Mr. SAULSBURY. I answer the honorable Senator with pleasure. The o station, the effect of that amendment is simply to say that a person who heretofore was a slave of another shall be no longer his slave, and it operates no further. It bestows no rights further than to relieve him from the burdens of servitude and slavery. A man may be a free man and not possess the same civil rights as other men. he time was in England when an accused party was not entitled to counsel to aid him in his defense. Nevertheless he was a free man. lfnot, whose slave was he? “he could control his person or his actions? Who could appropriate to his own use the labor of such a one? This example will serve to illustrate my meaning and confirms as true the position I assume. it you intended to bestow upon the freed slave all the rights of a free citizen, you ought to have gone further in our constitutional amendment, and provided that not only the status and condition I of slavery should not exist, but that there should be no inequality in civil rights. Whether I have satisfied the mind of any senator or any person in reference to this point, I at least have satisfied my own mind that my reposition is as clear as the sun at noonday. hen, sir, that being the basis upon which the honorable Senfrom Illinois founds his ar apment, the sole authority which he claims for is bill, I might content myself with dismissing the subject here. I shall not follow the honor able Senator into a consideration of the manner in which slaves were treated in the southern States, nor the privileges that have been denied to them by the laws of the (ates. I think the time for shedding tears over the poor slave has well nigh passe this country. The tears which the honest wh people of this country have been made to shed from the oppressive acts of this Government in its various Depts during the last 4 years call more loudly for my sympathies than those tears which have been shedding and droppin and dropping for the last. 20 years in reerence to the poor, oppressed slavedroppin from the e was of strongminded women nurfweakminde men, until, becoming a mighty flood, they have swept away, in their resist ess force, every trace of constitutional liberty in this country. Mr. President, this bill is founded. in my judgment, in an utter misconception of the truethe ory, nature and character of our system of government. Can any man believe that the founers of this Republic, the intellectual giants of the world, in the possession of freedom and self vernmentunder their State governments. enjoyipg all the rights of free government before they entered into this Union, would have ever entered into the Union, which was intended simply as a contract and agreement of union and government between them for common purposes, iftbey had supposed that in the short term of 80 ears their childrenwould be subjected to the absolute controland the omni otentwillof the Federal Congress? I do not believe it. Let us see whether this bill in its provisions is nota total subversion of the true theory and character of our Federal system. If I refer to the A, B, C of elementary political principles in our history, pardon me. It has become necessary, it seems, not only for the people themselves but for American states men to familiarize themselves with the most elementary truths and principles of political science in reference to our Government. If Congress does not get this power under the amendment to the constitution, as I have endeavored to show, where do they get it? The time was when there were 13 colonies, not States, upon the continent of North America, separate, distinct colonies, and colo nies of GreatBritain. They were not united: they were political communities, distinct in themselves, but over which whatwas called the parent country exercised control. Neither of those colonies was connected with the others, or owed to the others any duty, or was under to the other any obligation. They remained in that condition niitil the 4th of July, 1776, when for the 1st time these independent colo I l l nies became what? They became independent States. If as there any constitution existing among them or bond of union at that time which gave control to the one over the other or bound it by any tie of obligation? They united tovether so far as in common council to declare their independence of GreatBritain and they styled themselves in that immortal Declaration “independent States.” As independent States, havingacommon interest, they chose to wage a common warfare, still preserving each its own independent existence; and to prove that this was their condition, let me ask, was there ever an indictment or trial for treason against them as a united people during the progress of the revolutionary war? Not one; but when treason was committed against anyone of the States by adhering to King George, the party was indicted in the courts of the State, he was tried for an offense against the State, and not for an offense against the United Colonies. I In 1778these separate and independent States united in Articles of Confederation by their separate names, each reserving to itself its own absolute sovereignty, and agreeing upon certain conditions for certain general common purposes and benefits. Thus they continued until the treaty of peace in 1783, when the mother country by that treaty acknowledged them to be, what? Anindependent U.S.? An independent, unitedpeople, Government, ornation? No, sir; but naming each separate State byname, she acknowledged each to be a separate independent State. As separate and independent States th continued until the formation of the federalUnion in 1787. In the Declaration ofln dependence they declare themselves independent States. The independent colonies united fer common purposes of defense by the declartion of their independence of GreatBritain, became independent States, unilted for the common purpose of making that declaration good and effective. The Union of 1787ordnins and establishes the constitution for the “U. S.A. ” Statesin the DeclarIndep, States in the Articles of confederation, and States in the constitution evidence the independent existence and sovereignty of the States respectively. The ratification of the constitution was by the States, and not by the majority of all the people, nor by a majorit of all the States. This ratification was at did ferent times, and by each State acting for itself alone. The words “we, the people of the U.S., ” employed in the preamble to the constitution, do not in the least conflict with this proposition. These words mean the some and no more, as we, the people of Delaware; we, the people of Maryland; we, the people of Pennsylvania, and we, the)eople of the other States respectively; and the meaning is the same as ifthe names of the several States had been inserted in that preamble; and this is evidenced by the several and separate ratifications of the constitution and the form of such ratification. The style or title of U.S. was proper to describe a confederation or union of independent States, but improper to describe a consolidated nation. No nation or State of America. existed; but States did exist. The constitution was made by and for them, and not by or for the nation or State of America. The people of each State, or each State constitute by apeople conveyed to a Federal authority, organized by States, a portion of State sovereign powers, and retained all other State sovereivn powers. If the powers ceded or granted, were sovereign, so the powers retained weresovereign. The mode ofamending the constitution sustains the correctness of the general proposition I have announced. such amendments must be proposedto each so arate State, and receive the ratification of each)separately. If the power to pass such an act as this exists anyw iere, it must exist in the constitution as originally framed. Sir, was it ever pretended by any statesman before that that constitution conferred such a power as this? Look at the powers enumerated in the constitution and see, whether it is possible for theingenuity of man to arrive at the conclusion that any such power exists; for, Mr. President, the constitution is the bond of agreement according to the terms of which theStates agreed to live together, and all the powers which Congress possesses are found in the 8th section of the 1st articleof the constitution. They are: f to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, ” &c., to “borrow money, ” to “ establish uniform rules of natnJ ralizntion, ” to “ coin money, ” to “ provide for“ the punishment of counterfeiting, ” to “ establish postoffices, ” to “ promote the progress of. science and arts, ” to “constitute tribunals”; of jnstice, to “ define and punish piracy, ” &c., to “declare war, ” to “raise and support armies.” to “provides. Navy, ” to “me e rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, ” to “ provide for calling forth the militia, ” dtfl, to “provide for organizing, arining, and discipliningy the militia, ” kc, to “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases" over this District, or such district as should be established as the seat of Government, and to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoingpoawters.” is the sole. almost the entire, authority given under the constitution to this Federal government. Under any of these powers granted by the States to the Federal Government does any such power as that now claimed exist, for, mark you, all powers not granted by that instrument are reserved to the States re” spectively or to the people? I propose new to examine this bill to see that its provisions are such that it cannot come within the power of Congress, either under the constitution before it was amended, or under the constitution as recently amended abolishing slavery in the U.S. The honorable Senfrom Illinois has avowed that he does not prose by this bill to confer any political power. have no doubt the Senator is perfectly honest in that declaration, and that he personally does not mean to give any political power, for instance the right of voting, not only to the freedmen, but to the whole race of negroes; but the intention of the Senator in framin ti i wjillfnfitfioyern its construction. tilidmhaye, Ldoubt that shouldithe enacted and become a law, it will receive very generally, if not universally, the construction that it does confer a right of voting in the States; and why do I say so? Says the Senator, “It confers no political power; I do not mean that.” The question is not what the Senator means, but what is the legitimate meaning and import of the terms emploed in the bill. Its words are, “That there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities.” What are civil rights? What are the rights which you, I, or any citizen of this country enjoy? What is the basis the foundation of them all? They are divisible into but 2 classes; one, those rights which we derive from nature, and the other those rights which we derive from government. I will admit that you may divide and subdivide the rights which you derive from government into different classifications; you may call some, for the sake of convenience and more definiteness of meaning, political; you may call others civil. at here you use a generic term which in its most comprehensivesignification includes every species of right that man can enjoy other than those the foundation of which rests exclusively in nature and in the law of nature. Now, I as the honorable Senator to show me, if he can, any origin of a right he has or can have that is not derived either from nature or from government. I shall enter into no discussion or argument in reference to what are the rights man has by nature; they are familiar to the legal mind and to the thoughtful student. The rights which a man has under government are defined in the fundamental or other law of the Government under which he lives. How do I possess the right of voting in the State of Del aware? Is that a civil right? A civil right I define to he a right belonging to the citizen, and which he possesses only by virtue of citizenship. I know of no clearer definition of civil rights than that; the rights which I have by reason of the law of the State under which I live, whether they be rights secured by the fundamental law, the constitution of the State, or be secured by enactments of the legislature. The right to vote is not a natural right; I did not possess it by nature, I only possess it by virtue of law. he constitution of the State, which is the fundamental law, bestows it; it says when I arrive at the age of 21 years, and have resided in that State for one ear, I shall have the right of voting. I possess it in no other manner. I hold it by no other tenure. It is conferred upon me by law. It is a right derived from law, and it pertains to me as a citizen of my State; and pertaining to me as a citizen of my State, it is a civil right, and is a right of no other class or character. Sir, can there be any doubt about this, when you look at the very frame of this bill and consider the words which it employs? If the honorable Senfrom Illinois had not disclaimed such an intention when the question was propounded to him by the honorable Senfrom California, I should have thought that he could not have taxed his ingenuity to a greater extent than it seems to have been taxed if he had meant to secure the right of voting to the negroes. Let us read this 1st section. There is a cat in this tub of meal, and I want to frighten the cat out of the tub if I cannot get it out in any other way: I That there shall heno discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the U.S. on account of race, color or previous conditionof slavery; but the inhabitants of everyrace and color, without regard to any previons condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall!t have beenduly convicted shall have the same ng l Now, here is what the honorable Senator says he means by it, and no doubt he does; but the question is not what he means, but what the courts will say the law means shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue. be parties, and give evidence to inherit purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, That is where the Senator proposes to limit the civil rights of the negroes, to those rights specifically named. But the bill goes on and to full and equal benefit of alllaws and proceedings for the security of person and property. What is property? It has been judicially decided that the elective franchise is property. Leaving out the question of voting, Iwwever, as a question of property, is it not true that under our republican form and system of government the ballot is one of the modes of securing property, one of the means by which property is secured? Your bill gives to these persons every security for the protection of son and property which a white man has. hat is one means and a very important means of securing the rights of person and property? It is a voice in the Government which makes the laws regulating and governing the right of property. Under our system of government mark you, I do not say that it is so under all Governmentsone of the strongest and most efficient means for the security of person and property is a participation in the secction of those who make the lasers. It was thereforethat I thought that the honorable Senator when he framed this bill meant to give to these persons the right of voting; and I should still think so, but or his personal disclaimer of any such object. One of the authorities which the Senator read decides. as I understand it, that the 2nd section of the 4th article of the constitution, which says that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, ” entitles a citizen of one State removing into another to a right to vote after acquiring a legal residence in such State. Was it forthis reason and to secure this right to negroes that the Senator amended his bill this morning by declaring that all persons of African descent born in the U.S shall be citizens of the U.S.? But, Mr. President, whether the bill does give the right of voting or not, the bill is unconstitution al, because it assumes jurisdiction over subjectmatters of which Congress has no jurisdiction; and what are these? property within the States; authority over the judicial tribunals in the administration of law in the States; a denial to the States of their power of police regulation. Now that the war is over, in the langu e of loyal men I had almost said hut I find that the AttyGen, whom my friendfrom Kentucky [Mr. DAYIS] loves so well, says it isnot over, although hostilities have ceased, and although the resident, whom I presume is loyal, says it is over; but as suming that the war is over, I presume it will not be disloyal to say what I propose to say. I have no enemy of yours to fly to with arms in his hand to injure you, and therefore I may be trusted now with the utterance of an opinion upon this floor without being subject to that Witheringi appellation “dislo cl.” Sir, did you ever think to which you owed the most of the protection of life, liberty, and property, to your Federal Government or to your State government? I knowand I will not allow myself to be charged with uttering an unbecoming remark in this respect I know the great advantage which the liederal Union has been to the people of this country and to the people of this whole country. I know that by being members of this Federal Union each State had a sure protectionagainst the assaults of more powerful foes. I know that in the words, “t o U.S.A., ” there was not only a charm for the citizen, but there was a terrorto the foes of every citizen. The Union of these States was desi nod to give this general protection, but never designe for the purpose of regulating the internal affairs of the States or securin to the citizen the possession of his person and property and liberty within the limits of a State. There. has not been a time since the formation of the Federal Union, when if it had been peaceably dissolved it might not have been so dissolved without society scarcely receiving a shock; the laws for the regulation of property, the laws regulating the descent and transmission of property, the laws protecting the citizen in his rights of person, in is security, would have been in full force within the States, would have been administered in peace and quietnessfimd all the great interests of the citizens of the State would have been as securely roteeted, except as against foreign foes, as t ough that Union had existed. But there has never been a time when if the State governments had been destroyed society would not have been redue ed to chaos and yet, sir, these States thus securing to the citizen all his rights of person and property, and reserving to themselves out of the powers granted to the General Government these rights of protection to their citizens, these States which never granted or meant to grant to the Federal Government any such authority, find themselves hy this bill invaded and defrauded of the right of determining who shall hold property and who shall not within its limits, who shall sue and be sued, and who shall give evidence in its courts. All these things are taken out of the control of the States by the paramount authority of this bill, if it be a constitutional bill, and the power is given to the Federal congress to determine these things, the will of a State to the contrary notwithstanding. Mr. President, this bill not only proposes to assume control over the laws which shal govern title to estates, but also to determine the persons who shall be entitled to enjoy estates and property within the States, and if you can do this as to a portion of that property, any particular species of it, you can o so as to the whole; if you can regulate and govern in one particular, you can govern in reference to all the property and all the interests of the States. If you can determine who shall hold property in a State then you can enact laws for the protection of the owner in its possession. lhen also you can determine who shall not hold property within a State. If you can say who shal sue or give evidence in the courts of a State then on can determine who shall not sue or give emence in such courts. such an as sumption of power on the part of Congress ought to arouse the people of the whole count to a sense ofimpending danger. Let them in e warning in time. But, sir, this bill positively deprives the State of its police power of overument. In my State for many years, an I presume there are similar laws in most of the southern States, there has existed a law of the statebased upon and founded in its police power, which declarm that free negroes shall not have the possession of firearms or ammunition.” This ill proposes to take away from the States this police power. so that if in any State of this Union at any time hereafter there shall be such a numerous body of dangerous persons belonging to any distinct race asto endanger the cace of the State, and to cause the lives of its citizens to be subject to their violence. the State shall not have the power to disarm them without disarming the whole population. Is this within your constitutional power and authority? Where did you get it? Arb the utterances which come to us from the highest judicial tribunal, which sits but a few feet off, of no account here? Are not the declarations of those who assisted in framin this Constitution to be of any avail here? suppose not, for I suppose it is a foregone conclusion that this measure, as one of a series of measures is to be passed through this Cbngress rerdless of all consequences. But the day that the POTUS places his approval and signature to that Freedmens Bureau bill and to this bill, be will have signed 2 acts more dangerous to the liberty of his country men, more disastr to the citizens of this country, than all ac hich have been passed from the foundation of the Government to this present hour; and if we upon this side of the Chamber manifest anxiety and interest in reference to these bills and the questions involved in them, it is because having known this population all our lives. knowingthem in one hour of our infancy better than you gentlemen have known them all your lives, we feel compelled by a sense of duty, earnestly itnd importunately it may be, to appeal to the judgment of the American Senate, and to reach. if possible, the judgment of the great mass of the American people, and invoke their attention to the awful consequences involved in measures of this character. Sir, stop, stop; the mangled, bleeding body of the constitution ofyour country licsin your path; you are treading upon its by ceding body when on pass these laws. But, sir et me call your attention for a moment to what are the powers of the States under the Federal constitution, and what it is they do not and never did intend to surrender to the Federal Government. The Federalist speaking on this subject says: “The powers reserved to the severalStateswill or tend to all the objectswhich, in the ordinary course of affairs. concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” I cite that to show that in the judgment of the men who made the constitution all these powers embraced in your bill are reserved to the Sta s and to the States exclusively, because certain y the concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people. In the case of Gibbons vs. ogden, 9 Wheaton, 203, the court say, speaking of the police powers of a State: “They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everythinl within the territory of a State not surrendered to the General, Government. all which can be most advantageously exercisedby the States themselves. Inspection laws. quarantine laws. health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State.” In the case of the City of NewYork vs. Miln, in 11 Wheaten, the court say: “We chooserather to plant ourselveson what we consider ini regnnble positions, hey are these: that a Stateiias the some undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things. Within its territorial limits as any foreign nation. whero that jurisdiction is not su rr enderedor restrained by the Co“nstitution of the U.S. That by virtue of this it is not ugly the right but the bonnden and solemnduty of a State to advance the safety. hcippiness and prosperiof its people and to mow c for its enerpl wel are by any and every actofleirislation which it may deemtobe co n ducivi to theseendswherethe powerover the particular subjector the manner of itsexercise is not. s rendered or restrained in the manner just state. That all those powers which relate mere y to muni cipal legislation or what may perhaps more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrenderedor restrained: and 3consequentlyin relation to these the authority of the Stateuoomplete. unqualified, and exclusive.” Again, the Court in the same case say: “We should say that every law came within this description which concerned the welfare of the whole peopleota State, or iinyiniliiidiial within it, whether it related to their rights or their duties; whether in their public or private relations; whether it related to the righis of personsor of propert, of t he whole people o a State or of any in iridua, within it, and whose operation was within the territorial limits of the State and upon the persons and things Within its jurisdiction. But we will endeavor to illustrate purmeaning rather by exemplification than bydefinition. No one will deny that u State has a right to punish any individual found within its Jurisdiction who shall have committed an otiense Within 1L1 Jurisdiction against its criminal laws.” Again: “We suppose it to be equally clear that aState has as much right to guard by anticipation against the commissionof an offense against its laws as to inflict punishment upon the offenderafter itshall have been committed.” I will show you hereafter that the bill under consideration attempts to deprive the States of these rights which tcSupreme Court say are undoubted rights of the States. I cite these passages for the iiurplose of showing that the SCOTUS has recognize all the subjects embraced in the 1st section of this bill as being the subjects solely of State cognizance; and unless you can show that the States have surrendered the control over them to the Federal Government they still belong to the States, exclusively. I have, endeavored to show that you did not. obtain cognizance of these subjects by the adeiption of ypurameudmentto the constitution, an I have, as briefly as I could, attempted to show that the wer over them was not surrendered by the States or granted in the constitution before the adoptionof the amendment. Mr. President, there are other serious objections to this hill. 1 The 3rd section proposes to enact: That the district courts of the U.S. within their respective districts, shall have. exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizanceof all crimes and offenses commltted against the provisions of this act and also. concurrently with the circuit courts of the U.S. of all causes. civil and criminal. affectinir persons ivho are denied or cannot enforcein the courts or judicial tribunals of the Shite or locality where theymay be an of the rights securedto them by the 1st section of t isaet and if anysuit or prosecution, civil or criminal. has been or shall be commenced in any State court agiiiiist any such person or usinst any officer. civil or military, or other person. for any arrest or imprisonment. heMnsaurvke you, sir, the words are very compre trospasses or wrongs done or committed by virtue or under color of authority derived from this not or the act to enlarge the powersof the Freedmenslin reuu. such defendant shall have the right to remove Inch causefor trial to the proper district or circuit court in the manner prescribed bv the iict 9th: to linlmia mimnand regiilatinir judicial proceedingsin certain eases. approved March 3. 1863 and then it goes on provide that after the case is so removed the circuit or district courts shall attempt to carry into effect, what? The State law, and to render its decisions conform iibly to the common law as modified by State law in cases wherethatcanbedone. Now, I wishto show you that this provision of the bill is fla grantly unconstitution al, even if therewas nothing exceptionable in the subjectmatter of its provisions. I turn to that section of the constitution which relates to the judicial power of the Federal Government, and Iread: “The judiciiil power shall extendto all casesinliiw and equity arisinit under this constitution. the lows of the U.S and treaties made or which shall be madeunder their authority.” Now, I will show you many cases which cannot arise under the constitution of the U.S., which caniiot arise under the lnwsof the U.S. which cannot arise even under this bill, which cannot arise undertreaties, and yet which this bill takes from the cognizance of the State courts and attempts to give to the circuit and I district courts of e U.S. Notice the words: I That the districtcourts of the U. S., within their respective districts shall have, exclusiveof the courts of the several States, cognizanceof all crimes and oflenses committedagainst the provisions of this act, and also. concurrently with the circuit courts of the U.S. of all causes. civil and criminal, atfecting persons who are deniedor cannot enforcein the courtsor judicial tribunals of theState or locality. whore they may be anv of the rights secured to them by the 1st section of this act. Suppose that an action of ejectment is in stituted in any State where free negroes are denied the right to testify, and suppose that action of ejectment is against a free negro. Ho wishes to prove that he has not been guilty of the trespass in ejectment, and he proposes to prove it by a negro, and the court say, “No; under the law of this State that negro is not a cometent witness. ", In such a case as that, this bill authorizes the circuit or district court of the U.S. totake cognizance of that action of ectment, and the State courts are excluded from its consideration. I ask, did that cause of action, the right of A, a citizen of the State of Maryland, to one anotherperson in an action of ejectment, arise under the constitution of the U.S.? Did it arise under any law of Congress? Did it arise under any treaty? Certainly not. These are the cases where alone the courts of the U.S. have jurisdiction; and yet you propose to take a case arising under neither of these from the control of the State courts and give it to the district court of the U.S. On what ground? Simply because the judge, in sayin what evidence should go before the jury, says that that negro cannot testify and the district court is to have jurisdiction Also. concurrently with the circuit courts of the U.S. of all causes civil and criininal. affecting personswho are denied or cannot enforce in the courts or judicial tribunals of the State or locality where they may be any of the rights securedto them by the 1st sectionof this act. Here has been one of these beloved human beings denied the privilege of testifying, or the defendant in the case denied the privilege and the right of having him as a witness; and because of that fact the State courts are ousted of their jurisdiction to try a case of ejectment. But, sir, this act will hear a further, and as I believe, a true interrotation, and it is this: if, by the laws of the State, the negro population are denied the right to testify, then any suit brought against a negro in that State shall not be heard in the State court, but shall be heard in the district or circuit court of the U.S. “All causes, civil and criminal, affecting persons who are denied or cannot enforce in the courts and judicial tribunalsotthe State, ” is the language of this bill. I have shown you a case which cannot possibly ariseunder the constitution of the U.S., the laws of the U.S., or the treaties of the U.S. where this bill does oust the State courts of the ir jurisdiction, or assumes to do so, and gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal courts. But that is not all, sir. Whats beautiful s cctacle it would present, and what would be tile practical operations of your bill in other respects! The laws of my State do not allow a free negroto testify against awhite man except where there is no white person resent. Aisindictedin the courts of my State oran assaultupon B; B deniesit; approves it by his own testimony, he provesjt by 20 white men standing aroun. B, of course, (fbes not want to suffer, and at least if he has to suffer he wishes to put it off as long as possible. He will say, “Well, I will call this negro; Sambo, come up here and testify.” Sambo is called. He knows nothing about the case. He was not within 40 miles of the transaction. Perhaps he has been sent for to Philadel his to come down for the purpose of getting this case into the circuit or district court of the U.S. He is called, and he is produced on the stand. The judge of our State will saywe never had ajudge and I be e We never shall have one that, even if your bi lwas passed, would know so little about law as to recognize its validity“ That black witness is I excluded from testifying, ” even in a case that he may know something about and thereupon that eriminal case(forthisbillprovides fortaking criminal as well as civil cases) is to be trans: ferred to the circuit or districtcourt of the U.S. You transform the Federal judicial tribunals every case, both of a criminal and civil nature, that can possibly arise in a State. These thinga will bedone for delay if nothing else, and you will find yourdistrietund circuit courts en, gaged in every State,from the commencement of the year to its conclusion, in trying ever little petty case of a civil character in which from ten cents to 1,000s of dollars are in volved, and you will find that the whole criiii inal code of ii State. if the Federal courts can have the power of administering it, will be adininistered by the Federal courts and not the State courts. Take another case. A free negro commits miirderin the State ofKentucliy. He is indicted under the laws of Kentucky in the State courts. His guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by 100 people who saw him commit the act. He calls up a negro. He may have seen him commit it, or he may not have seen him commit it. He may know something about it, or he may know nothing about it. The judge in Kentucky, I supposeit" the judges in that State are now what they used to be, men of learning, character, knowledge, dignitywould say under their law that this negro could not be a witness. What does this bill provide? It provides that that case of murder shall be taken from the jurisdiction and control of the State courts and that the district and circuit courts of the U.S shall have exclusiicjurisdiction ofit. Sir, there cannot be a case of chicken stealing in any State of this Union where freed iicgrOOS are not allowed to testify that can. if this bill is to be operative and in force, be determined in. the State courts. All such cases will be subject to be removed into the Federal courts. I suppose this will not be denied by anyone, at least in cases where such oticiises shall be committed by negroes and negro testimony in their defense shall be excluded. If such consequences as these are to result from such enactments as thisand I honestly believe the are, if it is to be o erativevrhat becomes of the States of this iiion? What becomes of the powers of the States? What becomes of the rights of the States? Sir, they have not even the privilege of administering their criminal laws; they have not the privilege of saying who shall give evidence and who shall not in their own courts they have not the riv ilege of sayin who shall hold property and pwho shall not; an if they have none of these privilegesand I will show you that they have not before I am donethey have not the power to protect their own citizensagainstmpr er, rape, arson, any crime that can be committed against them. because what does another section of this bill provide? that for any not done under this bill and to carry out its provisions the State courts slicll not have jurisdiction, but the circuit and district, courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction. Take the case put by the honorable Senfrom Pennsylvania where a judge on the bench holds that under theStat law a negro cannot testify, or take another case: suppose that some white man has in some respect s ightly infringed some of the rights which your bill proposes to give to a free negro, what then? gonr bill authorizes any commissioner (and their numbers may be legion) to do utize in writing anybody to go and arrest the judge who has made that decision, because if to give evidence he a right. his action would be a denial of the right under this bill. I deny that it is a right in any man to testify in a cause depending between others. It is a right in n party to a suit to call for the evidence of anot ier person, but there is no right in that person to testify. You may call it a right to work on the roads if you please: it is generally considered a burden. he right to serve on Juries may be considered a burden, but it is a duty if the State demands it. It is no right in the citizen. A party to an action has the power to call for the testimony of a witness, but it is no right on the part of the person to testify. Your bill, however, treats it as a right, and I so treat it for the sake of the argument only. the jud ehasmade that decision, the white man has sli tly infringed some of the rights which 70m bill proposes to guaranty to the negro. our commissioner and he may be as black as the ace of spades, as far as this act is concerned may send another free negro to arrest that judge or to arrest that white man. Your negro deputized officer, acting under your negro commissioner, if he be a negroand there is no security that he will not be, because you now propose to confer the right of suffrage on the negro, and if you confer the rightof suffrage on him you must certainly, to be consistent, allow him to hold officegoes to the judge or the individual who has committed this slight tres pass and says “ I come to arrestyou, ” and the answer is, “I7will not go with you, ” and he shoots him down, and he is indicted in the State courts for that murder. Now, what says your bill? You say that the courts of that State shall not have jurisdiction, because it was for an act done in discharge or under color of what the negro officer claimed to be his duty under this law, and you remove the trial of the cause from the State court into the Federal court. Human ingenuity cannot escape from it; you get him there, an after an get him there what can you do with him? f there is one principle more clearly recognized than another, it is that the Federal courts will not attempt to administer the State laws, and nei ther will the State courts attempt to administer the Federal laws. That is to say, a Federal court will not apply to an act a punishment created under the statute of a State. It will not execute the criminal laws of a State, and on cannot confer upon it jurisdiction to do so, because its jurisdiction is defined and limited in the constitution of the U.S. Nei ther can a State court inflict a penalty incurred under a Federal statute. When you get the negro into the Federal court, what are on going to do with him? Why, says the bill), vas far as it can be done, the court shall conform to the common laws modified by the laws of the State. I will read the language of the bill: The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters herebyconferredon the district and circuit courts of the U.S shall be excrcised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the U.S., so far assuch laws are suitablel o carrylhc same iuto effect: but in all caseswhere such laws are not adapted to the object, or aredoficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies, and punish olfenses against law. The common law, as modied and changed by the constitution and statutesof the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of the cause. civil or criminal, is held, sofar as the same is not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the U.S shall be extended to and govern said courts in the trial and dispositionof such cause and if of a criminalnature. in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty. A Federal court hearing and determining a case of ejectment between persons of the same State, brought to recover possession of land in the State in which both parties reside and awarding awrit of possesionl A Federal court hearing and determinin a case of larceny, the larceny being committe by a free negro and gdmilmstering the criminal in“ of the State! are y" Judgment has fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason.” How you gentlemen will like the infliction of this punishment when you come to my State, and one of these etlambs with a black skin shall be indicted or larceny, and you deprive theState of the jurisdiction of tryin it, and it is removed to tccircuit court of the U.S or the district court of the U.S.; how your Federal judge, if he be of the same opinions with you, will like to carry thnt law into execution! Do you know what our law does with them? It provides for whipping his bare back. We have a whipping post in our State, and I think it is the most ctheient means I ever knew for the prevention of thievin. For 5 years it was my duty as the lawo cer of the State to prosecute in my State, and we never were troubled with those fellows from Philadel phia and Baltimore who would slip over and steal a horse or anything else after once the lash was aplied to them. ow the humane feelings of all L NewEngland would be shockedeveuthe honorable Senator opposite me would have to come before the Senate of the U.S and talk of the inhumanity to one of these pots of congressional legislation because his back had been made to feel the lush. However, I will state, to relieve any premature tears, that the same punishment is meted out to the white man who commits the same act. I have thus shown you, I think, Mr. president, that under this section of the bill the States are or may be deprived of the execution of most if not all their laws relatingto the commission of crime, that the criminaljurisdiction of the courts of the States, in other words, is by the provisions of this bill ousted. I have shown you how civil causes, not arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the U.S., may. under the provisions of this bill, be carried to the circuit and district courts of the U.S., when the constitution of the U.S. says that in such cases where they do not so arise those courts shall not have jurisdiction. If I have made this plain I ask the Senate how they can support a bill obnoxious to such objections. But, Mr. President, the remaining portion of this bill may be called its machinery to carry it into effect; and I will briefly call the attention of the Senate to that machinery. It seems in these late war times that the passion for arresting people became so general, widespread, and universal, that now that peace is restored, at least when hostilities do not exist, we are not to get rid of that feelin, but that the law of vengeance and of punis iment must still be indulged in. We have so accustomed our minds to the propriety and necessity of arresting people for any and every offense, and inllicting upon them cruel and unnecessary punishment, that we cannot now in times of peace dispossess our selves of that feeling; and the mild and amiable and learned chairman of the ComJudiciary, it seems, cannot now agree to live one day without seeing somebody arrested and dragged before somebody else, and witnessing aheavy, unusual, and cruel punishmentinflicted. What does this bill do? e is going to see that these dearly beloved subjects of congressional favor shall have daily evidence of the kind regard in which they are held by their republican friends and allies, and he is, with whip in hand, chasing every white man through every State of this Union to inflict punishment upon him if he dares invade the rights of any of the negro race. The 4th section provides that The district attorne s, marshals and deputy marshals of the U.S. tates. the commissionersa pJoiptedby the circuit and territorial courts of. the U.S., With power of arresting, imprisoning or bailing otfenders against the laws of tcU. S. the officersand ents of the Freedmens Bureuu and every other o cer who may be specially empoweredby the POTUS, are to make arrests. He is afraid he will not get enough officers to make arrests, the commissioners will not do; and another section of this bill provides that theymaybe increased indefinitely. Heis afraid that he will not be able by all the other machinery provided by the bill to got enough persons to arrest white transgressors of this law, and so every other officer who may be specially empowered by the POTUS is to be empowered to make these arrests and they are hereby s cciall authorized and rs quired. at the expense of the U.S., to institute proceedingsagainst all and every person who shall violate the provisionsofthis act and causehim cg them to be arrestedarid imprisoned, or hailed. as to case may be. for trial before such court of the U.S. tohretoefrfreintosreia;al nedouwrrtthans bvyietwhitsoaacfftohrads imr reasonable protectionto all persons in their constitutional rights of equality before the law, without sdliasvticnrctiooruion fvorlaucnetaorry csoclrovri, tuodr cp. Erexveieo puts us condition of a punishment or crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, and to the prompt dischargeof the dutiesof this act. it shall be the duty of the circuit courtsof the U.S and thesuperior courts of the Territories of the U.S., from time to time, toflnercasethe number of commissionersso as to afford a speedy and convenient means for the arrest The honorable Senator wants s icedy and convenient modes of arresting people and examination of personschargedwith a violation of this act. Then the 6th section provides very heavy penalties against any marshal or officer who shall disobey or refuse to perform any of the duties imposed by this act; and what is the power that it gives to these marshals? They may call in the posse comitalus or the bystand ers, and they are all to be punished if they refuse to aid in making arrests. What did the honorable Senator say, and what did other honorable Senators say, when the fugitive slave law gave the power to the marshals to summon persons to make an arrest? They were horried. What was their language? “Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing?” and yet, air, when it comes to anegro deputy of a negro commissioner probably arresting a white man, he shall have o posse comitatus and he shall have the bystanders to aid him. A marshal, or the ignorant deputized agent of a marshal, shall have the power to summon all the ablebodied men in any county in the U.S. to aid him in arresting a white man for committing the simplest offenseagainsta negro, when you gentlemen were so awfully horrified at the idea of allowinga marshal of the U.S. to summon, not the posse cmmlatus, but to summon citizens to execute that law against fugitives from service. Veril, not only the negro is as good in law as the white man in your opinion of him, but he is much more fa vored and better protected. Leta white man dare to do an of these things which your bill forbids, and e is subject to heavy fines and imprisonment. have shown you from the provisions of the bill that it authorizes the unm r of the commissioners to be multiplied to any extent, that it: gives the power to those commissioners of deputizing in writing whomsoever they please to make these arrests and what does it do besides? It gives that fellow so do utized 5 dollars for doing his dirty work. haLwill be the consequence?supposeI have not committed an offense at:1 against one of these beloved o Federal legislation; suppose I have done nothing, but an pose somebody goes to the commissioner an says that I have. He deputizes anybody, white or black, to arrest me, and he carries me before his supreme high ness, the commissioner, and whenI have gone there, there is not one word laid to my char, the commissioner pockets his ten dollars, t a man making the arrest pockets his 5 dollars and all other expenses. I go free. What is the power that the bill gives? The commissioner may cause to be arrested every white man in my State or any other State for the purpose of etting his ten dollars and giving the 5 dol ars to the marshal or his deputy. It is a grand moneymaking business when you come to look into it and yet, sir, when that free negro commissioner or white commissioner has appointed his deputy, either white or black, to arrest me and all the rest of the citizens of my State, if none of us have done anything transgressing even the provisions of your law and they have pocketed their fees, what can we do? We have been falsely imprisoned; even your commissioner has said we have done nothing wrong; we have been falsely imprisoned, dragged from. our homes, and we go and appeal to the courts of our State for protection, and we present this fellow who has or rested us to the grand jury and theyfind a true bill for assault and false imprisonment. It is against one of the darlings of your hcnrt, and therefore you will not let the State hear the cause but you remove it far from our residences and our homes into the district or circuit court of the U.S. l But this is not all. The chairman of the 1866. 481 ComJudiciary is still fearful that his free American fellowcitizens of African descentmay suffer some deprivation of right or infliction of wrong that may not be summarily and ade uately rediessed. He is fearfully apprehensive that there is some white man that ought to be arrested who may escape, and liencc he provides in his bill that the President shall be authorized to employ the land and naval forces the more efficiently to execute its)IOVlSlOllS. Poor fugitive white man. If you shall escape the pursuing and avenging army commanded by the Lieutenant General of the armies of the U.S and attempt to cross the briny deep, the Navy, the entire Navy, shall chase on from the sea. Sir, your whole Army and Iavy will be inadequate to execute this unconstitutional law, if law this bill shall become. Sir, was I wrong in my opening remarks when I said that this was one of the most dangerous bills, as well as one of the most unconstitutional bills, that could engage the attention of the Senate of the U.S. Go sweep the whole field of legislation in any country in which a legislative body has ever set, and drag from the pigeonholes where moulder and rot its rec ords, and show me, if you can, any enactment so flagrantly unjust, so oppressive in its char:lilrter, so violative of all rights of the citizen, as is. Mr. President, I know that any appeal that we can make will be in vain, or at least I have no reason to suppose that any we can make will be effective for good. The passage of this bill, if it shall become a law by the approval of the President, and shall go into ractieal effect, is the last act to convert:1 Federal Government with limited and welldefined powers into an absolute, consolidated despotism. Sir, from early boyhood I was taughtto love and revere the Federal Union and those who made it. In early childhood I read the words of the Father of his Country, in which he exhorted the people to cling to the union of these States as the palladium of liberty, and my young heart bounded with joy in reading the burning words of lofty patriotism. I was tau lit in in fancy to admire as far as the infant mind could admire our free system of government, Federal and State; and I heard the old men say that the with of man never devised a better or more lovely system of government. When I arrived at that age when could study and reflect for myself, the teachings of childhood were approved by the judgment of the man. I have seen how under this Union we had become great in the eyes of all nations; and I see now, notwithstanding the horrible afthetions of war, if we can have wisdom in council and sincere purpose to subserve the good of the whole people of the U.S., though much that was dear to us has been blasted as by the pestilence that walketh in darkness and the destruction that wastcth at noonday, how we might in the providence of God resume our former position among the nations of the earth, and command the respect of the whole civilized world. But, sir, today, in viewing and in considering this bill the thought has occurred to me, how happy were the founders of our federal system of government that they had been taken from the council chambers of this nation and from among their fellowmen before bills of this character were seriously presented for legislative consideration. Happily for them, they sleep their last sleep, and “ How sleepthe brave who sink to rest By all their countrys wishes hlcstl When Spring with dewy fingerscold Returns to deck their hallowed mould. She there shall drcssa sweetersod Than Fannys feet have ever trod. "By fairy hands their knell is rung; BK forms unseen their dirgq is sung; T cre Honor comes, a pilgrim gray. To bless the turfthat wraps their clay; and Freedom shall henceforth repair and dwell a weepinghermit there.”