Mr. SAULSBURY. Mr. President, I regard this bill as one of the most dangerous that ever introduced into the Senate of the U.S., or to which the attention of the American people was ever invited. During the lflS! 4 or live years I have sat in this Chambe and witnessed the introduction of bills into this body which I thought obnoxious to many very rave and serious constitutional objections; but have never since I have been a member of the body seen a bill so fraught with danger, so full of mischief, as the bill now under consideration. Deeming it to be of this character, duty to my country, duty to my State, duty to myselfas a man, as a citizen, and as a legislator, duty to my children, and duty to my fellowcitizens every where, demands that I should utter my protest against its enactment into a law. Before, however, I proceed to consider it in the light of the constitution as it existed previous to e recent. amendment, let me notice the basis of authority for it as claimed by the honorable Senfrom Illinois. I presume that honorable Senator would not contend that, independently of the constitutional, amendment, Congress had a right to enactthis law, although I know that many have claimed powers equally extensive. But from the argument of the honorable Senator, I infer that the sole basis of authority in hisjudgment for passing the bill is the amendment to the constitution of the U.S. abolishing slaver. If that be so, it is admitted that before the a option of that amendment Congress had not the right to enact such a law as this. Let us consider then for one moment whether the adoption of that amendment gave to Congress such an authority. Whatwas that amendment? That neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should exist in the U.S., except as a punishment for crime whereof the party should have been duly convicted. Now, ere is a complete an swer, in my judgment, to the argument of the honorable Senator, based upon the authority conferred by that amendment. Before and at the time of the adoption of that amendment the people of the U.S. were composed of persons of different races, the 2 main portions of which were white and black; the whites were free; aportion of the black population were free and pa portion were slaves. In the State of Maryland about 1/2 of the black population were free and 1/2 slaves. In my own State there were aboutten free negroes to one slave. In Kentucky and in most of the slaveholding States there were large free negro populations, as we supposed. I should like to know whether persons belong ng to the African race in the State of Maryland: and the State of Delaware, and the other slaveholding States, whohad been emancipated by their owners either by deed or will, or who were never in bondage, were at the time of the adoptionof the constitutional amendment, free or s ave. Were the not free men? What was the objection urged y many against the enactment of the fugitive slave law? It was that under that enactment a freedmana free colored man, as the called him, afree negro, as I uniforml call himmight be kidnapped, car ried far from his home, and reduced to slavery. Had the Congress of the U.S., previous to the adoption of the amendment, the power to pass this law, to say that the free negroesin the States of Maryland and Delaware, and the other slaveholding States, or the free negroes all over the U.S., should be the equalsof the white man before the law, and possess the powers which this bill proposes to confer? Had you the power, before the enactment of the constitutional amendment, to pass such a law? If you had not, did the passage of thatammdement, setting free that portion who were in slas very, and putting them on an equality in refer once to their status with the free negroes that then existed in the U.S., give you the power to legislate beyond the persons you set rec and in reference to the whole negro race in the U.S., a portion of which were free before? Is the amendment to the constitution so potential that ifthere was but one slave negroin the U.S. you could, under and by virtue of the clause which says you may carry the amendment into effect by appropriatel slation, bestow all the rights which this bill proposes to bestow upon the whole free negro population of the U.S.? Sir, it needs but a statement of the facts to show that under the constitutional amendment you have nosuch power. If you have the power under it, you had the power before the amendment to do the same thing in reference to that portion of the negro population who were not in a state of slavery but who were free. Mr. President, I will not say that such an exercise of power as is now proposed was not contemplated by those who voted for the amendment to the constitution; but certainly they did not avow it upon the floor of this Chamber. It does not of itself declare, and humaningenuity cannot torture it into meaning that the Congress of the U.S shall invade the States and attempt to regulate procrty and personal rights within the States an firmer than refers simply and solely to the condition and status of slavery. I admitthat ifinstead of declaringthat hereafter neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the L U.S. except as a punishment for crime where the party shall have been duly convicted, it h declared that hereafter there shall be no (llSCIlmlllEllOllvl AnnclVll rights and immunities among any State or Territory of the U.S. on account of race, color, or previous conditionof slavery, but the inhabitants of every race and color, without. regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, 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 if instead of being the amendment which you passed it had been that, and if then it had said that by appropriate legislation you might carry such an amendment into effect, you would have the power to pass appropriate acts to carry it into effect, because your acts would have had reference and relevancy to the subjectmatter of the amendment. Your acts then would have been constitution al, because there would have been alogical and legal connection between your amendment as it would in that case hare existed and your proposed acts to carry it into effect. But Cougress has passed no such constitutional amendmentns that. The States have simply said by adopting that, amendment that thestatus or condition of slaveryin this count, shall not longer existthe condition in which one man belongs to another, which gives to that other a right to appropriate the profits of his labor to his own use and to control his person. That is what it said; and it is said in refereime to that, that you may by appropriate legislatibu exercise power; and it has not said that you may exercise power in reference to anything else. The attempt now under the power given, which relates simply and solely to one subject matter the abolition of the status or condition of slavery, to confer civil rights which are wholly distinct and unconnected with the status or condition of slavery, is an attempt unwar ranted by any method or process of sound reas onin.