Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I desired, when the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. RAYMOND] was speaking, to interrupt him, in order that I might understand fully the position in which he placed himself concernin his vote on the civil rights bill. I understood him to say that he voted against that bill be cause, as he believed, Congress had not the power, under the Constitution, to pass the bill, and that it would require such an amendment as is now proposed to clothe us with the power to pass such a measure. I could not at the time harmonize that in my mind with the record of the gentleman during this Congress relative to the principle involve in the civil rights bill. The 1st section of that bill embodies its essential and vital principle. All the other sections provide merely or the enforcement of the principle embraced in the 1st section, which was Simply a declaration that allpersons without distinction of race or color should enjoy in all of the States and Territories civil rights and immunities. Now, sir, the gentleman himself introduced early in the session a bill, the 2nd section of which provides as follows: “That all persons born or hereafter to be born, within the limits and nu or the jurisdiction of the U.S shall be deemedand considered and are hereby declared. to be citizens of the U.S and entitled to all rights and privileges as me The 1st section proposes to amend our naturalization laws by “ striking out the word white;” and the bill itself is intended to confer upon negroes and all other persons born within the U.S., without distinction of color, the rights of citizens of the U.S. After that bill had been introduced by the Gentfrom NewYork he made a speech, in which I find one of the propositions which he laid down as proper to be enforced by this Congress against the people of the southern States was in this language: “I think. in the 3rd place, we should provide by law for giving to the freedmen of the South all the rights of citizens, in courts of law and elsewhere." Now, he did not mean that such provision should be made by a constitutional amendment; for in his 5th proposition he goes on to say: 5th. I would make such amendments to the Constitution as may seemwise to Congressand the States.acting freely and without coercion.” So that his 3rd proposition had no reference to this and in t he precludes any such construction by using the term “law.” He" says: We should provide bylaw for iving totho freedmenof the South all the rights ofiuitizens, in courts of law and elsewhere." Now, sir, that proposition of the gentleman isbrouder than the provision of the civil rights bill. Itinvelves the entire principle; and if we give a “ reasonable constructionto the term elsewhere, " we mayinclnde in that the jury box and the ballot box. It does seem to me, sir, that the eXplanation given by the gentleman for his vote against the civil rights bill cannot be so ported upon this record. If the gentleman will7say that e voted against thatbill because of the sectionsfollowing the 1st, that may raise a different question