February 26, 1869

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A special order is before the Senate, being the report of the committee of 'conference ori joint resolution (8. R. No. 8) proposing an: amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The report of the committee of conference was read, as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the joint resolution (S. R. No. 8) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend, to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from their amendments and agree to the resolution of the Senate, with an amendment, as follows:

In section one. line two, strike out the words or hold officeand that the Senate agree to the same.

W. M. STEWART,

ROSCOE CONKLING,

Manage™ on the part of the Senate.

GEORGE S. BOfJTWBIiL,

JOHN A. BINGHAM.

JOHN A. LOGAN,'

Managers on the part- of the House.

Mr. STEWART. I call for the reading of the joint resolution as it will read if amended. The Chief Clerk read as follows:•

Resolved bp the Senate and Some of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring.) That 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 be valid as part of the Constitution, namely:

Article XV.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Sec. 2. The Congress by appropriate legislation may enforce the provisions of this article.

Mr. POMEROY. I am embarrassed a little in regard to this question by the manner in which the committee have made the report. The resolution called joint resolution No. 8 was passed by the Senate by a constitutional vote of two thirds, restraining the United States or any State from restricting the right to vote and hold office on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery. That resolution, as is known to all the Senators, passed and went to the House. The House amended it by inserting three words; they amended it by restraining the States from putting any restrictions relating to nativity, property, and education. It came back then to the Senate, and the Senate disagreed to the amendment, and asked for a committee of conference. The conference was agreed to by the two Houses, and then the committee of conference took np the question. The committee of conference then have reported to us that the House recede from their amendment, and without stopping there they have ventured to tamper with the text of the resolution which had been agreed to by the two Houses. That, I undertake to say, is both unparliamentary and almost unprecedented. Wc have had a somewhat rich experience in this Senate upon the question of the power of a committee of conference to change what had been agreed to by the two Houses, and it has never yet passed the Senate when the question has been made, excepting, as we have it recorded in the books, that after that fact was distinctly stated it passed unanimously and it was agreed to unanimously on account of its having been a violation of parliamentary law and of the powers of a committee of conference. That has been the result in all the cases 1 have been able to find.

We had a very lengthy discussion on this question when a committee of conference sevoral years ago made a report here on the bill providing that executive officer? should not be held, accountable in civil process for arrests. The committee of conference changed the text of the bill somewhat more in form than in words, It was discussed here all day and all night, and at three o clock in the morning fh e bill finally passed this. body. The discussion was not m de on the ground .that the committee, of conference could not change the text of the bill which' had been agreed to by the .two Houses, but the contest was over the merits of the case on the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. I will not occupy the time of the Senate with that case. It occupies a great deal of space in the Globe. I have had occasion to read through it. I will only refer to a few. cases that have occurred recently within our own recollection, so that Senators will be sure I am right. I have seen also several cases that occurred in the earlier history of the proceedings in the Senate.

The first case that struck my attention after I became a member of the Senate was the report of a committee of conference which was made by the then Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Clark, upon House bill No. 780, to protect the revenue, and for other purposes. The committee reported that they had met; and after full and free conference had agreed to recommend to their respective Houses that the House recede from certain amendments, and then that the Senate recede from other amendments, and finally they inserted this new proviso:

"Provided further. That nothing herein contained shall apply to long combing or oarpet wools costing twelve cents or less per pound unless the charges so added shall carry the cost above twelve cents per pound, m which ease one cent per pound shall be added."

That was entirely new matter, not in either of the bills that had passed the two Houses. I find the action of the Senate on that report thus recorded in the Journal:

"The Senate proceeded to consider the report and the accompanying recommendation of the committee of conference m respect to an amendment to the text of the bill.

'On motion by Mr. Clark,

Retolved, That the Senate agree to thosaid report, and that it unanimously agree to the amendment to the text of the bill as recommended by the committee of conference.

Ordered, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives thereof."

It was held in that case that it required the unanimous consent of the Senate to amend the text of the bill. It was so reported and so argued.

Mr. CONKLING. It does not appear so, from what you have read, but that the Senate unanimously agreed to it.

Mr. POMEROY. It was so held in the debate, as appears in the Globe. The report of the committee contained nothing about that; but when the Senate came to act upon it it took this action:

"The Senate proceeded to consider the report and the accompanying recommendation of the committee of conference in respect to an amendment to the text of the bill.

On motion by Mr. Clark,

"Uesoloed, That the Senate agree to thesaid report, and that it unanimously agree to the amendment to the text of the bill as recommended by the committee of conference."

It was held that that was the only way in which the text of the bill could be changed.

Mr. CONKLING. You mean in the arguments?

Mr. POMEROY. Yes, sir; and that was the action of the Senate. It was argued so, as appears by the Globe.

There are one or two other cases. They are all to the same import in effect. Here is a case where a committee of conference reported on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 16th of June, 1862, on an amendment to House bill No. 413, making appropriations for the payment of the bounty authorized by the sixth section of an act entitled "An act to authorize the employment of volunteers to aid in enforcing the laws and protecting the public property," approved July 22, 1861. They reported a. change of the text of the bill:

"The report having been read, the Vice President"—

Mr. Hamlin, of Maine, was then in the chair—

"stated that he thought it the duty of the Chair to call the attention of .the. Senate to the fact that the committee of conference in their report had recommended a change in the text of the bill.

"On motion Uy Mr. Powell that the Senate disagree to the report, atffcl that it be recommitted to the committee of conference," &e.

When the Presiding Officer, who was then Vice President of the United States, oh that occasion -felt it his duty to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that the committee of conference had undertaken to amend the text of the bill which had been agreed to by the two Houses, the Senate at once recommitted the report; and if you will read the debate on that occasion you will see that it was held in the argument that the power of a committee of Conference was confined to disagreeing votes between the two Houses; that a conference was asked on that account; and that when they had reconciled the votes of the two Houses, their mission had ended, and they could only report to their respective Houses what they had accomplished toward reconciling the disagreeing votes; that it was not in their power to amend the text.

Mr. CONKLING. Allow me to make an inquiry of the Senator. Is not the case which he has just handed me, and are not all the cases on this head, instances of a committee of conference putting some matter into a bill upon which the two Houses had not acted one way or the other, introducing new and original matter?

Mr. POMEROY. Some of these cases do involve that with this other principle.

Mr. CONKLING. Do they not all involve it?

Mr. POMEROY. They all involve that; but they all involve this also: that they undertook to change the text of the bill which had been agreed to between the two Houses; and since I have been a member of this body I never have seen the original text of a bill changed by a committee of conference that it was not resisted when it came into the Senate; but we have cured it by agreeing to it unanimously. In this case it will be observed that the Presiding Officer arrested the report of the committee by announcing that they had undertaken to change the text of the bill, and the Senate at once recommitted it.

Mr. EDMUNDS. What case was that?

Mr. POMEROY. That was a case upon the report of the committee of conference on the 16th of June, 1862, on House bill No. 413, making appropriations for the payment of bounties authorized by the sixth section of an act entitled "An act to authorize the employment of volunteers," &c.

After it had been recommitted we find that— The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. K. No. 413) making appropriations for the payment of the bounty, &c., and Mr. Powell having modified his motion to read as follows:

Resolved, That the Senate disagree to the report of the committee of conference, and ask a further conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the said bill."

That resolution was carried—yeas 20, nays 17. As soon as the committee of conference changed the text of the bill in that case the Senate first recommitted it to the committee, and when they made their second report it was disagreed to, and a new committee of conference was asked for and given.

I do not desire to consume time on this subject. This question of a constitutional amendment has been before the Senate for a long time. I have no hostility to the measure itself, but I have insisted year after year that the Senate owes it to itself to maintain its parliamentary law and parliamentary practice. It is laid down in Jefferson s Manual—and nothing can be laid down clearer—that a committee of conference cannot change what has been agreed upon by the two Houses, but their power terminates when they have undertaken to reconcile the disagreeing votes of the two Houses. The House of Representatives have made Jefferson s Manual a part of their rules. Where it does not conflict with their own rules they have adopted Jefferson s Manual, and if the House of Representatives have adopted this report they have broken their own role on this question,

Mr. STEWART. Does the Senator mean to say that the committee have attempted to revise any portion of the text of the bill which stands as independent matter and not dependent upon the amendment? I am very confident that they have not.

Mr. POMEROY. There were two distinct propositions agreed upon between the two Houses. One was that the colored man should have the right to vote; another was that he should have the right to hold office. The two Houses agreed to the proposition that he should have the right to vote and the right to hold office; and the committee of conference have stricken out one clause—the right to hold office.

Mr. STEWART. The Senator is mistakes. The proposition agreed to by the Senate was that the colored man should have the right to vote and to hold office. The House said, "Very well; he shall have that right provided you will attach other conditions," which qualified the right to vote and to hold office.

Mr. POMEROY. I was only going to add, not desiring to take up time or to express myself as hostile to the measure, that I think committees of conference should be held strictly to parliamentary law and good usage; and where a distinct proposition has been agreed to by both Houses it should not again come into the discussion by a recommendation of a committee of conference to change it. What the Senator from Nevada says is true in one respect. The House did agree to this proposition with an amendment. When the House concluded to recede from its amendment the disagreement ceased; there was no further conflict between the two Houses. This proposition to hold office has always been as distinct a proposition as any other proposition in the constitutional amendment, and it was not in the power of the committee of conference to change it. Thatisthe usage of the Senate and the parliamentary law.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Do I understand the Senator from Kansas to raise a question of order?

Mr. POMEROY. It is not a question of order. I will raise it if it is.

Mr. EDMUNDS. What is it, then?

Mr. POMEROY. In previous debates Senators undertook to raise the question of order. It was tried two or three times, and the Chair always held that it was not a question of order.

Mr. STEWART. I wish to say but a word on this question. The Senator from Kansas is entirely mistaken about the point.

Mr. POMEROY. It is possible that I am, and it is possible that I am not.

Mr. STEWART. It is not true, in point of fact, that this was an entire proposition. Let me state it to the Senate. The Senate passed a resolution to insert in the Constitution these words:

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

The House amended that proposition so that it would read thus:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote and to hold office shall not be denied or abridged by any State— leaving out "the United States"— on account of race, color, nativity, property, creed, or previous condition of servitude; qualifying the right to hold office, as contained in the Senate proposition, by two other conditions, or stating cases in which the States should not deny the right to hold office by putting in two other propositions; qualifying the proposition of the Senate that they should have the right to hold office by a very important' amendment. They did not agree in the qual-. ification upon the right to hold office.- The" right to hold office was a dependent proposition qualified by three additional restrictions. It is not an independent proposition, it is all one sentence; and the reason of the thing, it seems to me, is that where a sentence is an entirety and one part is made dependent upon another, it is impossible for a committee of conference to compare views and comply with the general principle of a free conference, as laid down in Jefferson s Manual, unless they can so modify the sentence as to make it a complete whole and accommodate the difference between the two Houses. This is what Jefferson s Manual says:

"At free conferences the managers discuss, viva voce and freely, and interchange propositions for such modifications as may be made in a parliamentary way and may bring the sense of the two Houses together."

Mr. Bayard obtained the floor.

Mr. POMEROY. If the Senator from Delaware will allow me a moment I desire to read another case which belongs to the cases that I cited. This case is within the memory of almost every Senator, because it occurred in 1867. It was on the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on House bill No. 234, to incorporate the National Capital Insurance Company. The Senate will remember that that extraordinary bill, the only national corporation that ever got through this body, and if we had it before the body now I fancy it never would go through, was finally compromised by a committee of conference. The committee made their report, in which they undertook to reconcile the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and then they changed the text of the bill, and here is the action of the Senate upon "The Senate proceeded to consider the report; "On motion by Mr. Morrill"—

The Senator from Maine, who was chairman of the committee—

"Resolved, That the Senate agree thereto.

"TheSenatethcn proceeded to consider the recommendation of the committee of conference that certain amendments be made to the text of the bill; "The recommendation of the committee was unanimously agreed to.

"So it was

Be Resolved, That the Senate agree to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes ofthetwo Houses on the bill (H. It. No 2o4 to incorporate the National Capital Insurance Company; and that the Senate do also unanimously agree to the amendments to the text of the bill as recommended by the committee of conference."

And the Secretary was directed to notify the House of Representatives to that effect. Thus it will be seen that when a committee of conference have undertaken to amend the text of a bill it has always been done by the Senate agreeing to it unanimously and on that basis alone. That is the point I make in regard to this report.

Mr. BAYARD. I do not propose to enter into the controversy about the question of parliamentary law; but it is right that the Senate, or if not the Senate the country, should understand that the committee of conference of the Senate of the United States have recommended precisely the same proposition in its legal import—no possible alteration can be made— that the Senate voted upon and rejected about two weeks ago. The proposition which came from the House to amend the Constitution originally—House joint resolution No. 402— was met in the Senate by amendments. Those amendments passed in the Senate by a twothirds vote. They were sent to the House of Representatives, and the House of Representatives disagreed to those amendments and asked for a committee of conference. The Senate did not assent to that request, but they receded from their own amendments, and the question came up directly on that which the committee of conference now recommend in legal import. A few words are altered at the end about any citizen or class of citizens, but they have no shadow of effect in altering the meaning of the article. The. committee of conference have, then, presented to the Senate, by way of amendment, precisely the same proposition that, by a vote of 81 against 27, the Senate of the United States rejected, I think, last Tuesday week. I do not know, I cannot tell, what may be the motives which actuated the votes of honorable Senators then. They may change those votes to day but if those votes remain this amendment is lost, because it is the same which has already been rejected. It is for them to explain to their own constituents and explain to the people of the United States the grounds and reasons of the change of a vote given after a full discussion before, after the Senate had receded from all its own amendments, when the direct proposition came before them; and that same amendment is the amendment now proposed to us to be adopted.

Mr. HOWARD. The question is upon concurring in the report of the committee of conference. I shall vote to concur in the report not because this amendment of the Constitution as presented is entirely satisfactory to me, but because I think that it is at present the best that can be obtained. I must content myself, therefore, with the best I can get and run the risk of the future.

I desire to call the attention of Senators to the peculiar wording of this amendment and to its application in the future. 1 had hoped that the amendment which we should adopt at this session of Congress would have the effect to put an end to all farther discussions throughout the country as to the political status of the colored man. 1 think that has really been the great object at which we have all aimed. I wish this amendment accomplished that object. It possibly may do so; possibly it may not. It will be observed from the language of the report now before us that it- does not confer upon the colored man the right to vote. I wish it did; because if it had that effect it would for the future put an end to all controversy respecting his political right as a voter in the United States. As to his right to hold office that, in my judgment, would follow almost as a matter of course. At any rate it would be a subject about which I should have no concern for the future; for a person possessing the right of voting at the polls is inevitably in the end vested with the right to hold office under the Government of which he is a voter. This, however, confers no right to vote. It declares that" the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged," &e., without imparting the right itself.

Suppose that after the reorganization of the Government in the State of South Carolina, for example, the voters in the State shall see fit to divest the colored man there of his right to vote. They certainly have a right to do so, under the reserved rights of the States as one of the States of the Union; and the only mode in which the right to vote could be restored to the colored man in that State would be under the subsequent clause in this amendment giving to Congress power to carry out and effectuate this clause by appropriate legislation, so that Congress would then, if it saw fit, step in and remedy the defect of the State law and restore to the colored man his right to vote. This might be the case in more than one of the States of this Union. It might, indeed, be the case in all States of the Union; and Congress would be called upon to exercise an authority under the second clause of this amendment, aud to impart by direct congressional legislation to the colored man his right to vote. No one can dispute this.

Suppose that after having passed such an act of Congress thus conferring the right upon the colored man a subsequent Congress should see fit to overhaul our action on the subject and take away from the colored man the right to vote. That might be done, because the action of one Congress does not neeessarily bind a subsequent Congress in regard to its action. So that this question of negro suffrage, as it is called, will still be a subject for political discussion and wrangling for perhaps all time to come; and this amendment, as to which its authors fondly hope will put an end to all this di scossion for the future, in my judgment no such filing, but rather holds out to the future the same subject as a theme for political wrangling and discussion; and there is no possibility of foreseeing the time at which the great negro question will be put to rest.-.•;

Thejse are some of the difficulties, and the main difficulties, which I see growing out of this particular form of the amendment.' I hope it will work well; I trust it will; but I cannot refrain irom pointing out to the Senate tbedifi difficulties which I foresee may take place in the future growing out of this same, amendment of the Constitution.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, I under* stood the. Senator from Kansas to raise the question of order whether under parliamentary laW we were entitled to pass upon this question which is now submitted to us in this report! Certainly, if there be anything in the question,- as I think there is, it can be no other than a question of parliamentary, order.

The history of the proposition is this: the Senate passed a joint resolution—which is the' original proposition now before us—and- sent it to the House, declaring that the right of citizens of the United States to vote ancl hold office should not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State by reason of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. I believe I quote the exact language, or substantially, sufficiently for my purpose. Tbei House of Representatives agreed to. that with; two proposals of amendment. The first was to strike out the words "the United States," so as to leave the prohibition applying to the States ia their individual political capacity alone; and second, to add to the enumerated grounds of prohibition three others than those proposed by the Senate—nativity, creed, property. The Senate disagreed to those proposals of amendment, and a conference .was the result.

Now, what were the powers of that conference committee 1 If there is anything that is settled in parliamentary law, if there is anything that is settled in the proprieties of legislative proceedings, it is that there was confided to those gentlemen only the question of discussing the points of disagreement arising between the two Houses. Now, was the question of office holding one of those points of disagreement? No man will say that, because both bodies had voted for it. The points of disagreement were first on striking out the words the United States," which may be set aside as not material to this inquiry; and second, as t modifying or restraining what we had proposed on the subject of the causes of exclusion—raee, color, or previous condition of servitude—and adding further and other causes in respect to which we would deny to the States the power of legislation or political action. These were the only things that were sent to this committee of conference; they were the only subjects which the Senate and House of Representatives were willing or could have been willing to confide to their discretion, because they were the only points and causes of disagreement. Now we find that the committee report that they have agreed to recommend that the House of Representatives recede from both its proposals of amendment and agree to the resolution of the Senate to which it had already agreed, with an alteration of the substance, I may say because I feel it, the life of the text of the resolution.

My friend from Kansas has shown from the Journals of this body that there never has been an instance so far as he has gone in which a committee of conference has attempted to go outside of the subjects of disagreement and to change that which had already been agreed to except where both Houses, dispensing by unanimous consent with all rules of order, have agreed unanimously to make some phraseological change.

Now, what does this propose to do? It proposes to strike out from this constitutional amendment one half of all it contains. It proposes to say, "While we will leave to the States of this Union the power to deny one class or many classes of their citizens the right to be voted for, the right to represent and to protect in a legislative way their own citizens, we will deny to a State- the power of saying that they shal! not choose." If this were a mere question of technicality, if it did not involve a great principle, I certainly should not raise any point 6f order upon it; but feeling, as I did" in committee, thatit wasmerely asserting the shadow while it. wiped out the substance, that it was flying in the face, so far as peace and progress are concerned, of all history and all experience, S. felt obliged to decline to sign this report on the ground, among others, that it had gone entirely beyond any authority that the committee had to treat upon the subjects of disagreement between the two Houses.

But suppose that, as we sometimes do in this body in order to attain what gentlemen may suppose to be a great end, we fly in the face of the law, break down the barriers that parliamentary propriety and the success of good legislation have imposed upon us by our own consent, and disregard the law, where do we find ourselves then on the merits of this proposition? What are the failures that we are attempting to redress by a change in the fundamental law of the nation? What is the grand moving cause that impels us to withdraw from the States of this Union who have hitherto exercised it entire power over the political question of the right of suffrage and the right to hold office? Is it not that in many of these States there are large classes of citizens who are practically ostracised from the Government, and who therefore reside in a community that, while it has the shadow and pretense of republicanism, has none of its reality? Most certainly it is; and therefore you intend to interpose the nation s will, found in the assent of three fourths of the States, to compel a real republicanism and a real democracy in these States; and what are the steps on this report that you propose to take to do it? You propose to take the very steps—I repeat what I said a moment ago on that subject—you propose to take the very steps that all history has demonstrated to be deadly to a republic. To be sure the instances are not frequent, for few peoples have been so wanting in intelligence and in a knowledge of the philosophy of a republican government as ever to institute a distinction between the right of a citizen to participate, if he is to participate in the government at all, entirely; and if you give him the right to have a voice in the government, that voice cannot have any live expression unless it enables him to choose from among his fellow-citizens the man who suits him for his representative, instead of confining him, as this amendment does, to a chosen aristocratic class, saying to a citizen of a free republic, "You have rights of manhood, you have rights of equality, but you shall exercise those rights in choosing some one of us to rule over you instead of some one ofyour fellow-citizens whom you prefer."

There is no instance within my knowledge of history for the last five hundred years in any country where the people have any rights at all of political action where there has been attempted the method that is proposed in this amendment of excluding the mass of the community from exercising the powers of governcrnment in the way of being voted for and representing their fellow-citizens instead of merely having the boon that the plebeians in Rome had to vote for the aristiocratic magistrate selected from among the patricians. Now, sir, do we wish to set up a patrician class in these southern States? Do we wish to try an experiment that has overthrown the most civilized of ancient Governments? It would seem that we did by this amendment. It would seem as if in our eagerness to do something with the Constitution we had forgotten entirely that it was of any consequence to know what we were to do and to what end. Why, sir, we have an illustration before our eyes that has been pressing itself upon our attention for months on this very subject. You have in this nation at this day in one ,of the very. States upon whom this Constitution is to operate an illustration of the result you will come to by adopting an amendment of this kind, an amendment which, containing half of an inseparable, indivisible, and united truth, is in reality a falsehood; and that State is Georgia. You will find, ifr you let the thing ran on, that the example of Georgiaivill be imitated, in all the other States and you will have set up in this Republic a class aristocracy depending not upon intelligence, upon which some philosophers say a distinction may be made—I do not go into it—depending not upon faith: or creed, upon which some enthusiasts suppose a distinction may be made, but depending upon the mere accident of the complexion of a human being, whom you say, as far as you go, is entitled to equal rights and privileges as a citizen of the country.

Now, can you defend that before an intelligent public? Will it be successful with an intelligent public? Are you not making progress backward as fast as you can in the race of life by proposing a proposition of that kind? Are you not giving to the people the mere husk and shell of the feast of political equality to which you invited them, reserving the substance and juices to yourself?

It is repugnant, Mr. President, to all my notions of a free Government; it is repugnant, I know, to all the notions of the people whom I represent as entering into the very framework and heart of any Government that professes to be or can duly be called a republican one. And where is the necessity for taking this half step, as some gentlemen argue it, of getting all you can if you cannot get the rest? Is it to be found, so far as we have yet heard, in any argument of the intrinsic propriety of the thing? Not at all. No Senator has raised his voice to defend the right of any State to say while you give a man the right to vote you shall not permit him to be voted for. I do not know but that we shall hear it yet, though nobody has heard it so far. What is the reason, then? Some vague fear, I suppose, fills the mind of some trembling convert to liberty that his people will not be satisfied to give the negro the right to run against themselves for some office, but they are willing to confer upon him the boon of voting for them. I do not believe in that, sir. As I have said, I believe it to be ruinous to the Government if it is carried out. I believe it to be an outrage upon the good sense and the patriotism of the country; and so believing—though I do not wish to occupy time in stopping its progress if my political friends think it best to pass it—I have felt bound to say so.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, for nearly thirty three years I have at all times and on all occasions, by word and by vote, done what I could against slavery and everything relating to it and connected with it. I have asked always for what was right and taken on all occasions what I could get. I have acted upon the idea that one step taken in the right direction made the next step easier to be taken. I suppose, sir, I must act upon that idea now; and I do so with more sincere regret than ever and with some degree of mortification. In the early part of this session, before the month of December passed away, I had hoped that the majority in Congress would seize the great occasion which was presented, when the hearts, minds, and souls of the people, after having passed through a great struggle, were deeply imbued with the love of liberty and the sense of justice, and we had twenty five State Legislatures in the hands of our friends, and take the responsibility of submitting to the Legislatures a proposition to amend the Constitution so as to secure to the colored citizens of this country the right to vote and be voted for. But day after day, week after week, month after month passed away without action.

Then, sir, came the proposition, I think a very lame and halting one, providing that colored men should have the right to vote, but silent about the rightto hold office. The Senate amended that proposition by a comprehensive amendment, an amendment that covfered more than the black man, for it covered the white man and prohibited distinctions on account of nativity, property, education, or creed. Sir, I have no doubt that -if that amendment could have reached the people it would have been the strongest amendment ever submitted to the American people. Outside of a few localities in New England and on the Pacific coast there could have been no. resistance to it. In the great central States and in the West, and especially in the West, there is not a square mile on which men could ■have stood and made opposition to it.

Sir, it would have swept away any formation that dared to stand against it; but it was rejected in the other House; it was met by opposition from quarters from which I did not, 1 confess, expect it in Congress and out of Congress. It received, I think, very narrow criticisms, inspired more by notions and theories than by a sense of absolute right and justice. If the black man in this country is madeequalwith the white man—and I hope he soon will be— I mean, by the blessing of God, while I live to hope on and to work on to make every white man equal to every other white man. I believe in equality among citizens—equality in the broadest and most comprehensive democratic sense. No man should have rights depending ou the accidents of life.

We passed the amendment of the Judiciary Committee, allowing citizens without distinction of race, or color, or previous condition to vote and to be voted for. That amendment was returned to the House of Representatives" with an amendment like the amendment originally adopted by the Senate, with the exception of the word "education." Under the lead of the Senator from Nevada we referred the matter to a committee of conference, and now the committee of conference bring us this proposition, which is the original report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, with the right to hold office stricken out. Senate proposition and House proposition both gave the right to hold office. Why does the conference commit-' tee strike out a provision agreed to by both Houses?

The Senator from Vermont tells us that we are in favor of giving the right to vote, but will not give the right to hold office. I am going to vote for this proposition without taking any responsibility for it. I am not responsible for this half way proposition. I simply take it at this late hour as the best I can get after having struggled for the right to vote and the right to hold office.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I ask my friend how he knows that this is the best he can get? He can never get anything better if he does not try.

Mr. POMEROY. I hope the Senator will vote with me to disagree to this report and ask for a further conference. I propose to move, as soon as I can get the floor, that the Senate disagree to this report and ask for a further conference.

Mr. WILSON. If there is an opportunity to get the right to hold office I will do it; I take no risk, for I am determined to take what can get if I cannot get all I demand. The Senator from Vermont, however, ought to see that his argument can be used with effect against us in States in supporting the amendment, if it be put in the form he desires. The Senators and members of Congress and newspaper correspondents and newspapers ought to see it.' In the State of Connecticut the first great battle is to be fought, and right in sight of that people are thousands of naturalized citizens that cannot vote unless they hold $134 worth of real estate. What will the enemies of the measure say? They will say, as they have done, "This is only a negro question." If the amendment was as broad as the Senate originally passed it I should like to see the man on the soil of Connecticut who could stand up and fight the proposition. If he did he would fight against the rights not only of the black man, but the rights of thousands of adopted citizens in a neighboring State. Could the Catholic fight against a constitutional provision that secured to men of his faith the right to hold office in spite of the constitution of New Hampshire? Now, for one, if this amendment goes to the people in this form, I protest against any inference that I am not in favor of colored citizens holding office, not in favor of protect* ing adopted citizens, not in favor of protecting men in their equal rights, on account of religious belief, property, or educationalquallfications. I am in favor of protecting citizens against all these qualifications, and X mean, by the blessing of God, by speech and act, to work for the enjoyment of the absolute right of citizens in the States to voteandhold office without regard to race, color, previous condition of servitude, nativity, property, or religious faith.

There is one thing I remember—aud I want Senators to think of this, and if there is a chance to appoint a new committee and get something better, as is indicated by a member of this last committee—I want them to remember that in the constitutional convention of Georgia Mr. Ackerman, one of the ablest men of that State, a lawyer of eminence and high character, proposed that the constitution should provide not only for the black man s voting, but for the black man s holding office. A few timid, conservative, halting, shortsighted Republicans were afraid to meet the people of Georgia on a plain, square, and direct issue, and they got together, consulted, held consultations over it, got scared, and went into the convention; and all the men in that convention, with the exception of twelve, including black men, backed square down.

Mr. EDMUNDS. They thought that was all they could get, I suppose.

Mr. WILSON. They did not try to getmore. They went to the people of the State, talked with a forked tongue, one class of politicians saying that the negro had the right to vote but no right to hold office, and the other class saying that lie had the right to vote and to hold office. They elected quite a number of black men to the Legislature. The black men in their maguauimity and generosity—for there never was a people so magnanimous, so generous, so forbearing, and so good hearted toward those who have been their enemies as the black men of this country—allowed unrepentent and unforgiven traitors to sit in the Legislature with them, and the moment those men got the power they hurled the black men out of the Legislature. There are no Senators sitting here from Georgia on account of that action, and we have passed months and we do not yet see the remedy. Do not tell me, sir, that the right to vote carries with it the right to hold office.^ It does no such thing. If there is nothing said about it the fair inference is that it does, but if there is a provision in a State constitution otherwise silence does not annul or overthrow that constitutional or legal declaration. No man in the world has a right to hold an office. The people have aright to vote, and they have the right to put terms and conditions to the offices that they make.

Mr. Webster said in the constitutional convention of Massachusetts, in 1320, that no man had the right to hold offfee, but the people had a right to define and make the terms and conditions upon which offices should be held. I do not believe in anybody s right to make terms and conditions founded on race or color that cannot be overcome; but many of the States have done it, and silence will not overthrow what they have done. I believe, however, that if the black men have the right to vote they and their friends in the struggle of the future will achieve the rest. Therefore I am willing now to give them the right to vote if I cannot get for them the right to be voted for. I will take that if I cannot get any more. The adoptiou of the amendment will not close the question, as I had hoped we should be able to do within the next few months, for I have no doubt if we submit the broad, square proposi tion to the people of this country before the 1st day of January next we shall have a constitutional amendment adopted which will cover the whole grouud, and the great struggle will be closed-, and closed forever.

I want to see the rights of the negro secured, for I want to see this negro question out of the politics of the country. I want to see everybody s .rights absolutely secured; and then let us sit down here and see to it that, the constitutions and laws are enforced, that men practically have their .rights,- and go to work and build up this nation and make it what it ought to be—the .foremost nation of the world. That is our wor^.• But here we have .passed through ten years of' struggle; we have had to gather every triumph of human rights step by step, a; little at a time; but by the blessing of God the. final fruition will come some time, and we will' work on for that end. If I cannot get all, I will take a part.■

Now, if there is a chance for a new conference committee, I am for it; if not, I am for adopting this report. I cannot take the responsibility of defeating this amendment that secures suffrage if it does not secure the right to hold office to citizens without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude..

Mr. POMEROY. I move that the Senate disagree "to the report of the committee and ask for a further conference with the House of Representatives.

Mr. STEWART. I rise to a point of order. The motion to concur is first in order, and I wish to say to the Senate

Mr. POMEROY. Let us have the point of order submitted to the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first question is on concurring in the report.

Mr. STEWART. My motion to concur is pending, and that has precedence.

Mr. POMEROY. The question before the Senate on the report of the committee of conference is, of course, to concur with the report; but pending that question I apprehend the Senate have aright, before deciding whether to concur or not, to recommit the bill to the same committee or to disagree and ask for a further conference. If this committee desire it I am willing to change the* motion so as to move to recommit the subject to the same committee; but if they do not desire that, I want a vote on the question whether we shall have a further conference.

Mr. CONKLING. Allow rae to suggest to the honorable Senator that there can be no object in taking a vote on a motion to disagree. It is simply transposing the motions. The motion as it now stands is to concur. If that motion is disagreed to, of course we do not agree to the report, and then itwillbe in order to move for a further committee of conference. I suggest to the Senator further that as a twothirds vote is necessary I o concur, he is stronger on the proposition as it now stands than he would be if he puts an affirmative question on disagreeing; because then he must get at least a majority, whereas if the present motion fails by a tie the question will be decided as he wants it decided.

Mr. POMEROY. The Senate has just listened to the remarks of the Senator from Massachusetts, in which he said that if he cannotget anything better he will vote forthe proposition of the committee of conference in its present form, but he wants first to see if he cannot amend it and get it in a better shape.

Mr. CONKLING. But the Senator from Massachusetts would not be more likely to vote for a motion to disagree than he would be to vote to disagree on the present motion. The vote is the same; the difference is merely in the form of putting it.

Mr. POMEROY. No; there are several Senators who would not feel at liberty to defeat this measure who would vote to send it to a new committee.

Mr. CONKLING. That is a different motion if the Senator moves for another committee of conference; but his proposition, as I understand it, was to disagree to this report. That is the present motion put the other way.

Mr. POMEROY. 1 move to disagree to this present, repoj t in order to refer it to a new committee, not for the sake of defeating the measure by any means-

Mr. CONKLING- If. theSenatorfrom Kansas wishes to move to recommit this report to, the present committee, t i t J submit to him, might- he a useful motion and mightieuable Senators like the Senator from Massachusetts to try. the experiment .they, i desire; y but if he wisli s to n3 move disagree with a, view to commit it to another committee, then! submit to hjiin .that this present motion presents that tprecise question, because, should the Senate disagree to tl e report it will, of course be in order to ask for another conference.

Mr. CONNEgS.! rise to calfattention to the fact that th? Chair has decided the motion of the Senator from Kansas to be out of order; and if I am right, of course the proceedings which are Being taken a e out of Order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is a very plain one 1 It is moved that the Senate concur inthe" report of the committee of conference.- That motion is first to be put, according to the order laid down in tlio rules. If that fails, of course the Senate dissjgre es

J3r. POMEROY. Mr. President-

Mr. CONNESS. I rise to ask if the Chair decides that the motion of the Senator from Kansas is out of order at this time?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is out of order, though, it does not differ from the other. The other motion, rpast he put first, but the same result is reach d

Mr. CONNESS. Both motions cannot he pending at once.„,-

Mr. POMEROY. The reason I preferred the form I suggested was that there are several Senators who do not feel at liberty to vote to disagree to this report if the vote is a final one, but who want to make every earnest, honest effort to get a better report.

Mr. -CONKLING. Then, why not move to recommit it? That will enable them to try that.

Mr. POMEROY. There are several Senators who desire to have a new committee of conference appointed.

Mr. CONKLING. Then, they must disagree to this report.

Mr. POMEROY. With the understanding that if we disagree we can have a new committee of conference, I shall vote to disagree.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore If the Senate refuse to agree they disagree, and all the consequences of that follow.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Iwishtomake an inquiry of the Chair ou a question of order. Suppose we do not, concur in this report of the committee of conference, „3s the measure thereby defeated or are we then at liberty to ask' for another conference?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Another conference can be asked for.

Mr. MORTON. I shall probably vote for this report made by the committee of conference, because I think I cannot do any better, for the reason that the time within which to act is so short. Time is important, and I am afraid if this matter is referred to another committee of conference the resolution uiay be lost altogether. I go upon the principle of taking half a loaf when I cannot get a whole one; but nevertheless I want to say that it is pretty hard to accept the half loaf when a whole one or almost a whole one has been offered to us and has been rejected by the committeeof conference. I was somewhat surprised to find that this committee should report to us a proposition that has been rejected by every vote ot the Senate from the time we, first commenced voting upon it. This proposition has been rejected by every vote from first to last; and yet the Senate is now required to slunk through and to cut this pretty figure by the committee of conference.

The first proposition sent over by the House of Representatives was in subst uce that which, the committee of conference have agreed upon, that the right to vote should not be denied by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servit ude We rejected that, and we gent to ttre House of Representatives in lieu of it a proposition declaring that there should be no discriminations in any State among the citizens of the United States? in the exercise of the elective franchise or in the right to hold office in any State on account of race, color, nativity, education, or creed.

The House of Representatives rejected that and sent us back substantially their first proposition. We took a Vote upon that, and we rejected it by a vote of 31 to 27, after very full discussion. That was the second time it had been done in substance. We then sent back to the House the following proposition:

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

The House refused to receive that in part, but sent it back with the following alterations: Strike out the words" United States" and insert after the word" color" the words" nativity, property, or creed."

The House had come exactly to our first proposition which we had sent to them, with the single exception of the word "education," and the House had agreed with us fully on the proposition that the right to vote or to hold office shall not be denied by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. So far the two Houses were agreed; so far they had concurred, and the points upon which they disagreed were simply the insertion of the words "nativity, property, creed," and the striking out of the words" the United States." They had agreed upon everything else, and this was the only matter that could properly be submitted to the committee of conference. They had no right to go behind and consider that in regard to which the two Houses had agreed and to make for us anew proposition that had been rejected by the Senate by every vote that had been taken; but they have done it. The Senate has been backed down from all its votes and has been now brought to the first proposition sent to the Senate by the House.

Mr. President, I think this action on the part of the committee of conference was unwise.

Mr. CONKLING. AUowme to ask the honorable Senator a question?

Mr. MORTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. CONKLING. Shall we understand him to affirm that the managers on the part of the Senate in a conference have no right, using his expression, to agree to any item in a bill which the Senate has previously rejected?

Mr. MORTON. No, sir; I did not make that assertion, but the assertion I do make is that in so far as the two Houses of Congress have concurred a committee of conference has no right to take back that concurrence and give them a new proposition.

Mr. STEWART. We have not done it.

Mr. MORTON. They have done it exactly. The two Houses of Congress had concurred thus far, that no State shall deny the right to vote or to hold office on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. So far they had fully concurred; they had come together: and they had disagreed only upon inserting the words "nativity, property, creed," and striking out "the United States," and it was that disagreement that this committee had a right to consider, and that only. Of course the committee intended no such thing; but it was hardly respectful to the Senate to report here a proposition that had been rejected by every vote of the Senate and to disregard that upon which the two Houses had agreed.

I may be compelled to take this proposition just as it is because at this late hour of the session if I do not take it I may not get anything; but I must say that I dislike very much to be forced by a committee of conference to take a proposition that has been so uniformly rejected by this body.

Mr. President, as the proposition came to us from the House, with the exception of the single word" education," it was just what we sent to the House some week or ten days ago. The House had 'substantially come to 6nr ground, and when they got there we deserted from our ground. There may have been reasons for that desertion, but they have notbeen There are some other elements connected with the suffrage question besides that of color, and it was proper for ns to say in the Constitution, when we came to amend it upon this subject, that the right to vote should not be denied to any citizen of the United States on account of his nativity. It is a great democratic principle that we recognize in our hearts; and when we came to amend the Constitution it was proper to put it in.- Sir, it would appeal strongly to the hearts of a large part of the population of this country, and was proper as a safeguard against any future Know Noth ing excitements or movements.

Then, there was that other word" property the provision that the right to vote should not be denied on account of a want of property. That appeals to a strong democratic sentiment; it is the establishment of a republican principle that most of us recognize; and when we come to amend the Constitution on this subject it is properto putthat principle in. It appeals to a strong republican- sentiment that is rife throughout the whole nation. And it was proper to say, too, as another essential republican principle, that the right to vote and to hold office should not be denied on account of religious faith or creed. Do we not recognize that as being a true and sound principle? What was the objection to putting that in? We had agreed to it; the House had agreed to it, and yet the committee report to us a proposition rejecting it. Sir, as a question of public sentiment and favor the proposition as it came back to us substantially from the House the last time would be far stronger before the people than the simple one of confining it to color or race, and then we are liable to this charge which will now be made and the force of it we can hardly avoid; it will be said that we are willing that the negroes shall vote provided they vote for white men, but the offices but" must be reserved for white men. We can say, of course, that we do not mean that; but they will come back on us and say," When the proposition was made in the Senate, and after it had been concurred in by both Houses, that the words' to hold office' should be put in, why did you strike them out?’’ What answer have we to make?

As I said before, my position is peculiar. I will take what I can get and even be thankful for that. But, sir, to have the proposition in its length and breadth, as we desire it, rejected after both Houses had substantially agreed to it seems to me to be more than we bargained for when we appointed the conference committee, and I will never agree hereafter to submit any important proposition of this kind to a conference committee.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, it seems to me that the argument of the Senator from Indiana demonstrates that a constitutional amendment ought never to go to a conference committee. The subject is too important. The two Houses should act independently, each House should act for itself on the question until they come to an agreement by a discussion of the proposition; but now what do we see? There are many gentlemen here who are entirely dissatisfied with this proposition who yet say that they may feel constrained to vote for this for fear they can get nothing else. It is not because their judgments approve it, but there is a kind of constraint that is brought to bear on them to force this measure through the Senate.

Without taking up time, for I have no disposition to waste the time of the Senate, I wish to refer to one thing. The ink that wrote the constitutional amendment which has already been adopted, which has in a certain sense been forced on the people of the South, as I may say, by the reconstruction policy adopted there, is hardly yet dry upon your statute books and that constitutional amendment which has been adopted, in principle and as a fundamental principle of the party in power and holding the control in Congress, recognized it as one of the essential rights of the States, each for itself, to determine the right of suffrage; and the only inducement held out by that proposition to the States of the South to induce them to extend the suffrage to the colored men of the South was to extend the amount of their representation in the Congress of the United States hy counting in the* enumeration those persons who had lately been emancipated.

That left the question where it ought to be left. Each State should judge for itself of the qualifications of its own electors, for in different States with different populations a uniform rule of suffrage may not be the best rule of suffrage throughout the United States. Take California and the Pacific coast, which in a very few years will have not only hundreds of thousands but perhaps millions of Chinese and other Asiatics, and it may not be wise to put the government of those States into their hands. You are about to reorganize or recast your naturalization laws. Bills are pending on that 'subject. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] has a bill, proposed by him, to strike the word "white" out of the naturalization laws, to extend all the benefits of naturalization to the Chinese as well as to men of European descent, and with the passage of these bills citizenship will be conferred upon this vast population to be poured into those States from Asia.