February 17, 1869 (2)

The amendment clause of the Constitution gives to Congress a discretionary power in submitting amendments. Congress may submit them to the Legislatures of the several States—these words being used as general words of description merely, and not as words limiting the power—or may submit them to conventions in the several States. Now. sir, I undertake to say that a fair implication upon that grant of power to Congress will warrant us in adopting necessary and proper regulations for the execution of the proceeding to which we invite the States; that is, we may prescribe that conventions shall be called by the Legislatures of the respective States, or we may, in the act of submission itself, provide that conventions shall be selected at a particular time in the States, and that they shall meet at a particular time to act upon the amendments which we submit. I take it that it would be a due exercise of this power for us to prescribe a uniform day throughout the United States upon which these conventions should meet; and we may prescribe that they shall be selected by vote of the people of the State in some particular manner. The power is vested nowhere else. The Legislature of tho State cannot meddle with the question of submitting it to a convention unless it is by virtue of some authority in the act of Congresswhich imparts to it that function.

Now then, sir, if wc have a discretionary power as to the manner in which amendments shall be passed upon by conventions in the several States, the argument is conclusive that we have the same power in regard tu submitting amendments to the Legislatures that we may presctibe the class of Legislatures which shall act upon our amendments. We may provide, as is proposed by tho amendment offered- by A Senate*, from Indiana, [!fe Hendricks,] that those Legislatures the .most numerous branches of which shall be chosen next after our amendment is submitted shall act upon the subject, and that their decision shall be final.

In the clause of the Constitution which has been referred to, I repeat, there are no words of limitation specifying what particular Legislature shall act upon -the subject. Bat the power being given to Congress to submit it to Legislatures in the several States the implication is necessary and irresistible that Congress may designate what Legislature shall act. Of course, as in the case of many other powers conferred upon Congress, it they do not act the State legislative bodies may proceed in the absence of such regulation to act upon amendments which we submit in their own fashion. A Legislature in session at the time when the amendment is submitted may act, or the next succeeding Legislature may act, or a Legislature in any future year.

Well, sir, to what will .that lead? The result has been often pointed' out. It is one .that should b® excluded; the possibility of it should not be permitted. According to that arrangement of things a Legislature thirty or forty years hence might take np an amendment which had been submitted but not duly ratified and then pass upon it, anil by ratification give it validity as a part of the Constitution of the United States. Such a condition of things as that should not be allowed. Congress ia submitting amendments should adopt some general rule by which there shall be equal and fair and uniform and timely action in the several States. It is only by the exercise of this power, which I imply of necessity from the terms of the Constitution, that you can introduce order and regulation and timely action into the proceeding of ratification. You will not then have then a succeeding Legislature ratifying that same amendment; or the other spectacle of a Legislature ratifying an amendment at one session and a succeeding one rejecting it.

Therefore, sir, not only does this power exist, but it is one that should be exercised by us in the interest of public order and to secure what is at all times an important consideration, and that4s that all the States should act upon an amendment submitted about the same time, so that there shall be a contemporaneous action throughout the whole country upon the subject of amending the Constitution of the United States. Why, sir, it would be ridiculous if a gentleman should propose that one branch of Congress should pass a law, and then that in a succeeding Congress the other branch should take it up and act upon it. But that is not more ridiculous and absurd in a Government of order, in a Government of due regulation, than to permit an amendment to be acted upon by a part of the States in 1868, by another part in the year 1880, and possibly by a supplementary number of States, one or ritore, in the year 1900; so that your Constitution would neverb- settled. And this difficulty isincreased when you take into account the other doctrine accompanying this, and which seems to have due weight of authority, which is that until an amendment has been ratified by three fourths of the States it is a mere proposition, and it is competent for any State which has ratified it to withdraw its consent, to rescind its ratification, and to remit the question back to the position in which it stood before the State had acted at Upon all grounds, therefore, of expediency it is proper that a power of this sort should be exercised by the Congress of the United States; and I would be much gratified if, in proposing this amendment, Congress should adopt a rule which would be a precedent for the fu ure

The amendment of the Senator from Indiana proposes the proper rule; one which is fair to the people of the United States, one which will produce uniformity of action in point of time throughout the whole country, one which will avoid all the difficulties and debates that hme attended tfce, aahnwasiott of former atqmimeats, which, will introduce order and regularity for the future. I undertake to s y that if Congress for once shall prescribe the rule under which amendments shall be acted upon in the several States it will be accepted always m future when other amendments shall besubnaitted, and we shall have no debate and no difficulty hereafter with regard to the time when amendments shall be acted upon in the several States with regard to the- bodies which shall act upon them, and this scandal of ratification, and then rescinding the ratification, or of rejecting and afterward ratifying, will be removed altogether from our political action ia this country.

Mr. President, I ought perhaps.*© apologize for repeating to some extent my former argument; but I was desirous that the suggestion of the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Morton,] now made for the first time, so far as I know, shall not go into our published debates with even apparent acquiescence from members of the Senate in its validity and soundness.

Mr. DIXON. Mr. President, it seems to be agreed on all hands—at least so I infer from the remarks of the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Morton —that the amendment which is now proposed would be desirable if it were consistent with the Constitution.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Not by any means.

Mr. DIXON. The Senator from Vermont dissents. I had supposed it must be agreed to by all, for I could not conceive of the possibility of any Senator saying that it was not desirable that the people of the United States should act on this question. I take it for granted that the Senator from Vermont, especially since the eloquent and able discussion of the question of State rights which we had the pleasure of listening to from him to day and is which I heartily concur with him, must agree that the people of the States ought to be heard upon this question.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I "do agree to. that.

Mr. DIXON. But whether the Senator is of that opinion or not, there can be no doubt that if it is consistent with the Constitution of the United States Congress ought to provide that the ratification of the proposedamendment, if made at all, shall be made by Legislatures hereafter to be chosen.

The Senator from Indiana says that that provision is not consistent with the Constitution. At first I agreed .with him; I said the other day that I thought it was impossible for us to restrict the Legislatures in -acting upon this subject; but upon examining the Constitution I have changed my opinion. What is the provision of the Constitution? In the first place, in the fifth article of the Constitution the power is confided to Congress" whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary" to propose amendments to the Constitution. That is a power to be exercised precisely like any other power on the part of Congress. It is to be done when Congress deem it necessary. Discretionary power is lodged with the Congress of the United States to propose amendments, and they may then refer the question of accepting or rejecting those amendments to Legislatures or to conventions in the States. Now, suppose that Congress see fit to exercise the power of proposing amendments, as is proposed here to day Look to the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, which defines and expresses the powers of Congress to pass laws. After going through with the list of seventeen express grants of power, that section provides in the eighteenth that Congress shall have power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

Now, sir, it seems to me perfectly clear that in the exercise of the power by Congress to propose aw amendment to the Constitution of the United States they have the authority also to make Jaws necessary and proper for ill* execution of that power; and if they find necessary and proper to make, a law that the Legislature to act upon the proposed amendment, shall be a Legislature< subsequently chosen, can there be any doubt that they have the power so to prescribe under this grant off express authority? To me it seems clear that it is not only proper, as the Senator from Pennsylvania has argued, that the power should be executed by Congress, reasoning from the nature of things, but that here is an express grant to Congress of the authority to make any law which shall be necessary to carry into effect the power ©f proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. YATES. Mr. President, the argument of the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dixosl and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Hendricks] is an argument against the Constitution itself. If their argument is correct the Constitution is wrong, and that is the trouble. The Constitution says that the question of amendments to its provisions shall be submitted ta the Legislature? of the States. It means, of course, existing Legislatures. If the framers of the Constitution meant that it should be referred to Legislatures to be subsequently elected the Constitution would have contained a provision to that effect; but it does not contain any each provision; and, unfortunately, our friends who are such sticklers for the Constitution; who are par excellence the defenders of the pongtir tution; who find a constitutional objection to every measure proposed upon this side of the Chamber, now propose to substitute their owe creed, their own provisions, for the Constitution of the United States I

But, sir, I rose not to discuss that question, but for another purpose. We have heard the siren voice of the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from Pennsylvania, and the Senator from Wisconsin threatening us with the indignation of the people. We have heard their voices for the last six years to that effect, and the only result that I see is, that by the verdict of the people we are to lose the presence of four of the most distinguished statesmen upon this floor. Notwithstanding all their threats and thunders of indignation, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Connccti cut, ajid Wisconsin loom up with triumphant majorities, vindicating and sustaining the Republican party; and Ip! these threats of indignation leave us with four times the number oa this side of the Chamber that there is oa the other suffering the infliction of these long nights of debate, so that we have to encounter three fourths of the suffering, while the Senators on the other side have only to encounter about one fourth of the suffering, of this body. Mr. President, we will risk the future as we have risked the past; and I have no doubt that in the future we shall triumph as we have triumphed in the past. This question of suffrage has been agitated as much as the question of the amendment abolishing slavery throughout the States; it has been agitated as much as was the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Ithasbeea agitated enough to let Congress understand that the people of the United States are in favor of conferring equal rights and privilegeson all American citizens. It entered sufficiently into the last election to convince me that so far as Illinois is concerned she will ratify my action in favor of the most extensive provision for universal suffrage. The question has been agitated sufficiently to justify us in taking the responsibility, at all events, and going before the people and meeting these thunders of indignation which have been predicted by our friends on the opposite side of the Chamber. We will take the responsibility; and when we refer this question to the Legislatures of the States, we refer it to men who are responsible to the people, who have been elected by th people of the States, who have to aceountto the people for their action, and we will do it without fear of the result.

Mr. STEWART. Mr, President, I wish ta appeal to the friends of the measure now not to discuss it Unless it is absolutely necessary for them to do so. I believe we understand it, and we had better do some voting.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President,- that appeal was not made tome, [laughter;] not that I do not sympathize with a part of it; for I should like to see some voting done here myself, but it is proper that I should make one or two suggestions in reply to the eloquent [Senator from Illinois. He has referred to the feet that "some of us will close our connection with this body on the 4th of March.• Sir, I contemplate that event, so far as I am individually concerned, without any fear or trouble. I expei ienee, however, one pleasure. I shall leave this body, I know for myself, with cordial and kind feelings toward all its members, and I hope that I enjoy the same feeling from every Senator toward me. That is all 1 have to say about the fact that I am to retire from this august body..

But, sir, when a Senator boasts in this body of his success and the success of his party in connection with this particular measure hshould think he would do it with a slight blush upon his cheek. It calls to mind that less than a year ago he did not dare to say to the people of' Illinois, that my colleague did not dare to say to the men of Indiana,'• We intend to strip you of the control of suffrage within these independent Statesbut on the contrary you did say, as emphatically as you could tell the people of Indiana anything, that to them properly belonged the control of the question. Having carried an election upon that proposition you attempt now to force negro suffrage upon them withoutallovving the voice of the people to be heard upon it at all. I think, I merely suggest it to the Senator, that if I were he I would allow it to pass without a boast, for it is not a thing that man can boast of. Political power, high office attained by dealing frankly with the people is an honor, but attained by deceiving the masses of the people that trust and confide in you is not a thing to be boasted of. You told the people that in the southern States suffrage ought to be given to the negroes by the power of the Federal Government, but that in the loyal States it was not so; that on the contrary it belonged to the people of those States. Upon that doctrine you carried the election that you boast of now; and not only the States whose Senators are instructed, like the distinguished President oH his body, by the vote of their people against this suffrage, but the other States are to go for it; and not, stopping there, you are to throw it upon Legislatures that were elected when you told the people the question was not to go before them.

If iherebe any doubt about this constitutional provision, let the doubt be construed and let it go in favor of the people. I think we have the power under the general clause which has been read to say that this amendment shall be considered by Legislatures hereafter to be chosen. If Senators doubt upon that question let the doubt be resolved in favor of the people, not in favor of the aristocratic idea that the members of Congress and the legislators in the States control questions like this. I know how it is; it is now just as it was a year ago; you are not willing that the question shall go to the people; you know that they will vote you down; you know that they do not want it; you know that the large body of the people do not want it; and you want to force it under circumstances thattheirvoice, which in America ought to be potential, shall not be heard upon it. That is the plain fact about this matter. You do not intend them to be heard. You do not care for their will. You care for your own purposes. What are they? They have been intimated; they are well understood—to throw a political power in favor of your party that you do not now possess, to secure a vote that the people will not give to you. Therefore you want Legislatures already selected to act upon this proposition, when you told the people at the time they were selecting these very Legislatures that the question of suffrage fhould remaia with the people of the States; If there is anything to boast of about that, Senators can boast of it. When- the Democratic party succeeds I want it to succeed after a fair statement tothe people. If the people do not sustain their views upon a fair and clear statement of the purposes they entertain, defeat brings no. mortification; but if defeat should follow an attempt to deceive the people, there would be mortification, and success following a deception of the people in America is not to be boasted of.

Mr. YATES. Mr. President, I do not rise to make any formal reply to what the Senator has said. I do not think he has touched the point. I wish simply to correct him as to a matter of fact. I know not what the issues were in his State, but I know that so far as my own State was concerned, and so far as my Own action was concerned, I did' not make a speech in the State, nor have I made a political speech since the 4th day of July, 18G5, in which 1 have not declared myself unreservedly, without any disguise, before the people for universal suffrage—not impartial suffrage, or educational suffrage, or property suffrage, but for universal suffrage in every section of the country, North as well as South, East as well as West. The honorable Senator himself knows and remembers well—for he put perplexing questions to me at the time—that I introduced a bill in 1860, the first bill ever introduced into the Senate of the United States, declaring suffrage by congressional enactment in every section of the country. Does not the Senator remember that? So far as my action is concerned, therefore, I have gone before the people with no disguises, no deception in this regard.

When I was up before I only meant to say that while the Senator with such siren tones descanted upon the evils, upon the dangerous consequences that were to accrue to the Republican party from its action, and threatened us with the indignation of an outraged people, and while we have heard that same song for the last ten or fifteen years, the only result is that Indiana and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Connecticut came up leaving us minus four of the most distinguished and honorable and respected statesmen ot this country in the Senate, and men for whom I have personally, I will say, a very profound respect. I did not refer to them with any personal feeling or view, but simply to show that notwithstanding these predictions the people are not so blind as the Senator would intimate; for they must be very blind, indeed, exceedingly blind, if for year after year, month after month, and day after day this Republican party can commit such horrid outrages upon the interests of the people, can so defy the people, can impose the suffrage of this downtrodden race upon the people against their will, and still their majorities increase, still the Senate becomes almost too numerous to manage with Republicans, still the other side of the Chamber decreases in numbers, still we elect, our Presidents, still we reconstruct the Government, we bring in the southern States upon our own plan, we raise the banner of freedom ar d liberty and carry it over the land. 1 suggested this, hoping that the honorable Senator would rememberthat as his predictions had always failed heretofore he might be liable to a slight mistake now as to the future.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, I had done myself the justice to observe the course of the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I had known of his consistency from the time that I had the pleasure of serving in the House of Representatives with him. But, sir, although his speeches were very able and very eloquent, still I had not supposed that they were more controlling in declaring and shaping the policy of the Republican party than the Chicago platform of last year. While I concede great force to his speeches, to his positions, to his introduction of bills in Congress, and all that, still when I found that the Republican party at Chicago assembled through its delegates in one of the greatest. conventions- the party has ever held, in express words said that this question properly belonged to the people of the States in the loyal States, I thought that that perhaps was adeclaration of party, views of greater dignity than even the speeches of the distinguished Senator. Therefore I thought it right to call the- attention of Senators to the fact and ask them whether, after carrying an election upon such a platform, they would deny to the people a voice upon, this material change of the form of government.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. President, I call for the reading of the fourth rule audits enforcement.

ThePRESIDING OFFJCER The rule will fo@ F©3 ci

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

"4. No Senator shall speak more than twice, in any one debate toil the same day, without leave of the Senate, which question a hall be decided without debate."

Mr. DRAKE." I will inquire whether the Senator from Nevada had that rule read with reference to its application to himself? [LaughSeveral Senators. "Question!" "Question!"

The. PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is upon the amendment moved by the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Hesdripks J

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

Mr. FRELING HUYSEN Before the vote is taken I desire to say that my eolieague Mr Cattell] has paired in consequence of sickness.

Mr. YATES. I am paired with the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. Doolittle.]

The question bejng taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 12, nays 40; as follows:

TEAS—Messrs, Bayard, Bucfealew, Davis, Dixon, Fowler, Hendricks; MeCreery, Norton Patterson of Tennessee, Sautsbury, Viokers, and Whyte—12.

HAYS—Messrs Abbott Cameron, Cole, Colliding, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinphuysen, Ilarlan, Harris, Howard, Howe Kellogfr McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Osborn, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Pool, Ramsey. Iliee, Robertson, Ross, lawyer, Spencer, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Van Winkle, Wade, Warner, Wclch, Wiiley, Williams, and Wilson—40.

ABSENT—Messrs. Anthony, Cattell. Chandler Conness, Corbett, Doolittle, Fessenden, Grimes Henderson, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, and Yates—14.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. DIXON. I now offer the same amendment which I proposed before, when the other resolution was pending, to strike out the word Legislatures," in the places where it occurs, and insert "conventions." I shall say but a word upon this amendment.

The Constitution provides that amendments to the fundamental law proposed by Congress may be submitted for ratification, and shall be valid when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress. Heretofore when amendments have been submitted they have been proposed tothe Legislatures of the- States, and the amendments which have been made are only the first eleven, which were submitted all at one time; afterward the twelfth, with regard to the choice of electors for President and Vice President; and then the thirteenth article, which related to slavery; and the fourteenth, wnich related to the question "of reconstruction. In all these cases the Legislatures were chosen as the ratifying power, but it will be observed that in every one of those instances, except the two last, and especially in the first instance, when eleven amendments were submitted together, the propositions were limitations on the powers of Congress, not on the powers of the States or of the people. There was in provision in those amendments to limit in any way the powers of the States; and, in fact, in the case of the Mayor of Baltimore vs. McConnell, reported, I think, in 7 Peters, it was decided by Chief Justice Taney that those amendments did not relate t& the State at all; that they only related to the powers of Congress. When "an attempt was made to apply them iri some way to the States the decision was, and it has been acquiesced in and carried ont ever" since, that they do not even; relate to the States.

When it was proposed to take away powers from Congress or to limit the powers of Congress there was no reason for any very great jealousy with regard to the right of the people to vote Upon the proposition of amendment. You were not taking away powers from the people; you were not taking away rights from the States; and therefore it was very natural and proper that those amendments should- fee submitted to the Legislatures of the States, because of course the States would agree to them. The States would consent that Congress should be limited. It was the very thing the States wished to do.

Now the proposition is not to limit Congress. not to limit the General Government alone, but to provide that a ncfw r which has always heretofore existed in the States -shall be taken to a eerUfe- extent from the States, It does seem to me highly proper, eminently proper* so proper that it is almost indecent to do otherwise, that this should be submitted to the people for them to say .whether they will consent to it.'-

It has been decided by the Senate, in accordance with the argument of the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Morton,] that there is no power in Congress to limit the Legislature which shall act upon it, or that if there is power to impose a limitation in that respect it is not proper at this time to exercise the power. Then the only mode by which you can procure action by the people of this country upon this question is by submitting it to conventions, and there is no constitutional objection to that.

I think the argument of analogy which was used by my colleague, that all the amendments heretofore made have been submitted to Legislatures, has been sufficiently answered by me in what I have already said. There was no reason Why those amendments should not be submitted to Legislatures. There was no particular reason why the people should be called upon to say whether or not the powers of Congress should be limited. But when you come to the question of limiting the powers of the people themselves and taking from the States rights which they now possess, it is highly proper that they should have an opportunity to say whether they agree to it or not. Technically. I agree, you get their consent through Legislatures now chosen. That may be said, perhaps, of the Legislature of Michigan, though with that Legislature negro suffrage should be vitandus. After the action of the people of that State, it should be in the index vocumvitandarum. Itisforthem athing to be shunned. The people of that State when they were called upon to act, pretty plainly instructed their Legislature to shun the question; iind at the last election the only notice the people anywhere had of it was from your platform, which declared that it properly belonged to them in their respective States. Now, you propose to submit this question to Legislatures chosen on the day when you elected your candidate upon a platform which told the people that the question was not to be thus submitted.

Sir, I do not wish to dwell upon this as a party question. I am now addressing the Senate in favor of the propriety of permitting the people to be heard upon the matter. In the State of Connecticut I admit they can be heard to a certain extent, because it so happens that in that State the Legislature which would act upon it is to be chosen in April next.

Mr. HOWARD. -Let me ask the Senator from Connecticut whether there is any constitutional provision in Connecticut requiring acts which it is expected the Legislature may pass to be made known to the people before the Legislature meets. Is that the lawof Connecticut?

Mr. DIXON. I confess I do not see the eMeKESSKJMZ GMBE pertin cftey of that question. lt may be per' tinent, (hough. Fro m the seurijei from Which it comes I judge it to be a very wise, judicious,' and pertinent question..

Mr. HOWARD. Undoubtedly.

Mr. DIXON. But if it came from some other source, I should have a contrary opinion. {Laughter.]

Now, sir, I offer this amendment in good faith. I say here, in the presence of this body that it is proper that the people should have an opportunity of saying whether the regulation of suffrage which has been heretofore held t y the States as their own power and their own right, skquestion for them to -decide,- shall be taken from them, or, in other words, whether they shall be limited in the- exercise of that power. Is it too much to ask of this Body that before they propose to take -from New Jersey and fi Om Connecticut and from other States a power now existing, they should give the people of Net? Jersy and Connecticut an opportunity to be heard. And th§ only way in which they can have an opportunity to express their 'sentiment is by referring this matter to conventions

BIr. MORTON. Just one word in reply to the' Senator from Connecticut. I do not want jtd protract this debate: but there has been a great deal of" taking on" here to night that this question has not been discussed before the "people. I am willing to submit it to the exf ere erience to night and of observation any party of whether every a Senator single Democratic speech was made in any State daring the late canvass that was not devoted principally to the subject of the negro—negro equallity, amalgamation, social equality—if the people were not warned that their daughters were about to be married to negroes, and if the Democratic party did riot throughout the late c4W ass at every meeting and in every speech, ift Sfe ason and out of season, keep the whole question of negro equality, politically, socially, and in every other way, constantly before the people? And yet they now complain that the subject has not been discussed before the people.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, I wish to say in reply to my colleague that whatever statements the Democrats made oil this subject were very emphatically and earnestly denied by his party, so that the people, to say the least of it, would become confused in a discussion of that sort.

Mr. CONKLING. The Senator will allow me to suggest in aid of his proposition that the people had become so accustomed to disbelieving what the Democrats did say that it did not make much impression. [Laughter.]

Mr. HENDRICKS. As I am not making an argument with the Senator from New York just now, I will not discuss the question with him whether the people are reliable or not. I do not believe the people have any more confidence in politicians and party platforms and 'assurances than perhaps they ought to have. •I do not care about discussing that matter. But my colleague will not claim that in the State of Indiana the proposition to confer suffrage upon the negro was made by hisparty last year. I recollect when the civil rights bill was a matter of discussion before the people elaborate arguments were made in that State by gentlemen who now occupy very high positions indeed to prove that the negro would not be made a voter according to that policy. But I do not care about protracting this debate or carrying it into a political discussion. I have not sought to follow my colleague when he has gone into politics, and I do not intend to do it now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment moved by the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DAVIS. I wish to inform the Senator from Connecticut that I am in favor of his proposition and intend to vote for it, and I will not pair off with my colleague or with either of the Senators from Delaware upon that question, j tion, or upon any other question connected with this, subject: nor would I pair off with one of the Senators from V«rlnbnt upon thAtqaefk* tion; but if both of them will offer to pair off with me I will then consider that proposition, because I think upon this question I am of as much value as both of them!' [Laughter.!

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. BAYARD called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 10, Bays 39; as follows;

YEAS—Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Hendricks, Norton, Patterson ef -Tennessee. Saulsbury. Vickers, and Whyte—10.

N ATS—Messrs- Abbott, Cameron, Cole, Conklin;?, Gragin, Drake, Ed un i3 Kerry, Preliitsrhoysen, Harlan, Harris. Howard, Howe, Keilosg MeBonaid Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill Qf Vermont, Morton, Nye, Osborn, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Pool, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson; Ross, Spencer, Stewart, Thayer Tipton VanWin kle, Warner, Weleh, W lijey. Williams, Wilson, and Yates— 39

ABSENT—Messrs. Anthony, Oatte l Ch an iier Con ness, Corbett, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes. Henderson, McCreery. Sawyer, Sherman, Sprague, Sumaer, Trumbull, and Wade—17.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. DAVIS. I move a reconsideration of the vote rejecting the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.] I make this motion in courtesy to a Senator*: with the avowal that I voted against the proposition, and am still against it and intend to vote against it, but I make the motion in courtesy to a Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky moves to reconsider the vote by which the Senate rejected the amendment of the Senator from Michigan.

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. CONKLING-. I believe that only once since the original debate upon this proposition have I made a suggestion to the Senate on the subject, and that was with regard to an amendment then proposed by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Wii kont J I venture now to ask the attention of the Senate for a moment, to this motion, because it seems to me to present an opportunity to embrace an alternative better than that upon which we seem likely to fall.

The honorable Senator from Vermont, [Mi. Edmunds, j if I understood hiar aright, stated that all the Republican members—if I caught his expression—of the "Judiciary Committee had concurred in presenting the proposition which now constitutes the foundation of this -proceeding. I wish the honorable Senator from Vermont would except me from that statement. 1 eau speak for no other member of the committee; but for myself I must say I was never present in the Judiciary Committee when this proposition was considered. I understand its consideration was of the briefest the most summary character, and I may add that had I been in the committee I could not in good faith have agreed to a proposition which I believe to be so inadequate for the purpose which amajority of this Chamber have at heart as the proposition to which I now advert.

It is an easy thing to criticise language; it is an easy thing to criticise a proposition, be it of language or of substance. My purpose is not now to experiment in that way, but simply to point out- briefly one or two respects its which it seems to me that the proposition of the Senator from Michigan is preferable to the other. If I understand the design of those who espouse some proposition on this subject, it is to submit fairly to the several States of the Union the proposition to divest themselves of the power of discriminating invidiously against persons of a certain race in respect of their right, to vote and hold office, one or both. I think I cannot be mistaken in supposing that that is the object of these manifold propositions to amend the Constitution. Now, I may say, Mr. President—I am glad to have the opportunity of saving, as I shall not avail myself of it again, and have not had it before—that I do not understand that a Representative in the other House or a member of this body commits himself absolutely and in all senses to the wisdom and propriety of a proposed constitutional amendment by voting to submit it to the States of the Union. On the contrary, I can understand that in many a case, there being an adequate motive, a public demand, a general expectation, or some other consideration leading to it, two thirds of both Houses might vote to submit to the people the ratification or rejection of a constitutional amendment, when, if you please, for illustration, a large partof those composing those several two thirds would not themselves advise its ratification or act in favor of its ratification ultimately. I make that remark in answer to a vast deal that I have heard said by Senators touching this subject

And now the proposition is to submit to the States, to their option, in theory, unrestrained, unfettered, the question whether they will amend the Constitution in a given respect or not. In this instance the amendment proposed, as I say, is to put upon an equality with Saxon men men of African descent. That is what we mean. That is what some Senators see an objection to saying, although we mean it. Now, Mr. President, for one moment I beg Senators to consider whether the proposition from the Judiciary Committee if it were ratified, if it were imbedded in the Constitution to morrow would effect the purpose which alone justifies all this discussion? Let us see. I have not the proposition before me, but in substance itisthat. no citizen shall bo excluded from the right to vote or hold office on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Upon the interpretation of everybody a man may bo excluded for any other reason, may ho not? Let us see what other obvious reasons, if they exist, would exclude the very class of which we are- speaking. I take now for my use a historical illustration, a mode of evasion which history furnishes us. Suppose the State of Georgia enacts that disingenuousness of birth—I borrow an expression from the jurisprudence of another country—shall disqualify from voting and holding office.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Please translate that expression. I do not understand it.

Mr. CONKLING. In theory of law, as in fact, disingenuousness of birth exists in the case ol the whole body of southern slaves, and why? Because, being degraded, being denied so many other things, they were denied also those customs and that condition which established and sanctioned marriage; and therefore, us a race, the objection that the present generation were themselves bastards would shut out. the great body of the race. Ara I wrong in that? To some extent, no doubt, marriage existed in fiiet, and to some extent in law, and could be established; but as a general proposition 1 ask any Senator if I am not right in the suggestion?

Mr. HOWE. Will the Senator allow me to ask him in turn if the same provision could not be enacted under the amendment moved by the Senator from Michigan with the same effect

Mr. CONKLING. I will answer that with great pleasure in a moment, if the honorable Senator will first indulge me in asking him whether I am not right in my present proposition, that such a provision would evade this amendment. Does the Senator differ with mc about that?

Mr. HOWE. I will concede it for the purpose of this consideration.

Mr. CONKLING. Is it not true in point of fact? I do not wish it to bo conceded as matter of casuistry or for the sake of argument.

Mr. FERRY. If the Senator will allow me, I do not regard it as true in point of fact, because the disingenuousness of birth to which the Senator alludes would have to be proved as a fact, and I doubt the capacity to prove it as a fact, as a general rule.

Mr. CONKLING. The enactment then would only have to be reversed to change the onus proband), upon which the Senator would rely. A State would .have only to enact that those holding office and voting shall be required to prove their gennousness of birth, and then you would have precisely the proposition which I state, and you would steer clear of the possible objection suggested by the Senator from Connecticut.

Now, Mr. President, look at one other thing, and I will not forget to answer the suggestion made by the Senator from Wisconsin. Suppose, under this amendment, the State of Georgia should enact that no person descended from slaves should vote, would this amend- -ment prevent that?

Mr. EDMUNDS and others. Certainly it would.

Mr. CONKLING. Several Senators answer certainly" I think with more readiness than reflection. The House of Representatives, after a long debate, declared by a large majority that this form of amendment would not prevent what I speak of.

Mr. EDMUNDS. May I ask the Senator this

Mr. CONKLING. Not at this moment. I want to direct

Mr. EDMUNDS. Then I rise to a point of order. I object to the Senator s undertaking to influence this body by declaring what the House of Representatives have decided. I make that point of order.

Mr. CONKLING. Now, Mr. President, my friend from Vermont, who values, as we all do, his extreme sharpness, has, to use a favorite expression of his, leaped before he came to the stile. I have not affirmed that the House of Representatives decided anything, although I have a perfect right to affirm, and I shall insist upon affirming, that the House did send here a proposition of which I am going to speak; and if any Senator will have me ruled out of order for it I shall be glad to take my seat when that is decided to bo the law of this body. I was about to say

Mr. EDMUNDS. The Senator will pardon me. 1 rose to a point of order, and I insist on its being decided.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator state his point of order again?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes, sir. The Senator was endeavoring by his argument to influence the action of this body by referring to what had taken place in the course of proceedings in the other House, which is in direct violation of parliamentary law and propriety.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that the Senator from New York was alluding to the debates, rather than the action of the House. If it was the action of the House on this subject, the Chair thinks that is not a proper subject to be alluded to here. But as the Senatorfrom New York was speaking of debates in the House, the Chair thinks he has a right to refer to the debates.

Mr. CONKLING. Well, Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont and the Chair differ upon this question. That grieves me very much on behalf of the Senator from Vermont, but I suppose he will allow me to complete what I was going to say. The House of Representatives has sent here and the Senate to day has voted upon a proposition which was unlike this, and for the reason, Iargne, which I am in the act of stating. The House said that no person should be excluded from the right to vote on account, of race, color, or previous condition of any citizen or class of citizens of the United States. Why, I argue, did the House say that? Simply for the reason that without that, with the mere declaration that it should not be on account of race, color, or previous condition of the person himself, he might be excluded for the same reasons as applied to his forefathers. That is my argument, and I rather think I am within parliamentary usage in addressing that argument to this body in reference to a proposition upon which we have been voting ourselves, reported to us by the House. Therefore, I say, that with the recorded judgment of the House in favor of the particular proposition which I now present, Senators ought not, without some reflection, to say that manifestly the proposition before us avoids that difficulty. A B and C D and all other, individual citizens shall not be excluded from voting or holding office on account of the race, color, or previous condition of A B and C D and so on, respectively. I ask again whether, if they were excluded because they were the sons of bondmen, the provision would paralyze the enactment?

Mr STEWART. Most undoubtedly.

Mr CONKLING My honorable friend from Nevada says. not only "undoubtedly," but "most undoubtedly.’’ That is the superlative degree of positive assurance, and therefore, to borrow an expression from another, I ought to rest upon the quietude of assured power. The assurance of the honorable Senator gives me every degree of composure that any assurance could give. But when I hear Senators argue, as I have heard them argue to day that this amendment was to be made good against the perversity, against the battling disposition such as we have seen in the State of Georgia, if by language I could shut the door against all evasion,,! should prefer that even to the assurance which is vouchsafed by the honorable Senator from Nevada; although, as I say, that is very satisfactory as far as it goes.

Now, Mr. President, in addition to the modes which I suggest, if I had not occupied so much time I think I could point out a number of other modes in which it would require but slight ingenuity to circumvent this proposed amendment.

The honorable Senator from Wisconsin asked me whether, under the amendment of the Senator from Michigan, the same thing could take place. I will read the amendment, and then I will endeavor to answer his question:

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

I believe it now reads, "other electors."

"Citizens" left a question; and it was changed to "electors." Now, I answer the honorable Senator that I think this would not be open to any such criticism as that which I am making. E or aught I see, were this amendment ratified by the requisite number of States, all States in the imposition of qualifications would bo reduced to the necessity of making them equal in their application to all.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Suppose they saidunder the amendment of the Senator from Michigan that persons who were born bastards should not be entitled to vote; that all disingenuous persons should be excluded?

Mr. CONKLING-. That the disingenuousness of birth should be a reason why they should bo excluded?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes.

Mr. CONKLING. To avoid that was the very object in part of the Senator who framed this proposition; and the leading objection to it is founded on the idea that it answers that suggestion. Why? Because it denominates specifically the very class of persons whom we are discussing, and says that they shall be allowed in holding office and in the exercise of the elective franchise to stand upon a footing with white citizens.

Mr. STEWART. The same footing with white citizens. The footing that white citizens would stand upon by a provision against disingenuousness of birth would apply to black citizens; and they having more of such cases, more probably would be ruled out under the same rule.

Mr. CONKLING-. If that be the argument I am glad to adopt it as a part of the ground on which I am going to vote to reconsider this amendment. If it be true, as is now argued, that the Senator from Michigan has not definitely enough, that he has not unmistakably enough, referred to persons of African descent, so that still additional words are necessary to include and specify them, let us amend it in that respect. I make no objection in that regard. I am speaking of the amendment precisely as it stands. 1 am only speaking of the difference between Submitting a proposition so open as this -one is and a proposition 80 definite as that can be made, particularly against the objection which is now assigned to -it, because I need not argue that if, preserving the general idea Of denominating this particular race of persons, we fasten their rights clearly by that denomination, that will at least establish a superiority in the amendment over the one which we art now discussing. I do not, then, venture to defend it' precisely as it stands; but on the contrary,# it is reconsidered and there is any doubt in that respect about it, I shall be very glad to vote with others in order toput it beyond criticism in that regard. But the question now seems to be whether we ore to take the amendment which came from the Judiciary Committee without any modification whatever, because those supporting it seem to be inclined to vote down alt amendments, or whether we shall take this proposition of the Senator from Michigan or some other as a groundwork, and s6; perfect it as to avoid what, it seems to me, we cannot fell to discern are the difficulties! and "the inadequacies of the pending proposition.

Mr. 6TfeWARI; Argyou through?

Mr. CONKLING. No; I am not through; hot I Will yield to the Senator from Nevada.-

Mr. STEWART. I want to gay a word in defense of this proposition.

Mr. CONKLING. I will relieve the Senator and the Senate in toe moment, and intended to do so some time ago.

Now, Mr. President, I was only going to add "that I should consider it a great calamity in itself, and especially a great calamity after all the precious time that has been devoted to this subject, if -we should come to a lame and impotent conclusion, if we should, submit an amendment which, assuming it to be carried, would be wholly inadequate to the object after which we are reaching.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?,

Mr. CONKLING. Certainly.

Mr; HENDRICKS. White he was defending this amendment he referred to some reason that seemed to be rather private or obscure why the word "citizen" was stricken out and the word "elector" inserted. If there is any reason that can be made public I should like to know what it is.

Mr. CONKLING. It will do to make public anything that I know on this subject, and I will make that public in one moment. The word citizen 1 -it was suggested, might refer to minors or to women, and therefore the right to vote by comparison with other citizens Would not be guarantied.

.Mr. HENDRICKS. Right on that point, it seems to me while you are avoiding one difficulty you run upon the other; because you say there that all citizens of the United States of African descent—and that includes the women, of course—shall vote, the same as all other electors.

Mr. CONKLING. If the honorable Senator will indulge me, it does not say that at all, as 1 understand it, but—

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

Now, the proposition, I understand, is that that means that female citizens have the right to vote.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Of African descent.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Are they not citizens

Mr. CONKLING. If the honorable Senator thinks that is true it would involve the insertion of the word "male," which I believe has been inserted in a number of these amendments other than this. I do not think that is important enough to discuss. I make no comment upon it, except that if there is any danger of that this amendment ought to bo perfected in that respect,

I have only to add that if any form of amendment has occurred to me in the course of this long discussion 1 have refrained from suggesting it, and for two reasons tfirst, it to me that we had a very large assortment ©f propositions to choose from; and second, because I know, frqm some experience, in the matter of constitutional amendments, how fond one is likely to become of his own offspring. I have been ready to vote, and I am lead/ to vote now, foe, any. amendment, whatever its fori® may be, whatever its paternity may be, which will present to the States fairly the proposition which we are all really seeking; that is, the question whether they will surrender or relinquish, so much of their jurisdiction, or supposed jurisdiction; as enables them to discriminate against persons of a particular race in rcspect to voting and holding office. That is what my honorable■ friend from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson} wants to reach, as I understand him. I shall be glad to vote with him or with any other Senator for any form of proposition which will accomplish that object. If the one before us whieh comes from the Committee on the Judiciary, will accomplish it, if it be even the sense of a majority of the Senate thai it will jjujcomplish it, I shall be very glad to surrender my judgment, whatever it may be, and concur with that majority. If, on the contrary, it is thought that that proposition as it siands is. too o pen to evasion, that it falis too far short of what we ought to do, then jt think we had better take some other ground, some other form, and see whether we .cannot perfect that; and my belief is that this .amendment of the Senator from Michigan, although it may be criticised as it stands, and although it may need further alteration, furnishes us a greater promise than we have now in regard to the other upon which we have spent so much time with so little conclusion.

Mr. STEWART. I probably should have defended the proposition reported by the committee before, on the occasion when it was voted down and a substitute adopted; but the criticism made by the Senator from New York makes it proper that I should say a word or two in its defense now. There are two points in which he suggests that it might be evaded. He says, in the first place, suppose the States should attempt to exclude persons for disingenuousness of birth.

Mr. HENDRICKS. What is that?

Mr. STE WART. I shall not stop to answer such a question as that- Now, sir, is not this disingenuousness of birth referred to by the Senator from New York fairly a part of the condition of slavery, owing to die condition of slavery, and would not any hone st court so hold? Again, he says, suppose they should undertake to exclude them because they were descended from slaves. No honest judge would give this amendment such a construction as that. The right of citizens of the United States—

That is, all classes of citizens of the United States— to vote and hold officeshall notbe denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on aeeount ot raee, eolor, or previous condition of servitude.

If there is anything growing out of that person s condition of servitude, such as disingenuousness of birth, or such as former slavery of this class of persons the States are prohibited from disfranchising in consequence of it. This amendment would rcceive judieial construction, and there would be no doubt about it.

Now, as to the proposition of the Senator from Michigan, I can see many objections. I spent two or three days in attempting to embody that principle in one proposition._ I think I have got a better proposition than his; but still I do not prefer it to that of the committee. In his proposition I see a great many difficulties, and I am quite confident, if it is adopted now, the Senate will be glad to recede from it to morrow It is not well to adopt new language upon the spur of the moment, as experience has shown./ The language used by the Senator from Michigan in his proposition is:*

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

That is, all citizens of the United States, wbmen. and chi lren of African descent, shall have the same right as electors of the White race. You can rwilre the qualifications which shall apply to African .descent, as well as the others. If you attempt "to evade it, you can say that for disingehuoosness "of birth no one shall votg, either of Africati or any other descent. That is obnoxious tothe amendment. You can say that persons -yhohave been slaves shall not vote, whether they are black or white; and there is as much in that point as in any point that can be raised against the committee s proposition. I will ot jfureue it; but J undertake to say that, it is Fuji of objections, and I much' prefer the amendment of the committee.;.'..

Mr. EDMUNDS. I only wish to occupy one moment of the time of the Senate by th? clock on the substance of thfe' amendment of the Senator from Michigan without going into the argument of my friend" from New York, Apply that amendment, putting the particular race into the Constitution, to the State of Rhode Island, for illustration, where there are two classes of electors, one acting upon one rule, and having rights upon one rule, and the other upon another, and it will be impossible to tell under which rule these persons are to come. Must they have property like the alien, or can they vote like the free white native born citizen? It is impossible to tell. That is a sufficient illustration to show that you cannot stand upon any sueh principle as that.•

Mr, DRAKE. Will the honorable Senator from New York be so kind as for a moment to withdraw his motion to reconsider?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion was made by the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. Davis 3

Mr. DRAKE. I thought it was a motion made bythe honorable Senator fromNew York.

Mr. CONKLING. No, sir; it was made by the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. DRAKE. Will the honorable Senator from Kentucky be so kind as for a moment to withdraw his motion to reconsider, that I may submit a proposition which will perhaps cover til© C S6

Mr. DAVIS. With the consent of the honorable Senator from New York I will; but let us first hear your proposition.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is withdrawn.

Mr. DRAKE. I move, then, the amendment which I send to the Chair.

Mr. DAVIS. I have not withdrawn my motion. I just asked the honorable Senator from Missouri to present his proposition.

Mr. DRAKE. Then I ask that it. be read for information. I think it covers some of the objections made by the Senator from New York.

The Chief Clerk. The proposed amendment reads as follows^

No discrimiaation in the exercise by any citizen of the United States of the elective franchise, or in his pnvilegeof holding office, shallin any State be baaed upon the race, color, or previous condition of servitude of s iid citizen or his ancestors.

The PRESIDING OFFICER._ The question before the Senate is on the motion to reconsider, made by the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. CONKLING._ The yeas and nays were ordered on that motion.

Mr. HOWARD. I wish to say very briefly that the Senator from Vermont is under an entire misapprehension as to the mode of applying the amendment which is now under consideration. The effect of it, if Senators will look at it carefully, is simply to subject the African race to the same restrictions and qualifications that prevail as to every other class of' citizens within the State. Of course they would be subjected to an additional qualification if the State saw fit to make one, or to a property qualification, or any other qualification the State might see fit to apply, except the qualification of race or color.

Mr. EDMUNDS. They would be pat with the aliens in Rhode Island, then.

Mr. HOWARD. They would be put with the aliens, if they were aliens; but if they were not aliens, they would not be put with the aliens.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That does not follow.

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, it does.

Mr. FERRY. I desire to state that my colleague [Mr. Dixon] is paired with the Senator from Maine, [Mr. 1 essenden

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 16 nays 29; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs Chandler Cole, Conkling, Harlan, Howard, Nye Osborn, Patterson of N ew Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Robertson. Sawyer, Tipton, Warner, Welch, and Williams— 16

NAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Buckalew, Cragin, Davis, Drake, Edmunds. Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harris Hendricks, Kellogg, McCreery, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Patterson of Tennessee. ■Pool, Rice, Ross SauIsbury Spencer Stewart Thayer Vickers, Wade Whyto Wilson, and Yates—29.

ABSENT— Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Cameron, Cattell. Conness, Corbett, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden. Fowler, irim es Henderson, Howe, Morrill Of Maine, Norton, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull. Van Winkle, and Willey—21.

So the motion to reconsider was not agreed to.

Mr. DRAKE. Is the proposition now open to amendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It depends on the form of the amendment.

Mr. DRAKE. I move to substitute what I send to the Chair for the clause that is there.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If it is the amendment read a short time since the Chair rules it out of order.

Mr. DRAKE. Upon what ground out of order?

Mr. HENDRICKS, The Chair is not bound to give a reason.

Mr, EDMUNDS. lie has a good one.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ground is this: it proposes to strike out the precise proposition which has been agreed to in Committee of the Whole by the Senate.

Mr. DRAKE. And before that proposition was adopted by the Senate, in answer to an inquiry of the Senator from New York, if I tun not mistaken, the Chair expressly stated that the proposition would be open to amendment in every form after it was adopted in the Senate; that it might be struck out, might be amended in any form; and upon that ground i voted for it; and now, alter it is adopted, we are met with a decision of the Chair that any proposition to strike it out or amend it is out of order. If that be the case, if that be (he ruling of the Chir, the Chair has ruled in a different way before and after the adoption of the jiropositiou. Tlieu, the Senate has been placed in a false position to night by seeming to adopt that which it did not intend to adopt without the possibility of making an amendment of it afterward.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will stale the parliamentary law on the subject. I do not know whether the Senator alludes to the ruling of thepiesent occupant of the Chair or somebody else. Tlfo parliamentary law is precisely th ia; that amendments which have been agreed to in committee and concurred in in the Senate cannot be amended except by the addition of new matter or by a substitution for the whole proposition in which that maybe included.

Mr. DRAKE, This does embrace new matter. I ask for the reading of it.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Is the new matter matter of substance?

Mr. DRAKE. I ask for the reading of it.

Mr. HENDRICKS. If it is not very material to the Senator from Missouri it would be an accommodation for us to go on now and vote.

Mr, DRAKE. I shall not occupy the attention of the Senate long. I have not occupied >t at nil either as long or as pleasantly and gracefully as the honorable Senator from Indiana has. I hope he will be patient with me for a little while, as he has not much longer time to be troubled by me. fLaushter 1

Mr. HENDRICKS. I come down. [Laugh-

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amend-! mem will be read..|

The Chief Clerk. The proposed amendment reads as follows:

No discrimination in reference to the exercise by any citizen of the United States of the elective franchise, or his privilege of holding office, shall, in any State, be based upon the race, color, or previous condition of servitude of such citizen or his ancestors.

Mr. DRAKE. The Chair will -perceive at once that this introduces a new element into the whole thing, changes the whole character of it; and that is, the reference to the ancestry of the party. I submit to the Chair whether that does not take it out of the ruling of the Chair and authorize its being offered?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. While this is a different proposition yet it strikes but the precise thing the Senate has agreed to; and striking out the thing the Senate has agreed to the Chair rules is not in order. Does the Senator appeal?

Mr. DRAKE. Yes, sir; I appeal from the decision of the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then the question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?

Mr. DRAKE. I wish to say a word on that subject. It was the present occupant of the chair who, in answer to an interrogatory by the Senator from New York, before the amendment made in committee was voted upon by the Senate, announced that the adoption of that amendment in the Senate would not preclude this amendment or its being struck out, and therefore it was that the Senate voted for it, or at least I did because I never approved this form, and do not wish to vote for it now if I can possibly avoid it, believing that it is one which, after the discussion we have had, no seven gentlemen in this Senate could be got together who over would agree upon it as our original proposition in a committee of this body; and yet they adhere to it with the most fixed determination, apparently; and now we have got it fastened upon us, upon an announcement of the Chair in advance that the act of adopting it did not fasten it upon us, so that wo could not get rid of it. For that reason I appeal from the decision of the Chair; but as I do not wish to prolong the time of the Senate, but merely to expressmyself in regard to the manner in which this thing has been fastened upon the Senate, probably against its will, I withdraw the appeal.

Mr. VICKERS. I desire to offer an amendment. This amendment will not effect as much as that proposed by my honorable friend from the State of Delaware, [Mr. Saulsbury.] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator send up his amendment to the desk and have it road, that wo may see if it is in order? The CiuicF Ci krk The amendment is to inscit after the word "servitude," in the fifteenth line, the following:

No citizen of the United States shall bo deprived of the right of suffrage by any State by reason of having participated in the late insurrection against the United States, and who liasnotboen convicted of orindioted for treason against theUnited States, but that such person before Doing entitled to vote shall rnnkc oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States and all lansmadoin pursuance thereof.

Mr. VICKERS. Is that amendment in order 1

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair decides that as this amendment does not propose to strike out anything that has been adopted it is in order. ["QuestionI" "Question!"]

Mr. VICKERS. One moment. I will not detain the Senate. I was going to say that this amendment, if adopted, will not effect so much as that suggested by the honorable Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Saulsbcry.] He illustrated his position by comparing us to blue swine. The Senator might runoutthatparallel by saying that we were both animals; secondly, that both walked; thirdly, that both slept; fourthly, that both eat; fifthly, that both were greedy; sixthly, that both cared for nobody but themselves; and the only difference is that wo are not all blue. I suppose that the Senator; thought that" that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." This il amendment, differs somewhat from that offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, ,[Mr. Doolittle.] His amendment included the right to hold office as well as the right to vote. This confines it entirely and exclusively to the right to vote. Now, sir, while we are so careful in considering the rights of the negro, perhaps it would bring about an era of good feeling, particularly in the southern section of the country, if we were to adopt this amendment, and I am sure it would popularize t he constitutional amendment now .before us. I ask for the yeas and nays on tie amendment.

The yeas and nays were ,not ordered.•

The amendment was rejected.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read three times, the question is Shall it pass?

Mr. STEWART and others. On thg t question let us have the yeas and nays.-

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It must be taken by yeas and nays, as it requires a twothirds vote.

Mr. FERRY. My colleague [Mr. Dixon] wishes me to state that he is paired on this question with the Senator from Maine, [Mr. b essenden l

Mr. YATES. On thisquestion I am paired with the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. LITTLE.] If he were present he would voto against the joint resolution and I would vote for it.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I desire to state that my colleague [Mr. Cattell] is also paired with the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. LITTLE.] My colleague would have voted for the resolution.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 35, nays 11; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Abbott, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds. Ferry, Frelinghuysen, liarInn, Hums, Kellogg, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Osborn, Patterson of NcwIIampshire, Pomeroy, v Pool, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson, Ross, Sawyer. Spencer, Stewart, Thayer. Van Winkle, Wade. Warner, Welch, Willey, Williams and Wilson—35.

NAYS—Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Fowler, Hendricks, McCreery, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Saulsbury, Vickers. and Whyte—11.

ABSENT—Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Conness, Corbett, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Grimes, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morrill of Maine,, Nye, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, and Y ates—20.

The PRESIDING OFFICER.- Two thirds of the Senate having voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution is passed.

Mr. STEWART. I move that the Senate adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.