January 29, 1869

The SPEAKER. The gentleman s time has expired.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I now yield for five minutes to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. PILE. I had intended, sir, to say something in reference to the bill before the House, and mainly to argue this proposition, namely: that primarily, as stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, it was intended by the framers of the Constitution to leave with the States the right to control the question of suffrage and fix the time and manner of holding election; but theyalso intended, andthought that they did, at the same time reserve to the Congress of the United States the right to exercise a supervisory power over the whole of this question. That is to say, that so long as in the judgment of Congress the States prescribed just and equal limitations, restrictions, and regulations upon suffrage within their several territories there was no necessity for the intervention of the General Government; but that whenever in the judgment and conscience of Congress any State imposed any unequal, unjust, tyrannical, or oppressive conditions or limitations it was the right and duty of Congress to intervene and apply the corrective. But, sir, I have not the time to enter at any length into an argument on that position.

I desire to say a word in regard to the proposed constitutional amendment, and first in reference to its form. It is difficult by any language to provide against every imaginary wrong or evil which may arise in the administration of the law of suffrage in the several States. What we desire to reach substantially, as I understand it, is first to countervene and deny the principle that the States have the right absolutely to control the question of suffrage; and secondly to insure by constitutional enactment, embodied in the fundamental law of the land, the right of suffrage to that race of people who have suffered so many wrongs at our hands, and to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for their fidelity in our hour of strife and difficulty Whatever secures substantially this result is satisfactory to me. The proposition 'of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] differs from all the others, in that it proposes to restore suffrage to those disfranchised for participation in the rebellion.

Now, sir, while I would hesitate to support such a measure if it applied only to my own State, and while I have some doubt as to whether the time has come for the enfranchisement of all the rebels, yet it is well to remember that this condition of things cannot be perpetual. The disfranchisement of any class of men must lead to friction and agitation, must keep up strife and contention.

It is well to bear in mind also that the large mass of those who were engaged in the rebellion have been enfranchised in the States of the South, and that only a small number, some thirty or forty thousand, have been disfranchised under our reconstruction laws. I do not think there is the danger apprehended by many in restoring this thirty or forty thousand to suffrage when the million and more who waged war against the Government already vote. I believe that we will secure th t political rest and quiet and peace and restoration to business so much desired only when we shall have given the ballot to the emancipated slave and to the subdued and conquered rebel. It may be wisest to give it to the negro first. It may be that we cannot now extend it to all rebels, but to that we must come at last, and every consideration of interest and enlightened statesmanship prompt us to reach that result as speedily as we can with safety. And, sir, I am not certain but it would be wise to let the disfranchisement of slavery and treason sleep in one common grave, and that justice to the colored man and mercy to the remaining disfranchised rebels would not be now the safest and speediest road to absolute peace.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. Van Hobs, of Missouri, and Mr. Hamilton, by unanimous consent, were granted leave to print their remarks as part of the debate. [See Appendix.]

Mr. BOUTWELL. Mr. Speaker, this debate "has demonstrated two facts: one is, there is a very general agreement that it is desirable to submit an amendment to the Constitution, and the other is, that there is a very great difference of opinion as to the details of the amendment.

I have promised my friend from Pennsylvania to yield to him, and I now do so.

Mr. SCOFIELD. Mr. Speaker, whether the five million colored population of the United States should lie excluded from all participation in the elective franchise is not, in my opinion, an open question. It has been debated in these halls and before the country for four or five years. In different ways, directly or indirectly, it has been carried into all the recent elections, and the" white man s Government'' dogma has always been rejected. The time of enfranchisement and the manner of enfranchisement, I will admit, are unsettled questions, but the underlying principle of universal suffrage has been approved oyer and over again. How stands the question practically to day Why, colored men vote in twenty two States of the Union, in the District of Columbia, and in all the Territories. In Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, in five of the New England States, and in all the late confederate States, eleven in number, there is no restriction. In New York they vote upon a property qualification, and in Ohio, by the decision of a Democratic court, upon admixture of blood._

Mr. MUNGBN. I want to say that this is not a Democratic decision.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I understand the decision was originally made by a Democratic bench. There are now left only fifteen States where the ballot is still withheld from men of color. It is not withheld there, because a majority of the people condemn the principle, bttt becanse they did not consider that the opportune time for action had arrived, or because they had not yet agreed upon the extent and mode of enfran chisement. Enfranchisement has been coming along piecemeal very much as emancipation came. Slavery was first abolished in the District, then in portions of the insurrectionary States, bif Mr. Lincoln s proclamation, thenin Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland, and Tennessee, and finally, by the thirteenth amendment of the Constitution, the institution itself, with all its cruelties, crimes, and blood, was buried out of sight of the Christian world forever. Enfranchisement has followed slowly but steadily. State after State, as time and opportunity and public sentiment would admit, has given its assent to the doctrine of universal suffrage, until, as I said, in twenty States, in the District of Columbia, and all the Territories, there is 110 exclusion 011 account of color. We propose now to give the people an opportunity to consider whether the time has not at last arrived when it is safe to put the great words of the Declaration of Independence in the Constitution itself. We are told that some of the States are not yet reedy; that Connecticut, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, and Kansas have so declared. That is not conclusive; Connecticut acted several years ago, and the majority was not large. The State would not have given its consent to emancipation a few years prior to that. In Ohio the question was coupled with the disfranchisement of deserters, and could not be decided upon its own merits. In Michigan it was buried beneath the weight of an unpopular constitution, of which it was only a single section. In Kansas it was submitted with another question not yet ripe for action. It was voted down in all of these States, not, as I believe, because the people condemned it in the abstract, but because they thought it premature, or because they found it allied with some other undesirable measure. I believe they would all approve it next year in the form we propose to present it; at least they could not take offense because they arc asked for "the sober second thought."

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] proposes to attach to this proposition which has been debated and considered, and as I believe substantially approved by the people, an undeserved and almost unsolicited act of grace to the cruel men, who for four years drenched the land with blood, and whose implacable hate still pursues the unforgiven Unionist with persecution, banishment, and murder. If we cannot send out for the people s consideration this little boon, I should rather say this act of justice, too long withheld for the faithful but humble friends of the Union, without again putting the elective power of the country in the hands of men who so lately foreswore and betrayed it, we had better not act at all. Both propositio ns would thus be defeated. If the gentleman thinks his proposition is so popular, let him try it by itself. There is no gentleman in the House to whom I listen with more pleasure than to my valued friend. He illustrates, whatever he discusses. But even ho cannot persuade the peojjle to again confide in men who broke both fealty and oath in order to betray and destroy the country. Their forfeited lives and estates have been restored. Let them enjoy them. I shall not trouble myself to give back to tliem their old mastery at the polls.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I wish to state to i e House the condition of the question and what I propose to submit to the House in the way of changing the amendment as reported by the committee. The discussion in the House on the amendment submitted by the two gentlemen from Ohio [Mr. Bingham and Mr tjhel labarger] has led me to suppose that some amendment to the report of the committee may be expedient, and I will state the amendment that I shall submit for the action of the House when the time arrives.

The SPEAKER. The motion to reconsider may be considered as agreed to and the motion to recommit as having been voted down, which will bring the joint resolution before the House.

Mr. SPALDING. Will it be in order lo move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table after the gentleman gets through?

The SPEAKER, it will.

Mr. SPALDING-. Whenever he does yield the floor I give notice that I shall move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

The SPEAKER. The effect of that will be to leave the joint resolution with the committee unreported.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I propose to strike oat the word "the" before the word "race," in the eleventh line, and to add after the word "vote"' in the tenth line the words, "at any .election in the State in which he shall have actually resided for a period of one year next preceding said election." I think that will accromplish what the gentleman from Ohio desires. Then, in order to meet objections which have been madetothereportoftbeeommittee, I shall move to add to the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio the words, "nor on account of his want of property or education;" so that it will read:

The right of any citizen of the United States to vote at any election in the State in which he shall have actually resided for ft period ol on e year next preceding said election shall not bo denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of race, color, or previous condi ion of slavery of any citizen or class of citizens in the United States, nor on account of his want of property or education.

I wish now to call the attention of the House to the substantive qualities of these various propositions. The Committee on the Judiciary directed their attention principally to the evil which was complained of—that in some States men were deprived of the privilege of voting on account of their race, color, or previous condition. So faras the amendinentofthegentleman from the seventh district of Ohio [Mr. Shellabargeb] is concerned, I think there are practical objections to offering that amendment precisely as it stands. And one of the chief objections is that I believe it will cut under all qualifications. I am not sure that it will not go so far as to put it out of the power of the States to establish a registration law. It certainly does abolish those qualifications in some States which require the voter to pay a small capitation tax, which shall have been assessed, perhaps, within two years preceding the election. I think that by arraying against this proposition all the peculiarities of the different States we put the proposition itself in danger. I think it better, therefore, as a matter of practical wisdom, to address ourselves exclusively to those great evils which have existed in the Government and the country, to those which are now practically of a serious character or which may reasonably be apprehended. But I think we ought not to go beyond the lines of what I have indicated.

Another objection which 1 have is, that it recognizes the right in the States to exclude men from the exercise of the elective franchise who participated in the rebellion. A right I will admit exists, but I prefer that it should not be incorporated in the Constitution of the United States. While for the time being I am set as firmly against universal enfranchisement of these people as 1 can possibly be set against any project, L still look forward to the time, which 1 trust is not far distant, when all these restrictions will be wiped out, not primarily by legislative action, but by that concord of opinion among the people of the States recently in rebellion by which there will be no substantial difference of opinion among them as to the Government under which they live. And when that time arrives I trust I shall be among the first to welcome all these men. Therefore I prefer not to be put into the Constitution any suggestion, as there is in the language of the amendment, that they may be excluded.

In these particulars I think the amendment proposed by the committee preferable to that proposed by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SHELLAB VRGER But I have a stronger objection against the amendment, of the gentleman s colleague, [Mr. Bingham.} He proposes to remove all distinction in all the rebel States and allow men who have been in armed rebellion to enjoy the franchise at once. Sir, having been engaged for two years as a member of a committee of this House in a most careful examination in reference to these States, and 1 do not hesitate to say that it is not safe by one swoop, either by statute or by constitutional authority, to relieve these men of their disabilities.

But there is an inconsistency in the amendment which shocks my sensibilities, and that is, that while the men who have been engaged in the rebellion recently suppressed, who have brought upon us intolerable woes, are to be relieved, the men who may engage in some future rebellion—as though the gentleman from Ohio could conceive of any future rebellion more infamous than that from which we have just escaped—are to be disfranchised by his constitutional amendment. Sir, if we are prepared to enfranchise the men who have just come out of rebellion, let us not higgle about any subsequent rebellion. It does not require the spirit of prophecy to foretell that none of these men can more deserve to be put out of the pale of the Government than those whom we propose to disfranchise for participation in the recent rebellion.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I would inquire of the gentleman if there is not a distinction; if we are not now disfranchising men and inflicting penalties upon them ex post facto; and whether we might not establish a rule in regard to a future rebellion which would not be applicable to the past one.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I have no doubt the gentleman has anathemas to bestow upon some future rebellion which he did not feel willing to bestow upon the past.

Mr. BINGHAM. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him a moment on that point?

Mr. BOUTWELL. I have not time 4

The SPEAKER. The gentleman has one minute remaining of his hour.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Then I demand the previous question on the motion to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution (II. R. No. 402) was recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The SPEAKER. The previous question will exhaust itself on the motion to reconsider. The question was put upon seconding the previous question; and there were—ayes one hundred and four, noes not counted.

So the previous question was seconded.

The main question was then ordered to be put; and under the operation thereof the motion to reconsider was agreed to.

The question recurred on the motion to recommit the joint resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I withdraw the motion.

The SPEAKER. Then the joint resolution is before the House for consideration.

The joint resolution was read, as follows:

Be it resolved by the Senate and Hour?. or Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring,) That the following article bo proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall bo held as part ot said Constitution, namely:

Ar Tr CLR

Section 1. The right of any citizen of the United States to voto shall not be denied or abtidged by the United States or any State by reason of the race, color, or previous condition of slavery of any citizen or class of citizens of the United States.

SiiC. 2. 'Xhe Congress shall have power to enforce by proper legislation the provisions of this article.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I move to amend section one by striking out the word "the" before" race 1

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WARD. I desire to make a suggestion ta the gentleman from Massachusetts. There are a nuinberof amendments before the House, and this is an exceedingly important matter; it ia a matter that the House has considered comparatively but little. I suggest to the gentleman that be permit tbe subject to be recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary. They will have power to report on Monday, or can move to suspend the rules, if they desire, for that purpose. Let them take ail these projects and consider thein, and digest such an amendment as the House can adopt. 1 do not think we will lose anything by it.

Mr. BOU 1 WELL 1 canuotaccede to any such proposition.

Mr. WARD. Then I wish to make a parliamentary inquiry, and it is whether if the previous question is voted down it will not be in order to move to recommit the joint resolution, with all the amendments, to the Committee on the Judiciary?

A Member. What for?

Mr. "WARD. In order that they may perfect the resolution.

The SPEAKER. It will be in order if the previous question is not sustained.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Mr. Speaker, I am of opinion, upon the whole, that the amendment as it came from the committee, which says that "the right of any citizen of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged," is a comprehensive and explicit declaration. I thought so when it was drawn, and on the whole I think it best for the amendment that I should not undertake to incorporate into it the language used by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Shellabarger;] but in order that the sense of the House may be tested upon the question—not that I am myself of the opinion that it will add anything substantial to the value of the amendment—I will propose to add to section one the words "nor shall educational attainments or the possession or ownership of property ever be made a test of the right of any citizen to vote," and on that amendment 1 will ask the previous question.

Mr. BINGHAM. 1 hope the previous question will not be seconded.

Mr. BOUTWELL. 1 only call ft on this amendment.

Mr. BINGHAM. I hope the previous question will not be seconded. I want to carry the amendment beyond educational tests. There are religious tests involved in this question.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I am entitled to the floor for an hour, am I not?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman is entitled to the floor for an hour.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Then I withdraw the demand for the previous question, and yield to the gentleman from Ohio for ten minutes.

Mr. BINGHAM. It must occur to the gentleman from Massachusetts on a moment s reflection that the designation of properly and educational qualifications recognizes the right in every State of establishing a religious test; and I ask the gentleman why he will insist on the previous question upon a proposition which, as it stands by a well known rule of construction, commits this House to the monstrous proposition that every State in the Union may establish a religious test as a qualification of the elective franchise. The exceptions made by the gentlemen are, I believe, a property qualification and an educational qualification, and the result is, in the words of one of the foremost jurists of America, that every other thing not included in this exception may be made a test, and that is the reason 1 object to it.

I have no idea of amending the Constitution ot my country by piecemeal in this way. When I am asked to vote I wish to vote intelligently. I desire to see and understand the entire proposition; and, for one, I shall oppose the seconding ot the previous question, which is called for the purpose of preventing any one from presenting an entire provision in lieu of the first section of the gentleman s amendment. If the majority of the House are with him I will bow with submission, as all good citizens should, to the expression of their will. If they are against him then he ought to allow that majority to have an opportunity to speak without nnd er taking, by the operation of a mere parliamentary contrivance, to cut them off from that opportunity, and then telling them that they are opposed to enlarging the elective franchise if they do not vote for his proposition.

Sir, I have stood here the advocate of impartial suffrage when gentlemen who now put themselves forwardas its special friends were on the other side of the question. It has been the rule of my political life. I never could see the propriety, under the Constitution of the United States, of any State disfranchising any free citizen of the Republic by reason of hiscolor from exercising this great privilege of freemen, out of which come constitutions, out of which come legislative assemblies, out of which come laws, out of which comes the establishment of tribunals of justice, and out of which comes the administration of justice itself between man and man. I am for the largest liberty and for the greatest good of the greatest number, and I stand here opposed to a proposition which on its face, in the words of Marshall, necessarily implies the consent of the House and of the country, if we adopt the amendment, that religious tests may be established as a condition of the exercise of the elective franchise.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I desire to ask the gentleman a question.

Mr. BINGHAM. Very well.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I ask the gentleman if, in the view he has taken of the proposed amendment to the Constitution, there may not be established by the States any and every other test but the two only that are excepted?

Mr. BINGHAM. That is exactly what I have said touching the proposition of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Boutwell.]

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Not only a religious test, but every test that the mind of man can conceive that does not come under the head of property or of education?

Mr. BINGHAM. Certainly. And now, if the gentleman from Massachusetts will indulge me, I wish to say this: that years ago, in my place, I deemed it my duty as a Representative of the people to say that while the original power of exercising this right of the elective franchise was in the States I denied that the majority of the people—that is, the male citizens, for that is the meaning of the term "the people’’ as -used in the Constitution of the country—ever had the right under the Constitution, though they had the power, to deprive the minority of the equal exercise of the elective franchise, the minority being of like lawful age, sex, and residence, and of sound mind. And I stand by that proposition to day All I desire touching this proposed amendment to the Constitution is so to reform it that it will be acceptable to the great majority of the people of this country, North and South, East and West, to the end that it maybe a success, so that you will establish impartial suffrage; in short, so that you will not lose all by grasping for the unattainable and, I might add, the undesirable.

Mr. MAYNARD. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. BINGHAM. Certainly.

Mr. MAYNARD. I would ask the gentleman if his objection will not apply equally to every form of amendment we may adopt, unless we undertake to declare affirmatively what shall be the qualifications of a voter? This proposed amendment speaks only negatively when it speaks of the qualifications of a voter, stating that certain matters shall not be a test against a voter, leaving everything else open.

Mr. BINGHAM. I am glad to have an opportunity to answer the question of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. Maynard.] If there were nothing at all here except the first section I might see a great deal of weight in the gentleman s suggestion. But there happens to be added to that a second section, giving to Congress the express power to enforce the prohibition. The result of the whole matter is that if we amend this first section, as suggested by my honorable colleague as well as "by myself, by the second section Congress is invested with express authority to enforce the limitation.

Mr. JENCKES. I would like to ask the gentleman a question.

Mr. BINGHAM. Very -well; what is it?

Mr. JENCKES. Does the gentleman understand that this second Section gives to Congress the power to prescribe affirmatively the qualifications of electors ia these elections; or does it simply give the power to enforce the prohibition upon the States; in other words, can that power be exercised by Congress so as to secure uniformity of qualification of electors in all the States of the Union?

Mr. BINGHAM. I answer the gentleman |hat I have not the least doubt on the question as a question of law. There are other negative provisions in the Constitution of the United States; for example, the express negative provision that "no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." By virtue of your judiciary act, as it has been in force from the foundation of the Government to this day, that limitation upon the power of the States is uniform, and whenever or where ever any State has undertaken by legislative enactment or by constitutional provision, if you please—I care not which—to impair the obligation of contracts, that wrong has, by the operation of your law, been righted; so that the provision of the Constitution has operated uniformly. Whenever Congress has the power under the Constitution to enforce the limitations of that instrument, even upon States, the exercise of the power will be as uniform as tiie exercise of any affirmative power can possibly be. It must be so; it cannot be otherwise.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Mr. Speaker, I do not see that the argument made by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] changes the condition of the question at all. If it be true, as he argues, that under this amendment the States would have the right to impose areligious test, it is equally true that they can do so now. What he has said only adds force to the suggestion I made, that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Ohio, if referred to the State Legislatures, will be met by all these difficulties; and although I should be willing to strike down all educational or property tests, and all possibility of their being established anywhere, the probability is that the amendment which we are discussing, if submitted substantially as it came from the committee, will be stronger before the people, and that if we should attempt to grasp at too much we shall lose the whole. I believe that if we adhere to the proposition to protect the people of this country against destinction on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery we undertake all that it is probably safe for us to undertake now.

But I learned from the gentleman from Ohio that the delegation from that State were anxious that there should be a provision in this constitutional amendment against any property or educational qualification. My own conviction is that no such qualification will ever be imposed. I do not think that such a restriction would be a serious obstacle in the way of the ratification of this amendment, and I am therefore willing to submit the question to the House, my own opinion being that it is not very material which way it be decided; but the kinger this discussion continues the better satisfied I am that it is dangerous to undertake to wipe out every minute test or distinction which may have been established in the several States, and that where these distinctions are not serious in their consequences, not calculated to endanger the rights or liberties of individual citizens or the public welfare, it is wisest, under the circumstances in which we find ourselves, not to strike at those distinctions.

I was about to demand the previous question, but the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SnELr A barcsk] desires to say a few words, and I yield to him.

Mr. SHELLABARGER. I desire, Mr. Speaker, to say, in the first place, that the proposition which I submit is not amenable to the objection urged by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Butler,] that by it the States would be deprived of the power of passing registration or election laws. Plainly that cannot be so. The Constitution itself in express terms provides that—

"The powers not delegated to thoTJnitedStates by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."

Hence it follows that the power of regulating elections not being prohibited to the States by the Constitution as it stands, resides now either with the States or with the people. If this is so, if the power to regulate elections or registrations resides with the States under the Constitution in its present form, then my proposition will not take it away. It simply provided that the right to vote shall be exercised by all male citizens of a certain age. Every power now residing with the States under the Constitution, except so far as this amendment takes away their power, will remain with them still. The power of regulating elections and of passing registration laws being with the States now is not taken away by my proposed amendment. Now, let me state another point. The form in which this proposition is drawn, that all male citizens of a prescribed age and who have not been guilty of certain crimes shall have an equal right to vote, excludes every possible ambiguity and doubt in regard to who at least shall be permitted to vote. In other words, theprovisions of my amendment, as applied to the proposed constitutional amendment reported by the committee, will have the effect of making it more explicit and distinct.

Mr. BOUTWELL. The difficulty, in one word, is that the gentleman s amendment, if made a part of the Constitution, vests the right, of suffrage absolutely in every person covered by the amendment; and if any State should provide that the voters shall be registered ten days before the election it will be in the teeth of the provisions of the gentleman s amendment as I understand it. His amendment sweeps out of existence at once every condition or qualification or consideration which may be imposed by any StateLegislature on the absolute and unrestricted right of suffrage. If the man is covered by the provision of the gentleman s amendment he can go up to the polls and vote, notwithstanding the restrictions of any State law.

Mr. SHELLABARGER. I may suggest to the gentleman from Massachusetts that that is a proposition in reference to which we differ toto ccelo. Nothing can be plainer to me, it seems, than that every one of the States is left to the responsibility which it now has, and which my proposed amendment does not take away. It does not take away the right of the State to control the election. The Constitution itself provides that powers not expressly granted are reserved to the States and the people, and that is au answer to all the gentleman has said.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I now yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, the pending amendment upon which we are to vote declares that the States shall not impose any property or educational test as a condition to the exercise of the right of suffrage. Now, it seems to me, if the doctrine of my colleague on the committee, [Mr. Boutwell,] as stated to the House the other day, is correct, we need no such amendment. He quoted from a case decided by the supreme court of Kentucky these words:

"No one can, therefore, in the correct sense of the term, be a citizen of a State who ifi not entitled, upon the terms prescribed by the institutions ot the State, to all the rights and privileges conferred by those institutions upon the highestciass of society. He continued, after reading from that decision, as follows:

"Here is a full, and I believe a fair, statement of what constitutes a citizen. He must bo in the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of any other citizen."

Fuitboc on he say«:

"It is ia harmony with the declaration made by the supreme court of. the State of Kentucky, in the opinion from Which X have just read, that it is an essential quality of citizenship that the citizen should enjoy the highest privileges that appertain to citisensjiip in the State or city of which he is a citizen. Therefore, when you prove to me that one man in the State of Kentucky votes for President, or for a, Representative in- Congress, or for members of the State Legislature you have proved that every man having like qualifications of education or property h a i the same right: If you deny it to him you deny that to which by the Constitution he is entitled r the enjoyment of equal privileges and immunities s a Citwe n of the United States, and as a citizen of Kentucky in the State of Kentucky."

Ttie result of this doctrine is that it is held that the right to vote (s a question of citizenship, ajid if that be correct then I wish to know,' after we- have declared that every per- ,son honv within the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen of' the United States, how you can interpose even the qualification which the gentleman from Ohio proposes: "except to such as have engaged in rebellion in the past." If this doctrine be correct, that person ■who is a citizen must be entitled to all the rights enjoyed by the highest and most favored citizen in the land. Then, as a matter of course, if One citizen enjoys the right to vote on reaching twenty one years of age, you cannot impose on another a property qualification or an educational test or this test of the committee of having been engaged in the rebellion. Therefore, if I am to follow this doctrine, I must be led into the position of the other gentleman from Ohio; that is to say, that all citizens of the United States of twenty one years of age, of sound mind, and who have not been convicted of any offense or felony under the law, must be entitled to vote; for if the right of suffrage is an incident of citizenship then no State has a right to deprive any citizen of that incident.

Mr. BOUTWELL. In answer to what my colleague has said, I will say to the House that I do not discover anything in the quotation rcwde by him or in the speech I made in the House the other day that is in any way inconsistent with itself or with the position 1 now occupy. I stated then, and I stated in what he has read, that when you have established the fact that a person is a citizen you have also established the fact that he has a right to all the privileges of any other citizen. That is unquestionably irae; and if in any State an educational test were made for some people, or a property test for some people, and not for others, that provision would be in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Bntit is undoubtedly true in the practice of the country that certain qualifications are prescribed—and the word "qualification" in the Constitution is used in a proper and legitimate sense, such quality of the man as may be attained by men generally—and when those qualities are imposed upon all men alike there is no discrimination, there is no injustice, as between man and man. That is all I said, I think, on the former occasion, and it is all I contend for to day

Nor does the doctrine which I held the other day lead to the conclusion embodied in the proposition offered by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Bisgham,] that all rebels should be enfranchised. Is it not known that rebellion in contemplation of law and in the presence of all that we have ever done on the subject of the rebellion is regarded as a crime, and for that reason these men are excluded from the elective franchise the same as if they had committed uiurderortreasonorhad beenguiltyof bribery? There is no reason or. logic in the suggestion that because I have said that a citizen is entitled to all the rights of a citizen that there can be no exclusion for crime, no exclusion for unsoundness of mind, no qualification which is attainable by all men imposed upon the exercise of his right. Those qualifications may be unwise. I think generally they are.

But I have been diverted. I do not know that it is necessary to prolong this debate. I suppose the House desires to come to a conclusion. I submit the amendment and demand the previous question upon it.

Mr. JENCKES. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOUTWELL. The gentleman is entitled to a few minutes, and I yield liim five minutes.

Mr. JENCKES. The reasons for my opposition to this amendment of the committee will reach beyond the amendment itself and bear with some weight against the original proposition. In order to ascertain the purpose of a constitutional amendment we should look first to see how the Constitution now stands. By the original Constitution the citizens of each State are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. By the fourteenth amendment the States are prevented from passing any laws abridging the right of citizens to these privileges and immunities Now, it is said that they are abridged in some States by citizens not being permitted to exercise the right to vote and hold office, and it is proposed to cover this omission and secure these privileges by this new constitutional amendment. It is proposed to do this, not by an affirmative proposition, but by a negative. A constitutional amendment should be so framed as to settle doubtful questions; but instead of settling any question, this amendment, if adopted with the addition now proposed, would raise just as many new constitutional questions as there are States, because the conditions of suffrage in the proposed .amendment are not identical with the conditions of suffrage in any State of the Union. Hence there must be a conflict in every State, and new questions will arise which must be settled by some adjudication.

Nor is the reply of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] sufficient upon this point. He says there are negative clauses in the Constitution which are construed in a certain sense affirmatively, and he instances that in regard to the restraint upon the States from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts. But although no affirmation concerning the obligation of contracts is to be found either in the State constitutions or in the Constitution of the United States, yet that obligation is part of the common law recognized by the Constitution of the United States, and which underlies all the laws of all the States. But the right of suffrage is not a right under the common law; nor is it affirmed as a right under definite qualifications by the Constitution of the United States; nor is it uniformly declared by the constitutions of the several States, with conditions and limitations identical in all. Hence this amendment settles nothing; it simply increases the difficulty by its negative character; and upon principle I am opposed to inserting any more negative clauses in the Constitution, unless, like the one read by the gentleman from Massachusetts, it can operate upon another negative clause, and thus become affirmative. The idea of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] is that it may become affirmative by the second clause of this proposed amendment. Well, if being affirmative it gives power to Congress to settle the qualifications of suffrage within the limits imposed by this amendment, it simply adds to the difficulty and makes the condition of suffrage primarily the subject of legislation in the Legislatures or in the conventions of the States, and then throws the residuum which is declared beyond their power into Congress for settlement. It seems to me that it is far better to undertake to settle it all at once by an affirmative proposition declaring what shall be the qualifications of every elector for President and Vice Presidentand Representatives in Congress and members of the State Legislatures. If an amendment of that kind be proposed I am willing to be as liberal as any one in declaring what the qualificationsshallbe, althoughit mayinterfere with the institutions ot the Staite which I in part represent and the institutions of many other States. Let these qualifications be uniform throughout the land and defined in clear and positive terms, and then there can be no two constructions placed upon the amendment which cannot be settled by the tribunal of ultimate resort, whether it be the House of Representatives in judging of the election of its members or the Supreme Court of the United States in testing the qualifications of a citizen in a case properly made; but so long as it stands as a mere negative I feel bound to oppose it.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I think now the House will be better satisfied to have the vote taken on the amendment, and I ask the previous question upon it.

Mr. GARFIELD. I would ask the gentleman whether he thinks it wise for us to put it into the Constitution of the United States that never under any conceivable circumstances shall any State of the Union require an educational test for suffrage?

Mr. BOUTWELL. I demand the previous question.

Mr. GARFIELD. I should be sorry to see such a prohibition placed in the Constitution. The previous question was seconded—ayes 104, noes 46.

The main question was then ordered to be put, being upon agreeing to Mr. Botjtwell s amendment, to add to section one of the proposed article of amendment the following words: "nor shall educational attainments or the possession or ownership of property ever be made a test of the right of any citizen to vote."

Mr. ROBINSON. I move that the House do now adjourn. It is quite evident that we cannot reach a vote to night and we had better adjourn.

The question was put, and the House refused to adjourn.

The question was then put on Mr. Boutwell s amendment; and there were—ayes 45, noes 95.

Mr. BROMWELL demanded the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

So the amendment was disagreed to.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I suppose, under the circumstances in which we are placed, that the wiser way is to allow the proposition of the gentleman from Ohio on my left [Mr. Bixgham] to be submitted, and also the proposition of the gentleman from Ohio on my right, [Mr. Shellabarger.] I will yield first to the gentleman from Ohio on my left to offer his amendment.

Mr. BINGHAM. I move to amend section one of the proposed article of amendment by striking out all but the words "citizens of the United States" and inserting so that it shall read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge or deny to any male citizen of the United States of sound mind and twenty one years of age or upward the equal exercise, subject to such registration laws as the State may establish, of the elective franchise at all electionsin the State wherein he shall have actually resided for a period of one year next preceding such election, except such of said citizens as shall engage in rebellion or insurrection, or who may have been, or shall be, duly convicted of treason or other infamous crime.

Mr. BOUTWELL. As I understand that the gentleman from Ohio on my right [Mr. Shellabarger] can move his proposition as a substitute for that amendment I now yield to him for that purpose.

Mr. SHELLABARGER. I move as a substitute for the amendment of my colleague [Mr. Bixuham] that which I send to the Chair, being a modification of the amendment of which I gave notice a day or two since.

The Clerk read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall deny or abridge to any male citizen of the United States of the age of twenty one years or over, and who is of sound mind, an equal vote at all elections in the State in which he shall have his actual residence, such right to vote to be under such regulations as shall be prescribed by law, except to such as have engaged, or may hereafter engage, in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, and to such as shall be duly convicted of infamous eritne.

The question was upon the substitute offered by Mr. Shellabarger to the amendment offered by Mr. Bingham.

Mr. BOUTWELL. The amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Siiellabauger] is new -to me. The first impression upon my mind is that it is iu such form to exactly what we are aiming at.

Mr. SHELLABARGER. The regulations are simply in regard to the exercise of the right. But the right to vote is secured by the substantial part of the section.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I now call the previous question upon the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.

The question was upon seconding the demand for the previous question.

Mr. BURR. Is it in order to move that this joint resolution and the pending amendments be laid on the table?

The SPEAKER. That motion is in order. Mr. B [JRR. Then I make that motion; and upon it I call for the yeas and nays.

The question was upon ordering the yeas and nays.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I move that the House now adjourn.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that if the motion to adjourn shall be now agreed to this subject will come up as unfinished business immediately after the morning hour to morrow

Mr. SCOFIELD. Let the previous question be seconded now; otherwise we will have a long debate on this proposition to morrow

The SPEAKER. The first question to morrow when the consideration of this subject is resumed, if the motion to adjourn is now agreed to, will be upon the motion of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Burr,] that the resolution and pending amendments be laid upon the table.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I ask unanimous consent that this joint resolution, with the amendments pending thereto, be printed for the use of the House.

No objection was made, and the order to print was accordingly made.

The question was then taken upon the motion to adjourn; and upon a division there were—ayes one hundred and nineteen, noes not counted.

So the motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at four o clock and forty minutes p. m.) the House adjourned.