CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



215 



that subject ; find I understand that this bill, 

 as it passed the House of Representatives, was 

 framed on this principle. As originally intro- 

 duced, it went to the extent of punishing of- 

 fences against the States; and there was ob- 

 jection to it on the part of some of the most 

 thoughtful minds in the House of Represent- 

 atives. Those provisions were changed, and, 

 as the bill passed the House of Represent- 

 atives, it was understood by the members of 

 that body to go no further than to protect 

 persons in the rights which were guaranteed 

 to them by the Constitution and laws of the 

 United States, and it did not undertake to fur- 

 nish redress for wrongs done by one person 

 upon another in any of the States of the Union 

 in violation of their laws, unless he also vio- 

 lated some law of the United States, nor to 

 punish one person for an ordinary assault and 

 battery committed on another in a State. 



" To that extent I felt that I could give my 

 support to the bill. I regretted that the Com- 

 mittee on the Judiciary thought it necessary 

 to amend the bill ; but a majority came to that 

 conclusion, and I think (although I believe in 

 that the Senator from Vermont who reports 

 the bill with the amendments does not agree 

 with me) that these amendments make the 

 bill obnoxious to the very objection which was 

 made to it in the House of Representatives in 

 its original shape, that it does go to the extent 

 of undertaking to punish persons for violating 

 State laws, without reference to any violation 

 of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 



" I do not believe the Senator from Ver- 

 mont entertains the opinion that the Congress 

 of the United States has a right to pass a gen- 

 eral criminal code for the States of the Union, 

 and I am sure, if he does maintain that they 

 have the right to do it, he would think it im- 

 politic to exercise that power. I do not sup- 

 pose there is a single person on this floor who 

 would be in favor of Congress passing a law 

 punishing larceny, assault and battery, and all 

 sorts of crime in the different States of the 

 Union, and taking control of all the contracts 

 made between individuals, because that would 

 be destructive at once of the State govern- 

 ments." 



Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, said : " Mr. Presi- 

 dent, inasmuch as this is an important public 

 question, which involves, as Senators have 

 said, delicate responsibilities between the 

 States and the national Government, I think it 

 right that we should examine a little in detail 

 precisely what sort of a government we have, 

 and precisely what its rights are; and if it 

 shall turn out on such an examination that the 

 bill which we have proposed is within the 

 clear scope of constitutional authority, and is 

 within the clear line of legislative precedent, 

 and is a means to the preservation of private 

 rights, then I shall hope that even our Demo- 

 cratic friends will be willing to agree that the 

 crimes which have been committed, and which 

 have added to them that other and greater 



crime on the part of the tribunals and com- 

 munities in which they occur of being suffered 

 to go unpunished, shall be reached by every 

 means of lawful legislation. They certainly 

 ought not to deny that if crimes such as have 

 been stated exist, and are unrepressed by ex- 

 isting laws and authorities, every measure of 

 constitutional legislation which will have a 

 tendency to preserve life and liberty, and up- 

 hold order, ought to be resorted to. 



" I agree entirely, Mr. President, with the 

 sentiment expressed by the honorable Senator 

 from Missouri, who sits farthest from me (Mr. 

 Blair), the other day, not entirely with his un- 

 limited statement of it. 



" We have been told, Mr. President, a good 

 many times, and for a good many years, that 

 this national Government of ours is, after all, 

 not a Government of the people, but that it is 

 merely a confederated Government of States, 

 and that wherever and whenever the national 

 authority undertakes to appeal to a citizen 

 either to do or omit to do a thing, it tran- 

 scends its authority ; that all the rights and 

 duties of a citizen are infolded in his State 

 constitution, and that we, therefore, under the- 

 recent amendments or under the old Constitu- 

 tion, must act only upon that political body 

 called the State, as we would act in the case of 

 our relations with a foreign power. This was 

 the doctrine of the Democratic party before 

 the rebellion ; it was a doctrine common to it 

 and the powers of the rebellion during the 

 war, and it has been so since. Sir, that is a 

 mistake. It is a mistake which led to the re- 

 bellion ; it is a mistake which has led to the 

 fruits of that rebellion which we are now reap- 

 ing in the last and basest form which the spirit 

 that produced the rebellion can possibly as- 

 sume. 



" The honorable Senators over the way have 

 thought fit to read from those excellent com- 

 mentaries, upon the strength and stress of 

 which the people of the United States, through 

 their States, adopted this Constitution, to show 

 what was the nature of this Government. So 

 will I. Mr. Hamilton, in these publications, 

 which were put forth, as I say, when this Con- 

 stitution was about to be adopted, and when, 

 as my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Carpenter) 

 so properly suggests, the temptation was en- 

 tirely to diminish and belittle the powers of 

 the Government Mr. Hamilton, speaking of 

 the difficulties between independent States 

 and of the difficulties in the relations of the 

 national Government to the States under the 

 Confederation, says : 



But if we are unwilling to be placed in this peril- 

 ous situation ; if we still will adhere to the design of 

 a national government, or, which is the same thing, 

 of a superintending power, under the direction of a 

 common council, we must resolve to incorporate into 

 our plan those ingredients which may be considered 

 as forming the characteristic diiference between a 

 league and a government, we must extend the au- 

 thority of the Union to the persons of the citizens, 

 the only proper objects of government. 



