Under this clause Congress deals directly with individuals. The States are not engaged in commerce, but the people are; and Congress makes rules and regulations for the government of the people so engaged. The Constitution also provides that: "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes." It was held in the case of _The United States vs. Holliday_, 3 Wall., 407, that: "Commerce with the Indian tribes means commerce with the individuals composing those tribes." And under this clause it has been further decided that Congress has the power to regulate commerce not only between white people and Indian tribes, but between Indian tribes; and not only that, but between individual Indians. _Worcester vs. The State, 6 Pet., 575; The United States vs. 4.3 Gallons, 93 U. S., 188; The United States vs. Shawmux, 2 Saw., 304._ Now, if the word "tribe" includes individual Indians, may not the word "State" include citizens? In this decision it is admitted by the Supreme Court that where a subject is submitted to the general legislative power of Congress, then Congress has plenary powers of legislation over the whole subject. Let us apply these words to the 13th Amendment. In this very decision I find that the 13th Amendment: "By its own unaided force and effect, abolished slavery and established universal freedom." The Court admits that: "Legislation may be necessary and proper to meet all the various cases and circumstances to be affected by it, and to prescribe proper modes of redress for its violation in letter or spirit." The Court further admits: "And such legislation may be primary and direct in its character." And then gives the reason: "For the amendment is not a mere prohibition of State laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States." I now ask, has that subject--that is to say, Liberty,--been submitted to the general legislative power of Congress? The 13th Amendment provides that Congress shall have power to enforce that amendment by appropriate legislation. In construing the 13th and 14th Amendments and the Civil Rights Act, it seems to me that the Supreme Court has forgotten the principle of construction that has been laid down so often by courts, and that is this: that in construing statutes, courts may look to the history and condition of the country as circumstances from which to gather the intention of the Legislature. So it seems to me that the Court failed to remember the rule laid down by Story in the case of _Prigg vs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,_ 16 Pet., 611, a rule laid down in the interest of slavery--laid down for the purpose of depriving human beings of their liberty: