February 17, 1869 (2)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair feels it his duty to state that the amendmeut moved by the Senator from Nevada is not now in order. The question now is on concarring in the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole. The amendment of the Senator from Nevada goes to the extent of striking out all after the enacting clause of the resolution. The first thing in order is to perfect, so far as we can, the pending question. The amendment of the Senator from Nevada will be in order when the Senate shall have concurred in the. amendment made in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. NYE. In all questions of parliamentary rules and laws I am quite in the habit of deferring to the President s opinions, but I desire to ask the President a single question, if it is in order. When the Senate have concurred in this amendment shall I not be too late to offer mine?

The PRESIDING OFFICER.. No, sir; the Senator s amendment will then be in order.

Mr. NYE. Can I then move to strike out that which has been agreed to?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With other parts attached. The• Senator can move to strike out the whole proposition then.

Mr. NYE.- I have one little favor to ask, and that is that the Chair will consider the amendment as in when it is in order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution is now in the Senate, and the question is on concurring in the Senate with the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole, and a proposition to strike it out is not now in order.

Mr. NYE. I want to know if I can offer it again?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair decides that it will be in order in the Senate after this question is disposed of.

Mr. NYE. I regret that the Chair did not announce his decision before I made my speech.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair did not like to interrupt the Senator.

Mr. CONKLING. I suggest to the honorable Senator from Nevada that whenever he chooses to do so he can make his amendment in order at once by moving to reconsider the vote by which the Senate concurred in the amendmentraade as in Committeeof the Whole.

Mr. EDMUNDS. And that is the only way.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada seems to be laboring under some excitement. Men when under the influence of excitement or passion are quite apt to utter improvident and unjust words. The Senator spoke under manifest excitement, and has uttered unkind and unjust words. He sharply criticises the action of the Senators from Massachusetts, compliments their action in the past, and reproaches them for their action to day My colleague is not here to speak for himself, but the Senator well knows that my colleague believes that Congress possesses ample power to secure suffrage to the colored race by legislation. He knows that my colleague deems it inexpedient to submit to the State Legislatures any amendment whatever. While, however, he is opposed to the submission of any constitutional amendment, he doubtless desires, if one is submitted, it shall in its terms accomplish its desired object. That desire unquestionably influenced his action in striving to refer the whole matter to a committee of conference, and in voting down the House proposition with a view to take up the proposition of the Judiciary Committee, which secures the right to hold office.

Sir, the Senator from Nevada says that I proposed a constitutional amendment which has failed, and that since that failure 1 have not been anxious to pass any amendment at all. The Senator was never more mistaken than he has been in making this unjust and unkind accusation. The House sent to us an amendment of the Constitution. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Stewart] proposed to amend it by substituting the proposition of the Judiciary Committee. That proposition denied to the States the power to discriminate among citizens in the right to vote and hold office on account of color, race, or previous condition of servitude. I moved to amend the amendment by substituting for it a more comprehensive, just, and liberal proposition. My amendment provided that there should be no discrimination in the elective franchise or the right to hold office on account of race, color, nativity, property, education, or creed. This amendment to the amendment was carried by four majority, was substituted for the House proposition, and agreed to by a vote of 40 to 16. My amendment was thus sustainedby the action of the Senate. The House, by an immense majority, refused to concur in the amendment and asked for a committee of conference. I desired that the Senate should insist on the amendment and concur in the appointment of a conference committee, for I believed that a committee of conference could readily agree to an incorporation into the House proposition of the right of persons of color to hold office, or agree to the proposition of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, or agree upon some other form that should express the desire of the two Houses. I voted against receding from the Senate amendment. After the Senate voted to recede I moved to amend the House proposition by adding to the right to vote the right to hold office. That proposition being properly declared out of order, I moved to lay the House proposition on the table, with a view to take up, not my own proposition, but the proposition of the Judiciary Committee. Being voted down on those two test propositions, I was driven to the alternative of abandoning altogether all hope of securing to colored citizens the right to be voted for as well as to vote or to vote for the defeat of the House proposition. I voted, therefore, against the House amendment to the Constitution that did not secure to colored citizens the right to hold office with a view to take up and pass the Judiciary Committee s proposition that does secure to colored men the right to hold office. The House amendment has been defeated, the proposition of the Judiciary Committee is before us, and I intend to give it a cordial support. If the honorable Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Stewart,] who has the care of the proposition, will adhere to it, I assure him that I shall follow his -lead, although he took occasion to express this afternoon his fears that we would embarrass the proposition by amendments. I assure the Senator from Nevada, under whose lead I propose to act, that I, too, have no pride of opinion; that I care not whether the proposition originate in the Senate or in the House, or who shall be the author of it. All I ask— and that I intend to insist upon until all hope of securing it fails—is that the amendment to the Constitution shall deny to the States the power to exclude from the exercise of the right to vote and the right to hold office the colored race, numbering nearly one eighth part of the population of the United States.

To the Senator from Nevada, who. in the excitement under which lie is laboring this evening, accuses me of the desire of having no amendment unless I can carry my own, I have to say, that when I found the just and generous amendment I had proposed, and which had received the sanction of the Senate, was so decisively rejected by the Representatives of the people I regretfully but readily abandoned it. Although it encountered local interests, narrow views, conceits, and notions of portions of our countrymen, I believe it to be truly republican, broadly liberal, and eminently just. The time is not perhaps ripe for its adoption; but if the spirit of a refining, elevating, Christian civilization shall continue to advance the time will come when the citizens of the United States will not be restricted in their civil and political rights and privileges by the race to which they belong, the color of their skin, the place where they were born, the property they may possess, the education they may have acquired, or their religious belief.

During more than thirty years I have believed in the equal rights of man, and have humbly endeavored to secure equality of rights and privileges of all my countrymen. I care not to what race a citizen, of the Republic may belong, where he was born, what may be his possessions, what may be his intellectual culture, or his religious faith, I recognize him not only as a countryman, a fellow-citizen, but a brother, given by his Creator the same rights that belong to me. I should be ashamed -td look any fellow-citizen of mine in the face and deny to him the possession and fall enjoyment of any civil or political right I ask for myself. While I am ever looking forward to the ooaxi plete attainment of the equal civil and political rights of citizens of the United States; while! am striving to accomplish that grand result, I am ever ready to act so as to accomplish the most that can be accomplished in the immediate present. If it is the determination of Congress not to incorporate into the constitutional amendment the right of our colored fellowcitizons to hold office as well as to vote I shall bow to its decision and vote for securing suffrage. I fear, however, that our fellow-citizens ot the South, especially of Georgia, will feel that our action will be an inspiration to those who are opposed to their civil and political rights. I fear, too, that the enemies of the black man, those who would keep them, if not in slavery, in serfdom, those who would give them neither civil nor political rights, will taunt us with our weakness, will say that we are actuated not by a sense of justice, but by the love of power; that we are willing that citizens of African descent shall vote for us, but shall not vote for citizens of their own race, whatever may be their intellectual or moral worth or services to their race or their country.

Mr. NYE. I wish to ask the honorable Senator if it is not in perfect harmony with all that he has ever said and done to have the colored people vote? That seems to be as far as we can go. What I complain of is that if you cannot get the ell you will not take the inch.

Mr. WILSON. I would if I thought we could get no more.

Mr. NYE. It is very evident you cannot. I am willing to go as far as the Senator; but I am not willing to throw away everything.

Mr. FOWLER. Mr. President, I am a believer in the principle that every American citizen by virtue of his manhood is entitled to all the rights of a citizen, and that the only limitations that can be placed on the rights of the citizen are those which are necessary to carry out the spirit of the liberty of the individual. No other limitations can be placed upon his rights. Now, how is it with the present amendment? His right to vote is only guarantied to him to the extent that he shall not be debarred from its exercise on account of his race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Those alone are protected by the amendment who are of an inferior race and have been in servitude. All the other rights or attributes of his manhood are left naked and exposed to the tyranny of either State Legislatures or the national Legislature.

When an amendment was proposed which gave to the individual the right to vote by virtue of his own manhood it received only five votes here. That illustrates the sincerity of the faith that has been so often asserted here and elsewhere, that certain individuals were in favor of a man s voting on the basis of his own personal individual worth. But there is no such proposition as that now before us. The proposition that aimed to place the citizen upon universal ground has been voted down, receiving but five votes; and although we heard au eloquent speech here in defense of the principle of manhood suffrage, yet the individual who made it, when called upon to vote upon that principle, voted against it.

Again, I wish to call attention simply to the fact that the limitations in this amendment as to race, color, or previous condition of servitude do not cover all the rights of the individual, and that the Government of the United States may limit his right to vote on all other grounds. ],do not, for one, believe the doctrine that has been stated here this evening, that this mention of certain limitations which may not be placed upon his rights does not give to the Congress of the United States the right to limit them in other respects. It is clearly an acknowledgment that the Government may do that thing. I therefore am opposed to this amendment as it has been reported, because it does not meet the views that 1 have espoused and supported on this subject. It is a contradiction of the principle of manhood suffrage. It does not recognize the spiritual worth of the individual as his qualification for the enjoyment of this right.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on concurring in the Senate with the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. CONKLING. I wish to inquire of the Chair—I am not sure that I understood aright the answer which the Chair gave to the Senator from Nevada—whether, after this vote is taken and the concurrence takes place in the amendments made in Committee of the Whole, it will be in order to offer propositions in the nature of substitutes?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair decided and held that it would be in order.

The amendment made in Committee of the Whole was concurred in.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution is now in the Senate and open to amendment.

Mr. HOWARD. I wish to come to the essence of the matter in hand and use language that will cover the very object which we all have in view. I therefore offer the following as a substitute for the amendment upon which we have just voted.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let the amendment be reported from the desk.

The Chief Clerk. It is proposed to amend the resolution by striking out all after the words "two thirds of both Houses concurring" and to insert:

Tint the following article bo proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of tlio United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall bo valid as part of the Constitution, namely:

Article XV.

Citizens of the United States of African descent shall have the same right to vote and to hold office m States and Territories as other citizens.

Mr. HOWARD. This is the amendment that I offered on a previous occasion.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I make the question of order that it is not in order to strike out the very words that the' Senate has just voted should stand as apart of the resolution and to insert other words.

Mr. DliAKE. The Chair has just decided that point.

Mr. EDMUNDS. The Senator from Michigan moves to strike out the very words, intoiidem verbis the very sentence that we have just voted should stand. It appears to me that is not in order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair thinks that as the Senator couples other words with it as a whole proposition it is in order. If it were simply to strike out what has been concurred in the point, would be well taken; but as this is coupled with a whole proposition, in other words, strikes out everything after the enacting clause, the Chair thinks it is in order.

Mr. EDMUNDS. The Chair then decides thatitisin order to strike outthe words inserted and to insert other words?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. When coupled with other words.

Mr. EDMUNDS. The motion is to strike out all the words that we have agreed to, and no other words, and to insert other words in their place.

Ihe PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understands the proposition to be to strikeout what has been agreed to, with other words. W hat has been agreed to has now become incorporated in the resolution as a part of the text.•

Mr. EDMUNDS. I should like to have the words that the Senator proposes to strike out that have not been agreed to read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. They will be read.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Let the Clerk read the words that are to be stricken out.

The Chief Cleek. It is proposed to strike out the following words:

That thefollowing artiele bo proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United. States, which, when ratiified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid as a part of the Constitution, namely.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Is it proposed to strike out those words?

Mr. HOWARD. I did not move to strike those words out.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then, if the motion is simply to strike out what has been agreed to, of course the Chair must rule that it is not in order. The Chair understood the Senator to move to strike out all after the enacting clause.

Mr. HOWARD. No, sir; my motion was to introduce that language as a substitute for this upon which we have just passed, namely: Th© 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.

I move my amendment as a substitute for those words.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the motion of the Senator from Michigan embraces nothing but what has been agreed to it is not in order. If it embraces the whole phraseology after the enacting clause it is in order. The Chair now understands the Senator to say that it embraces nothing except what has been agreed to. Then the Chair rules it to be out of order. Does the Senator appeal?

Mr. HOWARD. No, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMSand Mr. DOOLITTLE, (to Mr. Howard.) Move to strike out all after the word" that."

Mr. HOWARD. I move to strike out all after the word "that" and to insert what I sent to the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk will read the amendment as now proposed.

The Chief Clerk. It is proposed to amend the resolution by striking out the following words:

The following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall bo valid as a part of the Constitution, namely:

Article XV.

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

And to insert:

The following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Article XV.

Citizens of the United States of African descent shall have the same right to vote and to hold office in States and Territories as other citizens.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Now I rise to a question of order again. I submit that is not in order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will state his point of order.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is precisely what I am about to do. It is that this is precisely the same proposition. The Senator proposes to strike out certain words and insert those identical words again.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Not the same words.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Substantially the same words again, and all that part of it is a preamble, mere words of form like the enacting clause covering the real subject upon which we have voted.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The words not being identical, it is not i or the Chair to say whether the substance is the same; but as the Chair before ruled, he deems the amendment now in order. The question will be on the amendment moved by the Senator from Michigan, unless the Senator from Vermont appeals.

Mr. HOWARD. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. MORTON. The Senator from Michigan offered this amendment the other day, I believe, in the same words, if I mistake not, and it was voted down by a large majority. The Senator from Nevada has just offered as an amendment the House proposition, which only received 31 to 27 votes in a full Senate, this afternoon. Now, sir, if it is designed to bring about a trial of physical endurance, by a repetition of these propositions that have been rejected by the Senate so emphatically, I suppose we can stand it; but it occurs to me that a fair consideration of this question does not require that propositions which have been decidedly rejected shall be presented again and again for the purpose of exhausting the Senate.

Mr. HOWARD. I would not exhaust the patience or the endurance of the Senate; that is the furthest thing from my wish or imagination. But, sir, I must be allowed to say that on so grave a subject as this I, for one, desire the opinion of the Senate upon the amendment which I have offered. 1 wish t o hear it discussed frankly and fairly; and although I may possibly happen to be the first among the number who may give out from physical exhaustion, still the proposition itself is none the less worthy of the consideration of the Senate.

The honorable Senator from Indiana makes a remark that is not strictly true in point of fact.- He observed that the proposition which I now offer was voted down the other day by a large majority. I do not remember the exact state of the vote when the question was taken; but if I am not entirely at fault in my recollection the majority against it was very small. T think the proposition has merit in it, for it brings the Senate to a direct vote upon the very subject, upon which we are now legislating, the very question whether we shall extend to the colored man throughout the United States the same right to vote and hold office that is possessed by other citizens of the United States. I am willing to take the naked question as it is there presented. I believe it is the clearest proposition which has been made, that it more completely exhausts the ideas of the Senate upon this subject than any other one which has been presented.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Why do you limit it to that one race?

Mr. HOWARD. I am asked why I limit it to that one race. The reason is perfectly obvious. 1 limit it to that one race because there are no complaints as to other races, and there is no danger whatever that any other race, the white race or the yellow race, will be deprived of the privilege of voting and holding office if they are citizens of the United States. There is no complaint on that subject, and never has been. If the honorable Senator from Vermont indulges in the chimera that there is danger that the white race may be excluded from these privileges, then I can only say that in my opinion he is indulging and cherishing a mere chimera. Sir, why not come up to the main subject in hand and speak of it and vote upon it precisely as you mean, and not by a circumlocution and by words without meaning, having in themselves implications which will raise questions which no man can answer probably hereafter, "darken council bywords without knowledge?" I hope the Senate will come to a direct vote upon the main proposition which is before it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not think there is very much force in the point made by the Senator from Indiana, for the reason that the Senate the other day voted in favor of' a proposition, and to day they have receded from that proposition; so that the Senate has contradicted itself in that respect as to a vote in reference to this matter; and to day it has voted differently npon the same proposition. It voted, in the first place, foT a certain proposition, and then it reconsidered the vote and rejected that proposition; and so the Senate has been vacillating upon this question.

Mr. OONKL1NG. It voted down this very proposition that is now pending, reported from the committee, two or three times.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Certainly it has rejected the identical proposition now before the Senate; and there is no more reason to suppose that it will reject the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan because it rejected it the other day than there is to suppose that it will reject the proposition now pending because it rejected it on a former occasion.

Now, sir, the amendment suggested by the Senator from Michigan is one that meets the case. It is a plain and explicit declaration of what we mean; because if there is any effect to be given at all to the proposed amendment of the Constitution it is to extend to the descendants of the African race in this conntry the right to vote and to hold office. That is as far, I suppose, as we propose to go. That is what we profess to desire, and when we use these wordsof circumlocution which we employ here weseem to be trying to do something which we are afraid to say in so many words that we desire. I hope that this amendment will receive the support of the Senate. It seems to me to be altogether preferable to the one that has been reported by the committee.

Mr. FERRY. I voted for this proposition the other day because I deemed it to be exactly adapted to remedy the evil for which we are now legislating. We are not proposing an ordinary act' of legislation, but a change in the very organic law of the Republic. No such change should take place unless some great evil exists requiring the change. We of the majority here believe that such an evil does exist, for we believe that as the law now stands seven hundred thousand of the adult male citizens of the United States may be deprived by State action of their inherent rights as citizens of the Republic; and we know that hundreds of thousands of them actually are to day deprived by State action of those rights. That is the evil. It can only be remedied by a change in the organic law; and that change, in my judgment, should go no further than the evil which requires correction. It is only wise and safe to change constitutions according to the exigencies which arise demanding a change. We propose simply to place citizens of African descent upon the same footing with other citizens as regards political rights. Wecandoitplainlv, expressly, affirmatively: and that the amendment of the Senator from Michigan accomplishes, while the amendment now belore the Senate, to which his is proposed as a substitute, is, in its language, susceptible of two interpretations, and, above all, is m its phraseology susceptible of perversion and misapprehension, calculated to excite prejudices in the minds of great masses of the people of this country.

Because, therefore, the amendment of the Senator from Michigan remedies the existing evil, because it does it in apt and perspicuous language, because it is free from the capability of being perverted and misapprehended, I think we ought to adopt that rather than the other. Both are intended to accomplish the Same thing. That thing will be accomplished by the amendment of the Senator from Michigan more surely than by the one originally before the Senate.

Mr. DAVIS. Before the question is taken on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan I wish to offer an amendment to perfect that part of the original proposition that is intended to be stricken out. After the word **States,”’ in the fourth line, I move to insert the words" hereafter to be chosen:'! so that it will read:

That thefo Iowin£rartictebeproposed to the Legislatures of the several Suites, hereafter to ba chosen, as. an amendment, &c.

I will say a word ia support of this amendment. The same idea has been presented to the Senate in a different form. I will suggest, however, that an amendment to the Constitution ought not to be expected to spring up like Jonah s gourd, or like a mushroom, in one night. [Laughter.] I think, on the contrary, all amendments to the Constitution ought to be presented deliberately, slowly considered and adjudged of, and plenty of time given to the people to reflect upon them, to understand them, and considerately to decide npon them. I think that the amendment which I have proposed offers these advantages to the proposition to amend the Constitution.

Gentlemen suppose that the people have approved of negro suffrage. I join issue with them upon that proposition. I have no belief in the truth of such a position. On the contrary, it is my deliberate opinion that if the question of negro suffrage was presented singly and by itself as an abstract proposition to amend theConstitution, separate from all elections, the people of more than three fourth.} of the States would decide against the proposition. Now, Mr. President, what would be the effect if the amendment which I suggest should be adopted? It would leave the question of negro suffrage to the people of all the States in their future elections. There has been no such submission of the question in any of the States. I deny that the Legislatures now in existence in the different States were elected upon that issue or that that issue came into the canvasses when they were elected. If it be the deliberate sentiment of the people of the United States, after a full consideration of the subject, that negroes should have the rightto vote, the people of the United States will ratify that judgment by electing future Legislatures to sustain the principle. When a proposition is made that will give them that opportunity, that right, and it is voted down, it shows the want of faith of the gentlemen who vote it down in the premises which they assume. It authorizes me to conclude that they believe themselves that the settled, deliberate judg ment of the people of the United States, or of a majority of the people of the United States, is against this proposition; and their refusal to give the people the right to pass upon it in a formal election argues and establishes their indisposition to do justice to the people by allowing them to decide for themselves whether it is their pleasure that this amendment of the Constitution shall be made.

I deny that the people have formed any such matured judgment upon this issue, and I challenge men to prove their faith by their works. If they are satisfied that it is the matured sense and judgmentof tbepeople of the United States that this inferior race shall be admitted into sin equal right and an equal participation in the administration of our Government, let them submit the proposition to the deliberate and undisturbed judgment of the people. Do you, Mr. President, (Mr. Pomeroy in the chair.) believe that the people of Kansas would sustain a proposition to give negroes the right to vote after that people at an election, when that question was distinctly submitted to them, voted against it by a majority of more than eight thousand? Does any unprejudiced man think the people of the State of Ohio, after having voted against a similar proposition by a majority of about forty five or fifty thousand, would, if this proposition was distinctly submitted to them votein the affirmative? Does the Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. Ferry.] who is such an enthusiastic advocate of the present proposition, believe that his State, after having voted down this distinct issue of negro suffrage by a majority exceeding six thousand votes, if it was submitted to them in an election of members of a Legislature who were to ratify or reject this proposed amendment— does lie believe that that State of steady habits would reverse its recent judgment, declared by a majority of upward "of s ik thousand votes, and vote in favor of the ratification of your proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

Sir, I will go to the State of the honorable Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.] That Republican State, among the strongest in the United States, when brought to the distinct issue of voting to strike the word" white" from her constitution, if I recollect tlie form in which theqaestion was made, voted against the erasure of that phrase from her constitution by a majority exceeding twenty three thousand votes.

Sir, it is not iri human credulity to believe that these States would reverse the popular judgment so distinctly and largely expressed against this proposition. It belongs only to human audacity and human hardihood to assume that those States would so soon reverse such decisive judgments. No man, I am authorized to say, belfev s it in candor, because if he did believe it he would not shrink from submitting this important question to the decision of these several States in a direct issue upon it. When men vote down every proposition to submit such an issue to the people of their respective States and to all the States it establishes that they do not believe in the positions which they here declare in the Senate and to the nation. I deny that men express a candid conviction when they say that is their belief, because if they do entertain that belief, why not silence the clamor of such an objection; why not do explicit and nothing butsheer justice to the people of their respective States by throwing this question as a distinct issue ia their next ensuing elections, and let those elections be decided upon this isssue and upon its acceptability or the opposition of the people of their respective States to it? Gentlemen boast of their love for the people, their devotion to the will of the people. If they were sincere in the expression of that true sentiment of republican government they could not in conscience and reason vote against the proposition which I make.

Sir, this great question ought to be submitted in plain, explicit terms to the deliberate judgmentof the people of all the States in their elections for the next members of their respective Legislatures. That is the honest, the fair, the democratic mode of submitting the question; none other is or can be. That wdfc d permit the people to come to a fair, deliberate, and unmistakable expression of their judgment in relation to this great innovation upon American government. Any other course is tampering with tbepeople; it is trifling with them; it is incompatible with the avowed sentiment of respect for and obedience to the will of the people which gentlemen so vauntingly make. I challenge them, I defy them to make this fair issue before the people. They dare not do it. It requires a majority of the Legislatures of three fourths of the States to ratify this proposed amendment if it should pass the House of Representatives. But if the question was submitted to the people in the deliberate mode which I propose in the choice of the Legislatures of their respective States, instead of receiving a majority of three fourths I doubt not that if the great question were examined, debated, deliberated upon by tbepeople of the respective States commensurate with its importance, three fourths of the States would be found to reject it.

Sir, it is a great abuse of the power of amendment to propose it in this way. Ibis Government was made by the people; it belongs to them; it ought to exist for their good and their happiness, and they are the appropriate power to modify it and to direct it, especially in regard to the important principles of the Constitution, the fundamental law. They are unfaithful public servants who deny to them this great and important privilege. It in their light to claim it, and it is only a distrust, a deep, abiding distrust of the manner in which they would exercise the right and the correlative power belonging to it by rejecting this proposed amendment that prompts members of the Senate and of the House ot Representatives to vote against the proposition which I make.

Gentlemen do not stand up to their principles: they do not stand up to that obedience and loyalty to the sovereign will of the peopls of these States in relation to this matter which they profess. Sir, we have got on down to the present time without this innovation on the Constitution. We could well afford, even for the sake of peace and of having this great question fairly and deliberately and satisfactorily adjusted, to delay until another Legislature in all the States should be elected.

Sir, if the men who framed our Constitution could have anticipated, could have dreamed of the hot haste, the rude and inconsiderate counsels upon which amendments to the Constitution are now proposed, they would have certainly required more time, more deliberation, upon the part of Congress at least, in entering upon this important work. Mr. President, they never dreamed of the present condition of things having an existence; they did not believe it possible that it could have an existence; that the Legislatures of all the States should have been elected without any reference to the important proposition that is now proposed to be embodied in an amendment of the Constitution, and that when Legislatures were elected upon wholly different, considerations of no value whatever compared with the great and permanent interest and importance of this amendment any Congress would have the unpatriotism, the audacity, the reckless disregard of the Constitution itself and of its great principles, to urge forward in the manner in which we see urged this momentous proposition to change the Constitution by the action of such previously elected Legislatures.

Congress may in the exercise of its discretion fix the time for action: and it ought to do so in the patriotic exercise of its discretion, in its desire to have this and all amendments to the Constitution well considered, matured, put in the best possible form, and submitted, not to packed Legislatures, but to Legislatures reflecting the sentiment of the people they represent. There is not a man within the sound of my voice, according to my feeble reason, who ought not to advocate the position that this amendment should be submitted, not to existing Legislatures, but to Legislatures hereafter to be chosen by the several States, and by all of them. If, with that deliberation, that pause, and that appeal to the sober sense, to the patriotism of the people of the United States, this proposition should be deliberately ratified by Legislatures thus elected, it might and would give peace and quiet to the country in relation to it; but when it is to be urged forward, to be acted upon, to be accepted by the Legislatures now in being, gentlemen mistake the spirit of the American people, their devotion to liberty and to constitutional government, if they believe that that people will deliberately and permanently acquiesce in such an abuse of power.- I have, therefore, presented this amendment of thepropo3ition, and I think that every gentleman ought to give it his assent.

Mr. SAULSBURY. Mr. President, I always listen with great pleasure to my honorable and distinguished friend from Kentucky when he addresses the Senate. He speaks with great earnestness, and I have no doubt with great sincerity; and in the charity of his nature and the goodness of his heart he supposes that the same sincerity characterizes the action of all his fellow men that distinguishes his own. He has argued this question, Mr. President, as though it was your desire and the desire of a majority of this body to present this amendment to the calm, honest, candid consideration of the American people. He has told you what an enormous wrong it would be to present it in any mode that would not elicit a fair expression of the popular will. My distinguished friend is not progressive, as lie has told \is here before. He has not kept up with the true knowledge of your character as a progressive party. You do not wish to progress, j Ir President, with and as the people progress, but you wish to progress in advance of the people, and do that in your progression which the people at the time would not do, but which you can commit them, irrevocably to as having been done under a declaration on your part that it was their will that demanded your action. My learned and distinguished friend from Kentucky, when he studies your character a little more closely and appreciates your purposes a little more accurately, will discover that he has been laboring under a mistake during the past, and that you really have 110 design by your action here that the people of the United States should fairly consider this proposition; but such is your love for universal liberty and for equality before the law that you think it i3 perfectly legitimate, even though I might cons lder it as a kind of "pious fraud," to incorporate this provision in the Constitution whether the people desire it or not.

I make this remark that my friend from Kentucky may no longer labor under the delusion which seems to have possessed him in the past, and that he may at once, even at this late day, come to a full and clear appreciation of your real purposes and your real designs, and that he will not at this late hour of the night exhaust himself, while he is edifying us to be sure, by appealing to you as though your only design and object was to do what is right. Mr. President, I have such a regard for the Constitution of my country framed by the great men of the past that I confess I do not like any attempt whatever to touch, even after the greatest consideration, the work of their hands. The Constitution as framed by them with the twelve original amendments as they are called, is a charter of liberty and of human freedom sufficiently expansive for any people.

ButI suggest, Mr. President, that this whole difficulty in which wa are now placed does not arise from any imperfect work of the fathers, nor even so much from any imperfect work of yours, as it does from a great original imperfection before any of us or our fathers had an existence upon earth. The origin of the difficulty goes even beyond the institution of human society. Now, if we correct that by an amendment to the Constitution I guess you may have one a little more perfect than you have before you. The difficulty to which I allude results from what was done away back in the bosom of time when a Being whom we have been taught to regard as the great Ruler and Governor of the universe, the Creator of all, never having made anything before, so far as there is any recorded history, came to the conclusion and in council it was determined upon that man should be made. First, the earth for him to live upon was made; then the sun and moon and stars; and then man was made." Let us make man" was the council of Heaven. And when Pie proceeded to make man He had not seen that you had actually lived upon the earth and in your wisdom had discovered what He did not see as having actually occurred, whether He foresaw it or not, and that was the equality of all men, and that there should be no distinction between men; and He created man, and we find when we come on the stage of action that this creation of His has different hues of skin, different mental and moral organizations; we find them inhabiting the earth in different societies, v with different orders of intellect: and I would say different orders of beings. Now, sir, if he had only been as wise as you are and had the experience you have, He might have made them all just alike, and that would have got rid of all this difficulty. [Laughter.]

Mr. President, is there any way to get rid of thedifficulty? Ifyougetrid of that difficulty you will have no need for any of these proposed amendments to the Constitution of the L nited States. I suggest, therefore, Mr. President, as a mode of solving the difficulty, that you do not incorporate any of these proposed amendments in the Constitution, but that you have instead of a fifteenth or sixteenth amendment one that will perfect the whole system, and let it read:

Article XV.

That 1 here is not now and never shall be hereafter any distinction of color.

[Laughter.]

If you will just incorporate that into the Constitution it will be a panacea for all our political evils; it will obviate the necessity of any legislation growing out of the distinction of color. But if you think that would not do it, you may put in" that there is not now and never has been any distinction of race." If' that will not do, you may put in" that there never has been any such thing as servitude in the world, and never shall be," and you will have it all cured!

But, sir, you may say that this is impossible. I do not know that. You have all seen swine neither white nor black, but blue, and it would be therefore proper, perhaps, that in this proposed amendment to the Constitution you should declare that there should be but one color, and that should be blue [Laughter.] How would you bring that about? I do not, know how you are going to bring it about. I only mean to say there is such a thing as blue swine existing in the world. One hair black and one hair white makes a blue hog. [Laughter.] I have seen a human head well covered with hair that presented neither the appearance of white nor black nor gray, but blue, [Laughter.] Now, sir, you had better appoint a special committee of this body to devise a plan of doing away with the color white, and the color black, and so mix them up that it shall present blue, and have all mankind of a blue color. [Laughter.]

I have no doubt that legislators who can improve the workmanship of the Almighty are sufficiently wise and skilled in science as to produce a mode of doing away with all distinetions of color so that there shall be neither white nor black, but that the whole race of men the -world over shall be perfectly blue. [Laughter.] Or if that should not be the color best suited, the wisdom of this present age is adequate to any emergency, and you may adopt any other color.

But, then, some of my learned friends, and I apprehend the distinguished occupant of the chair at the present time, [Mr. Pomeroy]— without making any improper allusion to the Chair—will say that the difficulties af American legislation will not all have been over then. He and other patriotic citizens are distressed at, the right of voting having been withheld from the fair sex, and say that true liberty requires that they should exercise the right of voting. He and they may say that question will still be behind, and that it will rise up to vex us. Some of our friends who have argued in favor of the adoption of this amendment wish to complete their work at once. You voted down the House proposition to amend the Constitution to day some of you because it did not go far enough, and when you incorporate this amendment in the Constitution you want it to cover everything, so as to leave nothing in the future to do.

Now, sir, if woman s rights come up to haunt you, distress you, or even to divert you, to engage your attention in any manner whatever, if public sentiment is to be put right on that subject, just incorporate another amendment, or tack it 011 to this, "that there is not now, and never has been, and never shall be, any distinction of sex" [laughter;] andif you will do that you have got clear of the distinction of color, you have got clear of the distinction of sex, if people only believe it; and then, during the remainder of this session, and of the innumerable sessions through which I hope, sir, the representatives of this country shall be called upon to act, we shall have nothing to jar our deliberations, but we can devote ourselves to those great interests common loa bine people and a people without sex. [Laughter.] Do your work thoroughly, Mr. President, while you are doing it, and you will present to an admiring world not only the exampleof the freest people on the earth, but one which has in a very short period from the time when they essayedthe experiment of self governmentsolved all the difficulties that could possibly arise in the administration of government. "You will have nothing to do in the future but attend to the enactment of these measures, the development of those principles, those resources, mental, moral, physical, and political, which shall elevate you as upon a city on a hill where an admiring world can gaze upon you and take example.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, I indicated to the Senate in the remarks which I made the coarse which I thought it ought to take on the proposition I had submitted for its consideration. My honorable friend from Delaware advised roe that I need not indulge any gleam of hope that such would be the action of the Senate, and he indicated what would be its action; but the honorable Senator did not favor us with his judgment whether the line of action which I had indicated or that which he expressed his belief would be the course of the Senate would be the better action on the subject. Will my honorable friend tell nie whether he approves of ray line of policy or of the line of policy which he thinks the Senate will

Mr. SAULSBURY. I hope my honorable friend did not suppose I was indicating my view in reference to the propriety or impropriety of his proposition. I was only trying to remind ray friend of what I supposed others wiser than he and 1 thought on this subject, and how they would act. As far as I am concerned I shall certainly favor the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky, but I have not come to that great degree of knowledge yet where I have discovered error in the workmanship of the Almighty.

Mr. DAVIS. I am much obliged for the judgment which the honorable Senator has indicated he would render in my favor; and 1 am. also obliged to him for the revelation which he has made to me of what will be the conduct of yourself and your associates.

Now, as the honorable Senator has indicated certain amendments to be made to the Constitution by the dominant party, I will suggest to him another one to be by him suggested to the party that are now in power and that are proposing amendments to the Constitution.

Mr. SAULSBURY. I hope my honorable friend will allow me

Mr. DAVIS. Let me make my suggestion first, and then I will hear the Senator with pleasure. He proposes to do away with all colors by coming to the common color of blue, [laughter,] and of all sexes in some mode which I do not understand. [Renewed laughter.] Well, now, I would suggest to my honorable friend that he surmise a more practicable scheme of amendment to the Constitution in relation to colors to you. sir, and to your coadjutors in Congress; and that is'* that all distinctions of race and color shall hereafter cease by this amendment of the Constitution, because it shall be the bounden duty of all races and colors to enter into universal miscegenation." [Laughter.] I do not know that it would be practical to execute such an amendment of of the Constitution. I do not know but what some gentlemen, in their zeal to breakdown the partitions of race and color which have existed for six thousand years by the order of Providence and the God of providence, would thus break it down if they had it in their power.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Pomeroy in the chair.) The question is cn the amendment moved by the Senator from Kentucky.

The amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the amendment moved by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard,] as a substitute for the pending proposition.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Let its hear it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has modified his amendment, and it will be reported in its present form.

The CurEF Cijerk. It is proposed to strike out the following words

Tho follbwitix article be proposed to tho Lcsialatures of the several States as on amendment to the Constitution of the United Sates, which, when rati-! tied fey three fourths of said X Legislatures, shall be valid as part of the Constitution, namely:

Abticle 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 ou account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

And in lieu thereof to insert the following: That the following article be proposed to theLegislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Abticlb XV.

Ci izens of the United States of African descent shall have the same right to vote and hold office in States and Territories as other electors.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. PATTERSON, of Tennessee, (when his name was called.) According to a fair interpretation of the agreement between the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Pool] and myself I am paired off.

The result was announced—yeas 22, nays 27: as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Abbott, Cole, Conkling. Connesss, Drake, Ferry, Harlan, Harris, Howard, Nye, Osborn. Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Robertson Spencer Thayer, Tipton, Warner, \Veieh, Willey, andWilliams—22.

SATS—Messrs. Bayard Buekalew Cattell, Cragin, Davis, Dixon Edmunds Sessenden, IVwler, i rcling huysen, Iiendrtcks, MeCreery, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Rice, Ross, Saulsbury, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Whyte, Wilson, and Yates—27.

ABSENT—Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Chandler, Corbett, Doolit tie Grimes. Henderson, Howe, Kellogg, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Pool, Sawyer, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, andWade—17.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I offer the following amendment to be added to the resolution:

That the foregoing amendment shall be submitted for ratification to the Legislatures of the several States the most numerous branches of which shall be chosen next after the passage of this resolution, This amendment is very like the amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky, except that his proposition was that the entire Legislature should be chosen after the amendment should be submitted: and the amendment which I have proposed requires only that the most numerous branch of the Legislature shall be chosen after the submission of the amendment. I do not intend to discuss it, for the reasons in favor of this proposition have been so fully stated by the Senator from Kentucky that it is not necessary. I think I see a desire on the part of some Senators that this amendment shall pass at as early an hour as possible, so as that it shall be considered by Legislatures heretofore chosen, and as far as possible to avoid the consideration of the question by the people.

Now, I do not understand that the Constitution belongs to the members of Congress and to the members of the Legislatures except as they constitute a part of the body of the peo-( pie. The form of government that we have belongs to all the people of the United States; and when it is materially changed it seems to me proper that the will of the people should be expressed. That political party which proposes to takeaway from the people themselves a voice upon the question of a material amendment in the form of government cannot claim to be in a true sense either Republican or Democratic. It is essentially aristocratic, because it is claiming to control that by the few which belongs to the many, i am not going to repeat the considerations which I think appeal to the honor of the party j, in the majority upon this question because ot its committal last year. I speak now upon the r general proposition that when the form ot govil erumeut is changed the people ought to be consulted about it. In regard to this, they have not had a hearing; their voice has not been li heard except in particular States; and in those States it has been against it; and we are to witness to night the spectacle of the voice ot those States being given in favor of a proposxlion that the people have condemned by large votes when submitted to them. In the State of Ohio, in the State of Kansas, in the State MipWan. in the State ot Connecticut, peremtaa the auSstiou of h p« tn some other States, the question universal suffrage has been submitted to a popular vote, and by large majorities has been condemned. Although in those States, or a* least in three of those States, the Republican party is largely in the ascendant, yet when that question alone was submitted to the people for their consideration they condemned it. And yet here six gentlemen will cast the vote of three States for this amendment though those States have, by the voices of thousands and hundreds of thousands of their people, condemned it.

Now, I propose to avoid that by providing that the people shall be heard. If the people shall decide wrong on this question, whose matter is it? It is not ours it is their own. If they make a bad Government itis their own work; and as to the question whether they have the right to be heard I apprehend that no man who calls himself in the true sense a Democrat or a Republican can question it. At first I had some doubts on the question, but I now believe we have the right to submit the constitutional amendment in this form. It is a provision that the Legislatures shall consider it whose popular branch shall be selected by the people after the passage of this amendment. This amendment will go before the people, and in the selection of the popular branch of the Legislature in each of the States they will have an opportunity by the selection of the members to express their desire upon this question. Why not? Is there necessity for haste? Why, Mr. President, in the matter of the change of Government there ought not to be haste. There is no propriety in haste. This Government has served the people well for a long series of years without this amendment. They have been prosperous and powerful without it. Now, is there such haste to incorporate it into the fundamental law that you cannot afford to let the people express their desire upon it?

Mr. COLE. It seems to me that the position taken by the distinguished Senator from Indiana [Mr. Hexdricks] would apply as well to the Congress that is to present the proposition to the several States to be acted upon. They havenotbeen elected, it might be argued, for the purpose of presenting this proposition-. And his argument goes to the extent, it seems to me, furtherofrequiringthatthepeopleshall act upon every proposition that may come before a legislative body in advance of the election of that. body. But he does not prescribe by what rule we shall get at the expression of the will of the people in their primary capacity. His objection it seems to me, applies as well to the Congress that proposes as it does to the Legislatures that are to vote upon the amendment.

Mr. MORTON. Isubmit sir thattheamend ment of my colleague is in violation of the Constitution of the United States. It proposes to select a Legislature in the future to which this amendment is to be submitted. If we have a right to select a Legislature in the future, we can designate the next Legislature to be elected or the one to be elected after that. The Constitution provides that—

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose^ amendments to this Constitution, or on the application ot the legislatures of two thirds of the several State, shall eitU a convention for proposing amendments, which, la cither ca e *haH be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths cf the several totales. What Legislatures? The Legislatures in existence at the time the amendment is submitted; not future Legislatures to be elected next year or two or three years afterward. But whatever Legislatures are in existence at the time the amendment is submitted by Congress they are the Legislatures who are to pass upon it. If we have a right to submit an amendment to be acted upon by the next Legislature after this or the second Legislature alter this, it might make very curious work'■ but clearly, under the language of the Constitution, this amendment must be submitted to the Legislatures in existence at the tiiae when the Ainaadaaeot is saomitted for their consideration, or those that shall first be elected after that time, if none should be in existence at that time.

TheideaofgivingCongress the right to select what Legislature in the future, after the present Legislature shall die, may pass upon an amendment, would seem to be a theory that the Constitution never intended. I therefore submit that the amendment offered by my colleague would be in violation of the Constitution of the United States, because if we can do what he proposes to do we can select a Legislature three years off, or four or five years off, that shall act upon the constitutional amendment that we submit. The Constitution does not mean anything of the kind. The Legislatures in existence when it is submitted, or if in any State there be no Legislature in existence the first one that shall come into existence subsequently, are the bodies to which it must be submitted, clearly.

Mr. BAYARD. Mr. President, the argument of the honorable Senator from Indiana [Mr. Morton] is, at least, a singular one. I had always supposed that the people were the source of power in this Government. That has been the general impression; that our Government was founded on the will of the people. The Constitution provides that Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution, to be ratified either by the Legislatures of three fourths of the States or by conventions in three fourths of the States. There is no limitation as to the Legislatures to which the amendment may be proposed. How can it be contrary to the Constitution, where is the violation of the Constitution when the power exists in Congress to propose amendments, for Congress to say that time shall be given for the people to understand the question and elect representatives with reference to the propriety of the ratification? Does the Constitution forbid that? Does the Constitution of the United States intend to give to the representatives a power irrespective of the will of the people, and to force upon the people an amendment which, if submitted to them, they would reject? I can conceive no impropriety in this motion. The manner and the mode in which an amendment is proposed is left to the discretion of Congress, and I can see nothing that violates any right of a Legislature if Congress provide that au amendment which they now pass shall be submitted to a Legislature chosen after the people have had the means of determining whether they will elect a Legislature to ratify or reject it.

Sir, nothing but the desperation of party, in the language of the honorable Senator in reference to another matter in which he desired to change the Constitution, can lead to the rejection of the amendment now proposed. It is a deliberate attempt for party purposes in order to retain party power alone to rati counter to the will or the people of many of the States of this Union. That is the object, the sole object of refusing to adopt the amendment now proposed, and no other can be assigned.

It remains to be seen, Mr. President whether the people of this country will submit to such action on the part of their representatives. My own view of the relation of representative and constituent is one of good faith. I have never believed in the doctrine of legislative instructions to Senators who represent States, because the Legislatures appoint them; but I have always believed that good faith, personal consistency, what is due to the institutions of his country, demanded from every Senator as well as every Representative that on a question which vitally changed the system of government, deprived the States of rights which they now enjoy, he would be faithless to the interests of his constituents, if he had reason to doubt their will, if lie sought to evade that will by submitting it for consideration to bodies that had been elected anterior to the question being raised and who had not been elected with reference to that question. That is my idea of the confidence that should exist on the part of the representative to the constituent. It will come with more force before the' representatives of the people in the State Legislatures. You are seeking now in the spirit of party to have a constitutional amendment adopted by those representatives already chosen; and yet I hope there is a sufficient number of them in the different States who will not agree to your proposition where they have reason to doubt even whether their constituents approve such an organic change in our whole system of government. I have hope that they will not pass upon the question of ratification without first consulting the will of their own people. It is on that that I rely. 11 is on mj7 confidence in the people that I rely to prevent this utter change in the Federal Constitution from being effected through the mere desperation of party. I have lost all hope here. The votes that have been given are an indication that party and party objects are solely to be effected by means of this amendment, and satisfy me that it will be passed in any shape which the majority suppose will conduce to that end. But, Mr. President, in my belief the object will fail of maintaining the power of the existing party by means of degrading the suffrage. I have given my reasons for that opinion before; I shall not repeat them now. I should hope, however, that the Senate would have sufficient respect for the will of the people not to refuse an amendment which provides for the discussion of this question before the people and an election by them of reppresentatives who are to pass upon it after they are informed as to the nature and character of the amendment proposed. This Congress did not dare, at its last session, to recommend such an amendment. Is not the attempt to press it through now, throwing back and excluding all legislation as to financial matters, as to many other important questions, even as to appropriation bills, in order to carry out a partisan measure, an evasion? This may be, in the judgment of other gentlemen, good faith to the people; but in ray judgment it is an abandonment of your whole form of government and a treachery to the people, if this amendment is refused on the part of the Senate.

Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Delaware says that the opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague must result from the desperation of party. Now, sir, it occurs to me that there must be some desperation of party which would require this Congress to assume the power of selecting a future Legislature for the consideration of a constitutional amendment and withdraw that right from existing Legislatures. Suppose that we submit this amendment to the Legislatures ofthe several States and those that are in session now or that maybe in session in the course of a few months should assume the right to consider and actupon it, could we say to them "You have no right to do that; we have selected a future Legislature to act on this amendment, and your action is void?”’) Would they not then ask you, "Where is that clause of the Constitution which authorizes you to take away the right of action from existing Legislatures and give it to future Legislatures?" Clearly, there is no such power in Congress. Congress has the simple power to recommend or present to the several Legislatures an amendment to the Constitution for their consideration, and those Legislatures that are in existence at the time when it is presented, or if there be none in some of the States at that time, those which shall afterward firstcome into existence, have clearly the right to pass upon the amendment, and we have 110 right to say that we will ignore existing Legislatures and pick out particular Legislatures in the future that shall act upon it. Clearly, the proposition is in violation ofthe Constitution of the United States.

Mr. BAYARD. Mr. President, there is no proposition to pick out any particular Legislature. Ths past history of the Government is directly against the argument of the honorable Senator from Indiana. Many of the amendments that have been adopted were not adopted for two, three, or four years after they were submitted, and then they were adopted by Legislatures subsequently elected. As long as the proceeding remains in fieri, that is, as long as the proposed amendment has neither been adopted by three fourths of the States nor rejected by more than one fourth, it stands open for the action of the Legislatures of the States. The honorable Senator would limit it to the existing Legislatures. Where do they get that right? The authority to propose is in Congress exclusively. In making that proposition there is no more violation of the Constitution on the part of Congress in proposing an amendment to be acted upon at a future day than there is in Congress passing a prospective law to go into effect at a future day.

Mr. MORTON. I submit that the Senater does not state my position quite correctly. I say that the Legislatures in existence when the amendment is submitted have a right to consider it. If they fail to actupon it it is possible that future Legislatures may; and it may be deferred perhaps for several years in that way, one Legislature refusing to act upon it and a subsequent one taking it up and acting. But you have no right to withdraw that power from the existing Legislatures. You have no right to say that the Legislatures in existence in 18 39 shall not act upon it, and that those in 1870 or 1872 may. There is the point.

Mr. BAYARD. Congress having the authority to propose an amendment has just the same power to say at what time it shall be submitted to the Legislatures of the States as it has the right to say, in passing a law, that that law shall take effect a year or two after its passage.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, I proposed this amendment on a former occasion, and went over the field of argument which has just now been traversed by the Senators from Delaware and Indiana. I rise for the purpose of making a protest against a doctrine now announced for the first time, as far I know, in the history of our country, and that is that<'.>•- gross has no right in the execution of tins power of proposing amendments to establish any rule by which those amendments shall be passed upon in the several States.