In the same spirit Mr. Burke said:—

Mr. Fox, who was full of ardent sympathies, declared:—

And Mr. Pitt, at another stage of the debate, thus denied their claim:—

So far as this instance is an example to us, it is only an incentive to a kindly policy, which, after prudent inquiry, and full knowledge of the extent of these claims, shall make such reasonable allowance as humanity and patriotism may require. There must be an inquiry not only into this individual case, but into all possible cases that may spring into being, so that, when we act, it may be on the whole subject.

From the beginning of our national life Congress has been called to deal with claims for losses by war. Though new in form, the present case belongs to a long list, whose beginning is hidden in Revolutionary history. The folio volume of State Papers, now before me, entitled “Claims,” attests the number and variety. Even amid the struggles of the war, as early as 1779, the Rev. Dr. Witherspoon was allowed $19,040 for repairs of the college at Princeton damaged by the troops.[28] There was afterward a similar allowance to the academy at Wilmington, in Delaware, and also to the college in Rhode Island. These latter were recommended by Mr. Hamilton, while Secretary of the Treasury, as “affecting the interests of literature.”[29] On this account they were treated as exceptional. It will also be observed that they concerned claimants within our own jurisdiction. But on a claim for compensation for a house burnt at Charlestown for the purpose of dislodging the enemy, by order of the American commander at that point during the Siege of Boston, a Committee of Congress in 1797 reported, that, “as Government has not adopted a general rule to compensate individuals who have suffered in a similar manner, the Committee are of opinion that the prayer of this petition cannot be granted.”[30] At a later day, however, after successive favorable reports, the claim was finally in 1833 allowed, and compensation made to the extent of the estimated value of the property destroyed.[31]

In 1815 a claimant received compensation for a house at the end of the Potomac bridge, which was blown up to prevent certain public stores from falling into the hands of the enemy;[32] and other claimants at Baltimore received compensation for rope-walks burnt in the defence of the city.[33] The report of a committee in another case says that the course of Congress “seems to inculcate that indemnity is due to all those whose losses have arisen from the acts of our own Government, or those acting under its authority, while losses produced by the conduct of the enemy are to be classed among the unavoidable calamities of war.”[34] This is the most complete statement of the rule which I find.

After the Battle of New Orleans the question of the application of this rule was presented repeatedly, and with various results. In one case, a claim for “a quantity of fencing” used as fuel by troops of General Jackson was paid by Congress; so also was a claim for damages to a plantation “upon which public works for the defence of the country were erected.”[35] On the other hand, a claim for “an elegant and well-furnished house” which afforded shelter to the British army and was therefore fired on with hot shot, also a claim for damage to a house and plantation where a battery was erected by our troops, and on both of which claims the Committee, simultaneously with the two former, reported favorably, were disallowed by Congress.[36] In a subsequent case both the report and action seem to have proceeded on a different principle from that previously enunciated. At the landing of the enemy near New Orleans, the levee was cut in order to annoy him. As a consequence, the plantation of the claimant was inundated, and suffered damages estimated at $19,250. But the claim was rejected, on the ground that “the injury was done in the necessary operations of war.”[37] Certainly this ground may be adopted in the present case, while it must not be forgotten that in all the foregoing cases the claimants were citizens within our own jurisdiction, whose property had been used against a foreign enemy.

The multiplicity of claims arising in the War of 1812 prompted an Act of Congress in 1816 for “the payment for property lost, captured, or destroyed by the enemy.” In this Act it was, among other things, provided,—

Two years later it was found, that, in order to obtain the benefits of this Act, people, especially on the frontier of the State of New York, had not hesitated at “fraud, forgery, and perhaps perjury.”[39] Thereupon, the law, which by its terms was limited to two years, and which it had been proposed to extend, was permitted to expire; and it is accordingly now marked in our Statutes, “Obsolete.” But it is not without its lesson. It shows what may be expected, should any precedent be adopted by Congress to quicken the claimants now dormant in the South. “It is the duty of a good Government to attend to the morals of the people as an affair of primary concern.”[40] So said the Committee in 1818, recommending the non-extension of the Act. But this warning is as applicable now as then.

Among the claimants of the present day there are doubtless many of character and virtue. It is hard to vote against them. But I cannot be controlled on this occasion by my sympathies. Everywhere and in every household there has been suffering which mortal power cannot measure. Sometimes it is borne in silence and solitude; sometimes it is manifest to all. In coming into this Chamber and asking for compensation, it invites comparison with other instances. If your allowance is to be on account of merit, who will venture to say that this case is the most worthy? It is before us now for judgment. But there are others, not now before us, where the suffering has been greater, and where, I do not hesitate to say, the reward should be in proportion. This is an appeal for justice. Therefore do I say, in the name of justice, Wait!

There is another point, on which I forbore to dwell with sufficient particularity when I spoke before. It is this: Assuming that this claimant is loyal, I honor her that she kept her loyalty under the surrounding pressure of rebellion. Of course this was her duty,—nor more nor less. The practical question is, Shall she be paid for it? Had she been disloyal, there would have been no proposition of compensation. As the liability of the Nation is urged on the single ground that she kept her regard for the flag truly and sincerely, it is evident that this loyalty must be put beyond question; it must be established like any other essential link of evidence. I think I do not err in supposing that it is not established in the present case,—at least with such certainty as to justify opening the doors of the Treasury.

But assuming that in fact the loyalty is established, I desire to go further, and say that not only is the present claim without any support in law, but it is unreasonable. The Rebel States had become one immense prison-house of Loyalty; Alabama was a prison-house. The Nation, at every cost of treasure and blood, broke into that prison-house, and succeeded in rescuing the Loyalists; but the terrible effort, which cost the Nation so dearly, involved the Loyalists in losses also. In breaking into the prison-house and dislodging the Rebel keepers, property of Loyalists suffered. And now we are asked to pay for this property damaged in our efforts for their redemption. Our troops came down to break the prison-doors and set the captives free. Is it not unreasonable to expect us to pay for this breaking?

If the forces of the United States had failed, then would these Loyalists have lost everything, country, property, and all,—that is, if really loyal, according to present professions. It was our national forces that saved them from this sacrifice, securing to them country, and, if not all their property, much of it. A part of the property of the present claimant was taken in order to save to her all else, including country itself. It was a case, such as might occur under other circumstances, where a part—and a very small part—is sacrificed in order to save the rest. According to all analogies of jurisprudence, and the principles of justice itself, the claimant can look for nothing beyond such contribution as Congress in its bounty may appropriate. It is a case of bounty, and not of law.

It is a mistake to suppose, as has been most earnestly argued, that a claimant of approved loyalty in the Rebel States should have compensation precisely like a similar claimant in a Loyal State. To my mind this assumption is founded on a misapprehension of the Constitution, the law, and the reason of the case,—three different misapprehensions. By the Constitution property cannot be taken for public use without “just compensation”; but this rule was silent in the Rebel States. International Law stepped in and supplied a different rule. And when we consider how much was saved to the loyal citizen in a Rebel State by the national arms, it will be found that this rule is only according to justice.

I have no disposition to shut the door upon claimants. Let them be heard; but the hearing must be according to some system, so that Congress shall know the character and extent of these claims. Before the motion of my colleague,[41] I had already prepared instructions for the Committee, which I will read, as expressing my own conclusion on this matter:—

As this is a resolution of instruction, simply to consider the expediency of what is proposed, I presume there can be no objection to it.

TRIBUTE TO HON. JAMES HINDS, REPRESENTATIVE OF ARKANSAS.

Thus suddenly arrested in life, his death is a special sorrow, not only to family and friends, but to the country which he had begun to serve so well. The void, when a young man dies, is measured less by what he has done than by the promises of the future. Performance itself is forgotten in the ample assurance afforded by character. Already Mr. Hinds had given himself sincerely and bravely to the good cause. By presence and speech he was urging those great principles of the Declaration of Independence whose complete recognition will be the cope-stone of our Republic, when he fell by the stealthy shot of an assassin. It was in the midst of this work that he fell, and on this account I am glad to offer my tribute to his memory.

As the life he led was not without honor, so his death is not without consolation. It was the saying of Antiquity, that it is sweet to die for country. Here was death not only for country, but for mankind. Nor is it to be forgotten, that, dying in such a cause, his living voice is echoed from the tomb. There is a testimony in death often greater than in any life. The cause for which a man dies lives anew in his death. “If the assassination could trammel up the consequence,” then might the assassin find some other satisfaction than the gratification of a barbarous nature. But this cannot be. His own soul is blasted; the cause he sought to kill is elevated; and thus it is now. The assassin is a fugitive in some unknown retreat; the cause is about to triumph.

Often it happens that death, which takes away life, confers what life alone cannot give. It makes famous. History does not forget Lovejoy, who for devotion to the cause of the slave was murdered by a fanatical mob; and it has already enshrined Abraham Lincoln in holiest keeping. Another is added to the roll,—less exalted than Lincoln, less early in immolation than Lovejoy, but, like these two, to be remembered always among those who passed out of life through the gate of sacrifice.

POWERS OF CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT INEQUALITY, CASTE, AND OLIGARCHY OF THE SKIN.

MR. PRESIDENT,—In the construction of a machine the good mechanic seeks the simplest process, producing the desired result with the greatest economy of time and force. I know no better rule for Congress on the present occasion. We are mechanics, and the machine we are constructing has for its object the conservation of Equal Rights. Surely, if we are wise, we shall seek the simplest process, producing the desired result with the greatest economy of time and force. How widely Senators are departing from this rule will appear before I have done.

Rarely have I entered upon any debate in this Chamber with a sense of sadness so heavy as oppresses me at this moment. It was sad enough to meet the champions of Slavery, as in other days they openly vindicated the monstrous pretension and claimed for it the safeguard of the Constitution, insisting that Slavery was national and Freedom sectional. But this was not so sad as now, after a bloody war with Slavery, and its defeat on the battle-field, to meet the champions of a kindred pretension, for which they claim the safeguard of the Constitution, insisting also, as in the case of Slavery, upon State Rights. The familiar vindication of Slavery in those early debates was less sickening than the vindication now of the intolerable pretension, that a State, constituting part of the Nation, and calling itself “Republican,” is entitled to shut out any citizen from participation in government simply on account of race or color. To denominate such pretension as intolerable expresses very inadequately the extent of its absurdity, and the utterness of its repugnance to all good principles, whether of reason, morals, or government.

I make no question with individual Senators; I make no personal allusion; but I meet the odious imposture, as I met the earlier imposture, with indignation and contempt, naturally excited by anything unworthy of this Chamber and unworthy of the Republic. How it can enter here and find Senators willing to assume the stigma of its championship is more than I can comprehend. Nobody ever vindicated Slavery, who did not lay up a store of regret for himself and his children; and permit me to say now, nobody can vindicate Inequality and Caste, whether civil or political, the direct offspring of Slavery, as intrenched in the Constitution, beyond the reach of national prohibition, without laying up a similar store of regret. Death may happily come to remove the champion from the judgment of the world; but History will make its faithful record, to be read with sorrow hereafter. Do not complain, if I speak strongly. The occasion requires it. I seek to save the Senate from participation in an irrational and degrading pretension.

Others may be cool and indifferent; but I have warred with Slavery too long, in all its different forms, not to be aroused when this old enemy shows its head under an alias. Once it was Slavery; now it is Caste; and the same excuse is assigned now as then. In the name of State Rights, Slavery, with all its brood of wrong, was upheld; and now, in the name of State Rights, Caste, fruitful also in wrong, is upheld. The old champions reappear under other names and from other States, each crying out, that, under the National Constitution, notwithstanding even its supplementary Amendments, a State may, if it pleases, deny political rights on account of race or color, and thus establish that vilest institution, a Caste and an Oligarchy of the Skin.

This perversity, which to careless observation seems so incomprehensible, is easily understood, when it is considered that the present generation grew up under an interpretation of the National Constitution supplied by the upholders of Slavery. State Rights were exalted and the Nation was humbled, because in this way Slavery might be protected. Anything for Slavery was constitutional. Such was the lesson we were taught. How often I have heard it! How often it has sounded through this Chamber, and been proclaimed in speech and law! Under its influence the Right of Petition was denied, the atrocious Fugitive Slave Bill was enacted, and the claim was advanced that Slavery travelled with the flag of the Republic. Vain are all our victories, if this terrible rule is not reversed, so that State Rights shall yield to Human Rights, and the Nation be exalted as the bulwark of all. This will be the crowning victory of the war. Beyond all question, the true rule under the National Constitution, especially since its additional Amendments, is, that anything for Human Rights is constitutional. Yes, Sir; against the old rule, Anything for Slavery, I put the new rule, Anything for Human Rights.

Sir, I do not declare this rule hastily, and I know the presence in which I speak. I am surrounded by lawyers, and now I challenge any one or all to this debate. I invoke the discussion. On an occasion less important, Mr. Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, after saying that he came not “with the statute-book doubled down in dog’s-ears to defend the cause of Liberty,” that he relied on “a general principle, a constitutional principle,” exclaimed: “It is a ground on which I stand firm, on which I dare meet any man.”[42] In the same spirit I would speak now. No learning in books, no skill acquired in courts, no sharpness of forensic dialectics, no cunning in splitting hairs can impair the vigor of the constitutional principle which I announce. Whatever you enact for Human Rights is constitutional. There can be no State Rights against Human Rights; and this is the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

A State exercises its proper function, when, within its own jurisdiction, it administers local law, watches local interests, promotes local charities, and by local knowledge brings the guardianship of Government to the home of the citizen. Such is the proper function of the State, by which we are saved from that centralization elsewhere so absorbing. But a State transcends its proper function, when it interferes with those Equal Rights, whether civil or political, which by the Declaration of Independence and repeated texts of the National Constitution are under the safeguard of the Nation. The State is local in character, and not universal. Whatever is justly local belongs to its cognizance; whatever is universal belongs to the Nation. But what can be more universal than the Rights of Man? They are for “all men,”—not for all white men, but for all men. Such they have been declared by our fathers, and this axiom of Liberty nobody can dispute.

Listening to the champions of Caste and Oligarchy under the National Constitution, and perusing their writings, I think I understand the position they take. With as much calmness as I can command, I note what they have to say in speech and in print. I know it all. I do not err, when I say that this whole terrible and ignominious pretension is traced to direct and barefaced perversion of the National Constitution. Search history, study constitutions, examine laws, and you will find no perversion more thoroughly revolting. By the National Constitution it is provided, that “the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature,”—thus seeming to refer the primary determination of what are called “qualifications” to the States; and this is reinforced by the further provision, that “the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.” This is all On these simple texts, conferring plain and intelligible powers, the champions insist that “color” may be made a “qualification,” and that under the guise of “regulations” citizens whose only offence is a skin not colored like our own may be shut out from political rights,—and that in this way a monopoly of rights, being at once a Caste and an Oligarchy of the Skin, is placed under the safeguard of the National Constitution. Such is the case of the champions; this is their stock-in-trade. With all their learning, all their subtlety, all their sharpness, this is what they have to say in behalf of an infamous pretension under the National Constitution. Everything from them begins and ends in a perversion of two words,—“qualifications” and “regulations.”

Now to this perversion I oppose point-blank denial. These two words are not justly susceptible of any such signification, especially in a National Constitution, which is to be interpreted always so that Human Rights shall not suffer. I do not stop now for dictionaries. The case is too plain. A “qualification” is something that can be acquired. A man is familiarly said to “qualify” for an office. Nothing can be a “qualification” which is not in its nature attainable,—as residence, property, education, or character, each of which is within the possible reach of well-directed effort. Color cannot be a “qualification.” If the prescribed “qualification” were color of the hair or color of the eyes, all would see its absurdity; but it is none the less absurd, when it is color of the skin. Here is an unchangeable condition, impressed by Providence. Are we not reminded that the leopard cannot change his spots, or the Ethiopian his skin? These are two examples of enduring conditions. Color is a quality from Nature. But a “quality” is very different from a “qualification.” A quality inherent in man and part of himself can never be a “qualification” in the sense of the National Constitution. On other occasions I have cited authorities,[43] and shown how this attempt to foist into the National Constitution a pernicious meaning is in defiance of all approved definition, as it is plainly repugnant to reason, justice, and common sense.

The same judgment must be pronounced on the attempt to found this outrage upon the power to make “regulations,”—as if this word had not a limited signification which renders such a pretension impossible. “Regulations” are nothing but rules applicable to a given matter; they concern the manner in which a business shall be conducted, and, when used with regard to elections, are applicable to what may be called incidents, in contradistinction to the principal, which is nothing less than the right to vote. A power to regulate is not a power to destroy or to disfranchise. In an evil hour Human Rights may be struck down, but it cannot be merely by “regulations.” The pretension that under such authority this great wrong may be done is another illustration of that extravagance which the champions do not shrink from avowing.

The whole structure of Caste and Oligarchy, as founded on two words, may be dismissed. It is hard even to think of it without impatience, to speak of it without denouncing it as unworthy of human head or human heart. There are honorable Senators who shrink from any direct argument on these two words, and, wrapping themselves in pleonastic phrase, content themselves with the general assertion, that power over suffrage belongs to the States. But they cannot maintain this conclusion without founding on these two words,—insisting that color may be a “qualification,” and that under the narrow power to make “regulations” a race may be broadly disfranchised. To this wretched pretension are they driven. And now, if there be any such within the sound of my voice, I ask the question directly,—Can “color,” whether of hair, eyes, or skin, be a “qualification” under our National Constitution? under the pretence of making “regulations” of elections, can a race be disfranchised? With all the power derived from both these words, can any State undertake to establish a Caste and organize an Oligarchy of the Skin? To put these questions is to answer them.

Such is the case as presented by the champions. But looking at the National Constitution, we shall be astonished still more at this pretension. On other occasions I have gone over the whole case of Human Rights vs. State Rights under the National Constitution. For the present I content myself with allusions only to the principal points.

It is under the National Constitution that the champions set up their pretension; therefore to the National Constitution I go. And I begin by appealing to the letter, which from beginning to end does not contain one word recognizing “color.” Its letter is blameless; and its spirit is not less so. Surely a power to disfranchise for color must find some sanction in the Constitution. There must be some word of clear intent under which this terrible prerogative can be exercised. This conclusion of reason is reinforced by the positive text of our Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, where it is expressly announced that all men are equal in rights, and that just government stands only on the consent of the governed. In the face of the National Constitution, interpreted, first by itself, and then by the Declaration of Independence, how can this pretension prevail?

But there are positive texts of the National Constitution, refulgent as the Capitol itself, which forbid it with sovereign, irresistible power, and invest Congress with all needful authority to maintain the prohibition.

There is that key-stone clause, by which it is expressly declared that “the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government”; and Congress is empowered to enforce this guaranty. The definition of a republican government was solemnly announced by our fathers, first, in that great battle-cry which preceded the Revolution, “Taxation without representation is tyranny,” and, secondly, in the great Declaration at the birth of the Republic, that all men are equal in rights, and that just government stands only on the consent of the governed. A Republic is where taxation and representation go hand in hand, where all are equal in rights, and no man is excluded from participation in the government. Such is the definition of a republican government, which it is the duty of Congress to maintain. Here is a bountiful source of power, which cannot be called in question. In the execution of the guaranty Congress may—nay, must—require that there shall be no Inequality, Caste, or Oligarchy of the Skin.

I know well the arguments of the champions. They insist that the definition of a Republican Government is to be found in the State Constitutions at the adoption of the National Constitution; and as all these, except Massachusetts, recognized Slavery, they find that the denial of Human Rights is republican. But the champions forget that Slavery was regarded as a temporary exception,—that the slave, who was not represented, was not taxed,—that he was not part of the “body-politic,”—that the difference at that time was not between white and black, but between slave and freeman, precisely as in the days of Magna Charta,—that in most of the States all freemen, without distinction of color, were citizens,—and that, according to the history of the times, there was no State which ventured to announce in its Constitution a discrimination founded on color, except Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina,—this last the persevering enemy of republican government for successive generations; so that, if we look at the State Constitutions, we find that they also testify to the true definition.

There are words of authority which the champions forget also. They forget Magna Charta, that great title-deed called “the most august diploma and sacred anchor of English liberties,” where, after declaring that “there shall be but one measure throughout the realm,”[44] it is announced in memorable words, that “no freeman shall be disseized of his freehold or liberties but by legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land,”[45] meaning, of course, the law of the whole land, in contradistinction to any local law. The words with which this great guaranty begin still resound: Nullus liber homo, “No freeman,” shall be denied the liberties which belong to freemen.

The champions also forget that “The Federalist,” in commending the Constitution, at the time of its adoption, insisted, that, if the slaves became free, they would be entitled to representation. I have quoted the potent words before,[46] and now I quote them again:—

The champions also forget, that, in the debates on the ratification of the National Constitution, it was charged by its opponents, and admitted by its friends, that Congress was empowered to correct any inequality of suffrage. I content myself with quoting the weighty words of Madison in the Virginia Convention:—

The champions also forget that Chief Justice Taney, in that very Dred Scott decision where it was ruled that a person of African descent could not be a citizen of the United States, admitted, that, if he were once a citizen, that is, if he were once admitted to be a component part of the body-politic, he would be entitled to the equal privileges of citizenship. Here are some of his emphatic words:—

Thus from every authority, early and late,—from Magna Charta, wrung out of King John at Runnymede,—from Hamilton, writing in “The Federalist,”—from Madison, speaking in the Convention at Richmond,—from Taney, presiding in the Supreme Court of the United States,—is there one harmonious testimony to the equal rights of citizenship.

If in the original text of the Constitution there could be any doubt, it was all relieved by the Amendment abolishing Slavery and empowering Congress to enforce this provision. Already Congress, in the exercise of this power, has passed a Civil Rights Act. It only remains that it should now pass a Political Rights Act, which, like the former, shall help consummate the abolition of Slavery. According to a familiar rule of interpretation, expounded by Chief Justice Marshall in his most masterly judgment, Congress, when intrusted with any power, is at liberty to select the “means” for its execution.[50] The Civil Rights Act came under the head of “means” selected by Congress, and a Political Rights Act will have the same authority. You may as well deny the constitutionality of the one as of the other.

The Amendment abolishing Slavery has been reinforced by another, known as Article XIV., which declares peremptorily that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” and again Congress is empowered to enforce this provision. What can be broader? Colored persons are citizens of the United States, and no State can abridge their privileges or immunities. It is a mockery to say, that, under these explicit words, Congress is powerless to forbid any discrimination of color at the ballot-box. Why, then, were they inscribed in the Constitution? To what end? There they stand, supplying additional and supernumerary power, ample for safeguard against Caste or Oligarchy of the Skin, no matter how strongly sanctioned by any State Government.

But the champions, anxious for State Rights against Human Rights, strive to parry this positive text, by insisting, that, in another provision of this same Amendment, the power over the right to vote is conceded to the States. Mark, now, the audacity and fragility of this pretext. It is true, that, “when the right to vote … is denied to any of the male inhabitants of a State, … or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime,” the basis of representation is reduced in corresponding proportion. Such is the penalty imposed by the Constitution on a State which denies the right to vote, except in a specific case. But this penalty on the State does not in any way, by the most distant implication, impair the plenary powers of Congress to enforce the guaranty of a republican government, the abolition of Slavery, and that final clause guarding the rights of citizens,—three specific powers which are left undisturbed, unless the old spirit of Slavery is once more revived, and Congress is compelled again to wear those degrading chains which for so long a time rendered it powerless for Human Rights.

The pretension, that the powers of Congress, derived from the Constitution and its supplementary texts, were all foreclosed, and that the definition of a republican government was dishonored, merely by the indirect operation of the clause imposing a penalty upon a State, is the last effort of the champions. They are driven to the assumption, that all these beneficent powers have been taken away by indirection, and that a provision evidently temporary and limited can have this overwhelming consequence. They set up a technical rule of law, “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” It is impossible to see the application of this technicality. Because the basis of representation is reduced in proportion to any denial of the right to vote, therefore, it is argued, the denial of the right to vote is placed beyond the reach of Congress, notwithstanding all its plenary powers from so many sources. It is enough to say of this conclusion, that it is as strong as anything founded on the “argal” of the grave-digger in “Hamlet.” Really, Sir, it is too bad that so great a cause should be treated with such levity.

Mr. President, I make haste to the conclusion. Unwilling to protract this debate, I open the question in glimpses only. Even in this imperfect way, it is clearly seen, first, that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the National Constitution to sustain the pretension of Caste or Oligarchy of the Skin, as set up by certain States,—and, secondly, that there is in the National Constitution a succession and reduplication of powers investing Congress with ample authority to repress any such pretension. In this conclusion, I raise no question on the power of States to regulate the suffrage; I do not ask Congress to undertake any such regulation. I simply propose, that, under the pretence of regulating the suffrage, States shall not exercise a prerogative hostile to Human Rights, without any authority under the National Constitution, and in defiance of its positive texts.

I am now brought directly to the proposed Amendment of the Constitution. Of course, the question stares us in the face, Why amend what is already sufficient? Why erect a supernumerary column?

So far as I know, two reasons are assigned. The first is, that the power of Congress is doubtful. It is natural that those who do not sympathize strongly with the Equal Rights of All should doubt. Men ordinarily find in the Constitution what is in themselves; so that the Constitution in its meaning is little more than a reflection of their own inner nature. As I am unable to find any ground of doubt, in substance or even in shadow, I shrink from a proposition which assumes that there is doubt. To my mind the power is too clear for question. As well question the obligation of Congress to guaranty a republican form of government, or the abolition of Slavery, or the prohibition upon States to interfere with the rights and privileges of citizenship, each of which is beyond question.

Another reason assigned for a Constitutional Amendment is, its permanent character in comparison with an Act of Congress, which may be repealed. On this head I have no anxiety. Let this beneficent prohibition once find place in our statute-book, and it will be lasting as the National Constitution itself, to which it will be only a legitimate corollary. In harmony with the Declaration of Independence, and in harmony with the National Constitution, it will become of equal significance, and no profane hand will touch its sacred text. It will never be repealed. The elective franchise, once recognized, can never be denied,—once conferred, can never be resumed. The rule of Equal Rights, once applied by Congress under the National Constitution, will be a permanent institution as long as the Republic endures; for it will be a vital part of that Republican Government to which the nation is pledged.

Dismissing the reasons for the Amendment, I turn to those which make us hesitate. There are two. The Amendment admits, that, under the National Constitution as it is, with its recent additions, a Caste and an Oligarchy of the Skin may be set up by a State without any check from Congress; that these ignoble forms of inequality are consistent with republican government; and that the right to vote is not an existing privilege and immunity of citizenship. All this is plainly admitted by the proposed Amendment,—thus despoiling Congress of beneficent powers, and emasculating the National Constitution itself. It is only with infinite reluctance that I consent to any such admission, which, in the endeavor to satisfy ungenerous scruples, weakens all those texts which are so important for Human Rights.

The hesitation to present the Amendment is increased, when we consider the difficulties in the way of its ratification. I am no arithmetician, but I understand that nobody has yet been able to enumerate the States whose votes can be counted on to assure its ratification within any reasonable time. Meanwhile this great question, which cannot brook delay, which for the sake of peace and to complete Reconstruction should be settled at once, is handed over to prolonged controversy in the States. I need not depict the evils which must ensue. A State will become for the time a political caldron, into which will be dropped all the poisoned ingredients of prejudice and hate, while a powerful political party, chanting, like the Witches in “Macbeth,”