156 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



In a Senate not full by any means, that deci- 

 sion was sustained simply by a majority of one 

 or two. Is that a decision that ought to gov- 

 ern? Is that a decision that ought to stand ? 

 No, sir ; but it does stand as long as this bill 

 is before the Senate. I cannot renew the ques- 

 tion of order on this bill, because the question 

 has been decided ; but, whenever a new bill is 

 up, then I can make the question, when the 

 Senator from Massachusetts shall oifer his 

 amendment again ; and, it is in order that the 

 sense first of the Presiding Officer of the Sen- 

 ate and then of a full Senate may be taken 

 upon that point that I for one wish to see the 

 present bill postponed, and the other taken up, 

 in order that the question may be made. 



" Now, sir, in reference to that question, no 

 man answered the argument, no man, I think, 

 can answer the argument, that if you were to 

 put on the amendment of the Senator from 

 Massachusetts and pass this bill through the 

 Senate by a two-thirds vote and send it to the 

 House of Representatives, and there should 

 there be a majority for it, but less than two- 

 thirds, then you would have this great spec- 

 tacle presented, of one-half of that bill passed 

 by the necessary constitutional majority to 

 enact it into a law, and the residue of the bill 

 not passed by a sufficient number of votes ; 

 and where, then, is your law ? What part of 

 it is law, and what part of it is not law ? No 

 one has answered that question. Whether 

 gentlemen did not think it worth while to an- 

 swer it or not, I leave it for others to decide, 

 but that is a question which ought to be met. 



"The bill which the Senator from Massa- 

 chusetts offers as an amendment to the am- 

 nesty bill has never been referred to a com- 

 mittee at this session. A similar bill was re- 

 ferred at a former session and reported against. 

 He takes that old bill, greatly enlarges it, makes 

 it more obnoxious to constitutional objections 

 than his old bill was, and, without any refer- 

 ence to a committee at all, moves it as an 

 amendment to this bill, and so imperfect that 

 on all sides we see it has to be amended. It has 

 undergone no sufficient scrutiny at all. The 

 defects pointed out are so glaring, even if the 

 measure were ever so constitutional, that the 

 Senator is obliged to accept amendments the 

 moment they are offered. 



"And now this bill that is to be amended 

 here in open Senate by these straggling amend- 

 ments, with no careful examination of them, 

 no sitting down in a committee-room and care- 

 fully discussing the details of the measure, as 

 would be necessary if it were ever so constitu- 

 tional this bill of mere ordinary legislation is 

 to be forced on to this amnesty bill, for what 

 purpose ? That you may have a fine rhetorical 

 sentence, that justice went with grace; that 

 you were just as well as generous; and that 

 while you held out amnesty to the white peo- 

 ple of the South, in the same hands you held 

 out justice to the black people all over the 

 country ! That is all very beautiful rhetoric ; 



that makes an exquisitely fine heading to a 

 speech, or perhaps to a bill ; but I submit to 

 the Senate that it is not the kind of considera- 

 tion that should make us depart from the plain 

 proper modes of legislation which require that 

 an amnesty bill shall stand by itself, that, as it 

 requires two-thirds to pass it, it shall not have 

 amendments put upon it which can be made 

 law by a bare majority of the two Houses of 

 Congress, that it shall not have amendments 

 put on it that have no relation properly to the 

 subject-matter of the bill. I say this reason 

 that has been given is altogether insufficient 

 for the purpose for which it is given. 



"Under what clause of the Constitution, 

 pray, is this bill of the Senator from Massa- 

 chusetts brought forward ? Of course under 

 the fourteenth amendment. I do not suppose 

 it is under the Declaration of Independence, 

 although that, it seems, is above the Consti- 

 tution in the minds of some. It is not under 

 e pluribus unum. I think you, Mr. President 

 (Mr. Carpenter in the chair), exploded that 

 once. It is not, then, under e pluribus unum, 

 or under the Declaration of Independence, but 

 it is under the fourteenth article of amend- 

 ments to the Constitution. 



" Now, what is it that this bill assumes to 

 regulate? The privileges of American citi- 

 zens. That is the thing. It is the privileges 

 of American citizens. What are these privi- 

 leges ? The privilege to go into all places that 

 are created or regulated by law, the privilege 

 of every citizen to go into such a place and to 

 enjoy whatever is there to be enjoyed. That 

 is the proposition. Whatever is created or 

 regulated by law is a matter in which every 

 citizen has equal privileges. Therefore all 

 citizens have an equal privilege to go into a 

 hotel and abide there; all have an equal privi- 

 lege to go into a theatre and to witness the 

 performance, to go into a church if it is an in- 

 corporated church, and nearly all churches 

 are, and to be seated there ; to be buried in 

 any cemetery if it belongs to an incorporated 

 association, and most of the cemeteries do; 

 and so on to the end of the chapter. These 

 are privileges, it is said, that belong to the 

 citizen of the United States; that are guar- 

 anteed to him by the fourteenth amendment. 



" Now, I want Senators to bear in mind the 

 language of that amendment that I shall pres- 

 ently call their attention more particularly to. 

 The difference between privilege and protec- 

 tion is clearly recognized in this constitutional 

 amendment. It is privileges that we are deal- 

 ing with now ; it is not with protection. This 

 is a bill to secure to every one equal privileges, 

 not equal protection against injury or wrong 

 or outrage or violence. It is not to secure 

 either life or liberty or property, because a 

 man's life does not depend on whether he can 

 go into a theatre or not ; his liberty does not 

 depend on whether he can go into a theatre 

 or not; his property does not depend on 

 whether he can go into a theatre or not. 



