If this rule were only irrational and eccentric, it might be pardoned to immeasurable madness, and handed over to the derision of mankind. But even its absurdity disappears in its appalling injustice. Two things are obvious to the most superficial observation: first, that under its influence the slave is left absolutely without legal protection of any kind, the victim of lawless outrage; and, secondly, that even crimes against white persons may escape unpunished: so that in these two important cases justice must fail. But this failure of justice becomes intolerable, when it is considered that it is not from accident or temporary weakness, but that it is absolutely organized by law. Nor is it confined to slaves. It embraces in its ban free colored persons also, without regard to intelligence, property, or relations in life. CONCLUSION. Such is this proscription, as it appears (1.) in the various statutes of the Slave States, (2.) in the eccentricities of judicial decisions, (3.) in its consequences, (4.) in examples of history, and (5.) in the grounds on which it is founded. Regarding it in either of these aspects, it must be rejected. The statutes in which it is declared and the judicial eccentricities by which it is illustrated belong to the curiosities of an expiring barbarism. Its consequences shock the conscience of the world. The examples of history testify against it. The reason on which it is founded shows that it stands on nothing that is reasonable. It is for Congress to determine whether this proscription shall continue in the courts of the United States,--or, in other words, if a local rule, barbarous, irrational, and unjust, born of Slavery, shall be allowed to exist yet longer under the national sanction. THE MISSION TO BELGIUM. SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC APPROPRIATION BILL, MARCH 15, 1864. March 14th, the Senate having under consideration the bill making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic service, Mr. Sumner, in behalf of the Committee on Foreign Relations, moved the following amendment:-- “That the President may, in his discretion, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the kingdom of Belgium, who shall receive no higher compensation than is now allowed to a minister resident.” The amendment was opposed by Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, to whom Mr. Sumner replied.[105] March 15th, the debate was continued, and Mr. Sumner spoke several times. In reply to Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, he said:--