Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President I sympathize heartily with the purpose of the hill of the Senfrom Massachusetts. I clieve it is the duty of Congress to give to the freedmen of the southern States ample protection in all their natural rights. Wi me it is a question simply of time and manner. I submit to the Senfrom Massachusetts whether this is the time for the introduction of this bill. I believe it would be wiser to pestpone all action upon this subject until the proclamation of the SecyState shall announce that the constitutional amendment is a art of the supreme law of the land. When that is done, there will then be, in my judgment, no doubt of the power of Congress to pass this bill, and to make it definite and general in its terms. The bill now necessarily relates only to the States included in the proclamation of the President. It excludes the States of Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, WestVirginia, and other portions of the South, which were excepted in that roclamation. The mement the constitutional amendment is adopted, then our legislation on this so ect am be general throughout the U.S. nder the point resolution proposing that amendment, ere is no doubt of the power of Congress over this subject. I must confess my surprise at one or 2 recent dispatches issued from high officers of the Government in regard to e construction of the constitutional amendment. To me it is pllain and obvious. The 1st section provides that “ Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, e opt as a ninishmont for crime, whereof the party shall have con duly convicted filiull exist within the U.S., or any place subject to their Jurisdiction.” This section secures to every man within the U.S. liberty in its broadest terms. The 2nd section provides that “ Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Here is not only a guarantee of liberty to every inhabitant of the U.S., but an express grant of power to Congress to secure the liberty by appropriate legislation. New, unless a man may be free without the right to sue and be sued, to plead and be impleaded, to acquire and hold property, and to testify in ncourt of justice, then Congress has the power, by the express terms of this amendment, to secure all ese rights. To say that a man is a free man and yet is not able to assert and maintain his right, in a court of justice, is a negation of terms. Therefore the power is expressly given to Congress to secure all their rights of freedom by appropriate legislation. The reason why this power was given is also drawn from the history of a clause of the constitution. By this clause of the constitution, one which has always been a part of our fundamental law, it is provided that “The citirons of each State lhall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.” This clause gives to the citizen of Massachusetts, whatever may be his color, the right of a citizen of SCarolina, to come and go precisely like any other citizen. There never was any doubt about the construction of this clause of the constitution that is, that a man who was recognized as a citizen of one State had the right to go anywhere within the U.S and exercise the immunity of a citizen of the U.S.; but the trouble was in enforcin this constitutional provision. In the celebrated case of Mr. Hoar, who went to SCarolina, he was driven out, although he went there to exercise a plain constitutional right, and although he was awhite man of undisputed character. This constitutional provision was in effect a dead letter to him. The reason was that there was no provision in the constitution by which Congress could enforce this right. Although here was a guarantee that the citizen of one State should have the rights of a citizen in all the States, yet there was no express power conferredu on Congress to secure this right, and no law as ever yet been framed that secured the right of a citizen to travel wherever he chose within the limits of the U.S. To avoid this very difficulty, that of a guaranteo without a power to enforce it, this 2nd section of the constitutional amendment was adopted, which does give to Congress in clear and express terms the right to secure, by appro iriate legislation, to every person within the U.S., liberty. it seems to me, therefore, as a question of time, it is better to ost pone all legislation on this subject unti the constitutional amendment is dec red to be a part of the fundamental law. Then, as I have said, it is a question of manner. When this question comesto be legislated upon by Congress I do not wish it to be left to the uncertain and ambiguous language of this bill. I think that the rights which we desire to secure to the freedmen of the South should be distinctly specified. The bill provides that all laws, statutes, acts ordinances, rules, and regulations of any description whatsoever, heretofore in force or held valid in any of the States which were declared to be in insurrection and rebellion by the reclamation of the President of the 1st of July, 1862, whereby or wherein any inequality of civil rights and immunities among the inhabitants of said States is recognized, authorized, established, or maintained, by reason or in consequence of any distinctions of difference sof color, race, or descent, or by reason or in consequence of a previous condition or status of slavery or involuntary servitude of such inhabitants, be, and are hereby, declared null and void, &c. There is scarcely a State in the Union that does not make distinctions on account of color. Is it wise for us to legislate in regard to all these various subjects without having a full comprehension of what they are? In nearly every State in the Union there is some distinction. In the State of NewYork a certain portion of the negro population is allowed to vote, and a certain portion are excluded from voting those who have not property. In the State of Ohio all those who are nearer white than black are allowed to vote; those nearer black than white are excluded from voting. These are distinctions contained in the laws of what were called the free States all are free now. Is it the purpose of this bill to wipe out all these distinctions? I have said that the language of this bill is not sufficiently definite and distinct to inform the people of the U.S. of precisely the character of rights intended to be secured by it to the freedmen of the southern States. The bill in its terms aplies only to those States which were declare to be in insurrection; and the same criticism would apply to this part of it that I have already made, that it is not General in its terms. It seems to me that when we legislate on this subject we should secure to the freedmen of the southern States certain rights, naming them. defining precisel what they should be. For instance. we could agree that every man should have the right to sue and be sued in any court of justiec. No man can be said to be free within the language of the 1st clause until he has a right to sue and be sued, and to maintain his rights. So with the right to testify, an in. an inevitable incident to liberty, without which liberty would be but a name. It seems to me even the exclusion of persons from testifying because they have been guilty of n crime is indefensible. I would receive the testimony of anything that could articulate; and sometimes objects without life are the most important elements of testimony. We should secure to these freedmen the right to acquire and hold property, to enjoy the fruits of their own labor, to be protected in their homes and family, the right to be educated, and to go and come at pleasure. These are among the natural rights of free men. It seems to me therefore, that when we come to legislate on this subject, it should be in clear and precise language, naming and detailing precise y the rights that these men shall be secured in, so that in the southern States there shall be hereafter no dispute or controversy and I think we should at as early o. day as possible announce to the people lately in insurrection precisely what we mean to do with them. In my judgment the Congress of the U.S. has now to impose conditions upon which those States shall be restored to their old relations to and in the Union. I want to see these conditions gravely considered, deliberately discussed, and fixed after debate; and I wish to see them plainly prescribed either by amendments to the constitution or in some definite way, that the people of the southern States may know precise y what. we intend to demand of the m; and then when we have made our demands we shall be satisfied if they comply with them. For the present, therefore, I think it would be better to refer this bill and postpone any definite legislation on the subject until the committee already provided for by the resolution of the 2 Houses shall have reported, or at least until after the constitutional amendment shall be declared a part of the constitution of the U.S. by the proclamation of the SecyState.