Mr. TRUmBULL. Mr. President, I was in hopes that we might have come to a vote at an earlier hour than this, but inasmuch as several objections have been recently stated to the bill which were not urged before, I trust I shall be pardoned for occupying the attention of the Senate a very few minutes, and a few minutes honorable Senfrom Kentucky [Mr. has made a very candid and considerate speech in reference to this bill, lacing his objections to it upon the und o policy; and some of its features he t inks also are not constitution al. If all the people of this country were like the Senfrom kentucky, there would be no occasion for this bill. He says that when slavery was abolished the slave codes in connection with it were abolished, and that he will advise the people of Kentucky to extend the same civil rights to the black population that the white population have. e believes that they are entitled to them. Now, air, uthoaft this is albl itlhl;at. is. he then can have no objection to the 1st section (if fhe bilL foritsTmply provides that all the inhabitants of the U.S shall be entitled to the samg civil rights That meets the view of the Senfrom Kentucky. Why does he object to it? He objects to it because he says the States will do this. I answer to him that if everybody was of the same opinion thathc is, and would act upon it, the States would do it, and there would be no occasion for the passage of the hill; but my friendfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Winsox] has just cited the attention of the ennte to laws passed in half a dozen of the rebellious States under their recent organizations, in which they have discriminated against the negro on account of his color; so that all persons will not do what the Senfrom Kentucky says they ought to. Then what is our duty? Agreeing as I do with him that all slave codes fa l with slavery, that it is the duty of the States to wipe out all those laws which discriminate against persons who have been slaves, yet if they will not do it, and Congress has authority to do it under the constitutional amendment, is it not incumbent on us to carry out that provision of the Constitution? That is all we propose to do. The 2nd section of this bill merel punishes persons who violate what it is a mitted they ought not to violate. It does seem to me that there can be no objection to the passage of such a law by Congress on the part of anyone who admits that negroes are now entitled to the same rights as white people; and no only that there can be no objection to it by that there is a positive duty upon us to pass sue a law if we find discriminations still a bored to in the States whercslavery has recently existed. The Senfrom Indiana [Mr. Hsxoni exs] objects to the bill because he says that the same provisions which were enacted in the old fugitive slave law are incor orated into this, and that it has been heralds to the country that it was a great achievement to do this, and he insists that if those provisions oflaw were odious and wicked and wrong which provided for punishing men for aiding the slave to escape, therefore they must be wicked and wrong now when they are employed for the punishing a man who undertakes to put a person into slavery. Sir, that does not foliow at all. A law may be iniquitous and unjust and wrong which under takes to punish another for doing an innocent act, which would be righteous and just and Woperto punish a man or doing a wicked act. We have upon our statutebooks a law punishing a man who commits murder, because the commission of murder is a high crime, and the party who does it forfeits his rightfi) live; but would it be just to apply the law which punishes a person for committin murdertoan innocent person who had kille another accidentally, without malice? That is the difference. It is the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil. True, the features of the fugitive slave law were abominable when they were used for the purpose of punishing, not negroes as the Senfrom Indiana says, but white men. The fugitive slave law was enacted for the purpose of punishing white men who aided to give the natural gift of liberty to those who were enslaved. Now, sir, we propose to use the provisions of the fugitive slave law for the purpose of punishing those who deny freedom, not those who seek to aid persons to escape to freedom. The difference wastoo clearl pointed out by the colleague of the Senator[Mr. Lass] to justify me in taking further time in alluding to it. But the Senator objects to this bill because it authorizes the calling in of the military and he asserts that it is the only law in which the niilitiiryis brought in to enlorce it. The Senfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. COWAN] follows this up with a half hours speech, denouncing this law as obnoxious to the objection that it is a military law, that it is taking trial of persons for offenses out of the hands of the courts and placing them under the militarya monstrous reposition, he says. Is that so? What is the raw? The 1st section provides, as I said, for securing equal civil rights to all persons. He has no objection to that. [Mr. Wxns. Yes, he has] No I do not understand him to object to that. He thinks they are all entitled to equal civil rights.