February 5, 1869 (2)

So far as I know, two reasons are assigned. The first is that the power of Congress is doubtful. It is natural that those who do not sympathize strongly with the Equal Rights of all should doubt. Men ordinarily find iu the Constitution what is in themselves, so that the Constitution in its meaning is little more than a lefieciion of their own inner nature. As I am unable to find any ground of doubt, in substance or even in shadow, I shrink from a proposition which assumes that there Is a doubt. To my mind the power is too clear for question. As well question the obligation of Congress to guaranty a republican form of government 5 or the abolition of slavery; or the prohibition upon the States to interfere with the rights and privileges of citizenship, each of which is beyond question.

Another reason, assigned for a constitutional amendment is, its permanent character in comparison with an act of Congress which may be repealed. On this head I have no anxiety. Let this beneficent prohibition once find a place in our statute book and it will be as lastingas the National Constitution itself, to which it will be only a legitimate corollary. In harmony with the Declaration of Independence and in harmony with the National Constitution, it will become of equal significance, and 110 profane hand will touch its sacred text. It will never be repealed. The elective franchise once recognized can never bo denied; once conferred can never be resumed. The rule of Equal Rights once applied by Congress under the National Constitution will be a permanent institution as long as the Republic endures; for it will be avital part of that republican government to which the nation is pledged.

Pisnij jj He reasons for the amendment, I tuEpi to tf 8p srl cji m e «s hesitate to present it for ratification. There are two. J he an eodiptent admits that, under the National Constitution, as it isj with its recent additions, Caste and an P Oligarchy of the, skin may .be set up by a State mtkojit py tfl check from Congress; that th e ignoble f i ms of inequality are cpr si§t ent with republican government; a d j ati ke ,jiglat to .vote is not ari. existing privilege and immunity of citizenship; .All t js iapl nly admitted by tlj e proposed amendment, jkxki despoil iag Congress of beneficent powers ajjd emasculating the National Constitution itself. It is only with infinite reluctance that I can consent to any such admission which, in the endeavor to satisfy ungjnWous scr ipjes weakens all those texts, which afp 90 important for JJumap Rights.

The h J hesitation to present the amendment, is. increased, when we consider the difficulties in, the yif ,pf it^ ratification. I am no. arithmetician; .but I understand that nobody has yet been able to enumerate the States whose votes can be counted on to assure its ratification within any reasonable tin e Meanwhile this great question, which cannot brook delay—which, for, ,the sake of peace and to cpqij l te reconstruction, should be settled at 0£ cj3j is. hai ded over to. prolonged controversy in the States. .1 need not depict the evils which must ensue. A State will become for the tiaj g a political caldron into which will be dropped all the poisoned ingredients of prejudice and hate, while a powerful political party, chanting like the witches in Macbeth—

Double, double, toil and trouble,

Fire, burn; and caldron, bubble"— will use this very amendment as the puddingstick with which to stir the bubbling mass! Such a controversy should be avoided, if possible; nor should an agitation, so unwelcome and so sterile, be needlessly invited. "Let us have peace."

Of course, if there were no other way of accomplishing the great result, the amendment should be presented, even with all its delays, uncertainties, and provocations to local strife. But happily all those are unnecessary. The same thing may be accomplished by act of Congress without any delay, without any uncertainty, and without any provocation to local strife. The same vote of two thirds, required for the presentation of the amendment, will pass the act over the veto of the President. Once adopted, it will go into instant operation, without waiting for. the uncertain concurrence of State Legislatures, and without provoking local strife so wearisome to the country. The States will not be turned into political caldrons, and the Democratic party will have no pudding-stick with which to stir the bubbling mass.

I do not depart from the proprieties of this occasion when I show how completely the course I now propose harmonizes with the requirements of the political party to which I belong. Believing most sincerely that the Republican party, in its objects, is identical with country and with mankind, so that in sustaining it 1 sustain these comprehensive charities, I cannot willingly see this agency lose the opportunity of confirming its supremacy. You need votes in Connecticut, do you not? There are three thousand fellow-citizens in that State ready at the call of Congress to take their place at the ballot box You need them also in Pennsylvania, do younot? There are at least fifteen thousand in that great State waiting for your summons. Wherever you most need them, there they are; and be assured they will all vote for those who stand by them in the assertion Equal Rights. But in standing by them you stand by all which is most dear in the Republic. lardoume; butifyou are not moved by considerations of justice under the Constitution, then I appeal to that humbler motive which is found in the desire for success. Dp this and you will assure the triumph of all that you can most desire. Party, country, mankind, will be elevated, while the Equal Rights of all will be fixed on a, foundation not less enduring ^han the Rpck of Age;?.,....,...

Mr, YICJvEBS. Mr. President, I have listened with no small: degree of attention for arguments showing the necessity for the adoption of the joint resolution before the Senate but I have listened in vain, X expected to hear something about .the necessity of introducing t iis new fi epientin our political organization but I have listened without being informed. I had supposed that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SujaifER,] who has just taken his seat, would have enlightened me and given some information which I do not possess; but so far from that he has dealt in denunciation and in epithets which have no force iijthem; which do not enlighten the judgment nor eoijyince the understanding. The Senator speaks of the audacity of those who shall venture to oppose this resolution; of the champions of slavery, when he knows that no slavery exists in this country. The only nominal, arguments that I have heard are the "logic of events," "the logical results of the war," and the" oligarchy of color." If I had a doubt about the propriety of the passage of the resolution I should have been convinced hy the speech of the honorable Senator from Oregon [Mr. Williams] that it ought not to pass. i e ha# exhibited such a state of things that may befall our country in the future, especially by the introduction of a foreign element upon our .Pacific coast, as to satisfy us that we should abstain from all interference with this question of suffrage; that we should leave it to the people of the States, who are acquainted with the moral and intellectual character and habits of those who live in them, and are therefore better qualified than the Congress of the United States can be to judge of the qualification of voters.

The Senator from Massachusetts, whfle he attempted to show that the States had no authority to impose qualifications upon voters, forgot to allude to the second resolution enunciated by his party at Chicago in these words: The question of suffrage in all the loyal States properly belongs to tlio people of those States."

Here is a direct and unequivocal assertion that the States have a right to judge of the qualification of voters; and in his own State there is a properly qualification. This resolution, as a portion of the Chicago platform, went before the people of the country in November last, and the election was decided upon the principle, that "the question of suffrage in all the loyal States properly belongs to the people of those States."

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Ferry] who spoke yesterday, talked of the technicality of an estoppel; that those who opposed the joint resolution before the Senate wanted to use the technicality of an estoppel against those who desire to promote the passage of this resolution. What is understood by an estoppel? If a man gives his bond to another for a valuable consideration is he not estopped from denying it or from disputing the debt? If a man execute a deed for property for a valuable consideration is he not estopped from denying it to be his deed? Then, what is the difference when a political principle is declared by a party, for they call these resolutions "the folio wing declaration ofprineiples?" Here is a political principle announced by a convention representing every portion of the United States—North, South, East, and West. That convention announced distinctly the principle that the question of suffrage belonged pi operly to the States, and upon that they went before the people of the United States. Can it now be said that those who oppose this resolution, and recall to their minds the resolution of the Chicago convention, desire to estop them? Why, sir, in the country from which Income an honorable man s word is equal to his bond; and this declaration of principles ought to be as sacred and inviolate as the bond signed, sealed, and delivered by the political party to which the gentleman belongs. It is not competent now for those who acquiesced in, sanctioned, and: supported that platform, by the votes which they gave and ftp cau rse which they pursued in the canvass of last fall, to deny it or to undertake to circumvent it.

Another principle laiddown by that convention was th e following: vJfe denounce all forms of repudiation, as a national crime; and national lienor requires the payment of the public indebtedness in the utmost good faith to all creditors at home and abroad, tiot only according to the letter, but the spirit of the lawx under which it was .contracted,"

Is the one more a principle than the other? Is one more binding upon the party than the other? Are they not equally bound in honor to carry out the principle in relation to suffrage as. well as- that in relation to repudiation? Another principle laid down by that convention was this:■■--

The doctrine of (JreatBritain and pthetJEuropean Powers, that because' a man is onc8 a subject he is always so, must be resisted at every hazard by the United Statesas arelic of the feudal time s not authorized by the law of nations and at war with our na t tional honor and independence." 1•_.•

Could they now endeavor to repudiate that? Another was that—'

"Foreign emigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development of resources, and increase of power to this nation, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations, should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy.".

Could Congress now undertake to institute an illiberal and an unjust policy in reference to the emigration of foreigners to this country, ii) defiance of this, declaration? The one is just as binding as- the other.

The Senator from Connecticut told us that there was an evil in theland. I have, not heard of any memorials asking for the passage of this measure, nor have I heard r«ad the requests of State Legislatures asking for its- passage. Then the' evil consists in depriving a portion of the people of the right of suffrage—a class in eighteen States, as the Senator said, of thennatural rights. I had always supposed that suffrage was a function of the Government; that government was founded in compact, and that the right of suffrage proceeded from the Government in the execution of its proper and legitimate functions. There is no natural right to vote. If it were so, as has been properly said by others, all classes, female as well as male, would have the same right; but it is only by the action of Government that this right exists.

But the Senator further said that the principle of the constitutional amendment now before the Senate was the principle underlying the resolution of the Chicago platform which said that '1 the question of suffrage in all the loyal States properly belongs to the people of those States." I ask what was the plain, apparent, ostensible meaning of this resolution which I have read? Can it be said that there was something underlying this, lying beneath the surface and not seen, which is to control that which is seen?

But the Senator further said that the fourteenth resolution of that convention also embraced the principle contained in the resolution before the Senate. That resolution was in these words:

We recognizo the groat principles laid down in the immortal Declaration of Independence as the true foundation of democratic government; and wo hail with gladness every effort toward making those principles a living reality on every inch of American soil."

I have always understood that these principles have pervaded the governments of the States in the sense which those who used thorn intended them to be understood. What are the principles of the Declaration of Independence? They are abstract enunciations of principles, and form no part of the Constitution, which was framed afterward.

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal; that they aro endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit 0/ happiness.

Is there anything said about the right of suffrage; is that one of the natural and ioalieuable rights tf man -aa the honorable Senator from Connecticut yesterday contended?

The other principle contained in the Declaration is:

That the se united colonics are, and of right ought to bo, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and tile State of UreatBritain is, and ©.ughfcto be, totally dissolved."

These are the principles of the Declaration of Independence. The very men who framed this Declaration were many of them owners of slaves, a ad t vejye of the thirteen States represented in the Congress making the Declaration. were slave States; and the practical interpretation which has been given to this instrument from that period down to 1860 has been that it had no relation to the Constitution of the United States, and could not control any of its provisions. But I have discovered that whenever a party or an individual is desirous of exercising a power which is doubtful and cannot be found in the Constitution a resort is always had tothegeneraltermsof the Declaration of Independence, which seems to be the favorite theme of the Senator from Massachusetts. But there is no provision in the Constitution which authorizes such a construction as is -contended for. If the principle of the Senator from Connecticut were carried out all persons would have the same right to vote; they would be born* with a right to vote.

If it be desired to obtain the voice of the people on this subject, the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dixon] is the proper one to attain that object. He has called the present system of representation in Connecticut a" rotten boroughsystem If 1 mistake not, that Senator lost his election in consequence of that system. One half of the State owning one half of the property, one half of the wealth of the State, with one half of its population, had perhaps not more than a third of the representation in the Legislature, and in consequence of that the defeat of the honorable Senator was accomplished. But this very question of suffrage was submitted to the people of Connecticut in. their primary capacity when the question was unaffected by anything else, when there was no collateral issue to divert their minds from this plain and simple issue, and they decided against the introduction of negro suffrage in that State. An election is soon to be held in Connecticut for Governor and representatives in the Legislature. I ask the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Ferry] if when this issue is made in Connecticut a majority of the people of that State shall elect a Democratic Governor upon that issue, but owing, to the mode of gerrymandering the Stale, a majority of the representatives in the Legislature elected shall be in favor of this constitutional amendment, what ought that Legislature to do upon the question? Ought they to obey the voice of the people as indicated by the election of a Governor, or vote for this proposition against that voice thus made known? If this amendment is now submitted to the Legislatures it will be submitted to those, in that State particularly, who may represent a minority of the people. And shall that vote of Connecticut, under such circumstances, which may be the casting vote to adopt a constitutional provision introducing this negro element into our political system thus impose upon Indiana or any other State a provision in the Constitution which, if properly submitted to the people, would not be adopted?

The Senator from Connecticut yesterday seemed to hail the approach of the day when all inequalities would be abolished. I do not know whether he meant political inequalities only, or whether ho designed to extend it to social relations. But if the States once surrender to Congress the right to control suffrage they cease to be independent States; they are neither independent nor sovereign, and lose the character which they have always had. This amendment applies to the election of members of the Legislature and judges, comptrollers, justices of the peace, and constables; it applies to all elections'. What connection or relation is thete between the election of a constabfe and the election of a President of the United States or a member of Congress? If it were designed only to apply this provision to that which relates to the General Government, then it should be restricted and framed to refer only to elections for electors of President and Vice President and Representatives in Congress. It provides that the States shall in no elections disqualify any one on the ground of race, color, or former condition. What interest has the General Government in the election of a constable or any State officer? What interest has it in municipal elections? If the States Surrender this right in regard to their municipal elections they surrender everything to the General Government, and are made dependent upon it.

The Senator from Connecticut told us that he gloried in being a citizen of the United States; and I understood him to say that his State was not an independent republic or an independent State, ana that the very reason for which the Constitution was framed was that the States should not be independent republics. Let me read a few words from the forty fifth number of the Federalist, written by Mr. Madison, on this subject. He says:

Thus each of the principal branches of the Federal Government will owe its existence more or loss to the favor of the State governments andrausteon sequentiy feel a dependence which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing toward them."

This shows rather the dependence of the Federal Government upon the State governments. The argument of that Senator yesterday in enhancing and exalting the powers of the General Government would make the creature greater than the creator. Who created the General Government? Was it not the States? Did they not agree to part only with a certain, defined, limited number of powers, conferring them upon the General Government for special purposes, and to retain all other powers? But if the General Government is to control the States and the right of suffrage then it becomes a Government of unlimited power, and the reserved rights under the constitution of the States are matters of little consequence. The honorable Senator from Indiana [Mr. Morton] in his speech on yesterday said that this second resolution of the Chicago convention was merely intended to define the constitutional provision on the subject of suffrage. But was it necessary that that convention should define it? Was it not a matter universally conceded to the States? Had they not enjoyed and exercised the power from the formation of the Government down to the time of the holding of that convention? Where was the necessity of defining that relation or that power in the Constitution? It could not be because there was any ambiguity about it, or because it was doubted. It is possible that the reason was that the course of the Republican party on the subject of slavery and reconstruction might have created a doubt in the public mind as to their orthodoxy on this question, and in order to set themselves right before the public they incorporated this provision in explicit terms in their platform.

The Senator from Indiana further said that the members of the Democratic party on this floor had not discussed this question upon its merits, but upon another issue, and he seemed to think that it was owing to the pressure of public sentiment. But, sir, was it not the dilemma in which this platform has placed the Republican party that induced that remark of the honorable Senator? He has not attempted to answer the argument of his colleague on thesubjectof the canvass, which was conducted in that State when no question in regard to the right of suffrage was raised, because the meaning of that part of the platform was taken by both parties for what it literally signifies.

But he also said that the Democratic party was not a progressive party. I am not an authorized exponent of the principles of the Democratic party;, but I suggest that there might have been- an obvious answer to that question in the mind of the honorable Senator. It is that the Democratic party js not a. progressive party because the Constitution is not progressive; the principles of the Constitution are now just as they were when they came from the hands of our fathers; they are' plain, explicit, and well defined; and a parfcy which stands upon the Constitution cannot, in relation to constitutional questions, be a progressive party.''■

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr, Wilson] who spoke theother day, seemed to attribute to prejudice all the opposition to this amendment, and he pronounced the position of the country on this subject a dishonorable one. Now, I believe the honorable Senator was a candidate for the second place .in the Government, and I suppose he was very willing to stand upon this platform, and; would have adopted it, and did adopt it. But the Senator said that emancipation was in harmony with the decrees of Almighty God, and that the adoption of this resolution would be in harmony with our institutions. I do not know what special authority the Senator had for expounding the decrees of the Almighty, but 1 will give him a few quotations from those decrees as I find them in the Scriptures:

"And No all said cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he bo unto his brethren." (fieiicsis, 1X, ;And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive he armed his trained servants born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, andpursued them unto Dan." (Genesis, xiv., 14.)

All born slaves; and in Leviticus (xxv., 45, 46,) it is laid down expressly as the law:

Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you which they begat in your land, and they shall bo your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you to inherit them for a possession: theys hall be your bondmen even forever."

1 suppose that there is no one in this country that would desire to see slavery restored; and the fears of the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumner,] who spoke to day are perfectly groundless, and he may readily dismiss them. But the Senator from Massachusetts who sits near me [Mr. Wilson] is not justified in attributing to prejudice or ignorance the position of those who may entertain different opinions on the subject of suffrage from those which he now announces as governing himself. Wherever suffrage has been exercised by the negro I have not yet heard or learned of any improvement or reformation either in morals or in intelligence, nor of any great development of character or advantages arising to those communities. It is hardly magnanimous in the Senator from Massachusetts to endeavor to fix this law of suffrage upon those who do not desire it, because this fragrant black rose does not grow well in the frosty soil of New England nor in northern latitudes. This District may be called the botanical political experimental garden where this subject is now in process of trial and expansion; and I have not heard that any improvement has resulted from it. During the heated months of June and July last, ■when it became necessary for me to take the avenue cars to reach the Capitol, there was a considerable intermixture of this beautiful black flower; and I was uncharitable enough at times while there to wish that the two honorable Senators from Massachusetts were present also that they might inhale the delightful odor. Such proximity in public conveyances as alike offensive to the taste, instinct, judgment, and olfactories of the citizens. The Senator says it is prejudice. Whether it is prejudice or whether it is instinct, it exists, and the Senator has admitted it to exist, and he says it will cost his party many votes if this provision shall be passed.

The Senator might as well contend that one hundred per cent, impost duty laid upon all articles of foreign importations similar to the productions of his section of the country was just, and that those who opposed it were governed by prejudice!

But I will oppose to the Senator the opinions of distinguished gentlemen of this body, showing that this prejudice is not altogether unfounded. In the first place I will read from a speech delivered by the honorable Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Stewart,] who lias this Joint resolution in charge, made on the 21st dayof December, 1865. He then said:

"The true question is, shall the General Government interfere with theright of suffrage in the States When this is attempted we are not only met by the prejudices, whether justorunjust of alarge majority of the white inhabitants of the United States, but by the OOnscientiOtts opinions of the Chief Executive of the nation, sustained by many of the wisest and best statesmen and jurists of the country, that the Constitution has placed the question of suffrage exclusively within State jurisdiction. I do not propose to argue at length either the prejudices of the former or the constitutional objections of the latter. But >ve must remember that prejudice is often more powerful than reason, and that it often happens that prejudice itself is founded in reason. If this is not a white man s Government, one thing is certain, that neither the black mati or the red man has ever reared such a Government."

•These were the opinions of the distinguished Senator from Nevada only three years ago, that this prejudice, if it existed, if it was a prejudice, was founded in reason; that this was a- white man s Government, and that no such Government was ever erected by the black man or the red man. These are the words of truth and of soberness, delivered in the Senate of the United States after a deliberate and mature consideration of the subject.

liut I will read further from a speech delivered by an honorable Senator, now a member of this body, one of age, of experience, of long service in the Halls of Congress, one whose observation and position entitled him to the respect aiid confidence of his political associates, one from whom words of wisdom might be expected. That Senator, in 1861, in the month of March, spoke on a resolution of the House to amend the Constitution by adding the following as article thirteen:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any State with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

On the discussion of that resolution the Senator said:

"Mr. President, wo must oomo back to the old ark of our safety. We must stand upon the old Constitution; and upon the old, timo honored constructions of that instrument as understood by Marshall, by Story, and the great lights of jurisprudence that ha vo investigated and settled almost every question that can possibly arise upon its construction. X observe the very moment you attempt to patch it •up, the very moment you attempt to go counter to that, inevitable difficulties break in upon you, I do not want it amended; X see no defect in it; I am sworn t« stand by it."

Would the Senator from Massachusetts call that an ignorant prejudice uttered by one so distinguished in this body, A prejudice! No, sir. That Senator who made this declaration now occupies the chair of the Senate, [Mr. Wade,] and I concur in what he then stated. The very moment you attempt to patch up the ■Constitution by these amendments you detract from it. Then there was an amendment pending before the Senate; and he opposed it, not because he would interfere with slavery within the States, for I do not think he ever entertained such a design, but because, the very moment you attempt to patch up the Constitution, that very momentyou get into inevitable difficulty. You had better let it alone; he said, "I do not want it amended; I see no ■defect in it." That was in 1861, and that distinguished Senator then seeing no defect in it he was determined to stand by it and was sworn to support it.

But the honorable Senator from Nevada, in 1865, said in this body;

Now that these sacrifices have been made and the victory won, are we not bound by every obliga- ;eVCTf ee/«r the dead, regard for the living, and fear of God can inspire, to preserve, not ThmWk Constitution and Union of these States? In, tk«' f? are presented to the counflA rore alron the South. The one which finds favor in Congress, if we were tn indo f nf the sentiment of that body from those who talk most. is to govern eleven States as conquered provinces bv an exercise of power unwarranted by the Constitution, which must inevitably deraagb if not destroy that charter of our liberties. This plan trusts all to force, nothing to conciliation; ail to revenge, nothing to charity. It treats with equal contempt the good opinion or hatred of seven million American citizens."

Those were eloquent expressions properly delivered. In the same speech the honorable Senator said, what is more appropriate to the subject under consideration:!

It may tiot be unjust for a people whose liberties cd h only be sustained by intelligence and virtue to pause and hesitate before they intrust those liberties in the hands of four million unfortunate persons, just emerged from the most degrading slavery, before they shall have had an opportunity to learn the principles of that Government whose functions they are called upon to administer."

Now, the honorable Senator has the resolution before the Senate in charge, and has proceeded with almost hot haste to press it upon the attention of the Senate to the exclusion of other and more important business; and what is the purpose now? It is to give the right of suffrage to the negro, to make him equal in office, equal in all political rights with others. And who are those that he wishes thus to introduce into the body politic Are they not the very persons whom he described as four millions of unfortunate persons just emerged from the most degrading slavery before they have had an opportunity to learn the principles of the Government whose functions they would be called upon to administer? Now, the Senator is anxious to introduce as voters these very persons who, he says, have had no opportunity to learn the principles of the Government? Why shall ignorance be thus introduced? The Senator knew then, as he stated, that these people were uninformed, had emerged from slavery, and that one of the charges against that system was that the slaves were kept in ignorance. He said in 1865 that these people were incompetent, to exercise this right; that they had not the ability; were ignorant, and must first learn the principles of the Constitution. That was the language of the Senator from Nevada three years ago. Alas, how changed! and shall such things "overcome ns as a summer s cloud, without our special wonder?"

I beg to read an extract from a speech of the honorable Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Wade,] who occupies the chair of the Senate, made in 1860: "There is in these United States a raceof men who are poor, weak, uninfluontial, incapable of taking care of themselves. I mean the free negroes, who are despised by all, repudiated by all; outcasts upon the face of the earth without any fault of theirs that I know of; but they are the victims of a deep rooted prejudice, and I do not stand here to argue whether that prejudice bo right or wrong. I know such to be the fact. It is there immovable. It is perfectly impossible that these two races can inhabit the same place and be prosperous and happy. I see that this species of population are just as abhorrent to the southern States, and perhaps more so than to the North; many of those States are now, as 1 think, passing most unjust laws to drive these men off or to subject them to slavery; they are flocking now into the free States and we have objections to them. Now, the proposition is, that this great Government owes it to justice, owes it to those individuals, owes it to itself and to the free white population of the nation, to provide a meanswhereby thisolassof unfortunate men may emigrate to some congenial clime, where they may bo maintained to the mutual benefit of all, both white and black. This will insure a separation of the races. Let them go into the tropics. There, I understand, are vast tracts of the most fertile and inviting lands in a climate perfectly congenial to that class of. men, where the negro "will bo predominant; where his nature seems to be improved, and all his faculties, both mental and physical, are fully developed, and where the white man degenerates in the same proportion as the black roan prospers. Let them go there; let them be separated: it is easy to do it,"

That distinguished Senator said that these two races could not exist together and be prosperous and happy. That was in 1860, when there was only a small proportion of free negroes in the country compared to those who are here now by virtue of emancipation. If it was impossible for the races to exist together when the negroes constituted but a small proportion, how is it possible that they can now exist together prosperously and happily when the proportion is so much greater? If, when the evil is small, they could not exist, will you cause them to exist prosperously and happily together when that evil is multiplied tenfold? The Senator from Kansas, [Mr. Pomeroy.] from his eloquent speech some days sincc, I should infer was favorable to universal suffrage. I cannot see how, according to the principles of that speech, he can oppose the right of the southern people to vote. He is willing to 'extend it to all the negro race and to all the females, and can he be unwilling now, on the principles which he has announced, to extend it to those white men who reside in the South? In his speech a few days since he said:

'-I now come to this point to say that to deprive any citizen of the right of suffrage is a violation of the principles of our Government asit wasordaiped, and is a blow direct at the nvernmentitseltV Ihave studied this form of government to tio purpose if its logic does not lead me to universal and impartial suffrage."

And further, hg says:

CitijensMp isof birthright or of choice in ourform of government, and the ballot is one of the rights admitted, ay, conceded, and cannot be conferred. Who gave any class theright to monopolize the elective franchise 1",,

Now, I would ask the honorable Senator if he can oppose extending the right of suffrage to the southern people. They have been pardoned by the Executive. All the benefits and advantages that can be derived from a pardon have been granted to them, and now, having been pardoned, and standing upon the same platform as the Senator and myself, can he object to the right of suffrage being exercised by them?

Mr. POMEROY. If the Senator is not unwilling to be interrupted I will say that I said nothing against extending the suffrage to all persons who had not been convicted of crime. I am for giving suffrage to innocent people of the prescribed age. I think if the Senator will continue reading from my remarks he will see that I am for extending suffrage to all persons not convicted of crime, and I want it placed in the -Constitution. I do not hold that anybody has a right to give it or take it away, but it ought to be in the fundamenal law.

Mr. VICKERS. I am very happy to hear the Senator avow his willingness to give suffrage to those who have been pardoned.

Mr. POMEROY. I said to those who had never been convicted. I do not know of any criminals until they are convicted.

Mr. VICKERS. No one can be convicted unless there is first an indictment and a trial, a verdict of a jury, and judgment of a court. But all others, as I understand the Senator s doctrine, are citizens, and of course have a right to vote.

The seventy fourth number of the Federalist, written by Mr. Hamilton, on the subject of pardon by the Executive, says:

But the principal argument for reposing the power of pardoning in this case in the Chief Magistrate is this: in seasons of insurrection or rebellion there are often critical moments when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the Commonwealth, and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterward to recall. The dilatory process of convening the Legislature, or one of its branches, for the purpose of obtaining its sanction would frequently be the occasion of letting slip the golden opportunity. The loss of a week* a day, an hour may sometimes be fatal."

This power of pardon is an executive right. There is no provision of the Constitution which gives to the Legislature any participation in it, but it is exclusively an executive function to be exercised by the President. The Presidont has undertaken to exercise this power according to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Fjsrry] said some time since that the President had exceeded his power because he added the word "amnesty" to "pardon." If the power be given to the President to pardon, and it be lodged in no other Department of the Government, do not all the legitimate inferences and incidents growing out of that power belong to him?

But I contend that the power of pardon is the greater and it includes the lesser. In Jacob s Law Dictionary, from which the Senator read, I find amnesty defined to be "an act of pardon or oblivion, such as was granted at the restoration of King Charles II." The same definition is given in Tomlins s Law Dictionary and in Bouvier a Law Dictionary. In it is said: "in general the effect of a full pardon is to restore a convict to all his rights." Amnesty is from two Greek words signifying "not to remember." It is defined in Burril s Law Dictionary to be an "act of pardon or oblivion; a public declaration or proclamation that all acts against the established authority shall be forgotten and pardoned;" and Webster treats pardon and amnesty as synonymous terms. If a man be pardoned, though an indictment may have been found, there is nothing to operate upon him; his person and his property are entirely absolved from any action of the Government. But where no indictments were found, and I presume there were but few prosecutions, the proclamation reached the unnamed masses who can never be distinguished from their fellows by reason of previous conduct. Amnesty is generally extended to masses, pardon to individuals by name; but the latter embraces the former. The President, therefore, in my opinion, has rightfully exercised the power which was invested in him by the Constitution.

The Senator from Kansas in 1865, did not seem to entertain the doctrine which he now promulgates. He said then in a speech in the Senate:

"For one, sir, I am for leaving this question of suffrage to the citizens of the States, and I claim it as their right to admit whoever they choose to the ballot box I am not loyal enough myself to allow my own rights as a citizen of a State to be trampled upon in that way. I would not be dictated to, as a "ii izen of a sovereign State, by Congress or any other power as to what kind of citizens of my State should bo allowed to vote. If they choose to let all the citizens, including the women, vote it is not a matter for Congress to interfere with. The citizens of a State are not confined to its male citizens, either white or black, and the right of voting does not follow the right of citizenship. The States have their own way about that. Some States let one class of persons vote and some another, and I want that course continued.

"The people of my own State are supposed to be loyal; they are as radical as are the citizens of Massachusetts; but they are not loyal enough to allow Congress to dictate to them what kind of qualifications for voting they shall have."

These were the sentiments of the Senator from Kansas in 1865. He then said that the States have a right to admit any one to vote; it is their right, their exclusive right. Congress has no right to dictate to them who shall vote. His theory is that every one should vote, no matter where he may have been born or to what race he may belong.

Sir, naturalists and ethnographers divide mankind into several distinct varieties or races. Cuvie r refers them all to three, Pritchard to seven, Agassiz to eight, Pickering to eleven, but the common classification is that of Blumenback, who makes five; first, the Caucasian or white race, to which belong the greater part of the European nations and those of western Asia; second, the Mongolian or yellow race, occupying Tartary, China, Japan, etc.; third, llio Ethiopian or negro race, occupying all Africa, except the north; fourth, the American or red race, containing the Indians of North and South America; and fifth, the Malayan or brown race, occupying the islands ofthe Indian Archipelago. When all distinctions of color, according to the resolution before the Senate, are discarded these races are to have the same rights. According to the theory of the Senator from Massachusetts, who spoke to day we have no right to distinguish between colors; that color is a quality and not a qualification; Massachusetts has a right to institute a property qualification; she has exercised the right of denying to men the right of suffrage unless they have a property qualification, not an educational, not an enlightened, mental qualification, not a qualification growing out of intelligence and morals, but one arising out of the mere possession of property to a certain amount.

Tlie Senator from Kansas is a very eloquent advocate for the right of suffrage for females. I have such a veneration for the character of woman that I should regret to see her descend from her lofty position of moral purity and excellence to engage in the intrigues and demoralization of politics; and I am sure if she knew what they were she would- never desire to do so. I will read from Parton s Life of Andrew Jackson some of the characteristics of a New York politician; this is history:

The Code ofthe New York Politician.

I. Politics is a game, the prizes of which are offices and contracts.

XI. The game, so far as our side is concerned, must be played with strict fairness. With respect to the other side, all is fair in politics, as in war.

V III. In elective governments, all politics ncoessarily resolve themselves into a contest, for the highest place. That gained, all is gained. To that end, therefore, everything else is to be subordinate.

IV. The people aresovereign—as Queen Victoria is sovereign. Treated always with tho profoundest deference, the sovereign in nothing.

"In England the ministers, in America the politicians, are everything. But tho sovereign is to be humored to tho top of his bent, and so led.

"V. fidelity to party is the sole virtue ofthe politician. lie only is a politician who would vote unhesitatingly for the devil, if the devil were regularly nominated. One sin only is unpardonable—bolting. "VI No man must be allowed to suffer on account of his fidelity to his party. No matter how odious to the people he may have made himself by his fidelity, he must be provided for the moment it can be safely done.

VII. The party door must always stand wide open for the reception of converts from the other side, but shut rigorously against repentant renegades. "VIII. Personal enmities are to he most scrupulously avoided. In dealing with an opponent, ho must bo treated with a view to his one day becoming 'one of up.'

"IX. Nothing is more fatal in politics than a premature publication of the programme. Nothing is to be done to day which can as well be done tomorrow. A surprise is often half a victory.

"X. Every partisan il must contribute to a contest both according to his means and his disposition; rich, liberal men, money; rich, mean men, influence and name; active men labor idle men, the show of their presence; eloquent men. eloquence; cool, shrewd men, management and direction; all men, without one exception, votes —Parton s Life of Andrew Jackson, vol. 3 pp 122 23

These are only some of the characteristics of politicians; and if woman but knew the secret history and nature of politics, she would not compromise her delicacy and sensibility to mingle and participate in them. The familiarity and coarseness in which the elective franchise with all its attendants would involve her, would impair, if not destroy, the charm and prestige which now encircle her, and she would cease to be the superior of man. Her refinement., feebleness, and unobtrusiveness; her missions of love and ministrations of mercy which now distinguish and dignify and adorn her name, the universal homage paid to her in all the civilized countries of the world, would be tarnished by party and political association. In the Republican platform of 1868, adopted by the convention to which I have alluded, the issue is distinctly and unequivocally presented that the States have the proper right to regulate suffrage. Now, how was the issue thus tendered met by the Democratic and Conservative platform adopted in New York on the Fourth of July? In the second declaration of principles of that great convention, we find the following:

"Amnesty for all past -political offenses and the regulation of the elective franchise in tho States by their citizens."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will remark that the hour for a recess is almost at hand, and he asks the Senator from Maryland to suspend. It is essential that the Chair should lay before the Senate certain matters on the table.

Mr. VICKERS. Very well.