Mr. FINCK. Mr. Speaker, had debate been allowed on the civil rights bill after it was returned by the Senate to this House with the objections of the President, I would not have troubled the House with any remarks on this occasion; but the principles involved in that bill and of other kindred measures which have been introduced into the present Congress, are of such an extraordinary character as may well challenge the profound attention and close examination of Congress and of the country. Their consideration demands an inquiry into the nature and powers of the Fedora Government, and I propose very briefly to examine some of the questions which seem to me appropriate to this discussion. Our system of government, Federal and State, is a complex one, and the boundaries which separate and fix the powers of each, engaged the most anxious and thoughtful consideration of the rent men who framed the Constitution of the lU.S. No question was pre seated and discussed in the Convention O so ise a much interest and importance as this. It was upon this great question that the Convention was principally divided; and if anyone thing was settled in that Convention, and by the conventions of the several States, which afterwards ratified the Constitution, it. was, that the Federal Gavernment was to be one of limited and delegated powers, which were clearly de fined in the instrument, and that it could exercise no powers not thus expressly granted, except such as were necessary to carry out express grants. he powers conferred upon Congress, and important as they are, are comparativheigh y few in number, and are defined in section 8 article 1 of the Constitution. I know that some gentlemen claim that a great deal may be done under the last clause of the section to which I have referred, which provides that Congress shall have power“To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vestedby this Constitution in the Government of the U.S., or in any Deptor officerthereof.” But, sir, this clause confers no new or additional power upon Congress. It simply authorizes Congress to “ make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execation” the powers granted in the Constitution. Mr. Madison, in the Virginia convention, speaking of this clause, said: " With respectto the supposed operation of what is denominated the sweeping clause, the gentleman was mistaken: for it only extendedtoall enumerated powers. Should Congressattempt to extend it my to power not enumerated it would not be war ranted by the clause." Justice Story, in his Commentaries, speaking on the same subject, says: “ The plain import of this clause is, that Congress lnheacllesshaarvye. all incidental and instrumental powers and proper to our into execution all express powers. It neither cu urgesany power spe cifically muted, nor to it a grant of any newpowerto Congress." In the case of McCulloch vs. The State of Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall, delivering the opinion of the court, announces the same doctrine. He says:. “ This Government is acknowleoged by all to be one ofenumerated powers, The pr nciple thatitciin exerciseonly the powersgrantedto t, would seemtoo lpparent tohnve required to beenforced by all those argumentswhich its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the People.found it necessaryto “Hfi. The Constitution was formed by a people who had been in the possession and enjoyment of State governmeuts of long standing. These States adentered into a Government under Articles of Confederation, which, after the pressure of the war of independence had been removed, proved inadequate for the purposes of a General Government; and the States, sovereign and independentas they were, having all the machinery and attributes of governments in themselves, so for as the same adnot by the Articlesof Confederation been “expressly dele gated to the U.S., ” undertook to form a more perfect Union; and to that end sent delegates to a Convention; and the result of theirlabors, the Constitution which they framed, was submitted, not to the people of the U.S., for ratification, but was submitted to the several States, to be ratified by the people of each State acting through their own conventions, and was to be binding only on such of the States as should thus ratify, thus making it I. Federal Government. The extent and character of the powers conferred upon the government thus formed, were delegated powers, defined and limited, and all power not granted was from the very nature of the grant reserved to the granting power, namely, to the States and the people. Now, was any power delegated by this constitution to Congress to regulate the internal affairs of the States or control contracts, prescribe who should be witnesses or parties in suits, who should inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property in the several States? None whatever, except that it is prohibited to the States to pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts. Justice Story, speaking of this Government, says: “They have mado it n limited Government. They have definedin authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of ceriuui powers, and reservedall others to the Statesor to the people." Mr. Madison, in the Federalist, says: “ The powers delegated by the proposed C constitution to the Federal Government are low and defined. Those which are to remain with the State governments are numerous and intlI fimlc. The former will be exercise dAprincipallyon external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, withwhich eatthe power of taxation will for the most part be connected. “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all theobicctswhich in the ordinarycourso of affairs concern the lives, liberlica, and propertiesof the people, and the internalorder, improvement, and prosperity of the State." It must be evident from this that Mr. Madison, who is justly regarded as the father of the constitution, never dreamed that such a power as is assumed in the civil rights not, would ever be claimed or exercised by Congress. But again, Mr. Marshall, afterward Chief Justice, speaking of the Constitution, (3 Elliots Debates, 653) asks: “ Has the Government of the U.S. power to make lows on everysubject? Does heunderstand it so? Can they make laws concerning the mode of tragiafeH inpproperlpior fOllfraLIl, or Clflllltl befUn! citizensof the ouyiei. are? Can they go beyond the delegatedpowers? If they wars to make a law not warrantedby anyof the powers enumernted, itwould be considered by the it“ ges its on infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard. But this House, by a majority of more than 2/3rds, has solemnly decided that congress can do precisely what Marshall believe the Federal government had no power to do. Mr. Madison, in the 29th number of the Federalist, discussing the character of the then proposed Constitution, and to prove that it created a Federal, and not a national Government, says: “The idea of a national governmentinvolves in it not only an authority over the individual citizens. but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so for as they are obycctsof lawtul government. “Among a people consolidated in toone nation, this supremacyis completely vested ip the national Legislature. 4mong communitiesunited for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal Legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme, and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject.within their TOEDQCLHBPPHQTEtSheLO generalauthoritythiin the general authority is subject to them Within its ow“nInsphere. this relation, than. the proposedgovernment cannot be deemed ttfl (llwltfll0Dt. SlIlCQliSJllrlSdlctlOD extendsto certain enumeruledobjectsonly and leaves to the several States a residuary and lnviolablo wv cretmiluover other obieots.” and still further, in discussing the some question, speaking of the adoption of the constitution, It “ 1.Ma ison says: Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one, the will of the majority of tne whole people of the U.S. would bind the minority in the sums manner as the minority in each State must bind the minority: and the Will ofthonia prity must be determined by n comparison of the individual votes or by consi crini.rthe Will ot the minority of the States, as evidence of the niiuority of the people of the U.S. Neither of theserules hus been adopted. Each State lDIYMIrYn !l ll Constitution is consideredas a sovereign body. independent of iill others.andonly tobeboundbyitsown voluntary not. In this relation. then the new Constitutionwil, if established, be a Foderal, nud not a national constitution." But each of the States in ratifying the constitution gave exrcsSion to the strong and unmistakable sentiment of the people, that the Government formed thereby should be one of limited and dele nted powers only. The State of.Iassachusetts, in her convention of delegates, made the follownig formal declaration:. “And as it is the opinion of this convention that certain amendments and alterations in the saideon stituiion would removethe fears and quiet the appro hensionsof many of the good peopleof UIOCOIDBIOH wealth, and more effectually guard againstan undue administration of the General (luverumenLtbo convention do tlltfefOIt! recommend thiit the following alterations and provisions be introduced into suit 1 Constitution: 1st. that it be explicitly declared that i ull powersnot expressly delegated by tbg aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several Statesto be H by them exercised." 1 I l NewHampshire. Virginia, North and SCarolina. NewYork, Pennsylvania, Rhode lslund, all evinced the some anxiety to have it distinctly understood, that the General government could exercise no power not delegated, and that all powers not so delegated were reserved; and so strong and universal was this sentiment, that it soon found itself embodied in that amendment to the Constitution which declares: "The powersnot delegatedto the U.S. by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, flieLesarvedto the States respectively or to the people. Again, Mr. Madison, in speaking on the subject of express powers, lays down this rule: “Whenever. therefore, it question arises concoming the constitutionality of it particular power, t s fi(, rsotmqluielustion.iIsf, whetherthe powerbeexpressedin! it be, the question is decided. If it henot expressed, the next inquiry mustbe whetherit is properly an incident to an expresspower, and necessary to its execution. If it be.it may beexercised by Congress. If it “ benot, (fungrercaannotart rein it." "I considerthe foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground. that all powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution. nur prohibited by it to the States.as reserved to the States or the people. To lake(1 single step beyond the boundary I no s will”)! drawn around I patron of Congress, into to e possession of a bomidlm field of power, no longer mveepltble of any definition." It is unnecessary that I should multiply authorities on this point. Neither is there in this plain and undeniable dectrine as to the powers of the Federal government, any warrant whatever for the heresies of secession and nullifiention: heresies which I have always opposed. The Federal Government is supreme in all its constitutional pow ers; so are the States supreme in the same way; and there is not necessarily to be any conflict. There cannot, it is true, be 2 supremes over the same subject mntter, but the Federal government, an the States, are each supreme in their respective constitutional spheres. But, sir, the danger today is not in secession, or any threatened or up reliended eneroachment by the States, on the just and constitutional powers of the General Government. It meets us in the other direction in the strong and well organized attempt to destroy the just and constitutional rights of the States, and establish on their ruins it great and powerful centralized system. As a part of this attempted revolution, blood less it is true, but nevertheless a revolution of the most dangerous character, we have schemes and propositions pressed upon Congress which should arouse the fears of every true patriot, and stimulate him to the most determined exertions, to preserve our admirable system of government. Not only have 11 of the States of this Union during this session of Congress, in the very face of the plaiiiest provisions of the Constitution, been denied all representation, but members duly elected to both branches of Congress, have been ousted from their sents, by the action of a domineering majority, and in some cases others admitted, who no intelligent man will pretend, represent the views of the majorities in their districts. But, sir, this majority, not contentwith thus depriving nearly 1/3rd of the States of this Union of representation, have seized upon this opportunity to force through, and to continue to press, upon this Congress, measures which no one could expect would be adopted by the representatives of the people of all the States, if their voice could be heard in these Halls The legislation contained in the civil rights not bein, in myjudgment, so palpably in violation of the Constitution, I would be false to myselfund my convictions of duty, ifl did pot most earnestly protest against it. The hrst section provides “Thst all personsborn in the U.S and not subject to any foreign Power. excluding Indians not taxed, are herebydecliired citizens of the U.S., without distinction ofcolor or race." and it further defines what rights shall be enjoyed by the persons so made citizens of the U.S., namely: “To make and enforcecontract i, to sue, be parties and cive evidence, to inherit. purchase.lczise. sell, hold and convey rezdand personal property." and to have“ Full and equal benefitotalllaws and proceedings for the security of personand property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment. pains and penalties and tonone other, any law. statute. ordinance.regulation or customto the contrary notwithstanding. The 2nd section provides: “ That any person who, undercolor of anylaw. stat ute. ordinance, regulation or custom, shall subject or causeto be subjecteduanyinhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured or protectedb this act or to different punishment. pains or penaties on accountof suoh personhaving at any time been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. except as a iunishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convrcjed or by reasonof his color or race. than scribed for the punishment of white cisous shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.fl!“. on conviction shall be punished by fine not exceeding $1.000o.rim grisompent not exceeding one year, or both. in the ise retion of the court." It is thus sought to establish an equality between the white and colored races by congress, in all of the States of this Union, in the enumerated rights and immunities detined in the sections already quoted, and to prohibit the States from making any discrimination in any, I of the particulars named between the races. Sir, this measure invades the local legislation of the States, and controls it. It lays iros trate at the feet of Federal power the right of each State to regulate and control its own domestic concerns. But not satisfied with subverting the legislative powers of the States, it strikes down the independence of the judiciary of the States, and subjects the judges of their courts to the arrestof some petty mercenary agent of the organized band of detectives which this act creates; thus overriding and completely subverting the free exercise of the local powers of all the States, by placing their officers under the contrdl and surveillance of the Federal authorities. Sir, if there is anything which the people of this Union will never abandon, without a strug gle worthy of all the great defenders of free government, it is the great right revered and cherished by a free people, of each State to regulate an control its own domestic atiairs, unchallenged and uncontrolled by any other power or authority whatever, except the constitution of the U.S. Where, allow me to inquire, do you get the power to declare that “al persons born in the U.S and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the U.S.?” No such power is conferred by the Constitution. Congress, it is true, has the authority “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, ” but the effeet of nut uralization is only to remove the disabilities existing on account of alienage. But this power oes not authorize Congress to confer citizenship on a person born within the U.S. Mr. Justice Curt is, in his dissenting opinion in the Dred Sett case, (19 Howard lt.) has very ably examined and considered this question, and he says: “It appears.then. that the only power expressly granted to Congressto legislateconcerning citizen iliiph is confined to the removalof disabilities of foreignor and "Whether there be anything in the Constitution from which a broader power may be implied will bestbe seenwhenwe cometo examine the 2 other alternatives. which are whetherall free personsborn on the soil of the several States or only such of them as may be  citizens of each State respectively. are thereby citizens of the U.S. The last of these alternatives. in my judgment, contains the truth.” But, sir, the whole scope and purposes of the provisions of the sections to which I have referred, are at war with the rights of the States. Many examples could be presented, to illus trate how completely they subvert the powers of the States to regulate their own internal affairs. Suppose the Legislature of a State should provide that no person should he a witness in a criminal case who was under 12 ears of age, except where the witness oifere( was a negro, in which case he should be of the age of 14 years. Here would be a clear discrimination on account of color, and however much the policy of such a law might be questioned or ise ussed, yet it seems to me thatno one can seriously question the right of the States to adoptsuch legislation. But, sir, not only the members of the Legislature who should vote for the passage of such a law. but the judges who under their convictions of duty and oath of office, should administer it, would be liable to arrest, trial, and conviction in the courts of the U.S., and exosed to suffer iin irisonment for one yenr, an to pay a fine O $1,000. An exceedingly “civil” act, indeed. A State may in its discretion believe it necessary for the best interests of its people, in relation to certain crimes committed by a colored man, to impose upon him a “ itferent” punishment from that imposed upon a white citizen; but here also this law steps in and rudely thrusts aside the laws of the State and subjects both those who enacted, as well as those who enforce the State law, to the penalties already described. Other exam les of the interference of this law with the coal legislation of the States, could be cited to show how it invades the reserved rights of the States, and centralizes power in the Federal Government, but it is unnecessary, as they will readily suggest themselves to the mind of every man who will consider this question and the cases arising under this act are to be tried in the courts of the U.S. Thus the State courts are to be deprived of hearing and determinin controversies, growing out of that vastfiel of questions embraced in the class of rights described in this act, between the inhabitants of the same State, or, it may be, of the same county and to enforce these extraordinary provisions the President is required to have always at hand a reserved military force. The 9th section provides: “That wheneverthe POTUS shall have reasonto believe that offenseshave been, or are likely to he committedagainst the provisions of this act within anyjudicial district. it shall belnw tulfor him. in his discretion.todireot the judge. marshal, and district attorne of such district to attend at such place within the district and for such time as he may designate.for the purpose of the mores cedy arrest and trial of persons charged with a violhtion of this act." So we are to have a traveling court, going around from one neighborhood to another, to look after such persons as are likely to commit offenses against the provisions of this wonder ful act; and as if to stimulate the swarms of deputies who are authorized by this law to be created to make arrests, they are to be paid by the U.S. the sum of 5 dollars for each arrest they may make, with such other fees as may be deemed reasonable by the commissioner for additional services and for whom are all these strange and extraordinary powers to be exerted? Not for the white men and women of this country. No, sir; the rights of the States are to be thus in vaded, the legislative and judicial Depts of the States are to be stricken down at the feet of Federal power, because the people of the States may not, in the civil rights and immu nities enumerated in this act, be willing to place the negro race on a pepfect equality With t cm selves. Well may the President say, as he has said in that most able and unanswerable document containing his objections to this measure, that “ In all our history. in all our experienceas a people living under Federal and State law. no such system asthat contemplated by the details of this bill has ever before been proposed or adopted. They establish for the colored race safeguardswhich go infinitely beyondany that the General Government has ever provided for the white race. In fact, the discrimination of race and color is by the bill made to operate in favor of the colored and against the white race." and now, let me inquire under what power delegated in the Constitution you may do all this. Certainly not undf r the clause which declares that “ the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and imniunities of citizens in the several States.” This clause has never before been invoked to sanction such starth ng legislation as this, and it seems to me no sound lawyer would risk his reputation by soriousl asserting that this clause would warrant this measure. But I believe the power has been claimed under the 2nd clause of the recent amendment abolishing slavery. Now, what is the power contained in that provision? It confers upon Congress the power to enforce the amendment which abolishes sla very. It was not the purpose, nor does it. in the least affect, the questions relating to contracts, parties who may sue or be witnesses, or inherit, nrchhse, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and, personal property, for these are subjects which have always been regulated and controlled by all the States, both N orth and South. The power evidently wasintended to enable the Federal Government to prevent any State, or the people in any State, from continuing or reesta lishing the institution of slavery; and if any of the States, or the people of any of the States, should attempt to enslave any person, this clause was intended to give to Congress the power to prevent such oppression, and to that end appropriate legislation is authorized. But sir, to my mind, it seems perfectly absurd to claim under this clause, the right to control the local legislation of the States which regulate the questions ao to who “shall make and enforce contracts, sue, be arties and give evidence, inherit, purchase, case, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.” The States have always exercised exc usive jurisdiction over these questions, unchallenged and unquestioned, and the power to interfere in these matters has never been granted by the States to the Federal Government. To enslave a man is one thing, but for a State bfits legislation to refuse to place the negro upon a perfect equality with its white men and women, in relation to the rights enumerated in this act, is quite another and aditferentthing, and one which i must be left to the sound discretion of the States. This Congress has no more constitutional right; to interfere with the local legislation of the States on the subjects embraced in this not than it has to regulate an eclipse of the sun. Sir, I am not the enemy of the colored race. Heaven knows thntI have not the least unkind or illfceling toward them; and while I shall, as a citizen of Ohio, steadily oppose conferring u.on the negro the right of suffrage, I shall a ways encourage, and be gratified to witness, a wise and liberal policy practiced toward them by the several States. I have no doubt but that the generous and patriotic sentiments expressed by Alexander. Stephens in his speech of the 22d February last, not only express the views of the people of his State, but of a majority of the people of all the States, in which this population is found. In that speech, speaking of the colored race, he said: “In legislation, therefore.under the new system. you should look to the best interests of all classes theirprotection, security. advancement and i provemont. physically. intellectually and morally. All obstacles.if there should be any, should be removed.which can possibly hinder or retard the improvement of the blacks to the extent of their capa city. All properaid should be given to their own efforts. Ciianncls of education shouldbeopened up to them. schools and the usual meansof moral and intellectual training should be eneoured among them. This is the dictate. not only of what is right and properandjust in itself.but it is alsothe prompt in s of the highest.considerations of interest. it is digit!!!" to conceivea greaterevil oreursethat could befall our country. stricken and dlfltfwed as it new is. than for so large a portion of its population as this class will quite probably constitute among us hereafter, to be reared in ignorance.depravity and vice." But, sir, if the Federal Government may thus invade and control the legislation of the States, in regard to their laws regulating the civil rights enumerated in this act, what is to restrain it. from regulating all other legislation of the States? You have just as much power to regulate and control the laws of the States relating to marriage, divorce, dower, alimony, common schools, the assessment and collection of taxes, as you have to regulate the laws relating to the several matters contained in this law. Nay, more than this, by the exercise ot the some power, Congress may regulate and control the political rights of the people of the several States. You Inwe precisely as much power in the one case as in the other; and that is.just none at all. You have as much right to say to the Slates that they shall allow the negro to vote, and hold office, as you have to say that they shall permit him to be awitness. The fact is you have no constitutional power to do either, and when it shall be acquiese ed in by the people of the U.S., that the General government may exercise such powers, then, in deed, may we bid farewell to the rights of the States and our system of free government. such, sir, it seems to me, is the purpose of the men who control the majority in this congress. A spirit of aggression upon the rights of the States, strong, bold, and determined, is busy at its work, and if not arrested by the clear and overwhelming condemnation of the people, at the coming elections, it may be too late to resist these encroachments, which gain strength as they advance. Sir, in my judgment the doctrines of the distinguished gentlemen who control this Congress are inconsistent with our system of government, State and Federal. Their organization can only survive by so changing the system which our fathers framed, as to make it conform to their radical views of policy; and to ctfect this purpose, they must have a continuance of power. 11 States of this Union, (:lefllly entitled to representation, must be excluded, and their voice hushed in silence, while such important. unwarranted, and radical measures are fastened upon the country. Sir, I warn the people, that although the rebellion has been suppressed, although we are at peace, at home and abroad, yet danger, the most threatening and disastrous, lurks within our borders; that schemes, the most dangerous to our system of government, are ressed upon Congress. Well may the President, who so nobly stands by the Constitution to ward 05 the assaults made on that sacred instrument, declare that "They interfere with the municipal legislation of the States; with the relations existing exclusively between a State and its citizens or betweeninhabitants of the someState; anabsorption and assumption of power by thoGoneriil Government.whiclnitncqui ese edin. mustsap and destroy our federal ive sysn in of limited powers and break down the barrierswhich preserve t 6 rights of the States. it is another step or rather stride toward centralization and the concentration of all legislative powers in the national Government. The tendency of this bill must be to resuse itate the spirit of the rebellion and to arrest the progressof those influenceswhich aremoreclosely drawing around the States the bonds of union and peacc. Sir, I thank the President for his noble, manly, and patriotic defense of the Constitution and the rights of the States. Sometimes when I contemplate the rapid strides with which the extremists are carrying forward their inroads upon the great landmarks of our federal system, I shudder at the dangers which threaten us. But, sir, I have not lost all hope. So long as we have afaithful and honest Exec alive, and a patriotic people, Iwill not despair. It is to the people at last to whom we must look for the proper correctives. Free government can only be maintained by constant vigilance. “The spirit of libertywill not permit power to overstcp its prescribed limits, though good intent. patriotic intent. comealong With it. Gentlemen cannot deceive the people by declaring that this law only involves civil rights. Sir, it does more, it involves the right of the Federal Government to declare the laws and constitutions of the States, which exclude negroes from voting, holding allies, and acting as jurors, illegal, and set them aside, and punish the authorities of the States for executin them; because if this may be done in regard to civil rights, so it may in regard to political rights. Sir, I deny that any such powers have been delegated to the General Government; and if their exercise shall be sanctioned by the ople, then, indeed, will the rights of the totes, and all local legislation have been completely stricken down, and our Federal system i converted into an overshadowing, centralized despotism. Sir, I shall always be found supporting the General Government in all its Just and constitutional powers, as "the sheet anchor of our peace at home, and safety abroad;” but, sir, I shall With the same determined zeal, support and defend the just rights and powers of the States. They are our most efficient and competent governments for the home rights of the people; “and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies.” The maintenance of these rights are essential to our system of government. It is strange to Witness today the men who, but. a tow years ago, were the most clamorous advocates for the rights of the States, supporting, this and kindred measures, calculated to subvert the rights of the States. Hon. lll INRY Wii.so V, in a speech delivered in the Senate of the U.S., on the 23 ct February, 1855, declared“I recognize the democratic doctrine of State, rights in its application to slavery as well as to other local affairs and while I have a seat in this ChamberI shall resist all attemptsto eneroachupon the reserved rights of the sovereign States of the liiiion. I will stand side by side With my Democratic fricudsin vindication of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutionsof 1798and 1790.which they indorsed at Baltimore in 1522." How emphatic he is in the declaration that he would “ resist all attempts to eneroach upon the reserved rights of the sovereign States of the Union.” But Mr. wADE, in a speech delivered at the 2nd session of the 33rd Congress, was into as clear and distinct in his utterances in be mlf of the rightsof the States: “There are some Senators who profess a great rewardfor the rights of the States. I amoneof those who have quite as much regard for the rights of the Statesassomewho make louder professionson the subject than I do. I am oncof thosewho. not only when an election is pending. but:it all times. believe in the uli ulnm.the comm"!immily and (he iroprirtg of Thel irgiiiiii rr nulilhonqoI TOaSnd1799. I ground them. I denonnce this bill as u.violation. not only of the spirit of those resolutions. but as an attempt to trample upon the rights of the States and deprive themof the power to protecttheir own citizens from nzzressionand abuse. Do gentlemen supposethat the Status now awakened to a keen senseof their rights an the danger of ronsolidilinn. will over submit to such a bill as this? I tell you nay." “Who is to be the judge in the last resort of the violation of the Constitution of the U.S. by the enactinentofnlaw? Who is the final arbiter. The General Governmentor Ilia Shin ain their unv creirmly! Why. sir. to yield that point is to yield up all the rishts of the Statestogprotccttheir own citizens and to consolidatethis Governmentinto a miserabledespotism. 1 tell you. Fll.whatever you may think of it. if this bill pass.collisions will arise br twcen the Federal and State jurisdictions conflirts more dangerousthan all the wordy wars which are got up in Congress conflicluin which the Smmtrill nrneryield; for the moreyou undertake to load them with acts like this. the creator will be their red“ ance. ”Congrrssiona Globe.Appendix, pp. 213, 214. You see that he carries his views of State rights to their most extreme verge, and speaks of the States “in their sovereignty.” But, sir, there was a celebrated meeting held at Cleveland, Ohio, by distinguished Republic ans of that State in May, 1859, which was addressed by Mr. Chase, then the Governor of Ohio, and at which, among other resolutions, the following was adopted: "1. That the several Statese omposing the U.S.A. are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Governmen.tbut that by compact under the style and title of 11Constitution for the U.S and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers.reserving.eachStateto itself the residnury mass of right totheirown self government; and that whensocver the General Government as sumes undelegated powers its acts are unauthorita tive. void and of no force and lacingvoid. Can derive no validity from morejudicial interpretation: that to this compact each State accededm a State and is an integral party: that this Government createdby this compdot.wasnot made the acluaweflnnl judm of the extent of the powers delegated to itself. sincethat would have made its discretion and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but.that. as in all other cases of compact among pflltlfiffllflvull: no common adgc. Each purly has an equal Yiflltlmjudo for {tspflas ire]! of infractions as of the mailer and measures of redrru.” Sir, here the Republicans who adopted this myself upon those resolutions: and standing upon resolution have indorsed the most extreme doctrines; doctrines on which it is charged the South based their recent rebellion. I know that it has been announced in the Senate, by a friend of the Chief Justice, that although he did make a speech at the Cleveland meeting which passed this resolution. yet. that he was not aware of the fact that such a resolution had been adopted. But I find in a Cleveland paperan extract from a letter reported to have been written, a short time before the Cleveland meeting, by Mr. Chase, in response to an invitation to join in a meeting at Boston, to celebrate the birth day of Thomas Jetlerson; which I will read: “And how large the debt we owe him on other grounds: for his lessonsof confidence in the masses. of the people of justrcgnrd in legislation and administration to all homeinterests and of the wise liberality toward emigrantsfrom other lands seeking free and honorablehomesin ours; for his warnings against extravagance in Government expenditure and its inevitable conconiitants. Oppressive taxation a d debt; against the surrender or compromise of the riolita oftwSlulu. Against the centralizing tendrnciens.o(lan porous to liberty.of Federal power and last, but by no means least against the silent and becausesilent, most perilous eneroachments of a Federal judiciary. perverted from its noble function of administering justice into a convenient meansfor the subversion of State sovereign!”and the destruction of the most sacred guarantees of personal freedom." J It is possible that some political friend of i the Chief Justice may be able also to put in a disclaimer about this letter. I know no more about it than what I find in the paper from which it has been read. But, sir, during this same period, and while Mr. Chase was the Governor of the State of Ohio, the celebrated cases of exparic Bushnell and as: arts Langston were argued and decided in the supreme court of that State and the same doctrines which are declared in the Cleveland resolution, were argued at great length, and With much abilit, by the then AttyGen of Ohio, Mr. Ilral cutt, a leading Republican, and afterwards Asst SecyWar under Mr. Lincolns administration, and his extreme views of the reserved powers of the States, were sustained by 2 of the judges of that court, Judges Brinkerholf and Sutlill, both of whom were Republicans. In that argument he said: “Ilut then it is said that the courtsof the U.S. are supreme within their sphere: all agree.to that: but whatthen? So also are the State courts supremewithin theirs here; and the same argument which proves that the ederalcourtshave a rivht to determine the extent of their jurisdictlon an impose that determination on tato courts. proves equally. that the State courts have also the right to determinethe extent of their jurisdiction. an conclude the Federal courts in that determination.” But again, he says: “ Any nation which has wholly surrendered the allegiance of its citizens orits corrplativq incidental right to protcctthem while Within its territorial lita its. hasin that very act abnegotedevery attribute of sovereignty and become the more local dependency of the power to which that allegianceand right have beensurrendered. But Ohio is still a sow reignstate, and has therefore neveryielded this right. as shc never could Vicld it and still pra serve or sovereignty, to the Federal or any other Government." Further on, in the same argument, in speaking of the powers of the Federal Government, he says: “The powers granted being grantedby ind aoverI innlimit not only follows as the result at all gust acaaoyiing. that all powers not granted are With e. Judge Drinker huff, a distinguished member of the Republican party, in delivering his dissenting opinion in these cases, uses the following language: “ I know no way other thnn through the action of the State governments.in which the reservedrights and powers of the States can be prqseryed and the nnrantcvs of individual liberty l)0Vlndl0lltod.The history of this country. bricfns it is. alrcad shows that the Fedoral udicinry is never behind t a other Depts of that Government and often foremost in the assumptionofnonmuted powers and letit be finally yielded. that the Federal Government is in the last resort the authoritative judsopfthe pxtent of its powers and the reservations and limitations of the Constition wlnch the framers of that instrument so jenlou dy endeavored firmly to fix and non! will soonbe. iftheynre not already obliterate: and that Government the sole possessor of theonly means ofrevenuc. in the employment of which the people can be kept i nornnt of the extent of their own burdens and with its overshadomng patronage attract in: to its support the ambitions y means of its hoa, and the mercenary through the medium of its emolumentm will speedily become.if it benot already, practically omnipotent and all of this, in the opinion of the learned judge, is to follow, if it be conceded that “ the Gederal Government is in the last resort the authoritative judge of the extent of its own powers and the reservations and limitations of the Constitution.” Judge Siitlili, in the same case, fully sustains the views advanced by the AttyGen and Judge Bfiiikerholf, and enters into an elaborate discussion to show the nature and extent of the powers of the Federal Government. I will only etain the House by reading a few extracts from Judge Sutlifi": opinion. He says: “It is certain, therefore not 0nlythat the constitution does not, by any provision therein expressed. make the State governments or any Dept thereof subordinate to the Federal (ioverpment or to any i Dept thereof: but it is alsooviglentt at the proposition in various shapes to subordinatpthe State gpvernmentsto the Keileral Governmentin its legislative, executive or Judicial Dept was fully considered, and rejected by the lraniers of the Constitution. Again, he says: “It is therefore evident, both from the bill TH!!!“ e and the early constructionof the instrument, that t in rights of the several State governmentsare as full and ample under the Constitution to protect the powers which they had not delegated.as the federal Government to protectthe powerswhich had in fact been delegated to it. This right to protect its own legislative, executive, and judicial lowers belonged to eachof the States at the time of the adop don of the Constitution. The States in convention refusedto surrenderthe right, or even to suffer it to be qualified. The poiver was not delegated in the Constitution, nor by it lprohibited to the States and is thereforereservedan still belongsto the State." These opinions, it is true, were delivered by these learned judges, in a case in which they undertook to dee are the fugitive slave law unconstitutional. Mr. Chase, while these cases were in the su reine court of Ohio, was tpicen Governor of that State, and I would be leased to know, if the supreme court had hcl the fugitive slave law unconstitutional, and ordered the discharge of Bushnell and Langston, whether it. was not the purpose of the governor and his friends, to enforce and maintain the decision of that court, to the last extremity against the Federal Government? Certain it is that the views of these dissenting judges were indorsed by their party in Ohio, because Judge Sivan, who with the majority of the court held the law constitutional, was defeated a short time ufterward, in the Republican State convention for rGHOIDlnllllOfl, while Judge Brink erholl was in due season reaominated and reelected by that party. But, S", the convention which nominated Mr. Lincoln for the Presidency at Chicago, in 1860, adopted the following resolution: "Resolved, That the maintenanceinviolate of the rights of the States, and especiallythe right of each State to order and control its own domeslic institution according to its own Judgment exclusively, is essentialto that balanceof poweron which the perfection and endurance ofour political fabric depend, and wedenouncethelawlessinvasion by armedforce, of the sod of nny State or Territory. no matter under what pretext, as among the gravestoferimes." and Mr. Lincoln in his 1st. inaugural quoted this resolution as a law to himself and those who had nominated him. Sir, I have quoted from these distinguished gentlemen in the Republican party, to show how industrious they have been in the past, in advo cating the rights of the States, and to contrast their speeches and declarations then, with their position now in supporting measures, which strike at the very existence of the States. Mr. Speaker, in my judgment this organized attempt to centralize power in Congress, is revolutionary, and it is so because it is attempted by the exercise of unwarianted power. It is revolutionary because a majority of this congress persistently, and unconstitutionally, reiuse to e even States of this Union any Representation whatever. It is revolutionary because, taking advantage of the absence of such representation, whose presence is unconstitutionally prevented, this same majority seek to fasten upon the conntry, measures which are not sanctioned either by the Constitution, or by a majority of the citizens of the U.S. Sir, I do not propose to enter upon an argument to prove that all of these States are in the Union that their attempt to withdraw was a failure that the result of the late terrible conflict was to preserve and not destro the Union. All this I discussed in a speec which I made in this House during the early part of this session. These States, then, being in the Union, and eace having been completely restored, there is no constitutional right whatever for depriving them of their just and constitutional representation. All talk about establishin, or requiring conditions or guarantees from them, before they shall be represented in congress, is mere trifling with this great question. f these States are in the Union, as I insist they are, then on can no more exact conditions from them t ah you can from NewYork or Massachusetts. These States are all equal States, and each one is entitled to be represented, and to deny such representation, is not only clearly unauthorized, it is worse; it is revolutionary. The Constitution declares that “the Senate of the U.S shall consist of 2 Senators from each State, " and to preventa majority of the States from combining to deprive any State of its representation in the Senate, it is also declared that “no State without its consentshall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate.” Is any State today deprived withoutits consent of its equal suffrage in the Senate? Sir, we all know that 11 States are in violation of these plain provisions of the Constitution, deprived of any voice whatever in that body and in relationto the HoRep the Constitution is equally clear and explicit; and among other provisions it is “ declared that Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned union the several States which may be included Within this Union according to their respective numbers, ” which is determined ia a mode provided in the Constitution. These Representatives are to be among the States every ten years; aanpptohrteiosnaemde instrument declares that “ each State shall have at least one Representative, ” thus establishing firmly the great principle of taxation and Representation. The direct taxes have been as sessed and are being collected, but the representation is denied. Sir, the true Union men of this country are those who are for the immediate restoration of all these States, to their just and constitutional relations with the Federal Government; and the admission of Sens&Reps constitutionally qualified. To deny these States these constitutional rights, is an attempt at disunion. Sir, I am to du, as I have always been, for the Union of all the States. I am opposed, as I have always been, to all attempts to break n this Union, whether they come from the L oith or the South. The questions which are now pending are, in my judgment, of the most grave and serious character: union or disunion; the preservation of our system of Government, or the consoli dation of power in the hands of Congress; the sbsortion of the clear rights of States, and greetieally the establishment of a centralized espotisni. I hese eat issues have been made. The purposes 0ft e majority of this Congress are clearly understood. You have the power now to pass what measures you please; you can deprive States of the ir constitutional voice in Congress; on can deprive clear majorities of the voters in districts in the northern States from being represented by the men of their choice. But, sir, it will not always be so. No, sir; no, sir. There is a power higher and stronger than yours, which will overrule you. The people that people who love free government, an who have sacrificed so much to maintain it; that people who revere and cherish the Union of these States, and who will never abandon it; that people will deumnd, in a voice not to be misunderstood, a return to the requirements of the Constitution. They will sit in judgment on these great questions, and send Representatives here who will respect the just rights of the States; who will seek to heal and not destro; who will labor to unite and not separate; who will, with that true and generous policy which finds but little favor here, welcome into these Halls, Representatives from all the States, who may be devoted to the Constitution, and determined to maintain the Union. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD.