It was at the third session of the Forty-fifth Congress, January 16, 1879, that Mr. Robinson made his first considerable speech. It was upon the bill relative to the improvement of the Mississippi River. He was very deeply impressed with the magnitude of the problems presented by that great river, and, while he was willing that the public money should be wisely expended for the improvement of the Father of Waters, he did not wish that Congress should be committed to any special plan which might prove to be part of a great job, until an official investigation could be had. The interest with which this first speech was listened to, and the endless questions with which the Southern men who favored absolutely the levee system plied him, showed that they understood that great weight would be given to Mr. Robinsons opinion, and that they did not wish him to declare, unconditionally, against their cause. The speech was a broad and liberal one, but extremely just. It had been intimated in the course of the debate that Eastern members, who did not favor the improvement of the river, refused to do so on account of a narrow provincialism. Mr. Robinson showed them that New England is both just and generous, and that the country is so united that a substantial benefit to any portion of it cannot be an injury to another. He made some keen thrusts at the Southern State rights advocates, who were so eager for the old flag and an appropriation, and he reminded them that whatever might be thought of the dogma of State sovereignty, "the great old river is regardless of State lines, of the existence of Louisiana, and, whenever there is a defective levee in Arkansas, over it goes into Louisiana, spreading devastation in its course." Mr. Robinson insisted that "Congress has no right to spend $4,000,000 out of the public treasury immediately without investigating a theory and a plan which proposes to render such an expenditure wholly unnecessary," and he maintained that the greatest possible safe-guards should be provided against any extravagant expenditure on the part of the Government. The relations of New England to such an undertaking he thus broadly stated:
"I am not deterred by any considerations that when the great river is open to commerce to an enlarged extent more freight will go down its bosom and be diverted perhaps from the great cities on the Atlantic shore. I am willing that the whole country shall be improved and opened for its best and most profitable occupation. This territory, whose interests are affected by this, is greater than the whole of New England. I am not afraid that whatever improvements may be made there New England will be left out in the cold. Whatever conduces to the prosperity of the West or South will benefit the East and North. We are parts of one great whole, and, if it is necessary under a proper policy to spend some money from the Treasury of the United States to meet the wants of those States lying along the Mississippi River, I hope it will not be begrudged to them, but it should not be done, and the Government should not be committed, until the plans, have received a careful consideration and the indorsement of the proper officers."
At the third session of the Forty-fifth Congress, Mr. Robinson, from his minor place on the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Justice, introduced a bill relative to the mileage of United States Marshals, which proposed an important reform.
In the Forty-sixth Congress, at the first session, Mr. Robinson, on account of the marked abilities which he had shown as a lawyer and a debater, was appointed a member of the Judiciary Committee, a position which he held through the Forty-sixth Congress with honor to his district and his State. From the outset of the Forty-sixth Congress Mr. Robinson, to the great surprise of many older members, who were not able to fathom the mystery of the rules, took front rank as a debater on points of order, and showed that his months of silent observation and of earnest study had brought their fruit. His discussion of points of order and of the rules was always characterized by good sense. He did not seek to befog a question by an extensive quotation of authorities. He endeavored to strip the rules of their technicalities and to apply to them the principle of common sense. Sometimes, however, he was almost in despair, and once in the course of an intricate discussion he exclaimed (March 28, 1879): "If there is a standing and clear rule that guides the Chair, I have not yet found it."
At the second session of the Forty-sixth Congress, Western and Southern Democrats united their forces in support of an amendment to the "Culbertson Court bill," which was designed to limit the jurisdiction of the United States courts. Some of the strongest advocates of this amendment were men who, although living in Northern States, were unfriendly to the Union, and who, since the war, have been continuously aggressive in their efforts to place limitations upon national power. Mr. Robinson was a member of the Judiciary Committee and spoke upon the bill. His speech upon this measure attracted more attention than any speech he had delivered before that time. It commanded the undivided attention of the House, which was so interested in it that, although the debate was running in the valuable time of the morning hour, Mr. Robinson, on motion of a Democrat, Mr. Randolph Tucker, after the expiration of his time, was requested to continue. The speech was a powerful, logical, patriotic defence of the federal courts. A few extracts from the general parts of this speech furnish an excellent illustration of the abilities of Mr. Robinson as a debater and orator, as well as of his strong convictions. He spoke as the son of a Jackson Democrat would be likely to speak. He vigorously opposed the increase in the limit from $500 to $2,000 as proposed by the Southern and Western Democrats.
After quoting the opinions of Chief Justices Story and Marshall to show that the right of Congress to establish federal courts could not be denied without defeating the Constitution itself, Mr. Robinson continued: "I say, then, that those constitutional provisions give to the citizens of the different States their rights in the federal courts. I say again, it is not within the constitutional power of Congress to make discriminations as to citizens in this matter. It has been taken as settled that the corporations of the States for purposes of jurisdiction are citizens of the States in which they are created. Can you discriminate? Why, in the famous Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court did discriminate, and said that a negro was not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, nor entitled to sue in the Circuit Court of the United States. The nation paused and held its breath, and never recovered itself until after the bloody strife of the war, when was put into the Constitution that guaranty that no such doctrine should ever be repeated in this country. If Congress can exclude the citizens of a locality, or the citizens of one color, or the citizens of one occupation, or the citizens of certain classes of wealth or industry, surely it can exclude any other citizens. If you can, in this bill and under our Constitution, declare that the citizens, or any portion of them, in this country, because they act in their corporate capacity, shall lose their rights in the federal courts, it is but the next step to legislate that the man who is engaged in rolling iron, or in the manufacture of cotton, or of woolen goods, or is banker, or bloated bond-holder, shall not have any rights in the federal courts. There is no step between them. There may be a discrimination as to subject-matter, but not as to citizens. The distinction is very broad, and in recognition of it my argument is made." In the discussion of the apportionment at the Forty-sixth Congress, third session, Mr. Robinson eloquently defended the honor of Massachusetts against the aspersions which had been cast upon the Commonwealth by General Butler in his brief as attorney in the Boynton-Loring contest. In the course of the debate Mr. Cox called attention to this brief and suggested that if it were true the representation of Massachusetts should be curtailed. Mr. Robinson entered into an explanation of the reading and writing qualification for suffrage in Massachusetts. As General Butler was the assailant in this case, Mr. Robinson said: