Debates in the House of Representatives on the Fifteenth Amendment, 1869

January 30, 1869

SUFFRAGE.22 min read
1: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 1 (House1869.Jan30.1)

The SPEAKER. The House now resumes the consideration of the unfinished bu Muess pending at the adjournment yesterday, being the joint resolution (LI. It. No. 402) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the pending question being on themotiou of the ge tlemau from Illinois, [Mr. Buiui,] to lay the constitutional amendment with the pending amendments oil the table, on which the yeas and nays have been demanded. The yeas and nays were ordered.

2: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 2 (House1869.Jan30.2)

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative—yeas 41, nays 131, not voting 50; as follows:

3: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 3 (House1869.Jan30.3)

YEAS—Messrs. Axtell, Beck, Boyden, Boyer, Brooks Burr Cary, Chanler Coburn, Eldi idgc, Fox, Getz. Golladay, Grover Haight Hawkins Hoichkiss Humphrey, Jenckes, johnson. Xsioin is L. Jones, Kerr, Knott, Marshall. McCoruiick, Mungen, Niblack, .Nicholson, Phelps, Polsley, Pruyn, Randall, Robinson. Ross Sitgreaves Xaber iitt Van Auken, Van Trump, John T. Wilson, and Young—41.

4: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 4 (House1869.Jan30.4)

NAYS—Messrs. Allison. Arneil, Delos K. Ashley, James II. Ashley, Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Beaman, Beatty, Benton, Bingham, Blame, Biair, Boles, Bontwell, Bi omvvell Broosn ill Buckland, Buckley, Benjamin F Butler Cake, Callis, i hurch ill, Sidney Clarke, Ciilt, Cobb, Oo ode Cullom, Dawes Delano Deweese, Dockery, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, lsdwards Eggleston ThoiuasD. Eliot, JauiesT. Elliott, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields French Garfield Goss Gove. Gravely Griswold Hamilton, Hardinft, Heaton, Higby, Hooper, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, ilulburd. Hunter. Alexander II. Jones. Judd, Julian, Kelley. Kellogsr, Kelsey, Ketcham, Koontz, Lash, William Lawrence, Loan. Logan, Lougbndge, Lynch, Marvin Maynard McKee, Mercur. Miller, Moore. Moorhead, Morrell. Mullins, Myers, Newcomb, Norris, Nunn, O Neill Orth, Paine, Perham. Peters, Pierce, Pike, Pile, Plants, Price, Prince, Raum, Robertson, Roots, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shanks, Shellabarger, Smith, Spalding, Starkweather, Stokes, Stover, Sypher, TatTe, Taylor, John Trimble, Trowbi idge, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Van Wyck, Ward Cadwaiader C. u ashburn, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Wiiliam \V iliia iiis James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson. Windom, and Woodbridge—131. SOT VOTING—Messrs. Adams, Ames, Anderson, Archer, Barnes, Barnum, Benjamin, Blackburn, Bowen, Hod ci lek K. Butler, R. jador W. Clarke, Cook, Coney. Cornell, Dickey. Dixon, Ela, Ku nswoi til, Glossbrenner, Jl Halsey, Haughey, Hill, liolinan, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Ingersoll, Kitchen. Laflin, George V. Lawrence, Lincoln, Mallor y McCarthy, McCullough, Morrissey, Newsham, Pettis. Poland, Pomeroy, Selye, Stevens. Stewart, Stone. Thomas Lawrence 3 Trimble Vidal Elihu B. Washburne, Whittemore, Thomas "Williams, Wood, and Woodward—50.

5: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 5 (House1869.Jan30.5)

So the House refused to jay the joint resolution on the table.

7: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 7 (House1869.Jan30.7)

Mr. NIBLACK said: I desire to say that my colleague, Mr. Holmax, has been called home by the sickness of a member of his family. If he were herehe would vote "ay,'" beingopposed to this whole proposition in ail its forms.

8: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 8 (House1869.Jan30.8)

Mr. ROBINSON said: I am requested by my colleague, Mr. Babuls, who is absent by leave of the House, to saythathe is paired lrorl off AT>. with Mr. Ames on this subject. If he were here he would vote in the affirmative.

9: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 9 (House1869.Jan30.9)

Mr. WE LEER said: My colleague, Mr. Clarke, is detained at his room by sickness. If he were here he would vote "no."

10: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 10 (House1869.Jan30.10)

Mr. SCOFIELD stated that Mr. Vidal was confined to his room by sickness.

11: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 11 (House1869.Jan30.11)

Mr. MARVIN stated that Mr. Cornell was absentonaceountofiilness. If present he would vote no.

12: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 12 (House1869.Jan30.12)

Mr. GLOSSBRENNER stated that on this and on all other questions upon which parties are divided he was paired until Monday next, including the sessions of that day, with his colleague from the Mercer district, Mr. Pettis.] He [Mr. Glossbrexxer] would vote against the proposed amendment to the Constitution in whatever form it might be presented, and Mr. Pettis would sustain substantially the amendment reported by the Committee on Reconstruction.

13: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 13 (House1869.Jan30.13)

The result of the vote having been announced as above recorded, the question recurred upon seconding the demand for the previous question on the pending amendments made by Mr. Boutwell last evening.

14: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 14 (House1869.Jan30.14)

Leave was granted to Mr. Broomall, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Arxell, and Mr. Welker to print speeches on the pending measure. [See Appendix.]

15: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 15 (House1869.Jan30.15)

Mr. SHELLABARGER. I withdraw the modifications of amendment which I offered yesterday, so as to leave the amendment as it was originally printed, and I ask that it may be read.

16: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 16 (House1869.Jan30.16)

The Clerk read the amendment, 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 such actual residence sus shall be prescribed by law, except to such as have engaged or may hereafter engage in insurrection or rebellion against theUnited States, and to such as shall be duly convicted of treason, felony or other infamous crime.

17: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 17 (House1869.Jan30.17)

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I would ask the gentleman from Ohio if he is not willing to strike out from his amendment that exception in regard to persons convicted of crime or conviction of any other thing which may be considered or made to be crime, so that the bill or joint resolution shall only be prospective in its effect?

18: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 18 (House1869.Jan30.18)

Mr. SHELLABARGER. I do not know that I exactly understand the point of the inquiry. If the gentleman means to inquire whether I would not consent to strike out the exception of that class who must be convicted before they could be disfranchised, I reply that I would not.

19: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 19 (House1869.Jan30.19)

Mr. ELDRIDGE. If the gentleman will allow me, I will state what I desire.

20: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 20 (House1869.Jan30.20)

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Boutwell] yield for that purpose?

21: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 21 (House1869.Jan30.21)

Mr. BOUTWELL. As I understand the proposition as modified by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Shellabarger] it is now precisely the proposition which he originally submitted to the House and which was printed, he having withdrawn the modifications which he suggested yesterday.

23: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 23 (House1869.Jan30.23)

Mr. BOUTWELL. On the other hand, the proposition reported by the committee stands without any alteration whatsoever, except that the definite article •'the" before the word race" has been stricken out. Therefore the debate which took place yesterday was appropriate to these two propositions precisely as they stand. If we open the subject to day for debate, I do not know how, if the matter is to be left to me, I can regulate" it consistently with the business of the House or with the appeals that are made to me on both sides of the House. I suggest, therefore, that it is better that we should come to a vote upon these propositions, which are jprobably now understood.

24: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 24 (House1869.Jan30.24)

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I do not wish to make a speech or an argument on the subject. I only wish to suggest to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Shellabarger] a modification of his amendment which I would desire.

25: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 25 (House1869.Jan30.25)

Mr. SHELLABARGER. I wish now that we may have it distinctly understood how these propositions stand. Am I right in supposing that the proposition of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Boctwell,] or rather of the Committee on the Judiciary, stands now just as it was reported, with the exception of the change by striking out the word" the" before the word race?’’

26: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 26 (House1869.Jan30.26)

Mr. BOUTWELL. There has been no other change.

27: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 27 (House1869.Jan30.27)

Mr. SHELLABARGER. And the provisions suggested yesterday in relation to qualifications grounded on intelligence, &c., are now out of the case?

28: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 28 (House1869.Jan30.28)

Mr. BOUTWELL. They were voted down yesterday by the House two to one.

29: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 29 (House1869.Jan30.29)

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I desire to make a suggestion.

30: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 30 (House1869.Jan30.30)

Mr. BOUTWELL. If I yield it will open the matter to debate.

31: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 31 (House1869.Jan30.31)

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I do not desire to debate, but to suggest to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Shellabarger] a modification of the amendment he has proposed.

32: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 32 (House1869.Jan30.32)

Mr. BOUTWELL. Very well; let the suggestion be made without debate.

33: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 33 (House1869.Jan30.33)

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I desire to say that every feeling and sentiment of my nature is against ex postfac tr laws and the conviction by act of Congress of any person for a crime which he may have committed heretofore. I desire, therefore, that the gentleman from Ohio shall so modify his amendment as to make it apply to future offenses, to crimes hereafter to be committed only, that we shall not by act of Congress convict men of crime and inflict penalties not provided for when the act was committed.

34: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 34 (House1869.Jan30.34)

Mr. BOUTWELL. I must insist upon my demand for the previous question.

35: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 35 (House1869.Jan30.35)

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Does that apply to thrf joint resolution as well as to the amendments which have been offered, so that the House will be brought to a vote upon all the pending propositions?

37: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 37 (House1869.Jan30.37)

Mr. ELDRIDGE. And we shall be obliged to vote upon the amendments which have already been offered, and then upon the joint resolution itself, without opportunity to move further amendments?

38: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 38 (House1869.Jan30.38)

The SPEAKER. That will be the effect of the previous question, as moved by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Boutwell,] if the House shall sustain the call and order the main question.

39: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 39 (House1869.Jan30.39)

Mr. BINGHAM. I appeal to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Boutwell] to allow me to make some verbal changes m mv amendment before the previous question is ordered.

41: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 41 (House1869.Jan30.41)

The SPEAKER. The gentleman has the right under the rules of the House to modify his amendment before the previous question is seconded.

42: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 42 (House1869.Jan30.42)

Mr. BINGHAM. The changes I have made in my amendment are merely verbal, not in any manner changing the substance of the proposition which I presented on yesterday. 1 ask the Clerk to read it as modified.

44: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 44 (House1869.Jan30.44)

No State shall makeor enforce any law which shall abridge or deny to any male citizen of the United States of sound mind and twonty one years of age or upward the exercise of the elective franchise at ail elections in the State wherein he shall have actually resided for a period of one year next preceding such election, (subject to such registration laws and laws prescribing local residence as the State may enact J except except such such of of said said citizens citizens as as shall engage m re°®': lion lion or or insurrection, insurrection, or or who who may nt, have been, or shall be, J u y convieted of treasonor other lniamouscnine.

45: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 45 (House1869.Jan30.45)

Mr. SCHENCK. Will the gentleman allow me to make an inquiry?

47: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 47 (House1869.Jan30.47)

Mr SCHENCK. I understand the proposition of the Committee on the Judiciary to be the same now as it was originally reported, excepting the article "the'! before the word race," has been stricken out.

49: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 49 (House1869.Jan30.49)

Mr. SCHENCK. And the proposition now offered by my colleague [Mr. Shellabarger] on behalf of a number of members from Ohio, including myself, is the same as it was first offered. The interlineations and modifications made in the proposition yesterday by my colleague was upon the suggestion of a great number of persons. Upon consultation, however, we have concluded that the proposition had better be restored to its original form; and I wanted four or five minutes in which to express the reasons why I have advised that the modifications proposed yesterday be taken out as being unnecessary. I will confine myself to that simple question.

50: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 50 (House1869.Jan30.50)

Mr. BOUTWELL. I think I must, under the circumstances, yield to the gentleman for five minutes.

51: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 51 (House1869.Jan30.51)

Mr. SCHENCK. Knowing how many of us are represented by my colleague [Mr. Shellabarger] in the substitute he has offered, I need not say I approve the form, that it shall he in the shape of an inhibition to the States. Yesterday, when the proposition was pending, many gentlemen, among them the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Boutwell] and' his colleague, [Mr. Bdtlee,] objected that unless there was something saving to the States the power to regulate the exercise of the elective franchise this noted proposition would virtually repeal or be repugnant to the passage of any registry law. Now, I conceive there is nothing in that objection. At first it seemed to be plausible, and yielding to that plausibility my colleague, [Mr. Shellabarger,] with the consent of others, agreed to modify the proposition. He now withdraws the modification. I think it necessary to have the modification withdrawn, because if there be anything in the argument presented by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Boutweli.,] that it interferes with the possibility of having registry laws, then upon the same argument we could have no registration laws now.

52: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 52 (House1869.Jan30.52)

Look, for instance, at the constitution of Massachusetts. What does it provide? It provides in absolute terms that every male citizen who has attained the age of twenty one years, who has resided in the Commonwealth one year, and within the district six months, and who has paid certain taxes, shall be permitted to vote; and to this is added by the twentieth article of the amendments an educational requirement. Now, a man in Massachusetts goes to the polls and offers to vote. He shows that he is twenty one years of age; that he has always resided within the State; that he is a citizen; that he can read the Constitution in the English language and write his name, yet objection is made to the reception of his vote. Why? Because he has not registered. He points to the Constitution and says, "By the Constitution it is provided that every man having these qualifications, which 1 possess, shall have the right to vote." The reply is, "That Constitution implies the necessity of prescribing by law regulations under which the votes shall be cast." If this were not so, the registry law now in force in Massachusetts would beunconstitutional. But does any gentleman here pretend to say that it is so? A man possessing all the qualifications which by the express terms of the Constitution are requisite to make him an elector, presents himself at the polls, and is told, ''Stand back, because you are not registered." This goes to show that these provisions as to the qualifications of electors do not, in the slightest degree, inteifere with the power of the Legislature of the State to adopt proper regulations under which the votes shall be cast. Hence, any exception of the kind proposed here for the purpose of saving that right to the States is unnecessary. Besides, sir, the language of this amendment is still stronger, because it contains flm word u equal;" it provides for securing to citizens ao u equalright to vote.

53: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 53 (House1869.Jan30.53)

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I ask my colleague [Mr. Boutwell] to yield to me for a moment.

54: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 54 (House1869.Jan30.54)

Mr- BOUTWELL. I think I had better bring the debate to a close; and I may as well make an example in the case of my colleague by refusing to yield to him.

55: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 55 (House1869.Jan30.55)

Mr. Speaker, I only wish to say that the distinctions and differences of opinion which have been evolved by the debate in regard to the effect of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Ohio afford to my mind conclusive evidence that if we submit the amendment in that form to the country we shall introduce in every State confusion, discord, and contention as to what the effect of the provision will be. But the amendment reported by the Judiciary Committee is directed against tho se distinctions which have been brought prominently before the country, and on which substantially public opinion, as entertained by the Republican party, has been expressed. We are safe if we stand upon the resolution reported by the committee; and, in my judgment, we are unsafe if we accept what we ourselves confessedly are unable to understand in such a way as to come to an agreement upon it. I now demand the previous question.

56: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 56 (House1869.Jan30.56)

The previous question was seconded; there being—ayes 114, noes 35.

57: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 57 (House1869.Jan30.57)

The main question was ordered: which was first upon Mr. Siiellabarger s amendment to the amendment of Mr. Bingham.

59: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 59 (House1869.Jan30.59)

Strike out in the amendment of Mr. Bingham the provision proposed to be inserted in lieu of section one of the proposed new article of the Constitution, and insert iu lieu thereof the following:

60: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 60 (House1869.Jan30.60)

ISo State shall make or enforce any law which shall deny or abridge to any male citizen of the United State? 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 hcshall have such actual residence as shall bo 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 treason, felony, or other infamous crime.

61: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 61 (House1869.Jan30.61)

Mr. BROOKS. I wish to inquire whether the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SiiELLABAiiGKii J as now modified, contains in the fifth and sixth lines this language: ‘Such actual residence as shall be prescribed by law, except to such as have engaged,’’ &c.?

62: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 62 (House1869.Jan30.62)

The SPEAKER. The amendment, as it now stands, has been printed, and is printer s No. (573.

63: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 63 (House1869.Jan30.63)

Mr. BROOKS. I rise to a point of order. I submit that no gentleman, not even the gentleman from Ohio, has the right to ingraft upon the instrument framed by Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, and their compeers such bad English as that contained in the clause I have just read.

64: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 64 (House1869.Jan30.64)

The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the point of order. It is not the province of the Chair to decide upon points of grammar, or questions as to what is 11 bad English 1 Such questions must be determined by the judgment of the House.

65: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 65 (House1869.Jan30.65)

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I desire to suggest to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Shellabargeb] that the phrase ''of sound mind 5 which he has inserted in his amendment will exclude a very large portion of the Republic n party. [Laugh-

66: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 66 (House1869.Jan30.66)

Mr. MULLINS. It would exclude all of the party of the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Eldkidoe.]

67: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 67 (House1869.Jan30.67)

The SPEAKER. No debate is in order. The House is acting under the operation of the previous question.

68: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 68 (House1869.Jan30.68)

Mr. GARFIELD. I call for the yeas and nays on agreeing to this amendment.

70: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 70 (House1869.Jan30.70)

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative—yeas 63, nays 126, not voting 35; as follows:

71: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 71 (House1869.Jan30.71)

YEAS—Messrs. DelosR. Ashley, Bald win Beaman Beatty. Benton, Boles, Bowen, Broomall, Buckland, Cake, CUffc, Cobb, Coburn. Cullom, Dawes, Delano, Eckley, Eggleston, Ela, James T. Elliott, French, Gravely, Hamilton. Hawkins, Hooper. Chester T>. Hubbard, Judd, Julian, Kelley, Kelsey, George V. Lawrence. William Lawrence, Loan, Logan. Maynard, Mullins, Newsham, Norris, Orth, Paine, Plants, Polsley, Price, Prince. Sawyer, Schenck. Scofield, Shanks, Shellabarger. Starkweather, Stokes, Sypher, Twichell, Robert. T. Van Horn, Ward, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn. Welker. Whittemore, and William Williams—61.

72: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 72 (House1869.Jan30.72)

NAYS—Messrs. Allison, Archer, Arnell, James M. Ashley, Axtell, Bailey, Baker. Banks, Barnum, Beck, Benjamin, Bingham Blaine Blair Boutwell Boyden, Boyer, Bromwell, Brooks, Burr, Benjamin 1?. Butler, Callis, Cary Chanler, Churchill, Sidney Clarke, Cook, Corley, Covode, Deweese, Dockery, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Edwards, Eldridge, Thomas D Eliot Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, Fox, Garfield, Getz, Golladay, Goss, Gove. Griswold, Grover, Haight, Halsey, Harding, Haughey, Heaton, Higby, Hopkins, Hotchkiss, Hulburd, Humphrey, Hunter, Jenckes, Johnson, Alexander H. Jones, Thomas L. Jones, Kerr, Ketcham, Knott, Koontz, Laflin, Lash, Lincoln, Loughridge, Marshall, Marvin, McCormiek, McCullough, McKee, Mercur, Miller, Moore, Morrell, Mungen, Myers, Newcomb, Niblack, Nicholson, Nunn, O Neill Perham, Peters, Phelps, Pierce, Pike, Pile, Poland, Pruyn, Randall, Raum, Robertson, Robinson, Roots, Ross, Sitgreaves, Smith, Spalding, Stewart, Stone, Stover, Taber, TafFe, Taylor, Thomas, Tift, John Trimble, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Van Auken, Burt Van Horn, Van Trump, Van Wyck, John T. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge, Woodward, and Young—126.

73: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 73 (House1869.Jan30.73)

NOT VOTING—Messrs. Adams, Ames, Anderson, Barnes, Blackburn, Buckley, Roderick R. Butler, Reader W. Clarke, Cornell, Dickey, Dixon, Farnsworth, Glossbrenner, Hill, Molman, AsahelW. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Ingersoll, Kellogg, Kitchen, Lynch, Mallory, McCarthy, Moorhead, Morrissey, Pettis, Pomeroy. Selye, Stevens, Lawrence S. Trimble, Vidal EJihu B. Washburne, Thomas Williams, James F. Wilson, and Wood—35.

74: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 74 (House1869.Jan30.74)

So Mr. Shellabarger s amendment to the amendment of Mr. Bixgham was not agreed to. During the vote,

75: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 75 (House1869.Jan30.75)

Mr, SCHENCK stated that his colleague, Mr. Clarke, was detained from the House by illness, and if present would have voted for the amendment.

76: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 76 (House1869.Jan30.76)

Mr. BOUTWELL said: As between the amendments I should be for that of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Shellabarger;] but as I am against all amendments, I shall vote no.

77: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 77 (House1869.Jan30.77)

Mr. MAYNARD said: I am so much opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Biagham] that I do not wish to be put in the attitude of seeming to indorse it, ana shall therefore vote ay.

78: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 78 (House1869.Jan30.78)

The vote was then announced as above recorded.

79: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 79 (House1869.Jan30.79)

Mr. BOUTWELL moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

81: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 81 (House1869.Jan30.81)

The question then recurred on Mr. Bixgham s amendment, as follows:

82: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 82 (House1869.Jan30.82)

Strike out all of article one and insert as follows: Section J. No State shall make or enforce any ia w which shall deny or abridge to any male citizen of the United States of sound mind and twenty one years of age or upward the equal exercise of the elective franchise at all elections in the State wherein he shall have actually resided for a period of one year next preceding such election, subject to such registration laws and laws prescribing local residence as the State may enact, 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.

85: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 85 (House1869.Jan30.85)

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative—yeas 21, nays 100, not voting 38; as follows:

86: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 86 (House1869.Jan30.86)

YEAS—Messrs. Axtell, Baker, Bingham. Brooks, Deweese, Dockery, Eldridge, Garfield, Haight, Heaton, Hotchkiss, Alexander II. Jones, McCullough, Phelps, Plants, Robinson, Ross, Spalding, Stewart, Stone, Tift, John T. Wilson, Woodward, and Young—24.

87: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 87 (House1869.Jan30.87)

NAYS—Messis. Allison, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley. Bailey. Banks, Beaman, Beatty, Beck, Benjamin, Benton, Blaine, Blair, Boles, Boutwell, Bowen, Boyden, Boyer, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Buckley, Burr, Benjamin F. Butler, Cake, Callis, Cary, Chanler, Churchill, Sidney Clarke, Clift, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Corley, Covode, Cullom, Dawes, Gravely, Griswold, Grover, Halsey, Hamilton, Harding, Hawkins, Higby, Hooper, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Humphrey, Hunter, Jenckes, Johnson, Thomas L. Jones, Judd, Julian, Kelley, Kellogg, Kelsey. Kerr, Ketcham, Koontz, Laflin, Lash, George V Lawrence William Lawrence, Lincoln, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory, Marshall, Marvin, Mayuard, McCormiek. McKee, Morcur, Miller, Moore, Moorhead, Morrell, Muliins Mungen, Myers, Newcomb, Newsham, Niblack* Norris, Nunn, O Neill Orth, Paine, Perham, Peters' Pierce, Pike. Poland, Polsley, Price, Prince, Pruyn* Randall, Raum, Robertson, Roots, Sawyer, Schenck,' Scofield, Selye, Shanks, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves' Smith. Starkweather, Stokes, Stover, Sypher, Taber Taffc, Taylor, Thomas, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson* Van Aernam, Van Auken, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Van Trump, Van Wyck, Ward, Cadwalader C Washburn HenryD Washburn William B. Washburn, Welker, Whittemore, Thomas Williams, William Williams. Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge—160.

88: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 88 (House1869.Jan30.88)

NOT VOTING—Messrs. Adams, Ames, Anderson, Archer Baldwin Barnes, Barnum, Blackburn, Roderick R. Butler, Reader W. Clarke, Cornell, Dickey, Dixon, Dodge, Edwards, Farnsworth, Glossbrenner, Haughey, Hill, Holman, Asahel W Hubbard Richard D. Hubbard, Ingersoll, Kitchen, Knott, McCarthy, Morrissey, Nicholson, Pettis, Pile, Pomeroy, Stevens, John Trimble, Lawrence S. Trimble, Vidal, ElihuB Washburne JamesF. Wilson, and Wood—38. So the amendment was rejected.

89: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 89 (House1869.Jan30.89)

The question then recurred on ordering the joint resolution to be engrossed.

90: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 90 (House1869.Jan30.90)

Mr. WOODWARD demanded the yeas and nays.

91: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 91 (House1869.Jan30.91)

Mr. BROOKS. I demand a division of the question.

92: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 92 (House1869.Jan30.92)

The SPEAKER. There can be no division of a bill or a joint resolution, although there may be of a single resolution. Internal improvement bills are specially excepted by the rules, and there may be a division on the engrossment of each item.

93: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 93 (House1869.Jan30.93)

Mr. BROOKS. Will the gentleman from Massachusetts yield to me to have a vote on my amendment for the enfranchisement of women and children over twelve years of age?

94: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 94 (House1869.Jan30.94)

Mr. BOUTWELL. The gentleman is not serious in that inquiry.

96: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 96 (House1869.Jan30.96)

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative—yeas 144, nays 45, not voting 33; as follows:

97: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 97 (House1869.Jan30.97)

YEAS —Messrs. Allison, Arnell, DelosR, Ashley, James M. Ashley, Bailey, Baldwin, Banks, Beaman, Beatty Benjamin Benton Blaine, Blair, Boles Boutwell, Bowen, Boyden, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Buckley, Benjamin F. Butler, Cake, Callis, Churchill, Sidney Clarke, Clift, Cobb, Coburn. Corley, Covode, Cullom, Dawes. Delano, Deweese Dockery, Dodge. Driggs, Eckley, Edwards, Eggleston, Ela, TttomasD. Eliot, Jam e T Elliott, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, French, Garfield, Goss, Gove. Gravely, Griswold, Hamilton Harding Heaton, Higby, Hooper, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Hunter, Jenckes, Alexander II. Jones, Judd, Julian, Kelley, Kellogg. Kelsey. Ketcham, Koontz, Laflin, Lash, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Lincoln, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Marvin, Maynard, McKee, Mercur, Miller, Moore, Moorhead, Morrell, Muliins, Myers, Newcomb, Newsham, Norris, Nunn, O Neill Orth, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pierce, Pike, Pile Plants Poland Price Prince, Raum Robertson, Roots. Sawyer, Scofield, Selye, Shanks. Shellabarger, Smith Starkweather Stewart Stokes, Stover Sypher Taffe, Taylor, Thomas John Trimble, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Van Wyck. Ward. Cadwalader C. Washburn, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Whittemore, Thomas Williams, William Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge—H*.

98: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 98 (House1869.Jan30.98)

NAYS—Messrs. Archer, Axtell, Baker, Barnum, Beck. Bingham Boyer Brooks Burr, Cary, Chanler, Eldridge, Fox, Getz, Golladay, Grover, Haight, Hawkins, Hotchkiss, Humphrey, Johnson, Thomas L. Jones, Kerr, Knott, Marshall, McCormick, Mungen, Niblack, Nicholson, Phelps, Polsley, Pruyn, Randall Robinson Ross, Sitgreaves. Spalding, Stone, Taber. Tift, Van Auken, Van Trump, John T. Wilson. Woodward, and Young—45.

99: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 99 (House1869.Jan30.99)

NOT VOTING—Messrs. Adams, Ames, Anderson, Barnes. Blackburn, Roderick R. Butler, Reader W. Clarke, Cook, Cornell, Dickey, Dixon, Donnelly. Glossbrenner, Halsey, Haughey, Hill, Holman, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Ingersoll, Kitchen, Mallory, McCarthy, McCullough, Morrissey. Pettis. Pomeroy, Schenck, Stevens, Lawrence S. Trimble, Vidal, ElihuB Washburne and Wood—33. So the joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.

101: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 101 (House1869.Jan30.101)

Mr. BLAINE said; At the request of the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Wasiiburxe, I desire to say that he was compelled to leave the House by ill health, but if presenthe would have voted for the resolution of the committee.

102: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 102 (House1869.Jan30.102)

Mr. BENTON. I am requested on behalf of my colleague, Mr. Stevens, to say that he is absent in consequence of sickness. If here he would no doubt vote "ay."

103: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 103 (House1869.Jan30.103)

Mr. NIBLACK. I am authorized to say in behalf of my colleague. Mr. IIolmax, that if presenthe would vote against the resolution. The result having been announced as above, the joint resolution, being engrossed, was read the third time.

104: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 104 (House1869.Jan30.104)

Mr. BOUTWELL. I move the previous question on the passage, and demand the yeas and nays.

105: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 105 (House1869.Jan30.105)

The previous question iros seconded, and the main question ordered.

106: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 106 (House1869.Jan30.106)

Mr. SHENCK. Mr. Speaker, does not the Constitution require the vote to be taken by yeas and nays?

107: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 107 (House1869.Jan30.107)

The SPEAKER. It does not. The only imperative requirement of the yeas and nays under the Constitution is in regard to a veto, where a concurrent vote of two thirds of each House by yeas and nays is required. On all other questions requiring a two thirds vote, such as proposed amendments to the Constitution and relief from political disabilities, the Constitution does not command the vote to be taken by yeas and nays any more than on bills which only require a majority vote. On bills relieving "from disability under the fourteenth amendment the Chair has ruled, with the assent of the House, that the Constitution does not require the yeas and nays, but that the result must be arrived at by a two thirds vote, to be declared by the Chain. On constitutional amendments, however, on account of their gravity and the value of the record, the usage has been to take the vote by yeas and nays.

3 connections
109: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 109 (House1869.Jan30.109)

Mr. PRUYN. "Mr. Speaker, is it intended to fill the blank with the number of the article of amendment?

110: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 110 (House1869.Jan30.110)

The SPEAKER. It is not necessary. In regard to the history of the adoption of constitutional amendments, the amendment numbered as the seventh was rejected and the one that was adopted as the eighth amendment, was afterward incorporated in the Constitution as article seven, the Secretary of State taking the responsibility of changing the numbering, as was evidently proper, and as the engrossing clerks of both Houses of Congress do in regard to the numbering of sections where intervening ones are stricken out.

111: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 111 (House1869.Jan30.111)

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative—yeas 150, nays 42, not voting 81; as follows:

112: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 112 (House1869.Jan30.112)

YE VS—Messrs Allison, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, .James M. Ashley, Bailey, Baldwin, Banks. Beaman, Be tty Benjamin, Benton, Blackburn Blame Blair, Boles, Boutwell, Bowen, Bo vden Bromwell, Broomall, 11, Buckland, Buckley, Benjamin 1<. Butler, Cake, Callis, Churchill, Sidney Clarke, Clift, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Corley, Covode, Cullom, Dawes, Delano. Dew esc Dockery, Dodge, Donnelly, Driep, Eckley, Edwards, Eggleston, Ela, Thomas D. Eliot. James T Elliott Earnsworth Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, French, (rariieki, Goss, Gove, Gravely, Griswold, Halsey, Hamilton, Harding, Haughey. Heaton, Higby. Hooper, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard. Hulburd, Hunter, Jenckes, Alexander II. JonesvJudd, Julian, Kelley. KeliORg, Kelsey, Ketcham, Koontz, LaJUn, Lash George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Lincoln. Loan, Logan, Lou jhridg e, Lynch, Marvin, Maynard, McKee, Mereur, Miller, Moore. Moorhead. Mo;■- rell Ninn Mullins, O eVll Myers, Orth Paine ISewcomb, Perham Kewsbam, Peters, Pierce, ^orris, Pike, Pile, Plants, Poland. Price, Robertson, Roots, Sawyer Scofield, Selye, Shanks, Shollitbar cr Smith, Spaldmff, Starkweathei, btew art Stol«s Stover Taffe, Taylor, Thomas, John Trimble. iiurt Van Trirabrictee, Horn. Robert Twichell T. Van Ulgon Horn, Van Van Aeraara, Wyok, w rd Cadwahtder C. Washburn. IIenrv D i ashburn William B. Washburn, Welker Whittemore Tnoiias WiUia ms William Wilhams, J esl W son, John T. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Wmdom, anXAYP— vieesrs Archer, Axtell, Baker, Barnum, Beck, Bingham, Boyer, Brooks, l os Getz, Golhdny, Grover, Haight. Hawkins, Ilotchki^ Humphrey. Johnson, Thomas. L. Jones, Kerr Knott Marshall, MeCorimck, Mungen, Niblnck Robinson, NUhots™ Ross, Sitgroaves, Phelps, Polsley, btone,, P Taber, TUtV™ i lit, Van Aukcn, Van Trump, Woodward, and

113: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 113 (House1869.Jan30.113)

NOT VOTIS 6—Messrs Aoams, Ames, Anderson, IJarnef HodeiiekB Botlcr Reader W Clarke Cornell, Dickey, D«on. Eldnd«e feio renne burne, Wood, and Woodbridge—

114: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 114 (House1869.Jan30.114)

So (two thirds having voted in favor thereof) the joint resolution was passed.

116: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 116 (House1869.Jan30.116)

Mr. ROBINSON ?aid: My colleague, Mr. EUrubs, is paired with Mr. Ames. My colleague would have voted no."

117: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 117 (House1869.Jan30.117)

Mr. NIBLACK. Irepeat the statement that if my colleague, Mr. Holman, were here he would vote" no."

118: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 118 (House1869.Jan30.118)

The result having been announced as above,

119: House, January 30, 1869, ¶ 119 (House1869.Jan30.119)

Mr. BOUTWELL moved to reconsider the vote by which' the joint resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Connections graph

Enter all results↑ ↓ then Enter to open oneTry “Federalist 51”, “Article I, Section 8”, “Amendment 14”

Where you've been

    The places you have read, newest first, kept in this browser only. Nothing is sent anywhere.