February 22, 1869

Mr. STEWART. Now I. move to take up the Senate joint resolution No. 8.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the amendments of the House of Representatives to the joint resolution (S. R. No. 8) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The amendments were read as follows: in line three strike out the words "by the United States or;" and in line four after the word color" to insert nativity, property, creed."

Mr. STEWART. I move that the Senate disagree

Mr. POMEROY. Let the amendment be read as amended.'

The Chief Clerk. The proposed article of amendment, if thus amended, will read:

Artil LK 1j- The right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by any State on account of race, color, nativity, property, creed, or previous condition of servitude,

The Coiixrcis by appropriate legislation may enforce Um 1 provisions of this article.

Mr. STEWART. I itiove that the Senate disagree to the amendments of the House of Representatives, and ask a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, I should like to know in. what respect this amendment, as now framed by the House,' differs from the one we sent to the House* in the former resolution to which they disagreed. It sounds very much to me like the same amendment which the House non concurred in, as I understand, by a very large vote, insisting upon their first form, which was simply a• provision that no State should abridge the right of suffrage on account of race or color. The House then seemed to take exception to the Senate amendment because it was too comprehensive. The Senate amendment differed from the House proposition in including the question of officeholding. It differed also from the amendment of the House in naming nativity, property, and creed. I believe everything that was in the Senate amendment as we sent it to the House on a former occasion is now contained in this amendment, unless it be the particular of education. Possibly that may be different.

I should like theSenator from Nevada, then, to explain before we pass upon this subject, perhaps finally, at least in any deliberate manner, somewhat the history of this very singular resolution of amendment.

The two Houses are at issue apparently upon the question of the extent to which the amendment shall be carried, the House of Representatives originally insisting upon a single particular, no exclusion from the right of suffrage on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, all which terms simply mean colored suffrage, and nothing else, and the Senate, by its vote, insisting upon making the amendment more comprehensive, and removing sundry other disqualifications that exist or may exist by virtue of State constitutions and laws, and extending the amendment also to the important question of holding office. By common consent almost, as I understand, in the House they stood by their original and comparatively limited proposition; they repudiated entirely what was done by the Senate in the way of extending this proposed amendment to cover officeholding and to cover the several other disqualifications which I have mentioned.

Mr. President, when I addressed the Senate a few days since, I called attention to a remarkable feature in the relations of the two Houses of Congress for some years past. I then called attention to the fact that upon all questions now for many years bearing a political complexion the House of Representatives always insisted upon having its own way. It not only insisted upon taking the lead in proposing constitutional amendments, bills, and joint resolutions of a political character, but insisted always that the Senate should give way when there was any question of disagreement between the two Houses. With a single exception of the reconstruction act of March 2, 1867, the House or rather the somewhat distinguished and celebrated man who was known as the leader of the House, had his own way. Sir, this has been the history of Congress for six or seven years in regard to all questions of a political character that have undergone consideration in the two Houses. And now, sir, that he is no longer in that branch to give direction to its action and to settle the law of relation between the House and the Senate, his example lives, and it is proposed in that branch of Congress to follow upon theoldlineof policy. Nothing could better illustrate the relations of the two Houses than the history of this joint resolution, originally passed in the House of Representatives, sent to the Senate and amended here, our amendments rejected by the House, finally a failure between the two Houses upon a resolution by their disagreement. Then the Senate took up our resolution which is now returned to us and they passed it in a manner to comply exactly with the original ii proposition of the House, except that they extended it to the question of holding office; but otherwise the Seriate framed their resolution in substantial conformity to the original resolution of the House.

Now, sir, we send it back to them; or rather, we send them this new resolution, and what do they do? Do they take their own original proposition upon which the two Houses before had disagreed? No, sir they will not take a resolution from the Senate. I venture to say that under no possible state of facts will a Senate resolution or a Senate amendment be adopted by the House. That branch of Congress will act in conformity to its settled practice, with its well understood intention to have its own way upon all occasions, upon all possible questions, when any measure having a political complexion is to be considered in Congress. What a spectacle it is, sir, that now they should send back upon the Senate resolution an amendment substantially the same which the Senate formerly put upon their resolution, and which they rejected; anii without any explanation or reason for it 1 The Senator from Nevada rises here; he does not ask us to concur, but he asks us to do what is tantamount to concurring, as we well know, judging by the history of the last six or eight years. He asks us to send this subject to& committee of conference, where the House will have its own way. Of course, we know that beforehand. There is not a precedent against it in the legislation of Congress upon any political question since the outbreak of the war.

Now, sir, we have the same point presented here which was presented some days since upon the other resolution, whether the Senate will take the proposition of the House of Representatives without venturing to amend it, whether the Senate will register the edict of the House, whether it will bend its will to the will of the House, and that in the minutest particulars and to the extent now of taking a proposition which the House before contemptuously rejected when we sent it to them—a proposition identical with this, unless it may be in one small and very unimportant particular. I believe there is an educational test in the constitutions of two or three States. That is not general. No such test exists in the constitution of my State, nor in that of, I believe, nine tenths of the States.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. This does not provide for an educational test.

Mr. BUCKALEW. That is the very thing I am speaking to. I say this is identically, as I understand, the same classification of qualifications for suffrage and for office which was in the Senate amendment before, with that exception.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And one other exception.

Mr. BUCKALEW. What is it?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The Senate amendment provided that neither the United States nor any State should impose disqualifications. This provides that no State shall impose them. It prohibits the powers to the States, but not to the United States.

Mr. BUCKALEW. That is very unimport-

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think it is very important.

Mr. BUCKALEW. It is very unimportant. Qualifications for holding office in this Government are fixed now by the Constitution of the United States. The qualifications for suffrage for Representatives and for presidential electors are now fixed, to be sure, by the legislation of the several States, but with regard to the great body of offices to which this amendment relates and for which it is intended, the State regulations now are supreme, and they are regulations which relate to suffrage and holding office for State purposes.

Mr. President, I rose mainly for the purpose of calling attention to the considerations which I have mentioned in connection with this ressolution of amendment. As to the particular form which this proposition shall take, whether it shall include more or less of qualification, whether it shall be confined to the question of suffrage or shall include also the question of holding office, I care but very little. The shaping ot' the amendment is, of course, a matter that pertains to those gentlemen who propose to support the constitutional amendment, and the question of whether they shall consider this subject in open Senate, or consider it in a committee of conference they may think is a question to be considered by them also. But I submit that now, with the record which we have before us on this subject, it belongs to the dignity and self respect of the Senate to take the subject up and decide it by a vote in open Senate. It belongs to its dignity and self respect here to determine what it will do, and not to turn this subject over, after ail this history, to the private consultations of a committee of conference, and then afterward be compelled to take a report from a committee of conference entire, just as it may be returned to us, or to reject the resolution altogether by rejecting the report of the committee, or postponing the subject indefinitely.

I feel some little concern, although I am not ranked as a supporter of this resolution, in understanding what are the relations between the two Houses of Congress, in what manner our business shall be transacted; and I feel also some little curiosity to know whether a former distinguished colleague of mine from Pennsylvania really has a successor in that House; whether the old established .practice of making the will of the Senate bend at all times to the will of the House of Representatives is to be continued under some new Asa matter, then, of self respect and of dignity, I am opposed to sending this subject to a committee of conference, although, as I said before, I am somewhat indifferent with regard to the shape which it shall finally assume. It is time that the Senate gave the other branch of Congress in a respectful and proper manner to understand that it has opinions and a will of its own, and that go far as parliamentary rules and courteous relations "permit, those opinions and that will will be asserted.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is moved that the Senate disagree to the amendments of the House of Representatives, and ask for a committee of conference.

Mr. WARNER. I ask if a motion to concur in the amendment of the House is now in order?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is.

Mr. WARNER. 1 make that motion, and ask for the yeas and nays upon it.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. STEWART. I do not know that that motion is in order.

Mr. WARNER. I understand that it is.

Mr. STEWART. There is a motion pending.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion to concur has precedence of the other motion.

Mr. POMEROY. I think we ought to have a time set apart for taking the vote on such a question as this. To bring in a bill from the House of Representatives late in the evening and proceed to its consideration, and then take the vote when it was understood that the evening was to be devoted to business from the Committe on Finance, seems to me to be inappropriate, at least. The Senate is thin. No one expected that this constitutional amendment was coming up this evening. The Senator from Ohio had the evening set apart for the business of his committee. Those Senators not interested particularly in the bills that they supposed were to be considered are not here. There are many Senators absent who take a deep interest in this constitutional amendment. I think myself we had better not proceed to vote upon it to night

Mr. SHERMAN, if the Senator will allow me I will move to take up the subject which was under debate a moment ago.

Mr. POMEROY. I should be glad to vote upon it myself if the Senate were full.

Mr. STEWART. I will consent to a postponement, but it will crowd out other business

40t u Cong. 3d Sess —No 91. to morrow it will take all day to morrow probably if it is passed over to night.

Mr. POMEROY. Say five o clock to morrow as the time for taking the vote-

Mr. STEWART. The Committee on the Judiciary have that hour

Mr. POMEROY. This is a resolution -appropriate to that committee.

Mr. FRE LIN GH U Y SEN Let the motion to concur be withdrawn and let us dispose of it to night.

Mr. STEWART. There is a quorum present, and I think the vote had better be taken upon the question of concurring.

Mr. SHERMAN. I think this subject was only taken up by general consent.

Mr. POMEROY. Allow me to ask the Senator from Nevada if he proposes to concur by a majority vote and then call it passed?

Mr. STEWART. If there isany doubt aJ out that motion I will consent to let it lie over.

Mr. POMEROY. All you can get is a majority vote on the question of concurrence.

Mr. SHERMAN. I move that the Senate resume the consideration of the bill which was up a few moments ago.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio moves to take up the other bill.

Mr. CONKLING. Which other bill?

Mr. CAMERON. Allow me to appeal to my friend from Ohio to permit me to bring up my bill relating to the railroad into the District.

Mr. SHERMAN. Let it betaken up informally, and then I have no objection.

Mr. CONKLING. Let us understand the question. Is the proposition to take up the bill relative to the appraisement of merchandise?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That was the bill pending.

Mr. CONKLING. I object to any arrangement. I do not want it to be taken up to be the unfinished business for to morrow

Mr. CAMERON. Will the Senator from New York be kind enough to listen to me for a moment? Let this motion be made, and then I desire to bring up my bill.

Mr. CONKLING. I will make no objection to the motion of the Senator from Pennsylvania unless his proposition involves taking up this pending bill, so as to make it the unfinished business for to morrow at one clock I object to that for special reasons; first, because I am opposed to the bill, and, second, because there are a number of bills from the Judiciary Committee, the least of which I consider more commendable, and in1 that sense more important than this bill, and I do not wish to see them overslaughed by taking up this pending bill to the end that it may be the unfinished business to morrow at one o clock and overrule everything else.

Mr. STEWART. And to tnorrow at one o clock I desire to have the constitutional amendment considered, and therefore I shall be obliged to move an adjournment.

Mr. CAMERON. I am sure the Senator will not make that motion until I can call up my bill.

Mr. STEWART. Let the constitutional amendment bs laid aside informally, and then the Senator from Pennsylvania can call up his bill.

Mr. CAMERON. That is what I desire.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That can be done by unanimous consent.

Mr. DRAKE (in his seat.) I object.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. No objection being made, the bill will be read.

Mr. TRUMBULL. An objection was made.

Mr. DRAKE. I objected.

Mr. CONKLING. No Senator rose and objected.

Mr. CAMERON. The Senator from Missouri made the objection in his seat, and he was kind enough to withdraw it.

Mr. DRAKE. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I renew the objection.

Mr. CAMERON. No, you will not.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes, I will.

Mr. CAMERON. You cannot do it, and I am sure you will not. I ask the Clerk to read the bill.

Mr. POMEROY. I believe the constitutional amendment is before the Senate.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is the question before the Senate; and the question is on concurring in the amendments of the House of Representatives, on which question the yeas and nays are demanded.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Does it not require a two thirds vote to concur ott the constitutional amendment?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair holds that it does not; but the Senateholds the other way, or did so hold before.• [Laughter.]

Mr. TRUMBULL. Then, if it does, it requires the yeas and nays at any rate.

Mr. CAMERON. If the President Will allow me a moment, he will remember that a little while ago it was agreed that whenever the subject in which the Senator from Ohio was so much interested should be disposed of the bill granting permission to bring the railroad into Washington should be taken up. Senators are all interested in that, and they may as well agree to take it up now.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The constitutional amendment is before the Senate.

Mr. CAMEB 0N I move to postpone it temporarily for the purpose of taking up the bill I have named.

The motion was agreed to.