Mr. LANE, of Indiana. Mr. President, I shall detain the Senate but a very few moments at this stage of the proceedings, for I am as anxious to have avote as anyone; butit is perhaps necessary for me to say a few words in explanation of the reasons for the vote I shall we. g My distinguished colleague, if I understand him aright, places his objection to this bill, 1st, upon the ground that we have pressed into the service the machinery of the fugitive slave law; and 2ndly, that we authorize this bill to be enforced by the military authority of the U.S. It is true that many of the provisions of this bill, changed in their purpose and object, are almost identical witd the provisions of the fugitive slave law, and they are enounced by my colleague in their present application; but I have notheard any denunciation from in colleague, or from any of those associated wi him, of the provisions of that fugitive slave law which was enacted in the interest of slavery and for purposes of oppression, and which was an unworthy, cowardly, disaceful concession to southern opinion by nortern politicians. I have suffered no suitable opportunity to escape me to denounce the monstrous character of that fugitive slave act of 1850. All these provisions were odious and disgraceful in my opinion, when a plied in the interest of slavery, when the o ject was to strike down the rights of man. But here the purpose is clian ed. These provisions are in the interest o free men an of freedom, and what was odious in the one case becomes highly meritorious in the other. It is an instance of )octic justice and of apt retribution that God has caused the wrath of man to praise Him. I stand by every provision of this bill, drawn as it is from that most iniqui tous fountain, the fugitive slave law of 1850. What possible wrong can be inflicted upon anyone y the provisions of this bill? These men are free by a 3 fold title. They have a 3 fold claim to their freedom. They are free, 1st, by the proclamation of the POTUS Many of them are free, from having fought during the late rebellion in the Army of the GU. S., and by the laws of all nations, Christian and savage, and by the usage of all nations, the moment you make them soldiers in your Army vou manumit and declare them free. They are free by the constitutional amendment lately enacted, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of other free citizens of the U.S. It is made your especial duty by the 2nd section of that amendm ent, by appropriate legislation, to carry out that emancipation. If that 2nd section were not embraced in the amendment at all your duty would be as stron, the dut would be para mount, to protect them inal rights as free and manumitted people. I do not consider that the 2nd section of that amendment does anything but declare what is the duty of Congress, after having passed such an amendment to the constitution of the U.S., to secure them in all their rights and privileges. My distinguished colleague seems to "on to the term “equality. the law.” What are the objects sought to be accomplished by this bill? That these freedmen shall be secured in the possession of all the rights, privileges, und immunities of free men; in other words, that we shall give effect to the proclamation of emancipation and to the constitutional amendment. them effect thagngzyyjelolsiiegJfliivaasyk yoWu, itchadnhewejgaiwce idi “its”. o v i h ate to iwwmiuiihw“ e the 1 ne 0t e istin uis e nen ors from Kentucky [Mr. GUTKRIgE] says that all these slave laws have fallen with the emancipation of the slave. That, I doubt not, is true, and by a court honestly constituted of able and upright lawyers, that exposition of the constitutional amendment would obtain. But why do we legislate upon this subject now? Simpl because we fear and have reason to fear that the emanncipatd slaves would not have their rights in the courts of the slave States. The State courts already have jurisdiction of every single question that we propose to give to the courts of the U.S. Vliy. then the necessity of passing the law? Simply booaaeewe fear the execution of these laws if left to the State courts. That is the necessity for thisprovision. Then my colleague asks, why do you invoke the power of the militaryto enforce these laws? An he says that constables and sherifl“ and marshals when they have process to serve have a right to call upon the posse comitatus, the bud of the whole peole, to enforce their writs. prose a justice eagg in SCarolina or Georgia, or a county cpuffirii"IETrmut court, that is called upon to execute thislaw. They a ipoint their own marshal their deputy marshal, or their constable and e calls upon the arse comitatm. Neither the judge, nor the Jury, nor the Officer aswe believe is wdhr 1866. 603 to execute the law. He may call upon the people, the body of the whole people, a bed of rebels steeped in treason an reellion to their lips, and they are to execute it; and the gentleman seems wonderfully astonished that we should call upon the military power. We should notle State at all if we belieyei the State courts could or would honestly carr oiifhe provisionsof the f Constitutional aniendment . but because we believeptbgl will not do that, we give raIlbllicers Juris “ because we believe they will not do it, because we believe their people will not carry it out, we authorize the POTUS to do what he would have a perfect right to do without the enactment of sue a law an or peculiar circumstances. Where organized resistance to the legal authority assumes that shape that the of ficers cannot execute a writ, they have a right through the Governor of the State to call upon the President to see that that law. as wel as everyother law, is faithfully executed. We propose bylaw to say that the military may be called in for the execution of this law. But to return to the fugitive slave law; how long is it since in Boston, the proud metro o lis of NewEngland, the military were cal edin to execute the fugitive slave law and to suppress a riot growing out of the attempt to enforce it? I think. then, that the provisions of this bill are admirably calculated to secure to these colored persons their rights under the constitutiona amendment, and I think the revision contained in the last section of the bill more important than any other, and that is, that the President shall have a right with the strong arm of military authority to see that this law is carried out; and I say without that revision this act would be a mockery and a arce. It will not be worth the paper upon which it will be engrossed unless you make it a law in deed and in fact, and authorize the judicial officers appointed under it to call upon and to command the military power of the country for the purpose of carrying it out. But what harm is to result from it? Who is to be oppressed? What white man fleein, in the language of my colleague, pursued by these harpies of the law, is in anger of having his rights stricken down? What does the bill provide? It places all men upon an equality, and unless the white man violates the law he is in no dan Mr. It takes no right from any white man. t simply places others on the same platform upon which he stands, and if he would invoke the power of local prejudice to override the laws of the country, this is no Government unless the military may be called in to enforce the order of the civil courts and obedience to the laws of the country.