Mr. ELDRIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thought yesterday that I would discuss this measure at some length; but I find myself this morning very unwell; and I shall therefore make only a few remarks, suggesting some objections to the bill, and then give way to my friendfrom Illinois, [Mr. lnosxroxil I look upon the bill be ore us, Mr. Speaker, as one of a series of measures arising out of a feeling of distrust and hatred on the part of certain individuals, not only in this House, but throu hout the country, toward those persons who ormerl held slaves. I had liOped that longbefore this time the people of this country would have come to the conclusion that the subject of slavery and the questions connected with it had already sufficiently agitated this country. I had hoped that now, when the war is over, when peace has been restored, and when in every State of the Union the institution of slavery has been freely given up, its abolition acquiesced in, and the Constitution of the U.S. amended in accordance with that idea, this subject would cease to haunt us as it is made to do in the various measures which are constantly being here introduced. This bill is, it appears to me, one of the most insidious and dangerous of the various measures which have been directed against the interest of the people of this country. It is another of the measures designed to take away the essential rights of the States. I know that when I speakof states and State rights, I enter upon unpolpular subjects. But, Sll, whatever other gent cmen may think, I hold that the rights of the States are the rights of the Union, that the rights of the States and the liberty of the States are essential to the liberty of the individual citizen. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Tnsrsnfinquires what right of the States this bill proposes to take away. reply, it seeks to lay prostrate at the feet of the Federal Government the judiciary of the States. It not. only propoSes to enter the States to reg ulate their police and municipal affairs, but it attempts to destroy the independence of the State judicia. The secoudysectionof this bill provides: That any person who under color of an law. stut nte, ordinance.regulation, orcustum, sha subjector causeto be subjectedany inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right securedor protected by this act, or to different punishment, pains, or penaltieson account of such enon having at any time beenheld in a.condition O slavery oriu voluntary servitude exceptasa pnnishmentlorcrime whereof the iartyshall have beendnlyconvicted, or by reasonof is color or race.than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons shall be deemed guilty of n.misdemeanor and on conviction shall be punishedby a fine not excuedinl $1, 0too.r imprisonment not exceedingoneyear, or both, in the discretion of the court. Is it not an invasion of the right of the citizen of a State when you thus declare that an independent judge, who, in the exercise of his conseientiousju gment and in obedience to his oath of othee, renders a decision in accordance with the laws and constitution of his State, shall be convicted as a criminal and subjected to parishment by fine or imprisonment? Is it not a most flagrant and tyrannical interference with the in dependence of the judieiary when you thus seek to influence a judge in his decision by holding up before him a penalty for the violationof some pretended right of some black inhabitant of a State? Has the citizen no interest in the independence of the judiciary? Is this not an interference with the rights of the white man? The inquiry was made by some gentleman I think by the Gentfrom issouri, [Mr. Loan why are these penlaties made applicable only to the judicial) officer? It was an swered that the purpose was to control the judge and prevent his executing the law of the State by his udment when it operated peculiarly upon the freedman and thereby enforce the execution of the Federal law. There is no doubt it is a measure desied to accumulate and centralize power in the Federal government. But, sir, let me ask the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. THAYl Infi by what provision of the Constitution is the lgederal ov iernment authorized to affix apenalty to the decision which the judge of a State court may make in the exercise of the judicial function? What provision of the Constitution gives you that authority? I have read the Constitution with some interest, but in vain if any such war rant is in it