Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I approach the discussion of this subject, aware that it will be utterly impossible for me, within the time allotted me by the rules of the House, to do justice to the proposition reported by the JtCommee. I think, sir, that the honorable Gentfrom Vermont [Ma woobimine s] has uttered words that ought to be considered and accepted by gentlemen of the House, when he says that the action of this Congress in its effect upon the future prosperity of the country will be felt by generations of men after we shall all have paid the debt of nature. I believe, Mr. Speaker, as I have had occasion to say more than once, that the people of the U.S. have intrusted to the present Congress in some sense the care of the Republic, not only for the present, but for all the herealler. Your committee, ir, would not have sent to this House for its consideration this proposition but for the conviction that its adoption by Congress and its ratification by the people of the U.S. is essential to the safety of all the people of every State. I repel the suggestion made here in the heat of debate. that the committee or any of its members who favor this proposition seek in any form to mar the Constitution of the country, or take away from any State any right that belon to it, or from an citizen ofany State any right that belongs to imunder that Constitution. The ruposition pending before the House is simply, a proposition to arm the Congress of the U.S., by the consent of the people of the U.S., with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution today. It “hath that extent no more.” It is in these words: Joint. resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. Resolved the Senate and HoRep of the U.S.A. in Conan” mumbled, (2/3rds of both 1 oasesconcurring!) hat the followin article he proposed to the legislatures of the severe States as an mncndmentto the Constitution of the U.S. which. when ratified by 3/4thsof the said Legislatures shall bevalid as part of said Constitution, namely: ARTICLI. The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citiacps of enoh State all privileges and immunities of citizens in the severalStates and to all persons in the several States cqas] protection in the rights of life, liberty and property. Gentlemen who seem to be very desirous (although it has very recently come to them to stan well with the POTUS, if they will look narrowly into the mes sage which he addressed to this Congress at the opening of the session will find that the proposition ending is approved in that message. The resident in the message tells this House and the country that “ the American system rests on the assertion of the equal right of every man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness sir”, that statement rests upon higher authority than that of the POTUS It rests upon the authority of the whole people of the U.S., speaking through their Constitution as it has come to us from the hands of the men who framed it. The words of that great instrument are: the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities ot citizens in the several “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” “ What do gentlemen say to these provisions? Oh, we favor that; we agree with the President that the basis of the American system is the right of every man to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; we agree that. the constitution declares the right of every citizen of the U.S. to the enjoyment of all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and of all persons to be protected in life, liberty, and property." Gentlemen admit the force of the provisions in the bill of rights, that the citizens of the U.S.: shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the U.S. in the several States, and that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process oflaw; butthey say, "We are opposed to its enforcement by act of congress under an amended Constitution, as proposed.” That is the sum and substance of all the argument that we have heard on this subject. Why are gentlemen opposed to the enforcement of the hill of rights, as proposed? Because they aver it would interfere With the reserved rights of the States! Who ever before heard that any State had reserved to itself the right, under the Constitution of the U.S., to withheld from any citizen of the U.S. within its limits, under any pretext whatever, any of the privileges of a citizen of the U.S., or to impose upon him, no matter from what State he may have come, any burden contrary to that revision of the Constitution which declares t int the citizen shall be entitled in the several States to all the immunities of a citizen of the U.S.? What does the word immunity in your constitution mean? Exemption from unequal burdens. Ahl say gentlemen who oppose this ameivdment, we are not opposed to equal rights; we are not opposed to the bill of rights that all shall be protected alike in life, liberty, and property: we are only opposed to enforcing it by national authority, even by the consent of the loyal people of all the States.