su 
 
penmalife® 
 
Eiifopcemcnt of the Constitntion and Laws of the United States and the Rights 
 
 of the People. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 JOHN A. BINGHAM 
 
 OF OHIO, 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, \ 
 
 . MARCH 31, 1871. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 F. & J. RIVES & GEO. A. BAILEY, 
 
 REPORTERS AND PRINTERS OF THE DEBATES OP CONGRESS. 
 
 1871. 
 
Tbe Enforcement of the Constitution and Laws of the United States and the Bights 
 
 of the People. 
 
 The House having under consideration the bill 
 (H. R. No. 320) to enforce the provisions of the four- 
 teenth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
 States, and for other purposes- 
 Mr. BINGHAM said: 
 
 Mr. Speaker : No man is equal to the task 
 of discussing, aa it ought to be discussed, the 
 issue before this House within the limits of a 
 single hour. I scarcely hope that I shall have 
 done more than touch the hem of the garment 
 of the argument when my hour shall have 
 expired. But, sir, whaterer I may fail to do, 
 the great people behind me will not fail to 
 supply. They, sir, constitute the tribunal 
 before whom this issue is on trial. 
 
 It is the old issue with which the people have 
 become familiar within the last ten years. It 
 presents itself, sir, this day only in another 
 form. In substance it is precisely the issue 
 which was presented ten years ago upon this 
 floor, and was discussed ably and exhaustively 
 upon this side of the House and upon that. 
 The question then, sir, and the question now, 
 18, whether it is competent for the Congress of 
 the United States, under the Constitution of 
 the United States, in pursuance of its provis- 
 ions, and in the exercise of the powers vested 
 by it " in the Government of the United States 
 or in any department or officer thereof," to 
 provide by law for the enforcement of the Con- 
 stitution, on behalf of the whole people, the 
 nation, and for the enforcement as well of the 
 Constitution on behalf of every individual cit- 
 izen of the Republic in every State and Terri- 
 tory of the Union to the extent of the rights 
 guarantied to him by the Constitution. 
 
 Until this issue was raised, in 1860-Gl, the 
 constitutional power of Congress to provide 
 for the common defense and the enforcement 
 ■of the Constitution and lav/s of the United 
 
 States had not been seriously questioned in 
 this House. Now, as then, this power, essen- 
 tial to the nation's life and the safety of the 
 people, is here challenged. It amazes me that, 
 after all that has transpired in this country for 
 the final settlement of this very question, gen- 
 tlemen on either side of the House would dare 
 to open it again. It has been settled by your 
 courts of justice ; it has been settled by the 
 repeated action of your Congress within the 
 last ten years; it has been settled by the peo- 
 ple themselves, by the ballot and by battle, 
 by laws and by arms ; and from their decision 
 thus made there cannot rightfully lie an appeal. 
 And yet gentlemen substantially again open 
 this question to-day. 
 
 The question as presented here and now 
 may be stated thus: is it competent for Con- 
 gress to provide by law for the better enforce- 
 ment of the Constitution and laws of the 
 United States and the better security of the 
 life, liberty, and property of the citizens of 
 the United States in the several States of the 
 Union ? The Constitution is not self-executing, 
 therefore laws must be enacted by Congress 
 for the due execution of all the powers vested 
 by the Constitution in the Government of the 
 United States, or in any department or any 
 officer thereof No man can successfully deny 
 the power of Congress so to legislate, for it 
 is expressly provided in the Constitution that 
 *' Congress shall have power to make all laws 
 which shall be necessary and proper for carry- 
 ing into execution" the powers therein ex- 
 pressly granted to Congress, "and all other 
 powers vested by this Constitution in tbe Gov- 
 ernment of the United States, or in any depart- 
 ment or officer thereof." 
 
 My honorable friend from Indiana [Mr. 
 Kerr] discussed this question, upon the Con- 
 stitution as it was and not upon the Constita- 
 
tion as it is. In the progress of his remarks 
 the gentleman [Mr. Kerr] did disclose to this 
 House and to the country the fact that under 
 the Constitution as it was, it always was com- 
 petent for the Congress of the United States, 
 by law, to enforce every affirmative grant of 
 power and every express negative limitation 
 imposed by the Constitution upon the States. 
 The great case from which the gentleman read 
 in G Wheaton, pages 375-447, (Cohens vs. Vir- 
 ginia.) is a judicial ruling that clearly, dis- 
 tinctly, and beyond all question, to the extent 
 of all the affirmative grants of power in the 
 Constitution, and of all the express negative 
 limitations of power imposed by the Constitu- 
 tion upon the States, it is competent for Con- 
 gress to legislate. From the opinion in this 
 case, delivered by Marshall, C. J., I read the 
 following : 
 
 "America has chosen to be, in many respects and 
 to many purposes, a nation; and for all these pur- 
 poses, her Government is complete; to all these ob- 
 jects it is competent. The people have declared 
 that in the exercise of all powers given for these ob- 
 jects it is supremo. It can, then, in effecting these 
 ©bjects, legitimately control all individuals or gov- 
 ernments within the American territory. The con- 
 stitution and laws of a State, so far as they are 
 repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the Uni- 
 ted States, are absolutely void. These States are 
 constituent parts of the United States. They are 
 members of one great empire." (6 Wheat., p. 414.) 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I have not the time to read 
 from that opinion further. I will state, how- 
 ever, to the House that in this opinion, scarcely 
 second in importance to any of the opinions 
 that emanated from that matchless Chief Jus- 
 tice whose full- orbed intellect for thirty years 
 illumined the jurisprudence of his country, 
 you will find incorporated the words of Ham- 
 ilton, who was second to no maw in gifts of 
 mind and second to no man in the service 
 which he rendered to the people of his own day 
 and to the millions who have come after him in 
 framing the Constitution of the United States. 
 Marshall incorporates the words of Hamilton 
 with approval, words in which Hamilton, 
 while the Constitution was on trial for adop- 
 tion or rejection before all the people of the 
 States, referring to the dual system of govern- 
 ment, national government, and State govern- 
 ments, and the judicial powers of each for the 
 administration of the laws of the Union, de- 
 clared "that the national and State systems 
 are to be regarded as one whole,'' and that 
 "the courts of the latter [the States] will, of 
 course, be national auxiliaries to the execu- 
 tion of all the laws of the Union." 
 
 The States exercise their judicial power 
 under the Constitution, and in subordination 
 to the Constitution, and subject to the express 
 limitations of the Constitution, but for the 
 
 purpose of aiding its enforcement, notof bre£ 
 ing it. The Constitution declares — 
 
 "This Constitution, and the laws of the United\ 
 States which shall be made in pursuance thereof^ 
 and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under 
 the authority of the United States, shall be the su- 
 preme law of the land; and the judges in every State 
 shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitu- 
 tion or laws of any State to the contrary notwith- 
 standing." 
 
 By the legislation of the First Congress, 
 passed by the votes of many of the eminent 
 men who framed the Constitution, then mem- 
 bers of Congress, and approved by Washing- 
 ton, the power was given to the humblest cit- 
 izen aggrieved by the final decision of State 
 courts against his guarantied rights under the 
 Constitution and laws of the United Slates, to 
 bring the same for review and reversal before 
 the Supreme Court of the United States, and 
 thereby set aside the usurpations of a State. 
 The judiciary act of 1789 asserts this power 
 of the Government of the United States fully 
 and expressly. 
 
 The act of 1789, the validity and constitu- 
 tionality of which has never been challenged 
 by a respectable court in America, ought to 
 have satisfied gentlemen that it is too late to 
 raise the question they are raising here to-day, 
 the power of Congress to provide by law for 
 the enforcement of the powers vested by the 
 Constitution in the<Governraent of the United 
 States, both against individuals and States, as 
 Marshall expressed it. I desire to read, merely 
 for the purpose of recalling the recollection of 
 the members of the House to its provisions, 
 from the twenty-fifth section of that act, under 
 which the case of Cohens vs. Virginia, to which 
 the honorable gentlemen from Indiana [Mr. 
 Kerr] referred, came into the Supreme Court 
 of the United States for review. That section 
 is as follows : 
 
 "A final judgment or decree in any suit, in the 
 highest court of law or equity of a State in which 
 a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn 
 in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or 
 an authority exercised under the United States, and 
 the decision is against their validity; or where is 
 drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or 
 an authority exercised under any State, on the 
 ground of their being repugnant to the Constitu- 
 tion, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the 
 decision is in favor of such, their validity ; or where 
 is drawn in question the construction of any clause- 
 of the Constitution, or of a treaty, or statute of, or 
 commission held under the United States, and the 
 decision is against the title, right, privilege, or ex- 
 emption specially set up or claimed by either party, 
 under such clause of the said Constitution, treaty, 
 statute, or commission, may be reexamined and re- 
 versed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the Uni- 
 
ted States upon a writ of error, the citation being 
 signed by the Chief Justice, or judge or chancellor of 
 the court rendering or passing the judgment or de- 
 cree complained of, or by a justice of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, in the same manner and 
 under the same regulations ; and the writ shall have 
 the same effect as if the judgment or decree com- 
 plained of had been rendered or passed in a circuit 
 court ; and the proceeding upon the reversal shall 
 also be the same, except that the Supreme Court, in- 
 stead of remanding the cause for a final decision, as 
 before provided, may, at their discretion, if the case 
 shall have been once remanded before, proceed to a 
 final decision of the same, and award execution. 
 But no other error shall be assigned or regarded 
 as a ground of refusal in any such case, as afore- 
 said, than such as appears on the face of the record, 
 &c .— 1 Brightly, p. 259, 260. 
 
 Notwithstanding the express grant of power 
 in the Constitution, and the rulings of Marshall, 
 and this legislation of the First Congress, gen- 
 tlemen still aver that Congress cannot consti- 
 tutionally make laws to enforce the rights of 
 the nation against either States or unlawful 
 combinations of men. I answer that the power 
 to suppress combinations to obstruct the exe- 
 cution of the laws of the United States, was 
 asserted under the administration of Washing- 
 ton by the Congress of the United States, 
 and with his approval. I refer now to the act 
 of 1795, which brings in question the discre- 
 tion in the Executive of which the gentleman 
 from New York [Mr. Wood] so loudly com- 
 plained. The act of 1795 provided — 
 
 "That whenever the United Statesshall be invaded, 
 or be in imminentdanger of invasion." &c., "it shall 
 be lawful for the President of the United States to 
 call forth such number of the militia of the State or 
 States as he may judge necessary to repel such inva- 
 sion, and to issue his orders for that purpose to such 
 ofiicer or officers of the militia as he may think 
 proper." 
 
 In the second section of this act it is further 
 provided : 
 
 "Whenever the laws of the United States shall bo 
 opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed in any 
 State by combinations two powerful to be suppressed 
 by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by 
 the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall 
 be lawful for the President of the United States to 
 eall forth the militia of such State, or of any other 
 State or States, as may be necessary to suppress such 
 combinations and to cause the laws to be duly exe- 
 cuted , and the use of the militia so to be called forth 
 may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration 
 of thirty days after the commencement of the then 
 next session of Congress." 
 
 In the third section it is provided that — 
 
 "Whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment 
 of the President, to use the military force hereby 
 
 directed to be called forth, the President shall forth- 
 with, by proclamation, command such insurgents to 
 disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective 
 abodes, within a limited time." 
 
 Then, again, in a further provision of that act, 
 which I shall not stop to read, it is provided 
 that the militia being called out, under the 
 discretion of the President, "and employed in 
 the service of the United States, shall for the 
 time being be subject to the same Rules and 
 Articles of War as the troops of the United 
 States," and liable, therefore, to trial and pun- 
 ishment and execution, even to dea»,h, by mil- 
 itary commission or court-martial. "When- 
 ever in the judgment of the President it is 
 necessary,-' says this act, approved by Wash- 
 ington and never challenged until these con- 
 troversies arose in these latter days, to which 
 I have referred, by any patriot anywhere in the 
 nation, all the arms-bearing population of the 
 United States, at the discretion of the Pres- 
 ident, might be called and coerced into the 
 service of the nation, and neither habeas corpus 
 nor any other civil process known either to 
 the State tribunals of justice or to the national 
 civil tribunals of justice could interfere in the 
 premises. 
 
 In support of what I have just said I refer 
 in passing to the ruling made in 12 Wheaton, 
 page 19, by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, in the case of Martin vs. Mott, in which 
 it was decided that the President is the exclu- 
 sive and final judge whether the exigency con- 
 templated by the law has arisen ; a decision the 
 legal soundness of which has never to this day 
 been authoritatively questioned. 
 
 What becomes, sir, in the light of this early 
 legislation, this contemporaneous exposition 
 of the Constitution, of that outcry of the gen- 
 tleman from New" York [Mr. Wood] about 
 discretion confided to the President being 
 usurpation ? I can well understand the sig- 
 nificance of an unlimited discretion in a mon- 
 archy, where, by the constitution of the State, 
 the king can do no wrong, and no man may 
 challenge his decree, which awes a prostrate^, 
 and defenseless people into submission. But 
 I do not understand what significance is to be 
 attached to this clamor of the gentleman from 
 New York about discretion being vested in a 
 President of the United States by the people's 
 laws, when the President is but the servant 
 of the people, created by the breath of their 
 power. 
 
 Mr. WOOD. You would make him their 
 master. 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. Oh, the gentleman thinks 
 that the people are not capable of being their 
 own masters, that the servant may be greater 
 than his lord I The significance of the gen- 
 tleman's last remark, if there is any possible 
 significance in it, (and I say this with all re- 
 
6 
 
 spect,) is that the system of civil polity known 
 as the Constitution of the United States is 
 a failure, that the people are incapable of 
 self government. The gentleman, I perceive, 
 inclines to absolute power in a single hand ! 
 Discretionary power in a President is danger- 
 ous to the people who intrust it to him as their 
 mere servant ! The people cannot all assem- 
 ble at the Capitol. The people cannot in per- 
 son exercise the powers by them expressly del- 
 egated to their agents. If their agents abuse 
 the trust the people are not without remedy. 
 They can bring to trial and judgment either 
 a recusant President or a recusant Congress. 
 '' Discretion dangerous to the people!" 
 
 Why, sir, the gentleman strikes at the essen- 
 tial features of your Constitution. The largest 
 discretion under the Constitution of the United 
 States is vested in a Congress, consisting of a 
 Senate and House of Representatives, in which 
 body the honorable gentleman himself holds a 
 distinguished place. Consider the discretion 
 which is vested in Congress. If anything is to 
 be proved by the gentleman's outcry, if indeed 
 discretionary power is dangerous to the public 
 liberty, the people, enlightened by the gentle- 
 man, should reform their Constitution and strip 
 Congress of all discretionary power. That Con- 
 gress is left to exercise all its great powers 
 at discretion is undoubted. The Congress of 
 the United States, under the Constitution, is 
 invested with power to determine, in their dis- 
 cretion, the issues of life and death to the 
 people of the Republic. 
 
 By the Constitution of the country you have 
 the discretion, when, in your judgment it is 
 needful and proper, to declare war. In pur- 
 suance of the exercise of that power you have 
 the other great power to pass your conscrip- 
 tion act, when, in your judgment, you deem 
 it needful; to drag from his home every man 
 capable of bearing arms in the Republic, to 
 subject him to the perils of the march or the 
 greater perils of the battle, and also to the 
 despotism, as the gentleman calls it, of mar- 
 tial or military law. After you have declared 
 war, after you have summoned the whole able- 
 bodied population of the country to the field, 
 you have granted to you expressly the further 
 power to provide by law, to turn out of their 
 homes the wives and children whom your citi- 
 zens may have left behind and quarter your 
 soldiers upon the hearthstone. Who trembles 
 at the magnitude of this power? 
 
 The people are equal to the task of redress- 
 ing all wrongs which may be inflicted upon 
 them either by President or by Congress. If 
 the President violate the discretionary powers 
 vested in him the people by their Represent- 
 atives summon him to the bar of the Senate 
 to answer for high crimes and misdemean- 
 ors, and on conviction not only depose him 
 from his great office, but make him as one 
 
 dead among living men, by pronouncing their 
 irrevocable decree, from which there is no 
 pardon on this side of the grave, that never 
 again shall he hold oiBce of trust, honor, or 
 profit, in tiie United States. 
 
 As for the members of this House, if they 
 be false to their trust they must answer every 
 second year at the bar of public opinion, and 
 an offended, betrayed, and outraged people, 
 having the power, know how to make such 
 betrayers of their rights and their interests 
 powerless for all the future. The gentleman 
 cannot trust discretionary power to the Presi- 
 dent! The people grant discretionary power 
 to the President, they trust and confide in 
 him, and have reason to believe that he will 
 faithfully do his duty. 
 
 Additional to this legislation of 1795, Mr. 
 Speaker, is the act of 18G1, which declares in 
 express words that whenever, in the judgment 
 of the President, there are unlawful obstruc- 
 tions, combinations, or assemblages of persons 
 against the authority of the United States too 
 powerful to be restrained or controlled by 
 ordinary judicial process, it shall be lawful for 
 the President to employ the Army, the Navy, 
 and the militia of all the States to enforce the 
 faithful execution of the laws of the United 
 States. (2 Brightley, 191.) The President's 
 power under these acts does not wait on the 
 call of States, or Legislatures, or Governors. 
 The President acts upon his own judgment and 
 discretion under the law. I agree with the 
 suggestionof my honorable and learned friend 
 from Wisconsin, [Mr. Eldridge,] that the pro- 
 vision of the Constitution as to the protection 
 of the States against invasion and insurrection, 
 upon the call of their Legislature or their Gov- 
 ernor, is in full force ; but it in no wise touches 
 this power of providing by law for the protec- 
 tion of all the guarantied rights of the people, 
 under the Constitution of the United States, 
 without asking any favor of the Legislature or 
 the Governor of any State. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, having said this much on this 
 subject, I refer to the bill under consideration 
 to say, that I do not propose now to discuss 
 the provisions of the bill in detail. The bill 
 incorporates in general the provisions, adapt- 
 ing them, however, to the existing condition 
 of things, which have been law from the found- 
 ation of the Government, and to which I have 
 referred. There may be provisions in the bill 
 pending which are not necessary or proper. If 
 there be, I shall ask the privilege, and I have 
 no doubt it will be accorded to me, to attempt 
 to amend by the favor of the House. 
 
 Of the general power of Congress to legislate 
 for the better enforcement of all the powers 
 vested by the Constitution in the Government 
 of the United States, and for the better pro- 
 tection of the people in the rights thereby 
 guarantied to them against States and combin- 
 
ations of individuals, I have no doubt, for 
 the reason that it is a closed question, abso- 
 lutely closed 
 
 Mr. ELDRIDGE. Will I interrupt my 
 friend 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman will excuse 
 me. 
 
 Mr. ELDRIDGE. I wish to ask him to 
 apply that second section to his statement 
 and see if it does conform to the provision of 
 the Constitution 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. I have already stated, 
 Mr. Speaker, that I have spoken of the pro- 
 visions of the bill in general, and not in 
 detail. I do not propose to be diverted from 
 my line of argument. I have been endeavor- 
 ing to demonstrate that the legislation of the 
 country in all the past was an exercise of the 
 general power to legislate as proposed by this 
 bill. If it was competent heretofore to give 
 the President power to enforce by arms the 
 faithful execution of the laws against unlaw- 
 ful combinations of men, surely it is equally 
 competent, to make the fact of such combina- 
 tions a crime punishable in your courts. The 
 powers of the States have been limited and 
 the powers of Congress extended by the last 
 three amendments of the Constitution. These 
 last amendments — thirteen, fourteen, and fif- 
 teen — do, in my judgment, vest in Congress a 
 power to protect the rights of citizens against 
 States, and individuals in States, never before 
 granted. It is my purpose, as far as I may 
 be able in the limited time allowed me, to 
 make this statement good. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, the honorable gentleman from 
 Illinois [Mr. Farnsworth] did me unwittingly, 
 great service, when he ventured to ask me why 
 I changed the form of the first section of the 
 fourteenth article of amendment from the form 
 in which I reported it to the House in Feb- 
 ruary, 1866, from the Committee on Recon- 
 struction. I will answer the gentleman, sir, 
 and answer him truthfully. I had the honor 
 to frame the amendment as reported in Feb- 
 ruary, 1866, and the first section, as it now 
 stands, letter for letter and syllable for syllable, 
 in the fourteenth article "^of the amendments 
 to the Constitution of the United States, save 
 the introductory clause defining citizens. The 
 clause defining citizens never came from the 
 joint Committee on Reconstruction, but the 
 residue of the first section of the fourteenth 
 amendment did come from the committee pre- 
 cisely as I wrote it and offered it in the Com- 
 mittee on Reconstruction, and precisely as it 
 now stands in the Constitution, to wit: 
 
 ** No State shall make or enforce any law which 
 shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens 
 of the United States; nor shall any State deprive 
 any person of life, liberty, or property, without due 
 process of law, nor deny to any person within its 
 jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 
 
 The fourteenth amendment concludes as 
 follows : 
 
 "The Congress shall have power, by appropriate 
 legislation, to enforce the provisions of this article." 
 
 That is the grant of power. It is full and 
 complete. The gentleman says that amend- 
 ment differs from the amendment reported by 
 me in February; differs from the provision 
 introduced and written by me, now in the 
 fourteenth article of amendments. It differs 
 in this: that it is, as it now stands in the Con- 
 stitution, more comprehensive than as it was 
 first proposed and reported in February, 1866. 
 It embraces all and more than did the Feb- 
 ruary proposition. 
 
 Mr. FARNSWORTH. I wish simply to call 
 your attention 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. Well, what is it? 
 
 Mr. FARNSWORTH. The fourteenth 
 amendment embraced other provisions which 
 require legislation. The last clause gives Con- 
 gress power 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. I thank the gentleman for 
 that word. The fourteenth amendment closes 
 with the words, "the Congress shall have 
 power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, 
 the provisions of this article" — the whole of 
 it, sir; all the provisions of the article; every 
 section of it. 
 
 Mr. FARNSWORTH rose. 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman from Illi- 
 nois must not further interrupt me. He is not 
 now enlightening me on this subject, though 
 doubtless he is capable of doing so whon he 
 has the time. 
 
 The gentleman ventured upon saying that 
 this amendment does not embrace all of the 
 amendment prepared and reported by me 
 with the consent of the committee in February, 
 1866. The amendment reported in February, 
 and to which the gentleman refers, is as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 "The Congress shall have power to make all laws 
 which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the 
 citizens of each State all the privileges and immun- 
 ities of citizens in the several States, and to all 
 persons in the several States equal protection in the 
 rights of life, liberty, and property." 
 
 That is the amendment, and the whole of it, 
 as reported in February, 1866. That amend- 
 ment never was rejected by the House or 
 Senate. A motion was made to lay it on the 
 table, which was a test vote on the merits 
 of it, and the motion failed — only forty-one 
 votes for the motion, and one hundred and ten 
 against it. I consented to and voted for the 
 motion to postpone it till the second Tuesday 
 of April. Afterward, in the joint Committee 
 on Reconstruction, I introduced this amend- 
 ment, in the precise form, as I have stated, in 
 which it was reported, and as it now stands in 
 
8 
 
 the Constitution of my country. It contains 
 the words, among others — 
 
 "Nor deny to any pcrsonwithin its jurisdiction 
 the equal protection of the laws." 
 
 The gentleman inquires, what does this mean? 
 It ought to have occurred to the gentleman 
 that it means that no State shall deny to any 
 person within its jurisdiction the equal pro- 
 tection of the Constitution of the United States, 
 as that Constitution is the supreme law of 
 the land, and, of course, that no State should 
 deny to any such person any of the rights which 
 it guaranties to all men, nor should any State 
 '' deny to any such person any right secured to 
 him either by the laws and treaties of the Uni- 
 ted States or of such State. The gentleman, 
 if hehad consulted Magna Charta, which Eng- 
 land's brilliant and profound constitutional 
 historian, Hallam, has well said " is the key- 
 stone of English liberty," would have found, 
 in the forty-sixth clause, these words: 
 
 " We will sell to no man, wewill notdcny or delay 
 to any man right or justice." 
 
 After all the past, is it needful to say what it 
 means to deny right or justice to any man ? 
 The words in the first section of the fourteenth 
 amendment are quite as comprehensive as 
 these words of Magna Charta, to wit : 
 
 "No State shall make or enforce any law which 
 shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens 
 of the United States; nor shall any State deprive 
 any person of life, liberty, or property, without due 
 process of law, nor deny to any person within its 
 jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 
 
 These are the words of Magna Charta, ''we 
 will not deny to any man right or justice," the 
 great words of England's constitution, out of 
 which has come all that grand system of Eng- 
 lish law and growth and development which 
 has made the elder branch of our house, only 
 second to America, her child, in the family 
 nations. I affirm that by the equal justice 
 of her laws, by the strength, maturity, and 
 splendor of her intellect, by the purity of her 
 - life, by her inventive genius, by her power on 
 land and sea, by her triumphs in production, 
 greater in proportion to population than that 
 of any other people now or at any time upon 
 this globe, England is foremost of the nations 
 of the Old World. It was her Magna Charta, 
 sir, which, when faithfully enforced, made it 
 impossible for a slave to breathe in England, 
 and by force of it, it came to be that the 
 moment a slave set foot upon her soil his fet- 
 ters turned to dust and he was free. A people 
 to be great must be just. 
 
 The gentleman asked what mean the words 
 in the fourteenth article "nor shall any State 
 deny to any person the equal protection of the 
 laws." Sir, the gentleman seems to have 
 taken a step backward, either in knowledge 
 
 of the right or fidelity to it. No man regrets 
 this more than I do. When this fourteenth 
 amendment was under discussion before the 
 House, the gentleman endeavored to impress 
 upon the House that the adoption of this very 
 amendment, and especially the first section of 
 it, which he says now we have no power to 
 enforce, was essential to the protection of the 
 poor emancipated slaves in the several States. 
 I shall do no injustice to the gentleman. I 
 shall quote his words exactly from the Globe 
 as they there stand recorded. 
 
 At that day, speaking of this amendment, the 
 gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Farnsworth] 
 caid : 
 
 "Equal protection by the laws I Can there be a 
 well-founded objection to this? Is not this the very 
 foundation of a republican government? Is it not 
 the undeniablcright of every subject of the Govern- 
 ment to receive ' equal protection of the laws ' with 
 every other subject? This is so self-evident and 
 just that no man whose soul is not too cramped and 
 dwarfed to hold the smallest germ of justice can fail 
 to see and appreciate it."— Globe, volume 53, page 
 2539. 
 
 " The preservation of the Government requires it. 
 The rights and liberties of the loyal poor cannot be 
 preserved without it."— Ibid., page 25i0. 
 
 Surely the gentleman then supposed the 
 words "the equal protection of the laws" 
 were more than a glittering generality ; that 
 they were to be enforced to the extent of se- 
 curing to all the guarantees of life, liberty, and 
 property as provided in the supreme law of the 
 land, the Constitution of the United States. 
 Well might the gentleman inquire, as he does 
 to-day, "What means that language if we 
 adopted the amendment without power to en- 
 force it?" There is not a line or a letter in 
 the fourteenth amendment that looks to the 
 protection of the rights of these poor unfor- 
 tunates, "the loyal poor," as the gentleman 
 called them, who were subjected to the torture 
 of human bondage, but the provisions of the 
 first and fifth sections of the fourteenth article 
 of amendment. The power to enforce this 
 provision by law is as full as any other grant 
 of power to Congress. It is, "the Congress 
 shall have power, by appropriate legislation," 
 to enforce this and every other provision of 
 this article. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, allow me to say, further, that 
 by the text of the Constitution as you remem- 
 ber it, and as all thoughtful Representatives 
 remember it, there are negative limitations 
 upon thepower of the States; as, for example, 
 that no State shall make an ex post facto law ; 
 that no State shall pass any law impairing the 
 obligation of contracts; that no State shall 
 grant any title of nobility; that no State shall 
 make anything a legal tender but gold and 
 silver coin ; that no State shall enter into any 
 treaty, alliance, or confederation, nor any com- 
 
9 
 
 pact or agreement with another State, or with 
 a foreign Power, &c. 
 
 These are of the negative limitations on the 
 power of the States in the original text of the 
 Constitution. Does the gentleman undertake 
 to tell me that they have not always been en- 
 forced against State constitutions and State 
 statutes, and the judgment of thehighest courts 
 of the States, in the Supreme Court of the Uni- 
 ted States, under the twenty-fifth section of 
 the act of 1789? Why, sir, if I were to read 
 the decisions that have been made in the exer- 
 cise of this very power, under that law, enforc- 
 ing these negative prohibitions upon States, 
 the sun would go down before I had read 
 even a syllabus of the cases. Is not the gen- 
 tleman answered now? But, says the gentle- 
 man to me, why did you change the amend- 
 ment of February, 1866? Sir, 1 sat at the feet 
 of one who, though departed this life, still 
 lives among us in his immortal spirit, and still 
 speaks to us from the reports of the highest 
 judicial tribunal on earth, which he so long 
 adorned as the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States. I took counsel, 
 sir, of that great man, John Marshall, fore- 
 most of all the judges, in the hope that by his 
 guidance, the amendment might be so framed 
 that in all the hereafter, it might be accepted 
 by the historian of the American Constitution 
 and her Magna Charta "as the keystone of 
 American liberty." 
 
 I answer the gentleman, how I came to 
 change the form of February to the words now 
 in the first section of the fourteenth article of 
 amendment, as they stand, and I trust will 
 forever stand, in the Constitution of my coun- 
 try. I had read — and that is v/hat induced me 
 to attempt to impose by constitutional amend- 
 ments new limitations upon the power of the 
 States — the great decision of Marshall in Bar- 
 ron vs. the Mayor and City Council of Balti- 
 more, wherein the Chief Justice said, in obedi- 
 ence to his official oath and the Constitution 
 as it then was: 
 
 " The amendments [to the ConstitutioD] contain no 
 expression indicating an intention to apply them to 
 the State governments. This court cannot so apply 
 them."— 7 Peters, p. 250. 
 
 In this case the city had taken private prop- 
 erty for public use, without compensation as 
 alleged, and there was no redress for the wrong 
 in the Supreme Court of the United States; 
 and only for this reason, the first eight amend- 
 ments were not limitations on the power of 
 the States. 
 
 And so afterward, in the case of the Lessee 
 of Livingston vs. Moore and others, (7 Peters, 
 552,) the court ruled, "it is now settled that 
 the amendments [to the Constitution] do not 
 extend to the States." They were but limita- 
 tions upon Congress. Jefifersun well said of 
 the first eight articles of amendments to the 
 
 Constitution of the United States, they consti- 
 tute the American Bill of Rights. Those amend- 
 ments secured the citizens against any depri- 
 vation of any essential rights of person by any 
 act of Congress, and among other things 
 thereby they were secured in their persons, 
 houses, papers, and effects against unreason- 
 able searches and seizures, in the inviolability 
 of their homes in times of peace, by declaring 
 that no soldier shall in time of peace be quar- 
 tered in any house without the consent of the 
 owner. They secured trial by jury ; they secured 
 the right to be informed of the nature and cause 
 of accusations which might in any case be 
 made against them ; they secured compulsory 
 process for witnesses, and to be heard in defense 
 by counsel. They secured, in short, all the 
 rights dear to the American citizen. And yet 
 it was decided, and rightfully, that these amend- 
 ments, defining and protecting the rights of 
 men and citizens, were only limitations on the 
 power of Congress, not on the power of the 
 States. 
 
 In reexamining that case of Barron, Mr. 
 Speaker, after my struggle in the House in 
 February, 1866, to which the gentleman has 
 alluded, I noted and apprehended as I never 
 did before, certain words in that opinion of 
 Marshall. Referring to the first eight articles 
 of amendments to the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States, the Chief Justice said: "Had the 
 framers of these amendments intended them 
 to be limitations on the powers of the State 
 governments they would have imitated the 
 framers of the original Constitution, and have 
 expressed that intention." Barron vs. The 
 Mayor, &c., 7 Peters, 250. 
 
 Acting upon this suggestion I did imitate the 
 framers of the original Constitution. As they 
 had said "no State shall emit bills of credit, 
 pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, 
 or law impairing the obligations of contracts;' 
 imitating their example and imitating it to the 
 letter, I prepared the provision of the first sec- 
 tion of the fourteenth amendment as it stands 
 in the Constitution, as follows: 
 
 "No State shall make or enforce any law which 
 shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the 
 citizens of the United States, nor shall any State 
 deprive any person of life, liberty, or property with- 
 out due process of law, nor deny to any person within 
 its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 
 
 I hope the gentleman now knows why I 
 changed the form of the amendment of Feb- 
 ruary, 1866. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning 
 of the limitations imposed by the first section, 
 fourteenth amendment of the Constitution 
 may be aiore fully understood, permit me to 
 say that the privileges and immunities of citi- 
 zens of the United States, as contradistin- 
 guished from citizens of a State, are chiefly 
 defined in the first eight amendments to the 
 
10 
 
 Constitution of the United States. Those eight 
 amendments are as follows: 
 
 Article I. 
 Congress shall make no law respecting an estab- 
 lishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
 thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of 
 the press, or the right of the people peaceably to 
 assemble, and to petition the Government for a 
 redress of grievances. 
 
 Article II, 
 A well-regulated militia being necessary to the 
 security of a free State, the right of the people to 
 keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 
 
 Article III. 
 
 No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered 
 in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor 
 in time of war, but in the manner to be prescribed 
 by law. 
 
 Article IV. 
 
 The right of the people to be secure in their per- 
 sons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreason- 
 able searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 
 no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, 
 supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly 
 describing the place to be searched and the persons 
 or things to be seized. 
 
 Article V. 
 
 No person shall be held to answer for a capital or 
 otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment 
 or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases aris- 
 ing in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, 
 when in actual service in time of war or public 
 danger ; nor shall any person be subj ect for the same 
 offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, 
 nor shall be compelled on any criminal case to be 
 a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, 
 liberty, or property, without due process of law; 
 nor shall private property be taken for public use 
 without just compensation. 
 
 Article VI. 
 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall 
 ;njoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an 
 •mpartial jury of the State and district wherein the 
 crime shall have been committed, which district shall 
 have been previously ascertained by law, and to be 
 informed of the nature and cause of the accusation ; 
 to be confronted with the witnesses against him ; to 
 have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in 
 his favor ; and to have the assistance of counsel for 
 his defense. 
 
 Article VII. 
 
 In suits at common law, where the value in con- 
 troversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of 
 trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by 
 jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of 
 the United States, than according to the rules of 
 the common law. 
 
 Article VIII. 
 
 Excessive bail shall not be required, nor exces- 
 sive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punish- 
 ments inflicted. 
 
 These eight articles I have shown never 
 were limitations upon the power of the States, 
 until made so by the fourteenth amendment. 
 The words of that amendment, " no State shall 
 make or enforce any law which shall abridge 
 the privileges or immunities of citizens of the 
 United States," are an express prohibition 
 upon every State of the Union, which may be 
 enforced under existing laws of Congress, and 
 such other laws for their better enforcement 
 as Congress may make. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, that decision in the fourth of 
 Washington's Circuit Court Reports, to which 
 my learned colleague [Mr. Shellabarger] has 
 referred is only a construction of the second 
 section, fourth article of the original Constitu- 
 tion, to wit, "The citizens of each State shall 
 be entitled to all privileges and immunities of 
 citizens in the several States." In that case 
 the court only held that in civil rights the 
 State could not refuse to extend to citizens of 
 other States the same general rights secured 
 to its own. 
 
 In the case of The United States vs. Primrose, 
 Mr. Webster said that — 
 
 "For the purposes of. trade, it is evidently not in 
 the power of any State to impose any hinderance or 
 embarrassment, &c., upon citizens of other States, 
 or to place them, on coming there, upon a different 
 footing from her own citizens." — 6 Wehstei-'s Works, 
 112. 
 
 The learned Justice Story declared that — 
 
 " The intention of the clause (' the citizens of each 
 State shall be entitled to all privileges and immu- 
 nities of citizens in the several States,') was to confer 
 on the citizens of each State a general citizenship, 
 and communicated all the privileges and immunities 
 which a citizen of the same State would be entitled 
 to under the same circumstances." — >S'<oj'2/ on the 
 Constitution, vol. 2, page 605. 
 
 Is it not clear that other and different priv- 
 ileges and immunities than those to which a 
 citizen of a State was entitled are secured by 
 the provision of the fourteenth article, that no 
 State shall abridge the privileges and immuni- 
 ties of citizens of the United States, which are 
 defined in the eight articles of amendment, and 
 which were not limitations on the power of the 
 States before the fourteenth amendment made 
 them limitations? 
 
 Sir, before the ratification of the fourteenth 
 amendment, the State could deny to any citi- 
 zen the right of trial by jury, and it was done. 
 Before that the State could abridge the free- 
 dom of the press, and it was so done in half of 
 the States of the Union. Before that a State, 
 as in the case of the State of Illinois, could 
 make it a crime punishable by fine and impris- 
 onment for any citizen within her limits, in 
 obedience to the injunction of our divine Mas- 
 ter, to help a slave who was ready to perish ; 
 to give him shelter, or break with him his crust 
 
11 
 
 of bread. The validity of that State restriction 
 upon the rights of conscience and the duty of 
 life was affirmed, to the shame and disgrace of 
 America, in the Supreme Court of the United 
 States; but nevertheless affirmed in obedience 
 to the requirements of the Constitution. (14 
 Howard, 19-20. Moore vs. The People.) 
 
 Under the Constitution as it is, not as it was, 
 and by force of the fourteenth amendment, no 
 State hereafter can imitate the bad example 
 of Illinois, to which I have referred, nor can 
 any State ever repeat the example of Georgia 
 and send men to the penitentiary, as did that 
 State, for teaching the Indian to read the les- 
 sons of the New Testament, to know that new 
 evangel, "The pure in heart shall see God." 
 
 Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow 
 the example of the makers of the Constitu- 
 tion and the builders of the Republic, by pass- 
 ing laws for enforcing all the privileges and 
 immunities of citizens of the United States, 
 as guarantied by the amended Constitution 
 and expressly enumerated in the Constitution. 
 Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we 
 would strike down the rights of the State ? 
 God forbid. I believe our dual system of 
 government essential to our national exist- 
 ence. That Constitution which Washington 
 so aptly said made us one people, is essential 
 to our nationality and essential to the pro- 
 tection of the rights of all the people at home 
 and abroad. The State governments are also 
 essential to the local administration of the 
 law, which makes it omnipresent, visible to 
 every man within the vast extent of the Re- 
 public, in every place, whether by the wayside 
 or by the fireside, restraining him by its ter- 
 rors from the wrong, and protecting him by its 
 power, in the right. 
 
 Who is there here to say that any State ever 
 had the right to defeat the very object for 
 which all government is made? 
 
 The nation cannot be without that Constitu- 
 tion, which made us " one people ;" the nation 
 cannot be without the State governments to 
 localize and enforce the rights of the people un- 
 der the Constitution. No right reserved by the 
 Constitution to the States should be impaired, 
 no right vested by it in the Government of the 
 United States, or in any Department or officer 
 thereof, should be challenged or violated. "Cen- 
 tralized power, decentralized administration," 
 expresses the whole philosophy of the Amer- 
 ican system. You say it is centralized power 
 to restrain by law unlawful combinations in 
 States against the Constitution and citizens of 
 the United States, to enforce the Constitution 
 and the rights of United States citizen by na- 
 tional law, and to disperse by force, if need be, 
 combinations too powerful to be overcome by 
 judicial process, engaged in trampling under 
 foot the life and liberty, or destroying the 
 property of the citizen. 
 
 The people of the United States are entitled 
 to have their rights guarantied to them by the 
 Constitution of the United States, protected by 
 national law. I enter upon no new construc- 
 tion. I follow this day, in its letter and its 
 spirit, the utterance of that mightiest man of 
 our time, to whom God gave such gifts of in- 
 tellect as are but seldom given to man. The 
 intellectual giant of the North, in the most elab- 
 orate argument of hispublic life, vindicated the 
 Constitution of his country to the extent of 
 all the grants and limitations of power which 
 it then contained, and asserted the rightful 
 authority of Congress to enforce them by law. 
 The Supreme Court of the United States, and 
 the legislative and executive departments, as I 
 have shown, fully supported all that he said. 
 
 To the right understanding of Mr. Webster's 
 words, the House will bear in mind that the 
 Constitution of the United States required, that 
 every State officer, legislative, executive, and 
 judicial, should be bound by oath or affirma- 
 tion to support it; that it declared that — 
 
 "This Constitution and the laws of the United 
 States which shall be made in pursuance thereof,, 
 and all treaties made or which shall be made under 
 the authority 'of the United States, shall be the 
 supreme law of the land, and the judges in every 
 State shall be bound thereby, anything in the con- 
 stitution or laws of any State to the contrary not- 
 withstanding." 
 
 I now quote Mr. Webster's words: 
 
 "The maintenance of this Constitution does not 
 depend on the plighted faith bf the States as States 
 to support it." * * * * "It relies on 
 individual duty and obligation. 
 
 "The Constitution of the United States creates 
 direct relations between this Government and indi- 
 viduals. This Government may punish individuals 
 for treason, and all other crimes in the code, when 
 committed against the United States." 
 
 ******* K: * * 
 
 " On the other hand, the Government owes high 
 and solemn duties to every citizen of the country. 
 It is bound to protect him in his most important 
 rights and interests. It makes war for his protec- 
 tion, and no other government in the country can 
 make war. It makes peace for his protection, and 
 no other government can make peace. He goes 
 abroad beneath its flag, and carries with him a 
 national character imparted to him by this Govern- 
 ment, which no other government can impart."— 3 
 Webster's Works, pp. 469, 470. 
 
 Has the Congress any clearer grant of power 
 to make war for the protection of the citizen 
 than it has to make laws to enforce his guar- 
 antied "privileges" under the Constitution, 
 as defined therein and assured by the four- 
 teenth amendment? 
 
 The significant remark in that profound 
 speech of Mr. Webster is, that, in which he 
 
12 
 
 says tliat the maintenance of this Constitution 
 does not depend on the plighted faith of the 
 States as States to support it. It reli es on 
 individual duty and obligation. That was his 
 judgment ; and logically it was followed by 
 his other words, "The Government owes high 
 and solemn duties to every citizen of the coun- 
 try. It is bound to protect him in his most 
 important rights." Has he rights any more 
 important than the rights of life, liberty, and 
 property? 
 
 Sir, what would this Government be worth 
 if it must rely upon States to execute its grants 
 of power, its limitations of power upon States, 
 and its express guaratitees of rights to the peo- 
 ple. Admitting that the States have concur- 
 rent power to enforce the Constitution of the 
 United States within their respective limits, 
 must v/e wait for their action? Are not laws 
 preventive, as well as remedial and punitive? 
 Is it not better to prevent a great transgression 
 in advance, than to engage in the terrible work 
 of imprisonment, and confiscation, and execu- 
 tion after the crime has been done? Our fathers 
 in the beginning set us the example of legislat- 
 ing in advance. Yet gentlemen say, now that 
 the Constitution is amended and nev; pov/ers 
 have been vested in Congress, we must wait 
 until these combinations are made. Why, sir, 
 if we pass this bill and these offenses are not 
 attempted or actually committed anywhere, no 
 man is hurt, no State is restrained in the exer- 
 cise of any of the powers which rightfully belong 
 to it. Why not in advance provide against the 
 denial of rights by States, whether the denial 
 be acts of omissiori or commission, as well as 
 against the unlawful acts of combinations and 
 conspiracies against the rights of the people? 
 
 The States never had the right, though they 
 had the power, to inflict wrongs upon free cit- 
 izens by a denial of the full orotection of the 
 laws ; because all State officials are by the 
 Constitution required to be bound by oalli or 
 affirmation to support the Constitution. As 
 I have already said, the States did deny to 
 citizens the equal protection of the laws, they 
 did deny the rights of citizens under the Con- 
 stitution, and except to the extent of the ex- 
 press limitations upon the States, as I have 
 shown, the citizen had no remedy. They denied 
 trial by jury, and he had no remedy. They 
 took property without compensation, and he 
 had no remedy. They restricted the freedom 
 of the press, and he had no remedy. They 
 restricted the freedom of speech, and he had 
 no remedy. They restricted the rights of con- 
 science, and he had no remedy. They bought 
 and sold men who had no remedy. Who dare 
 say, now that the Constitution has been amend- 
 €d, that the nation cannot by law provide against 
 all such abuses and denials of right as these 
 in States and by States, or combinations of 
 persons? 
 
 I respectfully ask my friend from Illinois 
 [Mr. Farnswortii] to review all that he has 
 said on this subject. If I am not right in 
 asserting that the negative limitations imposed 
 by the Constitution on States can be enforced 
 by law against individuals and States, then the 
 Government was wrong fro'i the administra- 
 tion of Washington down, and the Supreme 
 Court of the United States was wrong every 
 time this question has come before it. 
 
 Let gentlemen consider the last three amend- 
 ments and the new limitations thereby imposed 
 upon the power of the States, and the new- 
 powers thereby vested in Congress. The first 
 of these (the thirteenth) provides that invol- 
 untary servitude, or slavery, shall not exist in 
 the United States. That is negative. Then 
 we have the further provision that Congress 
 shall have power to enforce, by appropriate 
 legislation, this amendment. That is affirma- 
 tive. Do gentlemen undertake to say to day 
 that this does not impose a new limitation 
 upon the power of the States, and grant a new 
 power to Congress? 
 
 Does the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
 Kerr] wish to be understood as affirmingthat 
 there is no new grant of power here to Con- 
 gress and no new limitation on the States? I 
 rather think not. Let any State try the ex- 
 periment of again enslaving men, and we will 
 see, whether it is not competent for the Con- 
 gress of the United States to make it a felony 
 punishable by death to reduce any man, white 
 or black, under color of State law, to a system 
 of enforced human servitude or slavery 5 that 
 system which converts a man, endowed with 
 immortal life, into a thing of trade, an article 
 of merchandise, with no acknowledged rights 
 in the present and no hope of a heritage in the 
 great hereafter. In such case the nation would 
 inflict the penalty for this crime upon individ- 
 uals, not upon States. 
 
 Will gentlemen undertake to tell the country 
 that we cannot enforce by positive enactment 
 that negative provision, the thirteenth article 
 of amendment? 
 
 We have fully considered the fourteenth 
 amendment. We have seen that it expressly 
 grants the power to Congress to enforce its 
 provisions, all its provisions, by appropriate 
 legislation. Consider the fifteenth amendment, 
 which declares. "No State shall deny to any 
 citizen of the United States the right 10 vote 
 onaccount of race, color, or previous condition 
 of servitude." Here is a negative provision, 
 a mere limitation, like the thirteenth and four- 
 teenth amendments, on the power of the States, 
 but coupled with a grant of power to Congress 
 to enforce it. Did not a large majority of this 
 House vote for the enforcement act of last 
 May, which set aside the constitutions as well 
 as the statutes of half the States of the Union 
 because they denied rights guarantied to citi- 
 
13 
 
 zens by this negative provision, and which also 
 declared combinations in States to deprive citi- 
 zens of their rights, felony, punishable in the 
 courts of the United States? 1 undertake to 
 say, as to those sections of that law which 
 enforce this provision and de6ne and provide 
 for the punishment of conspirators against 
 the guarantied rights of the people, that there 
 has never been found in America, anywhere, a 
 court weak enough or wicked enough to ques- 
 tion their validity, not one. 
 
 I am not speaking of all the details of that 
 act. 1 am speaking of the provisions of it 
 which declare that the right shall not be de- 
 nied, nor challenged, nor violated by individ- 
 uals or States. What difference is there be- 
 tween enforcing the negative provision of the 
 fifteenth amendment and enforcing a nega- 
 tive provision of the thirteenth and fourteenth 
 amendments? There is no difference, sir. No 
 man can find any difference. There the three 
 new amendments stand, imposing limitations, 
 as I have said, upon the powers of the States 
 which riever were imposed on them before, and 
 granting to the Congress of the United States 
 express powers which never were in Congress 
 before. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit to the 
 House and country that, by virtue of these 
 amendments, it is competent for Congress to- 
 day to provide by law that no man shall be 
 held to answer in the tribunals of any State in 
 this Union for any act made criminal by the 
 laws of that State without a fair and impar- 
 tial trial by jury. Congress never before has 
 had the power to do it. It is also compe- 
 tent for Congress to provide that no citizen 
 in any State shall be deprived of his property 
 by State law or the judgment of a State court 
 without just compensation therefor. Congress 
 never before had the power so to declare. 
 It is competent for the Congress of the Uni- 
 ted States to-day to declare that no State shall 
 make or enforce any law which shall abridge 
 the freedom of speech, the freedom of the 
 press, or the right of the people peaceably to 
 assemble together and petition for redress 
 of grievances, for these are of the rights of 
 citizens of the United States defined in the 
 Constitution and guarantied by the fourteenth 
 amendment, and to enforce which Congress is 
 thereby expressly empowered. It is clear 
 that if Congress do so provide by penal laws 
 for the protection of these rights, those violat- 
 ing them must answer for the crime, and not 
 the States. The United States punishes men, 
 not States, for a violation of its law. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I do not fear what the judg- 
 ment of the people will be on this great ques- 
 tion. I only regret that 1 cannot more fully 
 discuss it or more clearly present it. I feel 
 that my strength is well-nigh exhausted. I 
 trust I have said enough to demonstrate the 
 
 power of this Government to enforce the Con- 
 stitution and protect the people in their rights 
 of person and property. 
 
 Mr. FARNS WORTH rose. 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. Please excuse me. 
 
 Mr. FARNSWORTH. The gentleman has 
 evaded the point I have made. 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. What is it? 
 
 Mr. FARNSWORTH. Will the gentleman 
 allow me to state it? 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. Yes, sir; but I hope my 
 time, just expiring, will not all be taken up by 
 the gentleman. 
 
 Mr. FARNSWORTH. I have not taken 
 the ground that Congress has not the power 
 to correct unequal and partial legislation of a 
 State. 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. I understood the gentle- 
 man before. 
 
 Mr. FARNSWORTH. The gentleman has 
 not touched that. 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. I did touch it, and pre- 
 sent my views fully, but the gentleman did not 
 seem to comprehend my argument, because I 
 suppose he was so captivated with bis own. I 
 stated that the negative provisions in the ori- 
 ginal Constitution had been enforced against 
 the tribunals and against the judgments and 
 decisions of State courts. Will the gentlem^ 
 undertake to say that Congress could not hav^ 
 compelled a State court to certify the record 
 for review, as provided in the twenty-fifth sec- 
 tion of the judiciary act of 1789 and have pro- 
 vided by law in advance against such denial 
 of justice and right? Will the gentleman 
 undertake to say that? The gentleman has 
 been answered, is answered, but unhappily, I 
 fear, he is like those unfortunates whom Swed- 
 enborg beheld in vision, who had departed this 
 life fitty years before, but did not know that 
 they were dead. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. Speaker, in this discussion I have been 
 necessarily compelled to speak of the powers 
 of the national Government and of the powers 
 of the States, and have referred only incident- 
 ally to the provisions of the Constitution guar- 
 antying rights, privileges, and immunities to 
 citizens of the United States. I pray, Mr. 
 Speaker, that the House will not misunder- 
 stand me as placing the Government, either 
 national or State, above the citizen. I ask 
 the House, when they come to deliberate upon 
 this question, not to forget the imperishable 
 words of our great Declaration, "All men are 
 created equal and endowed by their Creator 
 with the rights of life and liberty." I ask 
 gentlemen not to forget those other words of 
 the Declaration, that " to protect these rights" 
 (not to confer them) "governments are insti- 
 tuted among men." I ask gentlemen further, 
 when they come to deliberate upon this ques- 
 tion, not to forget the words incorporated by 
 its makers in the Constitution of our common 
 
14 
 
 country, by which it is declared that, to estab- 
 lish justice and to secure the blessings of lib- 
 erty, "We, the people of the United States, 
 do ordain this Constitution." 
 
 Liberty secured by law is not license. Lib- 
 erty, our own American constitutional liberty, 
 is the right "to know, to argue, and to utter 
 freely according to conscience." It is the lib- 
 erty, sir, to know your duty and to do it. It is 
 the liberty, sir, to work in an honest calling and 
 contribute by your toil in some sort to the sup- 
 port of yourself, to the support of your fellow- 
 men, and to be secure in the enjoyment of the 
 fruits of your toil. Justice, sir, to establish 
 which this Constitution was ordained, the peo- 
 ple themselves being witness, is to give to every 
 man his due. The justice to be established by 
 the Constitution is the attribute ofGod, as to 
 do justice is the perpetual obligation of men 
 and nations. Let justice for all, by the power 
 and majesty of American law be established 
 for all, so that the poorest man in his hovel on 
 the frontiers of your widely extended domain, 
 bearing with him toward the setting sun the 
 symbols of civilization, and laying in the wilder- 
 
 ness the foundations of new commonwealths, 
 may be made as secure in his person and prop- 
 erty as the prince in his palace or the king 
 on his throne. 
 
 Let equal and exact justice be established, 
 that America may become the exemplar to all 
 the nations of the world of the capacity of 
 man for self government, and in establishing 
 it may illustrate the utterance of that grand 
 intellect, Collard, of whom one of the most 
 gifted of living men said: 
 
 " His words become indelibly engraved upon what 
 ever spot they fall. 'The citizen,' said he, 'has a 
 higher destiny than that of States.' " 
 
 :i: :|: * :;i * * * :i: -;: * 
 
 "'States are born, live, and die upon the earth; 
 here they accomplish their destiny ; but they con- 
 tain not the whole man. After the citizen has dis- 
 charged every obligation he owes to society, every 
 obligation that he owes to the State, there abides in 
 him the nobler part of his nature— his immortal fac- 
 ulties, by which he ascends to God, to a future life, 
 and to the unknown blessings of an invisible world.' " 
 
 [Applause.] 
 
\ 
 
 \ 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRP<:c 
 
 mn 
 
 w 013 786 587 7 
 
\ 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 ^iImmi liii iiiiiiiijiiiiiiihi 
 
 013 786 587 7