Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it may be said that the objections which I deem it to be my duty to urge against the passage of the bill pendin before the House apply to the instructions Hiuic introduced by way of amendment to the pending motion to recommit; but I have this to say to gentlemen on that subject. admitting that the objections do apply to the instructions which I have had the honor to submit by way of amendment to the pending motion, if the gentleman who reports the bill urges these objections against the instructions for its amendment, it is a confession, sir, on his own part that this bill ought not to pass with or without amendment. 1 he House by recommitting with the instructions proposed will not be concluded but may finally reject the bill as amended or reject the amendments proposed and substitute others which may be less objectionahle. Mr. Speaker, on that subject I beg leave further to say, that althoug the objections which I urge against the bill must, in the very nature of the case, apply to the proposed instructions, I venture to say no candid man, no right minded man, will deny that by as proposed the bill will be less oppresasmiveen, dainng therefore less objectionable. Doubting, asI do, the power of Congress to pass the bill, l urge the instructions with aview to take from the bill what seems to me its oppressive and I might {sayits unjust provisions. Mr. Speaker, the instructions moved by me are these: 1 Amend the motion to recpminit by adding the following instructions to strike out of the 1st section the words “and thoro shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among citizens of the U.S. in any State or Territory of the U.S. on account of race color, or previous condition of slavery." and insert in the 13th line of the 1st section, after the word “right” the words "in every State and Territory of the U.S. ” Also to strike out all parts of said bill which are penal and which authorize criminal proccmlinirs, and in lieu thereofto give to all citizens injured by denial or violation of any of the other rights secured or protected by said act an action in the U.S. courts with doublecostsin all cases of recovory, mth out regard to the amount of damages: and also to secure to such persons the privilege of the writ of GM60177“. As I propose to take nothing for granted by favoring this amendment, but to submit this proposition in the least objectionable form to the final decision of the federal tribunals of the country, I beg leave to suggest to my honorable friendfrom Iowa, [Mr. WILSON] who knows me well enough to know that I make no captions objection to any legislation in favor of the rights of all before the law, to consider, if this bill be recommitted, the propriety of providing therein fora final apeal of all questions of law arising under it to the SCOTUS Having said this much, Mr. Speaker, I proceed to present to the consideration of the House my objections to the bill. and, 1st, I beg gentlemen to consider that I do not oppose any legislation which is authorized by the constitution of my country to enforce in its letter and its spirit the bill of rights as embodied in that Constitution. I know that the enforcement of the bill of rights is the want of the Republic. I know if it had been enforced in good faith in every State of the Union the ca amities and conflicts and crimes and sacrifices oti) the past 5 years would have been impos si le. But I feel that I am justified in saying. in view of the text of the Constitution of my country, in view of all its past interpretations, in view of the manifest and declared intent of the men who framed it, the enforcement of the bill of rights, touching the life, liberty, and property O every citizen of the Republic within every organized State of the Union, is of the reserved powers of the States, to be enforced by State tribunals and by State officials acting under the solemn obligations of an oath implosed upon them by the Constitution of the U.S. Who can doubt this conclusion who considers the words of the Constitution: “the powers not delegated to the U.S. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people?” The Constitution does not delegate to the U.S. the power to punish offenses against the life, liberty, or property of the citizen in the States, nor does it prohibit that power to the States, but leaves it as the reserved power of the States, to be by them exercised. The prohibitions of power by the Constitution to the States are express prohibitions, as that no State shall enter into any treaty, &c., or emit bills of credit, or pass any bill of attainder, (be. The Constitution does not prohibit States from the enactment of laws for the general government of the people within their respective limits. Mr. Speaker I would further remark in this connection, I honor the mover of this bill for the purpose he seeks to attain, which is to comel the exercise in good faith by the States of this reserved power. I cast no reflection upon the honorable committee of this House, in seeking to remedy, if possible, the great Wrongsthat have hitherto can inflicted upon icitizens of the U.S., I may say in almost every State of the Union, y State authority, and inflicted, too. in the past, without redress. I am with him in an earnest desire to have the bill of rights in your constitution enforced ever where. But. I ask that it be enforced in accoiance with the Constitution of my country. Has the Congress of the U.S. the power to pass and enforce the bill as it comes to as from the committee? Has the Congress of the U.S. the power to declare, as this bill does declare, in the words which I propose to strike out, that there shall be no iscrimination of civil rights among citizens of the U.S. in any State of the U.S., on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery. I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to so. further, that I deny that the Congress of the U.S. ever had the l power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the U.S., not owing a foreign allegiance is not and shall not be acitizen of the U.S. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the congress nor the States can Justly or lawfull tare it from him. But while this is admitte, can you declare by congressional enactment as to citizens of the U.S. within the States that there shall be no discrimination among them of civil rights? What are civil rights? I know the learning and ability of the honorable chairman of the ComJudiciary, [Mr Wii.so:v.] It was my geod fortune to be associated with him 2 years on that important and responsible committee, and I take pleasure in bearing witness today to the integrity, fidelity, and ability with which be discharged all his duties. I respect fully submit to that gentleman, that by all authority the term “civil rights” as used in this bill does include and embrace every right that pertains to the citizen as such. Why, sir, the very origin of the term “civil” ought to satisfy gentlemen on this point, that it has relation to the rights and all the rights of the citizen. I submit that the term civil rights includes every right that pertains to the citizen under the Constitution, laws, and Government of this country. The term “citizen” has had a definite meaningamong publicists ever since the days of Aristotle. He interpreted and rendered that term to signify a person who was a partner in the government of the country. Under the Constitution of the U.S. every natural born citizen of the Republic is, in some sense, a artner in the Gavernment, although he may talie no active part in it. A distinction is taken, I know very well, in modern times, between civil and political rights. I submit with all respect that the term “political rights" is only a limitation of the term “civil rights, ” and by general acceptation signifies that class of civil rights which are more directly exercised by the citizen in connection with the government of his country. If this be so, are not political rights all embraced in the term “civil rights, ” and must it not of necessity be so interpreted? Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the common law are so exact in definition, uses in that classic of the law the terms “civil liberty” and “political liberty” everywhere as synonymous. It never occurred to him that there was a colorable distinction between them. If civil rights has this extent, what, then, is proposed by the provision of the 1st section? Simply to strike own by congressional enactment every State constitution which makes a discrimination on account of race or color in any of the civil rights of the citizen. I might say here, without the east fear of contradiction, that I there is scarcely a State in this Union which does not, by its constitution or by its statute laws, make some discrimination on account of race or color between citizens of the U.S. in respect of civil rights. I know there are some exceptions. I cannot stop tomention them within the 30 minutes of time allowed me or to make clearer what I have said. I say with some few exceptions every State in the Union does make some discrimination between citizens of the U.S., either by its constitution or its statute laws, in respect of civil rights on account of race or color. I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that the honorable gentleman who reported this bill in the Senate, and for whom I have the highest respect, had the candor to admit to me the other day that the franchise of office, according to all the authorities, is acivil right, and in my opinion by every fair interpretation of the Constitution it can rightfully be conferred upon no man in any State save upon a citizen of the U.S. By the constitution of my own State neither the right of the elective franchise nor the franchise of office can be conferred upon any citizen of the U.S. save upon a white citizen of the U.S. What do you propose to do by this bill? You propose to make it a misdemeanor, punishable n 1011con viction by fine and imprisonment in the peni tentiary, for the Governor of Ohio to obey the requirements of the constitution of the State which requires that none shall be elected, and therefore none commissioned, to Office in that State save white citizens of the U.S., I understand very well. from private conver sation that I have had with my learned friend, the chairman of the ComJudiciary, that he does not look on this clause in the 1st section as an obligatory requirement. I have no time to undertake to discuss that. question, but I submit that it is as much obligatory as any other clause of the section. l he clause is imperative. It is in the language of law. It provides that There shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities iimong citizens of the U.S. in any Stateor Territory of the U.S. on account of race.color or previous condition of slavery. That is as obligatory as any other portion of the section. If it is not obligatory, what objection has the gentleman to striking it out? if it is obligatory, it must be stricken out or the constitutions of the States are to be abolished by your act, or, what is the same thing their enforcement by the State officers charged with that duty made a crime for which they are to be imprisoned. I deny the power of congress to make an error of judgment in a State officer a crime to be punished by imprisonment. However honest, howeverjust, however humane the purposes of the gentleman maybe in presenting thistpenal provision of the bill, I deny the power O Congress to enact obedience to a state law which has been passed and is enforced in good faith into a crime. This is the further provision of the 1st section: and such citizens of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shii l have conduly concvoicntterda.csths, all havethesameright tomakc and enforce to sue, be parties and give evidence.to in herit, purchase.lease, sell, hold, and conve real and personal property, and to full and equal encfit of all laws and proceedingsfor the scenrit y opferson and property as is enjoyedby white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment.pains, a pen altics, and to none other, anylaw, statute ordinance. regulation or custom, to the contrary notmthstanding. I say, with all my heart, that that should be the law of every State, by the voluntary act of every State. The law in every State should be just; it should be no respecter of persons. It is otherwise now, and it has been othei Wise for manyycars in many of the States of the Union. I should remedy that not by an arbitrary as sumption of power, but by amending the constitution of the U.S., expressly pro, liibiting the States from an such abuse of 1 power in the future. Instea of sending out such amendment to the people we are asked to remedy this State wrong by enacting in the 2nd section of this bill as follows: That any person who. under color of any Iaw, ordinance regulation.“ custom cause to be subjectedany inhabitant [citizen] of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right securedor protectedby this not or to ditTerent punishment, pains or penalties on account of such person having at any time been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, execpt as a punishment for crime whereof the tparty shall have been duly conyicted, or by reasono his color or race.than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons shall be deemed guiltyof a misdemeanor and on coniction shall he punished by a fine not exceedinx 1390, or imprisonment not oxeeedinl one Year or o. Mr. Speaker, the word “inhabitant” is printed in the 2nd section in mistake for“citizen." I say this upon the suggestion of the chairman of the committee. If this is to be the language of the bill. by enacting it are we not committing the terrible enormity of distinguishing here in the laws in respect to life, liberty, and property between the citizen and stranger within your gates? Do we not thereb declare the States may discriminate in the a ministration of justice for the protection of life against the stranger irrespective of race or color? Sir, that is forbidden by the Constitution of. our country. The great men who made that instrument, when they undertook to make provision, by limitations upon the power of this Government, for the security of the universal rights of man, abolished the narrow and limited phrase of the old Magus Charta of 500 years a 0, which gave the protection of the laws on y to “free men" and inserted in its stead the more comprehensive words, “noperson;” thereby obeying that higher law given by a voice out of heaven: “ Ye shall have the same law for the stranger as for one ofyour own country.” Thus, in respect to life and liberty and property, the people by their Constitution declare the equalit of all men, and by express limitation forbade the Government of the U.S. from making any discrimination. This bill sir, with all respect I submit, de parts from that great law. The alien is not a citizen. You propose to enact this law. you say, in the interests of the freedmen. But do you propose to allow these discriminations to be run e in States against the alien and stranger? Can such legislation be sustained by reason or conscience? With all respect to every gentleman who maybe a supporter of iIt, ask, can it be sanctioned? Is it not as unjust as the unust State legislation you seek to remedy? our Constitution says “no person, ” not “no citizen, " “shall be de rived of life, liberty, or property, ” without ue process of law. It the bill of rights, as has been solemnly ruled by the SCOTUS, oes not limit the powers of States and roliibit such gross injustice by States, it does imit the power of Congress and prohibit any such legislation by Congress. But, sir, on yesterday. the honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. BROOMALL] I than whom there is no more candid or just gentleman in the House treated this measure as though it was a bill simply for the protection of freedmen in their rights for the time being in the late insurrectionary States. That is a great mistake. It applies to every State in the Union, to States which have never been in insurrection, and is to be enforced in every State of the Union, not only for the present but for all future time, or until it shall a reealed by some subsequent act of congress. tdoes not expire by virtue of its own hinitation; it is intended to be permanent and let me here suggest to the House that this bill stands in strange contrast with the solemn action of the Senate and of the House in that just and righteous bill known as the Freedmens Bureau bill. I shall notuow take up the time of the House to read the 7th and 8th sections of that bill. But I beg leave to remark to the House, and I ask consideration to the fact that the 7th and 8th sections of the Freedmens Bureau bill enumerate the same rights and all the rights and privileges that are enumerated in the 1st section of this bill, and for a violation of those rights and privileges within any of the insurrectionary States they impose the same penalty, and no other, than that which is imposed by the 2nd section of this bill. But it contains this remarkable provision, that the jurisdiction conferred by the 7th and 8th sections upon the Freedmens Bureau to inflict these penalties and enforce the rights enumerated shall cease and determine upon the restoration of those insurrectionary States to their constitutional relations with the U.S., and the establishment therein of the courts. The 2 sections referred to of the Freedmens Bureau bill, tsorecently passed and vetoed, are as follows: "SscJ. Abife: That wheneverin an State or district in which the ordinary courseof u icial proceedingshas been interrupted by the recllion and wherein. in consequenceof any State or loual law, ordinance. police or other regulation. custoin or prejudice. any of the civil rights or immunities belonging to white persons including th cright to make and enforce contracts.to sue, be parties and give evidence to inherit purchase lease sell, hold and conveyreal and personal property and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of personand estate.including the constitutional right of hcaring arms.urerefuse or denied to negroes.mulattoes, freedmen.refugees, oranyother persons. 0n account of race.color.orany previouscou dition of slavery orinvoluntnryservitu c.0r wherein they or any oft cm are subjected to any other or dif forent punishment. pains or penalties for the commission of any act or offense.than are ircscribed for white personscommitting like actsor o crises.itshall be the duty of the POTUS through the Commissioner.to extend military protection and jurisdiction over all cases affecting such personsso discriminated against. “SEC. 8. Abife: That any person who, under color of any Stateor local law ordinance. police or other regulation, or custom shall . in any tziteordistrict in which theordinurycoiirse of jiidi eial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion. subject or cause to be subjected.any negro. mulatto freedman refugee, or other person, on account of race orcolor or any previous condltion of slavery or involuntary servitude or for any other cause. to the depeivation of any civil riaghtsecured to white persons or to any other or different punishment than white persons are subject to for the commissionof like acts or offenses shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be punished by fine not execedinifl000 or imprisonment not exceeding one your or 0th; and it shall be the duty of the officersand argontsof this bureauto tukcjurisdiction of and hear and determine all offensescommitted against the provisions of this section and also of all casesaffecting nearocs, mulattoes. freedmen. refu goes, or other personswho are discriminated against in any of the particularsmentionedin the preceding section of this act. under such rules and regulations as the POTUS, throunh the War Dept, shall prescribe. The Jurisdiction conferred by this and the pfccedin sectionon the officers and agents of this bureau shall cease and determine whenever the discrimination on account of which it is conferred ceases and in no event to be exercisedin any State in which the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has not beeninterrupted by the rebellion. nor in any such State after said State shall have been fully restoredin all its constitutional relations to the U.S and the courts of the state and of the U.S. within the same are not disturbed or stoppedin the peaceable courseof justice." This jurisdiction shall cease, and in no event be exercised in any State, after said State shall have been fully restored in all its constitutional relations to the U.S. What was that but a solemn declaration by the Senate and HoRep to the whole world that during the insurrectionary condition of the States we have the power, and the duty rests upon us, to enforce these rights of person and citizen, in behalf not onIy of those freedmen but of refugees and of all men within the limits of the insurrectionary district, by the establishment of this extraordinary bureau of justice known as the F freedmens Bureau? hat was it but the solemn conviction and declaration of Congress that with the resto ration of those States to their constitutional relations, and the establishment of courts of justice therein, our powers in the premises cease, and under the Constitution of the country freedmen and refugees alike are dependent for justice and their rights upon the civil adminis trators of the law within those respective States? Why did not the Congress declare in that bill that n on the restoration of the civil authority within those States and when the courts of the U.S. therein shall no longer “be stoped in the peaceable course of justice, ” the jurisdiction thus conferred should be exercised by the courts of the U.S. 7 Why, on the contrary, did the Congress solemnly enact by that bill that upon such restoration this jurisdiction for the protection of refugees and freedmen should cease and determine? It was a confession by solemn and formal enactment that in that event your judicial power in the premise! is ended. It was that, sir, and nothing but that. I would be ashamed, sir, to go to your tribune, and take upon my soul the oath prescribed by the Constitution, if I thought this Government had not the power to establish tribunals of justice within teinsurrectionary districts during the time of insurrection and until the duly organized State governments were restored for the protection of ifc, liberty and property to all men alike. Hence, sir, i stand. by the breed mens Bureau bill; and standing by that bill I hold it up this day before the House as a point, blank condemnation of the attempt to assert this great power over States duly organized, and sustaining their full constitutional relation to the Government of the U.S., and in which the courts are not “disturbed or stopped in the peaccable course of justice.” This brings me, sir, to the closing remark which I propose to make on this subject, and that is this: that in the langua of the “old man eloquent, ” which I have ha occasion more than once to quote upon this floor in the hearing of some of those who now honor me with their attention, in time of war, whether it be civil or foreign war, the public safety becomes the highest aw; and triunuls of States and institutions of States, to use his own terse words “go by the board for the time being." But when peace is restored; when the courts of justice are opened; when her white robed ministers take the golden scales into their hands, justice is to be administered under the constitution, according to the Constitution, and within the limitation of the Constitution. What is that limitation, sir? Simply this that the care of the property, the liberty, an the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government. I have sought to effect no change in thatres ect in the Constitution of the country. I have advocated here an amendment which would arm Congress with the power to compel obedience to the oath, and punish all violations by State officers of the bill of rights, but leaving those officers to discharge the duties enjoined upon them as citizens of the U.S. by that oath and by that Constitution. Standing upon this position, I may borrow the words of the most istinguished man who was ever sent hither from the Old World to make a personal observation of the workings of our institutions, as truly descriptive of the American system: “centralized government, decen tralized administration.” That, sir, coupled with your declared purpose of equal justice, is the secret of your strength and power. I hold, air, that our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the U.S. the pewter sacred as life is, 1st as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized States; and Congress has never at tempted to do it. There never was a law upon the U.S. statute book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most nuotiendin as well, of your citizens, within the limits O any State of the Union. The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the ive States, and there the power respect is today . that on cannot do by direction you cannot do by indirection. To show that I am not mistaken on this subject, I desire to read the language of one of those grand intellectswho during life illustrated the jurisprudence of our country, and has left in his works a perpetual monument of his enius, his learning, and his wisdom. I read from the text of Chancellor Kent: “ the judieial power of the U.S. is necessarily limited to national objects. The vast field!!! the law of property.thoyery extensiveheadoi ui aurisdictiou, theipsingigd rights and duties w iic ow from our civ omcstierelations fall within the control and we might almost no the exclusive coniunce of the State governments We look essen tially to the State courts for protection to all momentous interests. Theytoiich, in the jro oratthieosne, everychordof human sympathy.andeontio our best destinies. ltis theirprovince to rownrd and to punish. Their blessingsand their terrors will accompanyus to the fireside, and be in constant activity beforethe public eyc." 1Kent, Lecture 19, sec.446. Sir, I have always so learned our dual system of Government by which our own American nationality and liberty have been established and maintained. I have always believed that the protcction in time of peace within the States of all the rights of person and citizen was of the powers reserved to the States and so I still believe. Now, what does this bill propose? To reform the whole civil and crimina code of every State government by declaring that there shall be no discrimination between citizens on account of race or color in civil rights or in the penalties prescribed by their laws. I humbly ow before the majesty of justice. as I how before the majesty of that God whose attribute it is, and therefore declare there should be no such inequality or discrimination even in the penalties for crime; but what power have you to correct it? That is the question. You further say that in the courts of jnstice of the several States there shall, as to the qualifications of witnesses, be no discrimination on account ofrace or color. I agree that, as to persons who appreciate the obligation of an oath and no others should be permit ted to testify there should be no such scrimination. But whence do on derive power to cure it by a congressionaleuactment! There should be no discrimination among citizens of the U.S. in the several States, of like sex, awe, and condition, in regard to the franchises O office. But such a discrimination does exist in nearly every State. How do you propose to cure all this? By a congressiona enactment? How? Not by saying, in so many words, which would be the bold and direct way of meetin this issue, that every discrimi nation of this ind, whether existing in State constitution or State law, is hereb abolished. You propose to make it a enal O case for the judges of the States to O cy the constitution and laws of their States, and for their obe dience thereto to punish them by fine and imprisonment as felons. I deny your power to do this. You cannot make an official not, done under color of law, and without criminal intent and from a sense of public duty, a crime. [Here the hammer fell.]