February 4, 1869

Let us follow out this idea and see what was done in other States. The State of New Hampshire formed a constitution in 1792, at a date subsequent to that of the State of Massachusetts, after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. Let us see what she said of herself when the Constitution of the United States was in full force:

"The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of New Hampshire do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body politic or State, by the name of the State of New Hampshire."

This, as I have already said, was after the Constitution of the United States was adopted, when New Hampshire was subject to the same power which my colleague says stripped Connecticut of her sovereignty and of her independence.

Mr. FERRY. I should like to ask my colleague a question, with his permission.

Mr. DIXON. Certainly.

Mr. FERRY. Is he here as an embassador of an independent republic or as a Senator of the United States?

Mr. DIXON. That i3 a question which is very easily answered. I am here as a Senator of the United States. There is no difficulty upon that subject. We are legislators. We are not embassadors. Let me tell my honorable colleague, if he is not acquainted with the Constitution better than he is with the laws of the State of Connecticut—I know he is an excellent lawyer, and I wonder that he has forgotten the elector s oath—let me tell him that we in Connecticut agreed when we ratified the Constitution of the United States to delegate certain powers, and one of those delegated powers was the power to send embassadors. It is expressly provided in the Constitution of the United States that the President of the United States shall receive aud acknowledge embassadors. That is one of the powers that we have delegated.

The Senator, in the course of his argument, seemed to wonder that I was not shocked by the exercise of a power expressly conferred upon Congress, and lie claimed that that was inconsistent, if he will allow me here to speak of that for a moment, with my present claim to be an advocate of the true doctrine of State rights, being, as he intimates, somewhat of a neophyte in the Democratic party. Why, sir, I think the Senator wholly mistakes the position of the Democratic party. The Democratic party, if I may be permitted to speak for them in the presence of such gentlemen as surround me, never objected to the exercise of any power which existed in this Government. When they stand up here and object to laws to be passed I have never heard the constitutional objection by the Senate and House of Representatives made against laws which you bad the power to pass. The objection was made that you had no power; that the Constitution did not give it; and that was what I meant when I told my colleague I was not shocked by the exercise of an acknowledged power. If the power exists carry it out. The Democratic party do not object to the exercise of delegated powers. He says the power exists to pass this resolution. I say to him frankly and freely I think the power does exist, technically speaking, and perhaps legally speaking. I never have contended, as my honorable friend from Kentucky [Mr. Dlvis] does,- that we <&mnbt aift on this question because certain States are excluded; from representation; nor do I claim that we cannot legally act upon this question because' it actually destroys and undermines the power of the States as independent republics. I say that that is a reason why we should not act. That I wish ray colleague to understand, if he understands me to argue that it will not bebinding in law. I do not propose to go into any such consideration as that at the present time. What a court will decide upon that question I should not like now to attempt tcf predict. At any rate, I do not place my opposition upoirthe ground that that action is not legal, and that you have no right to take the course you are taking, as a legal question; but I propose to waive all considerations of that character.

Mr. DAYIS. I should like to ask my honorable friend a question. Suppose this Congress should deny to Connecticut her representation both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, would the residue of the Congress be authorized under the Constitution t o propose an amendment to that instrument?

Mr. DIXON. My friend from Kentucky will excuse me i rotn going into that subject. I think if the State of Connecticut were now excluded, wrongfully excluded from this Congress, there might be a serious question whether it did not affect the legality ot the acts passed. But my' friend will permit me to say, and I think he will not differ from me on that subject, that there is a vast distinction between excluding Kentucky and Connecticut to day and thepositionof those States which voluntarily attempted to sever themselves from the Union.

Mr. DAVIS. One more question. What distinction in principle is there between what is now the position of Georgia and what would' be the position of Connecticut if she was excluded?

Mr. DIXON. I should not differ from my friend on that subject very widely. For the last three years I have claimed that we have been committing a wrong toward the State of Georgia. I believe it to day But I might not go so far as to say that it would render all our acts illegal and void. There, possibly, is the difference between us. I think that State ought to be admitted.

Mr. DAVIS. I will only put one other question to my honorable friend. When there is a corporation that is a plural government—for instance, a bank directory, arailroad directory, or any other corporation that has a plural government—it is a universal principle of law that where a portion of the members of the plural government exclude another portion, even if it bo a minority, from action in the government, what the majority do during tile exclusion of the minority is held for naught—has- no effect or operation whatever,

Mr. DIXON. My time is short in the Senate—I have only about four weeks here; and I must decline, with the Senator s permission, going into a discussion on that subject with him, asthe period of my remaining service here would be quite too brief. [Laughter.] However, I beg to say to him that I have very great respect for his legal opinions, but I have never been quite satisfied that we have not power to act, notwithstanding the doctrines he has so ably maintained.

Mr. DAVIS. I will state my own position after awhile.

Mr. DIXON. Now, sir, New Hampshire also required an oath of her electors; and this, I beg leave to remind the Senate, was after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The idea that any citizen could owe allegiance to a State has come to be a shocking idea in some of the northern States. I must say I think there is a good deal of political bigotry and no small degree of cant on this question. Because the doctrine of State rights has been carried to an extreme, and a dangerous extreme, at the South, shall we go to the other extreme and say that there are no State rights? It is barely possible that we may make as great a mi st ake on the otli ei slflfe j *we Hi ay find it as dang rotis to deny ill at Connpctacut is an independent State, as my colleague has done, as it was to claim that she was sovereign in all particulars and had power, as was claimed in South Carolina, to nullify the laws of the United States. But, sir, what was the oath required in New Hampshire? Bear in mind that this oath was required after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States:

X do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and tree allegiance to the State of New Hampshire, and will support the constitution thereof."

Was the State of Netf Hampshire a government? Was there a binding tie, an allegiance between the citizen of that State and "the State government? It seems that this government, which was no republic and no State, had somewhat remarkable powers.

I findin the constitution of the State of Connecticut some definitions which are a little inconsistent with the doctrines of my colleague. When we find that citizens are required to take an oath to support the government of a State as an independent State, and, as in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, are required to swear obedience, we find some reason for what I am now about to read from the constitution of Connecticut, and it may perhaps be also found in the constitutions of other States:

Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it or adhering to its enemies, giving thorn aid ntid comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession in open court. No conviction of treason or attainder shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture."

It has been decided by the supreme court of Connecticut that this constitution of Connecticut is a limitation of power, not a grant of power; so that, if that limitation had not been made, a conviction of treason would work corruption of blood and forfeiture, A man guilty of treason is he who makes war against the State, or adheres to its enemies; and still, it is only a municipal community, a mere corporation, having no power as an independent republic, as a State, assuming upon itself the sovereign power of declaring what shall be treason againstitsown government—treason not against a Government; treason against a municipal corporation!

I have looked into the constitutions of the other States, and I think that all, or nearly all of them, have Similar or equivalent provisions. The fifth article of the constitution of the State of Vermont is as follows:

"That the peoplo of this State, by their legal representatives, have the sole,- inherent, and exclusive right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same,"

What is the internal police of a State? In order to regulate the internal police of a State magistracies are required; a chief magistrate; a Governor; courts are appointed. Those courts maybe appointed by the Legislature or by the Executive or by the people by popular vote. The constitution of Vermont provides that the power of governing the State as to its internal police, which is the whole government of the State and includes everything, is inherent in the people and exclusive. Now, sir, you propose to come here to day and adopt an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which deprives the people of the State of Vermont of the inherent and exclusive" right of governing and regulating their internal police for themselves; tor it does not need an argument to show that if we can declare and decide who shall be their electors, and control in every respect the entire right of suffrage, they have not the power of regulating and enforcing the internal police of the State, And if we may interfere at all we may change the whole framework of their internal policy and establish such restrictions upon suffrage as we may choose to establish—the only limit being our own discretion, subjeet to tue ratification of three fourths of the States. But, sir, I will not dwell Longer on this subject. I trust I have now shown my colleague that this doctrine is not a iwsw discovery of mine; that it is not a doctrin which I have adopted since, as he says, I have changed my political course. Whether I have changed my political course or not is a matter of very trifling consequence to the people of this country, except so far as my constituents are concerned. I might claim that others have changed; but what has the question of personal consistency, to do with it? Of what consequence is it whether he or. myself are consistent? I take it the great question is, are we right —not have we changed? He and I have both been accused of a somewhat erratic course on the subject of politics heretofore. Are we right to day that is the question.

Now, sir, I appeal to the Senate, and I appeal to the people of Connecticut, is it right to say that an independent State—for I think my colleague will now admit that the State of Connecticut is independent, especially after you have told the people in the platform of your party that they themselves have a right to control this matter—is it right for an external power to penetrate into the State of Connecticut, and finding that her people have decided upon a certain mode of regulating the elective franchise interfere with it, destroy it by anamendment to the organic law of the United States? I say it is not right. I say if you wish to address the people of Connecticut on this subject you should inform their consciences if you think them wrong, and change their minds if you can, as my colleague has attempted to do. You ought to address them as a State which can change its own form of government. That was what I meant to say when I insisted on their right to decide this question for themselves in their own way.

The Senator says I have avoided the main question, whether the change ought to be made. The question presented was wholly as to the mode of making this change. The question was whether the Congress of the United States should do it; whether it should be proposed by this Congress to the States. I say, no; let not Congress propose it; let not the States attempt by their aggregate action to force this change upon other States; but if the Senator wishes to make the change let him go into the State of Connecticut and there advance the views which he has here presented.

But the Senator says I have claimed that exemption from taxation is a sufficient consideration for the deprivation of political rights, because I said the State of Connecticut did the negro no wrong. Why, sir, it was plain and apparent from the tenor of my remarks and the context that I referred to pecuniary wrong. Whether there isa wrong here or not, the Senator will admit that if the colored man is wronged in the State of Connecticut then every other person is wronged who is deprived of the natural rijjjjit of voting, as he calls it. If you wrong the African you wrong the woman. She has the same natural right to vote that the African has. I think the Senator will admit that. Whether she shall bo permitted to vote is a question of policy, a question of expediency in the State which the governing power has a right to control. I do not think that the State of Connecticut is to dayinflictinga wrong upon the women of Connecticut by providing that only males shall vote. The State has a right to make that distinction; and I never have heard my colleague claim anywhere that it was a wrong inflicted upon the female sex. I say, therefore, carrying out the same idea, that it is no wrong inflicted upon the negro race or the Indian race or the minor or the female. In no sense can it be called a wrong.

I went further, and I stated to the Senate the fact that the State of Connecticut, being extremely desirous to obviate any objection that might be made on this subject, to keep her honor pure and unsullied, had refused to receive from this race one dollar of taxation; and I said that so doing she did them no wrong, But the Senator seems to claim that I supposed that to strip an elector of an acknowledged right and pay him for it by exemption from taxation would be satisfactory and fair. I think the Senator will acknowledge the vast difference between the two cases. The State has a perfect right to say who shall and who shall not vote, at least while the Constitution of the United States remains as it is. She says that the female sex shall not vote; that the African race and the Indian race shall not vote• and in order to avoid doing the negro a wrong she says the negro shall pay no taxes. I will state as a somewhat remarkable fact that some of the best business men of the State of Connecticut, competent men, I agree, to carry on any description of business, are exempted from State taxation under that provision. In so, doing we show, I think, that we do not intend to wrong them.

Whenever the Senator will go before the people of Connecticut and argue this question as to the propriety of permitting the negro to vote, then I will meet him upon that subject, and then let it be decided.

But, sir, the question now is a very different one; and that is, why, as he says, I avoided the abstract question. The question is whether the independence of the State of Connecticut shall be invaded; the question is whether she shall be humiliated, whether she shall be humbled in the dust, whether she shall be told that for more than a hundred years she has been guilty of this wrong upon the negro race, and that, inasmuch as thepeopleof the United States are hopeless of her ever reforming that wrong herself, believing that she is lost to all sense of honor and right, you propose to come in here and by an external power drag her to the reluctant performance of a neglected duty. That is what I object to in my colleague. I could wish that he stood here occupying a different position. I could wish that he would say," I believe the negro ought to be permitted to vote; that he has a natural right to do so; but I protest against your interfering; I think my State should make the amendment in her own constitution." If the Senator would say that, so far we could act together: Then we could consider the question whether, underthe new light which he says we have recently discovered, which has been vouchsafed to us, wo should say it was best to day to permit the negro to vote in the State of Connecticut.

Sir. President, I have some distrust of my own opinion. I think that overweening confidence in my own judgment and my own opinions is not the greatest of my faults. I should hesitate perhaps somewhat with regard to this question if I stood alone upon it; but, sir, one of the first and ablest and most distinguished, and I might say, in his profession, m®st illustrious citizens of Connecticut, Eev. Dr. Bacon, of New Haven, entertains or did entertain very similar ideas to mine on this subject. In a letter which he wrote on the subject, he refers to the bill which my friend from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] proposed to offer here. On a certain occasion, three days previous to an election in Connecticut, I asked that Senator if he intended to apply it to Connecticut; and he replied in the affirmative, and added that she needed it. Supposing that his colleague was not so far advanced, that possibly my friend [Mr. Sumner] might be lost in the mists ef that far country which he entered long in precedence of others, and that his colleague might not agree with him, I asked him if he also thought so. He said he agreed with his colleague entirely; that the law was a good one, and he should vote for it the first opportunity, and that it was intended to apply to Connecticut as well as other States.

I thought it my duty to inform my friend from fa Wisconsin, [Mr. Doolittle,] who was to address the people of Connecticut that evening, the Friday evening before the election, of the advance which this party of progress had made. Sir, so progressive was this party that if a Senator left here, for example, to day to address the people of Connecticut to morrow it was necessary that he should receive telegraphic dispatches as to the position occupied at that precise date by the party, [laughter;] and, therefore, I was at considerable trouble to inform my friend from Wisconsin what waa the then position of the party in this Chamber at the latest dates.

The telegram was received with far greater interest than I had anticipated. I supposed (ny frieud from Wisconsin would use it effectually, as he always does good material for a speech; but, sir, before the next morning that telegram was posted upon every sign post and the doors of many public buildings in the State of Connecticut. It excited an intense interest. Firstit was doubted, and it was said it could not be true; that the sender of the telegram, at least, was mistaken; but to their consternation the New York papers the next morning contained the same thing. The people of Con necticu t stood aghast. Th ere it was given in in full by the Associated Press. My telegram was confirmed. Sir, so incredible was the idea that even the Senator from Massachusetts, with his advanced ideas, should promulgate such a .doctrine that it was not credited until the next morning, when the Associated Press added to it the stamp of its well known veracity. What it says is like a record; "it imports absolute verity." [Laughter.] What was the effect of that doctrine, that decree I might say, then issued by—I will not call him the autocrat of the parly—but what was the effect of the doctrine issued and the notice given by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts? Rev. Dr. Bacon, to whose letter I alluded in the commencement of this portion of my remarks, addressed a paper, I think called the Congregationajist, on the subject. I first saw it there. He went into this entire question as to the right of the State of Connecticut to control its own suffrage. While I admit he was not talking about a constitutional amendment, still I think my colleague will say that I am justified from the drift of his argument in supposing that there was no distinction in his mind between the two cases; that although he might say there was 110 power existing on the part of Congress to pass the law, still if the power did exist he would say the law ought to be passed.

Mr. MORTON. I should like to ask the Senator from Connecticut a question if he will permit me.

Mr. DIXON. Certainly.

Mr. MORTON. I understand the Senator to say that the progress of the Republican party is so rapid lhatdispatches have to be sent from time to time to know its exact status at that particular time. I should like to ask him whether it has been charged by anybody recently that the Democratic party has progressed at all since the beginning of the war? [Laugh-

Mr. DIXON. Well, Mr. President, I am compelled to say that they have been charged with having progressed. I do not know whether my honorable friend will receive the information with satisfaction; but I find in a paper published in the State of Connecticut that the Democratic party of Connecticut, which held its convention last week, is charged with having abandoned its old doctrines and come out in favor of paying the bonds in gold, a doctrine which I think my friend from Indiana does not fully believe in. [Laughter.]- So that he will perceive they are accused of progress. He asked me, if I understood him, if they had ever been charged with having profressed. ave actually I am progressed; not bound to but say that whether they have they been accused of progress is true. [Laughter.]

Mr. MORTON. I should like to ask the Senator

Mr. DIXON. I hope the Senator will excuse me for not consenting to any further interruptions. I am nearly through, and I be leave to say to him I am somewhat exhausted with the few remarks I have already made, and should much, prefer that he would make his speech afterward. I acknowledge that he is not a Senator with whom I desire to have any intellectual conflicts which I can possibly avoid. [Laughter.]

Now, sir, what did Dr. Bacon say? Dr. Bacon, remember, is an advocate of negro He believes that it ought to be permitted. He is one of the advanced guard of the Republican party. He stands now with my colleague, except that he may possibly not have advanced so far as he has in the direction of general amnesty and, forgiveness of the rebels; but in all points of Radical doctrine I think my colleague will admit that he stands fully up to those who are furthest advanced. What did he say 1 He said that strongly as he was in favor of granting the elective franchise to the negro in Connecticut—I quote, of course, from memory—he would rather forever refuse it him (I think I am not stating it too strongly) than to adopt the proposition of the Senator from Massachusetts, to force it upon Connecticut against her will. He said further, that in his. judgment the information given by me, calling me by name, which he said I drew from the Senator from Massachusetts—in that he did the Senator from Massachusetts great injustice; he volunteered it—changed the result of the election at that particular crisis. He went on to state how much the majority was, and he said a change of so many votes would change the political character of the State, aud he had cot the least doubt that my telegram effected more than that amount of change.

So I beg leave to say, in my judgment, will it he in the future. As Dr. Bacon felt then, so I trust that distinguished divine feels to day and as other citizens of Connecticut felt then, so I believe an immense majority of the people of Connecticut feel to day They may be willing, as I intimated in my remarks the other day, when the question shall be presented to them, to grant to the few colored men in the State of Connecticut the elective franchise; but, sir, that is not the question. There is a question which lies far deeper in their minds than that. It is the question how this right shall be given? Who shall decide it? For, sir, with all your attempts at distinction, you cannot escape the conclusion that if Connecticut makes this change, strikes this word "white" from her constitution by the compulsion, legal or otherwise, of other States, she loses her right to regulate that question for herself; and a State which cannot regulate that question for herself is in no sense an independent State. For myself, I am willing to go to the people of Connecticut on this question; and I say now to my colleague that I think when we go to the people of Connecticut on this proposed amendment we shall find that negro suffrage is not the question before the people. You have no right to make the question before them in that form. It is not a question of negro suffrage alone, it is a question of suffrage in its widest sense. The Senator objects to my using the expression" make a voter." Let him change the form of expression, if he wishes. It is the question who shall be the voter. It is the question of suffrage in the State of Connecticut, and by whom shall its regulation be established? That, the people of Connecticut will remember, is the question which is presented now, whether the Congress of the United States and the people of all the States of the United States shall invade the borders of that ancient republic and compel her to change her laws. I am perfectly willing to acquiesce in any change which the people of Connecticut wish to make on this subject. But, sir, I again repeat that as an independent State the people of that State have a right to control this question for themselves. That right they will maintain to the last.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have pw posed an amendment to the joint resolution now before the Senate, in the following words: That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of theUnited States, w bicli when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid as part of the Constitution, namely:

Abticlk XV.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of property, race, color, or previous condition of servitude: and every male citizen of the United States of t bet age or twenty one years or over, and who is of sound mind, shall have an e yxal vote at all elections 1a the State in whichhegh U have actually resided far a period of one year next preceding such ejection, exeeptsuc^ as may heroalter engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States and sueh as shall be dn y convicted of tr eason felony, or other infaaatms crime. Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this artiple by appropriate legislation.

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dixon] rightly states the question. The question before ns is not one of negro suffrage. It is question of suffrage in itself. It is the broad question who shall be the voters, of this coun; try, in whose hands shall rest the political power. I take issue squarely with the Senator from Connecticut when he claims that Connecticut is a sovereign State, and that to her rightfully belongs the privilege of determining who of the citizens of this Republic shall hav? the right to vote and hold office. If it be a question of humiliation, it is, on the one hand whether Connecticut shall be humiliated, or, on the other, whether Connecticut shall have the right to humiliate every citizen of the Re* public who shall choose to dwell within, her bor ders t''.

Mr. President, in all governments sovereign power resides somewhere limited only by God s justice, which is over all. Men and governments violating justice sooner or later come to ruin. In our Government the sovereignty ia in the people; hence the question," Who are the people?" is of practical and vital importance. When you settle that you settle the basis of government. The Constitution of our country is but the expressed will of the people, fixing certain great fundamental principles and defining a certain gene al organization under and by which Government shall be, by the people, administered.

The organic law, to avoid confusion and con flict, provides the manner of its own amendment or change. In the manner provided in the Constitution we are about to proceed to the most responsible and solemn of all our duties to change it. Laws of Congress passed to day may, if faulty, be amended, or, if radically wrong, repealed to morrow But provisions put into the Constitution must stand, in the nature of things, as the rule of action for many years. Not only are we proposing to amend the organic law, trnt to amend itinits most vital part. We are about to put into It words which shall define and declare for years, perhaps for centuries, to come in whose hands the power of this great Republic shall rest—who shall vote, who shall elect its officers, make its laws, shape its policy, and control its destinies. In our action is bound up the welfare of the present and the coming millions of our country, and corelated with it are the interests of all the sons of men. Let us. t ien approach our task solemnly and gravely, having in view not only the interests of our prescntpopulatioji, but also the well being of the multitudes who press on our track with remorseless tread.

The theory of our Government is that power, the sovereign power, belongs to the people; not to a portion of the people, not to the learned, not to the ignorant, not to the rich, not to the poor, not to the great, not to the weak, but to all the people. We eschew in our system of governmentall aristocracies, whether of birth, of wealth, or of learning. Based as are our institutions on the idea that the right of selfgovernment is inherent in manhood, we profess to give to each individual an equal share of political power.

Years ago, in this Capitol and in this body, was fought, with the weapons of reason, the great battle of State and national sovereignty. Haynestoodup in these Halls as the champion of the former, while the great Webster, following the lead of Hamilton, and standing the principle that" we, the people of the United States," "do ordain and establish this Constitution," with triumphant and irresistible logic maintained the" solidarity" of the Republic. From this court appeal was taken to the arbitrament of arms, and on more than a hundred battle fields the conclusions of Webster were reaffirmed, and from that, decision there is to be, I conclude, no appeal.

I think that it is a proposition too clear for argument that to the people, the whole people, the, nation, belongs the decision of the question who shall exercise political power— in other and plainer words, who shall vote and hold office. And I think that itis equally clear that, to be true to our system and to the ideas upon which it is based, we must conclude that all men of sound mind are entitled to these fr ghts

To allow "States to determine who of th? citizens of the nation shall have political power is to give away the most essential and vital attribute of sovereignty—to concede a power which may be used to build up an aristocracy or to change .and destroy our system of government. To give to States the power to disfranchise and disqualify for crime is a very limited and possibly not dangerous concession; but that a citizen living in Massachusetts should lose his right to vote for President by moving to Connecticut, or that different qualifications for voting for President, for instance, should be required in different parts of the country, is so manifestly wrong and so clearly at variance ■with that provision of the Constitution which declares that" the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States," that it needs but, to be stated to be condemned.

Now, what are the words proposed by the committee to be put into the Constitution to settle this vital question? They are as follows: No State shall deny or abridge the right of its citizens to vote and hold ofiiccou account of race, color, or previous condition.

To propose to put into the Constitution any words which shall control the action of the States in this matter is to concede the great principle for which I argue, that to the nation belongs the determination of the question who shall have political power. Then the only question remaining is, do these words settle it aright? Let us examine the force and scope of this provision.

First, it does not determine who shall vote and hold office. Secondly, it does not protect any class of citizens against disfranchisement or disqualification, it simply and only provides that certain classes indicated shall not be disfranchised or disqualified for certain reasons, namely, race, color, or condition. For any other reason any State may deprive any portion of its citizens of all share in the Government. Theanitfittsof this amendment isa desire to protect and enfranchise the colored citizens ot the country; yet, under it and without any violation of its letter or spirit, nine tenths of them might be prevented from voting and holding office by the requirement on the part of the States or of the United States of au intelligence or property qualification.

Is this the Dead sea fruit which wo are to gather from the plantings of a hundred years? Is this to be the sum of the triumph of the grand struggle of a century past in this country for equal rights, a Struggle whose pathway is marked by the graves of unnumbered martyrs, and whose culmination rocked the Republic to its base and reddened a thousand fields with the blood of its best sons?

Lame and impotent conclusion. You fail to protect the only classes of your citizens who need protection. Knowledge is power. Wealth is power. The learned and the rich scarcely need the ballot for their protection. The great farmer who has his three to five score laborers has a power and influence which Do law can take away. It is his landless and dependent tenants, in their cabins and in their ignorance, who need the ballot for their safety. I lie millionaire in his money, and the man of education m his knowledge and his brain, have eaeii a power fti government greater than a hundred ballots, a power which the Constitution neither gives nor can take away. It is I FT u lea ed who has nothing but the ballot, to whom it is a priceless heritage, a protection and a shield;

Mr. President, now that the grand opportutumtj eccurs of settling this question of equal rights, I would improve it to put; into the organic law provisions which shall determine the qualifications of electors, and give to every citizen the right to vote; thus making suffrage uniform, equal, and universal, and putting it out of the power of the small portion of the people living within the bounds of each single State to make a different rule. Surely none less than the whole people of the nation should have the right to say who shall be their partners in the Government; and, as one of the people, I am in favor of giving equally to all citizens of the Republic of sound mind and unstained by great crimes the right to vote and hold office.

Mr. President, I would admit woman, the most beautiful, theplirestand best of God s creations, to' an equal voice with us in the Government. As she is now the sharer of all our pleasures, the partner of all our joys, I would have her share with us the powers, the duties, and the responsibilities of government. Suppose, Mr. President, that one of the many sorrow strieken women made widows by the late war should walk into this Chamber and say, "Senators, my husband and two sons lie in yondernational cemetery—their graves marked, cared for, cherished gratefully and tenderly by the nation—as the last resting place of the heroic defenders of its life. I have no husband, no son, no brother, no father, no man left to represent me. I pay taxes; every law you pass affects me and mine, and I demand a voice in this Government." What answer shall you give lier

But I know that woman s suffrage is not now attainable, and I would not, as a practical legislator, jeopardize the good which is attainable by linking with it that which is impossible. Besides, whenever the women of this country ask with anything like unanimity for the ballot they will get it.

While no man puts a higher estimate on the value of intelligence in the people than I do, and while no one would do more than I would to encourage the education of the masses, 1 repeat that it is the disfranchisement and oppression of the poor and the ignorant which it is our duty to guard against. In protecting the poor and the unlearned you are protecting the great laboring, industrial classes of the country. It is these who have made your State, who have felled your forests, worked your mines, dug your canals, built your habitations and churches and school houses and Colleges, laid your railroads, made your engines and your implements, beautified and adorned and made pleasant your homes, tilled your soil and filled your granaries, and sent with resistless force the life currents through all the arteries of trade: who have placed the Republic in her present proud rank among the nations, and who mainly filled the ranks of your Army in the late war, and carried your "banner of beanty and glory" to final and glorious victory. Their brawny arms and strong sinews have wrought out our wealth; upon their broad and stalwart shoulders rest the fabric of our Republic, its government, its laws, itsinstitutions, its civilization. Their stout arms bear forward the ear of progress, freighted with the highest hopes of humanity and the word of God, and they have a right to a voice in the Government, whether or not their poverty and their toil have given them opportunities to learn to read and write.

The irresistible drift of modern civilization is toward a larger and larger enfranchisement of the people, and our end is a pure democracy. Let us proceed to it with firm and decisive steps. Then we will have no disfranchised, disaffected, clamoring classes always ready and ripe for tumult, rebellion, and revolution. Then the will of the people, legally and peacefully expressed, will have a weight and a power which will command and insure universal acquiescence and obedience.

We are relaying the very corner-stone of our temple of liberty. Let us see that its proportions are broad, true, and ample, and its material indestructible. Our fathers laid the foundation of our Government upon the rock of truth and justice when they proclaimed to the world, in their immortal Declaration, that "all men are created equal —not made so by laws and constitutions but by the Creator; but they built badly, though perhaps of necessity, when they countenanced slavery in the provision relating to fugitives. Let us profit by their error, and, enlightened by the experience of eighty years and warned by that experience of the terrible retribution which surely and inevitably follows compromise of truth and justice, follow onr principles to their logical conclusion and found this nation on the rock of universal equal human' 'rights, thus settling forever the questions which, never settled aright, have risen again and again to disturb and finally to desolate our beautiful land.

Our great Chief Magistrate elect has wisely and nobly said, "Let us have peace." This is the way to it. The signs of the times are auspicious. From the disturbed and stricken south land come with every- breeze the evidence of returning reason, loyalty, and good feeling. We are gladdened with the sight of half forgotten humanity bursting out of the depths in which it has pursued its joyless, sunless course, moaning and murmuring through long centuries, but never quite forgetting its divine origin."

The tide of beneficent migration is rapidly setting toward her sunny and fertile fields. Our people, from lakes to gulf and from ocean to ocean, are full of hope and energy. Let us, their representatives and servants, act up to ourand their best impulses, and the nineteenth century will close upon us the freest, the strongest, and the best nation on earth.

Mr. MORTON. I will detain the Senate but a very short time

Mr. STEWART. Will the Senator give way until I can make a motion? I desire to move to rescind the order by which bills reported from certain committees were made the special order for this evening.

Mr. MORTON. Let m e get through first,

Mr. STEWART. Very well.

Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, yesterday my colleague [Mr. Hendricks] addressed the Senate at some length, and was followed in the same strain of remark by the Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. Dixon,] to show that the Republican party was committed by the platform adopted at Chicago from takingany action upon this subject. Very much stress was placed upon it by my colleague, as well as the Senator from Connecticut, who, I believe, repeated his argument this afternoon in several forms. It is insisted that the Republican party committed itself to the doctrine that so far as suffrage in the loyal States was concerned it should be left entirely to the States. That resolution, perhaps, went no further, and was intended to go no further, than to define the constitutional position of the party; that as the Constitution now is, the regulation of suffrage belongs to the several States; but it certainly W43 not intended to commit the party to the doctrine that it would not at any time thereafter propose to change the Constitution upon that subject. I have been somewhat surprised at the importance attached to this position; but my surprise has ended in amusement. When I heard the position of the Senator from Connecticut a few minutes ago I intimated, in a good humored way, that the Democratic party had not been charged with progression since the beginning of the war. The Senator from Connecticut, very properly, no doubt, in his mind resented that intimation, and said that the Democratic party had recently made progress, and referred to the fact that in the recent Democratic convention in Connecticut it had resolved in favor of paying all the bonds in gold.

Mr. DIXON. The Senator misunderstood me.^ I did not say that. That Senator asked me if they had been accused of making progress, and r said they had been.

Mr. MORTON. If I understand the Senator now, he retracts the admission of the progress.

Mr. DIXON, I do not retract anything. I merely set the Senator right as to the language I used.■

Mr. MORTON. I certainly understood, from what I lie Semitor said, that the Democracy of the. Slate of Connecticut had made progress on I hat subject; but as the Senator, now says they have made no progress, and he has referred t oihc subject of paying the bonds infold, I will remark that the New York convention by its platform, which, if I remember correctly, Is even more recent than that of the Chicago convention, resolved that what we call the fivetwenty bonds, or those not specifically payable ill coin, were payable in lawful money, or what w o call greenbacks. The Senator, I believe, indorsed that platform, and if he has not made progress he indorses it yet, and he denies now that the Democratic party has progressed upon that subject.

Mr. DIXON.. I do not deny anything.

Mr. MORTON. The Senator says he does not deny anything. [Laughter.] Now, Mr. President, notwithstanding it is insisted that the Democratic partyhas made no progress, and that it is substantially where it was at the beginning of the war, that it has learned nothing and has improved in no respect, I must insist that we have had evidence on the floor of the Senate yesterdayand to day that the Democratic party has, made substantial progress. My colleague in an able speech yesterday, and the Senator from Connecticut in one yesterday and another to day have talked at great length about this constitutional amendment without saying one word in regard to its' merits, whether it was a good one or a bad one, but have confined their arguments simply to the question as to the mode of its submission, and whether the Republican party was not, estopped in taking any action ■upon the subject by its platform in Chicago. I take it, sir, that these distinguished Senators feel the pressure of public opinion. 1 take it that they recognize the progress that the country has made, and that they do not feel quite comfortable now in coming into the Senate of the United States and arguing against a proposition to establish impartial suffrage. Sir, it is ,an omen of progress, and I congratulate the Senators and the country upon it.

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dixon] says that he will meet his colleague upon that question before the people, should it be sub- 'itiitted to the people; but it is encouraging to us and to the country that the Senator declines to say one word against impartial suffrage in the Senate of the United States.

Now, Mr. President, I propose to speak for a few minutes in regard to the language of this amendment. I will vote for the amendment as it came from the House of Representatives, or I will vote for the clause as reported by the Judiciary Committee in the Senate if I can get no better form; but I desire to say that it comes far short of what should now be the action of Congress on this subject, in my opinion. The resolution as itcame from the House and the amendment reported by the Committee on the Judiciary are in substance the same, differingsomewhatin phraseology. Theamendruent of our committee is:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold 1 fficeshall not bedenied or abridged bythe United States, or any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

It will be observed that this language admits or recognizes that the whole power over the question of suffrage is vested in the several States except as it shall be limited by this amendment. It tacitly concedes that the States may disfranchise the colored people Or any other class 6f people for other reasons save and except those mentioned in the amendment. Tliey cannot be disfranchised by reason of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. I11 other words, it leaves all the existing irregularities and incongruities in suffrage. I have entertained the idea that when we came to amend the Constitution upon this subject we ought to make suffrage uniform throughout the United States; that the same class of men should be allowed in every State to vote for President and Vice President, and members of Congress, and members of' the State Legislatures that elect Senators; that the same class of men excluded in one State ought to be excluded in every other State. In other words, I think suffrage ought to be uniform.

In the State of Intfttitia a man of foreign birth who has been in tfie United States one year and in the State of Indiana six months, and who has declared' his intention to become a citizen of the United States, is allowed to vote for President, Vice President, members of Congress, and State officers. Just over the line, in the State of Ohio, the same man would not be allowed to vote unless he had been in the country five years and had become fully naturalized. Here is a class of men taking part in the government of the country in one State who are excluded in the next State. I am not discussing the propriety or impropriety of these regulations, but lam speaking of their inconsistencies. In the State of Massachusetts, for instance, they have an 'educational test; in the State of Rhode Island, if I am correctly informed, there is a property qualification. The population of that State is so numerous that the voting ratio must be reduced by requiring a property qualification. In some States a residence of six months is required; in other States a residence of twelve months is required, and perhaps there may be some other conditions of suffrage prescribed. In the State of New York I believe that colored men are allowed to vote if they are worth §250 in real estate.

Now, sir, when we come to amend the Constitution of the United States on this subject, would it not be proper to make suffrage uniform? And it is as easy to amend it in the one way, I believe, as it is in the other. This amendment leaves the whole power in the States just as it exists now, exceptthat colored men shall not be disfranchised for the three reasons of race, color, or previous condition of slavery. They may be disfranchised for want of education or for want of intelligence. The States of Louisiana and Georgia may establish regulations upon the subject of suffrage that will cut out forty nine out of every fifty colored men in those States from voting, and what may be done in one of these States may perhaps be done in others. They may, perhaps, require property or educational tests, and that would cut off the great majority of the colored men from voting m those States, and thus this amendment would bo practically defeated in all those States where the great body of the colored people live. Sir, if the power should pass into the hands of the rebel population of those States—perhaps I should beg pardon now, I should rather call it the Conservative or Democratic population—if they could not debar the colored people of the right of suffrage in any other way they would do it by an educational or a property qualification.

Mr. President, I am not sure, on looking further at this amendment, but that the language itself can be dodged without establishing either a property qualification or an educational test. Take the State of Kentucky, Maryland, or any of these States choosing to do so; may they not dodge it? It says the right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged lay any State or by the United States "on account of by reason of" is the language of the amendment of the House— race color, or previous condition of servitude." I should suppose that the words "race or color" would be sufficient. I am somewhat averse to putting the word "color" into the Constitution. Iam somewhat averse to making any reference to slavery in the Constitution.•

Mr. FESSENDEN, "Servitude."

Mr. MORTON. "Servitude" is the word used in the amendment proposed by the committee of the Senate; but "previous condition of slavery’’ is the phrase employed 111 the amendment coming from the House of Representatives.

Mr. DRAKE. I suggest? to the honorable Senator from Indiana that "slavery" is the second word in the thirteenth amendment.

Mh MORTON. That was when it came to abolish; it.

Mr. DRAKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MORTON. But it found admission there for that purpose aml no other.

Now, Mr. President, why is it necessary to insert these words, 'Adr previous condition of servitude-" or "slavery?" It says they shall not be debarred of the right of suffrage 011 account of race or color or previous condition of servitude. It is because some of these States might say, "We will debar these men from voting, not on account of their, race, not 011 account of their color, but because they have once been slaves." Suppose that one .of these States should say, "Wo will debar these men from voting, jiot by reason of color or race or previous condition of slavery, but because they are deficient in natural intelligence, incapable of improvement, and incompetent to take a part in the administration of the Government." If they put it upon that reason it might be perhaps a strained construction amendment; but we ought not now to be providing an amendment that is susceptible of a double construction. They say they do not disfranchise these men on account of their color, race, or having been slaves, but because they are naturally inferior in point of intellect, and unqualified to take part in the administration of the Government. I am not sure but that in that way the whole provision may be dodged. That is just the position taken by the great body of the southern people. If you will ask them their opinion of the colored race, they will tell you that they ai e an inferior race, and hardly human beings, and disqualified from taking part in the administration of the Government; and if they put that in their constitutions, and give that as a reason, it becomes a question whether they have not dodged the whole provision. We would deny the truth or soundness of their reason; but they would insist on it, and claim that it is not provided against in the amendment.

Now, Mr. President, I would prefer an affirmative amendment, an amendment declaring who shall have the right to vote, not a negation but an affirmation, and one that defines the right of suffrage, and does not leave it open for the construction of different States; and I think that if we are not to have an affirmative definition of suffrage the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Howard] is perhaps as good a one as has been presented, and certainly better than the one that came here from the House; and I will ask the Secretary. to read it.

The Chief Cijsrk. The amendment of Mr. Howatcd proposes to strike out section one of the House article, and insert:

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

Mr. MORTON. That pertains simply to citizens of African descent. This amendment refers also only to citizens of Al ncan descent; but that gives them an affirmative right, says they shall have the same right ,to vote that other citizens have. It therefore cuts off every possible construction of the amendment as it came from the House of Representatives, or the one offered by the committee, by which they could be debarred from the right of suffrage. It places these men precisely upon the same ground with a 11 others; but it still leaves tlie States the power of establishing an educational or property test "by which they would cut off the great mass of colored men. 1 think this is the best of the three, but that it would be still better to adopt an amendment declaring who shall have the right to vote, making it uniform throughout the United States, and leaving 110 question of construction for the States.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President-, I Send to, the Chair an amendment which I shall propose to the report of the Committee cm the Judiciary in due time, and I ask tiuu it be read for information.

The- Ghjsef Clerk. The amendment now submitted proposes to strike out all after the words "article fifteen" and insert;

Congress shall have power to abolish or modify any restrictions upon the right to vote pr hold office prescribed by the constitution or laws of any State.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, propose briefly to discuss the merits of this amendment which I have submitted,* but I should prefer, if it should suit itjlje Senate, to go on to morrow morning.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. If the Senator will yield to me, I will ask the Senate to take Tip a bill reported from the Committee on Appropriations yesterday. It will not occupy more than a few minutes at most, which is to make an appropriation to pay the clerks in the Patent Office for the last month and the present. It is House bill No. 1809.

The PRESIDENT pro iempore. The proposition is to pass over the special order informally for the purpose of taking up that bill. Does any Senator object? No objection being made, the bill is before the Senate.

Mr. DRAKE. I ask to have printed an amendment which I intend to propose to the pending resolution from the House of Representatives for the amendment of the Constitution, as a substitute for the first section.

The proposed amendment was ordered to be printed.

■Mr. POOL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to the joint resolution (H. R. No. 402) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States; which was ordered to be printed.