Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, in listening to the very eloquent remarks of the Gentfrom NewJersey, [Mr. ltoosits] I have been astonished to find that in his apprehension this bill is designed to deprive somebody in some State of this Union of some right which hchas here tofore enjoyed. Iam on v sorry that he was not specific enough; that he did notinforin us what rights are to be taken away. He has denounced this bill as dangerous to liberty, as calculated in its tendency at least to destroy the liberties of this country. I have examined this bill with some care, and so far as I have been able to understand iIt have found nothing in any provision of it which tends in any way to, take from any man, white or black, a single right be enjoys under the Constitution and laws of the U.S. We are told that this bill is destructive of constitutional liberty, but we are not told whose rights are infringed. We are not pointed to one single right now possessed by a single white man in this Government touched or impaired by the provisions of this bill. I would have been glad if he would have told us in what manner the white men of this country would have been placed in a worse condition than they are now if this becomes the law. This general denunciation and general assault of the bill, without pointing out one single thing which is to deprive one single man of any right he enjoys under the Government, seems to me not entitled to much weight. What is the situation of affairs for which we are called to legislate for 4 million human be in gs who have been set free from chattel slavery bv the emancipation reclamation of the president and the amendment to the Constitution.of the U.S.? They have become free. They have become selfdependent. They are in a position where they are required to take care of themselves." Many of these men have been enga in defense of the country. In the hour of danger they have been called it on by us to aid in defense of the country; an we have succeeded with their aid in suppressing, a rebellion which threatened to overthrow the Government of the country. What do we see? In 6 States of the Union formerly in rebellion laws have been passed by the reconstructed Legislatures of those States which have been so malignant in their spirit toward these freedmen, so subversive of their liberties, that the President. of the U.S and the commanders acting by his authority have set aside those laws and prevented their execution. General Thomas in Mississip )i, General Swayne in Alabama, GenlSickles in SCarolina, and GeneraL ferrv in Virginia have issued sitive orders forbiddin the execution of the laws which have asse the Legislatures of those States against ese black men. Vagrant laws have been passed; laws which, under the pretense of selling these men as vagrants, are calculated and intended to reduce them to slavery again; and laws which provide for selling these men into slavery in pan ishment of crimes of the slightest mugnitude; laws so abhorrent to the spirit of the Government; and the spirit of the age that they have been absolutely set aside by the military power. The time when these men can be prorected by the military power will cease. Gentlemen are insisting that the time has come when those States rhould be represented in Congress and restored to their original position in the Union; and the last part of the speech of the Gentfrom NewJersey [Alia Roosns] was de voted to a denunciation of gentlemen on this side of the House because they do not believe the time had fully come. Suppose that proposition is agreed to and these States are restored to all the rights of sovereign States within this Union, and they carry out the same spirit they have already manifested toward these freedmen. Then the question is, shall we leave the men who have been loyal during this struggle, have fought on our side and who have aided to carry the banner of the Republic in triumph through this terrible rebellion; shall we leave them to the operation oflaws de nounced as tyrannical by the military powers and as practically reducing these men to the condition of slavery I It is idle to say these men will be protected by the States, lhe sufficient and conclusive answer to that position l submit is. that those States have already passed laws which would now virtually reenslave them. Is there any answer to that? Does the gentleman tell us when these men are remitted to the action of these States lately in rebellion they mean that they shall be subjectedto the operation of vagrant laws which reduce them virtually to the condition of slavery! Do they mean that when they ask us to admit Representatives from those States Upon this floor, and thus to admit these States into relations to the Union? Do they mean we shall surrender these freedmen to the power of their former masters, that we shall surrender these loyal men to the traitors, when we have the example before us which cannot be contradicted. that it will be to surrender them to a condition worse than they were before the proclamation of cinancipation was issued? T leGentfrom NewJersey [Mr. Roo ms] commenced his speech by saying that he was in favor of givjng civil rights to all men, and that he was a progressive man. He says this bill cannot be passed because it is unconstitutional. The other day when a proposition was made to amend the Constitution in this regard he opposed the amendment to the constitution. men. but he is against every earthly mode that can be devised for protecting them; like the man that I heard of in the State of Maine, who was in favor of the Maine law butwas opposed. to its enforcement. Sir, I know of no way by which these men can be protected except it be by the action of Congress, ei the r by passing this bill or by passing a constitutional amendment and when Gentlemen tell me that they are in favor of protecting the people of color, and yet oppose every practicable method of protecting them, I beg eave most respectfully to doubt their judgment in the matter. The question is shall we leave these men in this condition? It is idle to say we are not leaving them to a system of slavery. If it had not been for the acts of the military commanders, had not the laws which have al reud been enacted by the Legislatures of the robe States been set aside, the negroes would all have been slaves now under the operation of their vagrant acts or other laws. I believe that this bill is apro or remedy for these evils. I believe that we lave the constitutional power to pass it, and that it is our duty to pass it. Ia nu that we shall be justly chargeable with want of good faith, want of honor and of common honesty if we abandon these men, who by our invitation have aided us and have thereby made themselves obnoxious to the majority of the white men of the South, and leave the m to the tender mercies of our enemies and theirs. This bill provides that all persons born within the U.S., excepting those who do not owe allegiance to the U.S. Govern c is for the protection of thescir i tment, as children of embassadors of foreign Powers and such as are not subject to our laws, and Indians not taxed who owe a tribal allegiance shall be citizens of the U.S. I think this is the law now. I do not believe that in this Government of ours there is any class of free men who are not citizens. I do not believe that between the slave. who has no rights, which white men are bound to respect, and a citizen there is any class of men provided for in the Constitution of the U.S. But I am not going to discuss this question, hecrpise it is apparent to me that the constitutional power of Congress to make any men or class of men citizens must be conceded. If they are not citizens now this act will make them citizens. To the Congress of the U.S. is given the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. This power has been constrned. both by Congress and the courts and we have ndinitted men to the rights of citizenship in precisely the same manner contemplated in this bill. We admitted the Stock bridae Indians by act of Congress, and vast niiiners of Mexicans resident in Texas at the time of the annexation were made citizens by act of Congress. There are men within the sound of my voice who were here when a law was passed admitting large numbers of these men of Texas to citizenship, who would not otherwise have been citizens. This question has been long settled. Then the question arises if we have power to make them citizens, about which I do not think there can“be any reasonable doubt. there certainly cannot be any unless we are willing to go back and reverse all the precedents that have. been set since the beginning of the Government. Ilgm the question that. remains is simply this: can the Congress of the U.S. irovide that as between citizens of the U.S. there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities, but they “ shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts. to sue, be parties, give evidence, to inherit, purchasc. lease, sell, hold, and convey real undppersonal property, and to full and equal benelit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property?” I as Congress the power to so enact that there shall be no discrimination in these things between the citizens. of this Government? That is the whole question, so far as relates to the constitutional power. To my mind the power is a clear one resting upon the amendment to the Constitution which has lately been adopted. Under that amendment slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibitedin the U.S and congress has power to enforce that article of the Constitution by appropriate legislation. Now, sir, suppose that chattel slavery could not exist even without this 2nd section of the amendment. Suppose it had never been adopted, no court could hold that any man in any State had a right to hold another as his slave in the sense in which slaves had been held before; but it is apparent that under other names and in other forms a system of involuntary servitude might be perpetuated Over this unfortunate race. They might be. denied the right of free men unless there was vested a power in the Congress of the U.S. to enforce by appropriate legislation their right to freedom. F that be not the meaning of the 2nd section of this amendment, I see no meanin to it. The 1st section would have prohibite forever the uiere fact of chattel slaver as it existed. When Congress was clothe with power to enforce that provision by appropriate ogislatiori, it meant 2 things. It meant, 1st, that congress shall have power to secure the rights of eeemen to those men who had been slaves. It meant, 2ndly, that congress should be the judge of what is necessary for the purpose of securing to them those rights. Congress must judge as to what legislation is appropriate and necessary to secure to these men the rights of free men, whether we can do this except by securing to them the right to make and enforce contracts and the other rights which are 5 ccified in this bill and each member of this Iouse must determine for himself, upon his oath. what legislation is appropriate to prevent. their being reduced to an servitude which is involuntary. blow, sir, I am prepared, for myself, to say that when those rights which are enumerated in this bill are deiiictl to any class of men on account of race or color, when they are subject to a system of vagrant laws which sells them into slavery or involuntary servitude, which operates upon them as upon no other part Of the community. they are not secured in the rights of freedom. Ifa man can be sold, the man is a slave. lfhe is nominally freed by the amendment to the Constitution. he has nothing in the world he can call his own; he has simpl?, the labor of his hands on which he can depend. vAny combination of men in his neighborhood, can prevent him from having any chance to support himwlf by his labor. They can pass a law that a man not supporting himself by labor shall be deemed a vagrant, and that a vagrant shall be sold. lfthis is the freedom we gave the men who have been fighting forus and in defense of the Government, if this is all we have secured them, the President had far better never have issued the proclamation of emanci union, and the country had far better never have adopted the great ordinance of freedom. Take, for instance. the act that was passed in the State of SCarolina, and set aside by GeneralSicklcs. What is the condition of the freedman under that act? Is he secured in any right of freedom? Can any member here say that there is any probability, or any possibility, that these States will secure him in those rights? They have already spoken through their Legislatures: we know what they will do: these acts, which have been set aside by the military oommanders, are the expressions of their will. Now, are these men free? If a man can be sold as a vagrant because he does not labor, without any inquiry as to whether he can or cannot procure labor, is he a free man? To my mind the conclusion is irresistible that the 2nd section of this amendment of the Constitution which gives us the right to enforce the article of the Constitution which provides against slavery or involuntary servitu e, give: us the right to protect these men against precisely such a system of legislation as the one to which I have referred. If it does not it is worth nothing. GenlGrant, on the 12th of January last, issued this order: " Military division and Dept commanders, whose commandsonibrnceor are composed of the Into rebellious States and who have not already done so willat once issucand enlorccorders nrotocting colored peoplefroni prosecutionin any of such States charged with odenses for which white personslure not punished in the same manner and degree. I have a right to assume, and I do assume, that that order was issued under the direction of the POTUS, that it is his act, and when we provide by legislative action precisely the same thing and nothing more, I do not think that gentlemen upon the other side have the right to assume in advance that we are to encounter the executive veto. If the principle of this bill differs in any respect mm the principle which the military authorities have fbnnd it necessary to carry out in order to protect these people in the enjoyment of their freedom, I cannot see in What that difference consists and one reason assigned most gravely in this House. why we should abandon these people and deliver them up to the operation of just such laws as I have been commenting u n is that if we do not do so a negro may be elected POTUS; that a majority of the white men of this country will c cone to elect a black man as POTUS That is the answer that is made to us when we ask whether these people are to be turned over to those men who hate them because they have been loyal to the Union and to the old flag. Objection is made to everything that the white man can contrive for their protection. It is said that this measure is unconstitutional. Then let us amend the Constitution so as to render such legislation proper. Oh, no, they say, we will not amend the Constitution. Then let us prescribe some conditions to these States that will guaranty the protection of these people. No, they cry; it is tyranny to ask for any guarantee from them. The whole scope and meaning of this objection and opposition are that these people are to be sban oned, are to be left without the protection of this Government. They are to e told that notwithstanding the faith of this nation, when we asked them to take up arms in our defense, was pledged to guaranty freedom to them, yet now when we have secured our end by their aid, we will abandon them, and leave them in the hands of men whose hatred against them is intensified by the very part they played at our command. Does any man in this House believe that these people can be safcl left in these States without the aid of hederiiflegislation or militsry power? Does anyone believe that their freedom can be preserved without this aid? If any man does so believe, he is strangely blind to the history of the past year; strangely blind to the enactments passed by Legislatures touching these freedmen and I shuddered as I heard the honorable Gentfrom NewJer scy [Mu ltoouns] claiming that he was speaking and thinking in the spirit which animated the Saviour of mankind when He made atonement for our race; that it was in that spirit he was actin when he was striving to have these people left utterly defenseless in the hands of men who are proving day by day, month by month, that. they desire to oppress them, for they had been made free against their consent. Every act of legislation, every exression of Opinion on their part proves that t iese people would be again enslaved if they were not “0 tected by the military arm of the federal government; without that they would be slaves today and I submit, with all deference. that it is anything but the spirit which the gentleman claims to have exercised which prompted the argument he has made. For myself, l trust that this bill will be passed, because I consider it the most appropriate means to secure the end desired; and that these people will be protected. I trust that we will say to them, because upon our call you aided its to suppressthis rebellion; because the honor and faith of the nation were pledged for your protection, we will maintain your freedom, and redeem that ledge.