Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Speaker, as I oo cupy the floor through the courtesy of the Gentfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. ELDRIDGE] and as the time allowed me is but brief, I shall not indulge in any extended remarks upon the bill. From the commencement of this Government it has uniformly been held that each State has the exclusive right to determine the status of its inhabitants. This position is, I believe, conceded by the gentlemen who are supporting this bill; otherwise I might sustain it by a reference to the opinions of Mr. Madison, of Chief Justice Marshall, and other eminent statesmen and jurists. The advocates of this bill have referred to 2 provisions of the Constitution, under which it is assumed Congress may constitutionally pass this measure. One is the recent amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery; the other is that provision in the bill of rights which declares that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due proccmoflaw." Can the passe. of this bill be justified by the constitutions amendment for the abolitionof slavery I That amendmentis in these words: " “ARTICLE 13. Sec. 1. Neitherslavery nor involuntary servitude. exceptasa punishment tor crime whereof the party shall have cen duly convicted. sbnll exist Within:ililgfilgfllllled States, or any place subjectto theirjuris " Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforcethis article by appropriate legislation." Now, Mr. Speaker, to determine the power conferred by any particular provision of the Constitution, it is proper to ascertain the object sought to be accomplished by the adoption of that provision. What, then, was the object proposed to be accomplished by this constitutional amendment? Before its adoption a portion of the inhabitants of the U.S. were slaves, were chattels, were in the eye of the law property. The object of this provision was to change the condition of those persons from that of chattels or property to that of free men. That was the sole object of the provision. Now, sir, can it be maintained that all the civil rights and immunities sought to be secured by this bill are necessary to constitute a man a free man? There are persons who never enjoyed the constitutional amendment by these rights; yet they have been regarded as free men. I insist, sir, that the construction given to gentlemen who advocate this bill is too broad, too latitudinarian. The sole object of that amendment was to change the status of the slave to that of a free man; and the only power conferred upon Congress by the 2nd section of that amendment is the power to enforce the freedom of those who have been thus emancipated. Is it necessary to constitute a man a free man that he should have conferred upOn him all the civil rights and immunities provided for in this hill? "ollow this idea to its legitimate and logical conclusion, and where does it lead? Gentlemen may say, as has been said in the other end of this Capitol, that the right of suffrage is absolutely necessary to protect the l negro in his freedom, and therefore Congress has the right to cuacta law conferring upon him the right of suffrage. If, to protect the negroes in their freedom, you have the right to confer upon them all the civil rights and immunities contemplated by this bill, you have the right to carry your legislation to any exteiig that the whim or caprice of gentlemen may dictate. If the construction contended for bv the advocates of this bill be correct, then the power conferred on Congress by this constitutional amendment is an indefinite power, unlimited except by the passions or caprice of those who may assume to exercise it. I submit that no just rule of constitutional interpretation will warrant the broad construction which some gentlemen seek to give to the 2nd section of the amendment abolishing slavery. I grant the power necessary to secure and protect the negro in his freedom as given to him y virtue of this amendment. Congress has the right. if it chooses to exercise it. toprovide for the punishment of all persons who may attempt to reenslave the negro; to provide for the punishment of all persons who may make any effort to reduce him to the state from which he has just emerged; to that extent we have the power to go, and no further. Is it necessary, sir, for this protection, to confer upon him the right to give evidence between parties in all the States as this bill does? Is it necessary to give him all the rights necessarily included in the term civil rights and immunities? Congress has the power to punish any man who deprives a slave of the right of contract, or the right to control and recover his wages. To that extent it may be necessary to have legislation. But to go beyond. that is to trench upon the rights of the States, and is assuming power which has always belonged to the States of the Union. I will call attention for a single moment to what Mr. Madison said, in urging upon the people of the country the adoption of the constitution of the U.S. as to the powers of the Federal Government and the powers of the State governments. He says, in the Federalist: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution tot 10 Federal Government are fewnnd defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects. as war. peaec, nc:otiation and foreigncommerce.with which last the power of taxation will. for the most part. be connected. The powersreservedto the several State! will extend to all the objectswhich in the ordinary courseof affairsconce rn the lives.liberties and properties of the people and the internal order, improvemcut and prosperityof the State.” Chief Justice Marshall said in a case, I think to be found in 6 Wlieatons Reports, that the States composing this Union, so far as regarded inere municipal concerns, were sovereign; that they did not derive their independence from the British king; that the treaty of peace recognized but did not grant it. I ask gentlemen, in the light of the opinions of these able jurists in regard to the power of the Federal and State governments, have we the power, under a reasonable construction of the constitution, to enact this bill into a law? The Gentfrom Pennsylvania [ML Tmirua insists that the power exists by virtue of the 5th amendment, which provides that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. Is this bill necessary to prevent. the deprivation of life, liberty, and property? If laws are enacted in the southern States of the character alleged, their constitutionality can be tested in the courts of the U.S and there declared to be void because in violation of the supreme law. It, is not necessary for the protection of life, liberty, and property that this bill should be passed. Is it necessary that the negro should e a witness in all cases between parties to secure his freedom? Look at the condition of those whom this bill is most to affect. Reflect upon the relations between the late master and HS late slave. These relations have been such for along series of years as to engender a state of feeling which will prevent the negro from being an impartial and unbiased witness in controversies between white men. This bill gives this right to the late slave of being a witness in all cases without regard to the feeling which may exist between him and the white population. I, sir, have no desire, even ifI had the power, to oppress this unfortunate class of our people. I accept for one the amendment of the constitution abolishing slavery. I make no reference to the past for the purpose of cavil. but I accept the fact, and am willing to legislate for the protection of this class so far as to prevent any enslavement of them, and punish, it need be, any violation of their rights and property. But I cannot consent to force upon the people of the southern States, or of any of the States, the provisions of this bill. such matters should be regulated by the several States. The 1st section of the bill declares all or sons citizens without regard to color. Ihc term, citizen, is frequently used in the constitution; but in every instance, I think, but one, for the purpose of distinguishing between a native and an alien. Before the adoptionof the recent constitutional amendment t to slave was not a citizen. Under our Constitution acitizen is a free inhabitant, either born within the U.S or naturalized under a law of Congress. The amendment made the slave a free man and therefore a citizen. The authority of Congress to make citizens exists solely under that provision “that Con! gress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” What is the meaning of the term naturalize? It is the investing of an alien with the privileges of a native born citizen. What is an alien? A foreigner, one born in another country. The negroes, or the laportion of them, are natives of the U.S. There is no power in the Constitution to do what is provided in the 1st section of this bill. The negroes are citizens in one sense. They are citizens because they were born here and are now free. They were inhabitants before the adoption of the recent amendment; they are citizens now according to the general definition of the term. Wherefore, then, the necessity of the 1st sIefction of thisbill? What is the object ofit? there is not something hidden, something more than appears in the language, why do gentlemen on the other side decline to accept the proviso that has been offered, restrictin the meanin of the words “civil rights an immunities so that the bill shall not confer upon the negro the right of suffrage? It is said that the words “civil rights” do not include the right of suffrage, because that is a political right. Look in any of our dictionaries, Webster, Worcester, orany other, and you will find the word “civil” is synonymous with “political.” I do not assume, as a law yer, that the words “civil n hts" do include the right of suffrage; but witi the loose and liberal mode of construction adopted in this age, who can tell what rights may not be conferred by virtue of the terms as used in this bill? Where is it to end“! Who can tell how it may be defined, how it may be construed? Why not, then, if it is uotintunded to confer the right of suffrage upon this class, accept a proviso that no such design is entertained"? The most serious objection that I have to this bill is, that it is an interference with the rights f the South. It was remarked by my friendfrom Wisconsin that ithas often been intimated n this floor, and throughout the country, that hcnever a man talks about either the constitution or the rights of the States, he is either traitor ora sympathizer with treason. I do 0t assume that the States are sovereign. They resubordinate to the Federal Government. Sovereignt in this country is in the people, but the States have certain rights, and those rights are absolutely necessary to the maintenance of our system of government. What are those rights? The right to determine and fix the legal status of the inhabitants of the respective States, the local powers of selfgovernment, the power to regulate all the relations that exist between husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, all the fireside and home rights which are nearer and dearer to us than all others. Sir, this is but a stepping stone to a contralization of the Government and the overthrow of the local powers of the States. When ever that is consummated, then farewell to the beauty, strength, and power of this Government. There is nothinglcft but absolute, des potic, central power. It lives no longer but as a naked despotism. There is nothing left to admire and to cherish.