Mr. TRUMBULL. Page 610. I give the top paging. In the 2nd volume of his Commentaries, page 38, Chancellor Kent says: "The privileges and immunities conceded by the Constitution of the U.S. to citizens of the several States were to be confined to those whioh were, in their nu.turc. fundamental and belongedof right to the citizens of all free Governments. such are the rights of protection of life and liberty and to acquire and enjoy property." The President, in his annual message, says: “The American system rests on the assertion of the equal right of everyman to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” There is a case reported in 10 Johnson which goes much further than this, and which decides, not simply that a citizen of the U.S., as such, is entitled to protection in these rights, but that an alien enemy, who is permitted to reside in this country during a time of war, is to be protected in all these rights. In giving the opinion of the court in the case of larke vs. orey, reported in 10 Johnson, 71, the court says: “A lawful residence implies protection, and a capacity to sunand be sued. I should, like to inquire if the negro is law fully in this country; and if not, where does he belong? “ A lawful residence implies protection, and aca patityto we and besued. Acontrary doctrinewould 0repugnant to sound policy, no lessthan to justice and humanity. "Therightto sue.in such acase, restsonstill broader ground than that of a meremunicipal provision. for it has been frequently held that the law of nations is part of the common law. By the law of nations, an alien who comesto residein a foreign country is entitled, so long as ho conducts himself peaceably.to continue to reside there. under the public protection." In the same opinion the learned judge who gave the opinion of the court says that this is the public law of Europe. It is international law; and every person residing in the U.S. is entitletfto the protection of that law by the Federal Government, because the Federnl Government has jurisdiction of such questions. American citizenship would be ittle worth if it did not carry protection with it. How is it that every person born in these U.S. owes alleviance to the Government? Everything that he is or has, his property and his life, may be taken by the Government of the U.S. in its defense or to maintain the honor of the nation; and can it be that our ancestors struggled through a long war and set up this Government, and that the people of our day have struggled through another war, with all its sacrifices and all its desolution, to maintain it, and at last that we have got a Government which is all powerful to command the obedience of the citizen, but has no power topfford him protection? Is that all that this boasted American citizenship amounts to? Go tell it, sir, to the father whose son was starved at andersonville, or the widow whose husband was slain at Mission Ridge, or the little boy who leads his sightless father thr 0., may streets of your city, made blind by the winds and the sand of the southern coupt, or the 1,000 other mangled heroes to be seen on every side, that this Government, ind ease of which the son and the husband fell. the fa ther lost his eyes, and the others were crippled, had the right to call these persons to its de fense, but has no right to protect the survivors or their friends in any right whatever in any of the States. Sir, it cannot be. such is not he meaning of our Constitution. such is not ta meaning of American citizenship. This government, which would go to war to protect its meanest I will not say citizen inhabitant, if you please, in any foreign land whose rights were unjustly eneroached upon, has certainly some power to protect its own citizens in their own country. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal rights. aof the conI pass from the consideration of this 1st section of the bill to that of the 2nd, which is objected to by the President as affording “(listllmlmlblng protection to colored perI will read the section: SIC. 2 Abife: That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, reulatioa or cpstom, shall subject or cause to be an iected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right securedor protectedby this act or to different punishment pains, or penalties on account of such person having at any times be erevnmhideeld, einxcaepet oansduit piounni sohfmslacvnet rfoyrocrriminevowlhuenrtearoyf the party shall have been duly convicted.0r by reason of his color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000 imprisopment not exceeding one year or both, in the discretion of the court. Can human ingenuity point out wherein that section discriminates in favor of colored persons? It says, in effect, that no one shall subject a colored person toa different punishment than that inflicted on a white person for the same offense. Does that discriminate in fa vor of the colored person? Why, sir, the very object and effect of the section is to prevent discrimination, and language, it seems to me. could not more lainly express that object and effect. It may c said that it is for the benefit of the black man because he is now in some instances discriminated against by State laws; but that is the case with all remedial statutes. They are for the relief of the persons who need the relief, not for the relief of those who have the right already; and when those needing the relief obtain it, they stand upon the precise footing of those who do not need the enelit of the law. There are, however, other serious objections made to this SGCtlOll: It is said that “it provides for counteracting such forbidden legislation by.imposing line and imprisonment upon the leflislators who may pass such conflicting laws. Let us see if that is the language or the proper construction of the section. I will rea again the 1st lines of it. It declares That any person who.under color of any law. ordinance. rezuation or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, 510 shall be punished. 6m. Who is to be punished? Is the law to be punishedl Are the men who make the law to e punished? Is that the language of the bill? Not at all. Ifany person, “ under color ofany law, " shall subject another to the deprivation of a right to which he is entitled he is to be punished. Who? The person who, under the color of the law, does the act, not the men who made the law. In some communities in the Southa custom prevails by which different punishment is inflicted upon the blocks from that meted out to whites for the same offense. Does this section propose to punish the communit where the custom prevails? Or is it to punis the person who, under color of the custom, de prives the party of his right? It is a manifest perversion of the meaning of the section to assert anything else. But it is sai at lindert:ovision judges iniuis al Officers who are engu e execution of any such statutes may be finished; and that is made an objection to this bill. I admit that a ministerial officer or a judge, if he acts corruptly or viciously in t execution or under color of an illegal act may be and ought to be punished; but if e acted innocently the judge would not be punished. Sir, whatis a crime? It is aviolation of some public law, to constitute which there must be an act and a vicious will in doing the act; or, according to the definition in some of the law books, to constitute acrime there must be a violation of a public law, in the commission of which there must be a union or joint operation of act and intent or crim inal negligence; and a judge who acted inno cently, and not viciously or oppressively, Would never be convicted underlhis act. But, air. if he acted knowingly, viciously, or oppress ively, in disregard of a.law of the U.S., I repeat, he ought to be punished, and it is no anomaly to prescribe a punishment in such a case. Very soon after the organization of this Government, in the 1st years of its existence, the Congress of the U.S. provided for punishin officers who, under color of State law, vio ated the laws of the U.S. I read from the 26th section of an act passed in 1790, providing for the punishment of certain offenses against foreign ministers, consuls, &c.: “That in case any orsonor persons shallsue forth or prosecuteany such writ or process, such personor persons, and all attorneysor solicitors prosecutingor soliciting in such case, and all officersexecuting any such writ or process being thercof convicted shall be deemedviolators of the laws of nations and disturbers of the public repose and imrisoned not exceeding 3 years, and lined at todise retion of the court.” By this provision all Officers executing any writ or process in violation of the laws of the U.S. are to be subject to a much lonlger imprisonment than is provided by this bil.