<^i Ik- Ja Book. Enforcement of Fonrteenth Amendment. SPEECH f„J^^^'": OP lim, HORATIO C. BURCIIARD, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 7, 1871. The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. No. 320) to enforce the provisions of tbo four- teenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other i)urposes — Mr. BURCHARD said ; Mr. C?EAKER : The official investigation made by a committee of the Senate, and published since this Congress convened, has disclosed to us that in portions of the Union secret organ- izations exist, banded together to prevent the free exercise of civil and political rights. Through their agency the lives and persons of political opponents are doomed to violence and outrage and the perpetrators of the crime screened from detection and punishment. Where they have sprung up life is insecure and murder goes unpunished. The victims of their hate, bruised and maimed for life, abandoning home and possessions, are com- pelled to flee in terror to other regions for safety. The civil authorities are unable or unwilling to repress these outrages. Lawless vi^olence and* widespread terrorism prevent the main- tenance of order and interrupt the adminis- tration of impartial justice through the courts. Secret,oath-bound conspiracies deny the equal enjoyment of the inherent rights belonging to citizens of the United States. Assaults, beat- ings, mayhems, and murders are secretly planned and swiftly and surely executed in obedience to their edicts. The existence of such organizations is admitted, the fact is patent, the proof incontrovertible. Their acts attest their character and object ; their oaths reveal their aim and design. Fitly two witnesses were examined by the Senate committee, twenty-nineof them Repub- licans and twenty-three Democrats, amongthe latter six who acknowledge that they had been members of the Ku Klux Klan under its dif- ferent names. No man can read the testi- mony and doubt the existence, origin, unlaw- ful purpose, and unhallowed deeds of these organizations and conspiracies. if any legislation can be devised by means of which it will be possible to restore peace and order to those sections of the country dis- tracted by these terrible outrages, every lover of his country should give the measure his cordial and earnest support, unless greater evils may result from its enactment. I, for one, am willing to exercise the powers we have for the protection of life and public order to the fullest extent. In a matter of doubt I am ready to go to the extreme verge of fair coq- struction that will justify Federal intervention. Before deciding, however, it will be well to examine carefully our constitutional power to act, and the existing legislation touching upon this subject. EXISTING LEGISLATIO.V. The attention of Congress has heretofore been called to these disorders, and in the enforce- ment act of May, 1870, two sections were inserted on the motion of Senator Pool, of North Carolina, designed to repress and punish these acts of lawlessness incited to prevent the enjoyment of constitutional, civil, and political rights. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Shellabar- ger] said in his able argument that a doubt had been expressed whether sections six and seven of that act did not apply, solely to con- spiracies to prevent the enjoyment of the right to vote or hold office, and not to violations of the rights secured by the fourteenth article of amendments. Subsequent sections, however, clearly relate to other civil rights. Those sec- tions not only provide for the punishment of conspiracies formed with intent to violate any provisions of that act, but to those designed to prevent or hinder the free exercise and enjoy- ment of any right or privilege granted or , 7? ^'^ 2 securpd by the Constitution or laws of the Uni- ted States. Language need not be bro'alties, and of the cer- tainty of punishment must come to the com- munity. The statute passed in May, 1870. Was then deemed, and would now seem, ample in its provisions and penalties for the punish- ment and ultimate repression of these crimes. Has there been time to test its sufficiency tor this purpose? Hon. G. W. Brooks, a United States district judge, whose district embraces the whole State of North Carolina, testified before the Senate committee that as yet there had been no cases in the Federal courts involving the questions of these outrages. He says, on page 275 com- mittee's report: "The first cases of that character I have reason to believe will cotue up at a future term of the Fed- eral court. Arrests have been make by order of the United States commissioner, and the parties have been bound over for trial; but the cases are not yet in court. "Quextion. You have as yet had no cases in the Federal courts in North Carolina involving the ques- tion of outraKCS committed by this organization? "Answer. No, sir; not as yet." If trials had occurred and decisions been rendered upon this law, we could better judge what aicendmeiits are necessary or desirable. Yet since its passage these outrages have not been few nor unfrequent. They are still con tinued, and, in view of fresh and repeated atrocities aud the facts submitted ia the Sea- ate report, the President, in a special message, has requested Congress to consider whettier further legislation is necessary and can be devised more effectually to prevent their occur- rence. The select committee of the House to whom this message was referred have pre- sented the bill under consideration as a rem- edy for the evils complained of. They have, however, since the commence- ment of this discussion, yielded to the sugges- tions of friends, so far as to offer amendments to their bill and a substitute for the second section, which, without impairing its efficiency, will, if adopted, bring this legislation clearly within the constitutional powers of Congress and satisfy the scruples of those who might object to l;he original bill. I desire as briefly as possible to examine the provisions of the bill as first reported and as modified by the pending amendments, and to review those sections of the Constitution which justify or are relied upon to sustain congressional legis- lation for the suppression of this violence, and ascertain the extent of power for that purpose conferred upon the General Government, and show that if modified as proposed this bill is no assumption of unwarranted powers. REMEDIES PROPOSED BY THE BILL. The additional legislation proposed by the committee in this bill may substantially and briefly be slated : 1. Afford an injured party redress in the United States courts airainst any person vio- lating his rights as a citizen under claim or color of Stale authority. 2. Punish cotispiracies within the limits of a State to do acts in violation of the rights, privileges, and immunities to which any per- son is entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United Slates, when such acts within its jurisdiction would co-isliluie murder, arson, larceny, or other crimes enumerated in the bill. 3. Authorize the President, without legisla- tive or executive request, to employ the mili- tia andArmy and Navy to aid in suppressing insurrections which obstruct the laws of the State, so as to deprive any portion of citizens of their constitutional rights. 4. Authorize the President to suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus and declare martial law in any district where unlaw- ful combinations are armed and so powerful as to overthrow the authorities, or the latter are in complicity with them, so as to render con- viction of offenders, and preservation of public safety impracticable. Are the remedies proposed for the preven- tion of these wrongs within the scope of Fed- eral jurisdiction? What defects or omissions of Slate legislation or administration for the protection of personal, civil, or political rights can the national Government supply? How and when may its powers be exercised for this purpose ? These questions concern the vital and fundamental principles of our system of **> gnvernineiit. Tiieir (iiiiil decisions may over turn the theory upon wliieh it was originally constituted. True, there is an ultimate tri bunal to |)ass upon the legality of these meas -?■ ures, but the words of many distinguished gentlemen who have spoken upon tliis bill, and above all the legislation indorsed by gen tlemen who took part in framing the amend metita under which authority is claimed, will become guides in construing the extent of the new powers added to the Constitution. Heartily sy in |)athizing with the oi)ject of this bill, I can but dissent from some of the pro- visions and details, and trust they will be mod- ified. To the first section, giving an injured party redress by suit at law in the United States courts in the cases enumerated, I can see no objections. If jurisdiction is now wanting, it should be conferred. The second section of the original bill reads as follows: Seo. 2. That if two or more persons shall, within the limits of any State, band, conspire, or combine together to do any act in violation of the rights, privileges, or immunities of any person, to which he is entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States, which, committed within a place under the sole and e.Yclusive jurisdiction of the United Slates, would, under any law of the United States th'n in force, constitute the crime of either murder, manshi-ughter, mayhem, robbery, assault and battery, perjury, subornation of perjury, crim- inal obstruction of legal process or resistance of officers in discharge of official duty, arson or lar- ceny; and if one or more of the parties to said con- spiracy or combination shall do any act to effect the object thereof, all the parties to or engaged in said conspiracy or combination, whether principals or accessories, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction thereof, sh;Ul be liable to a penalty of not exceeding $10,000. or to imprisonment not exceeding ten years, or both, at the discretion of the court. This sedition has had different interpreta tions. If it intends and must be construed to give the Federal courts jurisdiction to punish combinations or conspiracies to commit mur- der, mayhem, assault and battery within a State, 1 can find in the Constitution no war- rant for the exercise of such authority. If Congress can provide for the punishment of conspiracies to commit murder or arson, it can as well authorize the punishmentof the offenses themselves. J fit has this jurisdiction, a revo lution in the whole theory of our Government has been effected unknown Co the people. It is conceded here, and has been settled by repeated adjudications, that criminal juris- diction to redress invasions of personal rights was not, at least prior to the adoption of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, vested in the General Government. James Madison, expounding to the people of the IJuited States prior to its adoption the powers proposed to be granted to the General Government, said : "The Constitution of the United States divides the sovereignity; the portions surrendered by the States composing the Federal so vereigaty over spe- cified subjects, the p of tions retained forming the sriycreignty of each over tho rcsiidnary ilibjecits wilhin its sphere." — WritinuK of Jumea MnUison, vol. 4. page 61. "The powers delegated by the proposed Consti- tution to the Federal (Sovernmcnt are few and de- fined. Those which are to rciuaiu in the State gov- ernments arc numerous and iniiefinile. The former will bo exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce ; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States Will extend to all the objects which, in the ordin ary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the in- ternal onler, improvomiMit, and prosperity of the State." — Federalist, No. 45. It was in that sense adopted. The Supreme Court of the United States and of many States have given the same construction. Has the criminal jurisdiction of the United States been enlarged, so as to punish for offenses over which, until theadoption of those ametidments, the Stale courts had exclusive jurisdiction? In what ametidment is found this new grant of power? The thirteenth amendment secured to every person in the United States the right of personal liberty, abolished slavery, and un- doubtedly conferred upon Congress power to punish individuals who attempt to exact the involuntary service considered due from a slave to his master or to impose upon a freeman the disabilities that attach to the condition of slavery. Only to this extent is the power of punishing individual offenders enlarged by that amendment. Is such additional power conferred by the fourteenth amendment? If so, it is found in these sections : "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, andsubject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the ! vte wherein they reside. No State shall make or enl ce any law which shall abridge the privileges or im- munities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or prop- erty without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "Sec. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article." The first defines what shall constitute national and State citizenship, and contains three pro- hibitions upon the State against — First. The making or enforcing of any law which shall abridge the privileges or immuni- ties of a citizen of the United States. Second. The deprivation of any person of life, liberty, or property without due process law. Third. The denial of the equal protectiou of the law. How far and in what manner has that sec- tion enlarged either the rights of the citizen or the means of enforcing their protection? CITIZE.VSHIP. The first clause reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United Stales, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where- in they reside." By defining who are citizens of a State and of the United States it only establishes who areentitled to the rights, privileges, and immun- ities that belong to such citizenship. Except as it may have affected State citizenship by a constitutional definition it does not in any man- ner enlarge the privileges of citizens, although it may have increased the number who shall enjoy thera. It gives the same definition that Congress had already given to United States citizenship in the civil rights bill, which also accords with the understanding of the best authors who have discussed the question. Every person in the United States is a citizen or an alien. The word "citizen" is sometimes used in a sense synonymous with "people," and then includes aliens. But this clause in its definition excludes the latter class and limits the meaning of the term "citizen of the United States," as subsequently used, to persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES. The next clause is this : "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." What is it a State is forbidden to abridge? It is not the privileges and immunities belong- ing to aliens or to ail persons within its limits, but to the class defined, citizens of the United States. The word " privilege" properly means a peculiar advantage or benefit ; " immunity" is defined to mean exemption from a burden. Rights that all possess are not privileges. The term would be a misnomer. "The words 'rishts,' 'privileges,' 'immunities are abusively used, as if they were synonymous. The word 'rights' is generic, common, embracing whatever may be Lawfully claimed. ' Privileges ' are special rights belonging to the individual or class, and not to the mass. 'Immunities' are rights of exemption only, freedom from what otherwise would be aduty, obligation, or burden. — Opinionn of Attor- neys General, vol. 10, page 407; Bates on Citizenship. The privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States are those particular ad- vantages or exemptions secured or granted to them, but not extended to all persons, and from which aliens may lawfully be debarred. Can these words intend to include those inalien- able rights that belong to every human being everywhere, and in the enjoyment of which the stranger as well as the citizen is protected by every free Government'? Are the privileges and immunities of citizens identical with the rights common to aliens and citizens alike ? Do they not imply something in addition to or in aid of those rights, granted only to citizens or for their special protection'? Such is the ordinary use and legal construction of these words. The argument is weak, indeed, if to give the necessary jurisdiction to the General Government to punish the offenses described in the second section of the bill the right to life and personal security enjoyed both by alien and citizen must be called the privilege of the citizen. What some of the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States are the con- temporaneous legislation — the civil rights bill, passed at the same session by the same Con- gress that proposed this amendment — enum- erates. The meaning of these words, as used in the Constitution before the adoption of this amendment, has been discussed by writers upon elementary law and defined, to some extent, by courts and judges. The supreme court of Massachusetts gave a construction, as follows : "The privileges and immunities secured to the people of each State in every other State can be applied only in case of removal from one State into another." ******** "They shall have the privileges and immunities of citizens; that is, they shall not be deemed aliens, but may take and hold real esta'e ; and may. accord- ing to the laws of such State, eventually enjoy the full rights of citizenship without the necessity of being naturalized." — 6 Pickering, 92; Abbott va. Bagley. This is in harmony with the interpretation of the same clause given by those learned and profound commentators on constitutional law, Kent and Story. • In opposition to this construction of these terms the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Shella- barger] and others who have defended the second section of this bill have quoted the obiter dictum of a single circuit judge, who defined them to be — "Protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and s^ifety, subject nevertheless to such restraints as the Government may justly pre- scribe for the general good of the whole." — 4 Wash- ingtoii's V. C. Jieports, 480. If this is the true meaningof the terms " priv- ileges and immunities" as used in the Consti- tution, why could not Congress before the adoption of the amendment protect and pun- ish for their deprivation"? No enlarged power of enforcement has since been conferred. Congress is empowered in the original Con- stitution to "make all laws which shall be ne- cessary and proper to carry into execution the powers" therein enumerated. The fourteenth amendtnent provides that — " The Congress shall have power to enforce, by ap- propriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The phraseology giving the power of enforce- ment is no stronger or broader in the latter than in the former^ The Constitution provided that — " The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States." The amendment that — "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." By the former the "citizens are entitled;" by the latter, a "State is prohibited." Is not the power and extent of congressional enforcement as to individuals less questionable where the Constitution expressly invests a citi- zen with privileges and immunities than when it simply prohibits a State from abriiJging them? Congress had tiien as much power to secure them tothAcitizen and punish fortheir vioUitiou asithas now. Ifthe opinion I have quoted gives their true meaning, and thereby the amend ment vests in the General Government power to punish for crimes against life and person outside of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, the same power must have been conferred by the original Constitution. Ifthe General Govern- ment originally received no such power, this construction of the meaning of those words must be erroneous, and no such power can be claimed from their use in the amendment. Others have advocated the power of Con- gress to punish crimes as proposed in the sec- ond section of the bill, interpreting the words "immunities and privileges of a citizen of the United States" to mean the right secured to the people in the first eight articles of amendments to the Constitution. They hold that the four- teenth amendment forbids a Slate from abridg ing these enumerated rights. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Dawes] and tliegen-, tleman from Ohio [Mr. Bixgham] both de- fended this bill under such a construction of this clause. Unfortunately for their argument the privileges and immunities there enuuier- ated affecting life and personal security are only found in articles four, five, and six, and are specific limitations, relating to the mode of procedure or jurisdiction and extent of pun- ishment in cases of arrest or trial for supposed criminal offenses. Those articles are as follows: Article IV. The right of tbe people to be secure in their per- sons, houses, papers, and efFecLs, against unreason- able searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the pl.ice to be searched and the .persons or things to be seized. Article V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases aris- ing in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, whea in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeo[)ar(ly of life or limb, nor shall be compelled on any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Article VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wlierein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have comi)ulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. These are but privileges or immunities against the issue of judicial process and con- viction upon criminal charges except in the manner and cases authorized. The taking of life or injury to person is not there forbidden to individuals or the right to Hie and liberty afhrrned as in the Declaration of Independence. 1 cannot see, therefore, how th:i application of these eight amendmeuts to the Slates, or even giving the General Government auihoriiy to secure to its citizens all the privileges and im- munities there asserted, can be held to confer the right u[)on the Federal courts to punish murders or other offenses against life and person. These elaborate arguments as to what are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States have litile pertinency to this bill. The constitutional prohibition is ai^aiiist a State's making or enforcing a law abridging them ; the second section of the bill makes no reference to State laws or the action or non-action of State authority, it relates to the crimes and conspiracies of private indi- viduals. As in the first section of the fourteenth amendment all the prohibitions are upon Stales, let us inquire WHAT IS here meant BY A STATE ? The Constitution recognized existing and future subordinate political governments called States. Every (titizen of the Uniied States is a citizen of the State wherein he resides. He sustains relations to the General Govern- ment directly as an individual, and indirectly as a citizen of a Slate. A duty enjoined upon a State evidently can only be performed by and through its people, but a State implies the whole body of the peoplej organized for political purposes under a government to which powers have been delegated to act for and in the name of the whole. Thus organized, the people compose the State and act, not individ- ually, but in their collective capacity, through agents, either by ordinances through delegated conventions, or through legislative, executive, or judicial officers, acting under a State con- stitution and laws for the State in the dis- charge of official duties and functions. In the enforcement of the observance of du- ties imposed directly upon the people by the Constitution, the General Government applies the law directly to persons and individual acts. It may punish individual3»for interference with its prerogatives and infractions of the rights it is authorized to protect. For the neglect or refusal of a State to perform a constitutional duty, the remedies and power of enforcement given to the General Government are few and restricted. It cannot perform the duty the Constitution enjoins upon the State. If a State fails to appoint presidential el^tors, or its Legislature to choose Senators, onts people to elect Representatives, Congress cannot act for them. Nor do prohibitions upon States author- ize Congress to exercise the forbidden power. Ii may doubtless require State officers to dis- charge duties imposed upon thetn as such offi- cers by the Constitution of the United States. 6 A State ofiBce must be assumed with such lim- itations and burdens, such duliea and obliga- tions, as the Constitution of the United Slates attaches to it. The General Government can- not punish the State, but the officer who vio lates his official constitutional duty can be punished under Federal law. What more appropriate iejxislation for enforcing a consti- tutional prohibition upon a State than to compel State officers to observe it? Its viola- tion by the State can only be consummated through the officers by whom it acts. May it not then equally punish the illegal attempts of private individuals to prevent the performance of official duties in the manner required by the Consiituiion and laws of the United States? The Federal courts have repeatedly held that they could require municipal and county offi- cers to perform the duties imposed uponthem by State laws in levying taxes, when such tax became necessary to collect a judgment in their courts against such city or county, although all the power and authority of such officers was derived from State laws. It can issue its man dates to such officers and enforce obedience by penalties and imprisonment. Cannot Congress provide to puTiish conspiracies to prevent the performance of duties it can compel such offi- cers to discharge? Can it not, then, go as far in requiring State or county officers to perform those official duties,' or at least those minis- terial acts which protect a citizen in the enjoy- ment of his constitutional rights, as it can in com[)elling the discharge of those which merely secure the enforcement of a legal obligation? Is the power greater when official duty con- cerns property than when it concerns life and person? if the Federal Government can com- pel State officers to act under State laws in the coUeciiou of a money bond, can it not insist upon their performance of duties imposed by the Constitution upon State officers by means of which equal protection is secured for life and person? The next clause is : " Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Is the power to punish individual crimes conferred upon the General Government by this clause? The deprivation must be the action of the State through its officers repre- senting the State. The prohibition was un- necessary as to private persons. No person had or has the right, except in necessary self defense or under governmental sanction, to deprive another of life, liberty, or property. This limitation is upon the State, as the simi- lar prior limitation in the Constitution was upon the national authority. Neither the na- tional nor the State governments can now deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This clause does not relate to the lawless acts of private indi- viduals depriving persons of life, lilierty, or properly. Such acts are no more the action of the State than of the Unileu States. KQUAL PROTECTION. The last clause of this section is this: "Nor deny to any person witliin its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It also is a prohibition upon a State, but wide and general in its application. It does not enjoin upon the Stale that it shall provide pro- tection by its laws, but that it shall not dis- criminate in that protection. The protection must be extended equally to all citizens. This duty must be performed through the legisla- tive, executive, and judicial departments of its government. If the law-making [lOwer neglects to provide the necessary statute, or the judicial authorities wrongfully enforce the law so as to neutralize its beneficial provisions, or the executive allows it to be defied and dis- regarded, has not the State denied the- enjoy- ment of the right? If the State Legislature pass a law discrim- inating against any portion of its citizens, or if it fails to enact provisions equally applicable to every class for the protection of their person and property, it will be admitted that the State does not afford the equal protection. But if the statutes show no discrimination, yet in its judicial tribunals one class is unable to secure that enforcement of their rights and punish- ment tor their infraction which is accorded to another, or if secret combinations of men are allowed by the Executive to band togf^lher to deprive one class of citizens of their legal rights without a proper effort to discover, detect, and punish the violations of law and order, the State has not affi)rded to all its citizens the equal protection of the laws. CONTEMPORANEOUS INTERPRETATION . The debates upon the fourteenth amend- ment prior to its passage in the House clearly show that it was not understood or intended that the first section should confer upon Con' gress the power to enforce its provisions upon private individuals by general affirmative legis- lation. The interprecalion given to it by gen- tlemen who then debated it, and especially by those who advocated its passage, has almost an authority in construing its meaning equal to that of the writings of Madison and Ham- ilton in the Federalist pending the adoption of the original Constitution. Of several who entertained similar views I have only time to refer to one. the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. BiXGHAM.] who was a member of the Reconstruction Committee that reported this section as it passed the House, and as it now stands, except the first clause, defining citizenship, which was added in the Senate. As the vote was about to be taken on its passage in the House he said: "That great want of the citizen and stranger pro- tection by national law from unconstitutional State enactments is supplied by the first section of amend- ments. That is the extent; it hath no more." He held up before the House and to the world the interpretation to b« given to this section. It supplied, he said, protection by national law against — what? Offenses aeainst pergonal rights committed by private individ- uals? No: simply against unconstitutional Slate enactments. And, to fasten this meaning and guard against possibility of doubt in the future, he added, ''that is the extent," and clinched this assertion so as to exclude all claim of other construction by saying, " it hath no more." A fair construction of the Constitution, as amended, leads, it seems to me, to these con- clusions: 1. That the amendments to the Constitution do not enlarge the power of Congress to pro- vide for the punishment of ordinary felonies. 2 That the General Government not only can, through its courts, set aside an unconsti tutional law and treat it as void, but, can pun- .isli State otHcials who willfully and wrongfully make or execute it, or neglect the duties im- posed upon them as such officers by the Con- stitution of the United States. 3. That willful and wrongful attempts of individuals to prevent such 'officers perform- ing such duties can be punished by the United States. Mr. Speaker, such is the scope of this bill, if the amendment proposed by the committee is adopted. That amendment obviates in a great measure the objections and the doubtful construction as to the extentof jurisdiction for the punishment of crimes intended by the bill. It is not denial of protection, but of equality of protection, which constitutes the offense against the Uni- ted States. The conspiracies it seeks to pun- ish are those designed lo prevent the equal and impartial administration of justice. Tuese are essentially different from combinations and conspiracies to resist the execution of ordinary process. They must be aimed to prevent the enjoyment of equal civil rights. The grava- men of the offense is the unlawful attempt to prevent a State through its officers enforcing in behalf of a citizen of the United States his constitutional right to equality of protection. It is with this view that lliis legislation is com- petent. The civil rights and enforcement, bills heretofore passed provided for the punishment of those acting as State officers who attempted to execute the laws of a State in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Is not an individual acting as a State officer, upon whom, as such officer, the Constitution and laws of the United States impose the perform ance of those duties, also amenable to the laws of the United States for their non-performance? If the refusal of a State officer, acting for the State, to accord equality of civil rights renders biin amenable to punishment for the offense under United States law, conspirators who attempt to prevent such officers from perform- ing such duty are also clearly liable. The hill thus amended will — 1. Afford further redress for violations under State auihoriiy of constitutional rights. 2. Punish conspiracies to deny the equal protection of the laws through l!ie means and agencies by which such protection is afforded. 3. Authorize the President lo employ the militia and Army and Navy, or volunteers, to sup()re.ss insurrections which obstruct the laws of the United States and the State so as to deprive a |)ortion of the people of the Slate of their rights as citizens. 4. Allow the suspension of the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus when such insurrec- tion becomes a rebellion. As these provisions may tend to the better enforcement of law and order and the pro- tection of civil and i)olitical rights, and are not obnoxious, in my judgment, lo the objections that would lie to the original bill, 1 hope, therefore, that the amendments will prevail and the bill become a law. SUSPEXSIOX OP HABEAS CORPUS. The power proposed to be given to the Presi- dent to suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus is chiefly olijectionaijle as a precedent. I'he Executive has not suggested the impossibility of effectively using the Army and Navy to aid the civil authorities without suspending the privileges of the writ. The bill reported by the chairman of the llecon- 8tructioii Committee of the last Congress [.Mr. Butler] did not provide for such suspension, neitherdid the bill lie introducedat this session. It is one of the prerogatives of a citizen and the great bulwark of libeny. The denial of its priv- ileges is only justifiable when in case of inva- sion or rebellion the public safety requires it. If the exigencies have arisen which seem now to require the denial of the writ 1 shall cheerfully vote for its immeuiate or future sus- pension. Is there any reasonable anticipation that a rebellion such as is described and is defined by this bill is to be expected before the next session of Congress? If, however, deemed neceSsary by the House, and this clause of the bin is retained, I have no tear that the power will be abused by the President. It will do no harm, in my judgment, but as a precedent. To no man would I intrust the wide discre- tion sooner than to the present Executive. His often-expressed views as to the duty of the Executive to enforce the laws provided by the legislative department ; his cautious exercise of the authority and powers intrusted to him during the war of the rebellion ; his high char- acter, honesty of purpose, and love of liberty and order, areguaranlees that in his hands there would be no abuse of this authority, but that it would be used for the safety and protection of the riglits of the citizens and the preservation of order. Mr. Speaker, I have been surprised at the character of the attacks made upon the Pres- B ident by gentlemen on the other side of the House in connection with this measure. That those who have been sent here by disloyal con- stituencies stould maintain the prejudices, dis- like, and hate entertained by their people dur- ing the war, is easily accounted for and not unexpected. But the most bitter tirades and invectives come from many northern Demo- crats, who live among Union soldiers that glory and boast of their proud service under the great captain. Where is there a man of this generation who in faithful service and substantial results has done more for his coun- try than General Grant? Take his military career, from captain to general, and what more marked example did the war produce of earn- est effort for the faithful performance of every duty? What more conspicuous instance of perfect subordination to superior authority, civil and military? What modesty character- ized his greatest achievements! How unos; tentatiously he assumed the higher and still higher honors and responsibilities which an anxious people urged should be conferred upon him ! Having safely led the defenders of the Union through those dark hours of conflict, what praise was too great, what encomiums too flattering, what panegyric too laudatory to give full expression to the universal gratitude? But not yet was the measure of the national debt to General Grant complete. Occupying the highest rank at the head of the Army, a position to which he was raised as a special testimonial for his great services, the tenure and emo!uments_of which could hardly fail to continue for life, at the call of the nation he reluctantly consented to receive their suff^rages and to enter upon the discharge of, to him, new and untried duties. The field of political con- tention was foreign to his tastes and adverse to his wishes; but he hoped, and the great party that supported him and the country be- lieved, that he more than any other man could accomplish this: allay the bitterness and hos- tility to the Union, subdued but not eradicated from disloyal breasts by the results of the war, and bring peace, safety, and prosperity to the people. If this desire has not been wholly ful- filled it is not for want of noble magnanimity and lenient conduct and conciliatory disposi- tion toward those who had participated in the rebellion. It is possible that this forbear- ance and generosity of the Government and of General Grant's administration may have been misconstrued in those portions of the South where these disorders and violence exist. The desperate and lawless may have come to regard leniency and magnanimity in the punishment of treason and rebellion as evidences of weak- ness on the part of the Government. If so, they must be undeceived. They must know that the national Government is powerful enough to punish as well as forgive its enemies and to protect its friends; that it can suppress secret disloyal conspiracies as well as open revolt and armed rebellion ;• the nation has been mag- nanimous to its foes, let it be just to its loyal citizens. Let it shield its humblest supporter from the machinations of those who would as of old suppress free speech and free thought and still cherish their hatred for the Union and love for the " lost cause." The enforcement of the provisions of this bill and the exercise of the powers conferred, will aid in the restoration of order, the protec- tion ofthe citizen in the exercise of his civil and political rights, tranquillize the disturbed portions of the Republic, and realize the prayer of the President and responsive wish of the American people, "Let us have peace." Printed at the Congressional Globe OflSce. LB/XgTZ