Mr. TRUMBULL. Before roccedin with the billunder consideration, I dgsire to over an amendment, to insert after the word “that, ” in the 3rd line of the 1st section, the words, “all persons of African descent born in the U.S. "totes are hereby declared to be citizens of the U.S. and, ” so that the section will read: That all personsof African descentbornin the U.S. are hereb declared to be citizens of the U.S and t are shall be no discrimination tin civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the U.S. on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery. ike. Mr. President, I regard the bill to which the attention of the Senate is now called as the most important measure that has been under its consideration since the adoption of the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. That amendment declared that all persons in the U.S. should be free. his measure is intended to give effect to that declaration and secure to all persons within the U.S. practical freedom. There is very little importance in the generaldeclaration of abstract truths and prinnciples unless they can be carried into etfect, unless the persons who are to be affected by them have some means of availing themselves of their benefits. Of what avail was the immortal declaration “that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, ” and “that to secure these rights Governments are instituted among men, to the millions of the African race in this country who were ground down and degraded and subjected to a slavery more intolerable and cruel than the world ever before linewl Of what avail was it to the citizen of Massachusetts, who, a few years ago, went to SCarolina to enforce a constitutional right in court, that the constitution of the U.S. declared that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? and of what avail will it now be that the constitution of the U.S. has declared that slavery shall not exist, if in the late slaVeholding States laws are to be enacted and enforced depriving persons of African descent of privileges which are essential to free men? It is the intention of this bill to secure those rights. The laws in the slaveholding States have made a distinction against persons of African descent on account of their color, whether free or slave. I have before me the statutes of mississippi. that State for the purpose of residin there, he shall be sold into slavery for life. f any person of African descent residing in that State travels from one county to another without hav in a pass or a certificate of his freedom, he is laiiale to be committed to jail and to be dealt with as a person who is in the State without authority. other provisions of the statute prohibit any negro or mulatto from having firearms; and one provision of the statute declares that for“ exercising the functions of a minister of the Gospel free negroes and mulattoes, on conviction, may be punished by any number of lashes not exceeding 39 on the bare back, and shall pay the costs.” other provisions of the statute of Mississippi prohibit a free negro or mulatto from keeping a house of entertainment, and subject him to trial before 2 justices of the peace and 5 slaveholders for violating the provisions of this law. The statutes of SCarolina make it a highly penal offense for any person, white or colored, to teach slaves; and similar provisions are to be found running through all the statutes of the late slaveholding States. When the constitutional amendment was adopted and slavery abolished, all these statutes became null and void, because they were all passed in aid of slavery, for the purpose of maintaini and so porting it. Since the abolition of slavery, the Legislatures which have assembled in the insurrectionary States have passed laws relating to the freedmen, and in nearly all the States they have discriminated against them. They deny them certain rights, subject them to severe penalties, and still impose upon them the very restrictions which were imposed upon them in consequence of the existence of slavery, and before it was abolished. The purpose of the bill under usideration is to destroy all these discrimina ons, and to carry into effect the constitutional amendment. The 1st section of the bill. as it is now proposed to be amended, declares that all versons of African descent shall be citizens of the U.S., and rigThhtast there shall be no discrimination in civil or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the U.S. on account of race. color, or previous condition of slavery: but the inhabitants 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 shall have been duly convicted shall have the sameright to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence. to inherit. purchase, lease. sell. hold, and conveyreal and personal rop srty and tofull and equal benctit of all laws an proceedingsfor the securityof poison and property and shall be subject to likc punishment. pains and penalties and to none other. any law. statute. ordinance, regulation, orcustomto the contrary notwithstanding. This section is the basis of the whole bill. The other provisions of the bill contain the necessary machinery to give effect to what are declared to be the rights of all persons in the 1st section, and the question will arise, has Congress authority to pass such a bill? Has Congress authority to givepractical effect to the great declaration that slavery shall not exist in the U.S.? If it has not, then nothing has been accomplished by the adoption of the constitutional amendment. In in ud nt, Congress has this authority. It is didicu t,perhaps, to define accurately what slavery is and what liberty is. Liberty and slavery are op site terms; one is opposed to the other. ii: know that in a civil government, in organized society, no such thing can exist as natural or absolute liberty. Natural liberty is defined to be the “ Power of acting as one thinks fit, without any re strnint or control. unlessby the law of nature, bein: a right inherentiu us by birth, and one of thogitts of God to man ip his creation. whoahoimbued hunwith the faculty o will.” They provide that if an colored person, any free negro or mulatto, shall come into il But every man who enters society ves up a part of this natural liberty, which is the liberty of the savage, the libertv which the wild beast. has, for the advantages he obtains in the protection which civil government. gives him. Civil liberty, or the liberty which a person enjoys in society, is thus defined by Blackstone: “Civil liberty is no other than natural liberty, so far restrained by human laws and no further. as is. nce casnryapd expedientfor the general advantagcof, the public. That is the liberty to which every citizen is entitled; that is the liberty which was intended to be secured by the DeclarIndep and the constitution of the U.S. originally, and more especially by the amendment which has recently been adopted: and in:1 note to Blackstones Commentaries it is stated iat “ In this definition of civil libertyit ought to be understood or rather expressed. that the restraints introduced by the lawshould beequal toall, or asmuch so as the nature of things will mit.” Then, sir, I take it that any statute which is not equal to all, and which deprives any citizen of civil rights which are secured to other citizens, is an unjust eneroachment upon his liberty; and is, in fact, a badge of servitude which, by the constitution, is prohibited. We may, perhaps, arrive at a more correct definition of the term “citizen of the U.S.” by referringto that clause of the constitution which I have already quoted, and which declares that “the citizens ofeach State shall beentitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” Whatrihts are secured to the citizens of each State under that provision? such fundamental rights as belong to every freeperson. Story, in is Commentaries, in commenting upon this clause of the constitution of the U.S., says: “The intention of this clauscWasto confer on citizens. if one may so say, a general citizenship and to communicate all the prinleges and immunities which the citizens of the sameState would be entitled to under the like circumstances.” There have been several decisions of courts upon this clause of the constitution. It was decided by the general court of the State of Maryland (Chase and Duval, justices) that this section meant that the citizens of all tha States should have the peculiar advantage of acquiring and holding real as well as personal property and that such property should be protected and secured by the laws of the State in the same manner as the property of the citizens of the State is protected. It meant that such property shall not be liable to any tax or burdens which the property of the citizen is not subject to. It may also mean that, as creditors, they shall be on the same footing with the State creditor in the payment of the debts of adeceased debtor. It secures and protects personal rights. (Camp bell vs. Morris, 3 Harris and McHeury, 585.) This clause of the constitution, according to t“he decision of the Indiana court madein 1797, secures and protects personal rights” and ives to every person who is a citizen of one State the same rights to hold property, the same personal rights, that the citizen of that State as. A decision by the supreme court of Massachusetts upon this clause of the constitution declares that “ the privilegesand immunitiesrccured to the people of cach State in everyother State can be applied only in caseof removal from oqestate into another. By such rcmovnl they becomecitizens of the adopted State without naturalization and have a right to sun and be sued as citizens: and yet this privilegois qualified and not absoluc, for theycannot. ODJOYthe right of suffrage or of disibility to office. without such term of residenceas shall be prescribedby the constitution and laws of the State into which they shall remove. They shall have the privilegesand immunities of citizens; that is. they shall not bodeenied aliens. but maytake and hold real estate; and may: accondm to the laws of such State. Oventually enjoy the rights of citizenship without the necessit of beml naturalized. "6 Picliennv. 92. Abbott cs. aylcy. But, sir, the decision most elaborate upon this clause of the constitution is to be found in Washingtons Circuit Court Reports, in a case which was reserved for consideration after argument. I will read several sentences from the opinion of the circuit judge, because it will be 4L5 seen that he enumerates the very rights belonging to a citizen of the U.S. which are set forth in the 1st section of this bill. He says:. “The next question is, whether this act infringes that sectionof the constitution which declares that 1the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privilcrgesand immunities of citizens in the several tales “ The inquiry is. what aretheprivileges and immu nities of citizens in the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privilczcs and immunities which are in their nature undamental: which belong of right to the citizenso all free Governments: and which have at all times been enjoyed by the citizens of the several which composethis Union, from the time of the Si tabtees coming free, independent and sovereign. What hese fundamental principles nroit would perhaps be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. heymay, however. Be all comprehendedunder the following General heads: protectionbythe Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty. with the right to acquire and possessproperty of every kind and to pursue and obtain happinessand safety, subject, nevertheless. to such restraintsastboflovernmentmn instlyprescribe for the General good of the whole. T 0right of acitizen ofouc State to pass through, or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits or otherwise: to claim the benefit of the writ of habeaa corpiu; to institute and maintain actionsof any kind in the courtsof theState: to take. held, and dispose of property, either real or personal, and an examtion from higher taxes or impositions than are pai by the other citizens of the State, may bementionedassome of thelparticulur privileges on immunities of citizens. which areclearly embracedby the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental; to which may be added the eloctive franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised. ”Lbr, rieldvs. Corycll, 4 Waclnnqtono Circuit CourtReports, page880. I This judge goes further than the bill under consideration, and he lays it down as his opinion that under this clause of the constitution, securing to the citizen of ch State all the privileges and immunities o citizens of the several States of the U.S., a person who is a citizen in one State and goes to another is even entitled to the elective franchise; but at all events he is entitled to the great fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the right to travel to go where he pleases. This is a right which belongs to the citizen of each State. Now, sir, if that be so, this being the construction as settled by judicial decisions to be put upon the clause of the constitution to which have ndverted, how much more are the native by orn citizens of the State itself entitled to these rights! In my judgment, persons of African descent, born in the U. S., are as much citizens as white persons who are bomin the country. I know that in the slaveholding States a different opinion has obtained. The people of those States have notre rded the colored race as citizens, and on that principle many of their laws making discriminations between the whites and the colored people are based; but it is competent for Congress to declare, under the constitution of the U.S., who are citizens. If there were any question aboutit, it would be settled by the passage of a law declaring all persons born in the U.S. to be citizens thereof. That this bill proposes to do. Then they will be entitled to the rights of citizens. A nd what are they qlhe eat fundamental rights set forth in tl" bill: teright to acquire property, the right to o and come at pleasure, the right to enforce rightain the courts, to make contracts, and to inherit and dispose of property. T hose fire the very rights that are set forth in this bill as appertaining to every free man.