CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



"Is it not an invasion of the right of tho citi- 

 rcn <it' a State uhen yon declare that nn inde- 

 pendent judi_'o, \vlin, in tho exorcise of his con- 

 :on< judgment ami in obedience tolas oath 

 of otliee, renders a doci.sion in accordance with 

 tin- la\\ -s and IN institution of his State, shall bo 

 convicted as a criminal and subjected to punish- 

 ment l.y lino or imprisonment? Is it not a most 

 flagrant and tyrannical interference with the in- 

 <loi>ondonco of the judiciary when you thus seek 

 to influence a judge in his decision by holding 

 up before liim a penalty for the violation of some 

 protended ri^ht of some black inhabitant of 

 ito? Has tho citizen no interest in tho 

 independence of tho judiciary? Is this not an 

 interference with tho rights of tho white man? 

 Tho inquiry was made by some gentleman I 

 think by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 

 Loan) why are these penalties made appli- 

 raMo only to the judicial officer? It was an- 

 swered that the purpose was to control tho 

 judge and prevent his executing the law of tho 

 State by his judgment when it operated pecu- 

 liarly upon tho freedman, and thereby enforce 

 the execution of tho Federal law. There is 

 no doubt it is a measure designed to accumu- 

 late and centralize power in the Federal Gov- 

 ernment." 



After further debate, the bill was recommit- 

 ted, by yeas 82, nays 70. 



On March 13th, the bill was reported back 

 from the Committee on the Judiciary, with 

 amendments, and passed by the following 

 vote: 



YEAS Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, 

 James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Baxter, 

 Beaman, Bidwell, Bluine, Blow, Boutwell, Bromwell, 

 Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, 

 Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis, Dawes, 

 Delano, Doming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, 

 Eliot, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Giirfield, Grin- 

 nell, Abncr C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Higby, Hill, 

 Holmes, Hooper, Asahel W. Huboard, Chester D. 

 Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Hul- 

 burd, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, 

 Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, George 

 V.Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, 

 Lynch, Marston, Marvin, McClurg, McRuor, Mercur, 

 Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morns, Moulton, Myers, 

 Newell, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham, Pike, Plants, 

 Price, Alexander H. Rice, Sawyer, Schcnck, Scho- 

 field, Shellabarger, Sloan, Spalding, Starr, Stevens, 

 Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trow- 

 bridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Ward, 

 Warner, hlihu B. Washburn;*, William B. Wushburn, 

 Welker, Wentworth, Wluiley, Williams, James F. 

 Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Wood- 

 bridge 111. 



NAYS Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Bingham, Boyer, 

 Brooks, Coffroth, Dawson, Denison, Glossbrenner, 

 Goodyear, Grider, Aaron Harding, Harris, Hogan, 

 Edwin N. Hubbell, Jones, Kerr, Latham, Le Blond, 

 Marshall, McCullough, Nicholson, Phelps, Radford, 

 Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Ritter, 

 Rogers, Ross, Rousseau, Shauklin, Sitpi 

 Smith, Tabor, Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, uiid Win- 

 field-S8. 



NOT VOTING Messrs. Delos R. Ashley, Barker, 

 Benjamin, Braudagee, Chanler, Reader W. Clark, 

 Culver, Defrees, Eckley, Egglestou, Eldridge, Finck, 

 (Jriswold, Hale, Henderson, Hotchkiss, James R. 

 Ilubbell, Jamea M. Humphrey, Johnson, Kasson, 



Mclndoe, McKec, Niblack, Noel!, Pnttorson, Pom. 

 Kavmond, John H. Rice, Rolling, Btillwell, 

 Sin. use, Robert, T. Van Horn, llcnry D. Wouhburn. 

 Bii<l Wright-34. 



In the Senate, on March 15th, the question 

 came up on concurrence with the amendment* 

 of tho House. 



Tho tir>t amendment was in section one, line 

 five, after the words " United States," to strike 

 out 



Without distinction of color, and there shall be no 

 discrimination in civil rights or immunities among 

 the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the Uni- 

 ted States on account of race, color, or previous con- 

 dition of slavery; but the inhabit; 



And in lieu thereof to insert " and such citi- 

 zens ; " so as to make the section read : 



That all persons born in the United States and not 

 subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not 

 taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the 

 United States ; and such citizens of every race and 

 color, without regard to any previous condition of 

 slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punish- 

 ment for crime whereof tho party shall have been 

 duly convicted, shall have the same right, etc. 



The next amendment of the House was in 

 section one, lino thirteen, after fhe word 

 "right," to insert the words "in every State 

 and Territory in the United States ; " so that 

 the clause will read : 



And such citizens of every race and color, without 

 regard to any previous condition of slavery or invol- 

 untary servitude, except as a punishment for crime 

 whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, 

 shall have the same right in every State and Terri- 

 tory in the United States to make and enforce con- 

 tracts, to sue, be parties and give evidence, to inherit, 

 purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and per- 

 sonal property, and to full and equal benefit of all 

 laws and proceedings for the security of persons and 

 property. 



These amendments were concurred in, with 

 others of less importance. 



On March 27th President Johnson returned 

 the bill with his objections to the Senate, where 

 it originated. (Foy the bill and veto message, 

 see PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.) 



In the Senate, on April 4th, the veto of the 

 President was taken up for consideration. 



Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, took the floor, 

 to show "that tho provisions of the bill wore 

 not unjust to the whole or to any portion of 

 tho people, nor unconstitutional." He insisted 

 that there was no section of it that was not 

 clearly constitutional. The first section was 

 merely declaratory of what the law was, and 

 Congress has tho right to declare who shall be 

 citizens of tho United States. He then consid- 

 ered the objection that a part of the States 

 were unrepresented. As it was their own fault, 

 he insisted that tho other States should not be 

 thereby deprived of the power of legislation. 

 To the objection that the bill proposed a dis- 

 crimination against a largo number of intelligent 

 foreigners in favor of the negro, he replied that 

 the bill declared there should be no distinction 

 in civil rights between any other race or color 

 and the white race. To the objection to the 



