February 17, 1869 (2)

AliTICLK XV.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not bo denied or abridged by tho United States or any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The Congress shall liavo power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Mr. STEWART. I move to insert, the word "by" before the words "any State 1 so as to read," shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. NYE. I hope this resolution will not pass, and I hope the Senate will not spend much time in its discussion. Here, after four or five days of the time of the Senate have been occupied in the discussion of a similar question, when the House of Representatives present to us a constitutional amendment providing that negroes shall have the right to vote, I am surprised to see gentlemen who have labored for twenty years to get that provision into the Constitution, upon which more eloquence has been expended and more zeal displayed than upon all other questions that they have discussed, voting with the enemies of the proposition upon principle, for the more purpose of gratifying their own whim. I am opposed to the further discussion of a mo tsure upon which there is no possibility of agreeing; and I now give due notice that whatever proposition of this kind comes up hereafter will meet with my little opposition. I will not vote for anything that proposes to tamper with this subject. The back of this poor old Constitution is as raw as a galled horse. [Laughter.] We ride it here regularly through Congress, session after session, and when weget the very thing we want, because it is not exactly what my honorable friend from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] wants he votes "110" very loud. My honorable friend from Kansas, [Mr. Pomerot,] who has grown old and bald in this fight, says" no," and all those, or almost all, who have come here recently from the southern States say "no."

Mr. KELLOGG-. Not all.

Mr. NYE. I say alrr ostall therefore Ithink it lost time to have any further discussion of this question. There are important practical measures that require the attention of the Senate, and to those measures 1 insist the Senate shall devote itself for the remnant of this session; for I have no sort of belief that if we sat here until the 4th day of March at twelve o clock there would be any constitutional amendment voted on that would be agreed upon by both Houses of Congress. If you adopt thi3 proposition and send it to the House of Representatives they will send it back, and the two Houses will be playing shuttlecock with tho Constitution and its amendment, which is doomed to death in the end. I hope, therefore, that the question will be stopped here, and that •vve shall take a vote at once and let the Constitution alone.

Mr. WELCH. I most distinctly hope that this proposition will pass, and what is further, I hope that adequate time will be taken for its discussion. It has been charged here by the honorable Senator from Nevada [Mr. Nye] that the gentlemen recently from the southern States have voted with their political enemies against the proposition of the House of Representatives. We are ready to give a reason for the faith that is in us. Wedidnotcast that vote from mere caprice. We so voted because we believe that the negro shonldhave full and impartial justice, and because the proposed amendment that was voted down when the Senate refused to concur does not give complete and impartial justice. By implication it deprives him of therightto hold office, and puts the Senate in the absurd position, contrary to all true philosophy, that a man cannot holdofficein this Republic, notbecause of what is in him, but because he belongs to a certain race, because he has a skin not colored like our own. I believe that men should vote and hold office because they have the capacity to vote and to hold office, and that every such question should be decided upon some general principles that will be justified by their general intelligence or general -virtue, not because of their forefathers, and not because their forefathers have or have not made inventions. The negroes have the right to vote by the State constitutions in the reconstructed States; but in all those States they have not the right to hold office. The difficult} in Georgia is precisely that difficulty; and the enemies of the negro would seize upon the amendment to the Constitution proposed by the House of Representatives as ajustification for taking away from him the right to hold office. These are the grounds for our voting as we have done: and I believe they are tenable ones.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution is in Committee of the Whole, and open to amendment.

Mr. CONKLING. Are there any amendments pending?

Mr. STEWART. The amendments have been adopted. We had it up before.

Mr. CONKLING. Let me understand it from the Chair. Are there any amendments now pending?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are no amendments pending. This is a newpropoisilion, as the Chair is informed.

Mr. STEWART. No, sir; it is the proposition that was before the Senate before.

Mr. HOWARD. I ask for the reading of the article.

Mr. STEWART. Let it be read as it now stands.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Is this its second reading? It has been read once.

The PRESIDENT pro t mpore It has been read twice.

Mr. HENDRICKS. When was it read twice?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is a resolution that has been considered by the Senate before, and amendments hare been made to it.

Mr. HOWARD. I hope it will be read for the information of the Senate.

The Chief Clerk. The resolution, as amended, reads:

Resolved, &e„ (two thirds of both Houses concurring.) That the following article be proposed t& the Legislatures of the several States as ait amendment to the Constitution of the United States; which, when -ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid as part of the Constitution, namely:

Article XV.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Mr. HOWARD. Senators are mistaken if they expect to hurry this article through the Senate without discussion. That idea may as well be given ap now. I cannot support this amendment of the Constitution, and I propose to take my time to discus3 it.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Will the Senator yield to a motion to take a recess for two hours? It is monstrous to compel us to stay here without food. Will the Senator yield to that motion?

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I move that the Senate take a recess for two hours.

Mr. DRAKE. That motion can only be entertained by unanimous consent, and I object to it.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection being made, it cannot be entertained.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I reckon I mightmake a motion to adjourn, if it would not be offensive to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. DRAKE. It will not be at all offensive to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I move that the Senate adjourn.

Mr. STEWART. I hope not.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. DRAKE, and others called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted— yeas 18, nays 31; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Bayard, Buckfilew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Hendricks, Howard, MeCreery, Norlon, Patterson of Tennessee, Pj ol Robertson, Saulsbury, Van Winkle, Vickers, Whyte, and Williams—18.

KAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Cameron, Cattell, Cole, Cragin, Dritkc, Edmunds, Ferry. Pie ing hu3Tsen Grimes, Iljirlun, Ilarns, llowe, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill oi Vermont, Morton, M c Osborn, Pomeroy, Itice, Sawyer, Spencer, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Wade, Warner, Welch, Wilson, and Yates—31.

ABSENT— Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett. Fessenden, Henderson, Kellogg, Morrill of une Patterson ol New Hampshire Ramsey Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Tipton, Trumbull, and Willey 17

So the Senate refused to adjourn.

The joint resolution was reported to the Senate as amended.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, I cannot vote for that amendment of the Constitution, and I propose to state, with all becoming brevity, the reasons which induce me to vote against it. It proposes, in the first place, to confer upon Congress, in what I regard as very plain terms, the power to prescribe the qualifications of voters and holders of office in the United States Government and m State governments on all subjects for any reasons except those which are stated in the terms of the resolution. Now, at the present time and under the present Constitution the Congress of the United States is not invested with any such authority. The authority has never been given to Congress at all either to prescribe the qualifications ol voters or the qualifications of holders of office. This is a most serious innovation upon the Constitution. It opens the door to congressional legislation in the future which may be very objectionable to the people. It goes the whole extent of repealing) in my judgment, thatclause of the Coik titution which declares that—

No religious test shall over be required na ajualiSention t,. nnj office or public trust under the Imtcd States."

Mr. HENDRICKS: IftheSeaator will yield, I will move to take a fceeess for two hours.*

Mr. HOWARD. I will agree to that.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. A great many Senators have left the Chamber* not knowing of any such recess.

Mr. POMEKOY. I- think we had- better take a recess.

Mr. FliELINGHU YSEN. I think« recess is worse than an adjournment.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Perhaps we had better adjourn.

Several Senators. Let as adjourn,

Mr. HENDRICKS, (at six o clock p. m.) I move, then, that the Senate adjourn.

Mr. MORTON. I hope not.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I hope we shall.

Mr- MORTON. Those who are very hungry can get something to eat down stairs, and the discussion can go on in the mean time. If .we stay here for an hour or two we can complete this discussion. 1 have no fear of a long discussion.

Mr. DRAKE. I call for the yeas and nays on the motion to adjourn.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 14, nays 28: as follows: YEAS—Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Fowler, IIend ricks. Howard, McCreery, Norton, Patterson of Teanessee, Pool, Saulsbury, "Van "Winkle, vickers, Whyte, and Williams—14.

KAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Cameron, Cole, Cragin, Drake. Edmunds. Fessenden Frelinghuysen Grimes, Harlan. Harris, Kellogg, McDonald, Morrill of Vermont, Morton. Nye. Ooborn, Pomeroy, Rice, Sawyer, Spencer. Stewart. Thayer, Wade, Warner. Welch. Wilson, and Yates—28.

ABSENT— Messrs. Anthony. Bayard, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, j Dixon, Doolittle, Ferry. Henderson, Howe. Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Patterson of .New Hampshire, Ramsey, Robertson, Ross. Sherman, Sprague, Sumner Tipton Trumbull, and Willey—24.

So the Senate refused to adjourn.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, I was remarking that this proposed amendment to the Constitution will operate as a repeal, as an annulment of that clause of the sixth article of the present Constitution which declares that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The article which is proposed to us declares that no State shall pass any law and that the United States shall pass no law which shall abridge or deny the right of voting and holding office to any citizen, of the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery, ‘The implication is perfectly irresistible in the mind of every instructed lawyer who has had any practice at the bar that, with the exception of race, color, and previouscondition of servitude, even the United States may impose whatever qualifications Congress may see fit to impose, both upon the voter and the holder of office in the States and in the United States, and that by an act of Congress we may here, sitting in our seats, prescribe a rule which shall exclude iu the States from the right of voting and holding office every person who shall not be of a particular religious creed, every person who shall not be of a certain age, every person who shall not have been born in some particular locality.

But, sir, the great objection to it is that it gives to Congress absolute authority, by this legal implication, to say that nobody but members of some particular religious sect shall have the right to hold office in the States and in the Government ol the United States. Do not doubt it, sir; look at it with the eye of a lawyer, of a person accustomed to explain and interpret statutes, and you can come to no other conclusion. The right of prescribing any qualifications except such as are expressly |j mentioned in the article is plainly, by an irre: sistible implication, given to the Congress of the United States. Are Senators prepared to disregard the old inhibition contained in the Constitution in reference to religious tests? jl Are they prepared to give to Congre s authority to say what persons shall and what shall not hold office in the various States, in the various Territories, and in the administration o of the laws of the United States?-

Sir, I can conceive of no alteration of the Constitution which would be more odious in the eyes of the people of the United States than the one which is now before us; and I tell you, sir, although you may hasten and rush it through this body, and under the strain of the previous question in the House obtain the concurrence of the House of Representatives, I predict here and now that it will not receive the ratification of the Legislature of one of the States of the United States, and your work will all be vain and worse than vain, because it will fasten upon the Republican party represented in Congress the odium of giving to Congress a power which our fathers were careful to exclude from among the powers of Congress.

Now, sir, I am not in such hot haste to amend the Constitution of the United States as to commit an act of this kind. I think we go far enough when we say to the black man, North and South, "You shall have the same right to vote as is possessed by the white man." There is no danger that in the densely populated regions of the South, where the black population is so numerous, they will be deprived of the right of holding office though they may be voters. That is an unnatural consequence to deduce from it. If a person is allowed the use of the ballot it is but one step, and that a very short one, to his enjoyment of therightto hold office; and I look upon it as certain that if the black population of the South or of the North are ele• vated to the condition of voters, if they are allowed in this way to participate in the enactment of laws and the regulation of the affairs of the State, they must necessarily, as an irresistible consequence, be allowed the privilege of holding office if they are fit for it in other respects.

But my great objection to this, Mr. President, is that it runs the plowshare through the old Constitution, and takes out of it one of its most precious and valuable safeguards. I refer to the prohibition which I have already read. Sir, I would not part with that great security for human liberty, religious freedom, for any consideration that could be addressed to me; and the article which is now offered, misnamed an amendment to the Constitution, does repeal and set aside that most sacred and invaluable provision. I hope, Mr. President, that this miscalled amendment to the Constitution will receive that treatment which it justly deserves by this body.

Mr. DRAKE. I move an amendment, to strike out all after the words" article fifteen" and insert:

No citizen of the United States shall, on account of ruco, color, or previous condition of servitude, bo by the United States or any State denied tlio right to yoto or to hold office.

Mr. STEWART. I do not think that is any better.

Mr. CONKLING. What is the difference between that and the proposition pending?

Mr. DRAKE. There is a very great difference, which I will take leave to explain. The other sets out with the postulate, as I think, that every man has a right to vote and hold office; that the right to hold office inheres in him, and that the right to vote inheres in him. It says that the right of the citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied, starting out with the assertion apparently of the right of every citizen to vote and hold office. I do not know whether, when the honorable Senator from New York calls upon me for an explanation of the difference, he gives any attention to my statement of the difference.

Mr. CONKLING. Most certainly I do.

Mr. DRAKE. There is a very great difference. It is not the right of any man to vote or hold office at all until the law gives him that light. No citizen of the United States has by the mere fact of his being a citizen a right to hold office; no citizen of the United States has by t he mere fact of being a citizen of the United States the right to vote; and yet that is the implication which can jbe drawn fromtheamendment of the Constitution as it is now framed, and from the hands of the committee. The amendment I have offered proceeds on the correct principle, not that a citizen of the United States has a right to vote and hold office, but that his way to the ballot box and to official service shall not be barred against him or denied: to him on account of his race or color or previous condition of servitude; and therein is where I think this form of words is very much better than that which the committee reported.

But, sir, I am free to say that I do not expect it is to be adopted. Why? Because there seems to be some glamour about Senators' minds, in connection with that which has been reported by a committee, as if all the wisdom of the world abided in a committee of the Senate of the United States, as if there were no man on earth that could put words together to express an idea unless lie happened in doing so to be acting as a member of a committee of die Senate of the United States!

Now, sir, if I understand the honorable Senator from Michigan correctly, this amendment would obviate tin objections he makes to the other. I would like to know whether I am correct in this.

Mr. HOWARD. I have not read the amendment offered by the honorable Senator from Missouri with any attention, and therefore am not able just now to answer his question.

Mr. DRAKE. I can repeat it. It is that no citizen of the United States shall on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude be by the United States or by any State denied the right to vote and hold office. If I am not mistaken, that form of words gets rid entirely of the objections of the Senator from Michigan. It does not assert any right in the citizen; it confines it down to the very proposition that we desire to adopt here, to wit, that you shall not bar a man from voting and holding office because of liis race, or his color, or his previous condition; does not assert the right in the United States to define his rights as a voter except simply to guard him from a deprivation of the right to vote and hold office through the matter of his race, color, or previous condition.

Mr. President, if we really do desire to do a thing here which shall be complete in itself, I think it would be well to adopt that form of language; and lest anybody should suppose that I am desirous to have the credit of it, I am perfectly willing that it shall bo considered as having been written out for me and handed in here by me as the work of any other Senator 011 this floor who will assume the paternity of it. The thing that I want to get at is to express what the Senate desires to express, and what the other House desires to express. The thing that I want to get at is that this Congress shall not adjourn without having accomplished the great object of laying this question before the people of the United States, that we shall not be cross firing here and killing the whole measure. If one form of words will not do let us adopt another.

Mr. McCREERY, (atsix o clock and twenty minutes p m I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

Mr. DRAKE. I call for the yeas and nays on that motion.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll; and on the conclusion of the call a quorum had not voted.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. The Senator from Kentucky does not seem to care much aboutthis motion, as he has not voted. [Laughter.] I move that the announcement of the vote on this question be postponed until tomorrow.

Mr. McCREERY. That is not in order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It cannot be postponed.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I move that this question be postponed until to morrow

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Everything is cSut of order until the vote is announced,

Mr. HENDRICKS. Then let the vote be announced.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to read the list of yeas and nays.

Mr. STEWART. I should like to have the names of Senators called who have come in since the call commenced. Let the names of the absentees be called.

Mr. HENDRICKS. That is rather sharp. The result was announced—yeas 8, nays 24; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Bayard. Buekalew, Cole, Dixon, Howard. Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Williams—8, NAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Cattell. Cragin, Drake, Edmunds Frelinghuysen, Grimes. Kellogg, McDonald, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Osborn. Pomeroy, Iiice, Sawyer. Spencer, Stewart, Wade, Warner, Welch, Willey. Wilson, and Yates—24.

ABSENT—Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Chandler, Conkling, Conness. Curbett, Davis, Doolittle, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler. Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, McCreery, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Pool, Ramsey. Robertson, Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman. Sprague, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Vickers, and Wrhyte—31.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate refuses to adjourn; but there is not a quorum voting.

Mr. HOWARD. I move that the Senate adjourn.

Mr. DRAKE and Mr. EDMUNDS. That is not, in order now.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Nothing else is in order.*

Mr. DRAKE. No legislative business has been transacted since the last motion to adjourn.

Mr. CONKLING. It is always in order to adjourn when there is no quorum.

Mr. POMEROY. There is nothing else in order but to adjourn or send for the absentees.

Mr. CONKLING. Is there not a motion to adjourn pending?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is moved that the Sergeant at Arms request the absentees to be present.

Mr. CONKLING. What has become of the motion to adjourn?

Mr. HOWARD. I moved to adjourn.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I move that the Senate adjourn.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on adjourning.

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

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll on the motion to adjourn.

Mr. NYE. There are Senators enough in the cloak rooms if they are called in, to make a quorum.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I call for the reading of the sixteenth rule.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Pomeroy in the chair.) The vote has not yet been announced.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I ask for the reading of the sixteenth rule, which requires every Senator when his name is called to answer.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rule will be read.•

The Chief Clerk read rule sixteen, as follows: When the yeas and nays shall bo called for by one fifth of the Senators present each Senator called upon shall, unless for special reasons bo be excused by the Senate, declare openly and without debate his assent or dissent to the question."

Mr. McCREERY. I beg to be excused from casting my vote on this question. [Laughter.]

Mr. DRAKE. For what special reason? That request cannot be entertained unless the Senator assigns a special reason for which he wishes to be excused.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No debate is in order at this time.

Mr. McCREERY. 1 have no reason to assign except my desire not to vote on this question. [Laughter.]

Mr. FESSENDEN. I move that the Senator from Kentucky be called.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It is the duty of the Chair to call him.

Mr. McCREERY. What is the motion of the Senator from Maine? 1! Mr. FESSENDEN. That th« name of the Senator from Kentucky be again called. He is present

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in order to call the roll again if the Senate so decide.

Mr. MORTON and others. Call the names of absentees.

Mr. DRAKE. There are other Senators present who have not answered.

Mr. EDMUNDS. One at a time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk will call the roll of those who have not responded to their names, some of whom may have come in since the call commenced.

The call having been concluded, the result was announced—yeas 12, nays 25; a s follows: YEAS—Messrs. Abbott, Bayard, Cole, Colliding, <->Uon. Fowler, Howard, McCreery. liamsey, Trumbull. Van Winkle, and Vickcrs—12.

NAYS—Messrs. Cattell, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, J esaenden Frelinghuysen Grime® Kellogg McDonald, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye. Osborn, Pumeroy, Pool, Rice, Sawyer, Spencer, Stewart, Wade, Warner, Welch, Willey, Wilson, and Yates—25.

ABSENT—Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cameron, Chandler, Conness, Corbett, Davis, Doolittle, Ferry, Harlan. Harris. Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Morpan, Morrill of Maine, Norton, Patterson of New i (aropsbire. Patterson of Tennessee, Robertson, Ross, Sj al hury Sherman Sprague. Sumner, Thayer Tipton, Whyte, and Williams—29.

So the Senate refused to adjourn.

Mr. FOWLER. What is the question now before the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands the question to be on the amendmentof the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Drake] to the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I should like to hear it read.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Is not that the same one we have had up?

Mr. DRAKE. No, sir; it is a very different one from the one we have had up this evening.

Mr. FOWLER. Mr. President, I believe there is no difference between this amendment and that reported by the Judiciary Committee. If I recollect the report of the Judiciary Comjnittee, it is that the right of no citizen shall be denied, and this is that no citizen shall be denied the light. That is the only difference, but it is •simplyin words. I agree with the Senator from Missouri candidly and earnestly in the belief thia the report of a committee has a great influence on the Senate generally, entirely too much. 1 do not prefer the report of the committee to the Senator s amendment, but I contend that so far as the expression is concerned they are substantially the same. For instance, the report of the committee is that the right of no citizen

Mr. DRAKE. No. that is not the report of the committee, if the honorable Senator will allow me." The right of citizens" is the report of the committee.

Mr. FOWLER. The point I wish to make is this:" the right of citizens," is the report of the committee, and that presupposes, as the Senator from Missouri justly says, that the right inheres m the citizen and the mode of expression sets forth very clearly that the right to vote is inherent in the citizen. If I understand the amendment of the Senator from Missouri it is .precisely the same. It alleges aright of something which it says shall not be denied. A right of what? The right as it is there expressed must inhere in something. It must certainly have some substratum, some substantial basis in which it inheres; and that right necessarily is in his proposition the citizen, and no explanation, no criticism of language, can divest the citizen of that right even in his own proposition. So they are substantially the same, although there is a transposition in the terms of the proposition.

Now, every objection that has been urged by the Senator from Michigan I think is quite as applicable to the proposition of the Senator from Missouri as to the proposition of the Judiciary Committee. But that is not my main objection. Sir, I do not think that the Constitution of the United States should be amended without the gravest reasons for it, and then the amendment should be enunciated in such, terms as cannot be doubted, that all persons may understand it distinctly. I do not believe that eitberof the propositions now before the Senate is perfected to such a degree that it will or ouvht to receive the approbation of three fourths of the Legislatures of the several States, or of the American people.

I have another objection. This reformation, as it is supposed to be, which has been inaugurated by the rebellion, does not go as far as it ought. If we have arrived at the conclusion that the citizens of the United States are and of right ought to be equal before the law, if we have arrived at the point of declaring that there are no distinctions whatever so far as citizens are concerned, that we no longer legislate for black men or white men or red men, but legislate for the citizens of the country, for the people alone, then I want such an amendment as will assert the right to vote and hold office in the citizen and base it upon the principle of his manhood, and give it to him by virtue of the fact that his Creator has given him manhood.

It maybe asserted here that it is not a natural right. Well, sir, letus see how that is. Society is the natural condition of man. Governments are made by men as naturally as bees make honey 5 and government is as much an element of nature, it is as much a natural thing as man himself. It is made, according to our theory, by the man. It is the simple projection of his own ideas into civil institutions. If he, then, is a unit of the society or a unit of the Government, it is his right, unquestionably, to have that unit of force expressed in the Government. Then, sir, let us make an amendment to the Constitution such as I proposed; that is, an amendment that shall set forth the fact that this right does inhere in the citizen; and let the Government protect him in the exercise of the right. I am of opinion that any amendment to the Constitution which does not do this falls far short of the requirements of the age; itcannot receive my approbation, because long since I supposed that the public opinion of this country had gone beyond the point of these pending propositions, and that it was no longer hesitating about race or color, so far as citizenship was concerned.

There is another point to which I want to direct the attention of the Senate just now, and it is the fact that the propositions before us ignore the rights of all the while men of the country who are now divested of this great right. When this measure is adopted they will remain divested of the right by the States and by the Government of the United States. Why not rise up to the point that you will give to your own race a privilege or aright which you guaranty to another and an inferior race? Why not meet that responsibility, not only in regard to white men, but to white women also? But, as I said before, 1 do not expect that amendment to be ingrafted on the Constitution of the United States at the present time. I contend that any amendment of the Constitution that does ignore the rights of the white men who are disfranchised throughout the United States is an amendment unworthy of the age and it is an amendment unworthy of a white citizen of the United States or of any citizen of the United States. Carry the proposition to the colored men in the southern country and they will vote to day to give this right to the disfranchised whites. They wouldspit upon such a proposition as this—a proposition in which their own rights are attempted to be secured, while it tramples down the rights of their own white fellow-citizens, the men with whom they are to live and whose good will and whose affections they are to cultivate. They are to be made the instruments of subjugating them and trampling them in the dust and putting themiu a position inferior to themselves. There is not a decent black man in all the southern States who would not scorn such a proposition as this; and yet we are told here in the Senate of the United States, at this late day of the world, that, nobody s rights are to be guarded except those who are marked by race, color, or previous condition of servitude, because these are specific qualities that are named and our attention is directed to, tkein, and to thijui alone. For all other reasons a State may divest a man of his right to vote; for allother causes he may be deprived of this right butfcMMhsae alone, qualities that inhere only in a particular race, no discrimination jis to be made, but the power is to be left to strike down the rights of other individuals who are derived of their right to vote for other reasons.

Now, sir, I say this is unworthy of the Senate of the United States or the Congress of the United States, because these people pay taxes$ they discharge all the duties that, the citizen ought to discharge; they are loyal to the Government of the United States; they love- it as well as you do, sir; they will fight for it as readily; they will follow it as far. Their ancestors did as much to achieve and maintain our independence as those of any other class of men, and why now, when you attempt to secure the rights of one set of men, do you not secure the rights of all men? Such a proposition shall meet my cordial, hearty approbation; but the other, the partial principle, will meet my opposition always.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I wish to inquire whether this proposition will not be the order of the day at the meeting to morrow after the morning hour if we now adjourn, and if it will not take precedence of other business?

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. PomEftor in the chair.) This would be the unfinished business if the Senate should now adjourn.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I wish to inquire if the amendment proposed by the Senator from Missouri will be printed in the mean time, so that we can examine it, without any order to that effect? if an order to that effect is necessary 1 move that it be printed.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is not in order at this time.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think it is rather unreasonable to ask us to stay here now. There is evidently no quorum present, and I should think Senators, by common consent, would adjourn and let us dispose of .this resolution to morrow. If it were necessary to stay here we could do so; but it is not, and therefore I move to adjourn.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenator from Indiana moves that the Senate do now adjourn.

The question being put, the ayes were fifteen.

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

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 14, nays 23; as follows: YEAS—Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Hendricks, Howard, Norton. Pool, Riiuisey, Saulsbury, and Trumbull—14.

NAY S —Messrs. Abbott, Cattell, Craftm, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Kellogg, McDonald. Morrill of Vermont, Morton. Nya, Osborn, Pomeroy. Rice, Spencer, Stewart, Waae, Warner, Welch. Willey, aud Wilson—23,

ABSENT—Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Grimes, Harian. Harris, Henderson, Howe McCreery, Morgan, Morrill ot Maine. Patterson New Hampshire. Patterson of Tennessee. Robertson, Ross, Sawyer, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Thayer, liptou, Van Winkle, Vickers, Whyte, Williams, and Yates—29.

So the Senate refused to adjourn.

Ms. BAYARD. Mr. President, I think this scene affords the most striking illustration of the tyranny of party that has ever been witnessed in this country. After an exhausting session of nearly seven hours, the Senate of the United States now persists in a determination to force through an amendment to the Constitution, the substance of which it has receded from in the last three or four hours, after full debate. That is the legislation of a free country, by exhaustion, possessing a threefourths majority m the Chamber, to endeavor to force through an amendment of this kind after you have receded from it within so short a period of time. The object is very plain, Mr. President. The intent is, and the sole intent, to maintain the dominance of the present party by means of the degradation of the suffrage. They will fail in that. It is not that I fear; but failing as a party they will also ruin their country. But what cares party spirit for that? If gentlemen would only take the trouble to read the Farewell Address of General Washington, and take note of his warning as to the peculiar dangers that "assail a republic from the perverted spirit of party, I think they might pause a little in their career. They will find that their object will be defeated, because, if you attempt to impose upon the people of this country a suffrage of that kind against their consent through the mere medium of party Legislatures, you will find that your party will utterly fail in being sustained by them. It may lead to revolution j it may lead to the destruction of the institutions of the country; it cannot lead to good; and the very mode by which it is now attempted to be carried out evidences what the honorable Senator from Indiana [Mr. Mokton] chose to apply to a very different proposition, "the desperation of party." It is indeed the desperation of party. The men who now advocate this will find further, if they will look at the past history of parties in this or any other representative Government, that wherever they attain too great strength they always perish from their own internal struggles. Personal ambition, new questions arising, the division into different cliques founded on pergonal motives, will destroy any party where a formidable opposition no longer exists to it. That has been the past experience of this country.

After the Democratic party had by an almost unanimous vote elected Mr. Monroe a second time as a candidate for the Presidency, at the succeeding election all the candidates were Democrats and the division was purely personal, and it led to the defeat of the Democracy. Such will be the fate of the Republican party. But, sir, the precedent will remain of the tyranny now exercised, and the institutions of your country will ultimately fail in order that the men of the hour for their mere personal purposes shall carryouttheirown ascendancy for a brief period. It will be the same story over again, Mr. President, that tookplace in the French Directory and the French Convention. You may succeed for a ti ne one man will fall in conflict with another; it may be that you will not resort to the scaffold or the guillotine here as they did in France; but there will be Dantons and Marats and Robespierres in the United States under this utter disregard of the constitutional restrictions and civil liberty, as is evidenced now by the dominant party in the Senate of the United States.

Mr. DRAKE. Mr. President, I merely desire to say that in my opinion if this country and its Constitution could stand up successfully against a Democratic rebellion to perpetuate slavery its institutions can probably stand a Republican effort to perpetuate freedom and the rights of man.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Missouri to the amendment of the committee. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on concurring in the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. DRAKE. What was the amendment of the Committee of the Whole?

Mr. EDMUNDS. That reported from the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. BAYARD. I desire to move an amendment to the amendment of the committee. I move to strike out the words" vote and" in the second line; so as to leave the restriction imposed on the power of the States to apply only to the right to hold office. I think the evil far less if the people of a State choose to elect any of their ]>ets to Congress or as their State officers-, or if the Governors of States or any other appointing authority choose to appoint them—I do not think that evil is comparable nor half as dangerous to the country as the attempt to give the suffrage to an inferior race. 1 move, for this reason, to strike out the words "vote and;" and I ask the yeas and nays on the adoption of the amendment. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 6, nays 29; as follows:

YEAS— Messrs. Bayard, Bucka ew Davis, Hendricks, Vickers, and White—6.

NAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Cattell, Cole, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Prolinghnysen, Howard, Kellogg, McDonald, Morton, Nye, Osborn. Patterson of Now Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Rice. Ross, Sawyer, Speneer. Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, W nrner, Willey, Wilson, and Yates—29.

ABSENT—Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Chandler, Conkling. Conness, Corbett. Cragin Dixon Doolittle Fowler, Grimes, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Howe, McCreery, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Pool, Robertson, Saulsbury, Sherman. Sprague, Sumner Thayer Tipton, Welch, and Williams—31.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. DAVIS. In the fourth line, after the word "States," I move to insert the words "hereafter to be chosen," so as to submit this amendment to Legislatures hereafter to be chosen,

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that the question before the Senate is on concurring in the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole, and the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky will not be in order until that amendment shall have been disposed of.

Mr. HOWARD. If it be in order, I move to strike out in line thirteen the words "by the United States or so as to make the proposition read:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

On this amendment I ask for the yeas and nays. I wish a distinct vote on the question. The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not see any propriety in having those words "by the United States" in. It seems to me they may he omitted without impairing at all the effect of the amendment, and it should be as concise as possible. Unless something is to be accomplished by retaining those words I think they had better be stricken out. According to my view, and the view I think of the Senate, the United States Government has no right to regulate suffrage at present.

Mr. STEWART. It. has in the Territories and in the District of Columbia.

Mr. TRUMBULL. That is true; but I was referring to the States.

Mr. HOWARD. But the clause, as itstands, applies to all the States.

Mr. TRUMBULL. If it is intended by this amendment to give to the United States the regulation of suffrage, that is one thing; but that was not my understanding.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It is intended to deny it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. My understanding of the amendment was that its object was to prohibit the States from denying the right of suffrage or the right to hold office to any person on account of race or color. Now we have in it—and I confess my attention was not particularly drawn to the effect of it until it was done by the Senator from Michigan—the words that this right shall not be abridged by the United States or any State. The United States has nothing to do with it except in the Territories, as suggested, and over those we have plenary jurisdiction. It is not necessary to put those words in in order to give the United States autlioi ity to control suffrage in the Territories. We have that authority and always have exercised it just as we do in the District of Columbia. The Constitution needs no amendment in that respect to confer ample power on the Federal Government; and believing as I do that the United States has no authority to interfere with suffrage in the States, I think these words had better be stricken out.

Mr. EDMUNDS. My friend from Illinois on this subject, it seems to me, to use ahomely phrase, has put the eart before the horse. He says that the United States have plenary jurisdiction over the subject of suffrage in the Territories and in the District of Columbia. That is true on his view of the Constitution; and so have the States plenary jurisdiction within their limits, on his view. The object of this amendment is not to confer jurisdiction, but to deny to the United States and the States the right to exercise that jurisdiction in the way of limitation and exclusion. Therefore, while under the Constitution as it now stands on the view of my friend, we have the power to exclude colored persons from voting in the District of Columbia and in the Territories, it is one of the objects of this provision to deny to us or to any political majority in Congress the right to make that exclusion. If this amendment was conferring power instead of denying it what my friend says would be true; but, inasmuch as it is exactly the reverse, as it is a limitation on the power of Congress and on the power of the States to make unjust exclusions on the ground of color, these words ought to stay in. I submit that to the consideration of my friend.

Mr. HOWARD. The Senator from Vermont seems to overlook what I regard as the true construction of this clause, it is in the most general and comprehensive language possible. It declares that the right of citizens of the United States to vote and to hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of race, &c. A citizen of the United States and residing in Vermont has the right to vote and to hold office. That of course will be conceded. This clause applies as clearly by its terms to the citizen of Vermont, and his right to vote and to hold officcis as clearly subject to the language of this clause as is the right of any person residing in a Territory or in the District of Columbia; and the denial is applicable alike to the citizens of a State and to the citizens or inhabitants of a Territory or to the citizens of the District of Columbia. The generality of the language embraces citizens everywhere, whether in States, Territories, or the District of Columbia; and the United States is prohibited from denying the right to vote and hold office to all these citizens wherever they may reside, whether in State, Territory, or District. There is no escape from this. It is plainly, irresistibly expressed by the general terms employed, and there is no possibility of excepting out of those general terms the citizens of a Territory or of the District.

Now, sir, if the United States by these express terms is refused the power of regulating suffrage and office holding in one place for certain reasons, does it not follow irresistibly, according to legal logic and construction, that the United States may impose restrictions and qualifications based upon any other ground not embraced in the exceptions in the, language of this article? Inclusio unius est exclitsio alterius is an ancient maxim of the law; and if we deny thus specifically to the United States the power to impose restrictions in respect to color or race, 1 say it is an irresistible inference from the very language we use, that in respect to> all other qualifications the power is given to Congress to restrict voting and office holding. They may in any test that is not prohibited by this article; Congress may establish a religioub test, an educational test, a property test, that shall take effect not merely in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, but in any and all of the United States.

This inference is perfectly sweeping and universal. The power of Congress would go so far as to regulate the qualifications of officeholders in a village, in a city, in a county. Congress might prescribe the qualifications of the sheriff of a county or of the trustee of a public fund, and so of all other public offices which might exist under State authority. Sir, I am not prepared to go so far as this; but the Senator from Vermont sees no difficulty. I do. We happen to differ in that respect; and in enacting an amendment to the Constitution, the first requisite that ought to be observed in our legislation is plainness, distinctness, certainty, and perfect perspicuity in the language ■which we employ, so as not to s t a trap in "which litigants may be caught, so as not to encourage litigation and squabbling in courts of justice, so as not to bring the matter in discussion before the public upon every stump and every platform where a demagogue or a popular expounder of the Constitution—and we have an almost countless number of them—may see fit to exercise his talents.

But my great objection to this, and one which with me is utterly insuperable, is that it gives the national Government power byasingle enactment to repeal that clause of the Constitution which declares that no religious test shall be applied to officeholders in the United States. There is the difficulty which I see in it. The other difficulties are of great importance; but to me that is by far the greatest. I would not even by implication raise the question ot the perfect freedom of anAmerican citizen, whatever may be his religious belief, to enjoy the right of voting and holding office under the Government of which he is a common member. Sir, this clause does repeal that provision of the Constitution to which I have referred; and pass this amendment in this form, let it be discussed deliberately in the Legislatures of the States where there will not be such a hurry and bustle as exists at this time in this Chamber, and I predict you will not get the ratification by one State of such an article as this. That is my opinion. I may be mistaken,

Mr. EDMUNDS. I respectfully suggest to my friend that there does not seem to be hurry or bustle in this Chamber at the present time, and I do not intend to make any myself, or to occupy any time, but simply to say one word in reply to my friend.

He is altogether wrong in his philosophy in supposing that the negation of one proposition is the affirmation of another. The affirmation of one proposition is sometimes the negation of another; but to say that because it is pro vided that the United States shall not deny to anybody the rights of voting and of being voted for for a particular reason it is implied that they may and shall deny it for all other reasons would be equivalent in criminal law to saving that a statute which forbade murder and said that no man should commit murder implied that every man might commit adul teryl It is a perfectly preposterous proposition. There is no such thing in law or logic—• if my friend will pardon me for speaking somewhat firmly upon the proposition—to be found in any book which undertakes to declare that because you prohibit one thing you thereby grantauthority to do another. You leave it on other points Exactly whese the law stood before.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Allow me to ask a question.

Mr EDMUNDS Withthegreatest pleasure

Mr. HENDRICKS. Does not the prohibition involve the idea that in its absence the power existed?

Mr. EDMUNDS. No, sir; it does not. It involves simply the idea that what you prohibit is prohibited) and what you do not prohibit stands exactly where the law and the Constitution left it before. That is what it implies.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I will ask the Senator if, in construing laws, the rule is to be adopted that the Legislature has done an idle thing and has prohibited that which was prohibited before? If these things are prohibited do not the entire class they belong to stand without prohibition when you prohibit these?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Why, Mr. President, what we think it proper to prohibit we do prohibit: what we think it proper to leave where the Constitution and the frame of the Government leaves without prohibition we leave there. Now, if Senators are right in supposing that the right to regulate suffrage and hold office is now with the States, then when we prohibitthat regulation being made effective upon certain points named in this amendment we leave all (he rest of it just where it was before. If the right to regulate suffrage in any respect belongs to Congress, as in the Territories it does, and in the District of Columbia, then when we prohibit, Congress from exercising that right on a particular ground we leave its other powers unimpaired, exactly as they stood before. We do not give it any other powers, but we simply leave these other powers,- if they exist, just where they were.

Now, look at it in the other point of view for a moment. Suppose we were to strike these words out and say that no State should impose these unjust discriminations what then? We have a vast territory in which new States are to be framed and are to grow up; and thus to reserve to the whims of a political majority in the two Houses of Congress tlra power of fixing the future character of a State, by making regulations of suffrage which are not founded in any reason and which are based on principles that we deny to the States, would be a singular position to occupy.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Michigan to the amendment of the committee, on which the yeas arid nays have been ordered. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 18, nays 22; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Buckalew, Conkling, Cragin. Davis. Dixon, Doolittle, Ferry, Fowler, Hendricks, Howard, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire. Robertson, Saulsbury, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, and Whyte—18.

NA Y£—Messrs. Abbott, Cattell, Cole, "Drake, Edmunds, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen. Harris, Kellogg, McDonald, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Rice. Sawyer, Stewart, Wade, "Warner, Willey, Wilson and Yates—22.

ABSENT—Messrs. Anthony, Bay rd Cameron, Chandler. Conness, Corbett, Grimes, Harlan, Henderson, Howe, McCreery, Morgan. Morrill of Maine, Nye, Os horn Patterson of Tennessee, Pool, Ross, Sherman. Spencer, Sprague, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Welch, and Williams—26.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I now move, asan amendment to the amendment, to insert after the word servitude," at the end of the article, the following:

Nor shall any citizen beso denied, by reason of any alleged crime, unless duly convicted thereof by the verdict of an impartial jury.

So that it will read:

The risbfc of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; nor shall any citizen be eo denied, by reason of any alleged crime, unless duly convicted thereof by the verdict of an impartial jury.

Mr. President, it seems to me that the time has come in the United States and in all the Sta es when all this machinery

Mr. BUCKALEW. Before the Senator goes on I suggest to him, instead of saying "duly convicted thereof by an impartial jury." to say duly convicted thereof according to law," or "duly convicted thereof by due process of

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I accept that modification in the language of mv amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Pomeroy.) That modification will he made.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, it seems to me that if this work of fixing the suffrage in the States is to be entered upon by the Federal Government, and the doctrine of universal suffrage is to be extended to all races of men without any distinction whatever, the time has come to do away with all those proceedings in the several States which are so abhorrent to all the nations of freemen, by which men are disfranchised and excluded from the rights of citizenship who refuse to take certain test oaths— things which are in themselves perfectly odious, and have been ever since the great struggles of our ancestors in England, and unbecoming 3 free people. The idea of disfranchising men for alleged offenses of which they are not convicted is monstrous. We know—it is a notorious fact—that in the State of Missouri, and some of the other States, large numbers of intelligent citizens of the United States are excluded from the right of franchise by this machinery of the oa hs without any conviction of crime, without Soy conviction whatever, and without any trial.

When the civil war was raging, and excitement was prevailing throughout the land, men might perhaps seek to justify themselves for a resort to measures of this kind; but when the war is over, when peace has come. and when you propose to extend universal suffrage to the lowest races of men, certainly the time -has come when universal amnesty should come with it. If there is anything in the famous declaration of General Grant at the conclusion of his letter of acceptance, if there is deep significance in those words "let us have peace," certainly the first prerequisite to peace in the States of the South must be the repeal of these test oaths and of the disfranchising clauses of the constitution of those States; for, sir, disguise it as you may, though no blood may be shed, it is a state of war when the Constitution and the law disfranchise great masses of the most intelligent of the citizens of a State without trial and without conviction of any offense. It is in violation of the whole spirit of our Constitution; it is in violation of Magna Charta; itis a violation of the Declaration of Independence; it is in violation of all the great principles for which our forefathers struggled, and for which our ancestors in Great Britain struggled for five hundred years.

Now, sir, you are about to force upon the country negro suffrage and Chinese suffrage, too; for you have only to strike the word white" out of your naturalization laws—and the honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] has a bill already pending for that purpose—and Chinese suffrage must have its way in California and Oregon and on all the Pacific slope. Chinese suffrage in those States will be as potent as negro suffrage in the States of the South, perhaps more so; for while the negro population of the South will be diminishing, in all human probability, the Chinese, as we open new channels of commerce across the Pacific, as we shall on the completion of the railroad, will be pouring in upon our western shores by hundreds of thousands. They come from the hive of nations in Asia, where the great mass of the human population is congregated, and where millions can be spared and not missed at all. They are comparatively enterprising, comparatively intelligent, by the side of the African race in its normal condition; and they will come to the shores of the West. As you are about to enter upon this policy of extending political power in this Government to the inferior races among us, certainly you ought not to stand for the disfranchisement and the exclusion of members of the superior race, unless they are convicted of crime. I hope the Senate will give me a vote on this question; and upon it i respectfully ask for the yeas and nays, that we may have the sense of the Senate upon it. The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. SAWYER. Letthe amendmentberead.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be read as modified.

The Chief Clerk, The amendment, as modified, is to insert after the word "servitude," at the end of the proposed article, the following words:

Nor shall any citizen be so denied, byreasonof any alleged crime, unless duly convicted thereof according to law.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 13, nays 30; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Dooiittle, Ferry, Fowler, Hendricks, MeCrecry. Norton, Samsbury. Vickers, Whyte and Wilson—13.

NAY S—Messrs Abbott, Cattell, O lo Conkling, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, ifessooden, Frelmshaysen, Harris, Howard, McDonald, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nve, Patterson ofNewlIampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Riee, Robertson. Sfiwv er Spencer, Stewjrt, Trumbull, Wade, Warner, Welch, Willey, Williams, and Yates—30.

ABLEST—Messrs. Anthony. Bavard, Cameron, Chandler, Conness, Corbett, Grimes, Harlan, Henderson, Howe, KdU r Morrill of Mame, Osbnrii, Patterson ot Tennessee. Pool. Ross, Sherir an Spr srae Sunnier, Thayer, Xinton, and van Winkle—Si.

So the amendment to the amendment was rev c ?i.

Mr. DIXON. I move to strike out in the recital of the resolution the word "Legislatures" and to insert "conventionsthesame motion that I made before.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not in order at this time. The question before the Senate now is on concurring in the Senate with the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. FOWLER. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the words" on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude;" so that, if amended, it will read:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote and bold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is amnesty over again.

Mr. FOWLER. I ask fortheyeas and nays on my amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 5, nays 30; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Doolittle, Fowler, Hendricks, Vick- *ors, and Wliyte—5.

NAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Cattell, Cole, Conkling, Cra iu Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Harris, Kellogg, McDonald. Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson, Sawyer, Spencer, Stewart, Wade, Welch, Willey, Williams, Wilson. andYates— 30

ABS1SNT—Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cameron, Chandler, Conness, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Grimes, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Mc- Creery, Morgan. Morrill of Maine, Norton, Osborn, Patterson of Tennessee, Pool, Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Warner—31.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. NYE. If it is in order, I move to strike out the whole of the resolution and substitute therefor the resolution of the House of Representatives upon which we have acted to day I make this motion because it is quite evident that we shall not be able to agree upon the proposition before us, and I trust by this time iionorable Senators who opposed the House proposition see the utter futility of attempting to pass any other.

There were two or three objections urged against the House proposition. One was, and that was urged by the honorable Senators from Massachusetts, the honorable Senator from Kansas, and some of the Senators from the newly reconstructed States, that the amendment did not go far enough; that it omitted to say that the class of persons alluded to should have the privilege of holding office. 1 ask for a single moment the candid consideration of the Senate to see whether that ground is tenable or not. In order to do so it will be well to remember that we have made rapid strides, and the class of pesonsalluded to in this resolution and in the one from the House have been transformed with wonderful rapidity from slaves to citizens, from degradation to the elevated platform of American citizens, and from the garments of the slave have been clothed in the attractive garments of citizenship. Not only that, they have been armed with the most potent weapon with which you can arm a man for defense or for aggressive warfare, and that is the ballot. In the southern States they have got the ballot.

Now, sir, they complain in the South that a rule is prsecribed for the southern States that is not prescribed for the northern States. Mr. President, I was born and reared in a northern State. All of my education and my sympathies are with those States; but yet they are not strong enough to make me desire any rule ot conduct or any privilege for them that is not granted to the southern States. My desire in the passage of the House proposition was to secure uniformity, to stop this bickering about one law for one locality and another law foranother. But it establishes a broader principle still; it establishes the principle that wherever a colored man may be found, whether m New Hampshire or in South Carolina, he is a citizen and entitled to vote. For that I have labored zealously, if not wisely, for more than twenty years. I have lived to see that result produced, if this amendment should pass, as wide and as broad as the land.

But gentlemen say they cannot stand on that in the southern States. Then what can they stand upon? Arm the negro with the ballot, and I will see to it that he makes laws in the State, if I live in it, that will protect him in his right to hold office. Show me a State where a class of men have a majority at the ballot box and away with your fancied ideas that wrong can be inflicted upon the majority of the voters. Sir, the ballot is the shield, it is the buckler, it is the power to which white and black must bow. I think it is a mistaken idea, therefore, of Senators from the South that they cannot stand on that proposition alone.

Does it not go far enough? If it does not, let us take what we can get. Long ago did I learn the lesson that it was better to hold that which we could obtain than to lose all by grasping for two much. I venture to submit the question to these colored men themselves, whether they have not been fostered, whether they have not been cared for, whether they have not been elevated with a rapidity which is astonishing to them. Therefore, I do not put much stress upon the ground assumed by honorable Senators from the southern States, that they cannot stand on the proposition unless the colored people also have the right to hold office. I repeat, give me the majority of the ballots, and I will fix who shall hold offices in a State. They will fix it; and they are not so black or so stupid that they will not fix it in opposition, if need be, to the Senators who represent them upon this floor. Sir, it is the ballot, it is the count, it is the numerical strength that determines the right of the voter to hold office in his State; and it is idle for ns to stand here and throw away the great redeeming measure to establish the principle in the Constitution that these men shall have the right to vote everywhere. That will be a triumph which patriotism will rejoice over throughout the country.

Sir, I have been quite astonished at the course of the honorable Senators from Massachusetts end my honorable friend from Kansas. I asserted to day what I now repeat: ever since my hair was as black as the raven s plumage I heard the honorable Senators from Massachusetts standing here and elsewhere till their looks were wet with the drops of the night, in doors and out, making the very air that surrounded them vocal with the songs of freedom, and buoying and lashing men up to the point of giving the black men the right to vote. I heard those Senators descant eloquently upon the power that it would give the black men if they could only be armed with the ballot. Sir, that is the armor that cannot be pierced; and yet when such a proposition was presented here to day both those Senators, as well as the honorable Senator from Kansas, voted" no," because it did not go far enough. Sir, the logic is bad, and it is reasoning that will not be sustained by an enlightened public. I desire that the responsibility shall rest upon them, where it belongs, if this measure is to fail as it did fail to day

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If my friend will allow me, as the Senator from Kansas occupies the chair and is defenseless, perhaps I ought to state that the point wherein he wished to go further was to secure woman suffrage.

Mr. NYE. Well, I will not harm the Senator from Kansas if he is in the chair, and he can call my honorable friend from Wisconsin to the chair if he desires to defend himself. What I intended to say was that the position of the Senators to whom I have referred was entirely indefensible, and therefore I assume they will not try to defend it.

Now, Mr. President, I say that is not good logic or good reasoning anywhere, on any subject. If you cannot get all you desire get what you can; hold your vantage ground strongly, plant your footsteps so that they will stay, and say at least thus far we have gone, and from this we will not recede nor be driven, hoping that if in the future the interests of these people really require us to go further there will be as wise men here then as there are now, and they can apply the remedy necessary to secure to these men all that even the honorable Senators from Massachusetts may require.

Sir, the real point of this opposition is, and I speak now of the position of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts whose seat is vacant, [Mr. Sumner,] to have no constitutional amendment at all, but to raise a question full of doubt and the result of which perils the whole thing. It is to pass a law directly giving colored men suffrage without any constitutional amendment. For no amendment of the Constitution will that Senator vote. What I complain of is that, standing upon that ground, he should vote to defeat a measure so full of kindness and so full of power as this, on the idea of carrying out a whim of his own.

The other Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Wilson,] to whom I always defer for correct leadership, had an amendment here that was voted down, and the honorable Senator will excuse me when I say that from that time his action his been such that he was determined it should all go down, because his amendment was not adopted.

Sir, this is the first amendment I have offered and the first speech I have made' on this constitutional amendment. I am sick of hearing of it. It has become painful to listen to it. I repeat what I said to day that the old Constitution must be pretty much worn out. I want to put what little of resurrection we can in it, and with three or four more votes than we had to day we can carry this proposition: and I hope the Senate by this time have got a lucid interval, and that they will let us pass it and send it back to the House, and have something settled.

Mr. Wilson rose.

Mr. NYE. My honorable friend will be easy for a moment. I see his spirit moves, [laughter,] and I will make way for him in a moment. But, sir, the fact is that if my amendment does not prevail the whole constitutional amendment project will fail.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Why?

Mr. NYE. Because you cannot get votes enough for it.

Mr. EDM (JNDS. That is, you will not vote for it.

Mr. NYE. I will not vote for it. Is that what you want to know?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes.

Mr. NYE. I will not vote for it because I consider itperniciousin its influence, and liable to such criticism that it will be beaten iu every important State in this Union by at least fifty thousand majority. The Senator laughs at everybody s opinion shut his own. Sometimes others laugh at his. I do not believe that in his Green Mountain State there is a majority of that people who think with him on this subject. Take this proposition in the great State of New York and it will be overwhelmingly beaten without regard to its former majority; and why? Because, as the honorable Senator from Michigan has stated, you, at least by inference, leave the power to exclude others both from the enjoyment of the ballot and of holding office. 'That implication, if it can be drawn, would be ruin to the whole proposition everywhere, in the State where I live, in the State of New York, or the State of Vermont or Michigan or Minnesota. Therefore, I hope that my amendment will be adopted, that we shall concur in the proposition of the House, and have this subject quieted as far as it goes. Sir, I have an abiding faith that if it does not go far enough to reach the real point, those who come after us will reach it more certainly than we can do now. I would secure to these men the boon of the ballot, and I am willing to risk the holding of office to their ballots when that is done.