have another call for a larger amount next year, and there will be no end to the demands made upon us. Hence I say here to-day when we have this matter before us, while we do justice to those pupils whom we are bound to educate let us do justice to the people by preventing this squandering of their money in the way in which it has been done, in my judgment, heretofore.

Mr. SPALDING. Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will bear with the learned gentleman from Illinois, for he means well in his course on this matter as he does in all his opposition to appropriations by Congress. But he is so morbidly constituted that he cannot make any distinction between an appropriation necessary and requisite to be made and one which is improper. He does not know, he does not realize, that while

"The primal duties shine aloft, like stars;

The charities that soothe and heal and bless Are scattered at the feet of man like flowers." My friend has made it during this whole session of Congress his principal aim to destroy this appropriation bill which is intended for the benefit of the deaf and dumb, the poor mutes to the number of about a hundred assembled here in the District from all the States and Territories of this great Union, and he says that we must cut it down because it is a private institution, a private corporation. Mr. Speaker, I deny that it is a private institution. I acknowledge that it had its origin in the day of small things. It had its origin in private munificence, but it could not go upon the donations of private charity for six short months. Congress was obliged at once to interpose, and when it authorized these few charitable individuals in the District of Columbia to collect these poor, forsaken, stricken objects of humanity together and attempt to make their lot more endurable, Congress agreed to pay $150 for every deaf mute collected from the District of Columbia, and also the sons of men in the Army and Navy. They afterward, and within the first six months, found that this provision would not answer, and they passed an act of Congress amendatory of the act of incorporation, assigning for five consecutive years, $3,000 a year out of the national Treasury to pay the expenses of the officers and students of the institution. That was paid for some three years, and then it was found that this sum was not sufficient. Then it was that Congress passed another act. And here I would say to the gentleman from Illinois, that he must not complain of the founders of this institution, not of its trustees, not of its officers and agents; but he must complain of the Senate and House of Representatives, and the various Presidents who have approved of these acts. In 1862 an act was passed, and I have it here, amendatory of the first act incorporating the deaf and dumb institution and essentially making it an institution of the United States; and for the truth of this, after having read it, I will appeal to the good judgment of every man within the sound of my voice. The act is as follows:

An act to amend an act to incorporate the Columbia Institution for the Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb.

Be it enacted, &c., That the sum of $4,400 per annum, payable quarterly, shall be allowed for the payment of salaries and incidental expenses of said institution, and the sum of $4,400 is hereby appropriated for that purpose out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1863.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the sum of $9,000 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the erection, furnishing, and fitting up of two additions to the building of said association.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That all receipts and disbursements under this act shall be reported to the Secretary of the Interior, as required in the sixth section of the act of which this is an amend

ment.

The very first act required that reports should be made annually to the Secretary of the Interior. The agent for the expenditure of the money appropriated from time to time by Congress is required to give bonds to the Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. SPALDING. I do not care. They can be given in any amount the Secretary sees fit to require. I am proud to say that there is no complaint that one half dollar has ever been lost through the misconduct of the principal of this institution. No man dares impute to him any want of faith or honesty. Nay, the Secre tary of the Interior in his famous report, of which my friend avails himself, says that if this be not a private institution, and if it be such an one as Congress sees fit to foster and encour. age, no more faithful officers can be found in the United States of America than those who have been intrusted with the care of this institution for the deaf and dumb of the District of Columbia.

Now, further, Congress for a series of years appropriated this sum of $4,400 under this permanent law, and then found it necessary to appropriate a still larger sum. They also added to the capacity of the institution by providing that it should have power to confer collegiate degrees; and a branch of the institution was established for the instruction of teachers for deaf and dumb institutions in other States. Now, it is of this that the gen tleman mainly complains.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. We want to get at the truth.

vides the round sum by the number of pupils the Government has to take care of.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Is not that fair?

Mr. SPALDING. Will any man say that it is fair? Suppose the gentleman charged all this over to the first five or ten pupiis that entered the institution, how much would it cost them?

There was laid awhile ago on the table of each member, a statement showing the whole amount of appropriations to this institution. For all purposes there have been appropriated the sum of $321,824 52 during the past eleven years. Of that sum there have been appropriated for the current expenses of the institution $104,401 50; leaving a balance expended for grounds, buildings, furniture, and fixtures of $217,883. That property is all visible, is all tangible here. It is estimated that that very property is worth at this time at least $270,000.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Whose is it?

Mr. SPALDING. There again is a specimen of the gentleman's fairness. He came in here with the report of a minority committee. There were in fact but three members of the committee who objected to this appropriation. One of them, the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. BLAINE,] signs the report with the express Mr. SPALDING. I hope the gentleman reservation that he does not object to the apwill not interrupt me. He has had the advan-propriation provided the property be put under tage from the very first of the session up to this time; and I have given him two thirds of my time to-day.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I want to ask the gentleman a question.

Mr. SPALDING. I do not want to hear the question; I do not consent to be interrupted for any such purpose.

There are now in this institution more than one hundred deaf mutes, collected from the different States of the Union, and there are thirty-five pupils in the collegiate department of the institution. I have here somewhere a statement showing the different States from which they come.

the control of Congress. Now, sir, this bill is specially framed for the very purpose of obviating the gentleman's objections, and he knows it. It was drawn up for that very purpose by a majority of the committee; and by that majority I was authorized to report it and advocate its passage as obviating those objections. The bill by its terms appropriates $3,000 which has been called for by the Secretary of the Interior as a deficiency, to pay for the increased expense of maintaining nine or ten pupils from the different States who were admitted into the institution under the law of March 2, 1867. That amount is due, as every one admits. The institution has now one large building completed; and there is a central building which has been carried up one story or one story and a half; but it is going to decay for the want of this appropriation. By the bill we propose to appropriate $48,000 for completing that building, so that it may furnish accommodations for the poor youth for whose benefit the institution is designed. Those are the two items of appropriation contained in the bill, $3,000 for a deficiency which, as the Secretary of the Interior states, is justly due; and $48,000 for the purpose of carrying on to completion the building, the foundation of which has been laid, and which has been car· ried to the height of a story and a half.

And let me say here that there are young men in this collegiate department, deaf mutes, who would put to shame the most astute and learned man to be found here. I would not be ashamed of them if put in competition with any man in the Senate or in the House; these poor deaf mutes, some of whom have been instructed in this institution for only twelve months in the higher branches of philosophy and mathematics. I have seen the experiment tried, and I know it to be so. There are thirtyfive of these pupils from the different States in the collegiate department of this institution, as follows: from Maine, two; New Hampshire, one; Massachusetts, one; Connecticut, two; Vermont, one; New York, two; Pennsyl vania, six; Maryland, two; Ohio, two; Michigan, four: Illinois, one; Wisconsin, four; Iowa, two; District of Columbia, two; and from England, one. There are about seventy in the other branches, the primary department of the institution. Some of them, perhaps thirty of them, are those contemplated by the first law enacted upon this subject; deaf and dumb children of people here in the District of Co-sition, the second section provides— lumbia, and deaf and dumb children of officers in the Army and the Navy. In addition to those there are deaf mutes from Maryland who actually pay for their board in the institution.

But I must be concise. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] says the expenses of this institution amount to over seven thousand dollars each for all the boys and girls that the Government is bound to take care of in this institution. Now, will the House believe me when I tell them that in order to make out his candid argument my friend from Illinois has charged over to these deaf and dumb pupils all the expenses of the institution? He takes into account all the expenses of the land, the buildings, apparatus, and everything in connection with the institution for all time past and all time to come; he charges it all over, and di

The gentleman from Illinois has complained that Congress has no control over the management of this institution. Now, sir, the directors have passed a resolution unanimously agreeing that Congress may, if it sees fit, provide for choosing three or more directors, to be members of the board, and to have a voice in the management of all the affairs of the institution. In accordance with that propo

That, in addition to the directors whose appointment has heretofore been provided for by law, there shall be three other directors appointed in the following manner: One Senator by the President of the Senate, and two Representatives by the Speaker of the House; these directors to hold their offices for the terin of a single Congress, and to be eligible to a reappointment.

The third section meets the objection which has been raised that these donations made by Congress may be wasted. It provides

That no part of the real or personal property now held or hereafter to be acquired by the said institation shall be devoted to any other purpose than the education of the deaf and dumb, nor shall any portion of the real estate be aliened, sold, or conveyed, except under the authority of a special act of Congress.

The board of directors have unanimously accepted these provisions, and they agree to the repeal of the provision contained in the

act of incorproation providing for the payment of $150 per annum for the maintenance and tuition of each pupil admitted by order of the Secretary of the Interior. They have not taken this money for several years. They say they are not entitled to it because Congress has given them a gross sum to assist in carrying on the institution. Accordingly the fourth section makes the following provision:

That so much of the act of February 16, 1857, as allows the payment of $150 per annun for the maintenance and tuition of each pupil admitted by order of the Secretary of the Interior, be, and the same is hereby, repealed.

Now, sir, I have here an exhibit showing what has been the annual expense for the pupils chargeable to the Government, and none others during the eleven years last past. The annual expense ranges from two hundred and nine dollars to five hundred and twenty-one dollars; but the average is $294 for each of those pupils for whom Congress was bound to provide. The greater part of the outlay upon which the gentleman from Illinois has dwelt so long and loudly is for the purchase of the land, the erection of the buildings necessary for the accommodation of the pupils, the introduction of water, gas, &c., and other necessary expenses.

Now, sir, although Congress has by its uniform action since 1857, recognized this institution as eminently worthy of the fostering care of the General Government and has contributed most bountifully toward its support, the objection suggests itself that perhaps under a strict construction of the Constitution we ought not to appropriate money for such a purpose. But I ask where throughout our wide empire will you find any objects of charity which have been so little cared for by the Government of the United States as these stricken people, the deaf and dumb of the United States? We have provided homes for the landless. We have colleges for farmers. We have provided for the insane. We have erected an institution for that purpose across the river where some three or four hundred lunatics are cared for. No one says anything against those appropriations.

The gentleman says that each State will take care of these matters for itself. To the honor of the different States they have provided for them in the most handsome manner, and provided for them in a different spirit from that manifested upon this floor to day. Be it remembered, however, that no one State has enough deaf mates of its own to erect a college to educate teachers for them. It is expected this should be done by the Federal Government, by an appropriation from the Federal Congress. Here, now, by a small outlay, we can bless thousands and the nation will never feel any loss. Our constituents will not feel it. It is easy to talk about taking tax from the tax payers and about the poor man's light; taking the tax off petroleum and thereby enriching a few capitalists; but when you come to the great want of educating these deaf mutes every difficulty is raised. Shall we close the doors of this charitable, humane, hospitable institution, and turn these mutes out upon the world? Shall we deny them bread; shall we deny them food for their intellects, which they crave more than bread for the body? I hope

not.

I do not desire to detain the House in this warm weather. I did not want to speak. I ought not to have been required to speak in this behalf. I am only one member of the committee. It is true I belong to the majority of the committee which recommends the passage of this bill; and I do honestly recommend its passage with all the force and earnestness I can muster. If this House sees fit to vote it down the responsibility rests with them, not with me.

An amendment was introduced by my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] to increase the number of college pupils from ten to twenty-five. This is called for by a great number of States, and the pupils are ready to enter. They are only waiting for the action of Congress to enter. The president of the institu

tion says it will only cost $6,000. The following letter is from one of those pupils :

AURORA, ILLINOIS, May 5, 1868 DEAR SIR: I wish to apply for admission to the collegiate department of the institution under your charge.

I am twenty-two years of age, and have been totally deaf since my twelfth year.

I was at the Hartford school a short term, leaving there in 1862. Since I have been in various printing offices in this State, in all capacities-boy of all work, compositor, foreman, and editor; and during the closing years of the civil war was a correspondent of the Chicago Tribune.

I can lay no claim to "scholarship," as the term is usually received; have no acquaintance with any foreign language, except such phrases as a general and too desultory reader gathers.

I regret that I was not sooner aware of the advantages which you have placed within the reach of myself and fellow-unfortunates; because, at my age, I do not think it will be profitable for me to undertake either the study of the dead languages or the touryear course. As to the former (Latin first) I would be willing to accept your better judgment, and make all the preparation I can in my leisure moments between now and the opening day. I should much prefer to take up German, rather than Latin, as I can turn the former to practical use; also algebra the first year, object-drawing, and such other studies as will be most apt to perfect me as a writer.

Being entirely dependent on my own exertions for support, I ask the aid granted by Congress in such

cases.

In case you decide to admit me, an early reply to that effect would greatly oblige me, for the reason mentioned above in speaking of studies.

Mr. John B. Hotchkiss was acquainted with me at Hartford, and, I think, will be pleased to answer any questions you may see fit to ask concerning me. Yours, most respectfully, AMOS G. DRAPER.

Mr. E. M. GALLAUDET.

I ask

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. the gentleman to withdraw the demand for the previous question.

Mr. SPALDING. I cannot.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

The question first recurred on the amend ment of Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.

The House divided; and there were-ayes 60, noes 31.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, moved that the House adjourn.

The House divided; and there were-ayes 48, noes 59.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, demanded tellers.

Tellers were not ordered.

So the House refused to adjourn. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, demanded tellers on the amendment.

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. WASHBURNE of Illinois, and Mr. SPALDING were appointed. The House again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 60, noes 50.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, demanded the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.
So the amendment was adopted.

The question recurred on the amendment of Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

That there be appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated a sufficient sum of money for the support of the denf and dumb pupils now in the Columbia Institute for the Deaf and Dumb in some good deaf and dumb asylum in one of the States of the Union for the year ending June 3, 1869, all to be under the direction of the Seeretary of the Interior.

The question being put on agreeing to the amendment, there were-ayes 51, noes 52.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, demanded tellers.

Tellers were ordered; and the Chair appointed Messrs. BUTLER of Massachusetts, and KELSEY.

The House divided; and the tellers reported— ayes 54, noes 50.

Mr. SPALDING. I demand the yeas and

kiss, Hulburd, Hunter, Judd, Ketcham, Kitchen, Koontz, William Lawrence, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Marshall, McCarthy, McKee, Moore, Muhins, Nunn, Orth, Perham, Peters, Pike, Pomeroy, Ross, Sawyer, Sitgreaves. Taffe, Taylor, Lawrence S. Trimble, Trowbridge, Van Wyck, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D.Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Thomas Williams, William Williams, and John T. Wilson-63.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Archer, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Banks, Barnes, Beck, Blair, Boyer, Bromwell, Buckland,Cake, Chanler, Coburn, Dawes, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eldridge, Eliot, French, Garfield, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golladay,Grover, Chester D. Hubbard, Jenckes, Alexander H. Jones, Julian, Kelsey, Knott, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, Mallory, Marvin, Maynard, McClurg, Mereur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrell, Mungen, Niblack, Nicholson, O'Neill, Phelps, Poland, Randall, Roots, Shanks, Smith, Spalding, Starkweather, Thaddeus Stevens, Stewart, Stone, Taber, Twichell, Upson, Van Auken, Burt Van Horn, Van Trump, Windom, and Woodbridge-68.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Allison, Axtell, Baldwin, Barnum, Beaman, Bingham, Blaine, Boles, Boyden, Brooks, Burr, Roderick R. Butler, Reader W. Clarke, Cornell, Deweese, Dodge, Eckley, Eggleston, Farnsworth, Ferry, Finney, Fox, Gravely, Griswold, Halsey, Harding, Higby, Holman, Hooper, Asahel W, Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard. Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Thomas L. Jones, Kelley, Kerr, Lincoln, Lynch, McCormick, McCullough, Morrissey, Myers, Newcomb, Paine, Pile, Plants, Polsley, Price, Pruyn, Raum, Robertson, Robinson, Schenck. Scofield, Selye, Shellabarger, Aaron F. Stevens, Stokes, Thomas, John Trimble, Van Aernam. Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Cadwalader C, Washburn, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Wood, and Woodward-69.

So the amendment was disagreed to.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I rise to make a privileged report from a committee of conference.

Mr. SPALDING. I ask the gentleman to withhold that report till we can dispose of the pending bill.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I cannot do so.

Mr. SPALDING. I did not suppose the gentleman would. [Laughter.]

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate by Mr. GoRHAM, its Secretary, announced that that body had passed without amendment the bill (H. K. No. 631) amendatory of an act approved July 26, 1866, entitled "An act to authorize the construction of certain bridges and establish them as post roads."

Also, that the Senate had agreed to the amendment of the House to the bill (S. No. 352) authorizing a temporary supply of vacancies in the Executive Departments, with an amendment in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House.

Also, that the Senate had indefinitely postponed the bill (H. R. No. 783) for the relief

of Samuel Pierce.

The message further announced that the Senate had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of making appropriations for sundry civil expenses the two Houses on the bill (H. R. No. 818) of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1869, and for other purposes.

Also, that it had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. No. 344) to incorporate the Washington Target-Shooting Association of the District of Columbia.

Also, that it had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. No. 554) making a grant of land to the State of Minnesota to aid in the improvement of the navigation of the Mississippi river.

CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I have been instructed by the conference committee on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on House bill No. 818, making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1869, and for other purposes, to make a report, which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The report was as follow:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments to the bill (H. R. No. 818) making appropriations for sun

The House reassembled at half past seven o'clock p. m., and, agreeably to order, resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union (Mr. CULLOM in the chair) for general debate, Mr. JONES, of Kentucky, being entitled to the floor.

Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. At the request of my friend from Ohio [Mr. VAN TRUMP] I have consented to yield to him this evening, and will take some future occasion to express my views upon the pending political issues. CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION OF SUFFRAGE. Mr. VAN TRUMP. Mr. Chairman, I propose to speak to-night to a bill now pending in committee, and introduced into this House by my colleague, [Mr. SHELLABARGER,] intended to regulate, by Federal authority, the election of members of Congress in Ohio at the coming elections; and I do so for the reason that we are rapidly approaching the close of the session, in consequence of which, under a recent rule of the House, the bill may at any time be reported back under the operation of the previous question, thus cutting off all opportunity of exposing to the country, and especially to the people of Ohio, the unconstitutional enormities which it involves. Sir, the Chinese have a proverb that "Medicine is good for sickness, but not for fate;" the moral of which is, that it is useless to struggle against the Inevitable. This wise saw of our oriental friends is daily exemplified within these walls in regard to everything the minority may say or do upon any matter which, by any possibility, can be tortured into a party question.

Sir, if it were not that we may occasionally exhibit some wholesome constitutional medicine to a people sick with the political nostrums of Republican quacksalvers, we on this side of the House would have very little in ducement to indulge in the cacoethes loquendi so liberally enjoyed by our friends across the way. It is not, therefore, with any vain or delusive hope that I shall possess the power to change a single vote, the capacity to reach a single conscience, or even for a moment be able to check the wild and revolutionary onward march of the majority on this floor, that I rise to speak to this extraordinary bill. ́ Sir, "Ephraim is joined to his idols ;" and although we here on this side of the House may not be disposed to "let him alone" in his idolatrous worship stern necessity compels us to yield to "superior force," and to content ourselves, by voice and vote, to protest in the name of the people against such oft-repeated and accumulating outrage and oppression. This bill, as presented by my colleague from the capital district, [Mr. SHELLABARGER,] is only a part of a deliberate and well planned scheme to centralize and consolidate all the powers of the Government, the total absorption of the rights as well as the sovereignty of the States, into the all-ingulfing maelstrom of congressional usurpation.

Sir, the apprehensions and the prophetic warnings of many a revolutionary patriot in

the debates upon the formation of our Constitution in general Convention, and of the several State conventions in its ratification, are now being fearfully realized in almost every measure of the party now in power-reconstruction acts, negro suffrage bills, radical changes in the judiciary for mere party ends, unconstitutional aggression upon the executive department of the Government, the demolition of State rights, the supremacy of the military over the civil authority, corruption and extravagance unbounded, the dictation and erection by Federal power of State constitutions against the will of the people over whom they are declared to be perpetual and unchangeable; all these bold, bad acts, by bold if not bad statesmen, tend to fasten upon the thoughtful mind the inevitable conviction that our unhesitating and unscrupulous opponents have formed the devilish determination to change this proud and wellordered confederation of independent States into a centralized and powerful despotism, the Republic into an empire.

orable gentleman know that Congress itself is nothing more than the mere creature of the Constitution? He knows as well as any man can know, for no one doubts his great legal ability, that Congress has no rightful powers but such as it derives from the Constitution, and that all powers exercised not derived from that instrument is mere naked, unqualified usurpation. He knows that he can just as reasonably affirm that animal life could exist without an atmosphere as that the legislative powers of thisGovernment can legally exist without or outside of the Constitution. He knows that the Constitution is the creator of the lawmaking power just as well as he knows that God created him; and that it is just as absurd to declare that we, as a political body, can exist "outside" of the Constitution as it would be impious to say that poor, weak, and erring man could exist without God, the universal Creator.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I shall show very conclusively I think before I take my seat that the legislation proposed by this bill is just as clearly "outside" the Constitution as are any of the acts admitted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] to be extra-con

alous bill now under consideration has been introduced into this House for the purpose of improperly interfering with the just authority of State legislation, is only another indication that the party now in power is the legitimate successor of the old Federal party of 1801 in everything which tends to centralize and consolidate the powers of the General Government by the absorption of all local State authority, so carefully separated and distributed by the Constitution existing in common over all. I shall not stop to recite the evidence of this proposition; it is to be found upon almost every page of the Statutes-at-Large, teeming with congressional usurpation for the last eight years.

Sir, these men and this party forget or seem to be indifferent to the great political and philosophical fact, that there exists in the civilization of free government something higher and holier than mere party; that private sel-stitutional. Sir, the fact that this most anomfishness is not public virtue; that temporary success in political organizations may be purchased at too dear a price; and that the penalty of violated law and the inevitable consequences of a criminal disregard of moral and constitutional obligations on the part of public rulers will sooner or later follow as the avengers of public justice. Sir, I know it is attempted to make the advocates of State-rights under the Constitution odious in public opinion because a portion of the American people, led on by selfish and ambitious leaders, in an evil and most unfortunate hour for them attempted to assert the doctrine through the heresy of secession. But their error, or even their wicked design, does not affect or invalidate its existence under the Constitution. The fact that they mistook their remedy does not vindicate us in an equally unjustifiable and revolutionary assault upon that same Constitution. If they wickedly braved the dangers of Scylla it is no reason why we should foolishly encounter the kindred dangers of Charybdis. Because they attempted to destroy the Government by force of arms is no good reason why we should subvert and overthrow it by usurpation. I know, sir, that the self-approving excuse offered for all these high-handed usurpations of power, both during and since the war, is the miserable delusion and fallacy that it was necessary to do so in order to save what is flippantly called the "life of the nation." The life of the nation, sir! What is the life of the nation? "The way, the truth, and the life" of this nation, if it may appropriately be called a nation, is its organic law, the Constitution, which gave it vitality and being. That Constitution is the political pabulum which sustains its existence; it is the breath of its nostrils; it is the blood of its veins and arteries; it is that, and that alone, through which it "breathes and moves and has its being." The whole legal, national life pulsates from the heart of the Constitution, sending its currents of health and vigor through every part and ramification of the body-politic. I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that || some enterprising speculators in the theory of government upon the floor of this House have boldly repudiated this old-fashioned principle of the inner life of the Republic, and claim to have discovered in their indefatigable researches a more convenient external power of national life "outside of the Constitution."

So enamored was the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] with this new discovery that he not long ago rebuked his friends for denying that he had made the declaration that we were legislating outside of the Constitution. He seems to be specially proud of the position, wholly unconscious or regardless of the fact that the proposition is a naked political felo de se. Does not the hon

||

The bill now before us is of the same character. In order that its vicious object may be clearly understood a brief analysis of its provisions should be presented. The preamble recites that by the constitution of the State of Ohio persons of African descent with a preponderance of white blood are entitled to vote for members of Congress; that on the 16th day of April, 1868, the Legislature of said State passed an act designed to render it impracti cable for such electors to vote at any election in said State, and which said act, for that reason, has been declared by the supreme court of said State to be in violation of the constitution of said State and void; that by the Constitution of the United States the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter the regulations of any State as to the time, place, and manner of holding elections for Representatives in Congress; that to the end that all the legal electors of said State may be permitted freely to vote for such Representatives, it is provided in said bill that so far as the act of the Legislature of said State attempts to control the manner of holding elections of Representatives in Congress, the same is set aside and rendered void; and the manner of holding such elections, and of challenging and determining upon the right of such electors to vote for such Representatives, and the character and amount of evidence, interrogatories, and answers which may be required to determine the right of such electors to vote as aforesaid, and the rights of such electors shall, in all respects, be the same as they would be if the said act had not been passed. The bill further provides that whenever said electors having African blood shall tender to the judges of election a ballot, with the words "for Representative in Congress only" written or printed on the back thereof, and said judges or other persons shall, under the provisions of said act, challenge said elec tors right to vote, or shall in any way attempt to enforce the provisions of said act, and said electors having African blood shall be prevented from voting, either by force, violence, | threats, intimidation, or by reason of the en

forcement by said judges of the provisions of said act, then it shall be lawful for such electors having African blood to hold at such place in said voting precinct as they may select a separate poll for Representative in Congress, at which all such electors of said precinct may vote for Representative in Congress; that for the organization of such poll it shall be lawful for such electors having African blood to choose the judges and officers of such separate poll in the same manner as is provided by law in said State when the judges of election shall fail to attend.

The bill further provides that any judge or other officer of election, who shall enforce any of the provisions of said void act so as to prevent any such elector from voting at the same poll with the other electors of said State for Representative alone, or so as to hinder, delay, or control his casting such ballot for Representative alone, at either the regular or said separate poll, shall be guilty of a high crime, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $10,000, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, at the discretion of the court.

Such, Mr. Chairman, are the extraordinary provisions of this most extraordinary bill now, by the force of party drill, sought to be enacted into a solemn law by what ought to be the solemn Congress of the United States! Sir, a high and weighty responsibility rests upon the Republican party for these persistent innovations upon the well-settled practice of the Government, and these oft-repeated perversions of the plainest provisions of the Constitution. Where, I would most seriously inquire, in the Constitution of the United States, upon a state of fact as here alleged in this bill, does the honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SHELLABARGER] find authority for any legislation such as he now proposes? I confidently assert that nowhere within the lids of that Constitution can such authority be found. I defy any gentleman on this floor to point to a single line or syllable to sustain such a bill upon such a state of facts.

The honorable gentleman, [Mr. SHELLA BARGER,] with all his acknowledged legal ability, in his over-wrought zeal for the negro and the supremacy of his party, has wholly mis. conceived and misapprehended the true meaning of the constitutional provisions upon which he has evidently framed this bill. Sir, what are these provisions? Let us examine them for a moment in the light of the contempora neous history of the Constitution, as exhibited in the debates upon its formation and ratification, as well as in the commentaries of those great legal minds who have established its construction, and see whether the founders of the Government ever contemplated a bill like the one now before us. The fourth section of the first article of the Constitution reads as follows:

"The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."

Mr. Chairman, as illustrative of the genius and peculiar structure of our Government, and which marks so clear and distinctive a line of separation from all other civilized Governments, whether ancient or modern, I know of no clause in this Constitution of ours more characteristic than the one now under consideration. None more clearly exhibits that equipoise of power, or the manifestation of that system of checks and balances which runs through the Constitution in the distribution of its powers, either as between the several departinents or the Federal and State Governments. Edmund Burke, in his beautiful picture of the British constitution, a mere traditional organ of Government, not made permanent by parchment covenants, like ours, but subject to change and revolution through the whims and caprice of unrestricted parliamentary power, describes it as

"A scheme to prevent any one of its principles from

being carried as far as, taken by itself, and theoretically, it would go; that to avoid the imperfection of extremes all its several parts are so constituted as not alone to answer their own several ends, but also each to limit and control the other; insomuch that take which of the principles you please you will find its operation checked and stopped at a certain point; and that the whole movement stands still rather than that any part should proceed beyond its boundary."

Sir, that magnificent description of the workings of the English political machinery, by one of England's profoundest thinkers, is but a literal transcript, a constitutional photograph, of the very spirit and design of the section we are now considering. The Federal Congress is a direct representation of the people of the several independent States of the Union. But while it represents the entire body of the people, subdivided into States, it also forms one of the great branches of the General Govern ment. The Constitution, therefore, as the instrument of supreme government over all, carefully provides that while the power of fixing the times, places, and manner of holding the elections for these Representatives shall be given primarily and plenarily to the people of these several States, yet, for the purpose of checking a possible abuse of this power, and more especially with the object of shielding the General Government from any combination among the States to harass or break it up by a non-user or misuser of the power, the Constitution, thus understood, wisely confers upon Congress a supervisory but contingent and secondary authority to prevent such calamity.

It is not to be denied, Mr. Chairman, that upon first blush and a hasty and inconsiderate reading of this section by those not thoroughly familiar with the history of the Constitution there would seem to be some probable ground for the legislation now proposed. But we are not to stop at even the most careful and thoughtful reading of the section. There is a vast field of other elements of interpretation. In the first place, allow me to say that there is furnished to us no inconsiderable canon of construction, no trifling circumstance for our consideration as legislators, in the remarkable fact that this section has been suffered to lie dormant for more than eighty years, a period which embraces some of the fiercest struggles between parties strictly founded upon the great question of Federal power in the Government as against the counterpoising force of local and State authority. It is, Mr. Chairman, a most pregnant fact-a fact which cannot be ignored or disregarded upon the question of power now sought to be exercised that this is the first bill of the kind ever presented for the action of the Representatives of the people since the foundation of the Government.

In the stormiest periods of the Republic, at a time when Federal supremacy was sought to subordinate all State authority whatever, even upon questions in which the Constitution in express terms recognizes the paramount force of the State governments, no man ever dreamed, no Congress ever imagined, that the fourth section of that Constitution would support a bill like the present upon any such state of fact as is therein set forth, even in relation to white men, much less to regroes. Mr. Chairman, I repeat, because it is the point of the argument, that nothing in that entire Constitution better exhibits and exemplifies the peculiar character of our Government in its checks and balances, in its limitations of power upon and among its several departments, as well as between the State and Federal Governments, by way of protection to each against the aggressive spirit of any or all the others, than this very fourth section now under consideration. It was not for the accumulation of indefinite legislative power at large in the General Government, but it was for the simple purpose of protecting that Government in the specific powers with which it was clothed by the States themselves, that this section was inserted in the Constitution.

It was intended as a shield of defense, and not as a weapon of attack in the hands of the Government. Our fathers, in balancing and

adjusting this complex machinery of Government, understood as well as any mere human comprehension could understand the aggress ive and grasping character of all organized political power, and the imminent danger which was to be apprehended in a struggle for supremacy between the General and State Governments. That this is the true character of the pro visions of the Constitution upon which this bill is sought to be sustained, I shall now proceed to show by the debates upon this subject, both in the general and in nearly all of the State conventions. But before I come to this part of the argument I wish to recur to another point already touched upon. The provisions of this section belong to what has been very aptly termed the "extreme medicine" of the Constitution a dormant power reserved to be exercised only on extraordinary emergen.cies, when what our friends on the other side of the House denominate the life of the nation" is endangered by the encroachments of one branch of the Government upon another. This is manifest from the fact that the power has never heretofore been resorted to in the ordinary arrangements for the election of members of the House of Representatives. If it was intended that Congress should have the right to interfere in the usual arrangements for the election of Representatives, without regard to any danger, real or apprehended, to the entirety of representation in the General Government, it is a most remarkable and unexplained fact that Congress never has interfered, even at periods when such danger might have been reasonably anticipated. Even at an early day in the history of the Government, when one of the New England States, in a spirit of secession, whose votaries now they would consign to "hell's dark concave" and everlasting fires, withdrew her representatives from the national Legislature, no attempt was made by Congress to exercise the power granted in this fourth section of the Constitution. Again, sir, if my learned colleague (Mr. SHELLABARGER | iS right in bis construction of these provisions by supposing they will support the principles of his bill, why is it that Congress has never here tofore corrected the numerous discrepancies and want of uniformity growing out of the exercise of the power of regulating these elections by the several State Legislatures?

The States have regulated the times, the places, and the manner of electing Representatives to Congress, exclusively and without Federal interference, since the foundation of the Government. Will my learned friend explain this fact consistently with his present interpretation of the Constitution? There is a total want of uniformity both in the time and in the manuer of these elections, and yet we never, until now, when party success is so transcendently important, heard of any attempt by Congress to correct the evil. In some of the States the candidate must have a majority of all the votes cast; in others a plurality is the rule. In some they are chosen viva voce; in others by bailot. The discrepancy of the time of holding these elections in the several States sometimes works very marked results as to representation in the House, because we all know that it has frequently occurred that at an extra session, called perhaps by some pressing public emergency, whole States have been without representation in this body. And yet no one of the many very able men in Congress, during all this time, has been lawyer enough to understand the proper interpretation of these provisions of the Constitution, if the learned gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SHELLABARGER,] has at last discovered their true intent and meaning.

Sir, if this last construction is the right one, then the fathers who framed the Constitution, and the ablest law-writers whose commentaries upon it have been accepted as its correct interpretation, have been most singularly mistaken in regard to its true intent and meaning. I shall cite but a few of the many passages from the writings of these able men to sustain the view I have taken of this question. In the first place, Mr. Justice Story will be recog