Mr. MORRILL. Mr. President it is not my purpose to enter upon any general discussion of the character of this bill or the measure at large. It has been denominated by the honorable Senator who reported it to the Senate [Mr. Tasmania?1 asan important measure, and it has been so characterized by the honorable Senfrom Kentucky, E Mr. Davis]and it undoubtedly in its genera scope and bearing is of the highest importance. But I purpose to address myself, in the brief moments that I shall ask the indulgence of the Senate, to the amendment simply and alone. This amendment is important or unimportant aswe understand the principles of public law applicable to the general subject. It is important as a declaration of American lawI concede. It is impertant moreover as a definition. If there is anything with which the American people are troubled, and if there is anything with which. the American statesman is perplexed and vexed, it is what to do with the negro, how to define him, what he is in American law, and to what rights he is entitled. What shall we do with the everlasting, inevitable negro? is the question which puzzles all brains and vexes all statesmanship. Now, as a definition, this amendment settles it. Hith erto we havesaid that he was a nondescript in our statutes; he had no stable; he was ubiqui tous; he was both man and thing; he was 3/5ths of a person for representation and he was a thing for commerce and for use. In the highestsense, then, in which any definition can ever be held, this bill is important as a definition. It defines him to be a man and onlfl a man in American polities and in American w; it uts him on the plane of manhood; it brings imwithin the pale of the constitution. "but is all it does as a definition, and there it leaves him. But, sir, as a question of lawI do not attach any very great importance to the declaration. It is not an enactment in the sene of the law, and the honorable chairman so understands it. He understands that it is an afirmative proposition. It affirms the high principles of American law, and that only. hercfore, it is not an enactment in the sense of the law, in the sense oflegislation, but a declaration ofagrand, fundamental principle of law and politics, and as such I hail it; as such it has a transcendent importance; as such it is without a parallel in the history of the legislation of this country or perhaps of any other. As matter of law, does anybody deny here or anywhere that the native born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone? The honorable Senfrom Kentucky has vexed himself somewhat I think with the problem of the naturalization of American citizens. As he reads it, only foreigners can be naturalized, or, in other words, can become citizens; and upon his assumption, 4 million men and women in this country are outside not only of naturalization, not only of citizenship, but out side of the possibility of citizenshi. Sir, he has forgotten the grand principle both of nature and nations, both of law and politics, that birth gives citizenship of itself. his is the fundamental principle running through all modern polities both in this country and in Europe. tverywhere where the principles of law have been recoized at all, birth by its inherent energy an force gives citizenship. Therefore the founders of this Government made no provisionof course they made nonefor the naturalization of naturalborn citizens. The constitution speaks of “ natural born, ” and speaks of them as citizens in contradistinction from those who are alien to us. Therefore, sir, this amendment, although it is a grand enunciation, although it is a lofty and sublime declaration, has no force or efficiency as an enactment. I hail it and accept it simply as a declaration. The honorable Senfrom Kentucky, when he criticises the methods of naturalization, and rules out, for want of power, 4 million prople, forgets this general process of nations and of iinture by which every man, by his birth, is entitled to citizenship, and that upon the Gen“ognize eral principle that he owes allegiance to the country o his birth, and that country owes him protection. That is the foundation, as I understand it, of all citizenship, and these are the essential elements of citizenship, allegiance on the one side and protection on the other. But. sir, this amendment to which I address myself is important in another respect. It marks an epoch in the history of this country, and from this time forward the legislation takes a fresh and a new departure. Sir, today is the only hour since this Government began when it was possible to have enacted it. such has been the situation of politicsin this country, nay, sir, such have been the provisions of the fundamental law of this country, that such legislation, hitherto, has never been possible. there has been no time since the foundation of the Government when an American Congress could by possibility have enacted such a law, or with propriety have made such a declaration. What is this declaration? All persons born in this conn t are citizens. 4That never was so before. A thoughIhave said that by the fundamental prinnciples of American law all persons were on titled to be citizens by birth, we all know that there was an exceptional condition in the government of the country which provided for an exception to this general rule. Here were 4 million slaves in this country that were not citizens, not citizens by the general policy of the country, not citizens on account of their condition of servitude; up to this hour they could not have been treated by us as citizens; so long as that revision in the constitution which rec this exceptional condition remained the fundamental law of the country, such a declaration as this would not have been legal, could not have been enacted by Congress. I hail it, therefore, asa declaration which typifies agrand fundamental change in the polities of the country, and which change justifies the declaration now. The Senfrom Kentucky denounces as a usurpation this measure, and particularly this amendment, this declaration. lHe says it is not within the principles of the constitution. That it is extraordinary I admit. That the measure is not ordinary is most clear. There is no parallel, I have already said, for it in the history of this country; t mm is no parallel for it in the history of any country., No nation from the foundation of government has ever under taken to make a legislative declaration so broad. Why? Because no nation hitherto has ever cherished a liberty so universal. The ancient republics were all exceptional in their liberty; the allhad exceted classes subjected classes, which were not the subjectoiz government; and therefore they could not so legislate. That it is extraordinary and without a parallel in the history of this Government or of any other doeiifnot affect the character of the declaration itse. rlihe Senfrom Kentucky tells us that the propositiollis revolutionary, and he thinks that is an objection. I freely concedethatitierev olutiOnaryQ I admit that this species of legislation isabsolutely revolutionar. But are we not in the midst ofrevolution? s the Senfrom Kentucky utterly obliuious to. the grand results of 4 years of war? Are we not in the midst of a eivil and political revolution which has changed the fundamental principles of our Government in some respects? Sir, is it no revolution that you have changed the entire system of servitude in this country? Is it no revolution that now you can no longer talk of 2 systems of civilization in this country? 4 short years back I remember to have lis tened to eloquent speches in this Chamber, in which we were told that there was a grand antagonism in our institutions; that there were 2 civilizations; that there was a civilization based on servitude, and that it was antagonistic to the free institutions of the country. Where is that? Gone forever. That result is a revolution grander and sublime iuits consequences than the world has witnessed hitherto. I accept, then, what the Senfrom Kentacky thinks so obnoxious. We are in the midst of revolution. We have revolutionized this constitution of ours to that extent; and every substantial change in the fundamental constitution of a country is a revolution. “Why, sir, the constitution even provides for revolutionizing itself. Nay, more, it contemplates it: contemplates that in the changing p iases of life. civil and political, changes in the fundamental law will become necessary; and is it needful for me to advert to the facts and events of the last 4 or 5 years to justify the declaration that revolution here is not only radical and thorough. but the result of the events of the last 4 years? Of course I mean to contend in all I say that the revolution of which I speak should be peace ful, as on the part of the Government here it has been peaceful. It grows out, to be sure, of an assault upon our institutions by those whose [purpose it was to overthrow the Government; at on the part of the Government it has been peaceful, it has been within the forms of the l constitution; but it is a revolution neverthe ess. But the honorable Senfrom Kentucky insists that it is a usurpation. Not so, sir. Although it is arevolution radical, as I contend, it was not a usurpation. It was not a usurpation, because it took place within the provisions contemplated in the constitution. More than that, it was a change precisely in harmony with the general principles of the Government. This great change which has been wrought in our institutions was in harmony with the fundamental principles of the Government. The change which has been made has destroyed that which was exceptional in outinstitutions; and the action of the Government in regard to it was provoked by the enemies of the Government. T he opportunity was afforded, and the change which has been wrought was in harmony with the fundamental principles of the Government. But, Mr. President, it is said that this amendment raises the general question of the antag onism of the races, which we are told is a well established fact. It is saidthat no rational man, no intelligent legislator or statesman should ever not without reference to that grand historical fact; and the Senfrom Pennsylvania )Mr. COWAN] on a former occasion asserted that this Government, that American society, had been established here upon the principle of the or clusion, as he termed it, of the inferior and the barbarian races. Mr. President, I deny that proposition as a historical fact. There is nothing more inaccurate. No proposition could possibly be made here or anyw ere else more inaccurate than to say that American society, either civil or political, was formed in the interest of any race or class. Sir, the history of the country does not bear out the statement of the honorable Senfrom Pennsylvania. Was not America said to be the land of refuse? Has it not been since the earliest period he (I up as an asylum for the oppresse of all nations? Hither, allow me to nsii, have not all the peoples of the nations of the earth come for an asylum and for refuge? All the nations of the earth and allthe varieties of the races of the nations of the earth have gathered here. In the early settlements of the country, the Irish. the French, the Swede, the Turk, the Italian, the Moor, and so I might enumerate all the races and all the variety of races, came here, and it ils fundamental mistake to suppose that settlement was begun here in the interests of any class or condition or race or interest. This Western continent was looked to as an asylum for the oppressed of all nations and of all races. Hither all nations and all races have come. Here. sir. upon the grand plane of republican demoeratic liberty, they have uudertaken to work out the great problem of mans capacity for selii government without stint or limit. Then the honorable Senator advances one step further, and contends that not only was society formed in the interests of a racbthe superior race as he is pleased to call it but that Government here was organized in the interest of a race. I deny it utterly. I deny that Government was organized in the interest of any race or color, and there is neither “raw” 1866. 5n nor “ color” in our history politically or civilly “not a bit of it. Is there any " color” or race " in the DeclarIndep, allow me to ask? “ All men are created equal " excludes the idea of race or color or caste. There never was in the history of this country any other distinction than that of condition, and it was all founded on condition. We have been told, Mr. President, that this question of race was clearly recognized and settled in a case that was before the Supreme Court some years agothe Dred Scott case socalled. I will read from that case. I read 1st from the syllabus ofit: " A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a citizen” within the meaning of the constitution of the U.S., ” not on account of his race or on account of his color, but on account of his condition. The pointpf the decision is that an African who was brought into this country and sold as a slave was not an American citizen. The ChiefJustice in delivering the opinion of the court in that case, after quoting the l“anguage of the DeclarIndep, We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal, ” &. c., proceeds to say:. “Tho general words above quoted would seem (A enmscbdriancea tshime ilarins whole human famiy, and wifotuhledybweesreo understood. But it is too clear for disute that Rho enslaved African race were not intended to be included. Not the colored man, not the African as a race, but “the enslaved African race, ” hesays were not intended to be included, and f rme no part of the people who framed and atzipted this Declaration.” On what ground? Simply, I repeat, on the ground of their condition, because they were not in a condition to take part in the Government of the country. Furtheron the same idea is repeated in this language: “ No onoof that race had ever migrated to the U.S. voluntarily; all of them ghd been brought here as articlesof merchandise. The number that bad been emancipatedat that time were but few in comparison with those held in slavery and they were identified in the public mind with the race to which they belonged and regarded as a part of the slave population ritther than the free.” Further on the same sentiment is repeated again: "Indeed. whenwe look to the condition of thisraco in the several States at the time, it is impossible to believe that these rights and privileges wereintended to be extendedto them, ” Why? On account of their condition, not on Tacconnt of their race. Mr. President, although to repeat what I said in the beginnin, I attach no importance to the declaration of this amendment as a matter of law, as a matter of enactment, givinglegislative force or legislative sanction to this bill, do hail it as the grandest declaration in all time as a legislative act, and I congratulate the chairman of the ComJudiciary that it has fallen to his good fortune to be the instrument for the intronotion of such a declaration.