Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, I regret that the state of the health of the honorable Senfrom Maine [Mr. Fessnnnss] woe is c be an conference use chairman, on the rt of the Senate, of the JtCommee O 15, is such as to disable him from opening the discussion of this grave and important. measure. I was anxious that he should take the lead and the promi nent lead, in the conduct of this discussion, and still entertain the hope that before it closes the Senate will have the benefit of a full and ample statement of his views. For myself, I can only promise to present to the Senate, in u very succinct way, the views and the motives which influenced that committee, so far as I understand those views and motives, in presenting the report which is now before us for cpniideration, and the ends it aims to accomp IS. The JtResolution creating that committee intrusted them with a very important inquiry, an inquiry involving a vast deal of attention and labor. They were instructed to inquire into the condition of the insurgent States, and authorized to report by bill or otherwise at their discretion. I believe that I do not over state the truth when I say that no committee of Congress has ever proceeded with more fidelity and attention to the matter intrusted to them. The have been nssiduous in discharging their duty. They have instituted an inquiry. so far as it was practicable for them to do so, into the political and social condition of the insurgent States. it is very true, they have not visited any localities outside of the city of Washington in order to obtain information; but they have taken the testimony of a great number of witnesses who have been sum moned by them to Washington, or who hap pened to c in Washington, and who had some acquaintance with the condition of affairs in the insurgent States. I think it will be the judgment of the country in the end that that committee, so far as the procurin of testimony upon this subject is concernedfiias been not only industrious and assiduous, but impartial antlr entirely fair. I know that such has been their aim. I know that it has not been their purpose to present to Congress and the country in their reportanything unfair or one sided, or anything O a party tendency. Our anxiety has been to ascertain the whole truth in its entire length and breadth, so far as the facilities given us would warrant. One result of their investigations has been the JtResolution for the amendment of the Constitution of the U.S. now under consideration. After most mature deliberation and discussion, reaching through weeks and even months, they came to the conclusion that it was necessary, in order to restore peace and quiet to the country and again to impart vigor and eflicienc to the laws, and especially to obtain someing in the shape of a security for the future against the recurrence of the enor mous evils under which the country has labored for the last 4 years that the Constitution of the U.S. ought to be amended; and the project which they have now submitted is the result of their deliberations upon that subject. he 1st section of the amendment they have submitted for the consideration of the two. Houses relates to the privileges and immunities ofcitizens of the several States, and to the rights and privileges of all persons, whether citizens or at ers, under the laws of the U.S. It declares that V.No State shall.makcor enforceanylaw which shall sbrhife the privileges or immunities of citizens of the nited Stater. nor shall any State deprive any personof life liberty or property without due processof law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It will be observed that this is a general prohibition upon all the States, as such, from abridging the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the U.S. That is its 1st clause, and I regard it as very important. It also prohibits each one 01 the States from deprivinp any (person of life, liberty, or proparty with iout uc process of law, or denying to any person with iin the jurisdiction of the State the equal protection of its laws. The 1st clause of this section relates to the pIrivileges and immunities of citizens of the U.S. as such, and as distinguished from all other persons not citizens of the U.S. lt is not, perhaps, very easy to define with accuracy what is meant by the expression, “citizen of the U.S., ” although that expression occurs twice in the constitution, once in reference to the POTUS, in which instance it is de clared that none but a citizen of the U.S shall be President, and again in reference to Senntors, who are likewise to he citizens of the U.S. Undoubtedly the expression is used in both those instances in the some sense in which it is employed in the amendment now before us. A citizen of the U.S. is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the U.S and subject to their laws. Before the adoption of the Constitution of the U.S., the citizens of each State were, in a qualified sense at least, aliens to one another, for the reason that the several States before that event were regarded by each other as independent Governments, each one possessing a sulficicucy of sovereign power to enable it to claim the right of naturalization; and undoubtedly, each one of them possessed for itself the right of naturalizing foreigners, and each one, also, if it had seen fit so to exercise its sovereign power, might have declared the citizens of every other State to be aliens in reference to itself. With a view to prevent such confusion and disorder, and to put the citizens of the several States on an equality with each other as to all fundamental rights, a clause was introduced in the Constitution declaring that “ the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." The effect of this clause was to constitute ipsofacto the citizens of each one of the originalStates citizens of the U.S and how did they antecedoutly become citizens of the several States? By birth or by naturalization. They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. such persons were, therefore, citizens of the U.S. as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. They are, by constitutional right, entitled to these privileges and immunities, and may as sert this right and these privileges and immu niti, and ask for their enforcement whenever th go within the limits of the several States of the Union. It. would be a curious question to solve what rethe privileges and immunities of citizens f each of the States in the several States. I do not propose to go at any length into that question at this time. It would be a somewhat barren discussion. But it is certain the clause was inserted in the Constitution for some good purpose. It has in view some results beneficial to the citizens of the several States, or it would not be found there; ct I am not aware that the Supreme Court have ever undertaken to define either the nature or extent of the privileges and immunities thus guarantied. In deed, if my recollection serves me, that court, on a certain occasion not many years since, when this question seemed to present itself to them. very modestl declined to go into a definition of them, caving questions arising under the clause to be discussed and adjudicated when they should happen practically to arise. But we may gather some intimation of what probably will be the opinion of the judiciary by referring to a case adjudged many years ago in one of the circuit courts of the U.S. by Judge Washington; and I will trouble the Senate but for a moment by reading what that very learned and excellent judge says about these privileges and immunities of the citizens of each State in the several States. It is the case of Corfield vs. Coryell, found in 4 Washingtons Circuit Court Reports, page 380. Judge Washington says: “The next question iswhother this act infringes that sectionof the Constitution which declaresthat.itlfl. citizens of each stateshall be entitled to all pplepes and immunities of citizens in the several a cs Thoinqniry is. what are the privilegesaad immu nllltfiof citizens in the several States We feel no hesitation in confiniiic theso expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental.which belong of I l ht to the citizens of all lre c Governments.pnd who have at all time! been enjoyed by the citizens of the soveral states which comose this Union from the time of their becoming roe. independent, and fOVElOln. What these fundamental principles are it woul. perhaps. he more tediousthan difficult to enumerate. They may however be all comprehendedunderthofollow ienngjogyemneernatlhends: protectionby the Goverument the of life and liberty, with therightto acquire and osse ssproperty ofevery kind and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety.subject neverthelessto such restraints nstho Government iusy justly prescribe for the general good of the wholo. Therighto acitizeu of one Stateto pass through or to reside in any other tine for purposesof trndo.agriculture. professional pursuits, or otherwnie: to claim the benefit of the writ of Imbm rpr.to institute and maintain actions of any kin in the courts of the State: to take hold and dispose of property, either real or personal, and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid h the other citizens of the State. may be mentionc nssomeof the particular privileges and immunities of citizens which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges doomed to be fun amental.to which may be added the elective franchise as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the State in which it is to ho excrcise d. These and many others which might be mentioned are strictly speaking privileges snd iinmunitics and the enioyment of them by the citizens of each State in every other State was manifestly calculated (to use the expressions of thelpreniublo of the corresponding in the old rticles of Confetle rntion)tho EPoOttVelrSltOoIl secure and perpetunto mutual friendship and interppurfic 93th3e people of the different Statos of equion. such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the 2nd section of the 4th article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may ie for they are not and cannot be fully de fined in their entire extent and precise nature to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the 1st 8 amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right a pertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable i searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right ofan accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments. Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the 2nd section of the 4th article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the 1st 8 amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizen solely as a citizen of the U.S and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. States are not affected by them, and it has been repeatedly held that the restriction contained in the Constitution a inst the taking of private property for public use without just compensation is not a restriction upon State legisation, but applies only to the legislation of Congress. Now, sir, there is no power given in the constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers ranted by the Constitution to Congress, and O course; do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congmss to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bi l of rights in the Constitution, without power 0n the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the some time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to ear. The great object of the 1st section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these eat undamental guarantees. How will it be one under the present amendment? As I have remarked, they are not powers granted to Congress, and therefore it is necessary, if they are to be effectuated and enforced, as they assuredly ought to be, that additional power should be given to Congress to that end. This is done by the 5th section of this amendment, which declares that “the Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.” Here is a direct affirmative delegation of power to Congress to carry out all the principfds of all these guarantees, a power not found in the Constitution. The last 2 clauses of the 1st section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the U.S., but any person, whoever he maybe, of life, liberty, or property without due recess of law, or from dening to him the e no protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the in justice of subject in one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. It prohibits the hanging of a black man for a crime for which the white man is not to be hanged. It protects the black man in his fundamental rights as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man. Is it not time, Mr. President, that we extend to the black man, I had almost called it the poor privilege of the equal protection of the law? Ought not the time to be now passed when one measure of justice is to be meted out to a member of one caste while another and a different measureis meted out to the member of another caste, both castes being alike citizens of the U.S., both bound to obey the same laws, to sustain the burdens of the same government, and both e nally responsible to justice and to God for the eeds done in the body? But, sir, the 1st section of the proposed amendment does not give to either of these classes the right of voting. The right of suffrage is not, in law, one of the privilegesoriin munities thus secured by the Constitution. It is merely the creature of law. It has always been regarded in this country as the result of positive local law, not regarded as one of those undamental rights lyin at the basis of all society and without which a people cannot exist except as slaves, subject to a depotism. As I have alread remarked, section one is a restriction upon t ie States, and does not, of itself, confer any power upon Congress. The power which Congress has, under this amendment, is derived, not from that section, but from the 5th section, which gives it authority to pass laws which are appropriate to the at tainment of the great object of the amendment. I look upon the 1st section, taken in connection with the 5th, as very important. It will, if adoptell by the States, forever disable every one of them trorn passing laws trenching upon these fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the U.S., and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction. It establishesequality before the law, and it gives to the humblest, the poorest, the most despised of the race the same rights and the some protectioni before the law as it giVes to the most powerful, the most wealthy, or the trust him lity. That, sir, is republican government, as understand it, and the only One whiih can claim the praise of a just government. Without this principle of equal justice to all men and equal protection under the shield of the law, there is no republican government and none that is really worth main mining. The 2nd action of the proposed amendment reads as follows: SEC. 2. Representatives shallbe apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union. according to their respective numbers. counting the whole number of personsin cach State. excluding Indians not taxed. but whenever.in any State. the elective franchise shall be deniod to any portion of its male citizens not less than 21 years 9f participation age, or in any way abridged, except for of representaitnion rebellion or other crime. the basis the proportion which such States rhoaf lsl uhcehriendaule citizens That is, citizens as to whom the right of voting is denied or abridged shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not lessthan 21 years of age. It is very true, and I am sorry to be obliged to acknowledge it, that this section of the amendment does not recognize the authority of the U.S. over the question of so frage in the several States at all; nor does it recognize, much less secure, the right of suffrage to the colored race. I wish to meet this question fairly and frankly; I have nothing to conceal upon it; and I am perfectly free to say that if I could have my own way, if my preferences could be carried out, I certainly should secure suffrage to the colored race to some extent at least; for I am opposed to the exclusion and prescription of an entire race. If I could not obtain universal suffrage in the opular sense of that exression, Isould be in favor of restricted, qualified suffrage for the colored race. But, sir, it is not the question here what will we do; it is not the question what you, or I, or half a dozen other members of the Senate may prefer in respect to colored suffrage; it is not entirely the question what measure we can pass through the 2 Houses; but the question really is, what will the Legislatures of the various States to whom these amendments are to be submitted do in the premises; what is it likely will meet the General approbation of the people who are to elect the Legislatures, 3/4ths of whom must ratify our propositions before they have the force of constitutional provisions? Let me not be misunderstood. I do not intend to say, nor do I say, that the proposed amendment section 2, prescribes the colored race. It has nothing to do with that question, as I shall show before I take my seat. I could wish that the elective franchise should be extended equal? to the white man and to the black man; an if it were necessary, after full consideration, to restrict what is known as universal suffrage for the purpose of securing this equality, I would go for a restriction; but I deem that impracticable at the present time, and so did the committee. a The colored race are destined to remain among us. They have been in our midst for more than 200 years; and the idea of the people of the U.S. ever being able by any measure or measures to which they may resort to expel or expatriate that race from their limits and to settle them in a foreign country, is to me the wildest of all chimeras. The thing can never be done; it is impracticable. hor weal or for woe, the destiny of the colored race in this country is wrapped up with our own; they are to remain in our midst, and here spend their years and here bury their fathers and finally repose themselves. We may regret it. It may not, be entirely compat ible with our taste that they should live in our midst. We cannot be] it. Our forefathers introduced them, and their destiny is to continue among us; and the practical question which now presents itself to us is as to the best mode of getting along with them. The committee were of opinion that the States are not yet prepared to sanction sofundamental a change as would be the concession of the right of suffrage to the colored race. We may as well state it plainly and fairly, so that there shall be no misunderstanding on the subject. It was our opinion that 3/4ths of the States of this nion could not be induced to vote to grant the right of suffrage, even. in any degree or under any restriction, to the colored race. We may be right in this apprehension or we may be in error. Time will develop the truth; and for one I shall wait with patience the movements of public opinion upon this great and absorbing question. The time may come, I trust it will come, indeed I feel a profound conviction that it is not far distant when even the people of the States themselves where the colored population is most dense will consent to admit them to the right of suffrage. Sir, the safety and prosperity of those States depend upon it; it is especially for their interest that they should not retain in their midst a race of pariahs, so circumstanced as to be obliged to bear the burdens of government and to obey its laws without any particiation in the enactment of the laws. lhe 2nd section leaves the right to regulate the elective franchise still with the States, and does not meddle with that right. Its basis of representation is numbers, whether the numbers be white or black; that is, the whole population except untaxed Indians and persons excluded by the State laws for rebelion or other crime. Formerly under the Constitution, while the free States were represented only according to their respective numbers of men, women, and children, all of course endowed with civil rights, the slave States had the advantage of being represented according to their number of the some free classes, increased by 3/5ths of the slaves whom they treated not as men but property. They had this advantage over the free states, that the bulk of their property in the proportion of 3/5ths had the right of representation in congress, while in the free States not a dollar of property entered into the basis of representation. John Jacob Astor, with his 50 millions of property, was entitled to cast but one vote and he at the ballot box would meet his equal in the rag edest beggar that strolled the streets. Property has been rejected as the basis of just representation; but still the advantage that was given to the slave States under the Constitution enabled them to send at least 21 members to Congress in 1860, based entirely upon what they treated as property a number sufficient to determine almost every contested measure that might come before the HoRep. "the 3/5ths principle has ceased in the destruction of slavery and in the enfranchise ment of the colored race. Under the present Constitution this change will increase the number of Representatives from the once slave holding States by 9 or 10. That is to so, if the present basis of representation, as estalished in the Constitution, shall remain Operative for the future, making our calculations upon the census of 1860, the enfranchisement of their slaves would increase the number of their Representatives in the other House 9 or 10, I think at least ten; and under the next census it is easy to see that this number would be still increased; and the important question now is, shall this be permitte while the colored population are excluded from the privilege of voting? Shall the recently slave holding States, while they exclude from the ballot the whole of their black poulation, be cat tled to include the whole of that populationi the basis of their representation, and thus to obtain an advantage which they did not possess before the rebellion and emancipation? In short, shall we permit it to take place that one of the results O emancipation and of the war is to increase the Representatives of the late slaveholding States? I object to this. I think they cannot very consistently call upon us to grant them an additional number of Representatives simply because in consequence of their own misconduct they have lost the property which they once possessed and which served as a basis in great part of their repru sentation. The committee thought this should no longer be permitted, and the thought it wiser to adopt a general princip c applicable to all the States alike, namely, that where a State excludes any part of its male citizens from the elective franchise, it shall lose Representatives in proportion to the number so excluded; and the clause applies not to colorOr to race at all, but simply to the fact of the individual exclusion. Nor did the committee adopt the principle of making the ratio of representation epend upon the number of voters, for it so happens that there is an unequal distribution of, voters in the several States, the old States having proportionally fewer than the Jiew States. It was desirable to avoid this inequality in fixing the basis. The committee adopted numbers as the most just and satisfactory basis, and this is the principle upon I which the Constitution itself was originally framed, that the basis of representation should depend upon numbers; an such, I think, after all, is the safest and most secure principle upon which the Government can rest. Numbers, not voters; numbers, not property; this is the theory of the Constitution. By the census of 1860, the whole number of i colored persons in the several States was 4.427,067. In 5 of the NewEng land States, where colored persons are allowed to vote, the number of such colored persons is only 12,000 132. This leaves of the colored population of the U.S. in the other States unrepresented, 4,414,935, or at least one 7th part of the whole population of the U.S. Of this last number 3,650,000 were in the 11 seceding States, and only 547,000 in the 4 remaining slave States which did not secede, namely, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri.In the 11 seceding States the blacks are to the whites, basin the calculation upon the census of 1860, near y as 3 to 5. A further calculation shows that if this section shall be adopted as a part of the Constitution, and if the late slave States shall continue hereafter to exclude the colored population from voting, they will do it at the loss at least of 24 Representatives in the other House of Congress according to the rule established by the act of 1850. I repeat, that if they shall persist in refusing suffrage to the colored race, if they shall persist in excluding that whole race from the right of suffrage, they will lose 24 members of the other House of Congress. Some have estimated their loss more and some less; but according to the best calculation I have been able to make, I think that will be the extent. It is not to be disguised the committee have no disposition to conceal the fact that this amendment is so drawn as to make it the political interest of the once slaveholding States to admit their colored population to the right of suffrage. The penalty of refusing will be severe. They wi lundoubtedly lose, and lose so long as they shall refuse to admit the black population to the right of suffrage, that balance of power in Congress which has been so long their pride and their boast. It will be observed, however, that this amendment does not apply exclusively to the insur gent States, nor to the slaveholding States, but to all States withoutdistiuction. It says to all the States, “If you restrict suffrage among your people, whether that people be white or black or mixed, your representation in Congress shall be reduced in proportion to that restriction.” It holds out the same penalty to Massachusetts as to SCarolina, the same to Michigan as to Texas.