Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the proposition submitted by the Gentfrom Iowa, in all its length and breadth, for on that question my opinion is. clear that the Government of this country, deriving its powers from the Constitution of the U.S., is divided between the executive, legislative and judicial depts, that it is a Government of defined and limited powers, and that any enlargement or encroachment upon the part of anyone of these depts i."its constitutional province is an usurpation that ought not to be countenanced. I believe, sir, it is the province of the legislative dept to make laws, of the executive to administer them, and of the judiciary to expound them. I do not believe that a proposition, such as I understand this one to be, assuming virtually upon the part of congress the power and right to construe a provision of the Constitution admitted to be doubtful, is a legitimate exercise of the powers of this branch of the Government. For that reason, and for that reason only, I shall vote against the proposition of the Gentfrom Iowa. But, sir, I wish it to be distinctly under stood, while these are my views of the constitutional aspect of the question, I fully concur with him in the ideas he has suggested in regard to the necessity of some constitutional, proper legislation for the purpose of preventing that form of involuntary servitude [ as penal slavery, or the sale of a convict's labor for crime. That legislation, in my opinion, belongs to the States concerned; and }". no hesitation in saying that, if I were a member of the Legislature of Maryland, I should promptly vote for a proposition involving the same principles that he has introduced here. such a provision has already been introduced into the Legislature of that State. And I may be o to say there is no State of this nion which has accepted emancipation in better faith than the State which I have the honor in part to represent upon this floor. Maryland pioneered the path of constitutional emancipation for the General Government by the amendment of her own constitution, which receded the action in the same direction of the 38 h Congress. And it may be doubted whether the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery throughout the U.S. could have secured the requisite majority in the 38 h Congress but for the impetus given to that movement by the example of Maryland. In regard to the statute providing for involuntary servitude for crime, which has been brought into controversy, i have to say that, so far from the act referred to as passed by the Legislature of Maryland having been enacted in any spirit of hostility or opposition to the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, or to the constitutional provision incorporated into the organic act of that State, it is an old act, passed originally in 1835, amended and recnacted in 1858, and again amended and reenacted in 1862, by a Legislature the complexion of which gentlemen will understand when I tell them it was the one that raised money and regiments for the defense of the Government. It was that Legislature which reenacted that part of the code of Maryland, and that act was passed in the Senate by the vote of all the members but two, and in the House of Delegates by the vote of all but 6, includin in the majority many of the most eminent an conspicuous loyal men, even upon the radical side. I need do no more than mention as one who voted in the majority on that question the gentleman who was selected byo to eliver, before the 2 Houses and before the SCOTUS, a eulogy upon the life and character of my lamented predecessor, Mr. Davis.