ERRATA.
Matter Omitted in the Newspaper Reports, Pages 187, 188, &c.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, December 12, 1865.[Morning Session]
STATE DEBT SINKING FUND.
Mr. BRANHAM called up the Special Order, viz: the consideration of the Joint Committee's State Debt Sinking Fund bill [H. R.No. 285,] the question being on the third reading.
Mr. LASSELLE gave reasons why he should oppose the bill. He avoided the political questions affecting the case, except that he felt it due to himself and his constituents to state, that they'were infavor of subjecting United States Boards to taxation. All laws for exemptions from taxation were cumulative and unjust. It was right that property held by the sovereign should not be taxed, but beyond that the burdens of taxation should rest equally upon all. Property and people should pay taxes without discriminations. But since Chief Justice Marshall and the Supreme Court of the United States has decided adversely, for exemption of United States Bonds, it became a public duty to abide by that decision. He held, however, that Congress has the power to subject these bonds of the United States to taxation. Congress might legislate even to the extent of impairing contracts and vested rights. The only question was, as to the right and equity of the proposition, The principle was well settled, that each Congress was sovereign in this regard - unrestricted by the acts of any other Congress. Almost every Congress was passing laws repealing and otherwise affecting and modfying former acts of Congress. - But his purpose was not to discuss this whole question. He desired here simply to define his and his people's position on this question. The first question was, whether these debts are due. It was conceded that they are not. It was alleged that the State is pledged to a levy of twenty five cents on the hundred dollars, and a seventy five cents poll tax, till the old debt shall be paid, principal and interest. But this was an error. This obligation had not rested on the people of the State since the first day of January, 1853: to which point he read the statutes of 1846 and 1847. And he showed that the clauses of the act relied on by the Governor when he alleged that the faith of the State was pledged for this tax respected only the payment of two per cent, on the principal from the first of January, 1847, to the first of January, 1853. Thus he settled this matter of the State's plighted faith for the payment of the old debt. - The next question was, since there is no plighted faith in this direction, Is it expedient to tax for these debts now? He thought not, especially because of the disproportion that had now to be paid by the farming interests of the State. Taxation was always heavy enough on this largest class of the people. What Should our farmers be compelled to pay three per cent, tax for the right of living in the State? Was this the protection which the Legislature owes the people? Neither our honor required it, nor was it defensible on the ground of expediency. The chief matter to look to here was this: That the bonds be paid at maturity, principal and interest, as their face requires; and that the burdens of taxation rest equally upon all. Heavy taxation would reduce the ability of the people to pay, and discourage emigation. - As to the charge of repudiation, he regarded the bill itself as tending to repudiation. It did not propose to pay the old interest - interest on bonds of which we have not paid a cent for twenty five years - For these and other reasons he was opposed to the bill.
Mr. RHOADS. The gist of the opposition to the bill was this: The allegation that there are held in the State an hundred thousand dollars worth of United States bonds and securities which are not taxed. Admitting this, and that all these are not taxable, was this a sufficient reason that we should not tax for the State debt? The gentleman from Cass [Mr. Lasselle] has asserted, that Congress could legislate in contravention of rights. He controverted the doctrine. There were vested rigts here which no legislation could impair.
Mr. LASSELLE. Had not Congress powder to pass any law it pleases?
Mr. RHOADS. The rights of the holders of these bonds having vested, they can not be divested.
Mr. DUNHAM. Had not Congrees page: 276[View Page 276] always exercised the power to pass laws impairing contracts?
Mr. RHOADS. Congress had claimed the power to pass a bankrupt law. But it had been conceded on this floor that Congress had not the power to divest the rights in question here. With reference to the pending bill, he said: Legally speaking, it might be true that these deb s were not due, and would not be but at the pleasure of the State: but these debts might as well be due, for sooner or later taxation would have to pay them.
Mr. BROWN. Why not, before maturity, take up the State's bonds at their market value? Was not that the practice of other States?
Mr. RHOADS admitted it, and he was sorry to say it; because, such a thing was not creditable either in States or individuals. He was in favor of the bill, because it would pay the Stat 's debts. It was not necessary to show that the issuance of these government bonds was a necessary act; and that they had saved money to the government and materially aided in the support and confirmation of our free institutions. It was admitted that these boncis were not taxable; but he could not take this for a reason that we should not pay the public debts according to our ability. And he shswed by figures the ability of the people to pay the tax proposed in the bill, which will pay the State bonds, and save millions that would otherwise be paid in interest.
Mr. DUNHAM. This bill provides for the war loan bonds first. He understood that a large portion of those bonds were sold in the first place at a discount. He desired the gentleman from Jefferson [Mr. Branham] to state whether this was not the font.
Mr. BRANHAM stated some of the considerations that governed the Committee. The bill was the mind of the Committee. Debate foere had not looked into this question properly. What was our duty? and what our interest? These go together. The history of this debt would convince any gentleman than it was our duty to provide now for principal and interest. If we did not make such an agreement it is not in the power of language to express an agreement. He said every dollar of tbis principal and interest was due and payable whenever the State should be able to pay after twenty years. Now what was to our interest in this question? He contended that it was especially to our interest to pay this debt now. It was policy not to contract debts in flush times, but to pay them, The complaint of gentlemen about exemptionsfrom taxation was for ulterior objects. The people of Indiana were never more prosperous - more free from debt - than they are now, and they never held more money in their hands than they have at the present time, Now, then, was the time to pay debts. One provision of the bill was to levy fifteen cents, another bill levied ten cents, and the school levy, sixteen cents, make forty-one cents, instead of eighty-one cents, as for the past year. The State of Ohio levied seventy-five cents to save her credit. One of the elements of prosperity was to use money so as to make it produetive of the most advantageous results. As to the Sinking Fund, while the law shows you shall have seven per cent., the figures show the receipt of less than five per cent, on the amount. The reason was, that so much of the money was idle, unemployed. He rejoiced that all these theories of sinking funds were about to be exploded; and that debtor and creditor were hereafter to be brought as near together as possible. The best custodian of the public money was the people themselves. He showed that expenses attendant on the loaning of this Sinking Fund made it cost, instead of seven per cent, about nine per cent, to the borrower. The effect of this financial policy was to keep away from us the intelligent investment of capital.
He then referred to the diversion of the State debt levy in 1861. It was not possible for mortal man to contemplate the damage that would result from a breach of the plisfhted faith of the State.
Mr. BROWN. Why had the gentleman changed his position since he introduced his bill No. 191 of last session?
Mr. BRANHAM. That bill contemplated the adjustment of the entire amount of the State debt. He showed that in the close of the Buchanan Administration the government bonds were sold at a discount of one per cent a mouth. It was a part of the destructive policy of the rebellion to destroy the physical, the financial energies of the government: and it became absolutely necessary for Indiana, in 1861, to step into the breach - to come up with all her resources to the support of the government. He then referred to the old loan of the school fund for the ordinary expenses of the State till - it amounted to $700,000, - and legislation in that connection. The ordinary expenses of the State had reached now about $700,000 annuallybesides extraordinary expenses. The State's bondholders really vrould have had no right to complain if we had not paid them one dollar of interest since 1861, when we were called upon to make heavy extraordinary .appropriations on account of self preservation. Self preservation was the first law of nature. By this bill, as fast as you puy off any part of the debt it goes out of existence. By it we shall pay $500,000 of the principal the first year, and pay off the entire indebtedness of the State in about ten years; and if the $2,000,000 of the Sinking Fund were to be made available, the entire debt would be paid in six years Why not wipe it out then - pursue a page: 277[View Page 277]that will invite emigration and the investment of capital amongst us. He deprecated repudiation, - would not exchange the State's honor for political capital. He replied to Mr. Brown's objection to the 4th section of the bill in relation to a discrepancy between the certificates of the State's Auditor and his pro rata share. If a man wants to cut up his certificate he comes with the original to the State's officers. If that gentleman would introduce a bill to obviate his objection, he would vote for it. The simplest way for the accomplishment of the object was that proposed in this bill.
Mr. BROWN submitted his proposition to buy up the bonds at a discount.
Mr. BRANHAM. It would damage the credit of the State far more than what might be gained in that way. If we could but accomplish the object ef this bill he would be satisfied. It was a matter of profound solicitude with him. And with regard to the course pursued by the opposition to the bill here, he suggested that the position of gentlemen in this great struggle against the rebellion, made all their investments for political capital against this bill of a rather doubtful character.When he had concluded, he demanded - see p. 187.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, December 12, 1865.[Afternoon Session.]
(Omitted in the Newspaper Report, p. 188.)
STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
Pending the consideration of the substitute for Mr, Buskirk's Agricultural College bill [H. R. No. 0] reported by the majority of the Select Committee thereon, accepting the donation tendered by the people of Monroe county of the Geological and Mineralogical Cabinet of the late Dr. Owen, and the "Dunn Farm" near Bloomington, and making the Agricultural College a Department of the Indiana University: -
And Mr. Milroy's report from a minority of said Committee for the acceptance of the Lands, buildings, &c.. of the Stockwell School, and $10,000 proposed to be donated for the location of said College at Stockwell, by the people of the county of Tippecanoe: -
And Mr. Sim's motion to amend the amendment by striking out and inserting acceptance of the proposed donation ufi $100,000 for the location of said College at Richmond, in Wayne county: -
Mr. BUSKIRK said: This subject had attracted general attention. It had been investigated by two committees at the last session, and a select committee at this session. The latter committee had reported for its location at Bloomington in connection with the State University. He supposed that the consideration which influenced the committee in the location was its connection with the Indiana University, with which was connected an interest worth $200,000 belonging to the State. He referred to the proposed donations of the geological and mineralogical cabinet of the late Dr. David Dale Owen, worth $75,000, but which the heirs were willing to sell to the State for $25,000: and that of the farm - the Dunn farm, laying right alongside of Bloomington - worth $25,000; making a total money inducement of full $300,000. He reasoned to show that the College would be strengthened by its connection with the Indiana University; and he was in favor of making the location now. There were only eighteen months remaining of the five years limitation in which time this College must be in operation. Locate now, and transfer the land serip to the Trustees, and let them hold till it will command a more desirable price, that will be sufficient to permanently endow an Institution that shall be a perpetual credit and boast and ornament of the State. Located elsewhere, not in connection with the State University and the Monroe donations, and it would require large appropriations from the Treasury to set it up and keep it in working order till the Congressional endowment could be realised.
Mr. GREGORY, of Warren, submitted that Mr, Sim's amendment was in the 2nd degree - the minority report being an amendment to the amendment.
Mr. MILLER spoke to the question of location, and the importance of a judicious and wise location. His opinion was decidedly favorable to Tippecanoe county. He supposed that the proposition from the Battleground was withdrawn, but whether at the Battleground or at Stockwell, the Tippecanoe donation would be forthcoming in good faith not in mineralogical Cabinets at fictitious prices. Bloomington could no sooner buy that Cabinet than the people of Tippecanoe county, that was brought up here for effect: and that is the reason why Agricultural Colleges fail none of them have had this Owen Cabinet! Then they have Professors in Bloomington! The Indiana University had been established since 1822, and in all that time they had established no Chair of Agriculture. None of its professors knew how to run a plow, nor they ever would. Then the Bloomington University had scarcely more students than they had at Slockwell, or even at the Battleground; whilst tuition was free at Bloomington, and students had to pay at Stockwell and at the Battleground: and this was evidence to his mind that Bloomington was not an eligible and acceptable location. There were the same facilities of Teachers and Buildings at Stockwell as at Bloomington. He wanted a division of the question - the last question, would be on striking out Bloomington.
page: 278[View Page 278]Mr. SIM said there were many eligible sites for this college. He spoke of a little school at Richmond having about as many students as there were at Bloomington, Battleground and Stockwell all put together; and the people of Wayne county would donate $100,000 in money toward the location in that county.
Mr. GREGORY, of Warren, gave the reasons for his preference of the location of the Agricultural College at the Battleground. It was not the object of Congress that this College should be tacked upon any other institution. The University at Bloomington had not prospered as other schools in the State that bad been founded without the aid and fostering of the State., He was in favor of Richmond before Bloomington, as a location for eligibility. But the Battleground was the only Historical Battleground in the State - and he hoped there never would be another - but it was a proud memory, and would be worthily perpetuated by the location there of this great State Institution. He predicted that, if this College were located at Bloomington it would be about the last we would hear of the State Agricultural College: for it would be merged into the Indina University.
Mr. BUSWELL was on the Special Committee. There were other points in the State which he might have preferred so far as location is concerned, as the Battleground or Stockwell. But he came to prefer Bloomington for the location, because it was the place of the Indiana University, which it was the duty of the State to foster. We were behind other Slates in State institutions of learning. We could not compete with the far younger State of Michigan in this regard. He referred to the expensiveness of building, which would be incurred immediately ifthe location were fixed at any other point than Bloomington. He considered the comparative advantages of all the proposed locations, and gave his decision for Bloomington - leaving wholly out of consideration that invaluable Owen Cabinet. - and replied to objections. He scouted the comparison that had been instituted between these high schools of Tippecanoe and Wayue and the Indiana University.
Mr. COX urged nothing against other locations: but Wayne countty was the foremost agricultural county in the State. It was also a county of enterprising mechanics. The farmers of Wayne county had proposed a donation of $100,000, by which a college could be built up right from the foundation. He submitted that this wouln be far wiser and better than to undertake to patch up old buildings. He thought a little hard of the slight which Wayne county suffered last winter, in the fact that the Select Committees on location did not visit that locality.
Mr. PETTIT (Mr. Hamrick in the Chair) thought it best to postpone the consideration of this bill till to-morrow, when we might have it printed. He spoke of the object of this grant to advance the great interests of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts. And he thought the attachment of the institution to the State University was hardly compatible with the grant. He referred to the munificence of this grant of 306,000 acres of landnot land but land scrip that will locate lands. He read the towns of the grant. This presented his first objection to the bill, which was to the provision that tine State should not sell the scrip, but should put it into the hands of the Trustees. He thought such a transfer by the State impossible under the Act of Congress. He referred to the act of last session creating the Trustees of the Indiana Agricultural College. The bill was merely a modification of the charter of the State University. But it provides that the University Board of Trustees shall select the land.
Mr. BUSKIRK said, it was provided that the Board might appoint a sub-committee of three.
Mr. PETTIT. Better; but still it was expensive - a traveling board of officers at five dollars a day for the period of their employment. The bill contemplates a large amount of freedom to be exercised by these Trustees within the vaults of the State Treasury, if this benefaction was not to achieve to result which the benefaction contemplates, we had better turn our backs upon it. It was to give dignity and respectability and influence to the farm and the sshop. It was to be a perpetual public demonstration that the farm is the place of influence and honor. The object of the governmet here was to stand by these agricultural and mechanical institutions in the several States till tfhey shall be able to walk. And we said when we took this, that we wonld holdl it as a sacred endowment for a school for the advancement of the arts and the largest and most honorable calling of man. But this bill was proposing to marry this Agricultural College to the Indiana University, and put it under the land of those whose pursuits have not informed them as to the great interests of agriculture and the mechanic arts. For such reasons he felt that this special ovder ought to be counted till we could get the printed bill. He moved to print 200 copies of the substitute.
Mr. BROWN. Sailing under a neutral flag, the gentleman had opened his battery on Bloomington. He differed with the gentleman wherein he says this institution should not be connected with the Indiana University. The farmers of the older States were the best educated men in the country, yet the gentleman intimates tthat students page: 279[View Page 279] in agriculture do not want the elements of Science and Literature. He stated the advantages of a connection of these institutions. Mr. B replied also to Mr. Miller's objections to Bloomington and pronounced a eulogy upon the old University, and its faculty, teachers and alumni, and the people of that neighborhood, who were his neighbors. The gentleman from Wabash [Mr. Pettit] was more eloquent than he, but he yielded to no man in heart devotion to the interests proposed to be advanced by the Indiana State Agricultural College. He concurred with Mr. Pettit that this order should be continued till to-morrow, and that we ought to come to our conclusions with deliberations.
Mr. BUSKIRK, without standing for the details of the bill, thought, the first object should be location, and after that the bill could be matured conformably to the location. His friend from Putnam [Mr. Lane] suggested that the question of location be made the special order.
Mr. BOYD preferred that the question of location be decided first. He was astonished to see men considering their own local interests in connection with this location. There was a State institution at Bloomington those charter required an agricultural college department, We had now in this benefaction the means of the endowment of this department of the University. He replied to objections to the Bloomington location. As a member of this Select Committee he had given his attention to this question of location; and he alleged that this College could not be put into effective operation, anywhere else than at Bloomington in the time which remains for this to be done, as one of the conditions of the grant. Then we could go home to our constituents and say to them with reference to this matter: "We have done the work which you sent us to do."
The motion to postpone the further consideration of the bill till to-morrow was then agreed to.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, November 24, 1865.[Morning Session.]
THIRTEENTH ARTICLE.
The House having under consideration the joint resolution [H. R. No. 1] for epunging the XIIIth Article of the State Constitution.
Mr. GRIFFITH said: Gentlemen of the House: - I do not expect in the brief time I may occupy on this question, to present as able arguments as those gentlemen who have preceded me or to interest the House as they have done ; but duty to myself and those I represent, appears to demand that I should claim your attention for a short period.
I premise that I would do nothing looking towards negro equality in a social sense.
I would not take away any prohibition now existing for the excess purpose of inviting negro immigration to the soil of Indiana, for I am fully satisfied that it is to the best interests of both races that the American and African should be separate and distinct if it were possible; but I have come to the conclusion, after mature consideration, that I will not be one of those who, in opposition to the spirit of the Constitution of the United Stales, will proscribe any person, of any nation or people, from settling upon or cultivating the soil, or pursuing the ordinary avocations of life within the confines of this State. I do not now commit myself to the proposition of negro suffrage, for I do not know that it would be for the best interests of either race. I ask nobody's favor or censure for the opinions I hold upon this subject, nordo I care whether their utterance shall render me popular or unpopular.
The mere politician acts and speaks for the present, and is very careful of his popularity. The statesman, looking down calmly through the long vista of the future and endeavoring to master the great questions arising for his consideration, acts for what stems to him to be the prosperity of all who may come after him, regardless ot what may be thought of him by those who surround him. Throwing himself upon the great tide of the future he deports himself only to the well being of all human kind, trusting alone to the subsequent endorsement of all good men, the voice of future history, and to the approbation of the God who created him.
I believe as an abstract question the General Government has done a great deal for the colored race; and upon the other hand, the colored man, the negro, has been of great service to the Government in our recent unhappy but successful struggle in behalf of the unity and stability of this great land of ours; but as governments have the exclusive power and authority to grant and accord political rights to those who are worthy prefer that we move thoughtfully and properly on the question of negro suffrage, that we may never have in the time to come anything to regret from our action on that subject.
I have no desire to leave the friendly and social relations which I may have and enjoy with the white race to heek after that of the colored man. My taste, sir, decides always in favor of the society of the white man and the white woman, even though I run counter to any new doctrine of philosophy of the present hour. But admitting that negro suffrage is not good political economy, I look upon this thirteenth article of our constitution as an unjust and oppressive provision, which should page: 280[View Page 280] be wiped out forever from the organic law of our State. Without being at all inconsistent, I am in favor of the passage of this joint resolution, and upon the great principles of justice, as deduced from those abi ding and unfading landmarks, to-wit, the Sacred Scriptures and the Declaration of Independence. I trust it may receive the approbation of this General Assembly, and also that of the people of this great State.
I have not had time to digest this matter as I should, to appear before you as its advocate, and to supply that deficiency, I will call the attention of this House to some strong points made by the Hon. John B. Howe in the Constitutional Convention.
I cannot put the matter properly before this body without reading to you extracts from his able, lucid and convincing argument as reported in the debates of the constitutional convention.
Here, Mr. Speaker, is the argument made by Mr. Howe, once a candidate for the position of Supreme Judge, and a lawyer and reasoner of eminent ability:
"I lay down these propositions: There are two distinct rights of domicile - social and political, and there are two kinds of political domicile; the first is that possessed by the citizens of a State with all the rights and privileges of a citizen of the United States.
- That of the citizens of a State with all the qualified rights as a citizen of the United States.
- The Constitution of the United States declaring that the citizens of each State shall have all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, refers to social and not political rights.
- This section ought to receive not a strict but a liberal construction.
- The right of political domicile includes the right of social domicile.
- Negroes and mulattoes may acquire political and social rights of domicile in the States of New York and Massachusetts, and may therefore become citizens of those States; and under the Constitution of the United States cannot be debarred of the privilege of entering into any other State in the Union, or of the right of acquiring and holding property there.
- The naturalization laws of the United States confer the light of political domicile as citizens of the United States, and the political capacity of acquiring a domicile in any of the States for all purposes.
- Every citizen of a State is so far a citizen or the United States as to owe; it allegience, and is entitled to its protection, and in this sense every, citizen of a State is a citizen of the United States.
Those are the fundamental principles which I lay down, and which I think cannot be moved either by argument or authority.
First, there are two kinds of domicile; social and political. I believe this admits of no dispute.
The civilians referred to only one kind of domicile in the time of the Roman Empire, when the civil law attained its perfection, because all were citizens without political rights; having merely rights of domicile.
This principle was, that after a man has acquired one domicile he retains it until he has acquired another.
But under our Constitutions there are political as well as social rights, and there are social rights without political rights.
As a matter of course then, there must be two kinds of domicile, for example: A man who immigrates to this State, and has not been here one year, has a social domicile. When be first enters the State, as a citizen of another State, or the United States, the State is bound to protect him in his person, and in his right to hold property, and the State must deal with the citizens of other States as with her own.
That is the nature of social domicile. But when the individual has resided in the State a year, he acquires a political domicile, and the political right of domicile always includes the social right of domicile; although the social right may exist without the political right.
I remark upon the next proposition that there are two kinds of citizenship; there is a citizen of a State with all the rights and privilegea of a citizen of the United States; and then, secondly, there is the right of a citizen of a State, with qualified rights as a citizen of the United States. In proof of this proposition, I refer to the Constitution of the United States, which evidently refers to two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and citizens of each State.
Article 2, section I, requires the President to be a citizen of the United States or native born.
Article 1, section 3. requires every Senator to have been a citizen of the United States for nine years.
Article 4, section 2, uses the term citizens of each State.
These expressions are certainly not convertible.
Each term was used in a different sense from the other.
Section 2,article 4, uses the term citizens of each State, and why?
The Constitution of the United States is an instrument of government, an irrevocable delegation of power, und a solemn league between the original States, binding on those States which have subsequently entered it.
The original States had at the adoption of this league, and ever since, the exclusive right of declaring who might become citizens within their own boundaries, with page: 281[View Page 281] one exception - the right of naturalizing aliens - which was conferred on the General Government.
There are two kinds of citizenship in the United States.
A citizen of a State, in a political sense, has the right of voting for all the officers of that State.
Look at the practice existing in the States of New York and Massachusetts as to negroes and mulattoes.
But they have not the political capacity of becoming citizens of the United State's in a full and complete sense, or citizens of every other State. To a qualified extent, and in a social capacity, they may become citizens of the United States. To a qualified extent, and in a social capacity, they may become citizens of every other State.
It is manifest then that there is, and must be, a distinction between these species of citizenship.
I now pass to the third proposition in reference to tke section declaring that cit izens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens, in the Several States, which is, that this section is entitled to a liberal and not a strict construction.
My proposition is that it has reference to the right of social domicile and not political privileges.
In Sergeant's Constitutional law it is said that Judges Chase and Duval. in a case decided in Maryland in 1797, held thai this section meant that the citizens of all the States should have the peculiar advantage ef acquiring and holding real as well as personal property in each State, and that such property should be protected and secured in like manner with the property of citizens of the State where it is located, and that it secures and protects personal rights. Judge Chase was a very able man. and this opinion is entitled to the greater weight from being delivered so soon after the adoption of the Constitution.
Chief Justice Story says: 'It is obvious that if the citizens of each State were to be deemed aliens to each other, they could not take or hold real estate or other privileges except as other aliens. The intention of this clause was to confer on them a general citizenship, and to communicate all the privileges and immunities which the citizens of the State would be entitled to under like circumstances.'
This section cannot refer to political rights. It manifestly does not mean that a citizen of one State may exercise political rights in every other State.' But within its scope, it is entitled to a liberal construction, because it is a covenant designed for the protection of social rights, all the great objects for which human society is desirable, and is in opposition to the exercise of tyranny and arbitrary power. Moreover by the principles of every system of judicature founded on natural equity, the construction of every grant is most strong against him who grants, and how much greater then when the grant embraces social rights to the constituent part of members ot the same confederacy, and is favorable to civilization and humanity.
The States have no right to put their own construesion on this clause. All the writers on public law sustain this position."
Mr. Speaker, this argument from which I have quoted so liberally is a two-edged sword, cutting both ways.It establishes the right which is contravened by this thirteenth article of the Constitution, that of social domicile, and sets at rest the fears of others, that it may be construed as perpetuating and creating any political right to the negro.
I think, sir, that these propositions are conclusively proven. I think it is proven that the possession of social domicile does not carry with it political domicile, unless afterwards given by the State to which the party may emigrate. I think that a proper construction of that section of the Constitution of the United States, referring to citizenship, is hereby made clear, and settles the fact that there is one kind of citizenship given by that instrument to colored men, and that is what is termed social domicile.
And then, the conclusion evidently follows that the Constitution of Indiana in prescribing that class from coming into the State is in direct conflict with that of the United States guaranteeing right and immunities in one State to citizens of other States.
We find among us a people who are unfortunate enough to be the descendants of those who have been by piracy and cruelty, by rapine and oppression, stolen from their own land and transplanted into ours. Shall we continue that oppression, or shall we, upon the great principles of right and humanity, protect them as we should all humanity, in the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Let us lift them from the degradation under which they labor, as far as we possibly can without doing anything detrimental to the interests of ourselves.
I cannot possibly see how the amendment of the Constitution in that respect will work harm to any one. We have stricken from four millions of people in the South, by the proclamation and the result of war, the shackles of slavery. We have thus done one great act of justice one which will redound as much to the glory and future fame of this great country of ours as any other which we can do in the future. Shall we not follow it up by giving to all men within the confines of our State, those rights which are inherent to all men? Let us not stifle the promptings of an enlarged humanity ; let us not trample in the dust the privileges page: 282[View Page 282] of any; but let us reach the helping hand to every one degraded, and say "Come up higher."
Place yourselves upon the pedestal of an enlightened manhood, and, though you may be under disabilities, assume your natural rights, and until future ages should find out the right, "act well your part, there all the honor lies." Say to the man of every clime, protection of person and property shall be given you, residence and home shall be guaranteed to you, the worship of God according to the behests and promptings of your own conscience shall be youre, the right of labor and possession of property shall not be taken away from you, and that, by the laws of Indiana, you may sit under the shadow of your own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to molest you or make you afraid.
Mr. Speaker, and gentlemen, let us say to the civilized world that we of Indiana subscribe with all our hearts and minds and strength to the fact that God made of one blood all the nations that dwell upon the face of the earth, and those glorious principles that all men are created free and endowed with the inherent rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Let me here modify my expressions on negro suffrage. Let me say, sir, to that man who has stood by the old flag of the Union, who has given his body to mutilation and harm in defense of the integrity and perpetuity of the Government and her free institutions, no matter what his color or condition; whether learned or polite, or ignorant and rude, whether black or white, let me say to him withall my heart, take the ballot and deposit it in behalf of and for the best interests of the country you have fought to sustain. And to him who has bsen endeavoring to tear down this fair fabric which our fathers erected and cemented with their blood, and to those who have in any way given aid and comfort to those who engaged in so diabolical a purpose, be their color and condition what it may, you are unworthy to be entrusted with the custody of so sacred a matter, so great a privilege as that of assisting in ruling and governing this God favored heritage of ours.
I remember, sir, in my youtfy a motto flying at the head of the columns of the papers of our country. It was this:
"Americans, plead for the right of mankindfb? the bondmen as well as the free. Then unshackle the fetters of body and miad, 'neath the shade of your liberty tree."
Let us show to-day that enlightened, patriotic, progressive Indiana pleads now, pleads ever, and with such unanimity and such energy, that such an affirmative response shall come up from Indiana's representatives upon this question, as shall awaken the joyful oclioes of the civilized world.
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, December 5, 1865.[Morning Session.]
NEGRO TESTIMONY.
The bill [S. No. 219] defining who shall! be a competent witness in any court in this State - all persons, without distinction of colorbeing on the second reading: -
Mr. BENNETT said: MR. PRESIDENT - I do not intend to occupy the time of the Senate with a lengthy discussion of this question. The whole question of the rights of the colored man has been so fully discussed in public assemblies, and by the press, that there is scarcely a citizen but has made up his mind on the subject, and surely no Senator is in doubt as to what course he shall pursue. But as I had the honor to introduce a bill on this subject, I desire to place myself on the record ia favor of the passage of this bill, and to give briefly my reasons for so doing. In the first place I do not consider this a political, or at least a party question. I know that it ought not to be. Neither do I consider it simply a negro question. It rises in importance to the dignity of a white man's question, and when stripped of all prejudice it is purely a question of justice or judicial policy. As the discussion of the question will doubtless involve the subject of tbe negro's rights and negro equality. I desire to say that I have no concealments to make on any question of politics or legislation, and am ready to meet the terrible "nigger question" face to face. I believe, sir, that Divine Providence has so ordained human affairs that one race of people may be in many respects the superior of another race. I believe that in intellectual faculties, in moral qualities, in physical energy, and in all the elements that go to make up the man, that noblest work of God, the white race, the noble Anglo-Saxon blood of which we boast our origin, is the superior of the African, the Indian, the Esquimaux, or the Sandwich Islander. God has implanted in the breast of every white man a monitor which tells him of this great truth. Not an Abolitionist in all New England but recognizes this fact. A negro cannot be so elevated, or highly educated and refined, as to obtain the full equality in several matters, in the family of any white man in all this country. Yet all this is no justification to that people who would deprive these inferior races of their God-given rights, or in any way prevent them from attaining to the highest state of civilization and humanity within their power.
While I would avoid the wild fanaticism on the one hand, I would rise above an unwise prejudice on the other. There are two classes of rights that a man may possess - natural rights, or those given by page: 283[View Page 283] the Creator of all men, and conventional rights, or those conferred by men upon grounds of policy. The first class of rights every man should possess in their fullest extent, and as they were given him by the great law of God, no human statute should deprive him of them. These great rights were re-enacted in that other great instrument, second only to holy writ, in the memorable language that "all men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Hence any form of human slavery is wrong. Every man, whatever may be his color, his parentage, or his station, is entitled to the possession of his own body ; his bones, his muscles and his brains are his; and he is secured in their rightful ownership by a title deed which bears the broad seal of God Almighty himself, and he cannot forfeit this right but by the commission of crime. And he who would deprive any man, however humble, of this great boon, is a tyrant and an infractor of the statutes of Heaven. Another natural right which every man possesses, is the right to dwell wheresoever he pleases, and walk the soil, and breathe the air of any country or state on the globe, provided he conforms to the laws of the state or country. Any legislative enactment which restrains any of God's creatures from so residing, is in derogation of the law of God and natural justice. Hence the foul injustice of the principle upon which is based our black laws - that infamous enactment that says to the black man, you shall not come to Indiana to live, because your skin is black and you are inferior to us, although you may have lost an arm at Fort Wagner, or a leg at Fort Fisher, in defense of the Republic, yet says to the rebel soldier who fought to destroy the Government and whose traitorous bands are yet dripping with the blood of our heroes slain, come and live with us, and says to the cowardly skulker who escaped to Canada, to avoid his duty in the hour of danger, come back, we welcome you home. I hope to be able, before this session closes to record my vote for the abrogation of this damnable provision, and thus wipe out the dark disgrace from the fair fame of our noble State. Another one of those natural rights, is the right that every man has to be educated; hence it should be our duty to provide for the education of every human being in our State. I would do all in my power to aid the negro in educating himself as high in the scale of humanity as it is possible for him to do, even if in so doing, he might over-take and pass an occasional white man. I would give him the benefit of our Common School System, by establishing separate schools for him, and allowing him his proportion of the funds. Natural justice demands it, the voice of humanity demands it, the law of nature requires it. Another of these natural rights is the right to acquire property, and to have the same protected by the laws of the land; and to that end, he should have the right to have his contracts frdity enforced. Another of these natural rights is the right to have protection for his life and limbs. Hence all enactments which prevent him from going into our courts and enjoying fully their privileges, are in violation of natural justice, and should, be repealed; hence the necessity of the passage of this bill. Under our present law, a colored man is deprived of all these natural rights. He cannot enforce his contracts, because he cannot testify to them. A white man may impose on him in a thousand ways and there is no redress; he cannot protect himself in life or limb. A white man may commit on him the most aggravated assaults and batteries; may destroy his property; may ravish his wife or daughter, and if no other white man was present, he is without a remedy, because he cannot prove it. I have known, and every Senator here has, doubtless known of such instances. Then, sir, I place it on other grounds - public justice requires the passage of this bill. Without it the blackest crimes go unpunished, and many meritorious white men go without a remedy. A white man may steal, rob, rape and murder, and the victim may be a white person, yet if a thousand negroes saw it, and no white person recognized the culprit, he can walk our streets with impunity. You may wrong me in the worst possible manner, and if no one was present but a negro, I have no remedy. Is it contended that negro testimony is unreliable? If so, let the jury determine that fact. The testimony of a man convicted of felony is, doubtless, unreliable ; yet, we allow the testimony of thieves, murderers, and even perjurers We are willing to let the jury determine the weight of their evidence. Why not let the negro stand on his character before the jury ? Is there danger of a white jury allowing too much credit to attach to the testimony of a negro? We all know that the danger would be the other way. All such arguments are utterly untenable, and I do not expect to hear them urged on this floor. But it may be said that the admission of a negro to testify, would tend to give him political, or social equality with the white man. I regard all such fears as the emanation of a distempered or prejudiced mind. Equality between whites and negroes cannot be so easily effected. If the negro only needs a statute to render him my equal, I say pass the statute at once. I cannot speak for others, but I believe my superiority over a negro to stand upon a firmer basis. I believe that I can concede to him all the rights that I enjoy, and yet be in no danger of the dreaded equality that seems to page: 284[View Page 284] haunt the minds of some people. If ever I equalize with the negro, it will be because I chose to seek his level. Sir, the negro has testified in most of the States, in all, I believe, but this, and I have not heard that he is any nearer a white man than he is here. Even in this State he testifies in the United States courts, and I believe he is a negro still. But I may be told that in case he is allowed to testify, he may then ask to vote and hold office. This does not necessarily follow.
Voting is not a natural right, but is of the other class, or a conventional right. If voting were a natural right, then women should vote, and children too, for they have just as much natural right to vote as men have. We cannot deprive women from testifying, except in cases where they voluntarily render themselves incompetent, nor from holding property, nor from residing where they please, for all these are natural rights, but we can prevent them from voting, because that is a mere conventional right. The negro has no right to demand that we shall confer on him the right to vote or hold office. Some men say that he is entitled to vote because he pays taxes, and argues that taxation and representation should go together. If so, women and children should vote, for many of them pay taxes, yet we do not consider it good policy to allow them to vote. Again it is said that the negro soldier should vote, yet I do not find anybody claiming that the white boy under twenty one should vote, because he has been a soldier. It is true the negro soldier is deserving the thanks of every true patriot in the land for his services; yet he fought more for his own race and his own cause than for us. He fought to break the shackles of millions of his race, and I honor him for it, yet I do not become blind to all this, and work myself into such an admiration for him that I give him credit for the entire salvation of this country, and think he can only be paid by the right to vote in every box he comes to. This kind of fanaticism is just unfounded injustice, as is the prejudice that would deprive him of his natural rights, I do not say I would oppose even negro suffrage, for I would not consider them my equals if he did vote, nor do I think the country would be greatly damaged, but I do say that there is no pressing necessity for it, for it is not a God given right, and the negro can afford to wait, the white man can afford to let him wait, and the country can prosper without his vote. But in the case of negro testimony, I believe justice to the negro, justice to the white man. and justice to the State, requires this bill to become a law.
The further consideration of the subject was postponed and made the special order for this day week.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, December 14, 1865.[Night Session.]
THE STATE DEBT.
The majority of the Special Committed on the subject of the State Debt having reported in favor of the bill S. No. 279, and the minority of said committee reporting in favor of the bill H. R. No. 285, -
Mr. VAWTER said: Mr PRESIDENT: - I propose to give very briefly the reason that will govern the vote which I will give.
I shall vote against concurring in the report of the majority of the Committee. The bill reported by them makes no provision whatever for the payment of the debt. It simply provides for the postponement of the payment thereof for twenty years. I can support no proposition which dees not provide for the accumulation of a fund to discharge the debt.
This debt was created about twenty-five years ago. It was compromised about 20 years ago. It is now proposed - not to pay it, not to make any provision for its payment within any reasonable time - but to postpone it, adding one per cent, to the rate of interest to be paid.
It certainly is no part of wisdom to postpone it. It is not right. We have had the money, we must repay it, and it strikes me that the sooner we commence it the better we will discharge our obligations to the bondholders and preserve our own credit.
Postponement of debt is as a general principle not sound financial policy. I am not one of those who believe that a public debt is a public blessing.
My theory always has been that a State ought to be free, and that no State in debt is a free State in the true sense of the word. I believe that no State ought to create a debt without at the time providing for its payment.
The bill of the majority nowhere makes any provision whatever for the payment of the bonds to be issued under its provisions. The bill reported by the minority does, and therin it differs with the former, and in that particular only is preferable.
Whether the State debt is due on the 19th day of January, 1866, can make no difference with the proposition - that under the Butler bill it was contemplated that the certificates of stock to be issued under that bill should be paid at least by that time. The tax agreed to be levied by that bill would ere this have discharged that debt, and Indiana to-day would have another laurel added to the chaplet that already adorns her brow.
We have our institutions of learning; we have our railroads, our fairs, our newspapers, our schools and our churches; we have our Asylums for the Blind, Deaf and Dumb and Insane. In war as in peace Indiana page: 285[View Page 285] has a record of which she may be proud. We have no stain upon our fair fame until we turn to our financial policy.
The adjustment of 1864 to some extent wiped out the disgrace of not even paying the interest on the debt. Twenty years have passed, and Indiana is still in debt. The principal of the debt not paid. The bill of the minority proposes to make arrangements for its early and speedy settlement. The bill of the majority proposes to postpone it, makes no provision whatever for its payment. The majority bill goes upon the theory that Indiana is not able to pay the debt.
I do not concede the proposition, I believe the State is able to pay. I think it comes in bad faith for Senators and Representatives, after having for twenty years, permitted the solemnly plighted faith of the State to be violated, now to pretend that our people are unable to pay their debt.
I am in favor of no useless taxation, I am in favor of no wasteful expenditure of the people's money. But I say to Senators that the people I represent desire to see the good faith of Indiana preserved. I love Indiana, I love her hills and her valleys; in her soil lie the objects dearest to my heart: Indiana is my home - is the place of my birth. To preserve her honor has ever been my most earnest desire. And permit me to say to Senators, that I will never by any vote of mine, acknowledge that Indiana is still unable to pay her debts, but requires another extension of twenty years unless earnest is given by the creation of a fund for paying it.
If our people have made a bad debt, let us pay it and be done with it. If our people, by the arrangement of 1846, saved millions of dollars, let us set about paying the debt left over against us by that arrangement. Failing for twenty years to comply with our plighted faith, in not levying the taxes provided for by our agreement, let us repair it, as far as is in our power. How our hearts would throb, if we could feel and know that Indiana was out of debt. Proud, indeed, will be the moment when Indiana owes no debt, when not a single bond of Indiana is held by any man outside of the State.
As that moment never will come until prior preparation is made; as that moment never can come until we begin to pay the debt, as that moment will never come un til we carry out the plighted faith of the State, by levying the taxes necessary to pay it, I am in favor of inaugurating the policy that will bring that proud moment soonest. The argument that our people are already burdened with taxation, is a strong one. But, will the bill proposed by the minority overburden the people? Already two-thirds of the amount proposed to be levied by the minority is levied. That bill, in effect, levies only 5 cents on $100.00 additional. The 30 cents taken off by the repeal of the soldier's bill, even if the minority bill is passed, will still leave the actual reduction on the State taxes next year, 25 cents on each $100.00. Therefore the minority bill will not increase the burdens of the people beyond what they are now. Then with a positive assurance that our debt is to be paid - with the certainty that this debt created, about twenty-five years ago, is to be paid off - that there is to be no increase of the debt beyond its present amount - I put the question to Senators - the plain question - which do you prefer, the postponement of the debt, or its gradual and ultimate extinction? If the former, the bill of the majority, as it now stands, will meet your views. If the latter, then the bill of the minority is the only one that provides any funds whatever to promote that object. Economy, I think, is clearly in behalf of the minority bill.
The Senator from Floyd, himself, demonstrates that his plan will cost $11,000 more per year, more than even the present plan - which in the 20 years his bonds are to run, will make the sum of $220,000, more than 50 per cent. of the present indebtedness.
Let me state him correctly. The amount of interest at 1 per cent, additional amounts per annum to $41,000. He estimates the expenses of the Sinking Fund Commissioners at $20,000 per annum, State Agency at $10,000, makiag total, $30,000. But as it costs 1 per cent. more for interest than at present, we must pay $41,000 per annum, deduct $30,000 from the $41,000 and you will find that my first statement is correct.
But, Mr. President, let us look a step further. Every year on the bonds issued under the authority of the bill of the majority, the State will be compelled to pay the sum of $246,000 per annum. This, inthe 20 years which the bonds are to run on their face will amount to the sum of $4,930,000being about the sum of 125per cent.Now it may not be improper to contrast the cost of the bills a little more in detail. The majority bill, will, as I have said, each year cost rtte people of Indiana the sum of $246,000 per annum, interest. The minority bill, the first year will cost the State, as interest, the sum of $205,000 the second year, $169,625, the third year $153-750, the fourth year $128,125, the fifth year, $102,500, the sixth year $66,687, and the seventh and last year, the sum of $856,312. The amount paid as interest under the majority report will be $1,782,000, deduct amount paid under minority bill, $856,312, leaving over payment under majority bill of $875,688, or over 100 per page: 286[View Page 286] cent. But as I have said, the majority bill provides ne funds whatever for the payment of the bonds under it, it is fair to presume that in the future, as in the past, those bonds will run their full time. In the 20 years they have to run, we will pay by the increase of the amount of interest the sum of $820,000 more than we would be compelled to pay at the present rate of interest - being about one-fifth of the entire amount of our debt. I object to the bill of the majority, because its practical effect is to increase the burdens of the people without any adequate cause. I deny the basis upon which it proceeds - the inability of the State to pay.
I do not believe that the payment of $4,930,000 as interest in the 20 years which they have to run is necessary to enable the State to pay the sum of $4,100,000 the amount of our debt being 5 per cent. due to foreign bond-holders.The amount of interest to be paid under the Branham bill before the debt is discharged will be $856,312; making a burden to be discharged by the people of the State of Indiana, of $4,073,788, over and above the amount; that will be paid under the Branham bill.
When Senators attempt to answer thes figures, and say that under the Bradley bill, the debt will be discharged under 2 years - let them please point to me on single provision in that bill which provide a fund to discharge a single cent of those bonds to be issued under the provisions of the Bradley bill. It will not do to say that we will pay it under 20 years. The State said 20 years ago that she would pay her debt in 1866. She has not done it - nor has she provided any means to do so and now it is proposed not to pay, but to postpone it 20 years more. Show me a single State that ever has discharged debt before it was due.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, December 14, 1865.[Night Session.]
NEGRO SCHOOL BILL.
Pending the consideration of the Negro School Bill, H. R. No. 208 -
Mr. WOOD said: MR. SPEAKER: The gentleman from Sullivan seems deeply exercised at the condition of things. I should think from his language that he would like to see Indiana a slave State. He looks on the 13th Article as partially redeeming her character as a free State. I do not follow the gentleman in all his windings, but I will endeavor to notice the general features of his speech. He is, I see, in favor of more effectually enforcing the 13th Article.
The gentleman from Floyd also tells us what he would do if the 13th Article was stricken from the Constitution of our State. I know that those who vote against the rights of the colored man attempt to justify themselves behind the 13th Article, and therefore endeavor to impress us with the idea that nothing should be done to alleviate the condition of that portion of the population of our State. The men who oppose striking out the 13th Article oppose this bill also. Humanity and Christianity say strike out the 13th Article; give the black man the right to testify in Court; let them be recognized as human beings, having the rights which attaches to manhood. Sir, I feel proud to belong to that party which has heard the cry of these people. We have endeavored to strike out the 13th Article, to allow them to testify in Court, and now we propose that the lights of knowledge be given them, and that they shall have the privilege of sharing in the benefits conferred by the common schools of the Slate, and why not ? I can see no good reason why this bill should not pass. We profess to be a Christian people ; we should feel ourselves very much insulted if any one should say we are not. Why is it, sir, that we are willing in our legislation, in our daily intercourse to be reminded of our duty as Christians and as citizens of a Christian commonwealth, and to consider it our duty to be governed by its precepts. Now, we think this all right, and whether we practice it or not, the duty of taking Christianity for our guidance is acknowledged and sustained, I am proud to say, by the popular voice; but there is no rule without an exception. There is one topic, one question, in considering which a party of men considerable in numbers, but thanks to a righteous God and a patriotic people, no longer formidable in power, that will insist in dealing with that question by ignoring the principles of Christianity and the omnipotence of God; that question is slavery, and the condition of the black man, whether free or slave. On this they are atheists. But, sir, they occupy a position which proves their inhumanity, and will prove their weakness and their condemnation. They are the Canutes of this day. They say to the spirit of Liberty, thus far shalt thou go, but no farther; but the tide keeps advancing, washing down all obstructions raised by barbarous inhumanity, and kept alive and nourished by the demon of slavery. Sir, these men have made Indiana as near a slave State as they could. At the bidding of the slave power they closed the door and shut up all avenue of escape to the fugitive from slavery ; It was another link in the fetters of the slave. To our shame be it said, men could be found in the face of God and in the 19th century to refuse strike this infamy from the organic law the State. Like a judgment from Heaven, page: 287[View Page 287] it seems we cannot get rid of it; it will stick to us to shame us and rebuke us for our complicity in a great crime against the laws of God, and an oppressed and helpless people. No, sir, it seems we cannot get rid of this 13th Article. And in what condition does it leave the negro? I have done my duty, but I say to the opposition on this floor, you refuse him the right to live on our soil; he cannot make a contract, he cannot hire a house or a roof to cover him, he cannot buy a little spot of ground, on which to earn bread for his family, he is without a country, without a home; if he attempts to work, you inflict by the laws, you defend fines on the white man who employs him, you refuse him the rights of marriage, the marriage relation is declared void.* You compel him to live in a state of concubinage and declare all his offspring illegitimate; you refuse to allow him to testify in courts has no protection for his property - an outlaw - himself an adulterer, his wife a concubine, and his children bastard - he is as far as you can make him a slave. You who sustain this iniquity are vainly bolstering up the slave power and are part of it. Yes, sir, the slave code of Indiana shames us and confronts us to-day, and while South Carolina and Mississippi are modifying theirs, we find an opposition here determined not only to retain it, but by open avowal approve it. The humanity of the age and the public opinion of the State revolts at it. Christianity condemns it and the voice of the people demand that this foul blot shall be struck for ever from the escutcheon of our noble State, and shall no longer mar the beauty and glory of her history.
We are the representatives of the people. On us the responsibility rests. Shall justice be delayed any longer? Should we not rather say that justice shall be done, and that we may, in a measure, requite some of the wrongs that have been done them? say that they shall be educated: and that they, bearing equally the burdens of the State, and the taxes for the support of common schools, shall have schools established for the education of their children, and then we shall have no longer in our midst a people raised in ignorance, with no hope and no opportunity. And why not? Why deny them? They have been faihful to us in peace, friends in war; and loyal to us in our time of sorest trial and greatest need, they have fought for us have fed our starving prisoners; have assisted in their escape, and, tried to the last, piloted our men from rebel prison pens, and out of those jaws of death and gates of health. Shall we repay their loyalty with ingratitude? their fidelity with insult? No, never!
- *See Seventh Indiana Reports - page 389.
The gentleman from Sullivan speaks of the Fathers of the Republic, and endeavors to support his position by showing that slavery then existed. I know it - but in the sense he will understand them, and as lie would have us view them, it is unjust to their memory, and is not warranted by the facts. In considering slavery and the condition of the slave, they deplored it; he exults over their misfortune. They spoke of the slave with sympathy and respect; he with heartless contempt. They wished some plan adopted to get rid of it; he wishes its everlasting continuance. If I am not right, why did Thomas Jefferson say: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis - a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? that they are not to be violated out with His wrath. Indeed, I tremble for my country, when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; that considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among the probable events; and that it may become probable by supernatural interference. The Almighty has no attribute which can take sides with us in such a contest." Washington said that one of his "first wishes was to see some plan adopted by which slavery could be abolished by Iaw," and thus spoke all the great and good men in the early days of the Republic. And when he brings these men up as witnesses they condemn him. These men or posing us here to-day are instigated by the spirit of slavery, carrying out and obeying the behests of the slave power. If these colored men the right to life they have the right to live here and the right by honest labor to sustain that life here in this State, or anywhere else on earth. We build churches and at these churches give money to send missionaries among cannibals to teach them Christianity and impress on them the beauty of Christian virtues. We teach that for them to live in concubinage is all wrong, and insist that we must educate them, so that they may receive and appreciate the lights of civilization and Christianity. If they knew us here they would rebuke us, and tell us, we were a pretty set to teach them, when in our midst, we had a people to whom we denied tbe right to live on our soil, refused them protection to their own property, declared their marriages void, themselves outlaws, their children illegitimate, anr) every obstacle thrown in their way to preyent, them from acquiring any education. What could we say? Sir, all these oppositions are nothing more nor less than the spirit of slavery speaking through their mediums here on this floor. They think they can make political capital out of this; let them appeal to the people, they will find they hare run their heads against a rock. Sir, I believe, if instead of ratifying, as we did last winter, the Constitutional Amendment abolishing slavery, the Constitution had been so amended as to nationalize slavery, so that we could have had it here all around us, they would shouted glory, hallelujah.
In conclusion I would say petitions have poured in on us asking that the colored population of our State shall have their rights, that they should have the privileges of our common schools, being willing and anxious to be taxed for that purpose, and if not done now, cannot long be deferred, for all history shows that it is not good policy for a State to have in their iniast an ignorant and illiterate people. Give them knowledge; it will make them bettar men and more devoted to the interests of the State.
For us to be great and prosperous, we must be just; and in the language of the lamented Lincoln, it is a "way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud and God will forever bless."
