I do not doubt that hereafter, when the annals of these times are written, the historian will dwell with honest pride upon that admirable document, where one man reversed the whole policy of the Nation, fixing the law of this country…

Therefore, when the Territorial Legislature added the words “citizens of the United States,” it did not alter the case by a hair’s breadth: all persons could vote, without distinction of color.

But I insist, that, beyond all question, by the Territorial statute colored persons were entitled to vote.

There is kindred cry which must be ours,--No more States with inequality of rights!

Better far than any number of votes will be loyalty to this commanding cause.

If I were now about to pronounce the last words that I could ever utter in this Chamber, I would say to you, Senators, do not forget that right is always the highest expediency.

You can never sacrifice the right without suffering for it.

He might as well object to the validity of elections because criminals have not been let out of the prisons and penitentiaries to vote.

States hardly yet washed clean from the blood of rebellion cannot expect to be received instantly into the great copartnership of the National Government.

Clearly, in this utterance, so grandiose in promise, our President reached heights he has not been able to keep.

As in times past there has been the cry, “No more Slave States!” the cry now must be, “No more States with the word ‘white’!” I trust the Territories west of the Mississippi will take notice, and govern themselves accordingly.

You will see, therefore, that my opposition was not because the proposed Amendment “fell short of what was needed,”--although this was too true,--but because it did what in my judgment ought not to be done.

Its objectionable character became more apparent, when it was considered that it did this at a crisis when complete justice to the freedmen was at once the prompting of gratitude and the requirement of necessity for the sake of national…

I ask your attention to this example, that you may see how the rule of the minority is constantly rejected, notwithstanding temptation, inducement, and pressure to adopt it.

Such instances stand like so many pillars, and I refer to them now as proper to guide your conduct.

In point of fact, he received forty votes, of which ten were from Senators and thirty from members of the Assembly, while against him were forty-one votes; and the question you are to decide is on the legality of this election.

The National Constitution is the original and highest source of light on the question.

Here we find, that, in the absence of any regulations from Congress, the manner of choosing a Senator is referred to the State Legislature.

The Senator is to be chosen by the Legislature, which is to prescribe, among other things, the manner of holding the election.

Where the Constitution is silent, can the Legislature itself venture to speak?

Constant usage is in its favor; and yet I have no hesitation in saying that it has always seemed to me inconsistent with a just construction of the National Constitution.

In this opinion I am sustained by so eminent an authority as Chancellor Kent, who, after setting forth the usage, proceeds to express his dissent from it as a just construction of the National Constitution.

It is difficult to resist this conclusion, especially when it is considered that in any other way the smaller body is actually swamped by the larger.

Even admitting that the received usage of choosing Senators in joint meeting is consistent with the National Constitution, it is clear that it should not be extended; and this is the precise question before us.

Contrary to all usage or precedent, and without any direct sanction in the Constitution or statutes of New Jersey, the Legislature has undertaken in joint meeting, not only to choose a Senator, but also to prescribe the manner of choosing…