202 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



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 1861, 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 Brightly, 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 

 suggestion of 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 guaranteed 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 nrovisions, adapt- 

 ing them, however, to the existing condition of 

 things, which have been law from the founda- 

 tion 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." 



Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts, said : "I do 

 not propose in the fragment of an hour to en- 

 tar upon the argument of this grave constitu- 

 tional question. It could not be properly dis- 

 cussed if I devoted the whole time allotted to 

 rne; and I am specially debarred from such 

 an undertaking by the learned and able discus- 

 sion of the two gentlemen from Ohio (Messrs. 

 Shellabarger and Bingham). 



" I may be permitted, however, to give some 

 conclusions to which I have arrived, without 

 any considerable detail of the reasoning which 

 led to them. 



" There seem to me two controlling proposi- 

 tions on this question : 



" 1. If the Federal Government cannot pass 

 laws to protect the rights, liberty, and lives of 

 citizens of the United States in the States, why 

 were guarantees of those fundamental rights 

 put in the Constitution at all, and, especially, 

 by acts of amendment? 



"All agree that the mere constitutional as- 

 sertions of affirmative guarantees, not made 



operative by law, are ineffectual to aid the 

 citizen. How, then, can the citizen avail him- 

 self of those constitutional guarantees and 

 affirmative declarations of his rights, if Con- 

 gress cannot pass laws to make them operative ? 

 How can it be an interference with the rights 

 of the States for the laws of the United States 

 to afford that protection to its citizens which 

 the State fails or neglects to do for itself? 



" Is it one of the rights of a State not to pro- 

 tect its citizens in the enjoyment of life, liber- 

 ty, and property, and thereby deny him the 

 equal protection of the laws, so that, when the 

 General Government attempts to do for the 

 protection of the citizen what the State has 

 failed to do, it is to be held an interference 

 with the rights of the State ? Pardon me ; it 

 seems to me that such action is only a neces- 

 sary and proper interference with the wrongs 

 of a State. A State has no constitutional or 

 other right reserved to itself to deny or neg- 

 lect to its citizen the equal protection of the 

 laws. 



"2. If the General Government has not the 

 constitutional power to protect the lives, lib- 

 erty, and property of its citizens upon its own 

 soil when such protection is needed, then, it 

 ought to have such power ; it should reside 

 somewhere in the Government. For, without 

 the power to protect the lives of its citizens, 

 a republican government is a failure, and, if 

 such be constitutional law, to be a citizen of 

 the United States is to be the most unprotected 

 of all mankind. 



" Wherever a citizen of the United States 

 may be, upon a foreign soil or upon a foreign 

 sea, however remote, the Constitution and laws 

 of the United States are around and about 

 him, guarding him from outrage and injury as 

 fully as the cherubim and the flaming sword 

 kept the way of the tree of life. There is no 

 nation so weak or savage, none so cultivated, 

 rich, or powerful, that it can unjustly lay its 

 hand upon an American citizen in arrest or 

 anger without calling down upon it the whole 

 power of the republic to protect him and re- 

 dress his wrongs. ' I am an American citizen ' 

 is the passport of safety of all his rights 

 throughout the world, save only in his own 

 country. Can this be so ? 



" Can it be, then, that an American citizen is 

 protected in his rights of person and property 

 by the Constitution and laws of the United 

 States, with the whole power of the Govern- 

 ment, everywhere, except on our own soil, 

 under his own roof-tree, and covered by our 

 own flag ? Does that proposition need more 

 argument than the statement of it? If the 

 converse be true, then again I repeat, the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States is a failure ; and 

 better monarchy, better despotism, better any 

 thing than systematized anarchy, organized 

 murder, outrage, and wrong, done at the will 

 of remorseless bands upon defenceless citi- 

 zens." 



Mr. Cox, of New York, said : " Will such 





