February 5, 1869 (3)

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution (H. R. No. 402) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United' States, is before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole; and the Senator from Maryland is entitled to the floor.

Mr. VICKERS. Mr. President, when the Senate adjourned this afternoon I was about to comment upon the declaration of principles announced at the Chicago convention which recognized the right of the States to control exclusively the matter of suffrage for themselves; but before I make the remarks which I design to do upon that branch of the subject, I will advert to one or two of the positions assumed by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] in his speech to day I understood him to contend that from the clause of the Constitution which he read power was given to Congress to regulate elections in the States. If I am mistaken, he will correct me. 1 do not so read the Constitution. The second section of the first article provides that—

The IIouso of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by tlie people of the several State?; and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature." That section recognizes the' absolute right of the States to regulate the qualifications of electors for Representatives, because the States have the exclusive right to regulate the qualifications of electors for members of their Legislatures, and the same qualifications which the States prescribe for the exercise of the right of suffrage for members of the most numerous branch of the Legislature are to be the qualifications of electors for Representatives to the Congress of the United States. There is no power given to Congress to regulate those qualifications; but it belongs exclusively to the States.

Mr. SUMNER. If my friend will allow me, I desire to ask him a question just there, which I have no doubt he will answer very easily; but I should like to have his answer, and should value it very much indeed. I ask the Senator from Maryland whether in his opinion color can be a qualification of a voter? I should like an answer to that specific question, can color be a qualification of a voter?

Mr. VICKERS. Well, sir, if the power is given exclusively to the States, if the States have the absolute and uncontrollable power to regulate the qualification of voters, it is not for me to say whether their regulations shall have reference simply to color or to a property qualification which they have in Massachusetts, or to intelligence,- or to anything else. The States may prescribe, I- suppose, that an individual shall be able to read the Constitution of the country. That, I presume, would be a qualification which the Stateswould have the right to impose. It is impossible for me to limit the extent of the power of the States in regard to this subject, because it is one of their reserved powers, and is a unlimited. The General Government has no right to regulate this question of suffrage.

Mr. SUMNER. Then, to come back to my original question, I understand that the learned Senator does say that color may b? a qualification for a voter. On that point I should like to have his answer distinctly, because it. is the pivot or one of the pivots of this question. I understand him to say thg t color may be. Now, I do not wish to intrude upon his speech, but -I should like to ask him whether he supposes a State Legislature could select among the qualifications the color of the h ir or the color of the eye? 1 Would the Senator say that that could be a qualification under the Constitution of the United States? I put to him that question; I should like an answer to that.

Mr. VICKERS. Well, sir, that, of course, is an extreme case.

Mr. SUMNER. Not at all. It is the very case before the Senate.

Mr. VICKERS. It is not for me to say what it would be expedient for a State Legislature to do. It is not always expedient to exercise the full extent of the power which is conferred upon legislative bodies. But I would ask the Senator from Massachusetts jf the color of the hair added to the disqualification of the voter intellectually, is not a power in the Legislature? I would ask the honorable Senator if public virtue and public intelligence are not the very foundations of our Republic? Why, sir, how can we exist as a Republic withoutmtelligeuce and public virtue?

Mr. SUMNER. Yes, but the point to which I wish to call the attention of my friend is not whether public intelligence and public virtue are essential to a Republic, for there we are agreed; not whether they may not be recognized as qualifications, but the point is whether any inherent quality under Providence planted in ilie human form by God can be made by any vote of man a qualification for an elector? That is the practical question which I put to the Senator.

Mr. VICKERS. Well, sir, as I stated today, there are five races of men. These are the red man, the yellow man, the white man, the black man, and the brown man. Now, I ask if it is not eompent for a Legislature to disfranchise or to withhold the elective franchise from any one of these races? Is not color the distinctive mark of theraee? And because here is a distinct race, an inferior race, and because this race has color, the race is disqualified. It is not altogether on account of the color of the skin. That isonly one of the indications and marks by which you distinguish the race. Have we not a right to withhold the elective franchise from the Chinese, who are of a different color from us and from the negro? Would the Senator say that because the Chinese have a certain complexion therefore we have no right to disfranchise them because of that complexion? If they are a different race, if they are pagans, according to the speech of the Senator from Oregon, [Mr. wiixiams,] have we not a right to disqualify them and withhold from them the elective cli 1 so?

Mr. SUMNER. That is not the question. I do not say that they may not be disqualified for their paganism. That is another question. That is a question of character. A man may cease to be a pagan; he may change; he may become a Christian; but a man cannot cease to be a colored man if he is so made by Providence. The Ethiopian cannot change his skin. The point that I put to the Senator, and on which -I want his frank, explicit answer is ■whether the mere color of the skin or the color of the "hair or the color of the eyes,' can be made under the Constitution, a qualification for a voter? That is the point

Mr. VICKERS. If the color of the Skin, the color of the hair, or the color of the eye, distinguishes one race from another, then I say the color of the skin, of the hair, or of the eye eSminake the disqualification, and the Legislature has a right to make it. It mattersnot whether it be of the skin, tlie hair, or the eye; if it be the distinguishing mark of that race, and distinguishes it from our race, then "we have& right t o do it. Why, sir, the Senator from Nevada Mr .Stewart;] in his speeeh here in 1865, said th at this was a white man s Government that we were of a different race; and the honorable Senator from Ohio, now occupying, the chair, said that two races, being different, could not exist prosperously and happily together, and that it would be better that this black' race should be sent to the tropics, where he understood they would thrive and develop all their faculties, and that in the same region a White man would depreciate. It matters not whether it be the color of the hair, or 'of the eye, or of the skin,' if that distinguishes one race from another.'

Mr. SUMNER!' I see my honorable friend does not flinch from the conclusion.',

Mr. VICKERS. But, sir, I was going to say that the qualifications which the Constitution speaks of are the qualifications of voters for Representatives to Congress, for they are to have the same qualifications that voters for members of the Legislature are to possess. Then, to show that this is the true meaning of the Constitution, let me refer to the clause as to presidential electors:

the Congress m redetermine the time of choosing theelectora, and the day on which they shall give their votes, which day shall be the same throughout the United States."

Thatisall the power which Congresslias in reference to the subject. They may determine the time for the choosing of the electors, and the day o n which they shall cast their ballots; and when that is exercised the power of Congress over the subject is exhausted. But in 'he second section of the second article of the Constitution it is provided that—

Eaoh State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thoroofmay direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may bo entitled in tho Couirrcsa.

The State Legislature may appoint the electors to vote for President and Vice President of the United States. They may elect them or may direct them to be elected by the people of the State if they see fit. The whole power is in the Legislature, and it was designed to be placed there. They are the best judges of the mode and manner in which the elections should be held, and they are the best judges of the qualifications of the voters.

Mr. President, I had never heard until the honorable Senator from Massachusetts asserted it to day that when human rights and the Constitution came into conflict the Constitution was to yield to human rights. That is the broad doctrine which he laid down. Why, sir, if that doctrine is to prevail, liow many differences of opinion are there in reference to huroara rights? We should have no Constitution; it would be undefined, and there would be nothing tangible in reference to the fundamental law. But if the doctrine of the Senator from Massachusetts prevails, if human lights are to override the Constitution of the country, then does not the doctrine of human rights asserted by the Senator apply as well to females as to males? The Senator from Kansas would say it did; and I ask if human rights are not as applicable to" woman as to man? And if the docrine of human rights is to be the rule by which the Constitution is to be construed, then it must be so construed as to .admit female suffrage; and yet I suppose the Senator from Massachusetts would not support a measure of this kind. It is not unusual for Senators to lay down a general principle and argue upon thatprinciple and then in the practical application of it to come short of its results. T h si general doctrine comprehends woman as well as man, and shall our sympathies be limited to the latter? Shall our affections go out only for the black race? Shall we not rather include the women and give them the same privileges and rights which it is attempted to confer upon the negro? It has been beautifully said that "we go to man for philosophy and to woman for consolation and although I am no advocate for woman suffrage, I believe that if the Congress of the United States had been composed exclusively of women we should have had 110 civil war. We might have had a war of words, but that would have been all. [Laughter.]

The Senator from Massachusetts seems to think that if he can accomplish this result and extend the right of suffrage to the negro we shall have peace. Sir, he may call it peace, but such a peace will be at the price of constitutional liberty, at the price of the destruction of the landmarks of your Constitution. What sort of peace is that which is achieved by aggression upon and destruction of the very Constitution under which we live? It is but the beginning of strife. The Senatorthinks it would produce peace, but I say it would not produce peace. He assimilates the conduct of the Democratic party in case this question is not settled in the way he proposes to the witches in Macbeth. But, is it not known to the Senator that he who sought the bubbling caldron was destroyed? And if this bubbling of the political caldron is to be assimilated to that described in Shakespeare, I should think the honorable Senator would be willing to see it come to pass, because it would be but the forerunner of the destruction of that party which he denominates the advocates of slavery.

I could not but contrast in my own mind the sentiments and constitutional positions assumed by the Senator from Massachusetts to day with the principles and the doctrines of constitutional law which were promulgated by his illustrious predecessor who had secured to himself the appellation of the expounder and defender of the Constitution. There is not a word in anything he ever wrote, in his orations or in his arguments, which can sustain the views of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, the latitudinarian views which I10 expressed to day upon the subject of the construction of the Constitution of the United States. Nor did I see anything in the authorities which were produced by that Senator from Hamilton and Madison. What he read from these great men related to the enumeration of inhabitants of the country in reference to fixing the proportion of Representatives, and had nothing to do with sufrage.

If we introduce these votes which are to be cast, not with an intelligent understanding ot the purpose and object for which they are placed into the ballot box if we are to receive them from a class of persons who are uneducated, illiterate, who cannot read your Constitution, who know nothing about its checks and its balances, about its relations to the State governments, it is an injury, a positive injury, to those who have the right to vote. Why is it that we punish illegal voting severely? It is because illegal voting is a fraud upon legal voters it impairs and weakens the weight and force of the legal votes which are cast; and if we introduce these unmeaning votes, which are not cast with an intelligent reference to the purposes and objects for which the right of suffrage is given, shall we not thus weaken and impair the rights which those have who are entitled to vote?

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Ferry] made an appeal yesterday for extending to negroes the right to vote because a regiment of negroes had gone from the State of Connecticut and engaged in battle and a few of them were killed and one hundred and twentyone wounded. Is the object of the Senator to allow only those who engaged in battle or those who were wounded to vote; and because they engaged in battle is it therefore right thathuudreds of thousands of others who never left their homes shall be permitted to vote?

Mr. President, Lfelt mortified and humiliated when the negro was placed into the Army. I never believed that .it was necessary and never had any doubt of the final result of the struggle. Why, sir, it was a reflection upon the eighteen ortwenty millions of white people in the North and We t to suppose that they could not- subdue eight or ten millions in the South with the advantages which they possessed, of a Treasury, Navy, commerce, and prestige of a great nation among the Powers of theearth. I feltitas a reproach and as an unnecessary proceeding when negroes were introduced into the Army on the part of the Government, and I have never believed that they were placed there from necessity, but only by the influence of politicians who thought that they could advance the interests of party by saying that those who engaged in the war ought not to return to slavery. It was a step taken in favor of emancipation, and it was to be used as a lever by which to affect those who were not then emancipated. I concluded, therefore, that the proceeding was only political, and not necessary for the safety of the country or its military success.

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Pomeroy] is not in his seat to night If he were here I should desire to ask him one question. In his speech the other day he paid a beautiful tribute to woman. He said:

"In all the walks of life, retired or public, she adds grace, elegance, and purity to every step of her pathway, to every work of her hand, and to every love of her heart."

I desire to ask the Senator from Kansas whether he meant that for the white ladies, or whether he meant it for the black as well as the white, because if he meant to include in this beautiful eulogy upon woman—and it is no more beautiful than just and true—the negro women, I protest that they are of a different race from those who live in the section of country where I reside.

But, sir, when we adjourned this afternoon I had stated the position of the Chicago convention, that "the question of suffrage in all the loyal States properly belongs to the people of those States ;'f and then I asked how was this issue thus tendered met by the Democratic and Conservative platform adopted in New York on the 4th of July last? In the second declaration of principles by that great convention T find the following:

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

Both parties concurred in the principle that to the States belonged the regulation of the elective franchise. In this all agreed; they were of one mind; the political campaign was to be conducted by every one with the firm assurance given and accepted by the two great conventions, as organs of the two parties, that this fundamental truth was not to be a subject for controversy.

The people en masse accepted these declarations as honestly and truly made, and did not doubt the integrity or veracity of those who made them. The State canvasses were necessarily conducted on the principles of the national platforms; for in all presidential elections, intheexcitement, interest, andmagnitude or the questions involved, they override all questions of State policy, absorb public attention, and constitute the hinge upon which turn all local elections. From my knowledge of elections, Federal and State, at the important period of a selection of national rulers, we know it is impossible in elections for State officers to present collateral issues or questions of local policy; the minds, thoughts, speeches, actions of the people everywhere are concentrated and employed upon the momentous issues of a presidential election.

Is it therefore right or just to the people of the country now to refer the question of suffrage in the States to Legislatures elected under such circumstances, when the public mind had, been diverted from it by the two conventions and especially led to other and different subjects? If either party had designed, even under such unfavorable aspects, to bring it before Congress, it was due to fairness and justice to have made the declaration public. The pledge was virtually given in the two platforms that no such subject was to be discussed or canvassed. It will not be avowed, I presume, that the Chicago platform was designed to delude or to deceive the people, to mislead and make them the dupes of artful and designing men? Surely no one will assert the demoralization of that convention, and characterize it as an organization to deceive and defraud the people.. Will any member of that body or any friend of it make an avowal of such a purpose on its part?, i" think not, for T can scarcely conceive that any one would assert that the annunciation of the great fundamental principle as to the right of the States to regulate suffrage was not honestly and sincerely made, "that the question of suffrage properly belongs to the people of the States."

In this aspect is it proper or just that Congress should propose to the States a fundamental article of amendment to the Constitution which works a radical change in the relation of the States and of the people to the General Government, destroys an important faculty of the States, trenches on their power to protecttliemselves against oppression, essentially alters the character of the Government in its Federal attributes, and takes alongstride to consolidation? Ought a question of such magnitude, involving such vital consequences, be forced upon the consideration of Legislatures elected without reference to the subject, and who cannot know, the will or wishes of their constituents? In the formation of State constitutions the power is not given to legislative bodies; and when amendments are to be made in States which refer them to the Legislatures it is after published notice and elections subsequently held. The organic law should never be changed except by the calm, deliberate judgment of the people, formed after free and full discussion, when irrelevant subjects cannot be introduced to warp or bias the mind. The Constitution of the United States, which is to affect the whole of the States, should never be materially modified except after the most careful, deliberate and mature consideration. No spirit of party or of faction, no favorite theory or dogma or policy of any party, should prompt a change iu the fundamental law. No motive but purely patriotic ones, unmixed with party politics, should be an incentive to produce such change; and under such circumstances as should bring out the brightest talent, the purest patriotism, the highest character, audthe best experience in public affairs and constitutional law. It should be remembered ttha we are legislating for upward of thirty millions of people, whose feelings and interests, prosperity and happiness, are affected by the form and principles of their Government. The object of all good government is to promote the welfare and happiness of the people and to secure the cordial and heartfelt approval of every_ section;, not to create discontent, dissatisfaction, and opposition. To pass this amendment as proposed by the committee or the House would be grossly unjust to the people of Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio, and other States. The idea of making a constitutional amendment for the purpose of continuing party ascendency by securing negro votes in certain localities, is a proposition of such a monstrous character as should receive the denunciation and indignation of every candid and honest mind.

I would rather concede the ascendency of any party for twenty years or more it' the country could thereby be shielded from any infraction or change of the Constitution, and its wonted prestige be preserved and continued. The success of party is a paltry consideration when weighed against the principles of the Constitution, of public tranquillity, and happiness. Parties are changing; they have changed. Mutability is stamped upon human productions, and disappointment to human plans and hopes; new generations are to succeed us, and the passions and prejudices of to day cannot impress their minds and regulate their conduct. It is only by adhering to constitutional rules; to the pi inciples of our fathers, whose purposes were single and patriotism undoubted; by a conformity to right, to justice, and by doing to others as we would have others do unto us that we can expect to establish a party which shall stand the test of human scrutiny, of talents, and of time." No legislation of Congress can elevate or improve the physical, moral, or intellectual condition o f the negro; we cannot legislate into them any fitness or qualification which they do not now possess. We may descend from the high position in which the framers of the Constitution left us and place ourselves upon the common and degrading platform of negro suffrage and political equality.

Public virtue and intelligence are the foundations of a republic; it can rest on no other; can exist and be perpetuated by no other means. It is a government of opinion, of pinciple; its officers and agents must be wise, capable, and patriotic. The people who select them must, to a great extent, possess the same elements; they are to exercise sagacity, discrimination, knowledge of men, of motives, and of character; their judgment and ability are to be judiciously exercised in the election of officers to conduct and manage the affairs of a nation; they must have some knowledge of statesmanship, of political economy, of trade, commerce, manufactures, agriculture, and mechanic arts, and of the resources and wealth of the country, and withal a fund of experience and common sense. Will the introduction of the negro into our political affairs add to the intelligence, statesmanship, wisdom, and judgment of the country? Will it not weaken our institutions and the confidence we have had in their stability and lay another and different foundation than that which was laid by our fathers? The negro as a class, as a race, is unfortunately ignorant and superstitious; with some exceptions, he cannot read nor understand your Constitution, is unacquainted with your laws, institutions, history, and policy; he at present lacks independence and that high sense of honor and integrity which every voter should possess to shield him from sinister or unworthy influences. lie needs the very qualities and qualifications essential to a free, fair, and sensible exercise of the elective franchise. If you had a house to build would you procure ignorant and unskillful hands to erect it? If you desired to have transacted business which required experience, judgment, and prudence, would you employ the illiterate, the inexperienced, and the unskillful? And yet, in so grave a matter as legislation, statesmanship, and the affairs, internal and external, of a great country, and in choosing Representatives and officers to discharge the most difficult and momentous duties, we are to call to our aid the power of numbers only, which possess not the moral or intellectual strength to render the slightest assistance. They may be made the dupes and instruments of interested persons, but it should be recollected that, like the elephants in battle, they will be as likely to trample upon friends as upon foes. No one political organization can long hold them, and they will become a tertmm quid which will enervate rather than strengthen the body politic. Mr. President, 1 have read of the prophetic eye of philosophy, and that a statesman should "hear thedistant rustlings of thewiagsof time,'' and prepare t he ship of state for the storms and tempests that may come upon her. I do not pretend to any greater knowledge of- coming events than others, but from my experience and observation, and looking from my present stand pointto the future, 1 predict thattfeadop tion of the proposition before the Senate will be the certain forerunner of the dissolution or deleat of the Republican party; it will sow the whirlwind and produce the success ofthe Dera1- ocrats and Conservatives— a consummation devoutly to be wished."

It has been justly said that sudden prosperity is a severer trial to virtue than adversity, and though spoken of individuals it is equally true of parties. The Republican party, intoxicated with power and flushed with victory, is about to do an act at which the feelings and instincts and judgment of the people will recoil, and they will not fail to visit upon its authors their indignant condemnation.

At the proper time, sir, I propose to offer an amendment to this effect:

That no person shall be deprived of the right of suft rasce in any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, in any election hereatter to be Ii jIi by reason of having heretofore engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or for having given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Mr. WILLEY. Mr. President, I will at once relieve the apprehensions of the Senate by stating that it is not my purpose to detain them more than a very few minutes. I do not intend to protract this discussion, but simply rise to express in terms as- brief and succinct as I can employ the reasons which will influence me to vote for this proposition. I can vote for the proposition coming from the House or for that reported by the judiciary Committee of the Senate and offered now as an amendment to the House resolution. The gist of each proposition is the enfranchisement of the colored race. That is the main purpose intended. On the question of negro suffrage I had the honor to express my views at large some two or three years ago when the bill was pending for the enfranchisement of the colored population in the District of Columbia. I have seen no reason to change those views, and it is not my purpose now to repeat them, but simply, as I have already stated, to mention to the Senate briefly the reasons which impel me to vote for this measure.

My reasons, then, for supporting this bill, 1. Because I accept as true the maxim of the fathers of the Republic, that all just government must rest on the consent of the governed. If, therefore, the colored people of this country are to be reeoguized as citizens and held subject to our laws, then they ought to have a right to a voice in the enactment of those laws and to a participation in the administration of the Government. To deprive them of this would be an infraction of one of the well settled fundamental principles of our political institutions.

2. Taxation without representation is tyranny. If the negro race are to be taxed to support the Government they ought to be allowed an equal voice in the selection of their rulers, who impose and disburse the taxes. If they are to be compelled to bear arms in defense of the Government at the peril of their lives they ought not only to be regarded worthy of political power, but they should be allowed to exercise it.

3. The welfare of the white race no less than of the black race requires the speediest moral, intellectual, and physical improvement and development of the negro which are practicable. While he remains unenfranchised it were idle to hope for much advancement in these respects. He will be a freeman only in name. The incubus of slavery will still cling to him, repressing all the nobler aspirations and energies of his nature, and suppressing, more or less, all effort to rise to respectability, usefulness, or honorable distinction.

4. This amendment, when adopted, will settie the question for all time of negroin the insurgent States, where it Has lately been extended under the pressure of congressional legislation, and will preclude the possibility of aayfufcuredenial of this privilege by any change of the constitutions Of those States.

.-5. In those States where the colored race are numerous and remain unenfranchised, the adoption of• this amendment will remove- a source of disquiet and danger. An emancipated race subject to our laws, with no voicein ordaining them—subjeot to taxation, and yet with outre presentation—required to bearall the burdens of civil society Withoatany authority, to impose or regulate those burdens, must, in the course of time, if they ever rise to any considerable degree of intelligence, become dissatisfied and restive under a sense of their degradation, and thus be disposed to revolt against the injustice and tyranny which oppress them; or, sinking under this injustice and tyranny into a state of hopeless despondency, they will degenerate into a class of mere lazzaroni, and become pests to society and a burden to the State.

6. The enfranchisement of the negro will remove him from thearena of national politics, and finally relieve the country from those conflicts of opinion and passion which have been disturbing the public tranquillity and' retarding the progress and prosperity of the nation ever since the Revolution.- He will then not only be made equal before the law, but equally entitled, with all others, to make and administer the law." Let us have peace."

7. Suffrage is the only sure guarantee which the negro can have, in many sections of the country, in the enjoyment of his civil rights. Without it his freedom will be imperfect, if not in peril of total overthow. The ballot will be a safer shield than the laws.

8. adoption of this amendment will place all the States on an equality in respect, of negro suffrage. The exigencies growing out of the late rebellion made it necessary to impose this suffrage on ten of the insurgent States, where a large majority of the colored race dwell. Several of the other States have voluntarily enfranchised the negro. lie is now entitled to vote in eighteen or twenty States. If he is entitled to vote in these States, why not in all? The adoption of this amendment will remove all complaint of unjustdiscrimination, and the remonstrance of the southern States that the other States have imposed on them burdens and evils which the latter were unwilling to share, will be met and answered.

W. Summing up the whole, I believe the political enfranchisement of the colored race in this country is required not only by considerations of policy and expediency, but also by the demands of justice to the negro, by the principles of human liberty, and by the spirit of Christian civilization.

10. And finally, our action here is only initiatory. The passage of this bill does not impose negro suffrage on a single State or a single man. Senators argue as if it did. They denounce the Republican party as guilty by supporting this measure of violating the faith of the party as pledged in its platform of last summer; because they say that this platform proposed to leave the question of negro suffrage, excepting in those lately in rebellion, to the States themselves. Well, sir, that is precisely what this bill proposes to do. It refers the question to the States in the manner prescribed bythefundamental law. It is not a law; it is only aproposition. It does not create negro suffrage in any State; it simply asks the States whether they will, have it established or not. It is, in fact, nothing more than an appeal to the people through their immediate representatives in the several Legislatures of the States to decide in the mode and under the provisions of the Constitutionwhether or not they desire negro suffrage. Wecauonly propose they mustdetermine. If their decision be favorable, I shall rejoice; if adverse, I shall regret it; but with this consolation, that an adverse decision will itself be subject to review—a reviewby the people themselves. And whatever ni may be the result noriy the time is not distant when' there will be no political disfranchisement in this country on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery. 'That time wilLoSme" as surely as "truth is mighty and shall prevail as surely as -the prophetic fulfillment of' the universal triumphs of Christianity; assurelyas God reigns, and" hath made of one blood all nations of men to- dwell' on the 'face of the sarth.''•■

Mr BUCKALEW Mr. President, I suppose our reporters have' A sufficient amount of matter for writing out before the Senate reassembles again to morrow and it will not be convenient (o them nor convenient to the Senate, I suppose, that I or any other member should at this time enter upon a speech of any considerable length; but I propose to occupy a few moments in speaking upon a point which has not been referred to "in the debate, and which does not require any very elaborate discussion. I propose to say now what I have to say upon that point, and not trouble the Senate during the session to mortow or at any time when there is a pressure upon it.

I have proposed for submission to this resolution an amendment, which I will thank the Clerk, if he can put his hand upon it, to read. It is very brief, and relates to the manner of submitting this proposition of amendment to the Legislatures of the States.

The Chief Clerk read -the amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. Buckalew, -which is to add at the end of the resolution the followThnt the foregoing amendment shall be submitted for ratification to the Legislatures of the several States, the most numerous branches of which shall be chosen next after the passage of this resolution.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, the regulation of the manner in which amendments shall be passed upon by the States when submitted to them is a question of importance. Does this power reside in Congress, or is it a power possessed by the several States exclusively? In other words, have we only the power of proposing amendments to the Legislatures of the States, or of proposing amendments for consideration by conventions in the States, leaving it to the States themselves to regulate the whole proceeding upon the question of ratification, and not only regulating the proceeding as to the manner in which it shall be conducted, but also as to the important question of time?

To preface what I propose to submit on this point, I will read the fifth article of the Constitution of the United States. It is as follows: The Congress, whenever two thirdsof both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments which, tn either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths ofthoscveral States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as thoono or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress: Provided, That 110 amendmentwhich may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect"— certain clauses of the Constitution.

Mr. President, 1 contend that by necessary implication Congress has additional power beyond that expressly set forth, beyond the mere submission to the States of an amendment or amendments to the Constitution. I insist that we can submit the resolution with a limitation of time as to when it shall be considered. I insist that we can make other regulations which may pertain to thenecessary proceeding, either in regard to its initiation, to its progress before the States while it is considered, or as to final action upon it.

My amendment proposes to submit the constitutional amendment covered by this joint resolution for ratification to the Legislatures of the several States, the most numerous branches of which shall be chosen next after the adoption of this resolution by Congress, and to confine its consideration to those Legislatures of the respective States who shall be so elected immediately or next after we adopt the resolution, and m viewpfit',' tod who shall assemble: in ptfrsuaucfe of their several local constitbtionsfora performance of theirgetlferal duties," among others thisdutv of passing updh amendments td the- Constitution which Congress may submit to them.

Now, sir, What are the facts iti regafd to the last amendment which was submitted by Congress' to th^ several States? 7' Twd ormore States proceeded by formal act of their Legislatures to ratify the amendment, anda ffei ward at succeeding sessions, proceeded' 'to- witlidifaw that ratification-, to withdraw the assent which they, in the first, instance, -had given, In the case of one, and perhips more—I recollect distinctly in the ease of one' Stiite—tho constitutional amendment was rejected by the Legislature, and at the next session, opinion haying changed inthat State, the Legislature proceeded to ratify it. You see what confusion in ay arise in the action of the States upon an amendment submitted by Congress in case We do not decide, when we submit such amendment, what author ity shall act upon it.

I am not in favor of submitting this amendment, or any other amendment, under ordinary circumstances, to conventions in the several States, not so much for the reasons which were stated by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Ferry] as because of the inconvenience and expense which is entailed upon the people of the States by that mode. That is a reason which has always operated upon Congress since the Governmeji t was founded along with other considerations, to prevent the submission of any amendment to conventions of the people in the several States—a form of submission which it is competent for Congress to adopt. I take it for granted that the practice of the Government always will be, unless under very extraordinary circumstances, to submit amendments to the action of the Legislatures of the several States.

But, sir, it will be wise and becoming also for Congress to adopt some rule with regard to the submitting of amendments to the Legislatures; and what better rule can be adopted by it than to submit them to the Legislatures of the several States who shall be chosen next after the amendment is submitted, the legislators who are chosen when the people under: stand that the amendment is to be submitted to them, and who act in selecting those legislators in full view of that consideration It is true that in most, if, not all of the States one branch of the Legislature has a more permanent tenure of office than the other.'-

The members of State senates are elected for two, three, or four years; and perhaps we cannot attain exactness of principle, or a complete application of a principle in establishing such a rule; but in all cases we can secure that in the most numerous' branch of the State Legislature where there shall be a fresh body of members always to act upon constitutional amendments submitted by us; and ordinarily the other branch of the Legislature is partly elected at the same time; so that, substantially, by such a rule we shall secure to the people of the several States about the same advantages in considering and acting upon amendments which they would have if we submitted amendments to conventions in the several States, and avoid all the inconveniences, all the expense, and all the other objections which lie against submitting amendments to conventions. We shall have all the advantages of a convention system, and all the advantages of a legislative system as to the ratification of the amendment which we submit; and we shall give to the people of the United States everywhere a full consideration, an opportunity to fully examine the proposition which we submit, and to express their will completely or with a completeness approximating to perfection in the selection of the persons who are to act upon the question of ratification in the several States.

I insist, then, that this amendment which I propose, upon all grounds of legitimate argument. is not only one fit to be adopted, but one tie reasons iu -favor of. which .are imperative and commanding. Lfby attaching to this resolution era provide for the submission of this amendment to the Legislatures ii xfe to -be elected" in the several .States,- you will have established arule whioh Congress will act upon hereafter; you will hitve' retfadved :from debate in future times all question as to what particular. Legislature o? Legislatures are to act upon amend:® dnts in the several; States-? you will avoid the difficulty; JL -.had -almost .said the scandal, of having amendments ratified and then having -that jatifia tion rescinded, -or of having amendments rejected and afterward ratified; by the. Legislatures of the several States. .You will avoid also all question as to whether amendments in certain, cases are Glare not adopted in a competent manner. We know it is now disputed whether the fourteenth constitutional amendment, as it is called, has been adopted or not by the Legislatures of New Jersey, Oregon, and Ohio; and a similar question arises as to another State which rejected it originally and afterward ratified it. There must be some principle of law applicable to this subject of ratification. la it possible that any gentleman can "pretend that ratifications are in order in the States at all times until the subject bf constitutional' amendment is disposed of, and that on the other hand, rejections are of no account? Take the case of the Legislature which" rejected the amend-, meat. Was its subsequent ratification legal? Assume that; and then attempt to assume the other doctrine, and see what inconsistency you have assumed.

If this reasoning bo true, in what condition are we? Why, sir, we are in this condition that you cannot have a constitutional amendment rejected finally at all in the United States; rejections amount to .nothing, because ratifications at some future time, ten, twenty, fifty, or one hundred years hence, may give it validity; and, 011 the other hand, you insist that a ratification, however obtained, under whatever circumstances of misapprehension' or of haste or of trick, or of fraud even, can never be withdrawn by a State; it is to be forever bound by it. You avoid all this field of debate by designating now, when ti you submit tlie amendment, the Legislatures who are to pass upon your amendment, who are to ratify orrejeet it

This comprises what I desired to say upon this point with a single exception; and that, is, to express my own opinion upon this question which has been debated. My idea is this: that an amendment proposed to Legislatures or to conventions for ratification, until the time when it has been ratified by three fourths of the States is, of necessity, in its very nature, a simple proposition, and nothing more; that it becomes a contract or compact between the States at the moment when the last Legislature or convention necessary to make up three fourths of the States has ratified and approved it. Until that time it is. upon the same footing as a proposition for <a contract or agreement between individuals which has not beenaccepted by both or by all the parties to be bound by it, which is therefore binding upon none, and assent to which may be withdrawn at pleasure by any of the parties who are to be bound by itafter it shall have been duly adopted or. agreed upon. The States, so long as a constitutional amendment is pending before them, unratified by the requisite number of States, are in the same condition' in which individuals would be where a proposition of contract or of agreement between them was pending and under consideration. No State, up to that point of time when flie amendment becomes binding upon the State becomes a contract Or a compact between it and the other States, can possibly in law' or in good faith or in good conscience le. bound by it.■ Its freedom of action and its freedom of will remain to it, and it can exercise that freedom of .action and of will by recalling its, assent. Arid who can complain? What State is" injured? No one can cry out upon the State that it has violated good faith i; After thr e fourths of tke Jstfttes have ratified the aiaeiidtneptit becomes a part" 6f- thfe ConstitutioBj and. fevery State is bound" by. it. Of course no State can repeal the. Constitution of the United States, and its ds y of choice andiof Vfflitiombas passed, and passed forever.'■•

But, sir, upon my View of the Constitution, that Congress h as power to designate the Legislature who are to act upon the amendment; upon my view th at the power -rests with coil 1 gress to select the instrumentality of conventions in the several States, and to determine the limit within which such conventions shall be held and act, there is no difficulty. Then the Legislatures designated by us must act upon this subject if the States take any action at all, and their action will be final, because under the power which we possess Sve have designated the authority which shall speak for' the State, and all the States act in view <3f our designation, and we shall in good faith be bound by the result.' It seems to' me that thfc soundness And legality of this posi tiott cannot be impugned. Sir, when in proceedingun this rtianneT you follow the; spirit and letter of the Constitution; when you avoid all difficulties with regard to the question of ratification by the States, and at the same time you gWe the people of every State a frtl and complete opportunity of passing upon your amendment, or of selecting men to pass upon it, in view of its existence and a full knowledge of its character, it seems to me that the argument becomes irresistible in favor of adopting the proposition which I have suggested, and putting an end forever to all questions of dispute and of difficulty hereafter in regard to the submission of amendments to the Constitution by the Congress of the United' States. We do what is right and Reasonable in the present instance and we secure a i tile which will be most salutary in all future time. Mr. President this is all I propose to say;' and I have spoken upon this point to night because it stands out detached from the main body of the debate upon this measure, and I could conveniently speak upon it in a brief period of time without entering into the general discussion of the pending measure.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President

Mr. HENDRICKS. If the Senator from Kentucky will yield the floor to me, I will move that the Senate adjourn, as it is now nearly ten o clock unless the Senator would prefer to go on to night

Mr. DAVIS. I yield for that purpose.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I move that the Senate adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.