Mr. BINGHAM. Excuse me. Mr. Speaker, we have had some most extraordinary arguments against the adoption of the proposed amendment. Amongst Others we have the argument of the Gentfrom NewJersey, l[JMin Rooms] that he is opposed to it because e says it comes from a JtCommee more tyrannical than any tyranny which disgraced the times of Louis XIV. I do not see, if the amendment be good, that that is any objection to its adoption. "The gentleman seems to think it was an objection. He must hav spoken sportively; he must have spoken ironically of the committee of which the gentleman himself is a member. the Gentleman unwittingly echoed the speech made at the other end of the avenue and I regret to say by the President, in which he denounced tea party of the gentlemans choosing this JtCommee of reconstruction, raised by the action of both Houses of Congress, as a central dictator unconstitutional and unauthorized by law. Why, sir, if the gentleman was not speaking sportively, if he was not 5 eaking ironically. one would suppose he wou (1make haste to withdraw himself from all connection with such a committee as that of which he thus s oaks. Surely the Gentleman does not mean by this denunciation of the committee to boast, like certain men of 18 centuries ago, that he is better than other men, wholifted up their hands and thanked God that they were not like other men. If that be the gentlemans opinion of himself, it is time he should exclaim, “ My soul, be not then united with their assembly or sit in the council of the ungodly!” We have the extraordinary arment of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. It. snsi.i,] that however just the amendment may be we ought not to pass it in the absence of the Representatives of the 11 States lately in insurrection against the country. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman comes to reflect upon that remark of his he will see by using it he casts an imputation upon the very men who framed the matchless Constitution of the country under which we are assembled here today. It was written in the Articles of Confederation that they “should be articles of perpetual Union" between the original 13 States who were parties to it. It was written in the Constitution that, if adopted by 9 States, it should become the Constitution for thohe 9 States, the covenant of the Articles of Confederation to the contrary notwithstandin. It thence resulted that the Constitution did become the supreme law of some ten States, in the absence ofassent thereto on the part of 3, and in direct violation of the express covenant of the Confederation itself and when the question was asked of one of the fathers of the constitution, how can you break up the Confed eration without the consent of all the States, and against the protest of some bf them; how can you break the covenant “of perpetual Union" under the Articles of Confe eration? he gave for answer, that the right of the people to self preservationjustifies;it it rests upon the transcendent right of nature, and natures God. That right is still in the people and has justified their action through a this trial. It is the inherent right of the people. It cannot be taken from them. It has survived the storms and tem ests of this great conflict of arms. Hence, i the gentlemans logic be true, that you cannot amend the Constitution without the assent of Representatives in Congress of the rebel States, you could not have passed any bill during all these 4 years of war, if it affected in any sense the interests of the 11 rebel States. In that objection the gentleman, like the Gentleman who preceded him, is simply followin the argument of the President, who has said something of that kind in his veto message of the Free mens Bureau bill. We have, then, sir, the calmer and more de liberate utterance of the honorable Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. HALL] He says that the Constitution does contemplate equality in the protection of the rights of life, liberty, and property in every State. He admits it does contem, late that the citizen of each State shall be entited to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. It will be noticed, the gentleman takes care not to utter one single word in opposition to that part of the amendment which seeks the enforcement of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the Constitution of the U.S., but by his silence he gives his assent to it. But the gentleman reiterates the Old cry of State rights, and as 5, “You are impairing State rights." I would like to know, and when the gent eman comes to make another argument on this subject, I respectfully ask him to inform us whence e derives the authority for supposing, if he does so suppose, that any State has the right to deny to a citizen of any other State an of the privileges or immunities of a citizen of the U.S and if a State has notthe right to do that, how can the right of a State be impaired by giving to the people of the U.S. by constitutional amendment the power by congressional enactment to enforce this proVision of their Constitution I, The gentleman did not utter a word against the equal right of all citizens of the U.S. in every State to all privileges and immunities of citizens, and I know any such denial by any State would be condemned by every sense of his nature. If a State has not the right to deny equal protection to any human being under the Constitution of this country in the rights of life, liberty, and property, flow can State rights be impaired by penal prohi bitions of such denial as proposed? But, says the gentleman, if you adopt this anicndment you give to Congress the power to enforce all the rights of married women in the several States. I beg the gentlemans ardon. He need not be alarmed at the condition of married women. Those rights which are Universal and independent of all local State legislation belong, by the gift of God, to eve wo man, whether married or single. The rights of life and liberty are theirs whatever States may enact. But the gentlemans concern is as to the right of property in married women. Although this word property has been in your bill of rights from the year 1789 until this hour, who ever heard it intimated that anybody could have property protected in any State until he ownedpor acquired procrty there according to its local law or accor intr to the law of some other State which he mayhave carried thither? I undertake to say no one. As to real estate, every one knows that its acquisition and transmision under every interpretation ever given to the word property, as used in the Constitution of the country, are dependent exclusively upon the local law of the States, save under adirect grant of the U.S. But suppose any person has acquired property not contrary to the laws of the State, lint in accordance with its law, are they not to beequally protected in the enjoyment ofit, or are tiey to e denied all protection? Thatid the question, and the whole question, so far as that part of the case is concerned. The gentleman seemed to think that all persons could have remedies or all violations of their rights of “life, liberty, and property" in the Federal courts., giventured to ask him yesterday when any action of that sort was ever maintained in any of the Federal courts of the U.S. to redress the great wrong which has been prac ticed, and which is being practiced now in more States than one of the Union under the authority of State laws, denying to citizens thereinequal protection or any protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property.