Mr. COWAN. Now, as I understand the meaning and intent of this bill, it is that there shall be no discrimination made between the inhabitants of the several States of this Union, none in any way. In Pennsylvania, for the greater convenience of the people, and for the greater convenience, I may say, of both classes of the people, in certain districts the legislature has provided schools for colored chil reias discriminated as between the 2 classe We put the African children i his schoolhouse and the white children over i that schoolhouse and educate them there, a are best can. Is this amendmentto the comstitution of the U.S. abolishing slavery to break u that system which Pennsylvania has adopts for the education of her white and colored children}I Are the school directors who carry out that law and who make this distinction between these classes of children to be punishedfor a violation of this statute of the U.S.? To me it is monstrous. How anybody desiring to be fair, desiring to construe the constitution according to its lair intent and meaning, can drag out of it such a conclusion, such a monstrous conclusion as this, I cannot see. I am very free to say, as I have said here before over and over, that I am perfectly willing, so far as my State is concerned, to vote for an amendment of the constitution of the U.S. which will secure to all men of every color and of every race and of every condition their natural rights, the rights which God has given them. the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to property. I am willing to do that because that was the great inheritance which our ancestors won for us, and now in this country I am willing for my part to extend it to all others, even the descendants of barbarian races. even to those who were brought up and reared in Asiatic civilization. But I am not prepared exactly to say that I would vote for that amendment to the constitution ifI represented the State of California now, because I am not prepared to say whether or net the contingency may come upon that coast when our people will have to assert their dominion by depriving that race which is now making in roads upon them of even the natural rights which usually belong to men in societ. But, Mr. President, that is neither ere nor there; this is not an amendment to the constitution of the U.S.; thisis an attempt to do without any power that which it might be very questionable whether we ought to do even i we had the power. At the same time, I say that, so far as I am concerned, I am willing to vote foi such an amendment to the constitution; and it is only by means of a constitutional amendment that such a result can be worked. I agree entirely with everything said by my honorable friendfrom WestVirginia on that point, and I consider his reasoning as conclusive upon it. There is a great deal more in this bill that is exceedingly objectionable. It is the 1st time I think in the history of civilized legislation that ajndicial officer has been held u and subjected to a criminal punishment that which may have been a conscientious did charge of his duty. It is, Isay, the 1st case. that I know ofin the legislation of modern and civilized nations where a bill of indictment is to take the place of a writ of error, and where a mistake is to be tortured into a crime. This bill would be much less objectionable if it provided for securing the rights I have enumerated, and then provided that if this bill was declared unconstitutional in the courts below a writ of error should lie to the Supreme Court. Indeed. I believe that is the law at present, although I am not exactly certain about it. Ifn cruel or unusual punishment were to be inflicted upon a negro, an exceptional punishment, one which discriminated against him, in a State court, of course either he or his counsel would let up this law as a defense against it, and they would protest that such punishment could not be inflicted. Then it would be for that judge to decide whether this was constitutional or not. If he decided, that it was constitution al, of course it would be binding and obligatory on him. If be decided that it was not constitution al, the defendant would have an ample remedy if he wasal lowed his writ of error.