpast few years, I yet have faith that he will not fail in Lhe high destiny that has been assigned to un. Let, therefore, the people of the States upon whom this duty peculiarly devolves, as I have attempted to show, legislate with care, with humanity, and with justice for those of the in ferior races within their midst. Let them see to it that these people, not so gifted and not so endowed in all things as they, have all the protection which their condition demands. Let the white people, however. retain the power of the Government in their own hands, and wield it for the good of all. Let there be no visionary attempts to equalize fundamentally dili'erent races. Let there be no surrender of wiltical power to weaker and untrained hands. hen the colored people shall have developed in the sunlight of freedom, if they ever shall, their capacity for self government, it will then be time enough to talk about dividing political power with them. As for the State of Indiana, on whose be half I have attempted to speak, I can very safely predict that she will do with the colored race within her borders whatever humanity requires that she shall do, and that she will in her own good time relax her laws in relation to those who may desire to migrate into the State if her people shall ever be convinced that justice or sound policy requires her to do this. As to whether she shall 0 so, and if so, when, are questions forher people to determine, however, and not for Congress. For my own part, until some stronger reason than has at ccn urged shall present itself to my min, I will stand opposed to any policy which tends to increase the negro population of the State. There are some other provisions of this civil rights bill, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to discuss, but.my tune will not permit me. I can only refer to them in general terms. This bill in substance also says that people of color of all shades and races except Indians not.taxed"Shall have the same right in every State and Territory in the U.S.to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase.lease, cll, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit ofull laws and proceedingsfor the securityof person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall besubjectto like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute.ordinance, regulation or customto the contrary notwithstanding.” This provision, I insist, is utterly null and void so far as it conflicts with State laws, State ordinances, and State constitutions. In the DistCol, and wherever else congress is supreme, it is doubtless an effective and valid provision, but in matters of local and domestic concern within the States it can have no force and validity whatever, as I believe. This power of a State over its domestic affairs was never in any manner surrendered to the General Government, and hence was reserved to the “ States respectively or to the people.” This a cardinal principle in our form of government, and until recently was never denied, that I am aware of, by any respectable states man in this country. The convention which assembled at Chicago in 1860, and which 1st nominated Mr. Lincoln for the Presidency, adopted the following as a part of one of its resolutions: “That the maintenanceinviolote of the rights of the States and especially the right of each State to order and contro its owu domestic institutions according to its ownJudgmentexclusively, is essential to that balanceof power on which the perfuction and enduranceof our political fabric depends." The party, therefore, constituting the majority of this House, as it is thus shown, cameinto pewer in 1861 fully pledged to this cardinal principle of allowing the States exclusive control of their own local affairs. That principle is as much the doctrine of the Constitution today as it was in 1861. Then why attempt to overthrow it? To attempt to do today what the Constitution forbids is as much a crime against liberty as if attempted in the earlier and better days of the Republic. These extraordinary provisions of this civil rights bill are to me another illustration of the tendencies of late to centralize all power in the General Government. This tendency to consolidation of power in the Federal Government is the counterpart of secession, and is another of the political heresies which all true friends of constitutional liberty ought equally to resist. We must see to it that the reserved powers of the States are respected on the one and, and on the other that the authority of the Federal Government, in all matters confided to it, must be sustained at every hazard and at every sac rifice. Those who most strive to preserve the proper equilibrium between the States and the General government are the truest friends of the Union everywhere. It is sometimes suggested that the Federal Government does not possess the constitutional power to do many things which the emergencies of the country require, and hence the necessity of some amendments to the Constitution. Until we learn, Mr. Speaker, to regard more sacredly than we have of late done the inviolability of the obligations which the Constitution already imposes, I fear that amendments will be of little avail. Besides, sir, when the Government is disorganized and nearly 1/3rd of the States unrepresented in the national councils, it occurs to me as being an in opportnne time to consider amendments to the fundamental law affecting ever portion of the country. If the people of the lately insurgent States are too disloyal to be allowed to reorganize their State governments in their own way, and too disloyal to elect Representatives to Congress, it does occur to me as being a strange inconsistencyto say that they are nevertheless loyal enough to vote upon amendments to the Constitution. These suggestions are digressive, however, from my line of argument, and I cannot pursue them further. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the States are the pillars which support the grand national edifice, and are component parts of the federal Government. 'Io sustain them, then, in what pertains to their jurisdiction is to sustain the Government itself. To restore those States which are now out of their practical relations with the General Government is a task imposed by the highest impulses of patriotism. Give us, therefore, restoration! Give us Union! After these are secured to us we will then be in a condition to consider what else our situation requires.