War-ships of the United States dance attendance on the usurper, and save him from the outbreak of the people.

Shame and indignation rise as we read the record.

Who will not say that in this transaction the Black Republic appears better than the Rear-Admiral?

In considering how far this conduct is a violation of International Law and of the Constitution of the United States, I begin with the former.

International Law is to nations what the National Constitution is to our coëqual States: it is the rule by which they are governed.

As among us every State and also every citizen has an interest in upholding the National Constitution, so has every nation and also every citizen an interest in upholding International Law.

To insist upon the recognition of International Law is to uphold civilization in one of its essential securities.

Foremost among admitted principles of International Law is the axiom, that all nations are equal, without distinction of population, size, or power.

Nor does International Law know any distinction of color.

As a natural consequence, whatever is the rule for one is the rule for all; nor can we do to a thinly-peopled, small, weak, or black nation what we would not do to a populous, large, strong, or white nation,--nor what that nation might not…

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is the plain law for all nations, as for all men.

The equality of nations is the first principle of International Law, as the equality of men is the first principle in our Declaration of Independence; and you may as well assail the one as the other.

As all men are equal before the Law, so are all nations.

Nations composed of men, and considered as so many free persons living together in the state of Nature, are naturally equal, and inherit from Nature the same obligations and rights.

A dwarf is as much a man as a giant; a small republic is no less a sovereign state than the most powerful kingdom.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any…

Here, then, are two Constitutional Amendments, each a fountain of power: the first, to enforce the Abolition of Slavery; and the second, to assure the privileges and immunities of citizens, and also the equal protection of the laws.

If the Supplementary Civil Rights Bill, moved by me, is not within these accumulated powers, I am at a loss to know what is within those powers.

In considering these Constitutional provisions, I insist upon that interpretation which shall give them the most generous expansion, so that they shall be truly efficacious for human rights.

Once Slavery was the animating principle in determining the meaning of the National Constitution: happily, it is so no longer.

Once a sterile letter, this is now a fruitful safeguard, to be interpreted, like all else, so that human rights shall most prevail.

The country will rally in aid of the law, more especially since it is a measure of justice and humanity.

Prompted by the law, leaning on the law, they will recognize the equal rights of all; nor do I despair of a public opinion which shall stamp the denial of these rights as an outrage not unlike Slavery itself.

Thus will the law be an instrument of improvement, necessary in precise proportion to existing prejudice.

Thus is the innkeeper under constraint of law, which he must obey; “bound to take in all travellers and wayfaring persons”; “nor can he impose unreasonable terms upon them”; and liable to an action, and even to an indictment, for refusal.