Mr. JOHNSON. Just wait a moment. My friendfrom Maine is so quick that he cannot wait for the operationof slower minds. If there were no laws in Maryland on the subject, then the black man could marry a white woman. but there are laws. What is the effect of those laws? The 1st section of this bill says that there is to be no discrimination. The 2nd section says that " any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shail subject or cause to be subjected any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured or protected by this act, or to different punishment, ” shall be proceeded against under this bill. Now, there is a State law which savs to the black man, ” You shall not marry a white woman.” and savs to the white man, “You may.” There is therefore in Maryland one law in relation to this 506 January 30, question for the white man, and another law i for the black man. The black man marriesal white woman and we try to enforce our laws against him. We say to him, ” You have done an illegal net, you have offended against the legislation of Maryland by marrying a white. woman.” He says, “I have done no such thing; I would have done it but for the legislation of Congress; I would have been liable to trial and conviction but for the legislation of Congress; but I set up the legislation of congress; you may tell me you are prosecuting me under a law of the State of h Maryland which makes it a crime in me, but Congress says that that State legislation shall be of no avail; the law of marland in reference to the question is at an end. It means that if it means anything. If the honorable member does not mean that he can change the langua c. I do not understand my friendfrom Maine or the honorable member from Illinois himself as denying that, looking to the provisions in the 1st section, supposing there was no law in Maryland on the subjectand I single out Maryland merely for the purpose of illustration the contract of marriage would be embraced. White and i lblack are considered together, put in a mass, i and the one is entitled to enter into every contract that the other is entitled to enter into. Of course, therefore, the black man is entitled to enter into the contract of marriage with a [white woman; but the law of Maryland pre. vents it; the law of Maryland punishes him for attempting it; and when the man is tried for having violated the law of Maryland, the court will say, “How is the prosecution to he supported under any law of Maryland that law which is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1st section of this law of Congress, and the 2nd section of which provides, virtually, that he who prevents a black man from marrying a white woman under any law of Maryland is to be subject to the penalties imposed by it?” That is the way I understand it. I do not think I can be. wrong. Butwhetherlam wrong or not, upon acareful and correct interpretation of the provisions of these 2 sections, I Suppose all the Senate will admit that the error is not so gross a one that the courts may not fall into it. Then what is the result? The whole of this legislation to be found in almost every State in the Union where slavery has existed, and to be found, I believe, in several of the other States, isdone away with. You do not mean to do that. I am sure the Sculate is not preared to go to that extent; and I submit to the ionorable chairman, without proclaiming myself to be right beyond all possible question of doubt, which would be in bad taste, and certainly ver far from whatI din dissed to do when I fin that a different opinion is entertained by 2 gentlemen whose opinioris I hold in so much respectI submit to the honorable chairman of the ComJudiciary whether he had not better make it so plainthat the difficulty which I suggest in the execution of the law will be obviated. But to come back to the amendment that is now before the Senate; I do not know what will be the elfect of the amendment upon the in diaiis. The honorable member from Kansas [ML LANE] supposes he avoids the difficulty which he thinks would have existed under the original amendment by inserting the words, “or tribal authority.” 1st, what would be the meaning of the amendment without those words? I understood the honorable chairman of the committee to say that these Indians are not citizens. of the U.S., and never have been. That is a mistake, as I think. The Indian tribes upon that portion of the American continent that belonged to GreatBritain were always subject to the dominion of England. England could have done what she. thought proper to do with them, but all she did in the execution of that, her sovereign right, was to prohibit them from entering into any contracts in relation to their lands with any other nation than England or the dependencies of England. When we obtained our independence, the whole authority that Englan had over the tribes became vested in the U.S.; and since then the uniform view that has been taken of the relation in which these Indians stand to the U.S. is, that they are but the wards of the U.S. They have no sovereign power whatever; they are not a nation in the general acceptation of that term; they cannot sell their lands without the authority of the U.S.; they are not at liberty to sell their lands to an bod but to citizens of the U.S., an unor such regulations as the U. S. may impose. If the honorable member will refresh his memory by consulting the case of Worcester”. The State of Geo in, reported in 6 Peters, I think, he will find that Mr. Chief Justice marshall, who gave the opinion of the court, deciding that the legislation of Georgia or the acts of Georgia were unconstitution al, admits that the Government of the U.S. could do with the Indians, as faras the question of power was concerned, just what it thought proper; that the absolute dominion was in the U.S.; the possessory title, with a quasi do minion, was with the Indians, but that quasi dominion was only that they could sell their lands and were not subject to be taxed by the U.S., but only because the U.S. themselves had agreed that they should have those rights; but it was not pretended in that case that they were not citizens of the U.S. The result, therefore, would be that an Indian child, born within the territorial limits of these tribes, would be a citizen of the U U.S., because the territory is part of the U.S. Nobody ever doubted that the whole of the Indians who are subject to our control are now located upon territory belonging to the U.S., and the result would necessarily follow, so far ascitizenship depends upon birth, that, if you make it depend upon birth, the child who is born within the territorial limits of the U.S., whether that portion be or be not within the temporary or partial control of the Indians would be a citizen of the U.S. Wlould the suggestion made by my friendfrom Kansas obviate it? The language of the amendment as proposed is, ” all persons born in the U.S. ” That would certainly include the Indians if I am right in saying the Indian country is part of the U.S.