February 5, 1869 (2)

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The unfinished business of yesterday is before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole, being the joint resolution (H. R. No. 402) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I ask the Clerk to read the amendment that I submitted last night; not the one now pending, but the one which I propose to offer, and on which I wish to speak.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. Williams in lieu of the proposed article fifteen, as follows: Congress shall have power to abolish or modify any restriction upon the right to vote or hold office prescribed by the constitution or laws of any State.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I do not propose to tax the patience of the Senate with an elaborate speech, but to make a few remarks explanatory of the substitute which I propose for the report of the Committee on the Judiciary. Amendments to the Constitution make a permanent and inflexible rule of government, no matter what changes may occur in the circumstances or condition of the country; and, therefore, they ought to be carefully prepared and deliberately considered before they are adopted. Engaging in this work, we ought not to confine our vision to the present time or to the circumstances by which we are immediately surrounded, but we ought to look as far as we can at the possibilities of the boundless future. The amendment reported by th e Committee on the Judiciary touches the suffrage question only in one aspect, when the probabilities are that it must be considered in other aspects at a very early time.

Frequent changes in the Constitution of the country ought not lo be made when they can tie possibly avoided, for they tepd to destroy that veneration and r sjject which the- people should have for the organic principles of the Q Government, and to i reduce them to a level with the fluctuating legislation of the day:

Now, sir, the manifest object of the amendment, as reported -by the Committee' on the Judiciary, is tp extend to persons of African descent in the United States the right to vote 3 d to hold office and I' claim that the substitute which I propose will be more effectual than %e re jt df tliBCOBimittpe to accomplish that purpose. Any legislation by a State disfranchising persons upon the ground of race, color, or previous condition of servitude would no doubt be unconstitutional under theamendment reported Ijy the committee if it shall be adopted; h«t any legislation by a State excluding any person or class of persons upon any other conceivable ground v would not conrav ue1 that amendment.' Suppose, sir, that file White' people of a State should be disposed, having the p wer to disfranchise the colored citizen s of that State, could they not put the legislation' accomplishing that purpose upon some other ground than upon that of race or Color? Suppose, for illustration! the white people in the State of North Carolina should determine tot the' black people of that State were difiloy l ftnd should provide by a constitutional amendment or by a valid act of legislation that on Account p their disloyalty they should "be di sfra npiiised suppose that tfie white people of that State should' decide that the black men were disturbers of the public peace, and for that reason should be disfranchised chised: or suppose the white people of that State should decide that colored citizens were enemies to the peace and good order of society and to the existence of the Government, and should put the act of disfranchisement upon that ground, what remedy would exist under this amendment reported by the committee?’ Suppose the people of that State should provide that no person should vote or hold office who did not have a freehold qualification. Apparently that would operate equally upon all citizens, but it might practically operate to exclude nine tenths of the colored persons from the right of suffrage. Where would bo the remedy? The State would have exclusive, jurisdiction over these questions, and its decision would be irreversible by Congress or any other power; so that if a State should decide that the black people should be disfranchised by any legislation not putting it upon the ground of color or race, it would be valid legislation so far as this amendment reported by the committee isi concerned.

Now, sir, persons may be disfranchised for many reasons, and looking at the history of the reconstructed States we can find precedents there for disfranchising persons which might be employed by the enemies of colored suffrage in any State of this Union.' Many of the constitutions of the reconstructed States disfranchise persons for some antecedent acts of their lives. Constitutions are made declaring that a certain class of persons in those States who, prior to the adoption of the constitutions, had committed certain acts shall for that reason be disfranchised. Suppose that the white people of a State should be disposed to disfranchise colored citizens, and should provide by a constitutional amendment or by alaw thatall persons supporting a certain measure, or that all persons who voted for a certain candidate, should be disfranchised. While that law ostensibly would apply to white and black people alike, it might practically result in the disfranchisement of1 nearly all the colored citizens of the State, and there would be no remedy for that wrong under the amendment as proposed by the committee.

It is an old adage that where there is a will there is a way ;I! and I undertake to say that if this amendment which is proposed by the committee is adopted the white people of any State in this Union will possess the constitutional power to disfranchise' colored citizens; and they will only have to put th« act of disfranchisement upon some other ground than' that of color or race.

Now, sir, suppose the substitute, that I propose is adopted, Congress can at any time, if the white people of any State in any way which they may devise undertake to disfranchise colored citizens, correct that wrongful and oppressive legislation and maintain in every State of. this Union the equal political rights of all classes of citizens. Suppose this substitute which I have proposed should become a part of the Constitution, then Congress could proceed and remove in every State of this Union those restrictions upon the right of suffrage, or the right to hold office, which, in the judgment of this enlightened nation as developed through its representatives in Congress, are unjust and oppressive upon any class of persons. Take, for illustration, the State of Maryland, which now, by its constitution and laws, excludes colored citizens from the elective franchise. Congress,' if the amendment which I suggest should be adopted, could proceed by legislation and provide that the colored citizens of that State should enjoy equal rights with the white citizens thereofand so with any other State in this Union and it would be within the power of Congress tQ adapt its legislation to the circumstances of the people of .each State. It is not altogether certain that any rule upon the subject of suffrage ought to be absolute and unchangeable in its application to every locality in the United States, and to every period of time.

It is objected that Congress might repeal this law. Thatistrue; but, sir, this is objecting to many positive, practical advantages upon the ground of very improbable action. Suppose Congress had the power to day to say that the black people of the State of Maryland should exercise the right of suffrage, what would follow? When they became possessed of this povsrer the black people there, associating themselves in the same political organization with those who believe in the equal right of suffrage, would proceed and revise the constitution and laws of that State and fix in the fundamental principles of its government this doctrine of equal suffrage; and when it was so fixed by the action of the State authorities it would be entirely beyond the right of Congress to change or affect it.

If Congress should, pass alaw enfranchising the colored citizens of this country what are the probabilities of therepeal of any such law? Congress has enfranchised the black people of the District of Columbia and of every Terri tory in the United States, and where is the man who has ever suggested or advocated the repeal of that law? Is there any more probability if a law of this kind was passed applicable to a State that it would be repealed than there is that those laws which we have already enacted for the District of Columbia and the Territories of the United States will be repealed? Is there any more danger in putting this merely supervisory power into the hands of Congress as to the States than there is in conferring absolute power upon Congress as to the District of Columbia and the Territories?

Sir, suffrage never takes any backward steps; and jf Congress should once pass a law enfranchising the black people of this country there is no human probability that the law would ever be repealed. Look at the existing circumstances of the country. Eighteen or twenty of the States now by their constitutions allow colored citizens to vote and to hold office, and those constitutions and laws are beyond the reach of Congress, and they would remain beyond the reach of Congress if the amendment that I propose should be adopted. If such a thing is possible, if the enemies of colored suffrage should obtain the ascendency in Congress, is it probable that they would repeal a law giving suffrage to the black men in four or five States of this Union when they would know that by that very act they would array against themselves in solid phalanx the black voters of these eighteen or twenty States? It has been suggested, and it is the only objection I have heard to the amendment which I propose, that possibly .the Democratic party might obtain the ascendancy in Congress and repeal any such law; but, sir, the history of the late presidential election shows that the Democratic party is as anxious to secure the suffrage of black men as the Republicans or any other political organization in this country.

Now, sir, the amendment as reported by the committee relates exclusively to one class of persons. A proposition is made here to amend the Constitution of the United States for the benefit of one class of people, while the amendment that I suggest is equally for the benefit of all classes. Sir, I sympathize with the black people of this country, who have been enslaved, oppressed, and degraded, and I would do everything in my power, by means of education or by the extension of civil and political rights, to elevate them to a higher plane of existence. But is it perfectly certain that at no future time any other class of persons will be subjected to political burdens and disabilities in the United States? Contemplate this country, its great extent, its different sections, and its diversified interests, and is it perfectly clear in the light of our experience that conflicts may not arise between different States and different sections of the country which may eventuate in prescriptive legislation as to classes of persons not included in the committee amendment? Sir, the experience of this nation has been very much like the experience of other nations, and the probabilities are that we shall run the same career in many respects that other nations have run. Within the last few years we have had a terrific civil war in this country by which one section of the nation has been arrayed against the other. Is it perfectly certain that at no future time in the unbounded future other rebellions may not occur by which or in consequence of which one portion of the white people embittered against another may not seek its oppression?

Suppose that the rebels of the southern States, unrestrained by fear or force, had been left to themselves, is it not probable to suppose that they would have imposed upon the loyal white, people of the South political burdens and disabilities for the purpose of gratifying the revengeful feelings engendered in the rebellion? Look at the constitutions of these reconstructed States and some other constitutions that have been made in consequence of the rebellion and you will find- there that the loyal people of those States have adopted provisions disfranchising a certain class of white persons. I do not criticise, those proceedings or complain of them, for perhaps they were necessary at the time of their adoption; but I do say that there is some danger that the party adopting those provisions for the purpose of perpetuating its political ascendency may continue them when the exigencies that required their adoption have passed away, and therefore there may be a necessity for some supervisory power in the hands of Congress.

I refer to what has transpired in the lately rebellious States not so much for the purpose of approving or condemning as to illustrate the probabilities of the great future, and to argue that in time to come there may be insurrections, rebellions, and civil wars in this Country when it may become necessary for Congress to interpose to protect one class of white persons from oppressive and unjust legislation toward another class of white persons. Is it not possible that contending factions in a State may become so inimical to each other as to undertake, by proscriptive legislation, to put one or the other faction down and to build up one or the other faction? Congress may be supposed to be removed from the excitements and passions that may be found to prevail in any locality or any State, and may proceed deliberately and wisely to provide for just and impartial legislation for all classes and conditions of people.

Sir, there is an immense tide of emigration from Europe pouring upon our shores. Hundreds of thousands arrive here every year. In some States of the Union they constitute one third, and perhaps nearly one half of the population. I welcome these immigrants to our country, and hope that the tide may not diminish, bat may increase in power and in force. But, sir, is it perfectly certain that the time may never come when bitter controversies will arise between native born and foreigii boru citizens of the United States? May it not so happen that for some reason or another, in a State where the citizens are, perhaps, equally divided between Germans and Americans, a coritroversy may arise by which those having the majority may seek to impose political disabilities upon the niinority? Is it perfectly certain that it may never happen in some State of this Union where the Irish constitute a large element of the population that American citizens may not seek in some way to impose political disabilities upon them and deprive them of their just share of political power as naturalized citizens of the United States? I do not speak of these things as probabilities but as possibilities; and I say there ought to be a power in Congress to control this spirit if it should ever arise.

Sir, a few years ago there was a political party in this country calling themselves the American or Know Nothing party which was prompted by a spirit that would, if it had possessed the power, have imposed upon the naturalized citizens of these United States political burdens and disabilities. Can any man undertake to say that such a spirit in the future may not develop itself in some section or in some State that will need the controlling power of Congress?

Mr. President, all nations that have lived and filled a place in history have been subjected more or less to religious wars, and everybody familiar with history knows that a religious war exceeds all others in the intensity of its animosities and bitterness of feeling. I clo not say that it is probable that there will ever be a religious war in the United States; but is it perfectly certain that the time may never come when Protestants and Catholics may be arrayed against each, not only in the field of polemics, but perhaps upon the bloody field of strife? Or is it perfectly certain that one Protestant sect may not be arrayed against another, and that these controversies, bitter and malignant as they will be, may not be carried into the political arena and eventuate in the political proscription of one church by another? I hope that nothing of that kind will ever occur in these United States; but no man can undertake to say that our history in the future will be different from the history of all other nations in that respect.

Mr. President, several years ago an agitation commenced in this country upon the question of suffrage that has culminated in the proposition to give suffrage to all the colored citizens of the United States; and upon the heels of this agitation follows another. Every day Senators appear here loaded down with petitions asking Congress to provide by a constitutional amendment that the women of the United States may enjoy equal suffrage with the men. Under this amendment as I propose it, if the State of Kansas, which appears to be the pioneer State upon all questions of this nature, should memorialize Congress to pass a law striking the word "male" from her constitution, and her two Senators here should support that memorial, as I have no doubt they would, Congress could try the experiment of female suffrage in that State, and it could then be determined whether or not it would be advisable to extend the law to every State in this Union. Icannotdivest myself of theeonviction at this time that the experiment would he an unfortuate one for all concerned. I cannot now persuade myself that even the women, if they were to try this experiment, would be fully satisfied with it atid would meet with all that power and happiness which some of them so fondly anticipate from the exercise of such a right.

Mr. POMEROY. If the Senator will not take it as an interruption, I should be glad to ask a single question. I will not interrupt him unless he is willing to be interrupted.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am willing to hear the question.

Mr. POMEROY. I should like to ask the Senator upon what he bases the right to vote in this country under our form of government?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not discussing the right of anybody to vote, and I do not propose to be drawn into the discussion of that very profound question at this time; but I am simply saying that I am apprehensive that the women themselves, if they were to try this experiment, would not be as fully satisfied with it as some of them expect to be. I may be mistaken in that opinion, and I will say to the Senator that I have no theory whatever upon the subject of suffrage. Whenever, in my judgment, it is right or proper that any person or class of persons should exercise that right; whenever, in my judgment, it will conduce to the welfare of the country and the happiness and peace of all concerned, I am for extending suffrage everywhere and to everybody to accomplish that purpose.

Mr. POMEROY. I understood the Senator just now to say that he thought it might be well to have one qualification for suffrage in one State and one in another. I inferred, therefore, that he had no specific basis to rest the right of suffrage upon.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I did not exactly say what the Senator represents. I say that whether or not female suffrage in the United States will be of advantage to women does not depend on any speculation of man, but upon practical experiment, and if it should be tried in one State, as it might be under the amendment I propose, and found to be a success and satisfactory to all concerned, then by an act of Congress it might be extended to all the States.

Mr. POMEROY. The remark to which I alluded' was not made in reference to women, but in reference to men, that there might be a State or a location where restricted suffrage might be best for men. That was the point I had in my mind, inferring, as I said, that the Senator did not base the right of suffrage to men upon any specific basis.

Mr. WILLIAMS. 1 do not place it upon any specific basis, except upon the public good and the best interests of all concerned.

Mr. POMEROY. Who judges ofthe public

Mr. WILLIAMS. Who judges ofthe public good upon any question of constitutional law, or upon any act of legislation?

Mr. POMEROY. My point is, what makes one citizen a better judge than another?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not say that one citizen is a better judge than another, but while the Senator seems very anxious to draw me into a controversy in reference to the question of right, I know that he dare not vote to day to give every man in the United States the right of suffrage or the right to hold office. If an amendment was proposed now, providing that every foreigner, no matter from what country, as soon as he put his foot upon American soil, should have a right to vote and hold office, I know that the Senator would violate his beautiful theory and refuse to support any such amendment. So far as liis theory relates to all citizens I will say that every child, as soon as it is born upon American soil, becomes a citizen. Men, women, and children, all are citizens; and if you deny the right to make any limitations upon suffrage then all should exercise the right to vote and all should be eligible to office. But, sir, I do not propose to discuss that question. I should think the Senator would prefer the amendment that I propose; for if at any time it be the will of the American people, as it may be, that the women in this country shall enjoy the elective franchise, it will only be necessary for the people to express that will through the legislation of Congress, anditwill be accomplished. I do not know but that I may be mistaken in my views of this question. I know I have beerf' mistaken ab out many matters of this ndtu e .{mt I only propose "to express the apprehension that the woriien3 wheti they have tried .this experiment may co ne to feel like a romantic boyg oing to thewjtfr, dreaming of greatness and glory, fcut finding in tlie sufferings and sacrifices of the mai bit the* camp, and the battle, a strong desire to go back ag m to the quiet and happy home of his bojKoo d

Mr. President, I have referred to the tide 4 df immigration' pouring into this country from Europe, and upon that immigration I propose to. putno political or other restrictions or burdens. But there is another tide of immigration' flowing into this country from Asia, and spreading, itself upon the Pacific shores of this Republic. Now, if a constitutional amendment is adopted to the effect that all political distinctions as to race and color shall be forever abolished in the United States, of course it will follow that the Chinese who are coming here by thousands every year will find no constitutional obstacle to the exercise by them of the elective franchise and to the right to hold office.

Mr. STEWART. I ask the Senator if that could be accomplished unless we allowed them to be naturalized? This applies only to citizens.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I know that would not follow unless the naturalization laws are changed; but if the Constitution of the United States can be changed so as to abolish all political distinctions on account of race and color, how easily, upon the same principle, will it be to' change the naturalization Iaw3. And would.' not consistency require us to change" the naturalization laws and make them conformable upon principle to the provisions of the Constitution?

Now, sir, there, are, I suppose, at this time about one hundred thousand Chinese in the Pacific States and Territories, and every ship that comes across the Pacific brings its hundreds and lands them upon our shores. They are a people who do not or will not learn our language; they cannot or will not adopt «ar manners or customs and modes of life; they do not amalgamate with ourpeople; they constitute a distinct and separate nationality, an imperium in iniperio—China in the United States; and, sir, they are and. continue to be the ignorant and besotted d§vote 6s of absolutism in politics and the blind disciples of paganism in religion.

Sir, conceive the condition of things upon the Pacific coast if the governments of the States there were delivered into the hands of such a people. Suppose that the control of all GUI' educational and religious institutions was transferred to the hands of these people, what would be the con s juences to that portion of the Republic? Everybody has heard of the exhaustless population s of China, and if sufficient inducements are held out they may come to this country, not only by thousands but by millions, and it would be a very easy thing if by coming they could obtain political power for the Chinese to take possession of every State and Territory on the Pacific coast and appropriate the productions of that beau tiful, interesting, and valuable region, of the Republic to their exclusive benefit and use.

I hope, sir, that this nation will not bind itself hand and foot for all coming time, and deliver itself up to the political filth and moral pollution that are flowing with a fearfully increasing tide into our country from the shores of Asia.

Under the amendment that I propose each State can regulate the right of suffrage or the right of holding office for itself, subject to the supervising power of Congress, and if any laws should be enacted by a State governed by local passions or prejudices unjust to any portion of the people, Congress could intervene to abrogate or modify those laws so as to make them just and right in their operation. Sir, this is not so much of an attack upon the rights of the States as the amendment proposed by the committee, for unless in the judgment of the nation some constitutional nrovision or law iti a State is unjust Congress would not undertake to interfere; and I beg to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that Congress has no power under the amendment I propose to impose any political disabilities or restrictions—no other power except to extend the right of suffrage. In view of the right as it is, is there any danger that Congress will abuse this power and extend the right of suffrage to too many persons contrary to the wishes of any particular locality or State?

Mr. President, I have endeavored to explain my amendment, and I hope that Senators before they reject it will see if it has not the merit of comprehension and adaptability to all the possible changes of the country. I hope they will look at it, not only in the light of to day but in the light of all history, and determine if it be not safer and wiser to put a supervisory power in Congress over suffrage than tofixan inflexible and narrow rule upon the subject .that may be found insufficient and impracticable in the future developments of our history.

Mr. SUMNER. In the construction of a machine the good mechanic seeks the simplest process, producing the desired result with the greatest economy of time and force. I know no better rule for Congress on the present occasion. We are mechanics, and the machine we are Constructing has for its object the conservation of Equal Rights. Surely, if we are wise, we shall seek the simplest process, producing the desired result with the greatest economy of time and force. How widely Senators are departing from this rule will appear before I have done.

Rarely have I entered upon any debate in this Chamber with a sense of sadness so heavy as oppresses me at this moment. It was sad enough to be compelled to meet the champions of Slavery, as in other days they openly vindicated the monstrous pretension and claimed for it the safeguard of the Constitution, insisting that Slavery was national and Freedom sectional. But this was not so sad, as now after a bloody war with Slavery, and its defeat on the battle field to bo compelled to meet the champions of a kindred pretension, for which they claim the safeguard of the Constitution, insisting also, as in the case of Slavery, upon State Rights. The familiar vindication of Slavery in those early debates was less sickening than the vindication now of the intolerable pretension, that a State constituting a part of the Nation, and calling itself" republican," is entitled to shut out any citizen from participation in government, simply on account of race or color. To denominate such a pretension as intolerable expresses very inadequately the extent of its absurdity and the utfccrness of its repugnance to all good principles, whether of reason, morals, or government.

I make no question with individual Senators• I make no personal allusion; but I meet the odious imposture, as I met the earlier imposture, with indignation and contempt, naturally excited by anything unworthy of this Chamber and unworthy of the Republic. How it can appearhereand find Senators willing to assume the stigma of its championship is more than I can comprehend. Nobody ever vindicated Slavery, who did not lay up a store of regret for himself and children; and permit me to say now nobody can vindicate Caste, whether civil or political, the direct offspring of Slavery, as beyond the reach of national prohibition, without laying up a similar store of regret. Death may happily come to remove the champion from the judgment of the world; but history will make its faithful record, to be read with sorrow hereafter. Do not complain if I speak strongly. The occasion requires it. I seek to save the Senate from participation in an irrational and degrading pretension.

Others may be cool and indifferent; but I have warred with Slavery too long not to be aroused when this old enemy shows its head under another alias. It was once Slavery: it ,I0W Caste; and the same excuse is assigned now as then. It was in the name of State Rights, that Slavery, with all its brood of wrong, was upheld; and it is now in the name of State Rights, that Caste, fruitful also in wrong, is upheld. The old champions reappear, under other names, and from other States, each crying out, that, under the national Constitution, notwithstanding even its supplementary amendments, a State may, if it pleases, deny political rights on account of race or color aud thus establish that vilest institution, a Caste and an Oligarchy of the skin,_

.This perversity, which to a careless observer seems so incomprehensible, is easily understood when it is considered that the present generation grew up under an interpretation of the national Constitution, supplied by the upholders of slavery. State Rights were exalted and the nation was humbled, because in this way Slavery might be protected. Anything for Slavery was constitutional. Such is the lesson we were taught. How often it has sounded through this Chamber and been proclaimed in speech and law! Under its influence the right of petition was denied, the atrocious Fugitive Slave Bill was enacted, and the claim was advanced that Slavery traveled with the flag of the Republic. Vain are all our victories, if this terrible rule is not reversed, so that State Rights shall yield to Human Rights, and the nation be exalted as the bulwark of all. This will be the crowning victory of the war. Beyond all question the true rule under the national Constitution, especially since its additional amendments, is that anything for Human Rights is constitutional. Yes, sir; against the old rule, anything for slavery, I put the new rule, anything for Human Rights.

Sir, I do not declare this rule hastily and I know the presence in which I speak. I am surrounded by lawyers, and now I challenge any one or all to this debate. I invoke the discussion. On an occasion less important, Lord Chatham, after saying, that he came not with the statute book doubled down in dog s ears to defend the cause of Liberty; that he relied on a general principle, a constitutional principle, exclaimed, "It is a ground on which I stand firm; a ground on which I dare meet any man." In the same spirit I would speak now. No learning in books, no skill acquired in courts, no sharpness of forensic dialectics, no cunning in splitting hairs, can impair the vigor of the constitutional principle which I announce. Whatever you enact for Human Rights is constitutional. There can be no State Rights against Human Rights; and this is the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

A State exercises its proper function, when, within its own jurisdiction, it administers local law, watches local interests, promotes local charities, and, by its local knowledge, brings the guardianship of government to the homes of its citizens. Such is the proper function of the State, by which we are saved from that centralization which is elsewhere so absorbing. Buta State transcends its proper function, when it interferes with those equal rights, whether civil or political, which by the Declaration of Independence, and repeated texts of the national Constitution, are under the safeguard of the nation. The State is local in its character, and not universal. Whatever is justly local belongs to its cognizance; whatever is universal belongs to the nation. But what can be more universal than the Rights of Man? Such they have been declared by our fathers, and this axiom of Liberty nobody can dispute. Listening to the champions of Caste and Oligarchy under the National Constitution, and perusing their writings, I think that I understand the position which they take. With as much calmness as I can command, I have noted what they have to say in speech and in print. I know it all. I do not err when I say, that this whole terrible and ignominious pretension is traced to a direct and bare-faced perversion THE National Constitution. Search history, study constitutions, examine laws, and you will find no perversion more thoroughly revolting. By the National Constitution it is provided, that" the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature," thus seeming to refer the primary determination of what are called "qualifications" to the States; and this is reehforced by the further provision, that "the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time bylaw make or alter such regulations." This is all. On these simple texts, conferring plain and intelligible powers, the champions insist that "color" may be made a "qualification;" and that, under the guise of "regulations," citizens, whose only offense is a skin not colored like our own, may be shut out from political rights; and that in this way a monopoly of rights, being at once a Caste and an Oligarchy of the skin, is placed under the safeguard of the National Constitution. Such is the case of the champions; this is their stock in trade. With all their learning, all their subtlety, all their sharpness, this is what they have to say in behalf of an infamous pretension under the National Constitution. Everything from them begins and ends in a perversion of two words,'• qualifications" and regulations."

Now, to this perversion I oppose a pointblank denial. These two words are not justly susceptible of any such signification, especially in a national constitution, which is to be interpreted always, so that Human Rights shall not suffer. I do not stop now for dictionaries. The case is too plain. A "qualification" is something that can be acquired. A man is familiarly said "to qualify" for an office. Nothing can be a "qualification," which is notin its nature attainable, as residence, property, education or character, each of which is within the possible reach of well directed effort. Color cannot be a 1 ‘‘qualification.’’ If the prescribed "qualification" were color of the hair or color of the eyes, all would see its absurdity; but it is none the less absurd, when it is the color of skin. Here is an unchangeable condition, impressed by Providence. Are we not reminded that the leopard cannot change his spots or the Ethiopian his skin? These, are two examples of enduring conditions. Color is a quality derived from nature. Buta "quality" is very different from a "qualification." A quality, inherent in man and a part of himself, can never be a "qualification" in the sense of the national Constitution. On other occasions I have cited authorities and shown how this attempt to foist into the national Constitution a pernicious meaning is in defiance of all approved definitions as it is plainly repugnant to reason, justice, and common sense.

The same judgment must be pronounced on the attempt to found this outrage upon the power to make" regulations," as if this word had not a limited signification, which renders such a pretension impossible. "Regulations" are nothing but rules applicable to a given matter; they concern the manner in -which a business shall be conducted, and, when used with regard to elections, are applicable to what may be called incidents, in contradistinction to the principal, which is nothing less than the right to vote. A power to regulate is not a power to destroy or to disfranchise. In an evil hour, Human Rights may be struck down: but it cannot be merely by "regulations." The pretension, that under such an authority, this great wrong may be done, is another illustration of the extravagance which the champions do not shrink from avowing.

The whole structure of Caste and Oligarchy founded on two words may be dismissed. It is hard even to think of it without impatience; to speak of it without denouncing it as unworthy of human head or human heart. There are honorable Senators who shrink from any direct argument op these two words, and, wrapping themselves in pleonastic phrase, content themselves with the general assertion, that the power over suffrage Belongs to the States. But they cannot maintain this conclusion without founding on these two words; iusisting that color may be a" qualification," and that, under the narrow power to make "regulations" a race may be disfranchised. To this wretched pretension are they driven. And now, if there be eny such within the sound of my voice, I ask the question directly: can "color," whether of hair, eyes, or skin, be s,-" qualification" under our National Constitution? Under the pretense of making "regulations" of elections can a race .be disfranchised? With all the power derived from both these words, can any Ktate undertake to establish a Caste and organize an Oligarchy of the skin? To put these questions is to answer them.

Such is the case as presented by the champions. But looking at the National Constitution, we shall be astonished still more at this pretension. On other occasions I have gone over the whole case of Human Rights vs. State Rights, under the National Constitution. For the present I content myself with allusions only to the principal points.

It Is under the National Constitution that the champions set up their pretension; therefore,' to the National Constitution I go. And I begin by appealing to the letter, which from beginning to end does not contain one word recognizing "color." Its letter is blameless and its spirit is not less so. Surely a power to ■disfranchise for color must find some sanction in the Constitution. There must be some word of clear intent under which this terrible prerogative can be exercised. This conclusion of reason is reinforced by the positive text of our Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, where it is expressly announced that all men are equal in rights, and that just Government stands only on the consent of the governed. In the face of the National Constitution interpreted, first by itself, and, then by the Declaration of Independence, how can this pretension prevail?

But there are positive texts of the National Constitution, refulgent as the Capitol itself, which forbid it with sovereign irresistible power, and invest Congress with all needful authority to maintain the prohibition.

T ere is that key stone clause, by which it is expressly declared that," the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government," and Congress is empowered to enforce this guarantee. The definition of a republican government was solemnly announced by our fathers, first, in that great battle cry which preceded the Revolution," taxation without representation is tyranny," and secondly, in the great Declaration at the birth of the Republic, that all men are equal in rights and that just government stands only on the consent of the governed. A Republic is where taxation and representation go hand in hand; where all are equal in rights and no man is excluded from participation in the government. Such is the definition of a republican government, which it is the duty of Congress to maintain. Here is a bountiful source of power, which cannot be called ia question. In the execution of the guarantee 'Congress may—nay, must—require that there shall be no Caste or Oligarchy of the skin.

I know well the arguments of the champions. They insist that the definition of a republican government is to be found in the State constitutions at the adoption of the National Constitution, and, as all these, except Massachusetts, recognized slavery, they find that the denial of Human Rights is republican. But the champions forget that slavery was regarded as a temporary exception; that the slave, who was not represented, was not taxed; that he was not a part of the body politic that the difference at that time was not between white and black, bnt between slave and freeman; that all freemen without distinction of color were citizens, and that according to the history of the times, there was no State which ventured to announce in its Constitution a discrimination founded on color, except South Carolina, the persevering enemy of republican government for successive generations, so that if we look at the State constitutions, we find that they also testify to the true definition.

Here are words of authority, which the champions forget also. They forget that the Federalist in commending the Constitution, at the time of its adoption, insisted, that, if the slaves became free, they would be entitled to representation. I have quoted the striking words before, and now I quote them again;

"It is only under the pretext that the laws have transferred the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants —The Federalist, No. 54, by Hamilton.

The champions also forget that in the debates on the adoption of the national Constitution it was charged by its opponents and admitted by its friends that Congress was empowered to correct any inequality of suffrage. I content myself with quoting the weighty words of Madison in the Virginia Convention:

"Some States might regulate the elections on the principled' Equality, and others might regulate them otherwise."****" Should the people of any State, by any means, be deprived of the right of suffrage, it was judged proper that it should be remedied by the General Government."'***

If the elections be regulated properly by the State Legislatures, the congressional contret will very probably never be exercised. This power appears to be satisfactory and unlikely to be abused as any part of the Constitution —Eliot s Debates, vol. iii, p. 317.

The champions also forget that Chief Justice Taney in that very Dred Scott decision, where it was ruled that a person of African descent could not be a citizen of the United States, admitted that, if he wereonce a citizen, that is, if lie were once admitted to be a component part of the body politic lie would be entitled to the equal privileges of citizenship. Here are some of his emphatic words: "There is not, it, is believed, to be found in the theories of writers on government or in any actual experiment heretofore tried an exposition of the term citizen, which has not been considered as conferring the actual possession and enjoyment or the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment of an entire equality of jirivzlcjes, civil and political—10 Howard, 476.

Thus from every authority, early and late, from Hamilton, writing in the Federal s from Madison, speaking in the Convention at Richmond, from Taney, presiding in the Supreme Court of the United States, is there one harmonious testimony to the equal rights of citizenship.

If in the original text of the Constitution there could be any doubt, it was all relieved by the amendment abolishing Slavery and empowering Congress to enforce this provision. Already Congress, in the exercise of this power, has passed a civil rights act. It only remains, that it should now pass a political rights act, which, like the former, shall help consummate the abolition of slavery. According to a familiar rule of interpretation, expounded by Chief Justice Marshall in his most masterly judgment, Congress, when intrusted with any power, is at liberty to select the" means" for its execution. The Civil Rights act came under the head of means" selected by Congress, and a Political Rights act will have the same authority. You may as well deny the constitutionality of the one as the other.

The amendment abolishing slavery has been reenforced by another, known as article XIV, which declares peremptorily, that" no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States," and again Congress is empowered to enforce this provision. What can be broader? Colored persons are citizens of the United States, and no State can abridge their privileges and immunities. It is a mockery to say, that, under these explicit words, Congress is powerless to forbid any discrimination of color at the ballot box Why, then, were they inscribed in the Constitution? lo: what end? There they stand, supplying' an additional and supernumerary power, atnplefor safeguard against Caste or Oligarchy of the skin, no matter how strongly sanctioned by any State government.

But the champions, anxious for State RigRts against Human Rights, strive to parry this posi tive text by insisting that, in another provision of this same amendment, the potfer over ihss right to vote is conceded to the States." Mark, now, the audacity and fragility of this prgWxt It is true that" where the right to vote' is denied to the male inhabitants of a State, ofc in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or crime," the basisot representation is reduced in corresponding proportion. Such is the penalty imposed by the Constitution on a State, which denies the right to vote, except in a specific case. But this penaltyon the State does not in any way, by the most distant implication, impair the plenary powers of Congress to enforce the guarantee of a republican government, the abolition of slavery, and that final clause guarding the rights of citiz ens three specific powers which are left undisturbed, unless the old spirit of slavery is once more revived and Congress is compelled again to wear those degrading chains which for so long a time rendered it powerless for Human Rights. Mr. President, I make haste to the conclusion. Unwilling to protract this debate, I open the question in glimpses only. But, even in this imperfect way, it is clearly seen, first, that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the National Constitution to sustain the pretension of Caste or Oligarchy of the skin, as set up by certain States, and secondly, that there is in the National Constitution a succession and reduplication of powers, investing Congress with ample authority to repress any such pretension. In this conclusion, I raise no question on the power of the States to regulate the suffrage; 1 do not ask Congress to undertake any such regulation. 1 simply propose that, under the pretense of regulating the suffrage, States shall not exercise a prerogative, hostile to Human Rights, without any authority under the National Constitution andin defiance ofits positive texts. I am now brought directly to the proposed amendment of the Constitution. Of course, the question stares us in the face, why amend what is already sufficient? Why erect a supernumerary column?