I simply propose to add, that those laws shall not be rules of decision in the United States courts, so far as they exclude witnesses on account of color.

The Senator from New Hampshire opposes this just, humane, and irresistible proposition; and his argument is, that, instead of reaching the result by legislation, we must overturn the Supreme Court.

The United States courts have jurisdiction of crimes without reference to color.

They also have civil jurisdiction in other cases which do not depend upon citizenship.

The Senator, as a lawyer, knows this well; and yet, deliberately, by vote, and now by speech, he upholds the barbarous rule of exclusion on account of color.

I am now astonished at the speech, which, pardon me, is as illogical in argument as bad in principle.

You will bear with my frankness, if I add, that sanctioning this exclusion can do no honor to Congress.

I hold in my hand the Declaration of Independence, with these words at the beginning: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” &c.

The proposition is not made openly, but in the covert words, that the local laws of States shall in all cases prevail in the national courts.

No matter in what form it is put, no matter how subtly the attempt is concealed, it is the adoption by Congress of an outrageous rule.

Such exclusion is cruel to the witness, degrading to courts administering it, and destructive of justice, which seeks evidence from every quarter.

But when a barbarism seeks shelter under the jurisdiction of Congress, when it falls under the direct responsibility of my vote, I cannot be silent.

The Senator will pardon me, if I add, that he erred, when he undertook to transfer the rules of the State courts, without amendment or modification, to the National courts.

The State courts have their rules of evidence,--they are beyond our control; but the United States courts are within our control, and the time has come to bring them at last within the pale of civilization.

Why, Sir, has the good cause advanced thus far? to what end is it triumphant on this floor, if, in determining rules of evidence in the national courts, we take up and sanction this relic of barbarism?

If the rule is not justly within our reach, pray, Sir, why are we asked to vote on a bill concerning the competency of witnesses, and with a section expressly regulating the whole subject?

Within a few days the Senator has voted for a bill to punish the fraudulent counterfeiting of postage stamps; but suppose the counterfeiter does his work in the presence of colored persons and nobody else, where, under the proposed rule…

A government organized by Congress and appointed by the President is to enforce laws and institutions, some of which are abhorrent to civilization.

The punishment of slaves for this offence is whipping, repeated for every act.

Further we cannot go, and protect institutions in themselves an outrage to civilization.

And now I add, that this increased duty is a tax on knowledge, and as such to be discountenanced and opposed.

I do not err, when I infer from them that the higher duty has been an injury to the revenue, and also to the importer.

An increased duty on books will do nothing for the revenue; but it will interfere with a useful business, and at the same time impose a tax on knowledge.

On the face it is a tax on rags; but rags are imported to make paper; so that a tax on rags is a tax on paper, and as such is a tax on knowledge.

Let us at all hazards prevent the extension of Slavery and the increase of the Slave Power.