Mr. TRUMBULL. I desire simplyto remark that the speech from which I quoted, made by the Senfrom Maryland, was made upon this very bill. It was in reference to this bill that he was speaking when he laid down the proposition that every person born in the U.S. since the abolition of slavery was a citizen of the U.S., and if there was any doubt about it it was proper for us to de clare them so, and not only proper, but our dutyto do so; and to make the matter specific, the honorable Senator voted for this proposition, which I will now read, on the yeas&nays: “All personsborn in the U.S and not subjectto any foreign Power. excluding Indians not taxed.areherebydeclaredto becitizens of the U.S. without distinction of color." Upon the adoption of that proposition as an amendment, it not being in the bill as originally introduced, the Senfrom Maryland. with 30 others, voted in the affirmative. So we have his high authority for saying that allpersons born in the U.S and not subject; to any foreign Power, are citizens of the U.S., exactly as its pears in this bill; but. if I understood the rst half hour of his remarks today, they were devoted to endeavoring to show that negroes were not citizens of the U.S. by reason of their birth in the U.S., and that Congress had no authority by law to declare them so. But the Senfrom Maryland on that f l occasion said more than I have read to the senptc. lhere is a great deal of information and instruction in the speech which he delivered. Among other things, he said:. “It is very desirable that we should ceaseto conider for n uioinciit that, in relation to citizenship nd rights, there is. as ited far as the Constitution of the U.S. is concerned. nny differenee on account of lll0h" eceotneO uere are all sortsof notions, having no foundation in factor in law, broached from time to time by individuals or classesof individuals: but I suppose that if the Constitution declaredthat allperson s era in the U.S. should be citizens nobody would e able to raise a reasonable doubt that it included the black man. inninego, nclude. therefore.with what I said in the be that it seemsto mevery desirablethat we a ould upon the ycry 1st occasion that arises and upon every oceasmn, if any future occasion should arise, say at once, virtually. by censing to use the term “distinction of color. that in the Judgment of the American Senate andof the people of the U.S., there is no such distinctiou. Now, the Senator says that a citizen of the U.S., by virtue of his birth, is not therefore a citizen of a State. What is he, I should like to know, if he.is not a citizen of a State? What is the condition ofa. naturalized foreigner? He becomes a citizen of the U.S. Does he have any different rights from a native born citizen, or any greater rights? He certainly has a right, being naturalized as a citizen of the U.S., to go into any State of the Union and there reside. Does he not then become a citizen of that State? Is he not a citizen of the State wherein he is natu ralized? Look at your naturalization laws. They provide for naturalizing persons through the State courts, and the naturalized citizen and the native born citizen have precisely the same civil rights, not political rights in all cases, because political rights are regulated, as we all admit, without regard to citizenship. If the Senator is right, and American citizenship, that is, beinga citizen of the U.S., confers no rights in a State, does not allow the citizen to leave there, or to go there, I should like to know what this American citizenship is worth and what it amounts to. I shall not go over the argumentthatimade yesterday to show that certain fundamental rights belong to every American citizen as such, and among those are the rights to enjoy life and liberty and to acquire property. such are the decisions of all the courts. We would protect a citizen in a foreign nation in those rights. Certainly, then, the Government has power to protect them within its own jurisdiction.