Mr. TRUMBULL. It is the 1st volume. page 118, section 26; and as my friendfrom Maryland seems to be taking notes of the authorities. I refer him to the 1st volume of Kents Commentaries, pages 646 and 649, in which the author, speaking of the statutes of NewYork, says: "The penaltyofSl.000 is given in favor of the party aggricVed against every otheer and everymemberof the court nssontingto the refusal." To grant a writ of habeas coipus where the party is entitled to it. “The habemcon nuact of Mississippi makes the refusal or neglect of any judge cr judges to grant the writ ahigh misdrmuanor and an impeachable olfense. " On page 649 the author says: TAnd finally, if any personsolely, or as a member of any court or in the executionof any order.knowingly reimprisonssuch party. he forfeits a penalty of $1.50 to the party aggrieved, and is to be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and liable to fine and imprisonment.” This applies to any member of a court who knowingly reini JliSHIlS a person who has once been discharged on a writ of habeascorpus. I should like to know if the freedom of a man discharged by a writ of habeascorpus is any more sacred than the freedom of the negro discharged from bondage by the great constitutional amendment, and if it is any worse to punish a judge who under color of law under takes to do rive of his liberty a poor African freed from bondage by the Constitution of his country than it is to punish a judge who reimprisons a man once discharged on awrit of abeae co 3 Sir, there is no novelty in these provisions, and the times require them. But, sir, there is another answer, in my judgment, more conclusive, to all these objections to this 2nd section, which is the vital art of the bill. Without it, it would scarcely he worth the paperon which the bill is written. A law without a penalty, without a sanction, is of little value to anybody. What good does it do for the Levislature to say, “ Do this, and forbear to do t at, ” if no consequence is to follow the act of disobedience? his is the vitalit of the bill. What is the objection that is made to it, and which seems even to have staggered some friends of the measure? It is because it reads in the 1st section that any person who “ under color of law” shall commit these offense s shall be subject to the pen alties of the law. suppose those words had been left out and the bill read, “any person who shall subject any inhabitant of a State to different punishment by reason of his color shall be punished, ” would there have been any objection to the bill then? That is the way most criminal laws read. That is the way the law punishing conspiracies against the government reads. If 2 or more persons conspire together to overthrow the government, or by force to resist its authority, they are liable to indictment, and, upon conviction, to imprisonment in the penitentiary and to heavy fine. Would the fact that the persons cu gaged in the conspiracy were judges or governors or ministerial officers, acting under color of any statute or custom, screen them from punishment? Surely not. These words “ under color of law” were inserted as words of limitation, and not for the purpose of punishing persons who would not have been subject to punishment under the act if they had been omittgd. If an oliense is committed against a colored person simply because he is colored, in a State where the law affords him the same protection as if he were white, this act neither has nor was intended to have anything to do with his case, because he has adequate remedies in the State courts; but if he is discriminated against under color of State laws because he is colored, then it becomes necessary to interfere for his protection. The assumption that State judges and other officials are not to be held responsible for violations of U.S. laws, when done under color of State statutes or customs, is akin to the maxim of the English law that the King can do no wrong. It laccs officials above the law. It is the very doctrine out of which the rebellion was hatched. Everything that was done by that wicked effort to overturn our Government was done under color of law. The rebels insisted that they had a right to secede. They passed ordinances of secession; they set up State governments; and all that they did was done under color of law and if parties committing these high crimes are to go rec because they acted under color of law, why is not Jeff. Davis and every other rebel chief dischared at once? Why did this country put forth al its resources of men and money to put down the rebellion against the authority of the Government, except it had a right to do so, even as against those who were acting under color of law? Lee, with his rebel hordes, thundering upon the outskirts of this very city, was acting under color of law. Every judge who has held a court in the southern States for the last 4 years, and has tried and convicted of treason men uilty of no other offense than loyaltyto the lfnion, acted under color of law. Sir, it we had authority by the use of the Army and the war power to put down rebels acting under color of law, I put the question to every lawyer if we had not authority to do that through the courts and the judicia tribu nals if it had been practicable? When may you resort to war? Vhen you cannot accomplish the just object of the war in any other wa. The dernier resort is the cry to arms an the appeal to battle; but if it be possible to put down an insurrection, to prevent a combination against the Government, and to pan ish persons for treason and conspiracy against the Government, without a resort to arms, the Government not only has the power but it is its duty to do it. Suppose it had been practicable through the marshals to arrest the Legislature which convened at Montgomery and undertook to take the State of Alabama out of the Union and set up a government in hostil itv thereto, ought it not to have been done? as not that a cons irac against this government? When the egis ature assembled at Montgomery in 1861 and resolved that the connection between Alabamaand the U.S. was dissolved, and when its members took steps to maintain that declaration; when the same thing was done in SCarolina, and courts were organized to carry out the scheme, will anybody tell me it would not have been competent, had it been practicable, for the U.S. courts in those States to have issued process for the arrest of every one of those legislators, Governors, judges, and all. and, sir, had this been done, and it had turned out upon trial that any of the parties arrested had been engaged in armed hostilit a inst the U.S., as some of them been when with arms in their bands they seized the arsenals and other public property of the U.S., would they not have been found guilty of trea son and hung for treason? and would the fact that they had acted under color of law, have aliorded them any protection? Sir, it is competent, and always competent, to do through the Judicial tribunals all that is necessary to prevent or suppress a rebellion, audit is only when the resistance is too formi dableto be overcome by the pordinary course of judicml proceedings 1; at a resort to arms is justifiable. A nation has no right to go to war with another nation until it 1st exhausts all means of a peaccable solution of the diiliculty. If it can accomplish the end through peaceful means, it not only has the right, but it is its bounden duty to do so. I I shall be pardoned, I trust, for reading in this connection asentence from the proclamation of Andrew Jackson hurled against the nullification ordinance of SCarolina, which undertook to annul the laws of Congress and set them at defiance, required its officers to swear allegiance to Carolina and abjure their allegiance to the U.S. After reciling the illegal actionof SCarolina, stating what her Ordinance was, what it proposed to do, and what the citizens of Carolina were proposmg to do under coldr of that authority, General Jackson Isaid: consider, then. the power to nnnul a law of the U.S. assumed y one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union. contradicted exressly by theletterof the Constitution unauthorized by its spirit, inconsnitent with every principle on which it was founded and destructive of the great object for which it wasformed." The right to punish persons who violate the laws of the U.S. cannot be questioned, and the fact that in doing so they acted under color of law or usage in any locality affords no protection. because by the Constitution that instrument and the laws passed in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land, and every judge, not onlypf the U.S., but of every State court is bound thereby. But says the President, “I do not apprehend that the conflicting legislation which the bill seems to contemplate is so likely to occur as to render it necessary at this time to adopt a measure of such doubtful constitutionality.” That statement makes it necessary that I should ndVert to the facts and showwbe the r there is any likelihood of such conflicting legislation; and my testimony comes from the president himself, or those acting under his authority.I hold in my hand a communication from colonel De Gress, addressed to GenlHoward, and dated at Houston, Texas, December 15, 1865, in which he says: "I have the honor to respectfully report that in some portions of this State the negroes are not.yet I free: that the pass systemis still in force, and when freedmen is foundatlargewithouta pass ho is taken up and whipped.” Lieutenant Eldridge. writing to the same officer, from Vicksburg, Mississippi, on the 28th of November, 1855, says: "I have the honor to inclose herewith. for your consideration. the freedmensbill, which hasjust be corne rt law in this State, and would respectfully ask your attention to the following points therein: "Section one prohibits the holding, leasing, or renting of real estateby freedmen.” “ Section 4 excludesfreedmenfrom testifying in cas"eSseocftwiohnitefis.ve author.izesmayorsand boardsof po lice by their sole edict to preventany freedmenfrom doin nnyindependent busmcssntndto compel them to la or as employee.with no appeal from such do 1"8Sleo]c!tion 7 gives the power to any white citizen over the personof aFreedman unknown to any other law and denies the right of appeal beyond the county court.” Major General Terry, in an order issued at Richmond, “llgllllfl, anuary 24, 1866, refer rin to a statute passed at the present session of the Legislature of Virginia entitled “A bill providing for the punishment of vagrants, ” says: “ The ultimate offect of the statutewill be to reduce the freedmen to a condition of servitude worsethan that fro lllVhlGi] theyhave beenemancipated acou dition which will be llavory in all but its name.” Now, sir, what becomes of this declaration that there is no necessity for any measure of this kind? Here are the laws of Texas, of Mississippi. of Virginia, to which I have referred; and laws equally oppressive exist in some of the other States is there no necessity to protect a freedmen, when he is liable to be whipped if caught away from home? No necessity to protect a freedmen in his rights, when he is not permitted to hold or lease a piece of ground in a State? No necessity to protect a freedmen in his rights, who will be reduced to a slavery worse than that from which he has been emancipated if a State statute is permitted to be carried into effect? Sir, these orders emanate and this information comes from Officers acting by residential authority; and yet the President tells us there is no danger of conflicting legislation. He says:. “ In the next place.this provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.as adequate judicial remedied could be adopted to secure the desired and withouli invading the immunities of legislators." Let us see if they could. If adequate judiicial means could be provided without invading these immunities, why, let me ask, did he not" adopt them? Let me read to you, sir, what was done by authority of the POTUS in the Dept of Loui In a general order issued by MajO 7 Canby, at NewOrleans, on the 1 1 January, 1866, I find this provisi referring to the order of General G" t i: tect in colored persons from prosecutioniiil any of the State courts charged with offenses for which white persons are not roseented or punished a similar provision to at contained in this bill GeneraFCanby says: “All prosecution and suits embraced in the fore going order, ending in any court not of Federal jurisdiction, within the limits of this command, will at once be discontinued and set aside. Whenever it shall appear that any unit or proceedingof the character mentioned is pending in a State court, in violation of this order district commanders are authorized and required to give and enforcesuch ordersasmay be necessary and proper." No necessity to interfere with judicial tribunals! Why, then, are such orders issued? What did General Terry say in his order? After stating the effect of the act of the Virginia legislature, “it is therefore ordered that no magistrate, civil officer, or other person, shall, in any way or manner, apply or attempt to apply the provision of said statute to any colored person in this Dept.” Adequate remedy can be provided without assailing the independence of! ie judiciary, says the President; and here we have samples of that adequate remedy which is to take the des ignated cases from the courts, and imprison the judges if they disobey orders. Again. sir, let me refer to another order issued under presidential authority, dated headquarters Dept of SCarolina, Charleston, January 17, 1866, and issued by MajorGenlSickles. It is a very significant order: “All laws shall be applicable alike to all the inhabitnnts." That is the very thing that is in this bill. I wonder it did not occur to the President, when he approved this order, that Gypsies and Chinese might be protected by it. “No person shall be hcld incompetent to suo, mnko complaint or to testify because of color or caste." Again, sir: “To secure the same equal justice and personal liberty to the freedmen as to other inhabitants, no penalties or punishments different from those to which all other persons are amenable shall be imposed on freed people. All injuries to the person or property committed by or upon freed persons shall be punished in the manner provided y the laws of SCarolina for like injurios to the persons or property of citizens therco.” and in a subsequent order issned by GenlSickles, on the 4th of March, it is provided th“at Superior and circuit provost courts will continue in operation as heretofore, and shall have, us against directly or indirectly concerned.until such persons shall be admitted to the State courts as parties and witnesses.with the some rights and remedies no oorded to all other persons." Why, sir. here are the very provisions of this bill embodied in military orders issued under presidential authority and yet the gripsident tells us there is no necessity for this i. The President objects to the 3rd section of the bill that it ves the district courts exclusive jurisdiction of all crimes and offenses committed against the act. Well, sir, that is no new thing. The U.S. courts have always had jurisdiction of crimes and offenses committed against U.S. laws. But it further, as he insists, gives jurisdiction to all cases alfecting persons discriminated as provided in the 1st and 2nd secatigoanisnso¥ the bill; and by a strained construction the President seeks to divest State courts, not only of jurisdiction of the particular case where a party is discriminated against, but of all cases affecting him or which might affect him. This is not the meaning of the section. I have already shown, in commenting on the 2nd section of the bill, that no person is liable to its penlaties except the one who does an act ihidbidmadp enal; that is, deprives another hejs entitled to, or subjects v eat that he ought not to W" sit???" Sotin Mitmthis 3rd section, the jurisdiction igivem to the Federal courts of a case alfecting tg: person that is discriminated against. Nttf, is not necessarily discrimi nated agains. because there may be a custom in the community discriminating against him, nor because a Legislature may have passed a statute discriminating against him; that statute is of no validit if it comes in conflict with a statute of the U.S.; and it is not to be presumed that any judge of a State court would hold that a statute of a State discrimi nating against a person on account of color was valid when there was a statute of the U.S. with which it was in direct conflict, and the case would not therefore rise in which a party was discriminated against until it was tested, and then if the discrimination was held valid he would have a right to remove it to a Federal court 0r, if undertaking to enforce his right in a State court he was denied that right, then he could go into the Federal court; but it by no means follows that every person would have a right in the 1st instance to go to the Federal court because there was on the statute book of the State a law discriminating against him, the presumption being that the judge of the court, when he came to act upon the case, would, in obedience to the paramount law of the U.S., hold the State statute to be invalid. If it be necessary in order to protect the freedman in his rights that he should have authority to go into the Federal courts in all cases where a custom prevails in a State, or where there is a statute law of the State dis criminating against him, I think wilie authority to confer that jurisdictir, . under the 2nd clause of the constitutional amendment, which authorizes Congress to enforce by appropriate legislation the article declaring that “ neitherslavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crim whereof the party shall have been duly convicte {shall exist within the U.S or in any place subject to their jurisdiction.” That c House authorizes us to do whatever is necessary to protect the freedman in his liberty. The faith of the nation is bound to do that; and if it cannot be done without, would have authority to allow him to come to the Federal courts in all cases. The President objects to the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th sections of the bill because of the numerous otheers and agents who are authorized to be employed in its execution. I any and all civil courts, exclusive jurisdiction in all will not take up the time of the Senate in excaseswhere freedmenand other personsof color are amining these various objections in detail. This is the character of all of them. But, sir, all these provisions of the bill are copied from the statute of 1860, known as the “fugitive slave act, ” for which AndrewJohnson voted. That act has been repeatedly held by the courts to be constitutional. I know some object to train its machinery even in the interests of free em. But it was because of the uses and purposes to which that act was applied that it was infamous. When you come to use the same machinery, not for the purpose of reducing to bondage and keepingin s avery human beings, but for the purpose of liberatin and protecting them, it is a very different Giing. As well might our brave soldiers, when they routed the rebel armies, have objected to using in the countrys cause the weapons which they wrested from rebel hands. The 8h and 9th sections of the bill which authorize the President to require a court to be held in any portion of the district where a court may be necessary to nnish offenses under this act, and to use the Xrmy and Navy to prevent its violation, are also objected to, but both those sections are copied from an act passed March 10, 1838, which was approved y Mr. Van Buren, and when he did so I presume it never occurred to him that these sections were specially designed to sons, or to keep up a permanent mili whose only business it should be to the act. enforce Mr. President, I have now gone thrbughiid Q veto message, replying with what tience I could command to its various objections bill. Would that I could stop re, thatthere was no occasion to go further; tjustice to myself, justice to the State whose representative I am, justice to the people of the whole country, in legislation for whose behalfl am called to participate, justice to the Constitution I am sworn to support, justice to the rights of American citizens ip it secures, and to human liberty, now imeriled, requires me to go further. Gladly would) I refrain from speaking of the spirit of this message, of the dangerous doctrines it promulgates, of the inconsistencies and contradictions of its author, of his eneroachments upon the constitutional rights of congress, of iis assumption ofunwarranted powers, which, ifpersevered in and not checked by the people, must eventuallylead to a subversion of the Government and the destruction of liberty. Congress, in the passage of the bill under consideration, sought no controversy with the President. So far from it, the bill was proposed with a view to carry out what were supposed to be the views of the President, and was submitted to him before its introduction into the Senate. I am not about to relate private declarations of the President, butit is right that the American people should know that the controversy which exists between him and Congress in reference to this measure is of his own seeking. Soon after Congress met it became aparent that there Wagldifference of opinion between the P ident and some members of. Congress in regard to the condition of the rebelliousSMfes, and the rights to be secured to freedmenai The President in his annual message had denied the constitutional power of the General Government tb extend the elective franchise to negroes, but hmwns equally decided in the as sertion of the rightcf every man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This was his language: “But while I have no doubt that now, after the close of the war, it is not competentfor the General Government to extend the elective franchise in the several States. it is equally clear that good faith requires the security of the freedmen in their liberty and their property." There were some members of Congress who expressed the opinion that in the reorganization of the rebe hous States the right of suffrage should be extended to the colored man, though this was not the prevailing sentiment of Congress. All were anxions for a reorganization of the rebellious States and their admission to, full participation in the Federal “firs I Government as soon as these relations could i be restored with safety to all concerned. Feeling the importance of harmonious action between the different Depts of the Government, and an anxious desire to sustain the President, for whom I had always entertained the highest respect, I had frequent interviews with him during the early part of the session. Withoutmentioning anything said by him, I may with propriety state that, acting from the considerationsl have stated, and believing that the passage of a law by Congress, securing equaity in civil rights when denied by State authorities to freedmen and all other inhabitants of the U.S., would do much to relieve anxiety in the North, to induce the southern States to secure these rights by their own action, and thereby remove many of the obstacles to an early reconstruction, I preared the bill substantially as it is now returned ith the Presidents objections. After the bill as introduced and printed a copy was furnished him, and at a subsequent period, when t was reported that he was hesitating about igning tie Freedmens Bureau bill, he was nformed of the condition of the civil rights bill then ending in the House, and a hope expressed that. if he had objections to any of its ovisions he. would make them known to its that they might be remedied, if not of the measure; that there was be, o no disosition on the part of con. pd certainl];vnone on my part, to have ented to him which he could not ap Henever indicated tome, nor, sofarasI now, to any of its friends, the least objection to any of the provisions of the hill till after its assagc and how could be, consistently with imself? The bill was framed, as was supposed, in entire harmony with his views, and certainly in harmony with what he was then and has since been doing in protecting freedmen in their civil rights all through the rebellious States. It was strictly limited to the protection of the civil rights belonging to every free man, the birthright of every American citizen, and carefully avoided conferring or interfering with political rights or privileges of any kind. he bl i neither confers nor abridges the rights of anyone, but simply declares that in civil rights there shall be an equality among all classes of citizens, and that all alike shall be subject to the same punishment. Each State. so that it does not abridge the great fundamental rights belonging, under the Constitution, to all citizens, may grant or withhold such civil rights as it pleases; all that is required is that, in this respect, its laws shall be impartial. nd yetthis is the bill now returned with the Presidents objections, and such objections i What are they? That“ In all ourhistory. in all our experience as a people, living under Federal and State laws. no such system as that contemplated by the details of this bill has ever beforebeen proposedor adopted." Have I not already shown in the action of the President himself, through GenlSickles, declaring that “all laws shall be applicable alike to all inhabitants, ” and in various acts of Congress, a precedent for every provision of this bill? “The details of the bill, ” says the president, “establish for the security of the colored race safeguards which go infinitely beyond any that the General Government has ever provided for the white race." With what truth this can be said of a bill which declares that the civil rights and the punishment of all races, including, of course, the colored, shall be the same as those “of white persons, ” let an intelligent publicjudge. "They." the details.] snys the president. “inter fora with t a municipal legislation of the States, with the relations extsting exclusively between a State and its citizens, or between inhabitants of the sameStats. an absorption and assumption of power by the General Government which, if acquiese edin. must sap and destroy our federative system of lim ited powers and break down the barriers which preserve the rights of the States. It is another step or rather stride. towardrentralizntion and the OOIHOD tration of all legislative powersin the national government." All this is said by a President who, by his own fiat, issued through GenlHoward, set aside. an act of the Legislature of Mississippi, and by another order, through General Terrv, an act of the Virginia Legislature, and forbade any magistrate or civil officer from attempting to execute it; who, through General Canby, ordered the State courts in his Dept to suspend all suits against persons c arged with offenses for which white persons were not pnnished, and we all know the penalty which would have been visited upon State judges or officials for violations of any of these or ers; a President who, after vetoin a provision of the Freedmens Bureau bil because it secured to occupants the land which was in their possession under Major GenlSherman s order for the limited period of 3 years, himself issued an order within less than 30 days afterward, through H. W. Smith, asst adjutnnt general, dec aring that “grants of land to the reed people in compliance with GenlShermans Special Field Order, No. 15, dated Jan uary 16, 1865, will be regarded as good and valid.” Well may we exclaim, in view of these acts of the President, in language which he quoted when discussing a veto of President Buchanan, “O consistency! thou art a jewpl much to be admired, but rarely to be found. In view of these facts, who is it that is breaking down the barriers of the States, and making strides toward centralization? Is it Congress, by the passage of this bill, or the President, who, Without law, is arrogating to himself far greater powers than any conferred by this bill? Let it not be said that the President exercises these vast powers by virtue of the war power. He told us in his annual message that towar was over, and whetherover ornot, no incidental powers are vested by the Constitution in the resident, either as prcsident or Coninander in Chief of the Army. That instrument gives Congress power to “ Make all laws necessary and properor carrying into execution" "all powers vestedby the Constitution in the Government of the U.S or in any Deptor ofieu thereof." The President is required in carrying out his powers to act in obedience to law the very thing which he refuses to do. He says “the tendency of this bill must beto resuse itate the spirit of the rebellion.” What assumption in one who denies the authority to punish those who violate U.S. laws under color of State authority a doctrine from which the rebellion sprung, and in entire har mony with the declaration of Mr. Buchanan, that there was no power to coerce a State. But, sir, out of the mouth of Senator AndrewJohnson I will prove that President AndrewJohnson has violated the spirit of the Constitution, if not its letter, in vetoing this bill. It will be remembered that the bill passed both Houses of Congress by more than a 2/3rds majority, the vote in the Senate being, yeas 33 to nays 12, and, in the House, yeas Ill, nnys 38. I will read from the remarks of Senator AndrewJohnson on the veto of the homestead bill by Mr. Buchanan: "The POTUS prunin yes.sir, Isny preamnct todictate to the American people and to the two Housesof Congressjn violation of the spirit. if not the letter. of the Constitution thatthis measureshall not becomea law. Why do I say this? I ask is there any difference in the spirit of tb Constitution whether a measure is sanctioned by a 2/3rds vote beforeits passageor afterward T When a measurehas been vetoed by the President the Constitution requiresthat it shall be reconsidere and passedby a 2/3rds vote in order to becomea law. But herc.in the teeth of the Executive thero was a 2/3rds vote in favor of this bill. The votp was 36to2 in this body. The 2 Ilnnse s have said that this bill is constitutional and right. In the other House, reflecting tho popular sentiment of thenation, the vote was 112to tilten more than the 2/3rds majoritywhieli the Constitution requires; and when there is a 2/3rds vote for u.incasurc. I sav it is against the spirit of the Constitution for the xecutive to say, No. you shall not have this measure; I will takoall the chancesof vetotngit. Apply this language to the facts connected with this bill, and then say who has violated the spirit of the Constitution. This bill in no manner interferes with the municipal regulations of any State which protects all alike in their rights of person and property. It could have no operation in assa ehusetts, NewYork, Illinois, or must of the States of the Union. How preposterous, then, to charge that unless some State can have and exercise the right to punish somebody, orto deny somebody a civil right on account of his color. its rights as a State will be destroyed. It is manifest that unless this bill can be passed, nothing can be done to protect the free men in their liberty and their rights. Whatever may have been the opinion of the President at one time as to “good faith requiring the security of the freedmen in their liberty and their property” it is now manifest from the character of his objections to this bill that he will approve no measure that will accomplish the object. That the 2nd clause of the constitutional amendment gives this power there can be no question. Some have contended that it gives the power even to confer the right of suffrage. I have not thought so, because I have never thought suffrage any more necessary to the liberty of a freedman than of a non-voting white, whether child or female. But his liberty under the Constitution he is entitled to, and whatever is necessary to secure it to him he is entitled to have, be it the ballot or the bayonet. lf the bill now before us, and which goes no further than to secure civil rights to the freedman. cannot be passed, then the constitutional amendment proclaiming freedom to all the inhabitants of the land is a cheat and a delusion. I cannot better conclude what I have to say than in the language of Mr. Johnson on the occasion of the veto of the homestead bill, when, after stating that the fact that the president was inconsistent and changed his opinion with reference to a great measure and a great principle is no reason why a Senator or Representative who had acted understandingly should change his opinion, he said: " I hope the Senate and HoRep. who have sanctioned this bill by more than a 2/3rds majority, will. according to the Constitution exercise their privilege and power and let the bill becomea law of the land. accordinl to the high he hest of the American people.”