February 26, 1869

Now, is it wise for us to put the governments of the Pacific States into the hands of the Asiatic population? Is it not better that we leave the political power in those States where we find it, in the hands of our own people and our own race, who can best judge when this right of citizenship shall be extended to the Chinese? Sir, is it wise after all for the party now in power to be dissatisfied with what they have just done, to be dissatisfied with the constitutional amendment which they have taken such pains to force upon the people of the South, and by which they give each State the power to regulate the question of suffrage for itself?

Mr. President, I shall not go over this ground; I have trodden it before, and all the considerations which ever pressed upon my judgment press upon me now to appeal to gentlemen who have the majority, who control the action of this body by a majority of four fifths, to let this amendment go and leave to the States something of the high prerogative which belonged to them in the beginning and has ever belonged to them, and which is essential to their existence as independent and republican States, to judge each State for itself as to who and what citizens shall exercise the right of suffrage within their borders.

Mr. SAWYER.' Mr. President, I suppose rather than vote finally against this amendment I shall vote for concurrence in the report of the committee of conference; but before doing it I wish distinctly to place before Senators the view of the case which occurs to those who represent the recently reconstructed States. We have for two years been subject to the charge in those States that the Republican party of the northern States put the negro on one platform in the loyal States and upon another platform in the lately disloyal States. We have been constantly called upon to repel this charge of a want of impartiality in the treatment toward the negro in the several sections of the country. We have been constantly asserting that this could not properly be laid at the feet of the National Republican party, but that it was on account of some few weak kneed Republicans, men who did not dare to stand up for the right in the full Republican faith and doctrine in the several States, and that wherever the question was fairly submitted to the national Republican party it would be decided in favor of the equal position of the negro with the white man before the law.

Now, Mr. President, we are asked to accept an amendment of the Constitution which pleads guilty to the charge; we are asked to go back to our people and say to them that the national Republican party, as represented in Congress, acknowledges that the charges which have been made by the late unrepentant rebels against that party are true. Now, I do not know that I shall not vote for this report rather than to lose any and all propositions on this subject; but I believe that in some of the States which have been recently reconstructed the Legislatures, strongly Republican as they are, will hesitate before they adopt this amendment. I believe there is quite as much risk of its being lost in a number of those States as there is in its being lost in an equal number of northern States if you put into the proposition the right to hold office.

You may say, and Senators on this floor do say, that the right to vote involves the right to hold office. I say the discussions on this floor, and the private opinions of Senators as expressed in debate, show that that proposition is denied; and I put it to the individual conscience of each Senator on this floor whether he is not wanting in perfect clearness about that fact. We know certainly that the gentlemen of the Democratic party on this floor do not entertain this view. We believe that there are many Republican Senators on the floor who do not entertain this view. At any rate it will go before the country that a proposition to hold office has been suggested to form part of this amendment and that it has been deliberately voted down. If it means nothing why vote it down? If the right to vote carries with it the right to hold office, Iaskyou if to day in Georgia the right to hold office is recognized by the Republican party?

1 hold, Mr. President, that if we are to run a risk in this matter of losing this amendment because there are some States which will not adopt the proposition to hold office, it is better to run the risk in the direction of the right. Whenever it is necessary to run a risk in a matter of this sort, let us run it for the right and not for the wrong; and I appeal again to the conscience of every Senator on this floor on the Republican side of the House whether he does not believe that the right belongs to every citizen of the United States to carry a vote and to hold office if it belongs to any other man? Is not that the ground work of the action of the Republican party in the past? And ha e we not preached that doctrine among ourselves? Have we not preached it to the people? And now when we come to propose a constitutional amendment shall we halt and stop short of what we believe is right and what every one of us has been preaching? I submit there is more danger of losing this proposition, of losing the confirmation of the amendment on this account if we have it half right than if we have it wholly right.

Now, the right to vote, as it seems to me, will inevitably be given to the colored men in the various States by—I do not like to use the term—the inexorable logic of events in the next five years. It cannot be refused. It will corneas a matter of course in the States. If, therefore, the proposition to amend the Constitution is confined simply to the right to vote, it is a matter of not so much consequence as has been attached to it. But if, on the other hand, the Republican party desire to put fairly and squarely before the nation the platform upon which they have professed to stand in the past, the platform upon which we claimed in the South that they did stand upon, true to their professions and their principles they will make a constitutional amendment which is right and submit it to the people; and if the people vote it down let us wait until the public sentiment gets up to the right point.

This is the view which we take of it in the southern States. I do not wish to put my individual opinion—I presume there is no Senator from the lately reconstructed States who would desire to put his opinion—against the opinion of the wise men on this floor and defeat this amendment if they show a unanimity of opinion upon it; but when we see that there is a great division between those men who have been tried in the party and in the public councils for many years I submit we may be right. If I vote for this proposition, if I vote to concur in this report of the committee of conference, I do it with great reluctance, I do it with great hesitation, and I do it because I am advised that we must have something, and that this is the best we can

Mr. STEWART. I have refrained during this discussion from occupying time. I will not now occupy time, and I ask the friends of the proposition not to occupy time; but I must submit a few considerations to the Senate; I must make a few remarks" just now upon the condition of the ease as it has arisen.

It is said that if you cannot have it right do not have it at all. The question of what is right I suppose must be determined by the majority of the two Houses. There are no two Senators who agree as to exactly the thing which should be done. The Senator from Kansas has been pressing his motion for female suffrage; the Senator from Vermont wants to have office holding included; the Senator from Massachusetts wants to have nativity and creed inserted. Neither of these concurs with the other; one wants a t crossed this way, and another wants an i dotted that way; and thus it is that we lose time discussing little things that do not enter into the main question.

I wish to say right here that the question of suffrage is an important question. Two years ago about this time we had the question of suffrage in the southern States before the Senate; and I recollect what a trying time that was. A military bill came in here which handed the southern States over to the military; it was supported by the committee of fifteen; it passed the House; it was being pressed in the Senate; and I rose then and said it was necessary that there should be some voting in the South; that the ballot was the solution of this whole question, and that I would not support any proposition that did not require some voting to be done. Friends came to me and said," What! will you break with the Republican party?" I told them no, I will stay with the Republican party; but the philosophy of the republican theory is that all men shall have the ballot. We had a caucus; it resulted in the military reconstruction bill upon which those States were reconstructed, and by which and through which the Senators from South Carolina, who are here to day boast of a constituency that is more radical than Massachusetts. They think they are safe. But you are not safe everywhere; you are not safe in Georgia. That has been alluded to. You say it is because they have denied negroes the right to hold office that you are not safe in Georgia. It is not the reason. The reason is that their right to vote is in danger. If they can retain the ballot in Georgia they will force the power that exists there to give them the right to hold office. They hold the ballot in Georgia by a very slender tenure. You let Georgia come inhere as she now is and the negro in Georgia will not have the ballot three weeks. Look at the practical example in Tennessee. The friends of equal rights gave the ballot there to the negro

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

Mr. STEWART. Not just now. Let me finish the sentence. The friends of equal rights in Tennessee gave the negro the ballot. The Democrats commenced at once to say to them: You are good enough to vote; but not good enough to hold office." The Republican party then immediately in the Legislature—if I recollect rightly .the Legislature had the power to amend the constitution—gave them the right to hold office; and that will be the result everywhere where the ballot is given. The Senator from South Carolina says that in five years the logic of events will bring this about. Sir, if we fail now, it never will be brought about. The States by individual action will not do it in his day or mine. .You give the negroes in Maryland the ballot and they, will dem md their other rights, as they did in Tennessee, Give it to them in Kentucky and Delaware, and. they will demand and obtain all their rights. The ballot is the mainspring; the ballot is power; the ballot is the dispenser of office. I wanted to insert the right to hold office in this proposition; but if I cannot give the poor and the downtrodden the right to hold offiee, I will give them the power to say who shall hold office and dispense office; and their natural selfishness will ijapel them to demand their full rights.

Mr. President, I have labored hard .for this constitutional amendment. I have been earnest in my efforts to obtain it. I have not been a stickler for words, I have been willing tcj take any proposition that seemed likely to succeed whether it was a House proposition oj a Senate proposition I was notanxious to be the author of the words, I accepted every proposition that was brought forward so long as there was any prospect of its success. But it. is now so late inthe session that if this proposition cannot be adopted none can be in my judgment. There is not time for another conference and another action of the House and Senate upon it. The appropriation bills are not disposed of. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations notifies me that he is about to antagonize his bill against this measure, and it must inevitably go. Every Senator must see that there is not time for further action.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And no chance at the next session.

Mr. STEWART. And no chance at the next session? Your Legislatures are waiting now, ready to act. Send it to another conference and the whole thing is lost.

Mr, FRELINGHUYSEN. There will be no chance at the next session, because there will not be a two thirds vote there for it.

Mr. STEWART. And. there must be two thirds in the other House. The proposition on your table received in the other House 143 votes to 43 votes, and it will receive in this body the entire Republican vote, as I understand, when they believe that nothing else can be obtained. I have labored here to. obtain something else. I .have labored to have the right to hold office inserted in the amendment, because I was willing to do the whole right; but that is impossible, and now I want to secure to all men the right to protect themselves with the ballot. The ballot has shown that it has potent effects in bringing loyal Senators to this Hall from the South. It has shown that it had potent effect in the South in reorganizing that country. It was the only expedient that could be substituted for the military power there; and it has worked better than we had any reason to anticipate. Now, I say, give to all men, regardless of race or color, the ballot, and they will secure to themselves all other rights. I appeal to the friends of the measure to vote for concurrence in the report of the committee. It is the only hope I have, I am willing to work night and day for any other proposition that shall be more acceptable to gentlemen until the end of the session; but I have no hope that we can go through the various stages of another proposition with, any chance of success.

Mr. SAWYER. I should like to ask the Senator now the question which I rose to ask him before, and that is, what effect he thinks the passage of this amendment will have in the very case which he has cited in the State of Georgia? We go back to the people of Georgia and tell them that we indorse the precise position which the white members of the Legislature have taken; that is to say, that there is a question whether the negro can hold office or not.

Mr. STEWART. It will have this much effect: it will place in the hand of the black man of Georgia a rod of power before which all politicians quail. It will put into his hands a rod of power by which he can hold what position he has until there can be some further reconstruction to stay the hand of the oppress1 ive rebel there, which is most outrageous.•■

Mr. GRIMES. They have got that now.

Mr. STEWART. How long will they have it?

Mr. DAVIS. The honorable Senator from Nevada, who has just takea his seat has made two appeals to his party that must bring them up to the work; they cannot escape it. In the first place, he says that unless the proposed amendment is passed now some of the Legislatures of the States will go out of office and existence and new Legislatures will have to be elected, and therefore the amendment cannot be passed. The honorable Senator from New Jersey gives him another item, which my honorable fifiend seizes upon in the fervor of the moment and uses with a1 great deal of force to bring his frieads in this Chamber up to the work. He says th«fc iw the next Congress there will not be two thirds, of1 the House who will be such Republicans as to be willing to pass this amendment. That presents the- party in such a strait that it must upon compulsion do the work now. If the Legislatureshereafter to be elected are against or will be against the proposed amendment, as these two ablelea leaders of the party in the Senate concede, what would become of the party if itdid not pass this fifteenth amendment i m mediately an d have all the political benefit which it is capable of giving? What would become of the party, too, if the amendment should now fall to the ground and it should be reproduced in the House on or after the 4th ot March and it shall be found that the Republicans have not a majority of two thirds of the House to pass it?

But the case would not -be so desperate as the honorable Senator stated. The party in the House would only have to resort to its ordinary tactics, and the tactics that have been practiced in this body also. They would only have to expel a lot of the Democratic members from the two Houses to give them the requisite majority of two thirds, and they would be in full possession again. They would only have to send back Mr. Stockton, from the State of New Jersey, and put in his stead his competitor when he was recently elected. They would only have to contest the seats of a couple of members from the State of Kentucky and a few members from other States and expel them from their seats, and then, instead of the people, the Republicans of the House elect their successors and in that way they would put themselves in complete possession of two thirds of both Houses of Congress. I present this view to comfort my honorable friend from Nevada and also the honorable Senator from New Jersey, and to assure them that their case is not so desperate as it seems to be and is entirely within the reach of the medicines that they have heretofore applied to similar conditions both in the House and in the Senate. [Laughter.]

One word upon this amendment. I concede myself, as was assumed so truly and so ardently by my honorable friend from Nevada, that the power to vote is a higher and more effective power than the power to hold office. A class of people who should be necessitated to be deprived of one of those rights for their own efficiency, their own power to protect and defend themselves against oppression, in myjudgment had better want the power to hold office than the power to ^nte. I make another concession in connection with this proposition: that the power to vote in my judgment implies the power to hold office; that is to say, it does not necessarily do so under the provision of this amendment, but a class of people who are entitled to vote and to whom by principles of right and good policy the right to vote ought to be conceded ought to have at the same time the concession of the right to hold office. If it was my principle that the negro was a proper depositary of the right of suffrage I would unhesitatingly vote in favor of extending the proposition and giving him the right to hold office, which I deem to be a right of less force and efficiency than the right to vote.

But, Mr. President, I deny that the negro has the proper capacity to exercise this right, and for that reason I vote inflexibly against— I oppose in every form that I can; I have from -the beginning, and I will to the end—not restoring, but to giving to him irt the first instance the right to either vote ortohold office. I deny that is a restoration of the right to the negro. The negro in the State of Kentucky never had the right to vote. He cannot be restored to that which he never possessed. He may have this right given to him as an entirely new right, but the idea, of restoring to the negro the right to vote is all a delusion; there is no truth in it. I will not concede the right of the negro to hold office so far as my voice is involved because the majority of Congress: choose to confer upon him the right to vote. I hold that lie is incapable of a wise and safe exereise of either of those rights in our Government. The denial of those rights is not in conflict with natural right, because there is no natural right to vote or to hold office in any Government. I would not concede to. him either of those rights, because I believe that they would prove in their exercise mischievous to the well being of society at large, white and black, and not less to the negro population than to the white population.

Mr. President, it is nothing but a fortti of demagogery to say that every man is entitled by nature to the right to hold office or to vote. Those are artificial rights. They are creatures of an artificial state and law of society. They do not exist as natural rights. They ought not to exist as universal rights, because the intelligence, the circumstances, and the condition of all nations differ. It might be very safe and proper in one community to give the whole political power to all the people, and it might be very unsafe in another nation and another community to give this right to the whole population. Sir, this is a truth in relation to all statesmanship and to the exercise of power by wise lawgivers: the political power of a country ought to be deposited where its exercise would produce the greatest good to all the people.

Gentlemen concede that idiots and lunatics have not either a natural or an artificial right to vote or to hold office. I ask them how they can give this right to a race of men who throughout their whole history, in every country and condition in which they have ever been placed, have demonstrated their utter inability for selfgovernment.

Take the empire of Russia, with its eighty or one hundred million people, the most of them barbarians, ignorant, having no knowledge of autonomy or of the exercise of political power necessary to take care of such a vast community of people, would it not be preposterous and absurd in the highest degree to give to the population of that extensive and powerful empire the right to vote and the right to hold office?

Sir, look at the French. They have within the last century made repeated efforts at selfgovernment. They commenced their great effort in 1789. They eventually became almost a democracy; and from that they degenerated into an oligarchy of demagogues. They proved their utter inability to exercise this right wisely and safely for the French people. The consequence was that the new system failed; it fell into ruin and anarchy and was succeeded by the first consulate and then by the empire. Napoleon was, however, deposed from his throne and Louis XVIII was called back to the throne of his fathers. He died and was succeeded by his brother, Charles X. Almost on a cloudless day a popular storm arose among the French people and drove Charles from his throne; and that introduced La Fayette and other republicans. They established a republic and the republic lasted but a day comparitively. It passed away because of the utter inability of the French people to perform the great and difficult office of self government either in person or by choosing wise and safe representatives to exercise this the greatest power in society. The consequence was that the republic yielded and Louis Philippe wag driven from his throne; the third Napoleon was called back to take the position of power and of almost absolute government which his great uncle had exercised in France; not for the liberty, but the glory and power and grandeur of the French people. The idea that the right of self government the right to vote and hold office, could at this day be conferred upon the French people without those salutary and wholesome restraints which the ever present and watchful power of Louis Napoleon exercises over that people is as unsound a proposition as could be made in relation to politics and government.

Sir, the right to vote is not a natural right,; the right to hold office is not a natural right'. There oUght not to be in any country, not excepting our own, a universal right, without regard to race or color, either to vote or tf> hold office. The problem has long since been solved, and it is settled now beyond reasonable controversy, that the people universally, without regard to race or color or condition of intelligence, are not capable of self government; they cannot establish and maintain a uniform, well adjusted settled government'. The universal, race of mankind, whether iu our own country or elsewhere, is wholly incompetent to the performance of such a great and important work as that. It is nothing but the sheerest deniagogism to deny the truth of that position. It is proved by all history; it is proved by philosophy; it is proved to the satisfaction of every reading and reflecting man. In our country the only remaining problem is, not whether the white man and the negro and the Indian and the Mongolian and the Malay and all other races that may choose to come from the four quarters of the globe to the United States are capable of sell government or not. That is no longer a problem. Tlie proposition when stated stands refuted by the truth of all experience and all history. Sir, the only remaining problem in our country, and it is a very doubtful one, is whether the white man is capable of self government and it is a problem that has not yet been established. I concede that the yearnings for liberty are irrepressible. They spring eternal in the human heart. No tyrant, no military power, no despotism can ever stifle it forever. It will break out and gather strength and heat and energy until it heaves off despotism of every form; but when the despotism is heaved off the work of self government then begins', and it is a work a hundred times more difficult than to overthrow the despotism. Th en comes the great question, of such momentous interest to the human family all over the earth, is the white race itself capable of self government? It has not demonstrated the truth of that proposition to my mind.

When our fathers began their experiment of self government it was under such favorable auspices, with so much of intelligence and virtue and after all the lessons of tyranny and oppression had been imparted to them, that I had indulged in the young dream and the conviction that our liberties had been established upon a perpetual and ever enduring foundation. I have given up that fond delusion wjth the greatest reluctance. I do not believe that our people have yet demonstrated their ability to perpetuate the free institutions which have been handed down to them by the generation that formed them. It was a wiser, a nobler, and a more virtuous race that formed them and bequeathed them to us. Upon us has been devolved, if possible, a still more difficult task. and that is to preserve the heritage of liberty which was handed down to us by Washington and Franklin and Madison and their compeers. I believe that ail of it is now in peril, that all qf it is now in the most imminent danger. I believe that it is not only possible but very probable that within the next twenty years it may be overthrown. But when it is overthrown the people will never be satisfied tt> lose their natural, indestructible right and desire of self government they will still make a contest to regain it, and I begin to believe that the history and the destiny of man, even of the white man, is to make never ending efforts after self government, and never to be able to exercise it for any considerable period of time with wisdom and with firmness enough to maintain it.

With this view of the subject I should be false to my reason, to my convictions of the best interests of my country, and of all my country, white and black, if I could be induced to share the government of this country with the negro. I am so thoroughly convinced of his utter inability to take part in this great business of governing our country and that his sharing it would only introduce confusion, disorder, and great mischief, as well to himself as to the white man—it is that which has induced and will continue to induce me to vote always and inflexibly against it.

Mr. President, I believe, and I lay down this conclusion: in a country like ours, as populous as it will be in a few years, having such a variety of race, of natural productions" of interests, such diversity of opinion, religious, moral, and political, the people are too various in their interests, in their intelligence, in their characteristics, ever to be ruled by one central Government unless that central Government becomes a despotism. It maybe the Government of a party; it will still be a despotism, and it must necessarily be so. It may be the Government of a faction; it will still be a despotism. It may be the Government of one man; and then it would be the Government of an absolute monarchy sustained by the bayonet and military power as the other forms of governmentwould also have to be sustained. Sir, the wise men who framed our system of Federal Government and State governments understood their work. They were masters in the art and science of government and selfgovernment. They knew what they were doing; They aimed to establish for this people both strength and liberty; strength by the establishment of a Federal Government to defend them against all foreign countries; strength by the establishment of a Federal Government to repress internal depredations and wars among the States; strength to maintain the just, limited, and wholesome powers delegated to the Government of the United States by the Constitution; but they knew at the same time that all the powers and all the rights of the States which have not been delegated by express language in the Constitution to the General Government it was necessary to maintain in order to perpetuate liberty. So, sir, the strength of our country is in its General Government and in the rights and powers and sovereignty delegated by the Constitution to that General Government; the liberty, the happiness, the peace of the people depend mainly upon the maintenance of the State governments and that sovereignty and those rights and powers which the States possess and which do not belong to the Federal Government or were not delegated by the Constitution to that Government.

Mr. President, as I said when speaking on the subject of this amendment when it was before the Senate on aformeroccasion, whenever the General Government assumes to exercise the power, and it is conceded to the General Government, acting under the form of an amendment to the Constitution or in any other form, to go into all the States and determine who shall vote in those States it implies the power to determine who shall not vote. The power of admission implies the existence of a power of exclusion. The one right can be exercised as legitimately as the other. The faction that admits all to day may be succeeded by another faction next year or in the next decade who would want to exclude a portion by classes of those who had been admitted to the right of suffrage. So of the power to hold office. The power to- decide who shall vote and who shall not vote and the power to decide who shall hold office and- vrfio shall not hold office is the essential power in all Governments. I defy any Senator or gentleman to controvert that position. The power ifr a State that has the right to determine who shall vote in the election of all officers—because now in all the States all officers are elected—and who shall not vote, and has at the same time the power to decide who shall hold office and who shall not hold office, exercises allthe essential powers of government.

Sir, this attempt at this time in the form of amending the Constitution of the United States is simply an exercise of the power to revolutionize the Government. The existence of th§ State governments in our system of mixed State and Federal governments is as essential to the system as that of the Federal Governs ment itself. I ask gentlemen who have -the right to form a State government?' Who but the people of the States? What power on earth can legitimately enter upon the work of forming or remodeling in their essential characters and principles the State governments except the people of the States? That is the inherent, reserved power of the people of the States. It is one that they never conceded by ingrafting upon the Consitution the power to amend it. If it had been specified in the Constitution that the power of amendment could ever have assumed a shape and would ever have been attempted to be exercised as is now attempted in the two Houses of Congress it would at once have -dissolved the convention and it never would have formed a Government with any such practical principle in it.

Sir, this is simply an act of revolution. The veil of amendment that is sought to be thrown over it is too thin. It is revolting, it is absurd, and entirely usurping in its nature. This is a simple proposition to establish in the General Government a power supreme over the governments of the States, and that can at its pleas1 ure, in any' form that a majority of the two Houses of Congress may choose, exercise the power of amendment to revolutionize our system of General and State governments, to abdlish our State governments, to bring those State governments to the feet of a tyrannical and despotic faction in the two Houses of Congress. That is now the position of things. This is no amendment. No man who understands the principles of our Constitution and our complicated system of blended governments would ever hazard his judgment and his knowledge of the principles of that system of government by asserting that this power existed under the Constitution in virtue of the restricted and qualified right and power that Congress has to propose amendments to the Constitution. No, sir; it is a bald, naked attempt to usurp power and to bring all tjie sovereign and reserved powers of the States to the feet of a tyrannical and despotic faction in Congress. That is the whole of it. That is the undisguised proposition; and an intelligent and virtuous Supreme Court, if the question could be brought before them and they would entertain jurisdiction of it, would so decide.

Now, Mr. President, utterly denying the power and right of Congress to revolutionize our mixed system of government, convinced as I am of the eminent impolicy of it and the mischief, wrong, oppression, and ruin it would bring upon the States by the overthrow of their governments, and the general destruction in which it would involve all the principles of the Constitution, upon these considerations I have taken ground against all these efforts of Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution that are in revolution of the essential nature and principles of our Government; and I intend to occupy that position. These are the reasons that have brought me up reluctantly on every occasion when our Government arid its great principles were assailed in frank and open and earnest opposition to all such attempts. If any party with whom I liave been associated in politics were to propose the same innovation, the same amendment, the. same exercise of usurped power, the same revolution of our system of government that seems to me to be the persistent effort of the party now in power I would stand aS inflexibly. aad as immovably against the oM Whig party, or the Democratic, party or any new party, by whatever nam©it might be known, that would move forward in the same line of revolutionary destruction.

Mf. FESSENDEN. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is' on concurring in the report of the committee of conference.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator froraindiana.'-■<

•*Mr. FESSENDEN. I thought I addressed the Chair some time before- the Senator' from Indi na did t

Mr: HENDRICKS. I thought the Senatot from Maine bad the -floor, and then I thought the Senator yieIded to the announcement of thb question' or I would not have sought the floor: The Senator from Maine certainly did have the floor before I sought ft.

Mr. FESSENDEN. After I rose the Chair proceeded to state the question, and I was waiting for the Chair to s tate the question.

Mr. HENDRICKS., I thought the Senator had yielded the floorto allow a vote. I certainly did -not desire to take the floor from him.•

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Sen"- afcor^ from Indiana. The question is om concurring in the report of the committee of conference; and as it requires two thirds to carry the motion, it ipust be taken by yeas and nays.

Mr. HENDRICKS. As the Senator from Maine seems not to desire to go on, I have a very few remarks to make on this question.'

Mr. FESSENDEN. Will the Senator give way for a motion?

Mr. HENDRICKS. What is the motion?'

Mr. FESSENDEN. The motion is to rescind the order for a recess.

Mr. HENDRICKS. No, sir; I do not care to do that.

Mr. President, I think that the debate today has been mOre remarkable than at any time during the consideration of this question.' I have been astonished at some of the appeals that have been made to, the majority; and I desire to ask the attention of gentlemen of the majority to those appeal^, that they will consider them now andsee Exactly how they will appear when they go to the Country, because assuredly the conduct Of the Senate upon this grave and important question will be very carefully regarded by the country:'

The Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Stewart,] whose name is connected now and for immortality with this measure as the leader in its management, has stated that it is important that we should pass it without delay, and what reason does he assign? The main reason was furnished to him by the Senator from NewJersey that in a few days——■

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. With the consent of the Senator from Indiana I will correct a misapprehension of fact and congratulate the Senator and the country that on inquiry I ascertain that the Republican party will have a clear forking two thirds majority in both Houses in the next Congress. Therefore I withdraw that argument.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senator s withdrawal of the argument does not change the bad principle upon which he appealed to the* majority to carry the measure through the Senate. He furnished to .the Senator 'from Nevada the argument that on the 4th of March a new Congress would come in, and the judg-' ment of the House of Representatives would then be against this measure. That House' was elected last fatt and the judgment' of the country has been expressed in that election to, some extent—to a very "little extent in my judgment upon this question; but it is sapposed to be in our theory of government the last expression of the will of the people upon the subject. The argument is that if this ques-' tion be allowed to go beyond the 4th of March it will fall into a House of Representatives, tlie popular branch of the Government, inhostility to the measure and the requisite two thirds cannot be obtained in that body to secure its passage.

Mr. President, if that were true it ia a conclusive reason why the majority here ought not to pass it. Instead of being an argument in favor of its passage it is a reason why every Senator should vote against it. Our Constitution requires that before it shall be changed by the action of Congress two thirds of each branch shall concur. The presumption is that each branch reflects the popular will; the Senate reflecting the will of the States, and the House the will of the people; and that before the Constitution shall be changed at all two thirds of the people shall desire it. -Now, the argument is that two thirds of the people at the last expression of their will—that is, at the election—declared against this measure, and elected members of the popular branch against it; and that to prevent the action of that popular will, its legitimate and constitutional force, we must pass it no w; take advantage of the people when the accident of a twothirds majority in the two branches gives the power to do it. So much for that argument. The Senator from New Jersey now seems very happy in the contemplation of the fact, as he ascertains it to be, that there will not be a third of the members of the next House of Representatives in hostility to the party in the majority in the country. It was a happy suggestion by the Senator from Kentucky that the policy and practice of the party would enable them to secure a two thirds majority, if they do not have it with the will of the people. There is a will in each House, as was suggested by him, above the will of the people; and that will goes upon the argument that was .suggested by the Senators from Nevada and New Jersey, that the will of the people may come in after the 4th of March and prevent the passage of such an amendment as this; and so the practice of the party has been in Congress to disregard the will of the people, as expressed in the election, and turn members out until they get the control of the body by a two thirds majority.

The Senator from Nevada said that, no two Senators agree on any one proposition. That was his expression. I do not suppose he desires it to go so far as that. He expressed himself more strongly, I .dare say, than he would desire. I think there are some two Senators who may possibly agree. But it is very clear that there is no general sentiment in favor of any one proposition in this body; but the Senator from Nevada too strongly expressed that thought, that in the Senate where we are considering this matter there is no settled conviction, 110 general opinion, upon the subject.

Mr. STEWART. If the Senator will allow me, I intended to be understood that as to the Republican Senators they did not agree upon the precise phraseology to be adopted, but upon the general proposition I suppose they do agree.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senator s explanation, as I understand it, is that the disagreement is in regard to phraseology. I never did observe in any popular body a dead look upon the question of the use of words. Webster furnishes a sufficient number to the majority in power; so that upon the question of phraseology they can certainly arrive at some general opinion. The truth of the matter is, Mr. President, as expressed by the Senator from Nevada, that there is no settled conviction in this body on the subject; one Senator wants one thing and another another thing; so that two thirds of the body up to this time have not agreed upon any proposition; and I say that the debate to day shows that two thirds of the Senators are not in favor of this proposition.

Then, Mr. President, ought it to be adopted? If this proposition does not heartily command the judgment of a Senator ought it to be supported by him? My colleague expressed his views on this subject about in this way: that the amendment w s not agreeable to him, and he made a rasping criticism upon the committee of conference; he cttd not like it; it was not f proper Senate well; the on committee the contrary, had not the treated committee the had treated the Senate very badly; but he said he would rather take half a loaf than have no bread. But, sir, it is not my colleague alone who is to take the bread now. He is acting for the people; he is acting for the States; and I say that when you come to the question of a change of the form and fashion of our Government it is not a question of half a loaf or a whole loaf. It is a question of the right. The question is, does this proposition command my judgment and my conscience so that I can fasten it on the people and the State I represent here?

The Senator from Massachusetts said that he found it easier to take the second step after taking the first step. That is not expressed in such objectionable phraseology as my colleague used, but still it is the same idea; and this idea of half a loaf— 1 if you cannot get what is right take something we must have something, we have started in this business and it will not do to stop; we must have something, therefore if my judgment is not satisfied I will take what I can get —that whole idea is expressed in the action of the Senate in referring this grave and important question to& committee of conference. Committees of conference are not the proper tribunals and organs of this body to which ought to be sent a constitutional amendment.

I admit that in ordinary legislation on appropriation bills and other measures it is proper when the two Houses cannot agree after a sufficient effort to agree that the subject be sent to a committee of conference to reconcile the disagreement; but in my judgment that mode of legislation ought not to be extended to a proposition so important as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and indeed itis becoming, as between the two Houses, in my opinion a great abuse in ordinary legislation. Bills are passed in one House, then the other House makes amendments, then the whole is sent to a committee of conference without that careful consideration in each case of the difference, and that effort on the part of the two Houses to reconcile the difference that ought to be made, as I think, before it is sent to a committee of conference. Each committee of conference, it is understood, shall give and shall take. If the House insists on an appropriation that the Senate is not satisfied with, and on the other hand the Senate insists upon an appropriation that the House does not agree to, the one shall give some that it may take some. That is the fashion and the style of a committee of conference, and very much bad legislation is the result of it; and I am not content when I see a proposed amendment of our form of government referred to a committee of conference to become the subject, not of judgment, not of conscience, but the subject of contract, of compromise in that committee, and then that the result of that effort should be brought back to each House and an arbitrary votebe required without the possibility of an amendment.

So far as I am concerned I repudiate the whole doctrine that we can take a half loaf, which expresses the idea that in the matter of an amendment of the Constitution it is proper to compromise, to adjust, to trade, if I may so express it. It is not right. When an amendment of the Constitution is made, that amendment ought to command in all of its provisions the judgments of two thirds of this body and two thirds of the House. Everybody sees from this debate—it is not covered up—we all know that two thirds of this body do not agree to this. My colleague is not satisfied with it. The Senator from South Carolina is not satisfied with it. Yet each intimates that in the way it is .fixed now, in the shape it has fallen into, perhaps they will support it because they cannot get what does command their judgments; they will take something short of that, an objectionable measure.

Now, Mr. President, I have but very little to say about the measure itself, and the results of this committee of conference more particularly. The Senate, when they came to consider the question of protecting the colored man from legislation on the part of the States which would exclude him from the enjoyment of the franchise, thought it was right to protect three other classes, the poor man, the man who was born abroad, and the man of but limited education. Here is the amendment as it passed the Senate:

No discrimination shall be made among 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, property, education, or creed.

The Senate when it decided to protect the colored man at the same time decided to protect the poor man from unjust legislation, the man who was born in another country and had become a citizen of our own, and the man whose religion might be unpopular. There is no occasion to protect the man whose religion is popular. In these times that protects itself; but the Senate thought it important to secure the protection of these three classes of persons: the poor man, the man whose religion Was unpopular, and the man who was born abroad. That there ought to be protection to the foreignborn citizen was conceded by my colleague. He said it might become important at some future time of Know Nothing excitement. This class is not perhaps sufficiently numerous to protect itself; therefore the Senate thought it was right to protect it, and to say that no legislation of the States hereafter shall take from him the right to hold office or to vote; that no State shall take from the poor man the right to hold office or to vote; that no State shall take from the man of religious creed which for the time being may not be popular the right to vote or to hold office. This was the position of the Senate, in part conceded by the House, and the committee of conference bring in their report.

Now, the judgment and wish of the Senate was clearly expressed thatwhile you protect the right to vote, you shall also protect the persons in the right to hold office. That is abandoned by the committee of conference. The committee of conference also abandon the protection of the poor man. How important it is to protect him in his political rights and privileges Senators can judge. In some States, I believe, to day the poor man is not allowed to participate in the enjoyment of political rights; a property qualification is prescribed, and for, that reason he is not allowed to hold office or to vote. Ought the poor man to be protected? Not, says the Senator from Nevada, if it shall endanger in its progress through the Senate or House the protection of the negro. Is it right to protect in the Constitution of the United States the religion of every man, and to declare that it shall never be made a reason for disfranchisement or for denying the right to hold office? The Senator from Nevada, the champion of this measure, concedes that it is right, provided it does not embarrass the negro measure in its passage through the two Houses.

Thus we have the result of the committee of conference before us. Now, Mr. President, I think that the legislation upon a proposed constitutional amendment should go on in the two Houses until they do agree; and if they cannot agree that no proposition should be adopted. That is the Constitution upon the subject. The resort to committees of conference has- gone very much further than ever was allowed or is now tolerated in the British Parliament. Ih the British Parliament the committee of conference does not make a report upon which the houses must vote without modification or amendment; itis a committee of consultation,' a comparison of views* and each committee goes back to its respective house and reports the result of its consultation, and hy .consultation it is sought to arrive at a common j«dgment upon a disputed question; but here a subject is reported upon by a committee of conference, as by authority, and then the argument is made use of at once that thai must be adopted, else all measures in relation to the subject will fail. While that is bearable and only tolerable in regard to measures of ordinary legislation I think it is intolerable when it is applied to an amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Propositions to amend it ought never to be the subject of bargain; they ought not to be the subject of party interests. Considerations of party interests ought not to enter into the judgment of the two bodies upon them.

1 am not, Mr. President, going to discuss the merits of the measure. They have been sufficiently discussed. I intended simply when I arose to refer to the result of the action of the two bodies in the appointment of a committee of conference and the probable result being the passage of a measure in which two thirds of each branch do not, as shown by the debate, concur, but that the passage is secured by the machinery of a committee of conference.

Much of the argument that has been addressed to the majority here is like the argument that we have heard during the progress of this measure through the bodies, that the Legislatures of some of the States are now in session and are likely soon to adjourn. That argument means simply this: that we have got thechance now, and having the Legislatures of a particular political complexion we must put the measure through; it will not do to leave it open as a question for any future Legislature; and, as is suggested to me, that rests upon the idea that it is easier to do mischief than to undo it. Upon the contests of last year the party of the majority in this body obtained a majority in many of the Legislatures. I think the Senator from Massachusetts said in twenty five Legislatures. I am not sufficiently posted in questions of that sort to say, but I accept his statement as to twenty five Legislatures.

Mr. STEWART. Will the Senator from Indiana give way until I move to rescind the order for a recess?

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think not.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Poueroy in the chair.) Does the Senator from Indiana yield?

Mr. HENDRICKS. Not now, sir.

Mr. STEWART. If he will not yield for that purpose, I desire to give notice that at half past seven o clock this evening I shall call up this report.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. This evening has been set apart for pension bills. The Senator had better say eight o clock I think I shall get through in an hour.

Mr. STEWART. Will not half an hour do?

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I cannot get through in half an hour.

Mr. STEWART. I will say half past seven.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, the whole of this argument rests upon this: that -by a statement in the platform of last year the right to control suffrage in the States of the North properly belonged to the people of those States. Upon that platform a political majority was obtained in twenty five States. Those twenty five States, as I understand from the Senator from Massachusetts, stand now ready to ratify this constitutional amendment; and what proposition is that? That the people are against it but the Legislatures and Congress are for it. We will not let it go to the people either through conventions or Legislatures hereafter to be elected, but it must be hastily dispatched here, sent down to the States that Legislatures chosen upon an opposite platform may fasten it upon the people. Then, as suggested to mo by the Senator from Kentucky, it becomes a difficult matter for the people, a majority of whom to day are against this measure, to undo that which is thus accomplished. I think. Mr. President, this is an entire abandonment of the doctrine of this country that the Government Shall be fashioned accord- 40th CJOiNU. :!d Sew —No 103. ing to the will and pleasure of the. people. That was the original theory and doctrine, that the powers of government should be conferred upon the States and upon the General Government, and distributed among the several departments, according to the will of the people as expressed through their constitutions, and that constitutions have force and power and dignity because they express the great will of the people; but now the doctrine is that we have a right to take the people at a disadvantage; that because you professed to them last year that it was their right in their States to regulate this question, and thereby obtained from them a majority of the Legislatures, it is your right hastily to pass this business through the Congress and send it down to the States and fasten it upon the people before their voice can be heard upon it. That is the precise attitude of the question in the Senate at this hour, and that is the precise argument upon which it is claimed that this report of the committee must be carried through; not that it is right; not that the Presiding Officer of this body believes it is as it should be; not that my colleague believes it is as it should be; not even that the chairman of the committee of conference believes that it is as it should be; but it is in such a shape as you can pass it; you can take half a loaf from the people; you can force it through the State Legislatures and accomplish a political result not having the judgment and approval of two thirds here, and not having the approval of the people of the country. That is the argument that is addressed to the majority. It has been some time since I was in a majority, but I never did have an argument addressed to me of that sort when I was a part of the majority. If I should ever be with the majority 1 shall never expect that argument to be received by myself. When I am told that my party must exercise its power now or the people will defeat their desire I shall not respond to that appeal. I shall say that if it is the pleasure of the people to have a form of government somewhat different from my judgment it is their matter; it is my matter so far as I constitute a part of the body of the people; beyond that I have no power over it. In this body I represent the people of the State of Indiana and the State as a member of this Confederacy. I have no will of my own to express on this subject, no ambitious schemes to favor, no ends to accomplish, except upon this and all other grave questions by my vote and by my voice to express the sentiment of the people of the State I represent. I expect to do that. I expect to do it whenever I occupy toward the people a representative position. I have no other duty to perform than to reflect their sentiments, and when I cannot conscientiously carry out the wish of the people, then upon so grave a question as the change of the form of the Government I would resign such representative position.

Mr. DRAKE. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Indiana yield to the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DRAKE. I should like to inquire of the honorable Senator from Indiana whether it might not be within possibility that he would admit that the result of the last election in Indiana indicated that he is not representing the sentiments of the people of Indiana at this time in the course that he takes on this amendment?

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, the election in the State of Indiana last fall was tolerably well understood by me, I believe; at least its result was understood. [Laughter.] Now, I will answer the Senator from Missouri. His party said to the people of Indiana that when Mr. Hendricks or any other Democrat in the State told them that it was the purpose of their party to carry out negro equality it was a slander; that that was not their doctrine; and Mr. President you told them that in a document of the greatest dignity that your party could produce—the national platform. In that you said to the people of Indiana," The right properly belongs to you to say who shall vote and hold office in that State."• Upon, thatpiatform jqu went before the people of Indiana andsatisfied a great many of them that they ought not to credit the suspicions expressed by Democrats of your integrity in that declaration. I did not believe very much in it. I believed that I understood what was the ultimate purpose; but the plain and unsophisticated people of the country, that Tiad perhaps not geea quiteso much of political movements and machinery, did believe you, and they thought th t in fact you intended to leave to the people of the States the regulation oi suffrage and the right of holding office. You said to the people one thing, and then after you got the majority of Congress and the Legislatures you propose to do auotherthing. Thatwouldbe defined not as the highest act of honesty in ordinary commercial transactions.

Mr. President, in further response to the Senator from Missouri I will say that, in my judgment, if he submits this question to the people of Indiana, the plain question to take from that State the control of suffrage and the control of the right to hold office, he will lose it by a very large vote, a much larger vote than has ever been given to any political party in that State.

Mr. DRAKE. Then I would suggest that the Senator will have great occasion to be thankful for a result of that kind. It will probably return to us the eloquent and graceful Senator from Indiana at some future day.

Mr. HENDRICKS. If I should allow political considerations to influence my judgment I might desire that you should force this thing. But, Mr. President, I desire that in changing the Constitution of the United States the Senate should stand by the sentiments of the Government itself, and that the popular will shall still control in regard to the great question of the form of government.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour for taking a recess having arrived, the Senate will take a recess until seven o clock p. m.