Mr. MORRILL. Yes, if I could at the honorable Senators speech into a law would settle this thing at once; but the difficulty is, that out of this Chamber it has not the force of law. It is powerful for persuasion here, but with these States whose representatives he asks us to receive, and whose authority over this subject we are told is conclusive, it is worth nothing. But, Mr. President, to repeat, if this is a question for the national Government, then my honorable friend (if he will allow me to call him so) from Maryland would be right. If he could back his speech by the authority of the nation and say, “ That is the law, and the States shall obey it, ” then our remedy is complete. Then, sir, ceasing to be slaves, these men become American citizens; they become freeman, and the nation taking upon itself the great obligation to protect its citizens in all their rights would enact that these States should have no representation whatever until they accorded these rights, and we would not leave it optional with them; we would say by authority of law, “If you wish your rights and privileges respected, you must respect the rights and the privileges of the whole body of the citizens of the Republic." The honorable Senator settles the right of the States to determine the status of these freedmen, substantially, when he holds that it is the right of the States to say whether they shall have the suffrage or not. Suffrage is the high estelement, the highest privilege, est right of the American citizen. newthitchhoingth it, all other rights are of little value. Without it, the power to protect his rights is wanting. I maintain that when the honorable Senator argues that the right of suffrage is a matter wholly with the States, and the U.S. Government has nothing to do with it and cannot deal with it, he denies to the freedmen within the power of the States the great essential right of American citizenship, without which he has no protection, without which, as a race, he must always be subordinate, always be within the power of the men who vote for him. The logic of the argument of the honorable Senator, that these men become citizens by force of emancipation, is negatived by the argument that it is a question for the States, and we stand here today doing on that argument only what we can do, to say to these peeple, ff lf ypu ignore his rights you shall not vote for im. Mr. President, suppose they are free men and citizens; suppose now they belong to the great body of the Xmerican people and are part and parcel of it, and that we are one people, the American people are a unit, and there is no distinction of persons. before American law; that being the rule, then I take it, the ar merit of the honorable Senfrom Marylan, so far as a question of injustice to these States is concerned, falls to the ground; for if these men are citizens, as he maintains, and they have the rights and the privileges of citizenship, it is the rankest injustice that they should be denied the suffrage; and any law which the Congress of the U.S. could pass, or any alteration of the American Constitution which the Ameri can people could enact, which should deny these people in the South the right to represent the race to whom they themselves refuse representation and yet govern and Oppress by taxation would be in harmony, I take it, by the general sentiment of mankind; certainly such provision would be in harmony with the principles of justice. By what authority, allow me to ask, is it that these States having within their juris diction 4 million human beings, to whom they deny every right known to man, whom the claim to holdg to forced labor by black codes and vagrant laws, in their arrogance and assumtion turn to the Government of the U.S and demand to be allowed to vote for these men thus held in a state of total disability, civil and political I But, Mr. Presient, the honorable Senator will allow me to say that I think he is quite at faultin his definition of the rule of American representation. I do not understand, either by the history of that rule or by that which can be rawn from a fair interpretation of the Constitution, that the rule is at all as the honorable Senator understands it. He reads the rule to be representation accordingto numbers. I maintain that the Great American ruleis, and has been from the beginning, representation according to free men, representation according to citizenship. I read 6 constitutional provision: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which maybe includedwithin this Union. accordingto their respective numbers, which shall be determined" How? “by adding to the whole numberof freepersons, including those bound to service for a termof years, and excluding Indians nottaxed, 3/5th s of all other persons." Those “ other persons ” were the slaves, and no other. The basis of representation Wasupon the free persons, not simply on numbers, because the exception which follows excludes the idea that it rested on numbers. The great fundamental law was representation on free persons. The exception was of slaves who were not freeman, but numbers. All the free men and 3/5th s of the numbers shall be counted, is the fair interpretation of that clause; and that is exactly in harmony with the history of the right of suffrage and of the right of citizenship as interpreted in all the constitutions and in the legislation of all the States during the revolutionary and constitutional ems in this country with a single exception. To show that I am right, that the great American rule of representation in this country was not numbers, but citizenship, I beg to read to the Senate from the constitutions of the States formed during the revolutionary era of the country. In that of Pennsylvania it was provided: "That all election sought to be free: and that all free menhaving a suficiont evidenteommoninterest with and attaement to the conimunit. havea right to elect officers or to be elected into O cc." There is the principle; not numbers, but “all free men” have what? Have the right of suffrage. I will now read the provision in the constitution of Delaware, which is most marked and most explicit: “That theright in the peopleto participate in the legislature is the foundationofliberty an of all free sivemment and for this endall election sought to be eeandfrequent, and every freomin having sufficient evidence of a permanent interest wi and attachment to the community hath a right otsudragc.” In the same constitution it was further proVided: “That everyfreeman.for every iriilury done him in hisgoods, lands or person by anyot erperson.ought to have remedyby the courseof the law of the land and oughtto have glustice and rightfor the injury done to him, freelywit out fail. fully Without any enial p lpedalsnpia." Edil Without delay.according to the law of I commend that provision most cheerfully to the ComReconstruction as the golden rule which, if adopted today, as Delaware adopted it in 1776, would be the solution, on the principles of justice and liberty and Amer ican law, of the great problems which perplexus., The constitution of Maryland provided: “That the House of Delegates shall be chosenin the following manner: all free men above 21 yearsof age.having a freeho. l of 50 acres O land 1n the county in which they offerto vote and residing therein and all freemanhaving propertyin this State abovethe value of 30 pounds current mone. having and resided in the county in which they O or to vote one whole year next precoding the election shall have a right of suffragein the electionof delegates for such county." Here the right is not on numbers, but on free men. The constitution of Massachusetts declared that “All elections ought to be free and all the inhab itants of this Commonwealth.having such qualifications as they shall establish by their frameofgovernment. have an equal right to elect offiecrs and to be electedfor public employments." The provision in the constitution of NewYork was in these words: "That every person who is a freemanin the city of Alban, or who was made a freeman of the city of NewYork. on or before the 14th dag of October.in the year of ourLord 1775 and shall e actually and usually resident in the said cities respectively shall be entitled to vote for representativesin Assembly yithin his said place of residence." In the constitution of Connecticut it was provided that“The qualilicationsregnisiteto entitle a personto vote in O action of the o ccrsof governmentare.ma turity in years.quiet and eaccable behavior.a civil conversation and 40 shillings freehold or 40 pouridspersonalestate: if the selectmenof the town certify a person qualified in those respects.he is admitted a reeman.on his taking an oath of fidelity to the State." The constitution of NCarolina declared“ That all free men of the ageof 21 years who have been inhabitants O any county within the State 12 months immediately preecing the day of any election, and possessedofa freeholdwithin the samecounty of 50 acres of land for 6 monthsnext before.andat the day of election shall be eptitledto vote for a member of the Senate." It will he found that. in all the States with the exception of SCarolina the rule of American representation as settled by the States during the revolutionary era, that great period which stirred mens hearts in favor of ii erty, was on free men and not on numbers, as the Senfrom Maryland supposes. The rule of American representation, as tauflht authoritatively by the States, the only authority that was then known to the nation or is indeed now f:onceded bv the Senator was invariably, with a single excetion, on free men, on the citizens; and it should be remarked that in no single in stance, with the exception which I have noted, was there any exception on account of race or color. I therefore respectfully submit to my honorable friendfrom Iaryland that he is entirely mistaken in supposing that the rule of representation, either in the Constitution of the U.S or as 9. eat American principle of representation outside of the Constitution, and as taught by the States, was based on numbers. The honorable Senfrom Maryland at the inquiry whether it is to be supposed that the people of Maryland were laboring under the very extraordinary delusion from 1776, when their constitution was adopted, down to within a recent period, in supposing that they had a constitution of State government “republican in form, " because it recognized the institution of slavery. Of course I Join no issue with the honorable Senator on that proposition. I freel concede that accordin to the national Constitution of 1789, it is plainlyinferable that States might be regarded as “republican in form” alt ough they recognized the institution of slavery. I do not deny that. That is the history of the country. To deny that would be to deny the implication which arises from the Constitution. That was undoubted] so. But, sir, we are talking today, in the providence of God, not of whatthe Constitution of 1789 recognized as republican, but the Constitution having been amended so that slavery no longer exists, the question today is, what is republican in fact? If the honorable Senator is right in supposing that the slaves of Maryland when they were released from slavery by this new provision of the Constitution became free men and citizens entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of other. States and of his own State, I ask him whether his State can be republican in form or in fact if now it denies to one 4th of its population the rights of citizens? That is the question that arises on the facts in this case. We are not arguing the case supposed by the honor able Senfrom Maryland. That is a case made a on the constitution of Maryland of 1776. She has a free constitution today, and by the force of that constitution all her population are free men and citizens, according to the interpretation which the honorable Senator himself gives it; and now being free men and citizens, and that being the charter of the national Government, liberty and equal and exact justice to all men the rule, I ask the honorable Senator whether if his State should adopt a provision in her constitution which disqualified one 4th of her citizens arbi trarily on account of color, and denied them all civil and political rights, privileges, and immu nities, that State would be republican in form or in fact? That is a case that arises on the facts we are considerin. Iundertake to maintain here, and will maintain it anywhere, that on the basis of a free constitution, one of the grand results of this terrible struggle through which the nation has ssed, no State in this Union can be a repubican State which does not accord equal civil privileges and rights and immunities to all its citizens; it cannot be republican either in law or in fact according to the fundamental principles of American libert. This question of slavery in the nationa Constitution was exceptional; this question of slaver in the Statecenstitutions was exceptional a o. It was not in harmony with the great principle of American liberty. The principle which underlies our institutions, and which formed the rule was equal rights and equal lprotection to all men. I admit that we agree in the Constitution of 1789 to recognize the exception; but the exception no longer exists, and the rule is absolute and ought to be omnipotent; there is nothing now in the way of its universality, and should now be held to be equal and exact justice to all men. The authority of this Government in this respect ought to be imperial everywhere, audit should protect its citizens against State authority and State interpretations in their rights, privileges, and immunities as citizens of the U.S.; and whenever it fai“ to do that, it will fail to command the respect of mankind. I say, therefore, in reply to the inquiry of the honorable Senator, whether it is to be supposed that his State has labored under a delusion from 1776 down to the present time in supposing that its Government was republican in form up to the present hour, that up to the time of emancipation it was so, undoubtedly. But now the times have changed. sufficient until that day was the evil thereof. We as a people are required now to conform our Constitution and our laws, as well as our morals and our ethics and our economies, to the great American rule, equal and exact justice to all men. The opponents of this measure demand the immediate admission of these States without conditions for the national security and without protection for the freedmen. The rebel debts are still unre udiated by those States and menace the public credit, while the national debt is nnassumed by them. Secession is not annulled but repealed, and in condition for fresh opportunities to repeat itsattack upon the national sovereignty. The freedmen have no protection in those States outside of that scanty and temporary protection, inade nets and recarious, which is afforded throng the Freedmens Bureau. Their rights of man hood are denied. Everybody knows that since these States have themselves become “ reconstructed" they have enacted black codes and vagrant laws to take possession and control of these “freedmen.” The great struggle today is for the possession of the negro now as in the past. That is the great struggle in the South. slave masters have last their personal control over them. They demand now that the shall be remanded into their custody, they having the political power of the State. I read the sentiments, h 1. President, of a leading politician in the South in which the purpose is expressed in a sentence or two. Judge Humphreys, of Alabama, in endeavoringto induce th“at State to return to the Union, says: Gentlemen. our safestplace is in the union. Grant it the idea of chattel slavery is dead.if youplease;our Democratic allies will give us back the race in the condition of forced laborers and it does not matter in which state we have them, if we have them under our control." Mr. President, the contest for chattel slavery is over, but the struggle for the possession of the negro as a forced laborer gpes on, and we seem quite insensible to it. nder the pretense of a public necessity it is demanded that Congress ardmitthese States into their relations with the Federal Union, requiring no security for the protection of this defense ess race, re manding them to the custody of their old mas ters, knowin that their object and their purpose is to hold them as an unprivileged and unprotected class. That such sentiments find expression on this floor is a matter, I think, of surprise. he honorable Senfrom Pennsylvania, Mr. COWAN] in the ardor I hope it was of is eloquent speech the other day, gave utterance to a similar sentiment showing that the same insensibility still holds its power in this Senate. He talks upon this great question in connection with the restoration of these States of the inferiority of this race. He says the question of suffrage never was a question of color or race, but it was a question of inferior manhood, “an inferior article, ” to use the expressive phrase of the honorable Senator, and so it comes to this: on a proposition the object of which is to secure some rights to a race that we know have none accorded and are in the arbitrary power of those States, Senators rise in their places here and signify their determi nation to admit theseStates upon the floor of the Senate, give them politieal power and concede to them political rights to lord it ever this race, seem to justify the contemplated injustice and inhumanity on the ground of “inferior manhood, ” the negro is an “inferior article! ” They are not worthy the concern of an Ameri can statesman; they are waifs on society; they are nomadic; they are simply Africans; they have no place in the American Constitution; they are outside of society, outside of the objects of American law. This is “ a white mans government.” Remand them to their old masters who we know purpose to oppress and deny them every civil right, and then with fresh memory of recent llagrant war reach out the hand of friendship to men whose hands are still red with the blood of our children, and welcome them upon this (icor to places of authorii and power with such purposes and for such ends! Mr. President, I am sorry to say this is not evon the worst of it. The freedman has no protection at home, no hope of it here, and, alas! no hope of it anywhere. The saddest utterance that any American statesman has ever given expression to has fallen from him who at the present time occupies the highest place in the gift of the people of this countr. do not O out of my way to allude to it. should not doin my duty to this subject it I did not hotice it. n this question of the defenselessness of this race, an whether the American people should extend the hand of protection to this race, let me read from a message sent to this Senate under circumstances which give it peculiar force: “The idea upon which the slaveswere assistedto {heir freedom was that on becoming free they would O a self sustaining population." In the 1st place, I think it may be thoughta little singular that it should be announced that these people in any very high and loft sense were assisted to their freedom” at al. We never as a nation undertook to give them freedom on terms at all creditable to us. We de nied interposition in their behalf, even, until it became o vious that Providence did not intend we should have our own liberty until we have them a chance to help us by obtaining tieir Iown liberty; that was the round we occupied. deny that we volunteereifto hel ) the slave to his freedom on his account. The history of the times do not justify such assumption. We did not so much as propose to embrace his freedom in the objects of the war; nay, a great party in this country arra ed itself against every effort to aid him, and deprecated such efforts as contrary to the objects of the war; and when our late President at length came to the conclusion that we ought to declare the freedom of the slaves how did he announce it to the world? As helping them to their freedom? As a measure of justice and humanity to the oppressed? No; but as helping ourselves to victor. He had felt the public pulse; he had wate ied the wondrous workings of Providence in the great conflict in which the nation was involved; he had seen the nation ban in the doubtful balances of war; he saw an came to realize that God in His providence did not intend that this nation shoufd secure its own independonce until it yielded the rights of the blac. The negro was mustered into the military service to bear arms in defense of the Government; then the race was taken from the power of the rebellion and placed on the side of the nation. If it was understood, when he was “ assisted to his freedom, ” that he was to take care of himself, was it not, at least. to be inferred that he was to have opportunity given him to do it; that he was not tolic by the nation he served remanded to his old master and all O iportunit cut oif? That we have a right to ask or him.1 iat we ought to demand. If we do less than that and fall so far short in our dut, we have no right to expect the smiles of eaven or the approbation of the American people. Protection to the black luau in a general way, opportunity, upon the principle, not that we helped him as a primary motive, but that he was essential to the nation; and that such was the order of Providencesuch are the universal laws which govern the moral universe that if we had, thatit was only by delivering him that we could break the power of our enemies and secure our own liberty. I question the historical accuracy of what is as sumed. The implication is that we helped him to his liberty, and now we have done all that is required of us. The nation cannot thus lightly iit aside its obligations to a defenseless race called to its aid in its day of peril, it cannot so cancel its moral obligation to see to it that, having led them out of the land of bondage, they are not left to perish in the wilderness or be returned to a servitude even more heartless and cruel. We know he is in the power of his old master, and our responsibility is not that we have not helped him, but we have helped his oppressor. We have put the old rebel master in authority, restored him to places of power, invested him with the power of the State, and propose to remand his former slave to his custody, to hem the law of the State. He reigns supreme today in all these States, and demands a mission into these Halls, and it is demanded now that congress open the door of these Halls and admit the old master, clothed with authority and power. We all know that the freedman has no protection, and now from the high places of power it is declared as indicative of “the policy” the Government will pursue to its late allies and faithful friends, that when we freed him it was understood that he should take care of himself. Mr. President, as sad as this picture is, it is by no means the worst of it. here is a sentiment in this message which shocks me, and which I fear will shock the sensibilities of man kind. Knowing the condition of the freedmen, his situation, that from the beginning he has been held by those States as without the pale of constitutional or legal protection; knowm the sentiments of that region of the country in which he is held in subjection, the painful symptom of the following is plain: " In truth, however. eachState.inducedbyits own wants and interests, will do what is necessary and proper to retain within its bordersall the labor that is neededfor the development of its resources. The laws that regulate supply and demand will maintain their course, and the wages of labor will beregulated thereby. There is no danger that the exceedinfly great demand for labor will not operatoin favorof the laborer." Now, Mr. President, consider that that language is uttered as a reason for refusing to give the necessary executive consent to a law de signed for the protection of the freedmen, de signed to protect him from his old master, to open up opportunities to him, to reach out the hand of the nation and stand between him and absolute want. To this homeless, houseless, defenseless wanderer who has no abiding place, the Congress of the U.S. proposed to reach out the hand of the nation an protect him and provide for his temporary wants, and witha knowledge of all the facts; the reply from the chief Executive is, “ Leave him to the laws of demand and supply." The explanation for which is, there is no law or justice to which he can appeal. It is said that the courts of the States are open to him; let him appeal to the courts of the States; but does anyone need be told that. the State courts are closed forever against him; that. there he has been dumb for long ages of oppression? Let him have recourse to the courts of the U.S.; that is to refer him to a court which has already determined that the common sentiment of this country was that the black man had no rights which that court were bound to respect. In a condition of destitution and sufferin and want, the black man cries to the nation or recognition of his manhood, for protection; the nation answers back, there is for you no justice, no protection, no courts, no rights, civil or political; in the language of the chief Executive, you are left to “ the great law of supply and demand.” {end of Appendix Speech by Mr. Morrill}