162 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



is declared by your Federal courts, to which 

 the question can be taken, to be a violation of 

 the Constitution of the United States, and void. 

 So with any other prohibition. Ilere the four- 

 teenth amendment declares, and it is unneces- 

 sary to read any more of it perhaps than that 

 which bears on this bill : ' No State shall make 

 or enforce any law which shall abridge the 

 privileges or immunities of citizens of the 

 United States.' That operates directly on the 

 State. It cannot be denied that that operates 

 directly on the State as a political entity, be- 

 cause it cannot be contended for a moment that 

 a manager of a theatre can make a law of the 

 State, and yet this bill is levelled at him ; that 

 an innkeeper can make a law of the State, and 

 yet this bill is levelled at him; that a railroad 

 company can make the law of the State, and 

 yet this bill is levelled at it. No, sir, the law 

 of the State can be made only by the legisla- 

 tive power of the State, its General Assembly. 



"When, therefore, this Constitution says 

 that no State shall make a law abridging the 

 privileges or immunities of a citizen, it is the 

 same as if it had said that no Legislature of any 

 State shall pass any such law, for that is the 

 only way in which the State can make a law. 

 But it would have been, perhaps, a lame instru- 

 ment if that were all, and hence it says no 

 State shall enforce any law which abridges the 

 privileges or immunities of a citizen of the 

 United States. 



" Mr. President, once more here is a plain 

 inhibition upon the States, and now it is pro- 

 posed to pass a bill which pays no attention to 

 the fact that the State has not violated the 

 Constitution of the United States. I under- 

 stand the argument of the Senator from In- 

 diana. He has made it before. He made it, 

 I think, more than two years ago, and it is an 

 argument that strikes down every State gov- 

 ernment in this Union as completely as if 

 every State constitution were annihilated, 

 never to be restored. 



"What is the argument? It is that priv- 

 ileges, immunities, life, liberty, property, and 

 the protection of the laws in the United States, 

 are taken in charge, and are under the guaran- 

 tee of the Constitution of the United States, 

 and that, thus taken in charge and under its 

 guarantee and protection, Congress has a right 

 to legislate upon any subject whatsoever, ac- 

 cording to its own discretion, that relates to 

 the privileges, the immunities, the life, the 

 property, or the liberty of a citizen of the 

 United States; that it is wholly indifferent 

 and immaterial whether a State has legislated 

 upon that subject or not ; that it is wholly im- 

 material what are the laws of a State, that the 

 acts of Congress passed in pursuance of the 

 Constitution are the paramount law of the 

 land, and that Congress may, therefore, enter 

 upon this subject as res Integra, as a new 

 thing, and may in its own discretion, without 

 any reference to State legislation, State judicial 

 decision, State custom, or State practice, make 



just such a code of laws as it sees fit to make. 

 If this is the case, then all local self-govern- 

 ment is wiped out in this land ; for there is 

 not one subject of legislation, no, not one, not 

 even a tax bill, that may not be referred to the 

 category of the privileges, the immunities, the 

 liberty, the life, the property, or the protec- 

 tion of the citizen. If this interpretation of 

 the Constitution be true, then the Federal 

 Government has swallowed up every State 



fovernment as completely as the prophet 

 onah was swallowed by the whale. I protest 

 against any such interpretation as that. 



" Mr. President, I once more say that, 

 although I have never gone to any such length 

 as some State-rights men have gone in dedu- 

 cing the doctrine of the right of secession, and 

 have never believed and do not believe in that 

 doctrine, yet I am, and hope I shall die, a 

 State-rights man. I am so because I believe 

 that the existence of the States and the exist- 

 ence of local self-government are essential to 

 freedom and to prosperity in this country. 



" Why, sir, if there is no such thing as State 

 rights, how comes it that the two distinguished 

 Senators from Vermont are here, coming from 

 a State with not one tenth, not one twelfth, 

 very little more than one thirteenth of the pop- 

 ulation of the State of New York ? How comes 

 it that, with three hundred thousand inhabi- 

 tants only, there are two Senators on this floor 

 from Vermont, while New York, with more 

 than four millions, has but two ? How comes 

 that, sir ; is there no such thing as State 

 rights ; what right have they to make local law 

 for Ohio? Why should New York, with her 

 four millions of people and only two Senators 

 on this floor, have her local law made here by 

 the votes of twelve Senators from New England 

 when all New England has not a population 

 equal to hers? How is it that twelve votes 

 shall be received here from New England to 

 make local law for Missouri? In that local 

 law New England has no interest whatsoever, 

 while that great State, soon to have a population 

 equal to that of all of New England, and now 

 with a population half as great, has but two 

 Senators on this floor. What is it that gives 

 this unequal representation in the Senate but 

 the doctrine of State rights; nay, sir, to go 

 further, but the doctrine of the original sov- 

 ereignty of the States ? I am not complaining 

 of this. I am willing to stand by this inequal- 

 ity in the Senate of the United States so long 

 as you stand by the Constitution as its framers 

 intended it to be. So long as you do not 

 trample State governments out of existence, 

 so long as you let local legislation be the sub- 

 ject of local State law alone, so long as you 

 do not interfere and usurp the powers that 

 properly belong to the States, I greet with 

 arms wide open the Senators from the smallest 

 State of this Union ; nay, I will take the Sen- 

 ators from* Nevada into ray embrace, although 

 their whole State does not contain as many 

 people as the little city in which I live ; I will 



