Now what does this bill propose? To reform the whole civil and criminal code of every State Government by declaring that there shall be no discrimination between citizens on account of race or color in civil rights, or in the penalties prescribed by their laws. I humbly bow before the majesty of justice, as I bow before the majesty of that God whose attribute it is, and therefore declare that there should be no such inequality or discrimination even in the penalties for crime, but what power have you to correct it? That is the question. You further say that in the courts of justice of the several states there shall, as to the qualifications of witnesses, be no discrimination on account of race or color. I agree that as to persons who appreciate the obligation of an oath--and no others should be permitted to testify--there should be no such discrimination. But whence do you derive power to cure it by congressional enactment? There should be no discrimination among citizens of the United States, in the several states, of like sex, age, and condition, in regard to the franchises of office. But such a discrimination does exist in nearly every state. How do you propose to cure all this? By a congressional enactment? How? Not by saying in so many words (which would be the bold and direct way of meeting this issue) that every discrimination of this kind, whether existing in state constitution or state law, is hereby abolished. You propose to make it a penal offence for the judges of the states to obey the constitution and laws of their states, and for their obedience thereto to punish them by fine and imprisonment as felons. I deny your power to do this. You cannot make an official act done under color of law and without criminal intent and from a sense of duty, a crime.[90] The only Republican member of the House, from the non-slaveholding states, who sided with Bingham, was Raymond, of New York. The House passed the bill by yeas 111, nays 38. On the 27th of March, the President returned the bill to the Senate without his approval. He vetoed it on grounds of inexpediency and unconstitutionality. His arguments were substantially the same as those of Senators Saulsbury and Cowan.