CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



213 



" I think there is one of the fundamental, 

 one of the great, the tremendous revolutions 

 effected in our Government by that article of 

 the Constitution. It gives Congress affirma- 

 tive power to protect the rights of the citizen, 

 whereas, before, no such right was given to 

 save the citizen from the violation of any of 

 his rights by State Legislatures, and the only 

 remedy was a judicial one when the case 

 arose." 



Mr. Trumbull: "Mr. President, I am not 

 specially upon the question of remedies at this 

 moment, as to how the United States should 

 afford the remedy ; but let me say to the Sen- 

 ator from Wisconsin that the authority of the 

 United States was just as positive under the 

 Constitution, as originally framed, as it is un- 

 der the fourteenth amendment. What says 

 the Constitution of the United States ? It 

 says this is the original Constitution 



No State shall pass any ex post facto law, or law 

 impairing the obligation of contracts. 



" That is what the Constitution said. What 

 else did it say ? 



The Congress shall have power to make all laws 

 which shall be necessary and proper for carrying 

 into execution the foregoing powers, and all other 

 powers vested by this Constitution in the Govern- 

 ment of the United States, or in any department or 

 officer thereof. 



" What was vested in the Government of 

 the United States ? The power to carry out 

 the clause declaring that no State should pass 

 a law impairing the obligation of contracts. 

 This was a power conceded by the people to 

 the Government of the United States when 

 they made it, and with that concession went 

 along the power to make all laws necessary 

 and proper to carry it into effect." 



Mr. Carpenter : " As I now understand his 

 construction of the old Constitution, the au- 

 thority conferred on Congress to pass laws to 

 execute the powers conferred on the Govern- 

 ment included the power to pass laws which 

 should prevent the States from doing the things 

 which they were prohibited from doing by the 

 Constitution. With that admission, I do not 

 think the fourteenth article, or any article, 

 could add any thing to the old Constitution. 

 But I never heard of that construction before ; 

 and, while I am not ready to make an affidavit 

 that it is sound, it is satisfactory for all the 

 purposes of this bill." 



Mr. Trumbull: "Mr. President, as I have 

 once or twice said to the Senator from Wis- 

 consin, I am not upon the remedies. The Gov- 

 ernment of the United States did provide, in 

 1789, by a law, to give effect to that very 

 clause of the Constitution, and the Senator 

 knows it." 



Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, said : " I have 

 no doubt my friend from Illinois wishes to get 

 at the real point in this matter. Let me sug- 

 gest to him whether the true construction of 

 the clause he has read as to the power of pass- 

 ing laws to carry into effect the powers herein 



granted, and also the powers granted to any 

 department of the Government, would not 

 oblig6 us to come to the conclusion that all 

 the powers that the Constitution granted to 

 Congress, Congress might carry out by legis- 

 lation; all the powers that the Constitution 

 granted to the judiciary to protect private 

 rights (which was the case as against laws 

 impairing the obligation of contracts), Con- 

 gress might pass laws in aid of through the 

 judiciary. So, top, it might be provided, as 

 Congress did provide by the act to which my 

 friend has referred, that if any man had the 

 obligation of his contract impaired by State 

 legislation he might have redress through the 

 judiciary, either of the State in the first in- 

 stance or of the United States in the first in- 

 stance, as it might have been. But when you 

 come to the other class of powers, which are 

 granted powers to Congress, there you stand 

 upon a different ground. If that is a just dis- 

 tinction, then let me submit to my friend 

 whether this amendment does not make a 

 wise advance in favor of the protection of 

 private rights by affirmative legislation by 

 Congress where those private rights are guar- 

 anteed by the Constitution, and that in con- 

 nection with it Congress is authorized by the 

 same Constitution to carry them into effect by 

 affirmative law." 



Mr. Trumbull : " Mr. President, in my judg- 

 ment the Congress of the United States has 

 authority to carry into effect the powers con- 

 ferred upon the Government of the United 

 States by affirmative law. What is it but af- 

 firmative law ? Was not the act of 1789 an 

 affirmative law ? " 



Mr. Edmunds : " Certainly, in aid of the ju- 

 diciary. But in the old case, in the case of the 

 obligation of contracts, could it have been done 

 in any other way ? That is my point." 



Mr. Trumbull : " Perhaps it could have been 

 done in no other way, properly, in the first in- 

 stance ; but suppose a case such as is supposed 

 in this bill ; suppose, under the Constitution as 

 it originally stood, a conspiracy, a combination, 

 had been formed to prevent the Senator from 

 Wisconsin taking a case from the Supreme 

 Court of Wisconsin to the Supreme Court of 

 the United States, which involved the question 

 of impairing the obligation of a contract by a 

 law of Wisconsin. Suppose that conspiracy 

 had been so formidable as to prevent the clerk 

 of the court from certifying the record, and 

 the Senator from Wisconsin from appearing as 

 counsel, does the Senator from Vermont mean 

 to say that the Government of the United 

 States might not have passed a law for put- 

 ting down that conspiracy in some other way 

 than by means of the court ? Could we not 

 have done more ? But that is a question of 

 detail." 



Mr. Edmunds : " If my friend asks me a 

 question, I will answer it now or at any other 

 time. I agree with him most perfectly that 

 would have been the common case of provid- 



