"The third section of the bill authorizes a general and unlimited grant of support to the destitute and suffering refugees and freedmen, their wives and children. Succeeding sections make provision for the rent or purchase of landed estates for freedmen, and for the erection for their benefit of suitable buildings for asylums and schools, the expenses to be defrayed from the Treasury of the whole people. The Congress of the United States has never heretofore thought itself empowered to establish asylums beyond the limits of the District of Columbia, except for the benefit of our disabled soldiers and sailors. It has never founded schools for any class of our own people, not even for the orphans of those who have fallen in the defense of the Union; but has left the care of education to the much more competent and efficient control of the States, of communities, of private associations, and of individuals. It has never deemed itself authorized to expend the public money for the rent or purchase of homes for the thousands, not to say millions, of the white race, who are honestly toiling from day to day for their subsistence. A system for the support of indigent persons in the United States was never contemplated by the authors of the Constitution, nor can any good reason be advanced why, as a permanent establishment, it should be founded for one class or color of our people more than another. Pending the war, many refugees and freedmen received support from the Government, but it was never intended that they should thenceforth be fed, clothed, educated, and sheltered by the United States. The idea on which the slaves were assisted to freedom was that, on becoming free, they would be a self-sustaining population. Any legislation that shall imply that they are not expected to attain a self-sustaining condition must have a tendency injurious alike to their character and their prospects.

"The appointment of an agent for every county and parish will create an immense patronage; and the expense of the numerous officers and their clerks, to be appointed by the President, will be great in the beginning, with a tendency steadily to increase. The appropriations asked by the Freedmen's Bureau, as now established, for the year 1866, amount to $11,745,000. It may be safely estimated that the cost to be incurred under the pending bill will require double that amount—more than the entire sum expended in any one year under the administration of the second Adams. If the presence of agents in every parish and county is to be considered as a war measure, opposition, or even resistance, might be provoked, so that, to give effect to their jurisdiction, troops would have to be stationed within reach of every one of them, and thus a large standing force be rendered necessary. Large appropriations would therefore be re-required to sustain and enforce military jurisdiction in every county or parish from the Potomac to the Rio Grande. The condition of our fiscal affairs is encouraging, but, in order to sustain the present measure of public confidence, it is necessary that we practice not merely customary economy, but, as far as possible, severe retrenchment.

"In addition to the objections already stated, the fifth section of the bill proposes to take away land from its former owners without any legal proceedings being first had, contrary to that provision of the Constitution which declares that no person shall 'be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' It does not appear that a part of the lands to which this section refers may not be owned by minors or persons of unsound mind, or by those who have been faithful to all their obligations as citizens of the United States. If any portion of the land is held by such persons, it is not competent for any authority to deprive them of it. If, on the other hand, it be found that the property is liable to confiscation, even then it can not be appropriated to public purposes until, by due process of law, it shall have been declared forfeited to the Government.

"There is still further objection to the bill on grounds seriously affecting the class of persons to whom it is designed to bring relief; it will tend to keep the mind of the freedman in a state of uncertain expectation and restlessness, while to those among whom he lives it will be a source of constant and vague apprehension.

"Undoubtedly the freedman should be protected, but he should be protected by the civil authorities, especially by the exercise of all the constitutional powers of the courts of the United States and of the States. His condition is not so exposed as may at first be imagined. He is in a portion of the country where his labor can not well be spared. Competition for his services from planters, from those who are constructing or repairing railroads, and from capitalists in his vicinage or from other States, will enable him to command almost his own terms. He also possesses a perfect right to change his place of abode; and if, therefore, he does not find in one community or State a mode of life suited to his desires, or proper remuneration for his labor, he can move to another, where that labor is more esteemed and better rewarded. In truth, however, each State, induced by its own wants and interests, will do what is necessary and proper to retain within its borders all the labor that is needed for the development of its resources. The laws that regulate supply and demand will maintain their force, and the wages of the laborer will be regulated thereby. There is no danger that the exceedingly great demand for labor will not operate in favor of the laborer.

"Neither is sufficient consideration given to the ability of the freedmen to protect and take care of themselves. It is no more than justice to them to believe that, as they have received their freedom with moderation and forbearance, so they will distinguish themselves by their industry and thrifty and soon show the world that, in a condition of freedom, they are self-sustaining, capable of selecting their own employment and their own places of abode, of insisting for themselves on a proper remuneration, and of establishing and maintaining their own asylums and schools. It is earnestly hoped that, instead of wasting away, they will, by their own efforts, establish for themselves a condition of respect, ability, and prosperity. It is certain that they can attain to that condition only through their own merits and exertions.

"In this connection the query presents itself, whether the system proposed by the bill will not, when put into complete operation, practically transfer the entire care, support, and control of four million emancipated slaves to agents, overseers, or taskmasters, who, appointed at Washington, are to be located in every county and parish throughout the United States containing freedmen and refugees? Such a system would inevitably tend to a concentration of power in the Executive which would enable him, if so disposed, to control the action of this numerous class and use them for the attainment of his own political ends.

"I can not but add another very grave objection to this bill: The Constitution imperatively declares, in connection with taxation, that each State shall have at least one Representative, and fixes the rule for the number to which, in future times, each State shall be entitled. It also provides that the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, and adds, with peculiar force, 'that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.'. The original act was necessarily passed in the absence of the States chiefly to be affected, because their people were then contumaciously engaged in the rebellion. Now the case is changed, and some, at least, of those States are attending Congress by loyal Representatives, soliciting the allowance of the constitutional right of representation. At the time, however, of the consideration and the passing of this bill, there was no Senator or Representative in Congress from the eleven States which are to be mainly affected by its provisions. The very fact that reports were and are made against the good disposition of the people of that portion of the country is an additional reason why they need, and should have, Representatives of their own in Congress to explain their condition, reply to accusations, and assist, by their local knowledge, in the perfecting of measures immediately affecting themselves. While the liberty of deliberation would then be free, and Congress would have full power to decide according to its judgment, there could be no objection urged that the States most interested had not been permitted to be heard. The principle is firmly fixed in the minds of the American people that there should be no taxation without representation.

"Great burdens have now to be borne by all the country, and we may best demand that they shall be borne without murmur when they are voted by a majority of the Representatives of all the people. I would not interfere with the unquestionable right of Congress to judge, each house for itself, 'of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members,' but that authority can not be construed as including the right to shut out, in time of peace, any State from the representation to which it is entitled by the Constitution. At present, all the people of eleven States are excluded—those who were most faithful during the war not less than others. The State of Tennessee, for instance, whose authorities engaged in rebellion, was restored to all her constitutional relations to the Union by the patriotism and energy of her injured and betrayed people. Before the war was brought to a termination, they had placed themselves in relation with the General Government, had established a State government of their own; as they were not included in the Emancipation Proclamation, they, by their own act, had amended their Constitution so as to abolish slavery within the limits of their State. I know no reason why the State of Tennessee, for example, should not fully enjoy 'all her constitutional relations to the United States.'

"The President of the United States stands toward the country in a somewhat different attitude from that of any member of Congress. Each member of Congress is chosen from a single district or State; the President is chosen by the people of all the States. As eleven are not at this time represented in either branch of Congress, it would seem to be his duty, on all proper occasions, to present their just claims to Congress. There always will be differences of opinion in the community, and individuals may be guilty of transgressions of the law; but these do not constitute valid objections against the right of a State to representation. I would in nowise interfere with the discretion of Congress with regard to the qualifications of members; but I hold it my duty to recommend to you, in the interests of peace and, in the interests of union, the admission of every State to its share in public legislation when, however insubordinate, insurgent, or rebellious its people may have been, it presents itself, not only in an attitude of loyalty and harmony, but in the persons of Representatives whose loyalty can not be questioned under any existing constitutional or legal test.

"It is plain that an indefinite or permanent exclusion of any part of the country from representation must be attended by a spirit of disquiet and complaint. It is unwise and dangerous to pursue a course of measures which will unite a very large section of the country against another section of the country, however much the latter may preponderate. The course of emigration, the development of industry and business, and natural causes will raise up at the South men as devoted to the Union as those of any other part of the land. But if they are all excluded from Congress—if, in a permanent statute, they are declared not to be in full constitutional relations to the country—they may think they have cause to become a unit in feeling and sentiment against the Government. Under the political education of the American people, the idea is inherent and ineradicable that the consent of the majority of the whole people is necessary to secure a willing acquiescence in legislation.

"The bill under consideration refers to certain of the States as though they had hot 'been fully restored in all their constitutional relations to the United States.' If they have not, let us at once act together to secure that desirable end at the earliest possible moment It is hardly necessary for me to inform Congress that, in my own judgment, most of these States, so far, at least, as depends upon their own action, have already been fully restored, and"are to be deemed as entitled to enjoy their constitutional rights as members of the Union. Reasoning from the Constitution itself, and from the actual situation of the country, I feel not only entitled but bound to assume that, with the Federal courts restored, and those of the several States in the full exercise of their functions, the rights and interests of all classes of the people will, with the aid of the military in cases of resistance to the laws, be essentially protected against unconstitutional infringement or violation. Should this expectation unhappily fail—which I do not anticipate—then the Executive is already fully armed with the powers conferred by the act of March, 1865, establishing the Freedmen's Bureau, and hereafter, as heretofore, he can employ the land and naval forces of the country to suppress insurrection or to overcome obstructions to the laws.

"In accordance with the Constitution, I return the bill to the Senate, in the earnest hope that a measure involving questions and interests so important to the country will not become a law unless, upon deliberate consideration by the people, it shall receive the sanction of an enlightened public judgment.

"ANDREW JOHNSON."



The majority of the Senate was in favor of proceeding immediately to the consideration of the message, and to have a vote as to whether the bill should be passed, "the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding." To this Mr. Lane, of Kansas, was opposed. He said: "There are several Senators absent, and I think it but just to them that they should have an opportunity to be present when the vote is taken on this bill. I can not consent, so long as I can postpone this question by the rules of the Senate, to have a vote upon it to-night." Mr. Lane accordingly made four successive motions to adjourn, in each of which he called for the yeas and nays. Finally, the motion for adjournment having been made for the fifth time, it was carried, with the understanding that the bill should be the pending question at one o'clock on the following day.

On that day, February 20th, the bill and the message came duly before the Senate. Mr. Davis obtained the floor, and made a long speech in opposition to the bill and in favor of the Veto Message. He expressed his aversion to the bill, and the objects sought to be attained under it in very emphatic terms, but added nothing to the arguments which had already been adduced.

Mr. Trumbull replied to the objections urged against the bill in the President's Message. The President said, "The bill, should it become a law will have no limitation in point of time, but will form a part of the permanent legislation of the country."

"The object of the bill," replied Mr. Trumbull, "was to continue in existence the Freedmen's Bureau—not as a permanent institution. Any such intent was disavowed during the discussion of the bill. It is true, no time is expressly limited in the bill itself when it shall cease to operate, nor is it customary to insert such a clause in a law; but it is declared that the bill shall operate until otherwise provided by law. It is known that the Congress of the United States assembles every year, and no one supposed that this bill was to establish a bureau to be ingrafted upon the country as a permanent institution; far from it. Nor is it a bill that is intended to go into the States and take control of the domestic affairs of the States."

"There is no immediate necessity for the proposed measure," said the President; "the act to establish a Bureau for the Relief of Freedmen and Refugees, which was approved in the month of March last, has not yet expired. It was thought stringent and extensive enough for the purpose in view in time of war."

Mr. Trumbull replied: "By the terms of the act, it was to continue 'during the present war of rebellion and for one year thereafter.' Now, when did the war of rebellion cease? So far as the conflict of arms is concerned, we all admit that the war of rebellion ceased when the last rebel army laid down its arms, and that was some time in the month of May, when the rebel army in Texas surrendered to the Union forces. I do not hold that the consequences of the war are over. I do not understand that peace is restored with all its consequences. We have not yet escaped from the evils inflicted by the war. Peace and harmony are not yet restored, but the war of rebellion is over, and this bureau must expire in May next, according to the terms of the act that was passed on the 3d of March, 1865, and according to the views of the President as expressed in his Veto Message."

"The bill," said the President, "proposes to establish by authority of Congress, military jurisdiction over all parts of the United States containing refugees and freedmen."

"I would like to know," said Mr. Trumbull, "where in that bill is any provision extending military jurisdiction over all parts of the United States containing refugees and freedmen? The bill contains no such clause. It is a misapprehension of the bill. The clause of the bill upon that subject is this:

"'And the President of the United States, through the War Department and the commissioner, shall extend military jurisdiction and protection over all employes, agents, and officers of this bureau in the exercise of the duties imposed or authorized by this act or the act to which this is additional.'

"Is not the difference manifest to every body between a bill that extends military jurisdiction over the officers and employes of the bureau and a bill which should extend military jurisdiction over all parts of the United States containing refugees and freedmen? This bill makes the Freedmen's Bureau a part of the War Department. It makes its officers and agents amenable to the Rules and Articles of War. But does that extend jurisdiction over the whole country where they are? How do they differ from any other portion of the army of the United States? The army of the United States, as every one knows, is governed by the Rules and Articles of War, wherever it may be, whether in Indiana or in Florida, and all persons in the army and a part of the military establishment are subject to these Rules and Articles of War; but did any body ever suppose that the whole country where they were was under military jurisdiction? If a company of soldiers are stationed at one of the forts in New York harbor, the officers and soldiers of that company are subject to military jurisdiction; but was it ever supposed that the people of the State of New York were thereby placed under military jurisdiction? It is an entire misapprehension of the provisions of the bill. It extends military jurisdiction nowhere; it merely places under jurisdiction the persons belonging to the Freedmen's Bureau who, nearly all of them, are now under military jurisdiction."

"The country," objected the President, "is to be divided into districts and sub-districts, and the number of salaried agents to be employed may be equal to the number of counties or parishes in all the States where freedmen and refugees are to be found."

Mr. Trumbull replied: "A single officer need not be employed other than those we now have. I have already stated that it is in the power and discretion of the President to detail from the army officers to perform all the duties of the Freedmen's Bureau, and, in case they are detailed, the bill provides that they shall serve without any additional compensation or allowance. But, sir, is it necessary, or was it ever contemplated, that there should be an officer or agent of the Freedmen's Bureau in every county and every parish where refugees and freedmen are to be found? By no means. What is the bill upon that subject? Does it make it imperative upon the President to appoint an agent in each county and parish? It authorizes him 'when the same shall be necessary for the operations of the bureau;' not otherwise. He has no authority, under the bill, to appoint a single agent unless it is necessary for the operations of the bureau, and then he can only appoint so many as may be needed. Sir, it never entered the mind, I venture to say, of a single advocate of this bill, that the President of the United States would so abuse the authority intrusted to him as to station an agent in every county in these States; but it was apprehended that there might be localities in some of these States where the prejudice and hostility of the white population and the former masters were such toward the negroes that it would be necessary to have an agent in every county in that locality for their protection; and, in order to give the President the necessary discretion where this should be requisite, the bill authorized, when it was necessary for the operations of the bureau, the appointment of an agent in each county or parish. In order to vest the President with sufficient power in some localities, it was necessary, legislating by general law, to give him much larger power than would be necessary in other localities.

"Sir, the country is not to be divided, I undertake to say, into districts and sub-districts unless the President of the United States finds it necessary to do so for the protection of these people; and if the law should be abused in that respect, it would be because he abused the discretion vested in him by Congress, and not because the law required it. It makes no such requirement."

"This military jurisdiction," said the President, "also extends to all questions that may arise respecting contracts."

"So far," replied Mr. Trumbull, "from extending this military jurisdiction over all questions arising concerning contracts, and so far from extending military jurisdiction anywhere, it is expressly provided, by the very terms of the bill, that no such jurisdiction shall be exercised except where the President himself has established, and is maintaining military jurisdiction, which he is now doing in eleven States; and the very moment that he ceases to maintain military jurisdiction, that very moment the military jurisdiction conferred over freedmen by this act ceases and terminates.

"Sir, the whole jurisdiction to try and dispose of cases by the officers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau is expressly limited to the time when these States shall be restored to their constitutional relations, and when the courts of the United States and of the States are not interrupted nor interfered with in the peaceable course of justice. So far, then, from the bill establishing a military jurisdiction, upon which the Senator from Kentucky and other Senators have so much harped, it confers no jurisdiction to try cases one moment after the courts are restored, and are no longer interrupted in the peaceable administration of justice. Let me ask by what authority is it that military tribunals are sitting to-day at Alexandria, Virginia? By what authority is it that the writ of habeas corpus is suspended to-day in eleven States, when the Constitution of the United States says that the writ shall not be suspended except when, in cases of rebellion and invasion, the public safety may require it. By what authority does the President of the United States object to the exercise of military jurisdiction by that part of the army charged with the execution of the provisions of the Freedmen's Bureau when he exercises that military jurisdiction himself by other portions of the army? But a few days since a military commission was sitting in Alexandria, trying persons charged with crimes—and they are held all over the South—and yet that part of the army connected with the Freedmen's Bureau can not exercise any such authority because it is unconstitutional—unconstitutional to do by virtue of a law of Congress what is done without any law!

"Where does the Executive get the power? The Executive is but the Commander-in-chief of the armies, made so by the Constitution; but he can not raise an army or a single soldier, he can not appoint a single officer, without the consent of Congress. He can not make any rules and regulations for the government of the army without our permission. The Constitution of the United States declares, in so many words, that Congress shall have power 'to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces' of the United States. Can it be that that department of the Government, vested in express terms by the Constitution itself with authority to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, has no authority to direct that portion of the land and naval forces employed in the Freedmen's Bureau to exercise this jurisdiction instead of department commanders? Sir, it is competent for Congress to declare that no department commanders shall exercise any such authority; it is competent for Congress to declare that a court-martial shall never sit, that a military commission shall never be held, and the President is as much bound to obey it as the humblest citizen in the land."

The President said: "The trials having their origin under this bill are to take place without the intervention of a jury, and without any fixed rules of law or evidence."

"Do not all military trials take place in that way," asked Mr. Trumbull. "Did any body ever hear of the presentment of a grand jury in a case where a court-martial set for the trial of a military offense, or the trial of a person charged with any offense cognizable before it? This Freedmen's Bureau Bill confers no authority to do this except in those regions of country where military authority prevails, where martial law is established, where persons exercising civil authority act in subordination to the military power, and where the moment they transcend the proper limits as fixed by military orders, they are liable to be arrested and punished without the intervention of a grand jury, or without the right of appeal to any of the judicial tribunals of the country. I would as soon think of an appeal from the decision of the military tribunal that sat in the city of Washington, and condemned to death the murderers of our late President, to the judicial tribunals of the country! Where military authority bears sway, where the courts are overborne, is it not an absurdity to say that you must have a presentment of a grand jury, and a trial in a court."

"I can not reconcile a system of military jurisdiction of this kind with the words of the Constitution," said the President.

"If you can not reconcile a system of military jurisdiction of this kind with the words of the Constitution, why have you been exercising it," asked Mr. Trumbull. "Why have you been organizing courts-martial and military commissions all over the South, trying offenders, and punishing some of them with death? Why have you authorized the present Freedmen's Bureau to hold bureau courts all through the South? This has all been done by your permission, and is being done to-day. Then, sir, if you are still in the exercise of this power now, if you have been exercising it from the day you became President of the United States, how is it that you can not reconcile a system of jurisdiction of this kind with the words of the Constitution?

"Sir, does it detract from the President's authority to have the sanction of law? I want to give that sanction. I do not object to the exercise of this military authority of the President in the rebellious States. I believe it is constitutional and legitimate and necessary; but I believe Congress has authority to regulate it. I believe Congress has authority to direct that this military jurisdiction shall be exercised by that branch of the army known as the Freedmen's Bureau, as well as by any other branch of the army."

"The rebellion is at an end," said the President. "The measure, therefore, seems to be as inconsistent with the actual condition of the country as it is at variance with the Constitution of the United States."

Mr. Trumbull replied: "If the rebellion is at an end, will anybody tell me by what authority the President of the United States suspends the writ of habeas corpus in those States where it existed. The act of Congress of March, 1863, authorized the President of the United States to suspend the writ of habeas corpus during the present rebellion. He says it is at an end. By what authority, then, does he suspend the writ? By his own declaration, let him stand or fall. If it is competent to suspend the writ, if it is competent for military tribunals to sit all through the South, and entertain military jurisdiction, this bill, which does not continue military jurisdiction, does not establish military jurisdiction, but only authorizes the officers of this bureau, while military jurisdiction prevails, to take charge of that particular class of cases affecting the refugee or freedman where he is discriminated against, can not be obnoxious to any constitutional objection."

"This bill," said the President, "proposes to make the Freedmen's Bureau, established by the act of 1865, as one of many great and extraordinary military measures to suppress a formidable rebellion, a permanent branch of the public administration, with its powers greatly enlarged."

"This is a mistake," replied Mr. Trumbull; "it is not intended, I apprehend, by any body, certainly not by me, to make it a permanent branch of the public administration; and I am quite sure that the powers of the bureau are not, by the amendatory bill, greatly enlarged. A careful examination of the amendment will show that it is in some respects a restriction on the powers already exercised."

"The third section of the bill," the President objected, "authorizes a general and unlimited grant of support to the destitute and suffering refugees and freedmen, their wives and children."

"What is the third section of the bill," asked Mr. Trumbull, "which the President says contains such an unlimited grant of support to the destitute and suffering refugees, their wives and children? I will read that third section:

"'That the Secretary of War may direct such issues of provisions, clothing, fuel, including medical stores and transportation, and afford such aid, medical or otherwise, as he may deem needful for the immediate and temporary shelter and supply of destitute and suffering refugees and freedmen, their wives and children, under such rules and regulations as he may direct: Provided, That no person shall be deemed "destitute," "suffering," or "dependent upon the Government for support," within the meaning of this act, who, being able to find employment, could, by proper industry and exertion, avoid such destitution, suffering, or dependence.'

"Does the President object to this bill on the ground that it authorizes medical aid to be furnished the sick? Or does he object to it because of the proviso which limits its operation, and declares that nobody shall be deemed destitute and suffering under the provisions of the act who is able, by proper industry and exertion, to avoid such destitution? Why, sir, it is a limitation on the present existing law. Does that look much like taking care of four million of people—a provision that expressly limits the operations of this act to those only who can not find employment? A statement of the fact is all that is necessary to meet this statement in the Veto Message."

"The Congress of the United States," said the President, "has never heretofore thought itself empowered to establish asylums beyond the limits of the District of Columbia, except for the benefit of our disabled soldiers and sailors. It has never founded schools for any class of our own people. It has never deemed itself authorized to expend the public money for the rent or purchase of homes for the thousands, not to say millions of the white race who are honestly toiling from day to day for their subsistence."

"The answer to that is this," said Mr. Trumbull: "We never before were in such a state as now"; never before in the history of this Government did eleven States of the Union combine together to overthrow and destroy the Union; never before in the history of this Government have we had a four years' civil war; never before in the history of this Government have nearly four million people been emancipated from the most abject and degrading slavery ever imposed upon human beings; never before has the occasion arisen when it was necessary to provide for such large numbers of people thrown upon the bounty of the Government unprotected and unprovided for. But, sir, wherever the necessity did exist the Government has acted. We have voted hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars, and are doing it from year to year, to take care of and provide for the destitute and suffering Indians. We appropriated, years ago, hundreds of thousands of dollars to take care of and feed the savage African who was landed upon our coast by slavers. We provided by law that whenever savages from Africa should be brought to our shores, or whenever they should be captured on board of slavers, the President of the United States should make provision for their maintenance and support, for five years, on the coast of Africa. He was authorized by law to appoint agents to go to Africa to provide means to feed them, and we paid the money to do it. And yet, sir, can we not provide for these Africans who have been held in bondage all their lives, who have never been permitted to earn one dollar for themselves, who, by the great Constitutional Amendment declaring freedom throughout the land, have been discharged from bondage to their masters, who had hitherto provided for their necessities in consideration of their services? Can we not provide for these destitute persons of our own land on the same principle that we provide for the Indians, that we provide for the savage African?"

"But," continued Mr. Trumbull, "the President says we have never rented lands for the white race, we have never purchased lands for them. What do we propose to do by this bill? This authorizes, if the President thinks proper to do it—it is in his discretion—the purchase or renting of lands on which to place these indigent people; but before any land can be purchased or rented, before any contract can be made on the subject, there must be an appropriation made by Congress. This bill contains no appropriation. If the President is opposed to the rent or purchase of land, and Congress passes a bill appropriating money for that purpose, let him veto it if he thinks it unconstitutional; but there is nothing unconstitutional in this bill. This bill does not purchase any land; but it prevents even a contract on the subject until another law shall be passed appropriating the money for that purpose.

"But, sir, what is the objection to it if it did appropriate the money? I have already undertaken to show, and I think I have shown, that it was the duty of the United States, as an independent nation, as one of the powers of the earth, whenever there came into its possession an unprotected class of people, who must suffer and perish but for its care, to provide for and take care of them. When an army is marching through an enemy's country, and poor and destitute persons are found within its lines who must die by starvation if they are not fed from the supplies of the army, will any body show me the constitutional provision or the act of Congress that authorizes the general commanding to open his commissariat and feed the starving multitude? And has it not been done by every one of your commanders all through the South? Whenever a starving human being, man, woman, or child, no matter whether black or white, rebel or loyal, came within the lines of the army, to perish and die unless fed from our supplies, there has never been an officer in our service, and, thank God! there has not been, who did not relieve the sufferer. If you want to know where the constitutional power to do this is, and where the law is, I answer, it is in that common humanity that belongs to every man fit to bear the name, and it is in that power that belongs to us as a Christian nation, carrying on war upon civilized principles.

"If we had the right then to feed those people as we did, have we not the right to take care of them in the cheapest way we can? If, when General Sherman was passing through Georgia, he found the lands abandoned; if their able-bodied owners had entered the rebel army to fight against us; if the women and children had fled and left the land a waste, and he had, as is the fact, thousands of persons hanging upon his army dependent upon him for supplies; if it was believed that it would be cheaper to support these people upon these lands than to buy provisions to feed them, might we not do so? May we not resort to whatever means is most judicious to protect from starvation that multitude which common humanity requires us to feed?

"Nor, sir, is it true that no provision has been made by Congress for the education of white people. We have given all through the new States one section of land in every township for the benefit of common schools. We have donated hundreds of thousands of acres of land to all the States for the establishment of colleges and seminaries of learning. How did we get this land? It was purchased by our money, and then we gave it away for purposes of education. The same right exists now to provide for these people, and it is not simply for the black people, but for the white refugees as well as the black, that this bill provides."

Said the President: "The appropriations asked by the Freedmen's Bureau, as now established, for the year 1866, amounts to $11,745,000. It may be safely estimated that the cost to be incurred under the pending bill will require double that amount."

Mr. Trumbull replied: "A far larger sum, in proportion to the number that were thrown upon our hands, was expended before the creation of the Freedmen's Bureau, in feeding and taking care of refugees and freedmen, than since the establishment of the Freedmen's Bureau. Since that time, the authority of the Government has been extended over all the rebellious States, and we have had a larger number of refugees and freedmen to provide for, but in proportion to the number I have no doubt that the expense is less now than it was before the establishment of the bureau."

"The query again presents itself," said the President, "whether the system proposed by the bill will not, when put into complete operation, practically transfer the entire care, support, and control of four million emancipated slaves to agents, overseers, or taskmasters, who, appointed at Washington, are to be located in every county and parish throughout the United States containing freedmen and refugees."

"I scarcely know how to reply to that most extravagant statement," said Mr. Trumbull. "I have already shown that it would be a great abuse of the power conferred by this bill to station an agent in every county. I have already stated that but a small proportion of the freedmen are aided by the Freedmen's Bureau. In this official document the President has sent to Congress the exaggerated statement that it is a question whether this bureau would not bring under its control the four million emancipated slaves. The census of 1860 shows that there never were four million slaves in all the United States, if you counted every man, woman, and child, and we know that the number has not increased during the war. But, sir, what will be thought when I show, as I shall directly show by official figures, that, so far from providing for four million emancipated slaves, the Freedmen's Bureau never yet provided for a hundred thousand, and, as restricted by the proviso to the third section of the present bill, it could never be extended, under it, to a larger number. Is it not most extraordinary that a bill should be returned with the veto from the President on the ground that it provides for four million people, when, restricted in its operations as it is, and having been in operation since March last, it has never had under its control a hundred thousand? I have here an official statement from the Freedmen's Bureau, which I beg leave to read in this connection:

"'The greatest number of persons to whom rations were issued, including the Commissary Department, the bureau issues to persons without the army, is one hundred and forty-eight thousand one hundred and twenty.'

"Who are they? I said there were not a hundred thousand freedmen provided for by the bureau.

"'Whites, 57,369; colored, 90,607; Indians, 133. The greatest number by the bureau was 49,932, in September. The total number for December was 17,025.'

"That sounds a little different from four millions. Seventeen thousand and twenty-five were all that were provided for by the Freedmen's Bureau in the month of December last, the number getting less and less every month. Why? Because, by the kind and judicious management of that bureau, places of employment were found for these refugees and freedmen. When the freedmen were discharged from their masters' plantations they were assisted to find places of work elsewhere.

"The President says," continued Mr. Trumbull, "that Congress never thought of making these provisions for the white people. Let us see what provisions have been made for the white people. Major-General Fisk, Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau for the State of Tennessee, in his testimony given before the Reconstruction Committee, said:

"'During the last year, the rations issued to white people in Tennessee have been much in excess of those issued to freedmen. When I took charge of my district the Government was feeding twenty-five thousand people; in round numbers, about seventeen thousand five hundred white persons and seven thousand blacks. The month preceding the establishment of the Freedmen's Bureau, for rations alone for that class of people the sum of $97,000 was paid. My first efforts were to reduce the number of those beneficiaries of the Government, to withhold the rations, and make the people self-supporting as far as possible; and in the course of four months I reduced the monthly expenses from $97,000 to $5,000.'

"In addition to the objections already stated," said the President, "the fifth section of this bill proposes to take away land from its former owners, without any legal proceedings first had."

"I regret," said Mr. Trumbull, "that a statement like that should inadvertently (for it must have been inadvertent) have found a place in this Veto Message. The fifth section of the bill does not propose to take away lands from any body. I will read it, and we shall see what it is:

"'That the occupants of land under Major-General Sherman's special field order, dated at Savannah, January 16, 1865, are hereby confirmed in their possession.'

"Is not this a different thing from taking away land from any body? Do you take a thing away from another person when you have it in your possession already? This fifth section, so far from taking land from any body, provides simply for protecting the occupants of the land for three years from the 16th of January, 1865, a little less than two years from this time. If the section does any thing, it simply prevents the restoration of this property to its former owners within that period, except upon terms to be entered into, satisfactory to the commissioner, between the occupant and the former owner. This is all there is of it. It is a very different thing from taking away land from its former owners."

"Undoubtedly," said the President, "the freedmen should be protected by the civil authorities, especially by the exercise of all the constitutional powers of the courts of the United States and of the States."

"Let us see," replied Mr. Trumbull, "how they are protected by the civil authority." After having read from documents setting forth laws in reference to freedmen in force in Texas and Mississippi, Mr. Trumbull continued: "I have here a number of communications of a similar character, showing that, by the laws in some of the Southern States, a pass system still exists, and that the negro really has no protection afforded him either by the civil authorities or judicial tribunals of the State. I have letters showing the same thing in the State of Maryland, from persons whose character is vouched for as reliable. Under this state of things, the President tells us that the freedman should be protected 'by the exercise of all the constitutional powers of the courts of the United States and of the States!'"

"He also possesses," said the President, referring to the freedman, "a perfect right to change his place of abode; and if, therefore, he does not find in one community or State a mode of life suited to his desires, or proper remuneration for his labor, he can move to another where that labor is more esteemed and better rewarded."

"Then, sir," said Mr. Trumbull, "is there no necessity for some supervising care of these people? Are they to be coldly told that they have a perfect right to change their place of abode, when, if they are caught in a strange neighborhood without a pass, they are liable to be whipped? when combinations exist against them that they shall not be permitted to hire unless to their former master? Are these people, knowing nothing of geography, knowing not where to go, having never in their lives been ten miles from the place where they were born, these old women and young children, these feeble persons who are turned off because they can no longer work, to be told to go and seek employment elsewhere? and is the Government of the United States, which has made them free, to stand by and do nothing to save and protect them? Are they to be left to the mercy of such legislation as that of Mississippi, to such laws as exist in Texas, to such practices as are tolerated in Maryland and in Kentucky? Sir, I think some protection is necessary for them, and that was the object of this bureau. It was not intended, and such is not its effect, to interfere with the ordinary administration of justice in any State, not even during the rebellion. The moment that any State does justice and abolishes all discrimination between whites and blacks in civil rights, the judicial functions of the Freedmen's Bureau cease.

"But," continued Mr. Trumbull, "the President, most strangely of all, dwells upon the unconstitutionality of this act, without ever having alluded to that provision of the Constitution which its advocates claim gives the authority to pass it. Is it not most extraordinary that the President of the United States returns a bill which has passed Congress, with his objections to it, alleging it to be unconstitutional, and makes no allusion whatever in his whole message to that provision of the Constitution which, in the opinion of its supporters, clearly gives the authority to pass it? And what is that? The second clause of the constitutional amendment, which declares that Congress shall have authority by appropriate legislation to enforce the article, which declares that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude throughout the United States. If legislation be necessary to protect the former slaves against State laws, which allow them to be whipped if found away from home without a pass, has not Congress, under the second clause of the amendment, authority to provide it? What kind of freedom is that which the Constitution of the United States guarantees to a man that does not protect him from the lash if he is caught away from home without a pass? And how can we sit here and discharge the constitutional obligation that is upon us to pass the appropriate legislation to protect every man in the land in his freedom, when we know such laws are being passed in the South, if we do nothing to prevent their enforcement? Sir, so far from the bill being unconstitutional, I should feel that I had failed in my constitutional duty if I did not propose some measure that would protect these people in their freedom. And yet this clause of the Constitution seems to have escaped entirely the observation of the President.

"The President objects to this bill because it was passed in the absence of representation from the rebellious States. If that objection be valid, all our legislation affecting those States is wrong, and has been wrong from the beginning. When the rebellion broke out, in the first year of the war, we passed a law for collecting a direct tax, and we assessed that tax upon all the rebellious States. According to the theory of the President, that was all wrong, because taxation and representation did not go together. Those States were not represented. Then, according to this argument, (I will not read all of it,) we were bound to have received their Representatives, or else not legislate for and tax them. He insists they were States in the Union all the time, and according to the Constitution, each State is entitled to at least one Representative.

"If the argument that Congress can not legislate for States unrepresented is good now, it was good during the conflict of arms, for none of the States whose governments were usurped are yet relieved from military control. If we have no right to legislate for those States now, we had no right to impose the direct tax upon them. We had no right to pass any of our laws that affected them. We had no right to raise an army to march into the rebellious States while they were not represented in the Congress of the United States. We had no right to pass a law declaring these States in rebellion. Why? The rebels were not here to be represented in the American Senate. We had no right to pass a law authorizing the President to issue a proclamation discontinuing all intercourse with the people of those rebellious States; and why? Because they were not represented here. We had no right to blockade their coast. Why? They were not represented here. They are States, says the President, and each State is entitled to two Senators, and to at least one Representative. Suppose the State of South Carolina had sent to Congress, during the war, a Representative; had Congress nothing to do but to admit him, if found qualified? Must he be received because he comes from a State, and a State can not go out of the Union? Why, sir, is any thing more necessary than to state this proposition to show its absolute absurdity?"

The President said: "The President of the United States stands toward the country in a somewhat different attitude from that of any member of Congress. Each member of Congress is chosen from a single district or State; the President is chosen by the people of all the States. As eleven States are not at this time represented in either branch of Congress, it would seem to be his duty, on all proper occasions, to present their just claims to Congress."

"If it would not be disrespectful," said Mr. Trumbull, "I should like to inquire how many votes the President got in those eleven States. Sir, he is no more the representative of those eleven States than I am, except as he holds a higher position. I came here as a Representative chosen by the State of Illinois; but I came here to legislate, not simply for the State of Illinois, but for the United States of America, and for South Carolina as well as Illinois. I deny that we are simply the Representatives of the districts and States which send us here, or that we are governed by such narrow views that we can not legislate for the whole country; and we are as much the Representatives, and, in this particular instance, receive as much of the support of those eleven States as did the President himself."

Mr. Trumbull finally remarked: "The President believes this bill unconstitutional; I believe it constitutional. He believes that it will involve great expense; I believe it will save expense. He believes that the freedmen will be protected without it; I believe he will be tyrannized over, abused, and virtually reenslaved, without some legislation by the nation for his protection. He believes it unwise; I believe it to be politic."

Without further debate, the vote was taken on the question, "Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President of the United States notwithstanding?" The Senators voted as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Williams, Wilson, and Yates—30.

NAYS—Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson, McDougall, Morgan, Nesmith, Norton, Riddle, Saulsbury, Stewart, Stockton, Van Winkle, and Willey—18.

ABSENT—Messrs. Foot and Wright—2.

The President pro tempore then announced, "On this question the yeas are thirty and the nays are eighteen. Two-thirds of the members present not having voted for the bill, it is not a law."



CHAPTER IX.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL IN THE SENATE.

Duty of Congress consequent upon the Abolition of Slavery — Civil Rights Bill introduced — Reference to Judiciary Committee — Before the Senate — Speech by Mr. Trumbull — Mr. Saulsbury — Mr. van Winkle — Mr. Cowan — Mr. Howard — Mr. Johnson — Mr. Davis — Conversations with Mr. Trumbull and Mr. Clark — Reply of Mr. Johnson — Remarks by Mr. Morrill — Mr. Davis "wound up" — Mr. Guthrie's Speech — Mr. Hendricks — Reply of Mr. Lane — Mr. Wilson — Mr. Trumbull's closing remarks — Yeas and Nays on the passage of the Bill.

The preceding Congress having proposed an amendment to the Constitution by which slavery should be abolished, and this amendment having been "ratified by three-fourths of the several States," four millions of the inhabitants of the United States were transformed from slaves into freemen. To leave them with their shackles broken off, unprotected, in a new and undefined position, would have been a sin against them only surpassed in enormity by the original crime of their enslavement.

As provided in the amendment itself, it devolved upon Congress "to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." The Thirty-ninth Congress assembled, realizing that it devolved upon them to define the extent of the rights, privileges, and duties of the freedmen. That body was not slow in meeting the full measure of its responsibility.

Immediately on the reaessembling of Congress after the holidays, January 5, 1866, Mr. Trumbull, in pursuance of previous notice, introduced a bill "to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication." This bill, having been read twice, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

It was highly appropriate that this bill, involving the relations of millions of the inhabitants of the United States to the Government, should be referred to this able committee, selected from among the men of most distinguished legal ability in the Senate. Its members were chosen in consideration of their high professional ability, their long experience, and exalted standing as jurists. They are the legal advisers of the Senate, whose report upon constitutional questions is entitled to the highest consideration.

To such a committee the Senate appropriately referred the Civil Rights Bill, and the nation could safely trust in their hands the great interests therein involved.

The bill declares that "there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery; but the inhabitants, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person who, under cover of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured or protected by the act, or to different punishment, pains, or penalties, on account of such person having at any time been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, or by reason of his color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, is to be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, to be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court."

Other provisions of the bill relate to the courts which shall have jurisdiction of cases which arise under the act, and the means to be employed in its enforcement.

That no question might arise as to the constitutionality of the law, all the provisions which relate to the enforcement of the act were borrowed from the celebrated Fugitive Slave Law, enacted in 1850. It was a happy thought to compel the enemies of the negro themselves, as judges, to pronounce in favor of the constitutionality of this ordinance. It is an admirable illustration of the progress of the age, that the very instruments which were used a few years before to rivet tighter the chains of the slave, should be employed to break those very chains to fragments. It shall forever stand forth to the honor of American legislation that it attained to more than poetic justice in using the very means once employed to repress and crush the negro for his defense and elevation.

Within less than a week after the reference of this bill to the Judiciary Committee, it was reported back, with no alteration save a few verbal amendments. On account of pressure of other business, it did not come up for formal consideration and discussion in the Senate until the 29th of January. On that day Mr. Trumbull, having called up the bill for the consideration of the Senate, said:

"I regard the bill to which the attention of the Senate is now called, as the most important measure that has been under its consideration since the adoption of the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. That amendment declared that all persons in the United States should be free. This measure is intended to give effect to that declaration, and secure to all persons within the United States practical freedom. There is very little importance in the general declaration of abstract truths and principles unless they can be carried into effect, unless the persons who are to be affected by them have some means of availing themselves of their benefits. Of what avail was the immortal declaration 'that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' and 'that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men,' to the millions of the African race in this country who were ground down and degraded, and subjected to a slavery more intolerable and cruel than the world ever before knew? Of what avail was it to the citizen of Massachusetts, who, a few years ago, went to South Carolina to enforce a constitutional right in court, that the Constitution of the United States declared that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? And of what avail will it now be that the Constitution of the United States has declared that slavery shall not exist, if in the late slaveholding States laws are to be enacted and enforced depriving persons of African descent of privileges which are essential to freemen?

"It is the intention of this bill to secure those rights. The laws in the slaveholding States have made a distinction against persons of African descent on account of their color, whether free or slave. I have before me the statutes of Mississippi. They provide that if any colored person, any free negro or mulatto, shall come into that State for the purpose of residing there, he shall be sold into slavery for life. If any person of African descent residing in that State travels from one county to another without having a pass or a certificate of his freedom, he is liable to be committed to jail, and to be dealt with as a person who is in the State without authority. Other provisions of the statute prohibit any negro or mulatto from having firearms; and one provision of the statute declares that for 'exercising the functions of a minister of the Gospel, free negroes and mulattoes, on conviction, may be punished by any number of lashes not exceeding thirty-nine, on the bare back, and shall pay the costs." Other provisions of the statute of Mississippi prohibit a free negro or mulatto from keeping a house of entertainment, and subject him to trial before two justices of the peace and five slaveholders for violating the provisions of this law. The statutes of South Carolina make it a highly penal offense for any person, white or colored, to teach slaves; and similar provisions are to be found running through all the statutes of the late slaveholding States.

"When the constitutional amendment was adopted and slavery abolished, all these statutes became null and void, because they were all passed in aid of slavery, for the purpose of maintaining and supporting it. Since the abolition of slavery, the Legislatures which have assembled in the insurrectionary States have passed laws relating to the freedmen, and in nearly all the States they have discriminated against them. They deny them certain rights, subject them to severe penalties, and still impose upon them the very restrictions which were imposed upon them in consequence of the existence of slavery, and before it was abolished. The purpose of the bill under consideration is to destroy all these discriminations, and to carry into effect the constitutional amendment."

After having stated somewhat at length the grounds upon which he placed this bill, Mr. Trumbull closed by saying: "Most of the provisions of this bill are copied from the late Fugitive Slave Act, adopted in 1850 for the purpose of returning fugitives from slavery into slavery again. The act that was passed at that time for the purpose of punishing persons who should aid negroes to escape to freedom is now to be applied by the provisions of this bill to the punishment of those who shall undertake to keep them in slavery. Surely we have the authority to enact a law as efficient in the interests of freedom, now that freedom prevails throughout the country, as we had in the interest of slavery when it prevailed in a portion of the country."

Mr. Saulsbury took an entirely different view of the subject under consideration: "I regard this bill," he said, "as one of the most dangerous that was ever introduced into the Senate of the United States, or to which the attention of the American people was ever invited. During the last four or five years, I have sat in this chamber and witnessed the introduction of bills into this body which I thought obnoxious to many very grave and serious constitutional objections; but I have never, since I have been a member of the body, seen a bill so fraught with danger, so full of mischief, as the bill now under consideration.

"I shall not follow the honorable Senator into a consideration of the manner in which slaves were treated in the Southern States, nor the privileges that have been denied to them by the laws of the States. I think the time for shedding tears over the poor slave has well nigh passed in this country. The tears which the honest white people of this country have been made to shed from the oppressive acts of this Government, in its various departments, during the last four years, call more loudly for my sympathies than those tears which have been shedding and dropping and dropping for the last twenty years in reference to the poor, oppressed slave—dropping from the eyes of strong-minded women and weak-minded men, until, becoming a mighty flood, they have swept away, in their resistless force, every trace of constitutional liberty in this country.

"I suppose it is a foregone conclusion that this measure, as one of a series of measures, is to be passed through this Congress regardless of all consequences. But the day that the President of the United States places his approval and signature to that Freedmen's Bureau Bill, and to this bill, he will have signed two acts more dangerous to the liberty of his countrymen, more disastrous to the citizens of this country, than all the acts which have been passed from the foundation of the Government to the present hour; and if we on this side of the chamber manifest anxiety and interest in reference to these bills, and the questions involved in them, it is because, having known this population all our lives, knowing them in one hour of our infancy better than you gentlemen have known them all your lives, we feel compelled, by a sense of duty, earnestly and importunately, it may be, to appeal to the judgment of the American Senate, and to reach, if possible, the judgment of the great mass of the American people, and invoke their attention to the awful consequences involved in measures of this character. Sir, stop, stop! the mangled, bleeding body of the Constitution of your country lies in your path; you are treading upon its bleeding body when you pass these laws."

After having argued at considerable length that this bill would be a most unconstitutional interference on the part of the Federal Government with "the powers of the States under the Federal Constitution," the Senator from Delaware thus concluded:

"Sir, from early boyhood I was taught to love and revere the Federal Union and those who made it. In early childhood I read the words of the Father of his country, in which he exhorted the people to cling to the union of these States as the palladium of liberty, and my young heart bounded with joy in reading the burning words of lofty patriotism. I was taught in infancy to admire, as far as the infant mind could admire, our free system of government, Federal and State; and I heard the old men say that the wit of man never devised a better or more lovely system of government. When I arrived at that age when I could study and reflect for myself, the teachings of childhood were approved by the judgment of the man.

"I have seen how under this Union we had become great in the eyes of all nations; and I see now, notwithstanding the horrible afflictions of war, if we can have wisdom in council and sincere purpose to subserve the good of the whole people of the United States, though much that was dear to us has been blasted as by the pestilence that walketh in darkness and the destruction that wasteth at noonday, how we might, in the providence of God, resume our former position among the nations of the earth, and command the respect of the whole civilized world. But, sir, to-day, in viewing and in considering this bill, the thought has occurred to me, how happy were the founders of our Federal system of government, that they had been taken from the council chambers of this nation and from among their fellow-men before bills of this character were seriously presented for legislative consideration. Happily for them, they sleep their last sleep, and—

"'How sleep the brave who sink to rest, By all their country's wishes blest! When Spring, with dewy fingers cold, Returns to deck their hallowed mold, She there shall dress a sweeter sod Than Fancy's feet have ever trod.

"'By fairy hands their knell is rung; By forms unseen their dirge is sung; There Honor comes, a pilgrim gray, To bless the turf that wraps their clay; And Freedom shall henceforth repair And dwell a weeping hermit there.'"

On the following day, Mr. Van Winkle, of West Virginia, addressed the Senate on the merits of the bill. He thought that the objects sought could only be attained through an amendment to the Constitution. He moreover said:

"We hear a great deal about the sentence from the Declaration of Independence, that 'all men are created equal.' I am willing to admit that all men are created equal; but how are they equal? Can a citizen of France, for instance, by going into England, be entitled to all the rights of a citizen of that country, or by coming into this country acquire all the rights of an American, unless he is naturalized? Can a citizen of our country, by going into any other, become entitled to the rights of a citizen there? If not, it may be said that they are not equal. I believe that the division of men into separate communities, and their living in society and association with their fellows, as they do, are both divine institutions, and that, consequently, the authors of the Declaration of Independence could have meant nothing more than that the rights of citizens of any community are equal to the rights of all other citizens of that community. Whenever all communities are conducted in accordance with these principles, these very conditions of their prosperous existence, then all mankind will be equal, each enjoying his equality in his own community, and not till then. Therefore, I assert that there is no right that can be exercised by any community of society more perfect than that of excluding from citizenship or membership those who are objectionable. If a little society is formed for a benevolent, literary, or any other purpose, the members immediately exercise, and claim the right to exercise, that right; they determine who shall come into their community. We have the right to determine who shall be members of our community; and much as has been said here about what God has done, and about our obligations to the Almighty in reference to this matter, I do not see where it comes in that we are bound to receive into our community those whose minglings with us might be detrimental to our interests. I do not believe that a superior race is bound to receive among it those of an inferior race, if the mingling of them can only tend to the detriment of the mass. I do not mean strict miscegenation, but I mean the mingling of two races in society, associating from time to time with each other."

Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, spoke against the bill. He said: "The identical question came up in my State—the question whether the negro was a citizen, and whether he possessed political power in that State—and it was there decided that he was not one of the original corporators, that he was not one of the freemen who originally possessed political power, and that they had never, by any enactment or by any act of theirs, admitted him into a participation of that power, except so far as to tax him for the support of Government. And, Mr. President, I think it a most important question, and particularly a most important question for the Pacific coast, and those States which lie upon it, as to whether this door shall now be thrown open to the Asiatic population. If it be, there is an end to republican government there, because it is very well ascertained that those people have no appreciation of that form of government; it seems to be obnoxious to their very nature; they seem to be incapable either of understanding it or of carrying it out; and I can not consent to say that California, or Oregon, or Colorado, or Nevada, or any of those States, shall be given over to an irruption of Chinese. I, for my part, protest against it.

"There is a great deal more in this bill that is exceedingly objectionable. It is the first time, I think, in the history of civilized legislation, that a judicial officer has been held up and subjected to a criminal punishment for that which may have been a conscientious discharge of his duty. It is, I say, the first case that I know of, in 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.

"I may state that I have another objection to this bill at the present time; and that is, that the people of several States in the Union are not represented here, and yet this law is mainly to operate upon those people. I think it would be at least decent, respectful, if we desire to maintain and support this Government on the broad foundation upon which it was laid—namely, the consent of the governed—that we should wait, at any rate, until the people upon whom it is to operate have a voice in these halls."

Mr. Cowan then proceeded in a somewhat "devious course," as it was characterized by another Senator, to make remarks upon the subject of reconstruction. Many questions and remarks were interposed by other Senators, giving the discussion an exceedingly colloquial style.

At length, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, having obtained the floor, spoke in favor of the bill. He said: "If I understand correctly the interpretation given by several Senators to the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, it is this: that the sole effect of it is to cut and sever the mere legal ligament by which the person and the service of the slave was attached to his master, and that beyond this particular office the amendment does not go; that it can have no effect whatever upon the condition of the emancipated black in any other respect. In other words, they hold that it relieves him from his so-called legal obligation to render his personal service to his master without compensation, and there leaves him, totally, irretrievably, and without any power on the part of Congress to look after his well-being from the moment of this mockery of emancipation. Sir, such was not the intention of the friends of this amendment at the time of its initiation here, and at the time of its adoption; and I undertake to say that it is not the construction which is given to it by the bar throughout the country, and much less by the liberty-loving people.

"But let us look more closely at this narrow construction. Where does it leave us? We are told that the amendment simply relieves the slave from the obligation to render service to his master. What is a slave in contemplation of American law, in contemplation of the laws of all the slave States? We know full well; the history of two hundred years teaches us that he had no rights, nor nothing which he could call his own. He had not the right to become a husband or a father in the eye of the law; he had no child; he was not at liberty to indulge the natural affections of the human heart for children, for wife, or even for friend. He owned no property, because the law prohibited him. He could not take real or personal estate either by sale, by grant, or by descent or inheritance. He did not own the bread he earned and ate. He stood upon the face of the earth completely isolated from the society in which he happened to be. He was nothing but a chattel, subject to the will of his owner, and unprotected in his rights by the law of the State where he happened to live. His rights, did I say? No, sir, I use inappropriate language. He had no rights; he was an animal; he was property, a chattel. The Almighty, according to the ideas of the times, had made him to be property, a Chattel, and not a man.

"Now, sir, it is not denied that this relation of servitude between the former negro slave and his master was actually severed by this amendment. But the absurd construction now forced upon it leaves him without family, without property, without the implements of husbandry, and even without the right to acquire or use any instrumentalities of carrying on the industry of which he may be capable; it leaves him without friend or support, and even without the clothes to cover his nakedness. He is a waif upon the current of time; he has nothing that belongs to him on the face of the earth, except solely his naked person. And here, in this State, we are called upon to abandon the poor creature whom we have emancipated. We are coolly told that he has no right beyond this, and we are told that under this amendment the power of the State within whose limits he happens to be is not at all restrained in respect to him, and that the State, through its Legislature, may at any time declare him to be a vagrant, and as such commit him to jail, or assign him to uncompensated service."

Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, made a speech, in which he expressed himself as in favor of conferring citizenship upon the negro, and yet unable to vote for this bill from the opinion he entertained on "the question of power." He referred to the Dred Scott and other decisions, and showed their bearing upon the legislation now proposed. He said: "I have been exceedingly anxious individually that there should be some definition which will rid this class of our people from that objection. If the Supreme Court decision is a binding one, and will be followed in the future, this law which we are now about to pass will be held, of course, to be of no avail, as far as it professes to define what citizenship is, because it gives the rights of citizenship to all persons without distinction of color, and, of course, embraces Africans or descendants of Africans."

He referred to a precedent when Congress had conferred the rights of citizenship: "The citizens of Texas, who, of course, were aliens, it has never been doubted became citizens of the United States by the annexation of Texas; and that was not done by treaty, it was done by legislation. If the power was in Congress by legislation to make citizens of all the inhabitants of the State of Texas, why is it not in the power of Congress to make citizens by legislation of all who are inhabitants of the United States, and who are not citizens? That is what this bill does, or what it proposes to do. There are within the United States millions of people who are not citizens, according to the view of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ought they to be citizens? I think they ought. I think it is an anomaly that says there shall not be the rights of citizenship to any of the inhabitants of any State of the United States.

"While they were slaves, it was a very different question; but now, when slavery is terminated, and by terminating it you have got rid of the only obstacle in the way of citizenship, two questions arise: First, whether that fact itself does not make them citizens? Before they were not citizens, because of slavery, and only because of slavery. Slavery abolished, why are they not just as much citizens as they would have been if slavery had never existed? My opinion is that they become citizens, and I hold that opinion so strongly that I should consider it unnecessary to legislate on the subject at all, as far as that class is concerned, but for the ruling of the Supreme Court to which I have adverted."

Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, spoke against the propriety and constitutionality of making all negroes citizens of the United States. He said: "There never was a colony before the Declaration of Independence, and there never was a State after the Declaration of Independence, up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution, so far as I have been able to learn by the slight historical examination which I have given to the subject, that ever made or attempted to make any other person than a person who belonged to one of the nationalities of Europe a citizen. I invoke the chairman of the committee to give me an instance, to point to any history or any memento, where a negro, although that negro was born in America, was ever made a citizen of either of the States of the United States before the adoption of this Constitution. The whole material out of which citizens were made previous to the adoption of the present Constitution was from the European nationalities, from the Caucasian race, if I may use the term. I deny that a single citizen was ever made by one of the States out of the negro race. I deny that a single citizen was ever made by one of the States out of the Mongolian race. I controvert that a single citizen was ever made by one of the States out of the Chinese race, out of the Hindoos, or out of any other race of people but the Caucasian race of Europe.

"I come, then, to this position: that whenever the States, after the Declaration of Independence and before the present Constitution was adopted, legislated in relation to citizenship, or acted in their governments in relation to citizenship, the subject of that legislation or that action was the Caucasian race of Europe; that none of the inferior races of any kind were intended to be embraced or were embraced by this work of Government in manufacturing citizens."

Mr. Trumbull inquired, "Will the Senator from Kentucky allow me to ask him if he means to assert that negroes were not citizens of any of these colonies before the adoption of the Constitution?"

"I say they were not," said Mr. Davis.

"Does the Senator wish any authority to show that they were?" asked Mr. Trumbull.

"When I get through," said Mr. Davis, "you can answer me."

Mr. Trumbull replied: "I understood the Senator to challenge me to produce any proof on that point, and I thought he would like to have it in his speech. I can assert to him that by a solemn decision of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, they were citizens before the adoption of the Constitution."

"If the honorable Senator will allow me," said Mr. Davis, "I will get along with my remarks."

"I think you will get along better," replied Mr. Trumbull, "by not being exposed in your statements."

"The honorable Senator is full of conceit, but I have seen less conceit with a great deal more brains," said Mr. Davis, who then proceeded "to throw up" what he termed "the main buttress for the defense of the positions" that he took.

"My main position," said he, "is, that no native-born person of the United States, of any race or color, can be admitted a citizen of the United States by Congress under the power conferred in relation to naturalization by the Constitution upon Congress."

After reading some authorities, the Senator proceeded to say: "A grave hallucination in this day is to claim all power; and a minor error is that every thing which passion, or interest, or party power, or any selfish claims may represent to the judgment or imagination of gentlemen who belong to strong parties, to be necessary or useful for the good and the domination of such parties, is seized upon in defiance of a fair construction of language, in outrage of the plain meaning of the Constitution. That is not the rule by which our Constitution is to be interpreted. It is not the rule by which it is to be administered. On the contrary, if the able, honorable, and clear-headed Senator from Illinois would do himself and his country the justice to place himself in the position of the framers of the Constitution; if he would look all around on the circumstances and connections of that day, on the purposes of those men not only in relation to forming a more perfect Union, but also in relation to securing the blessings of life, liberty, and property to themselves and their posterity forever; if the honorable Senator would construe the Constitution according to the light, the sacred and bright light which such surrounding circumstances would throw upon his intellect, it seems to me that he would at once abandon this abominable bill, and would also ask to withdraw its twin sister from the other House that both might be smothered here together upon the altar of the Constitution and of patriotism."