Mr. BROOMALL. Mr. Speaker, in some remarks which I had the honor to offer in the House a few weeks ago I said that “the government of the U.S. above all other duties owes it to itself and to humanity to guard the rights of those whoin the midst of rebellion periled their lives and fortunes for its honor, of whatever caste or lineage they be, ” and “ that no systeni of reconstruction ought to be considered unless it shall effectually guaranty the rights of the Union men of the South.” Everything that has transpired since then, from all Depts of the government, satisfies me that these, our southern allies in the war waged to preserve the existence of the nation, have noting to trust to except the integrity and firmness of the Union majority in the 2 Houses of Congress. That majority, through its appropriate committees, presents the bill under consideration as one of the measures on which it relies to carry out its great and patriotic pur1poeseo.bj.ect of the bill is twofold to declare who are citizens of the U.S., and to V v Davis, Dawmn. i Dixon. Unitas. l.liot. liirnsworth . FCTIY, Goodyear, secure them the protection which ever government owes to its citizens. It will iardly be said that these are not proper subjects of legislation, and especially the utter one. If the same thing has not been attempted before, it was partly because there never before was the same necessity, and partly because of the long continued and remarkable forbearance of those for whom what necessity there was existed. llThe 1st provision of the bill declares that a subject to any foreign Power are citizens of the U.S. As a positive enactment this would hardly seem necessary. Even as a declaration of existing law, a proposition that at most can only be said to embrace the true meaning of the word “citizen” would seem to find its more appropriate place in the element ary treatises upon law rather than upon the statute books. What is a citizen but a human being who by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a Government owes allegiance to that Government? But modern Democratic political science discovered and promul ted the dogma that this is the country of the white man, und that no other man has rights here which the white man is bound to respect. When, therefore, this pe culiar science culminated in an attempt to overthrow the Government, and was itself overthrown, it is as well that a return to the principlesof the founders of the Government should be made manifest to future generations by a declaration upon the statute books. The objection to this part of the bill is that it calls 8 negro a citizen and why should it not? Civilized man must of necessity be a citizen somewhere. He must owe allegiance to some Government. There is some spot upon the earths surface upon which it is possible for him to commit treason. Now, the negro in America is civilized. Ask the minister of religion where he finds the most sincere devotion, the school teacher where he finds the greatest desire to learn. Ask the very southern rebel, whose representatives are most earnest against the hill, where he found the most implicit and unquestioning obedience to law and order under circumstances hardl justifying the hope of obedience to law an order. The American negro is civilized, and of necessity must owe allegiance somewhere and until the opponents of this measure can point to the foreign Power to which he is subject, the African potentate to whom after 5 generations of absence he still owes allegiance, I will assume him to be, what the bill calls him, a citizen of the country in which he was born. Let those who say with the air of such om nipotent authority that this is the country of the white man, explain how it happened that the Ruler of the universe suffered it to be occupied by the nod man for countless ages of the past and then let them say, if they know, whether itmay not be His purpose to suffer some small portion of it to be occupied by the black man for countless ages of the future. No, our country is the country of its inhabitants. Our Government the Government of the governed. But there is another class of persons born within the limits of the U.S. whose status requires fixing by legislation. I allude to those who took upon themselves the respon sibilities and duties of allegiance to another power; who forswore their citizenship and allegiance. There is nothing in our form of government, nothing in our institutions that contradicts the right of expatriation. True, that right is not anywhere expressly granted, but our naturalization laws are founded upon the idea that such right is inherent in men, and I believe this is true. Most certainly if the confederation had sustained itself its citizens would have ceased to be citizens of the U.S., and liv a process that would have related back to the very commencement of the rebellion. Now, the fact that it did not sustain itself was the result of no merit of these men. They did all they could to succeed. As far as intenfion is persons born in the U.S and not concerned their condition of expatriation is complete. Why may not the Government take them at their word and assume that the position they took upon themselves is their true one, that they are no longer entitled to the ben efits of the allegiance they forswore? Why may they not be estopped from contradicting their ownoaths, from pleading their own erimes? If they are citizens they have forfeited their lives to the outraged laws of their country; out of humanity, then, why may we not hold them to have lost that dangerons characteristic 1 Look at the question in another point of view. By the doctrine laid down by all the writers upon public law, so clearly exPressed by the Supreme Court in the prize cases, 2 Black, 673, in civilWars the belligerent that claims sovereign rights may in all cases elect between the civil law and the laws of war, may treat its opponents either as citizens or public enemies, may hang for treason or hold as prisoners of war. The unavoidable consequence of this doctrine is that if that belligerent shall be the vic tor, the question of the citizenship of its oppo nents is or it to decide. If I am right in all this, then it is for the government to elect whether or not it will hereafter treat the rebels as citizens or banish them as alien enemies. Now, if this were the mere de cision of a right, it would be within the province of the courts of justice; if it were the an nouncement ofa great fact, the Executive might do it; but being the exercise of a discretion, and the granting or withholding of a favor, nothing but the supreme lawmaking power can perform the function. A question might naturally arise whether we ought again to trust those who have once he trayed us; whether we ought to give them the benefits of a compact they have once repudiated. Yet the spirit of forgiveness is so in herent in the American bosom that no party in the country proposes to withhold from these people the a vantages of citizenship; and this is saying much. With a debt that may require centuries to pay, with so many living and mu tilated witnesses of the horrors of war, with so man saddened homes, so many of the wid owe and fatherless pleadin for justice, for ret ribution, if not revenge, it ipeaks well for the cause of Christian civilization in America that no party in the countiy proposes to deprive the grantors of such immeasurable calamity of the advantages of citizenship. But the election must he made. Some public legislative act is necessary to show the world that those who have forfeited all claims upon the Government are not to be held to the strict rigor of the law of their own invoking, the dec cision of the tribunal of their own choosing; that they are to be welcomed back as the prod igal son whenever they are ready to return as the rodigal son. the act under consideration kes that election. Its terms embrace the late rebels, and it gives them the rights, privileges, and immu niies of citizens of the U.S., though it does not propose to exempt them from pan ishment for their past crimes. But it is said by the minority in this body that we have no right under the Constitution to pass the law; that the General Government was never intended to be intrusted with the power to protect individual persons; that that was to be left to the States. What, then, does the preamble mun? An ordinary reader would look there for the object and intent of the document: “We the peopleof the U.S., in order to form n.ine re perfect union, establishjustice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common de fense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessingsofliberty to ourselvesand our posterity, do orilain and establishthis Constitution for the U.S.A. " This certainly has the appearance of being deSigned to lprotect the rig its of individuals Within as wel as beyond the jurisdiction of the Government. Yet, strange as it may seem, wnile the Government has been always held cometent to protect its meanest citizen within the omain O any European potentate, it has been considered powerless to guard the citizen of Pennsylvania against the illegal arrest, under color of State law, of the most subordinate officer of the most obscure municipality in Virginia. Strun e as it may seem, while the government of the U.S. has been held competent to protect the lowest menial of the minister of the most obscure prince in Europe, anywhere between the 2 oceans, and from the Lakes to the Gulf, it had no power to protect the ersonal liberty of the agent of the State of assachusetts in the city of Charles ton, or enable him to sue in the State courts. If the Government has not the power, by appropriate legislation, to protect its citizens within as well as without its jurisdiction, I would like to know what the 8th section of the 1st article of the Constitution means when it empowers Congress to provide for the General welfare of the U.S., and when it empowers Congress to pass all laws necessary for that purpose. Does it not pertain to the “general we fare" that “the citizens of each State, ” in the language of the 2nd section of the 4th artic e of that instrument, “shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States?” But throwing aside the letter of the Constitution, there are characteristics of Governments that belong to them as such, without which they would cease to be Governments; The rights and duties of allegiance and protection are correspondin rights and duties. Upon whatever square not of the earths surface I owe allegiance to my; country, there it owes me protection, and wherever my Government owes me no protection I owe it no allegiance and can commit no treason. In the very nature of things this position is incapable of being overthrown, and )while it stands it demonstrates not only the right but the duty to protect American citizens by appropriate legislation. An unex ected argument has been adduced by the leader of the Opposition in this body, [Mr. ROGER 8] that this bill will permit the negro to vote in the several States of the Union. It is rather ludicrous than otherwise that the committee having it in charge have agreed to put in a provision to quiet the alarmo the opposite party. I am willing to concede of late that if the Democrats are to be kept above the negroes in the social scale there must be some discriminating legislation in their favor. I used to think the white man a better man than the negro, but an experience of 3 winters south of Mason and Dixons line has partly satisfied me that this depends somewhat upon the white mans politics. Does not the Gentfrom NewJersey Mr. ROGERS] know that the Constitution of the U.S. fixes the qualification of voters among its citizens? Does he not know that without a change of that instrument congress cannot extend the right of suffrage in the States? The bill declares women and children citizens, yet it did not occur to the gentleman that this might make them electors. Let me now ask our opponents upon this floor, and in other Depts of the government, how they propose to protect the citizens of the U.S. within the domain of the U.S. They will surely not deny the duty. They will not say that we have a Government for the purpose of allegiance and for the punishment of treason, but none for the protection of the citizen. Will they say that the rights of citizens of the U.S. can be safely intrusted to the governments of the several States? If this were true it might afford some excuse for neglecting to provide the appropriate legislation, but none for refusing it. But it is not true. For 30 years prior to 1860 everybody knows that the rights and immunities of citizens were habitually and systematically denied in certain States to the citizens of other States: the right of speech, the right of transit, the right of domicil, the right to sue, the writ of habeas corus, and the right of petition. It will be sai that this state of things was owing to the existence of what we politely called “the peculiar institution, ” but will it be said that o with the disappearance of the peculiar institution this state of things also disa peared? Within the jurisdiction of the TlU.S. there never was a time when more black free men, citizens of the U.S., were enslaved without even the color of law, and denied the right to process of law to test the validit of the claim of those who pretend to own them. There never was a time when more black free men, citizens of the U.S., were kidnapped and sold into other countries against positive law, and yet denied the process of law to enforce the right and to avenge the wrong. But the opponents of this bill have one answer to all appeals for justice against this species of wrong an answer furnished from the political speeches of the judges of the SCOTUS on the occasion of their assembling to celebrate lo election of James Buchanan, called in mock their decision in the Dred Scott case: negro has no rights which a white man is bou to respect.” As my object is to satisfy our political oppo nents of the necessity of the pending measure, I choose to admit the force of this answer. Yetimight say with truth that American statesman ship could go no further in that direction; that even Democrac could assume no meaner position. But are the evils complained oflimited to the black man? While I would blush if I could admit that that fact, if acknowledged, would in any degree lessen the necessity for the passage of this law, I nevertheless maintain and hold myself ready to prove that white men, citizens of the U.S., have been, and are now being punished under colorof State laws for refusingto commit treason against the U.S. at the bidding of Democratic candidates for the presidency; that white men, soldiers of the Republic, have been arraigned in State courts, under State laws, for the crime of shooting down traitors on the field of battle by the command of their military superiors, and oul saved from being hanged, on conviction O murder, by the interposition of that branch of the military forces of the Government known as the Free mens Bureau. I maintain further, that white men, citizens of the U.S., have been driven from their homes, and have had their lands confiscated in State courts, under State laws, for the crime of loyalty to their country, and that now they are begging in vain for a redress of wrongs in the courts of the reconstructed South. Our political opponents will not deny these allegations. They are fully conscious of the state of things existing at the South. They know that there loyalty is the crime and treason the virtue; not throughout the entire country, because there are honorable exceptions, but throughout more than half of the 11 States lately in rebellion. The very fact that the POTUS, armed with the war power, is now annulling legislative enactments in those States, quash.ing the decrees of courts, and standing guard over the rights of the loyal people, is conclusive proof, binding upon the entire Democratic party, that citizens of the U.S. need the protection of their Government in the several States of the Union.