February 17, 1869 (2)

Mr. STEWART. I move that we resume the consideration of the House constitutional amendment.

The motion was agreed to.'

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution (H. R. No. 402) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States is before the Senate; and the question is on the motion of the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. WILSON. Now I ask the Senator who has made this motion to let us have a motion— let it be voted down if Senators choose—but let us have a fair motion made to insist, and refer this matter to a committee of conference.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I object.

Mr. SHERMAN, If we vote this down, that will be the next motion in order.

Mr. WILSON, I think this motion had better be withdrawn and let us try that first.

Mr. WARNER. I should like to ask a question. We made two amendments to the House proposition very different in character, perhaps of very unequal importance; they are certainly, in my judgment. I ask if this question cannot be divided in order that we may recede from one amendment and not from the other? The one relating to suffrage I regard as Vitally important, btrt the other I shall be willing to recede from.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is anxious that the effect of the vote about to be taken should be understood by the Senate. The Chair believes that in the ordinary rules of parliamentary affairs, when this body recedes from the amendments they have made to a bill of the other House, that vote passes the bill. That has always been the case since I have been in the Senate, and it would be so in this case perhaps; but then it is easy to waive that and to take a vote directly upon the proposition of the House of Representatives by agreeing that the question shall be divided.

Mr. SHERMAN. I call for a division.

Mr. ANTHONY. I ask the Clerk- to read the twenty sixth rule.

Mr. EDMUNDS. The twenty sixth rule makes this just like a bill.

Mr. ANTHONY. I ask for the reading of the latter clause of the rule.

The Chief, Clerk. That portion of the twenty sixth rule which applies to the present case is as follows:-

And all resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution, or to which the approbation and signature of the President may be requisite, or which may grant money out of the contingent or any other fund, shall be treated, in all respects, in the introduction and form of proceeding on them, in the Senate, in a similar manner with bills."

Mr. SHERMAN. I call for a division of the question.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on receding from the amendments of the Senate and agreeing to the proposition of the House.

Mr. SHERMAN. I call for a division of the question.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Is that divisible?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is divisible if the Senate pleases to consider it as such.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It is for the Chair to say.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair, if he decided, according to his understanding of parliamentary law, would hold that the moment the Senate recede from its amendments the proposition is passed.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is certainly the law.

The PRESIDENT roifem tempore. But that can be modified if the Senate see fit to modify it.

Mr. HENDRICKS. As this is rather an important thing, had we better not modify it in advance?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. I think so.

Mr. HENDRICKS. That is my impression. How it is to be modified is the question, il do not know but that it can be passed in this way. We had better, however, have an understanding in advance. As that is the parliamentary law, I ask the Chair to decide that to recede requires two thirds.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair does not so understand it.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Then the constitutional amendment cannot be passed by receding.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is perfectly evident that that would not be satisfactory to the Senate, who desire to have a direct vote on the proposition of the House of Representatives.

Mr. YATES. I think if the Senate recedes by a two thirds vote that will pass the resolution of the House.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If it was unanimously understood that that passed the joint resolution of the House it would be equivalent to a direct vote on the resolution.

Mr. SHERMAN. There can be no understanding about it, because I certainly shall not vote to recede, and yet if a majority of the Senate vote to recede I shall vote to agree with the House. They are two just as distinct propositions as it is possible to have in legislative bodies.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Will you show the law for that?

Mr. SHERMAN. It is so laid down in parliamentary law.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Read it.

Mr. STEWART. Let us take the sense of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will submit the question of order to the Senate that it may be understood. Will the vote to recede pass the joint resolution?

Mr. EDMUNDS. As a question of law?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is the question of law that will be satisfactory to the Senate when they pass it. The question is, in the opinion of the Senate does a vote to recede pass this joint resolution? [Putting the question.] Those in favor of that will say "ay," those opposed "no." The noes appear to have it.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish the Chair would state the question again. I voted under an entire misapprehension of the form in which the question was put.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will put the question in this form: in the opinion of the Senate will a motion to recede, if carried, pass the joint resolution? Those in favor will say "ay," those opposed "no." [Putting the question.] The noes evidently have it. It is not the understanding of the Senate that such would be the effect.

Mr. STEWART. Now the question is on receding-

Mr. SHERMAN. *1 called for a division of the motion.

The PftESIDENTpro tempore. The question is on receding from the amendments made by the Senate.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and the Secretary proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. WARNER, (when his name was called.) I desire to say in explanation of my vote that I am willing to recede from the amendment in relation to this manner of choosing electors. ["Order!" "Order!"]

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate is not in order.

The result was announced—yeas 33, nays 24; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Anthony Cameron Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry. Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Harris, Howard. Kellogg, McDonald, Morgan .Morrillof Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Robertson, Stewart, Thayer, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Welch, Willey, Williams, and Yates—33.

NAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Harian, Hendricks, McCreery, Norton Osborn Patterson of Tennessee, Pool, Rice, Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Spencer, Vickers, Wade, Warner, Whyte, and Wilson—24.

ABSENT—Messrs. Conness, Grimes, Henderson, Howe, Ramsey, Sawyer, Sprague, Sumner, and Tiptoa—9.

So the Senate resolved to recede from its amendments.

The PRESIDENT pro tern pore The question now is on the latter part of the motion of the Senator from Nevada. Will the Senate agree to the proposition of the House of Representatives?

Mr. WILSON. I move to agree to the proposition of the House with an amendment, to add after the word" vote," in the second line, the words" and hold office."

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is not in order.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I raise a question of order whether or not the motion to agree is amendable at this stage.

TJbe PRESIDENT pro tempore. I do not think it is amendable at this stage.

Mr. POMEROY. If it is not in order to amend the proposition of the House I think we have not the proposition of the House before us to act upon. We are driven into this inconsistency by agreeing that a rote to recede does not pass the resolution; but having been driven into that inconsistency, the question now before the Senate is on concurring in the proposition of the House, and that proposition cannot be here unless it is amendable. You cannot bring a proposition here from the House that we cannot amend. There is no such thing as agreeing- arbitrarily—-

Mr. EDMUNDS. The Chair has decided the question, and debate cm it is not in order.

Mr. POMEROY. Then I appeal from the decision of the Chair to the Senate on this question of order, whether the proposition of the House of Representatives is susceptible of amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. An appeal being taken, the question is, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?"

Mr. POMEROY. On that question I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I ask the Chair to state the point of order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question raised is whether it is in order to amend the proposition of the House of Representatives at this stage.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. On that I desire to say a single word. If the vote to recede has not passed the joint resolution the resolution is still pending, and there is no doubt under the parliamentary law that it can be passed with an amendment.

Several Senators. Debate on the question is not in order.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I understand that the Chair submits the question of his ruling to the Senate on the appeal, and debate is allowable on that.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is in order.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If the resolution is now pending before the Senate, and if the question now is whether we shall pass the House resolution, it is certainly open to amendment. We should bein avery strange predicament, indeed, if a resolution were pending which could not be amended. I understand the parliamentary law to be that one House can agree to the proposition of the other, either absolutely or with an amendment. The proposition of the Senator from Nevada now is to agree to this House proposition, and the Senator from Massachusetts moves to amend his motion to agree by moving to agree with an amendment. It seems to me that we should be placed in a very strange state of things if we could not change the proposition of the House at all, when the question is on the passage of the House resolution.

Mr. HARLAN. Every bill passes a period in its progress to completion beyond which it cannot be amended. The bill must be read a first, a second, and a third time, and the final question is on its passage. This resolution has been read, I understand, a first, second, and third time. It therefore cannot be amended at this stage without reconsidering the vote on its third reading.

Mr. MORTON. I should like to ask a question. The Senate having receded from its amendments, does it not now stand before the Senate precisely as if it had never made any amendment; and may it not now propose for the first time tq offer an amendment?

Mr. EDMUNDS. But it has been read three times, as the Senator from Iowa says.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think there can be no doubt that the amendment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts is not in order, for the reason that the Senator from Nevada moved to recede from the amendments of the Senate and agree to the proposition of the House. That was an entire motion, and was notamendable, as everybody will concede, at the time it was made by the Senator from Nevada; but the Senator from Ohio asked for a division of the motion and a division was made. That does not open the proposition to amendment. If an amendment can now be made it could have been made the moment that the original motion was made by the Senator from Nevada. Suppose a bill is returned here from the House of Representatives with a message disagreeing to our amendments, and a Senator proposes to recede from the amendments made to tie bill by the Senate, can any proposition to amend be introduced upon that motion? This motion is in effect the same thing; only the Constitution requires that &a amendment to the Constitution shall pass by a two thirds vote; and to that extent, as I understand, the Senate decides that the rule of the Senate is modified so that it is necessary not only to recede from the amendments heretofore proposed to this resolution by the Senator, but it is necessary to affirm its sanction to the proposition' of the House of Representatives by a two thirds vote. It seems to me that nothing is clearer in parliamentary lawthan that a mere division of a question does not change its nature or effect; and unless an amendment could have been made at the very moment the Senator from Nevada made his motion no amendment can be made now.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The suggestion of the Senator from Iowa was ingenious, that this joint resolution had gone to a third reading, and that in that stage it was not amendable. The statement of the Senator is plausible, but I think it does not rest upon solid ground. I ask Senators where we left the House proposition. The House proposition never went to a third reading; before we reached thethird reading a substitute for the House proposition was- adopted. On the second reading we substituted another proposition for the House resolution, and left that proposition at the second reading. Now, sir, this proposition is really at its second reading. It has never passed that point. It is the point for amendment.

Mr. POMEROY. It is far from me to desire to embarrass the action of the Senate. What I said was that if this proposition of the House were here in a legitimate manner it was open to amendment. The only trouble about it is ,that it is not here in any legitimate way. The proper motion to make at this moment, considering the decision of the Senate that receding did not pass the resolution, is to reconsider the vote of the Senate by which we agreed to pass the joint resolution as amended, and when that prevails then another motion to reconsider the vote by which we ordered it to a third reading, and if that should prevail it would then be open to amendment. That is the regular way to amend it; but we are driven into this position by what I regard individually as a wrong decision of the Senate in declaring that the joint resolution was not passed when we receded from our amendments. I think it must be clear to the Senator from Massachusetts that as the case now stands his first motion to make is to reconsider the vote by which we agreed to pass the joint resolution and then when that is carried to reconsider the vote by which it went to a third reading, and then it will be open to amendment, not before.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is," Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?"

Mr. POMEROY. I am willing myself to sustain the decision of the Chair that the proposition is not amendable in this particular form and at this particular time. Of course it has gone beyond amendment; but if the proposition from the House is here, our first duty, if we want to amend it, is to reconsider the vote by which we passed it.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, if the Senate is consistent with itself, of course it will overrule your decision. Just now it voted in one way to accomplish an object it wanted to accomplish. I believed in the object, but I did not believe it was right to accomplish it in that way, and I voted against it. I wish now to ask whether we have a right to move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was passed originally?

Mr. EDMUNDS. No, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS. There is an appeal pending, and I call for a vote on that question.

Mr. CONKLING. I wish to ask a question. I understand the Senator from Kansas to say that he is ready to sustain the decision of the Chair at this point. I believe this is his appeal. Then let him withdraw the appeal, and the decision of the Chair will stand sustained.

Mr. POMEROY. In accordance with its former vote I concluded that the Senate would sustain the appeal. They decided before against what I considered parliamentary taw.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. qnestionis, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?" and upon this question the yeas and nays have been ordered. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 33, nays 12; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Abbott, Anthony Buckalew, Cameron Cattell, Cole, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds Ferry, Fessenden Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Harris, Howard, McCreery, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Osborn, Patterson of New .Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Rice, Stewart, Thayer, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Y ates—33.

NAYS—Messrs. Bayard, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Hendricks, Patterson of Tennessee, Pool, Robertson, Vickers, Warner, and Whyte—12.

ABSENT—Messrs. Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Grimes, Henderson, Howe, Kellogg, Morton, Norton, Ross, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Sherman, Spencer, Sprague, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, Wade, and Welch—21.

So the decision of the Chair was sustained.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. No amendment is in order.

Mr. WILSON. I now move to reconsider the vote by which the Senate passed the joint resolution.

Mr. FERRY. That is not in order.

Mr. ANTHONY. How long ago was that vote taken?

Mr. FERRY. The motion is not in order now anyhow, for we are in the process of taking the vote on another question.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in the resolution of the House of Representatives.

Mr. WILSON. The Senate passed a vote a few moments ago which seemed to me to be a vote against the rules and practice here. I must say so, with all respect to the Senate. It seemed to me that that vote brought the joint resolution before us for consideration and that we ought to have the privilege in some form or other of making an amendment to it. Now, I am very desirous of getting in an amendment that shall secure not only the right to vote, but the right to hold office.

Mr. FERRY. I call the Senator to order. The Chair has decided that his motion is out of order, and there is no such question before the Senate.

Mr. SUMNER. I would suggest to my colleague that he move that the Senate reconsider its vote to recede, and that the Senate then proceed to ask for a committee of conference to which this matter can be referred. It is evident that we cannot come to an agreement with regard to the terms of this measure so as to satisfy ourselves or satisfy the country without submitting it again to some inquiry. The practical mode ot securing that inquiry is through a committee of conference, and I think the sooner we go there the better.

Mr. FERRY. I submit that if Senators will let us vote we shall show that we can come to an agreement very quick.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts moves to reconsider

Mr. WILLIAMS. I make the point of order that that cannot be done, because there is a motion now pending.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes; the motion of the Senator from Nevada was divided, and the question now is on the latter part of that motion.

Mr. WILSON. I wish to ask one further •question. When the matter is brought before us in this way is it not debatable?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is debatable.

Mr. WILSON. I desire to say a word, and I shall be very brief, for I am acting in this matter in no factious spirit certainly, but with an earnest desire to get what I believe to be right. In my judgment, nine tenths of our friends in and out of Congress who are in favor of submitting this question to the country at all are in favor of so submitting it as to settle both the right to vote and the right to be voted for. I do hope that we shall adopt that plan here, and that the fear of failing in this measure will not drive us, in a, panic, to send out to the country an immature proposition—apropos! tion that is not complete within itself.

Now, in several of the States of this Union the colored men have the right by their constitutions to hold office. There is a controversy in Georgia about it, and why has that controversy arisen? Because it is not expressed in their constitution; it was left to be inferred; and what is the result? Disorganization, injustice, and wrong; and we have held Georgia up here during this whole session. Now, sir, suppose we submit this imperfect proposition which says to seven hundred and fifty thousand colored men in this country," You shall have the right to vote, but you shall not have the right to sit upon a jury or the right to hold office," how will they feel in regard to it?

Mr. FERRY. If the Senator will permit me, I will tell him that it says no such thing.

Mr. WILSON. It is true it does not say that expressly, but it leaves that inference. It does not say that a State shall not deny to colored' men the right to hold office; and will it not be an inspiration to some to keep or take that right from them? Will not that be the tendency? I do not know that it will; all that I say "is that I fear it will. Now, sir, I want to accomplish the work of making these citizens equal to other citizens in rights and in privileges.

I do not wish to trespass upon the Senate further, but it does seem to me that this measure should have been referred to a committee of conference, and I think there we could have amended satisfactorily the House proposition or the proposition of the Judiciary Committee, which I like a great deal better and am perfectly willing to like. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Edmunds] suggests that we lay this upon the table and pass immediately the resolution of the Committee on the Judiciary. I would be happy to do that, for it does seem to me that what we are now doing is wrong, and suppose two thirds should not vote for this, where is the amendment then?

Mr. STEWART. I wish to say just one word. I think the Senator from Massachusetts is as much responsible as any other person for the condition in which we are placed. In the first place, the proposition of the Judiciary Committee was conceded by a large number of our friends to be the best. It contained the simple proposition that the right to vote and hold office should not b« denied on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. It did not attempt to extend any further than totherightto vote and hold office. The Senator from Massachusetts moved to put upon that several other propositions which loaded it down. He voted to put upon it the proposition with regard to electing the President; he voted to put upon it a proposition with regard to religious tests; he voted to put upon it a proposition with regard to education; he voted to put upon it all of those propositions which went to the House of Representatives and were rejected by them. It came here. A majority of our friends here this morning, on consultation and by a large vote, said we had better take this than to have nothing, and the votes have been very emphatic on that point. Every vote has been a test on the proposition that we will take this rather than have nothing. To throw it open to further discussion is to get nothing. The true way to get the right to hold office included in this proposition was by standing by the Judiciary Committee of the Senate in their amendment. I stood by it; I refrained from speaking, and protested against loading that down as it was loaded down by the vote of the Senator from Massachusetts and others. It is now in such a shape that -to send it to a committee of conference at this late day will cause the loss of everything. I am for doing something for the colored man in earnest, and I am not so anxious to have a proposition of mine go into the Constitution as I am to accomplish some good. This is not my proposition, but it is the best I can get, and therefore I am for taking it now rather than getting nothing.

Mr. POMEROY. I was subjected,! know, to some criticism for appealing from the decision of the Chair and then voting to sustain the Chair. I want to explain that in a single word. I wished to give the Senator from Ohio and other Senators who insisted that the measure was open to amendment an opportunity to vote for that. I was disappointed in that, because the Senator from Ohio did not choose to vote.

Mr. SHERMAN. Since my friend alludes to me, I will state the reason why I- did not vote. I think the decision of the Chair was wrong, and so stated. I have no doubt the proposition was open to amendment; but I did not choose to vote, simply because I think we are tired of this question. A great majority, more than two thirds of this body, have already expressed themselves content with the proposition as it now stands, and all these efforts to move amendments are simply consuming time unnecessarily.

Mr. POMEROY. I think there is no question but that the decision of the Chair was right, that the measure was not amendable at that particular stage. The question now before the Senate is not on concurring with the House; that is not the question; butthe question before the Senate now is shall the resolution of the House pass. It is not a question of concurring or non concurring We have receded from our action, and the question is presented to the Senate shall the resolution pass as it came from the House. Upon that question we cannot amend it at this stage; and but for the parliamentary law that the time of reconsideration has gone by the proper motion now to make would bs to reconsider, as presented by the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. SUMNER. Will the Senator make that motion? I am not in a condition to make it.

Mr. POMEROY. It is not in parliamentary law a proper motion to make.

Mr. SUMNER. I beg the Senator s par-

Mr. POMEROY. This is not the place where we can reconsider the vote.

Mr. SUMNER. I beg the Senator s pardon; we can reconsider our own vote to recede. We have voted to recede; now let us reconsider that. Let us retrace our steps and accept the proposition of the House for a committee of conference.

Mr. POMEROY. The Senator is right now in saying that we can reconsider the vote by which we agreed to recede from our amendments.

Mr. SUMNER. Very well.

Mr. POMEROY. The Senator is right, in that when it is proper to make that motion, but the Senator cannot make that motion while this motion is pending. That cannot be reached at this stage of the proceeding. What I wanted to say was simply that there is no disposition to be factious or to embarrass the passage of this resolution, but we are driven into this inconsistency by the decision of the Senate that to recedefrom our amendments to the House resolution when we had agreed to the House resolution with amendments did not pass it. We sent a message to the House stating that we agreed to their resolution with amendments. That was our agreement by a two thirds vote. It has come back, and we have receded from our amendments; therefore our agreement to their resolution by a two thirds vote stands as the law of this case now. As it is in this particular condition before the Senate the only question now before us is shall the resolution pass, and a motion to reconsider the vote by which we ordered it to a third reading cannot be made because the time has gone by.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator from Kansas has stated aud repeated several times that a motion to reconsider cannot be made at this stage, because the vote by which the resolution was ordered to a third reading was some days ago. Now, I submit to my friend from Kansas that this was never ordered to a third reading.

Mr. POMEROY. Yes, sir; with an amendment.

Mr. TRUMBULL. You would reconsider what you never did. Let us see in one moment liow that is. It was never ordered to a third reading, with or without an amendment. This proposition came here from the House of Representatives, and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, struck out every word of it and put in a proposition of its own. This proposition wai pending here some days ago as in Committee of the Whole. It has never been oidered to a third reading, but the Senate adopted a proposition of its own, which it did order to a third reading, and which it passed and sent to the other House. The House said We will not agree to the proposition of the Senate which they have substituted for ours," asubstitute by way of amendment, I grant you; and now it comes back here, and what has the Senate done today? The Senate say" We abandon our substitute." Where, then, do we stand? We stand on the proposition of the House which we never did order to a third reading, and it is as much amendable now as it was when we were in Committee of the Whole a week ago.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Chair has decided otherwise, and the Senate has sustained the decision.,,

Mr. POMEROY. The Senator from Illinois is right in this respect, that our amendment did embrace an entire substitute, but still it was an amendment, and so far as parliamentary law or usage is concerned it lias the same efiect as though we had amended the resolution in only one word.

Mr. TRCJMBULL. Will the Senator from Kansas allow tne to ask him this question: did the Senate ever order to a third reading this House proposition?

Mr. POMEROY. They ordered this resolution to a third reading, and that is what we are talking about. If a substitute is adopted it is still an amendment, and no more of an amendment than if it had been a change of simply one word, and the parliamentary usage in regard to it is the same.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the latter clause of the motion of the Senator from Nevada, that the Senate concur in the resolution of the House of Representatives.

Mr. POMEROY. I ask the Chair if the proposition is not now to pass the House resolution?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is equivalent to that, I suppose, though not in thai form.

Mr. POMEROY. The question is on the passage of the House resolution.

Tlie PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in the resolution of the House of Representatives.

Mr. DAVIS. My friend, the Senator from Kansas, is a very learned parliamentarian, but he is altogether mistaken in the issue between him and the honorable Senator from Illinois. The honorable Senator from Illinois asks the Senator from Kansas if the proposition now under consideration has ever been ordered to a third reading in the Senate. I think there can be but one answer to that. But the honorable Senator from Kansas evades the question by saying that we have ordered the resolution to a third reading. Well, that simply means this: that we have ordered the old handle to have a new blade, and in that form we accepted the knife; but we have eventually thrown tlie new blade out and have come back to the old handle; and the only question now before us is the old handle and not the new blade.

Mr. POMEROY. The Senator seems to have forgotten that an amendment becomes a part of the text of the bill as soon as it is adopted—becomes the bill itself if it is a substitute. The resolution to pass a bill as amended passes the amendment as the text. ["Question Question!]

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in the resolution of ihe House of Representatives.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It seems to me exceedingly strange if We are in a position where we have got to vote qii this proposition of the House, and nobody can make any amendment to it in word or letter, in any shape.

Mr. STEWART and Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senate has decided that question.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I do not understand that the Senate have decided that this resolution cannot be amended.

Mr. STEWART. Yes, they have.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. They have by a yea and nay vote so decided.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I will not detain the Seuate by any long observations, but have before me what the Senate did. The record In the Senate of the TTsited States, February 1869. Resolved, That the joint resolution from the House of Representatives (H. R. jN o 402) entitled "A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States "do pass with, the following amendments.

The House did not concur in our amendments, and sent the resolution back here, and the Senate has voted to recede. Now, if it were not for the constitutional provision requiring two thirds to submit a constitutional amendment, I suppose there wouldbe no doubt at all that the vote of the Senate passed the joint resolution. That is the parliamentary law; but the constitutional provision comes in that in order to pass a constitutional amendment there must be a two thirds vote, and if the Senate had voted to recede by a two thirds vote I suppose the joint resolution would have passed; but the Senate decided that the question to recede was one thing and the question to agree was another. Having decided that the question to agree was another thing, the resolution is now before the body, and the question is whether it shall pass or not. Now, if no amendment whatever can be made to the resolution, if we have got to vote for the resolution just as it is, or not vote at all, or vote against it, it seems to me that we are in a very extraordinary predicament.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish to say one word. The Chair has decided that the only question that can now be put is whether the Senate agrees with the House of Representatives in this resolution, and has further decided that no motion to amend is in order. From that an appeal has been taken, and the Chair has been sustained. Now, I respectfully suggest that all these discussions with regard to the question of order, after the Senate has decided it, must be merely for the purpose of displaying the learning of gentlemen on rules of order, and at this late hour of the day we may as well vote and dispense with them.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I desire to say to my honorable friend that I have no disposition to display learning; but it seems to me we are in the strangest position a body was ever placed.

Mr. FESSENDEN. We have put ourselves

Mr. DOOLITTLE, I am complaining of the folly of the Senate in putting itself there by any such decision.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator, I take it, is out of order in making any such complaint after the Senate has decided.

Mr. MORTON. I want to be indulged in making one remark. I am very sorry that the resolution is in such a position that the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts [.Mr. Wilson] cannot be made, for I doubt whether the proposition can receive a two thirds vote in its present form.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Then we can pass the Senate resolution.

Mr. SHERMAN. If this fails, a motion to insist and ask for a committee of conference can be made.

Mr. HOWARD. I am very anxious to come to a vote on this question; but I wish to say one word before the vote is taken. On surveying the whole ground at the present time I am satisfied this is the best amendment that can be obtained from this Congress, and although I still entertain doubt and hesitation as to the true operation and construction of this amendment although I apprehend Jfyat it does grant to. the C ongress of the Unite Staj by implication power to prescribe qualifications to voters in t he States, still, under, the circumstances, I shall feel myself compelled to vote for this amendment. 1 do U hesitatingly, and I greatly wish that we had befbre us a more direct and efficient provision. Thisdoe^ not satisfy me, but I take it because it, is the best I can get at the present time. Ques tion Question!"]

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Will the Senate concur in the resolution of the House of Representatives?

Mr. WILSON. I move that it be laid on the table with a view of taking up the Senate resolution.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is moved that the resolution be laid upon the" table.

Mr. POMEROY. On .that I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 28, nays 30; as follows: yrEAS—Messrs, Abbott, Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks, Howe, McCreery, Norton, Patterson ot Tennessee, Pool, Ross, SjulsbuFjr, Sawyer, Spencer, Sumner, Trutabuii, Van VVmklo, Vickera. Warner, White, Wilson, and Yale —28

NAYS—Messrs, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conklin?, Cragin, Drake, Ferry, Vessenden, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Harris, Howard. Kellogg, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Osborn, Patterson of New Hampshire, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Wade, Willey, and Williams—30.

ABSENT—Messrs. Connes=. Corbett, Henderson, Morton, Pomeroy, Sprague, Tipton, andWeich—S. So the Senate refused to lay the resolution on the table.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in the resolution of the House.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, I think it is not becoming that a proposition should be pressed through because of the accident of its position, when it is so clearly not the desire of two thirds. There may possibly he under the pressure of an embarrassment of the question a vote of two thirds obtained for it; but surely every Senator will agree that it ought not to pass unless two thirds are cordially satisfied with it. Now, unquestionably what the Senate desires can be come at, and it requires only some little consideration an J deliberation about it. With a view to that, I move that the Senate adjourn.

The motion to adjourn was not agreed to— ayes thirteen, noes not counted.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring iu the resolution of the House of Representatives.

Mr. EDMUNDS called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, if it is now in order, I move to commit this proposition in its present form to the committee from which it came originally, the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. STEWART, U ART No; that is not in order.

Mr. FERRY. I submit that nothing is in order till this vote has been taken.

Mr. CONIvLING. The Chair has ruled such a motion out and been sustained on the appeal.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is not in order to commit the resolution at this stage.

Mr. SUMNER. I bad supposed thatamotion to commit was always In order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk commenced the call of the roll, and Mr. Abbott answered to his name.

Mr. SUMNER. Do I understand my motion is overruled as out of order?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair has so ruled.

Mr. CONKLING. Now, I insist that the ruling of the Chair shall be enforced. The roll is being called and a member of the Senate has answered.

Mr. RAMSEY and others. Proceed with the call.

Mr. GRIMES. No: theSeuatorfrom North Carolina did not answer until after the' Senator from Massachusetts had made his inquiry of the Chair as to the point of order.

Mr. SUMNER. Of course not.

Mr. CONKLING. That is an entire mistake.

Mr. FESSENDEN. An entire mistake. I heard the Senator from North Carolina respond.

Sir. GRIMES. I heard the Senator from Worth Carolina when he spoke and I heard the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. ABBOTT. If I am in order, I desire to explain the vote which I gave.

Several Senators. It is too late.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator voted under a misapprehension; he has a right to state that.

Mr. ABBOTT. I did not vote under any misapprehension. I am in favorof acommittee of conference with a view of getting at something like the amendment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mir. Wilson.] I am against concurring in this proposition for that reason.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in the resolution of the House, upon which the yeas and nays have •been ordered.

Mr. SUMNER. Is that debatable?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is debatable.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senator is not in order. The Senator from North Carolina has responded on the call of the roll.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is dispute about that.

Mr. FERRY. The Senator from North Carolina says that he responded, and he responded understanding the question.

Mr. ANTHONY. 1 think there is no mistake that the Senator from North Carolina responded. The only question is whether he responded under a misapprehension or not, and if he responded under a misapprehension he can change his vote.

Mr. CONKLING. He did not respond under any misapprehension.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair did not hear the Senator from Massachusetts at the time he says he addressed the Chair; but when that is doubtful we always lean in favor of the member who rises to debate. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. SUMNER. I understand from the Chair that I am entitled to the floor.

Mr. STEWART. After the call of the roll has commenced?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. I understand the Senator has the floor.

Mr. SUMNER. I do not wish to say a word unless I am precisely in order. If I am in order then I wish to say a word.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has the floor.

Mr. SUMNER. Very well. We can hardly be engaged with a more important question than we are now. It is to put a new article in the Constitution; and now it is evident from what has occurred that there is a sincere difference among Senators with regard to the terms of that article, and among our number are some who are disposed to press

Mr. STEWART. I shall have to call the Senator to order. I insist that it be decided by the Chair. There has been one name called, and this is a speech in the midst of the calling of the roll.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts has the floor.

Mr. STEWART. I call him to order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada will state his question of order.

Mr. STEWART, I call the Senator from Massachusetts to order because there is no debate in order pending the call of the roll.

Mr. tERRY. The Clerk has entered the response.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair has decided that, not observing the Senator from Massachusetts on the floor; but other Senators saying that he began to speak before the roll was called, he how has the right to proceed.

Mr. STEWART. I appeal from the decision of the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the appeal. Senators, as many as are of the opinion that the decision of the Chair shall stand as the judgment of the Senate will say "ay;" thoseopposed "no." [Putting the question.] The ayes have it. The decision of the Chair stands, and the Senator from Massachusetts is in order.

Mr. SUMNER. When interrupted I was about to observe that we are pressed now for a vote a proposition from the other House which in the opinion of many Senators is immature in its form, which does not touch one of the important questions that ought to be settled by the proposed amendment. My colleague has already stated his view on that point, and I must say I subscribe entirely to it. 1 feel that it would be wrong for us now while undertaking to settle this great question to leave it in any of its forms open to doubt. Do you not leave it so open if you adopt the proposition from the House, especially in view of recent transactions in the South generally, and particularly in the State of Georgia? Itis our duty, I submit now, to foreclose all those questions; and now it is proposed that we shall be pressed to a vote leaving one of those questions open.

Sir, 1 do not think that wise. I think that in putting this great article into the Constitution wc ought to be careful that it is complete in form and that it does meet all the exigencies of the occasion. Does this meet those exigencies? Is it complete in power? Is there a single Senator who is in favor of a constitutional amendment who will say that it is complete in form, or that it meets all the exigencies of the occasion? I believe there is not one Senator that I have now the honor of addressing who will affim that it does. Now, sir, shall we, under the circumstances of the case, in this peculiar exigency, be driven to adopt this imperfect proposition? I hope not. I think therefore that it would be better for the Senate to retrace its steps, to go back, if it could, to a committee of conference; but if it is not disposed to do that, let it commit the whole question to that committee of this body from which it originally proceeded—the Judiciary Committee— expecting from them an early report on the form which this proposition should finally assume when it is voted upon.

Sir, this seems to me to be the practical way of getting out of our present embarrassments. I know no other way; either go to a committee of conference or go to a committee of this body that shall review the whole matter this evening and make an early report to morrow morning. It is on that account that I have moved that this whole subject be recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The PRESIDENTpro tempore. The question is on concurring in the resolution of the House of Representatives.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, the Committee on the Judiciary have reported to this body a Senate resolution on this very subject, in which, I believe by the unanimous vote of the Republican members of that committee, they recommended that there should be no distinction among citizens of the United States touching the right to hold office any more than touching the right to vote for officeholders. The House of Representatives has sent over this proposition which limits——

Mr. ABBOTT. Will the Senator from Vermont allow me to interrupt him for a moment?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Certainly.

Mr. ABBOTT. The proposition of the Senate as it passed included the right to hold office, as I understood.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I have not stated that it did not. I said that the Senate resolution as reported to this body by the Committee on the Judiciary relieved all classes of the citizens of the United States from discriminations as it respects political rights to be voted for as well as to vote. Then the House of Representatives sent over a proposition which was short of that, and which said that no State should discriminate against any citizen of the United States touching the right to vote, and which implied, as this proposition fairly does—and you can put no other construction upon it—that while you give every citizen of a State a right to vote you leave it to the majority of that State to determine whether he shall have any right to be voted for. I know no distinction in philosophy, in politics, or in justice between the right to select in a republican government the agent who is to execute your will and the right to be selected by your fellow-citizens as that agent. But now the question is what we are to do. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] suggests that this ought to be recommitted tosome committee. A committee has exercised and exhausted its functions upon it in the way that the honorable Senator desires, but when its proposition was amended by the Senate contrary to the wishes of the committee, and there were imported into it two entirely different propositions, one of which to be sure covered this question and a great deal more, and another entirely new to us, those of us who stood up here to resist it found that those who should have been our friends and who should have gotten us out of the difficulty by voting it down, had gone away and we were left in the minority and the thing passed. Now it comes back. What are we to do? As one of the representatives of the people of a State that does not believe in any political distinction among citizens, I feel it to be iny duty to vote against this proposition, and if it fails, as I hope it will, all we have to do is to take up from your table, matured and ready, the very proposition that covers the whole ground that my friend from Massachusetts stands for as well as myself. Why should any friend of that proposition therefore hesitate for a moment to vote against this one and then go on and send over to the House a proposition that a majority of us really believe in?

Mr. STEWART. I will tell the Senator the very reason why. As soon as he gets that proposition up again does he not expect that the same men who loaded it before will load ik again?

Mr. EDMUNDS. No, sir.

Mr. STEWART. Does he not expect that the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senators from the other States will load it down so as to destroy it? Does he not expect that the rest of the session will be spent at cross purposes?

Mr. EDMUNDS. No.

Mr. STEWART. Is he not willing to take the proposition which the House of .Representatives sends to us, which accomplishes a great deal, rather than to take the risk of having our proposition again loaded down? I tell you that voting against this proposition is voting against any constitutional amendment for this session, for there are men in the Senate—I am not among them, I prefer the Senate proposition— but there are plenty of men here who do not prefer it, and you will have them turning around and playing the same game of delay that you are playing now. There are two sides to this question, and those who are responsible for loading the Senate proposition are going by the same votes to bury that, and we lose the only hope we have. The only hope for getting anything is to vote for this proposition, and I appeal to those who are willing to take something in favor of the colored man to vote for it. 1 appeal to the Senators who are willing to take something to vote for this, and then I will go with them and stand by them as faithfully as I can for another proposition that will give the right to hold office. I will work with them for that, and let us save what we have got. By a single vote now we can accomplish a great deal, but if you send it again and again to the other House, and it has to be sat out again and again. I tell you the session is too near a close to accomplish anything. I will labor as hard as any one for a proposition that colored men shall hold office, but because I cannot get everything I want now I am not to reject what I can get. I am for taking what we can get now, and I do not wish to see it loaded down and embarrassments thrown in its way. Do not let us trample on what the other House lias sent us, but let ns take that. It is a great Btep forward. It will redeem Kentucky, and Maryland, and Delaware.

Mr. SAULSBURY. No; it will not.

Mr. STEWART. Not redeem Delaware! I did not suppose Delaware was beyond redemption. I hope that the day of salvation is not entirely passed for that great State!

Mr. Abbott rose.

Mr. STEWART. I am not through yet. I have not occupied much time, but I want the country to know that this is the test of any movement to amend the Constitution. If we fail to get suffrage secured now, we shall fail altogether, Besides, the propositions separately are much more easily carried in the States. You can carry the question of suffrage easier, and then after that you can carry the question of holding office easier than you can Carry both together. I notice that in the discussions in the public prints it is stated that the country has settled down on the question of suffrage, but not on the question of holding office. Some of our leading Republican journals have objected to the latter. There is great opposition to putting them both together, and sufficient power in the Senate among those who do not want any amendment to defeat it, if jon do not get it on this vote, and I appeal to the Senate to let us have it now.

Mr. ABBOTT. Mr. President, I propose to say but a very few words in regard to this matter. I do not know into what straits the Senate is driven, what emergency has arisen, that the Senate and the other House cannot give proper consideration to this matter. I think it there had been less debate on this subject and more voting we should have arrived sit a conclusion long ago. Now, I wish to say that I am not going to be driven to this point in this manner. I am not going back to my constituents having voted for an amendment to the Constitution which deprives them of the right to vote and hold office. I will not be put in that position, and I presume that most of those from the southern States will act as I do in regard to it. If it is so that we are to put ourselves into such a fury that we cannot consider this matter dispassionately and do what ought to be done, then I prefer that the whole thing fail until such time as some spirit of serenity and coolness of judgment comes over the Senate so that we can attend to it properly.

Mr. STEWART. The Senator will have it fail until there is not a two thirds majority in the other House to pass it.

Mr. SAWYER. Mr. President, I suppose the object of this amendment is to secure manhood suffrage. I suppose, if the Congress of the United States have any idea in making this proposition at all, it is for that purpose, and that alone. I do not suppose that we wish to offer an amendment to the Constitution which will place the northern States on a different basis from that occupied by the southern States; yet if this amendment does prevail, that will be the exact effect of it. We have in the southern States at present constitutions which guaranty to the colored citizens the right not only to vote, but to hold office. We do not propose here, or at any rate I do not propose here, to vote for an amendment which prescribes for the citizens of Pennsylvania or Kentucky or of any other State any different rule than that. If the country is not ready for that proposition now, then let us wait. As my honorable friend from North Carolina has said, I see no particular reason why the Congress of the United States should be in such a hurry about this. If the country has not come up to that condi tion of public sentiment yet which will enable it to adopt the principle of manhood suffrage, let us wait .until the country is at tuat point. I am not obliged here, I do not feel bound here, to vote for an amendment to the Constitution which accomplishes nothing and under which any State may pass a law which shall disfranchise four fifths of the colored population without mentioning the word "color;" and I do not hold myself ready to answer to the appeal which has been made -by the distinguished Senator from Nevada to vote for this or we shall have nothing. I had rather have nothing than to have this; and when I go back to my constituents they will say to me that I voted right. I believe that our northern friends ought not to press upon us to vote for this proposition, which will not stand the test of trial for a moment.

Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, it is obvious now that we cannot carry the House proposition by a majority of two thirds. At least, I think so. 'Therefore I suggest that if the Senator from Massachusetts will withdraw his motion to recommit to the Judiciary Commit-

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is ruled out of order already.

Mr. MORTON. I was going to suggest a motion to reconsider the vote by which we receded from our amendments.

Mr. SUMNER. That is what ought to be done.

Mr. MORTON. And then let us have a conference committee. There is one already appointed on the part of the House, and the}' can meet to morrow morning, and by to morrow at one o clock both Houses can agree on a constitutional amendment in proper form.

Several Senators. That is it.

Mr. MORTON. I will make the motion, and let the question be decided whether it is now in order to reconsider the vote by which the Senate receded from its amendments.

Mr. EDMUNDS. The Chair has once decided it.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. No, we have not decided that question.

Mr. MORTON. That is the practical way out of the difficulty.

Mr. SUMNER. I would suggest to my friend another practical way. Let us vote down the House proposition and then ask for a committee of conference.

Mr. SHERMAN. It has not yet been decided that the motion to reconsider is not in order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion to reconsider is in order.

Mr. SAULSBURY. Mr. President, we are told that one of the beneficial effects to result from the enactment of this measure is the redemption of Maryland, Kentucky, and Delaware." The mighty State, the great State of Delaware,’’ is the expression; and who is it that speaks of the great State of Delaware? and where does he come from? Let him go home and ask the wild animals, his constituency, that he comes from. He is the representative of a State of yesterday merely. I do not deny her greatness, nor shall I assert it. but it becomes not a representative from Nevada to say, for the purpose of disparagement, that Delaware is a great State!

But, Mr. President, there is more in the remark of the Senator from Nevada than the mere allusion to the dimensions of my State. I treat it as a frank avowal, as an open confession made in the face of the American people, that this proposed change of the fundamental law, to be operative in all time to come, for weal or woe to the interests of the people of the country, is designed for partisan purposes and partisan purposes alone. Why do I draw this inference from the remark of the Senator from Nevada? Because he says that this measure will redeem Kentucky and Maryland and Delaware. Redeem them from what? Sir, when the people of Delaware want a saviour they will not go to Nevada for a redeemer to expiate their transgressions. Redeemed from what? Has she fallen from anything? She is living in the same state and condition, under the K uie organic law under which she has lived ever since she has been a State, Her people at the present day are following the example, of their fathers. The word redemption, as us«d by the Senator from Nevada, perhaps does not express his meaning. He peAagg means $>at this measure, by clothing a large negro population with the right of voting, will change the political aspect of that State; that whereas now, and heretofore the people of that. State have steadily opposed the Republican party, with the accession of their sable friends they will be able to reverse the action of the people of Delaware. Not so, sir. Although it be true that nearly one fifth of her population are free negroes, yet every negro vote that you get only adds two white votes to the Democratic party. If this proposition is adopted the majority of the Democratic party in that State will be larger at the next election than it was at the last; and at the last election it "was twice as large as it ever had been in the State. And why? Simply because of your legislation specially in the interest of the negro race and adversely to the interests of the white people. So far as the result of an election in my State is concerned, I do not care whether your proposition is adopted or not, because with it Republicanism can have no foothold in the State of Delaware, and without it it can never have any foothold there. When God Almighty made the mold that made that people, and when He east that people in the mold which he made, he molded them of that material and made the mold of that material that .it is impossible that they and their descendants can ever so degenerate as to feel pride and honor in association, politically, or socially, with an inferior race. Let those who feel that- such is their nature and that such is their want of mental and moral illumination that they have to invoke the superior wisdom and the superior morality of the negro race take them to their bosoms and welcome them into the political councils of their States. The people of my State are not placed in any such situation, and they do not need the additional enlightenment which they are to get from Africa.

Mr. President, I have said now all that I wished to say, which was simply to refer to the remark of the honorable Senator from Nevada, who is from a State much less populous than Delaware, unless you include among his constituency the buffaloes and wild beasts, and to hold up to the Senate the taste of the remark of the Senator in reference to my State when he called it a great State.

Mr. CAMERON. It must be evident to every member of the Senate that we shall gain nothing if we remain here. I desire to have this question settled, as I am sure every other Senator does, without a waste of time; but we have been in a temper for the last few days which has prevented us from doing anything. I propose that we shall take a recess for two hours. ["No!" "No!"} Well, I will say for an hour and a half. If we go straight along I predict that we shall not get through. It is as certain as that we are here in this Chamber that we shall do nothing if we sit here until to morrow morning; but let us have a recess of an hour and a half, if Senators prefer that time, and go home to our dinners, and then return and, if it be necessary, stay all night and dispose of this question. I feel confident that we shall not obtain a vote upon it now if we should remain here for hours; but I believe if we retire to our homes for a short time and then return we shall be able to get the vote.

Mr. STEWART and others. Let ns take the vote now.

Mr, CAMERON. You cannot get the vote. The moment the vote is called some Senator will get up and immediately make a speech, and that will induce somebody else to speak. I submit the motion that the Senate take a recess for an hour and a half.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Let us adjourn until to morrow

Mr. STEWART. I shall call lb* yeas and nay* on any motion 4

Mr. CAMERON. Very well.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion can only be entertained by unanimous consent while this subject is pending.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish to make a remark in reference to the unfortunate condition of things in which we have got ourselves just at this time. We wasted all day yesterday and did nothing, and judging from appearances we are likely to waste all day to day and perhaps all night in doing nothing. I think it is time we shonld come to a vote on something or other, or else decide that we cannot agree on anything; that the Republican party, with a majority of more than two thirds in the Senate, cannot pass any measure or do anything, it is so cut up and divided, and there are so many opinions among the members composing it.

Now, sir, how doea the question stand just at this moment? I understood that the Senator from Indiana moved to reconsider the vote by which we receded from our amendments.

Mr. MORTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I contend that that motion is in order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That has not been ruled out of order. It is the very question pending-.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Then that is the question now pending. Now, sir, we may do one of two things; that being in order, we may reconsider or refuse to reconsider. If we do reconsider, the question stands as it did before. Tf we do not reconsider, we may proceed to vote on the question which we have been discussing so long; and that is, whether we will agree with the vote of the House. I submit to gentlemen, especially those in the majority, whether, when we have been discussing this so long and have come so near the close of the session, and have wasted one day, as we did yesterday, and are likely to waste another, it is worth while to spend more time in discussing questions of order, when a plain question is now before the Senate, and in debating this matter generally, when it is not possible that any gentleman in the Senate, whatever may be his ability, can throw the slightest light on the subject. Everybody understands it. Why, then, are we debating upon this matter.

I rose simply to state that the question was a clear and plain one upon reconsideration. Let us take the vote without further debate, among ourselves at any rate, and if that passes, we are then masters of the situation. If it does not, we can adopt the other. But let us waste no more of our time which is so valuable at this period of the session for other questions upon this subject. I hope my friend from Pennsylvania will withdraw his motion, at any rate long enough to see if wo can have a vote.

Mr. CAMERON. If it can be understood among our friends—I mean the Republican Senators—that we are to have no more debate on questions of order, I will withdraw the motion; but I do so on the distinct understanding that wo are about to come to a vote. ■The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion to reconsider the vote by which the Senate receded from its amendments to the resolution of the House.

Mr. SUMNER called forthe yeas and nays; and they were ordered.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Now, if my colleague supposes that this can go entirely through the process of voting and result finally in a reference of the measure to a committee of conference without any debate, I think he assumes very much. I know his earnestness to have this constitutional amendment passed, so that it shall go before the Legislature, and that it shall not go uetore the people of the State of Indiana. Although that may be right on his part and I am not going to discuss the propriety of it still, when he proposes to change the Constitution of the 0 nited States by a compromise between the two Houses, by a committee of conference, it isa matter thatof course will be debated. He cannot oxpect to bring it to a close at once. I merely wish to make this suggestion, inasmuch as it has been suggested to the Senator from Pennsylvania that it was not worth while to take a recess. I think we ought to adjourn and consider this matter deliberately to morrow

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 24, nays 32; as follows:

YEAS— Messrs. Abbott, Cragin, Drake, Grimes, IIar n Harris, McDonald, Morton, Osborn, Pomeroy, Pool, Rico, Robertson, Itoss, Sawyer, Sherman, Spenccr, Sumner, Thayer, Van Winkle, Wade, Warner, Welch, and Wilson—24.

NAYS— Messrs. Anthony, Backalew, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler. Cole, Conkling, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frehnghuysen, Hendricks, Howard, Kellogg. McCrcery, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Norton, Kyo, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Ramsey, Saulsbury. Stewart", Trumbull, Viekers, Whyte, Williams, and Yates—32.

ABSENT— Messrs. Bavard, Conness, Corbett, Dixon, Henderson, Howe, Morrill of Maine, Sprague, Tipton, and Willcy—10.

So the motion to reconsider was not agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on concurring in the House proposition.

Mr. FRELINGIIUYSEN. It seems to me that this whole difficulty can be settled very easily and very quickly. The question is now whether wo shall adopt the proposition that comes to us from the House of Representatives. If we adopt that, we have a constitutional amendment. As to the objection that it does not provide eligibility to office for the colored people I will only say that if you give seven hundred and fifty thousand men the right to the ballot tiiey will look out for their own rights as to olEce. Therefore, I shall vole for that proposition; but I confess that I prefer the proposition that originally came from the Senate committee. If the proposition now pending fails all that we have to do is to take up that which came from the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and pass it within an hour.

Mr. EDMUNDS. The trouble about the argument of my friend on this pending question is that the seven hundred and fifty thousand colored voters are not altogether in the southern States; they are divided up among all tli© States; and if you do not give them Ihe light to hold office as well as to vote you immediately create a white aristocracy in every one of those States with the negroes divided among them, which will work as bad a resolution as my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. Bi okalew referred to in South America, totally destructive of the liberties of that people. Now, as my friend from New Jersey says, all we have to do to do right in this matter is to reject this proposition of the House or lay it on the tabic, and then take up and pass the Senate resolution which the Judiciary Committee have perfected and reported.

Mr. WILSON. I move that this joint resolution be laid on the table with a view of taking up the Senate proposition and passing it.

Mr. WILLIAMS and others. Let us vote upon it directly.

Mr. FRELINGIIUYSEN. Mr. President,

The PRESIDENT^™ tempore. The motion is not debatable. The question is on the motion to lay the resolution on the table.

The motion was not agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on concurring in the resolution of the House of Representatives, on which question the yeas and nays have been ordered.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 31, nays 27; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell Chandler, Cole, Conlding. Cragm, Drake, Ferry, Fessenden, FVelingbuyson, Harlan, Ha u is Howard, Kellogg, Morgan, Mm nil of Vermont, Morton, Nve, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pool, Ramsey, ltice. Robertson, Sheiman, Sfew irr Trumbull, Van "Winkle, Wade, \V11 foiii-, and Yates—SI.

NAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Bay u d, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolutle, Edmuncis, I ovvler Grimes, llendlieks, MeCreery, McDonald, Norton, Osborn, Patterson ol Totmessee, Pomeroy. Ross, ulsbnry. Sawyer, Spencer, Sumner, Thayer, Vickers, Warner, Welch, Wliyle, and Wilson—27.

ABSENT— Messrs. Conner, ICorbott, Henderson, Howe, Morrill of Maine, Sprague, Tipton, and Willey—8.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Two thirds of the Senate not having voted in the affirmative, the resolution is rejected.

Mr. STEWART. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate joint resolution No. 8, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. WILLIAMS, (at five o clock and forty minutes p. m.) I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

Mr. FERRY. On that motion I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 21, nays So; as follows: YEAS —Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Chandler, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle. Fowler, Hendricks, Howard, MeCreery, Norton. Nye. Patterson of Tennessee, Ramsey, Salisbury, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Whyte, and Williams—21.

NAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Cameron, Cattell, Colo, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinshuysen, Grimes, Harlan, Harris, Ilowe, Kellogg. McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, 0 born Patterson of New Hampshire, Pnm roy Pool, Riee, Robertson. Sawyer. Sherman, Spoucer, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Wade, Warner, Welch, Wilson, and Yates—35.

ABSENT—Messrs. Con Mi Tie", Conness. Corbett, Fessenden, Henderson, Morrill of Maine, Ross, Sprague, Tipton, and Willey—10.

So the Senate refused to adjourn.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question recurs on the motion of the Senator from Nevada.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (S. R. No. 8) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. HOWARD. Let the resolution be read. The Chief Clerk. The resolution when last up was amended to read as follows:

Resolved bv the Senate and House of Representative? of the llni ed States nf America in Cortgress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring.) That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amemlmcntto the Constitution of the United Staters, which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall bo valid as pail of the Constitution, namely: