February 8, 1869 (2)

Mr. RAMSEY. With the consent of the Senator from Nevada I have a small bill which I should like to pass while the Senate is collecting. Does the Senator assent to it?

Mr. STEWART. Oh, no; I cannot do so.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution (H. R. No. 402 proposinganamendment to the Constitution of the United States is before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole, and the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Davis] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. ABBOTT. Mr. President, by the courtesy of the Senator from Kentucky, I have but a few remarks to make. I am permitted to occupy the floor on the condition that he resumes it after I conclude.

Mr. President, I do not intend to discuss this question at. any length, much less with reference to its legal aspect, but rather to give a general expression of opinion in regard to it as it appears in my own mind. When we incorporate the principles of this proposed amendment into the Constitution we are only applying and carrying out the very earliest assumptions of the men who laid the foundations of our political system. Recent events within the nation for which few, if any, in this Chamber were responsible, and which threw forward to the front questions which had been remote, have rendered it necessary for the nation ts take this additional step toward the establishment of the rights of men. I refer, of course, in thus speaking, to the events of the late war. While the principles on which this amendment is based were well understood and definitely announced in the inception of the Government, in declarations which could not be misinterpreted, the opportunity, or rather the necessity, for planting them in the fundamental law had not until lately arisen

The war, succeeding' the great intellectual controversy of which it was the consequence, made four and a half million slaves free. Being free they were citizens, and being citizens, all the theories which underlie our political structure demanded for them the same rights and privileges as other citizens, and consequently gave them the ballot. This political privilege was accorded, it may be true, to the former slaves from asort of necessity, owing to the fact that the other portion of the people of the insurgent States were not in a temper to aid in an equitable readjustment of affairs; but the action was, nevertheless, in accord with the doctrines 011 which the first movements toward the organization of our Government were preel ieated, and it had only come after the tardiness of a century.

The question for us to consider now is, whether we shall move still further in the same direction and confer equal political privileges upon all our citizens wherever found. In considering this matter the following quest ions necessarily present themsevles to our minds: First. Have we a constitutional authority to doit?

Second. Is it equitable to do it under the terms of the Constitution?

Third. Is it expedient to do it?

As to the first question, there is not enough of doubt to admit of discussion. We are bo and by no obligation of fundamental law not to insert this provision in the Constitution. On the other hand, it is expressly provided in that law how it may be changed or amended; and we are pursuing the mode prescribed to accomplish the result toward which we are aiming. Our Constitution having been made b y the people, may be modified by the same authority. Nothing is more false than that the organic law of a nation may not grow with the growth of a people. It has a right to take coloring from t he development of civilization, and especially, as in this case, when all the prescribed formulas are complied with. I therefore dismiss that point without further notice. The second question, whether it is equitable under our governmental compact to insert this amendment, is broader and involves the whole question of political rights under our Government or as modified by our political compact. Whether each man has a natural right to participate in controlling society, which is government, is not a question which it is necessary to examine here. Various opinions are held 011 this subject; one class believing that the right to vote is a natural and inherent right correlative with the inherent right of liberty, of which a man cannot be rightfully deprived by any compact or bargain among men; and the other believing that it is a mere conventional right, which maybe withheld or conferred according as it may be deemed a benefit or an injury to the State. Whichever of these opinions may be correct, it is certain that this Government was founded on the idea that all political power was vested in the people—not a third or a half or any fraction, but all the people. Hence it was said in the Declaration of Independence that all men were "created equal; that they were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;" and that" to secure these rights governments were instituted amongmen, deriving their just powers from the eon seat of the governed." And hence the preamble of the Constitution declared that "we, the people of the United States —not a part, but all— for certain purposes proceed to establish enr fundamental law. And these original declarations, uttered in the stress of impending trials, are now fortified by the utterances of a eentury, wherein all our legislation and the sayings of our wisest and best statesmen and philosophers have given them assent. It is true that in practice we have made distinctions depriving certain classes in different States of the privileges of participating in public affairs, and until recently depriving a whole race of those privileges, all of which has been in conflict with the declarations of the founders of the Government. The founders of this nation undoubtedly meant what they said, that this was a Government of the people, deriving its just powers, from the consent of the governed, not one, but all. So much for the equity of the matter as considered in connection with our system of government.

I now proceed to consider the expediency of passing this resolution; and I shall -take latitude enough possibly to examine farther whether the right exists outside the compacts of Government, as well as the expediency of it._ I say, then, at the threshold, that in. my opinion we arc bound to conduct this Government on the basis of permitting the ballot to every male citizen. It is my opinion that the motive power which moves this vast machine, the primary force in the body politic the original fountain from which springs all law making authority, is hereafter to be found in the great mass of the people, without distinction of color or race or personal qualities. While aiding i n rebuilding the shattered ruins of States in the southern part of this Union, the attention of some of us has been called "to this subject in all its aspects; and 1 confess that, for one, I have come to the conclusion, first, that we ceuld not resist the overwhelming current of public opinion in favor of universal suffrage if we would; and, second, that it is absolutely right and expedient that suffrage be bestowed upon all men within this nation; so that we have necessity as well as right impelling us to this action.

In regard to the first proposition, it can be said that nearly all the great Christian peoples of the earth are moving in the direction of giving entire and equal participation in the affairs of State to all men and that if we take any other course we must breast the great swelling, sweeping current of thought and action which characterizes this age. In England, in France, in Italy, in Austria, in Prussia, and in Russia the people are acquiring daily more privileges, and the movement advances like the tide of the sea, steadily and surely, driven on fcy the best brain and even the best statesmanship of Europe. And in America, where the sarene air which follows the late stormy years gives to us long and clear vision, the current ef public opinion is even less easily resisted. We hear to day the potent voice of the great North responded to by those now tasting their first liberty in the South calling us up to this action. The law making power of this nation is not able, if it so desired, to resist this mighty pressure. As there are days of storm and days of sunshine, so there are eras clouded by injustice and eras when the light ®f truth and equity fills the whole air. To such an era have we arrived now, when men see clearly, when truth becomes dominant, when equity is not abashed and concealed, when elevated and correct theories are in the ascendant, when fear and paralysis have not seized upon the nobler energies of men, and when principles strike into a higher plane and assert supremacy, so that the moral sense of this nation now demands this amendment in obedience to the guarantees of our ancestors, as well as to a sense of justice. It is the true expediency of the law making authority of the nation to respect this temper of the people of this country and the world.

Moreover, I think it is true policy to grant this right to all people. There is no instance on record in all history where a monarch ever last anything by granting immunities to his subjects; and what is the history of all Christian nations for ten centuries but the history of concessions from the ruler to the ruled, and from the few to the many? The masses of the people have been all the while during that time acquiring privileges until when this nation was founded all rights were accorded them so far as t e declarations of the founders were concerned. Has not the nation prospered under a Government founded on these principles? A id has not the nation still prospered when, reaching practically the ultimatum, it has conferral the highest privileges of citizenship upon all the citizens, black and white, of a part of the country?

When it was proposed to confer the right to vote upon the colored people of the South, we all mneraberwhat evils were predicted. It was said that these people were ignorant; that they wen; incapable of exercising this function of citizevs; that the local State governments were to pass into the hands of the mob, and that confusion and disorder, if not anarchy, would ensue. What is the result? Why, sir, in several of those States in which the former slaves had by their votes a controlling voice there have been adopted constitutions which embody the highest principles that relate to government, which are more liberal and beneficent than the old ones which they superseded, while the governments move on equably, justice being well ad ministered, publicorderbeing well preserved, and liberty permanently established*. I think that our late experience in the southern States has demonstrated that the Republic is safe in the hands of all her people. We have now conferred citizenship upon nearly all of this nation. Let us go on and complete the work, until we shall really have a Government by the people, of the people, and for the people.

I am therefore in favor of this amendment, first, because we have constitutional authority to present it; second, because it is equitable, under the early assumptions of the Government, to insert it; and third, because it is expedient to do so.

I have hitherto made no discrimination among the many forms of amendment which have been offered. They mostly tend toward the same purpose. Nearly any one of them would establish the principle which I think ought to be established under our Constitution. But I prefer to all an amendment of the character suggested by the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Morton,] because it is affirmative and distinct. We ought to select some phraseology which cannot be misunderstood or avoided. I question whether the amendment of my colleague [Mr. Pool] does not come nearer than any other to what is required; and I therefore hope that it will, with some slight modification, be adopted.

I have purposely passed over the subterfuges by which it has been attempted to defeat this amendment, such as that of the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. Davis,] who sets up the objection that all the States are not represented here, and that therefore this action would be null; and such as that of the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Hexdricks,] who contends that the amendment ought to be submitted to a convention; and also such as that of the Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. Dixon,] who contends that the States are independent, and that therefore suffrage cannot be controlled by the United States within their limits. All these ought to be classed among the trivial expedients of politicians rather than among the weighty reasons which should influence the minds of those who constitute the highest branch of the law making power of the nation. I suppose it were better to brush all these special pleadings away, put them into concealment, and look straight forward to the consummation of this amendment. Sir, the Republic now demands fair dealing and honesty and equity to her great population. I pretend to no sympathy with the shrinking, cringing distrust exhibited by some Senators. I cherish well regulated government. I desire orderly and stable communities. I would not ignore the experience of the past; but I trust the honesty and good purposes of the whole people of the nation, and 1 hold in low esteem those whohaving been leaders in shapingevents now become mere snaffles on the body politic and who are continually terrified at new propositions or at new forms of propositions. What is right and expedient for the national welfare, let us do. Particularly, we must remember that with us, under the assumptions of our fathers, all power in the States is derived from the whole people, and to the authority of that people we, as law makers must constantly defer. There is not one right for one man and one for another, one now and one hereafter; but one right shielding all people at all times, or as the Roman orator said, and as we of the South who have received this franchise may say to the other States, mm crit alia lex Rome, alia Athenis, alia nunc alia posthac, sed onines gentes omni tempore una lex, el senipiterna et immortalis eovtinebit.

Now, sir, we have some things to learn in America as rulers of the State. Among t hem is, to be of good heart, bold, and confident when we stand upon the solid rock of equity; never to become. slav e£ to ancient usages and prejudices; never to follow those political moles who burrow constantly in the earth, and never see the daylight; and to cast aside the pusillanimous and the cowardly who can see nothing hopeful in the present or the future. Let us place this amendment in the fundamental law of the land as an act of good faith, as an act authorized by compact, as aji act demanded by expediency.

Sir, I iiow desire to say a few words in regard ta the apprehensions expressed during this debate that the Federal Government is making too great encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, and that this proposed amendment is a special evidence of that tendency in the Government. It is said th t we are in danger from the centralization of power; that a great consolidated tyranny may arise which will overawe the separate States and finally trample upon the rights of the people. I confess that 1 do not participate in these apprehensions. Our dangers heretofore as a nation and the dangers which have arisen to safe and just government have not arisen from centralization, but from decentralization. Human liberty and the very existence of the nation have been menaced for many years under the guise of States rights. Why should there be danger to the liberties of the people from the General Government? The lower House of Congress is elected directly from the people, and is as purely a representative body as can be found in the world; while the Senate is elected by the governments of States, and is representative also. The chief executive officer of the nation is. elected directly by the vote of the people. The Congress and the Government are but an expression of the whole people s will. There is no basis in its structure on which to found a tyranny. When the people of these States shall be oppressed, and when the nation itself shall break into fragments,! believe it will be, not from the tyranny of the central power, but from the eolliding interests and local animosities of sections, even as the universe is not jarred by the sun which hangs forever firmly in space, but Oy same planet which may burst from its orbit.

I believe that the time has arrived when the power of the General Government should bo felt within every foot of its territory. I believe that the time has come when it is the duty of the Government to assert its supremacy and protect life and property everywhere in the United States; and if it has net authority enough for the purpose now, I desire to see it conferred. The Republic must be in America the permanent paramount authority.

With one suggestion in regard to the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Buckalew,] I close. He proposes to attach to this amendment .a proposition, proper in itself, relative to the mode of electing President and Vice President. ButI prefer that all appendages to the amendment shall be stripped off; that it shall go out alone and unembarrassed; that its words of light may fill a single article. If any change is to be made in the mode of electing President, let us adopt the plan of the Senator from Massachusetts, abolish the Electoral College, and provide for giving the ballot directly to the candidates.

Mr. DAVIS addressed the Senate at length. [See Appendix.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I desire to offer a mere fragment of thought, not by any means wearisome in length, but bearing upon a point not, as it seems to me, sufficiently noticed by those who favor the measure before the Senate. I should hesitate to prolong this discussion even by the few minutes I shall venture to occupy if the reasons which may be urged for the adoption of the proposed amendment had been completely stated, leaving the general argument of right of Congress to pass this amendment to others. I propose to address myself to the answering of a specific objection to negro suffrage, which has been reiterated in various phraseology during the last three days. This objection, stripped of its verbiage and stated syllogistically, reads "as follows: intelligence and virtue are indispensable to the safe exercise of the right of suffrage j the African .race in this country is inferior m respect to intelligence and virtue; and consequently it should be denied the right of suffrage.

Now, the fallacy of this reasoning ought to be apparent upon its simple statement. The premise with which it starts nobody denies. It is, indeed, an axiom lying at the basis of our republican Government and national pros- •perityi But intelligence and virtue are not the distinctive characteristics of races; they are not peculiar to any race; they are not monopolized by jior wholly excluded from any people oV the round earth. Intelligence and virtue are individual possessions, inconstant qualities varying ad infinitum, am ongthe individuals of -every people, attaining their highest manifestations in the great and the good and being partially or wholly wanting in the degraded and the vicious. Those constant qualities which •mark the different races are mainly physical, ■consisting of peculiarities of color, feature, figure, and the like; but as these peculiarities •are not the qualifications for the voter, nor indicate the- presence or absence of such qualifications, they cannot without absurdity •be assumed as the ground for withholding or ^bestowing the right, of suffrage. I do not share the prejudice of Senators against race; my prejudices are for or against individuals according to their merits or demerits.

But suppose the question of the inferiority or superiority of races be admitted as possible or pertinent to this discussion, we need not shrink from such conclusions as can be reached. In what respects, let us ask, are the southern negroes, for example, inferior to the southern whites? They are certainly in social position .far below a large class of white citizens, but they are, on the other hand, the social peers of another class found everywhere throughout the .South. But social distinctions, whatever they are, do not confer political privileges in this free land; otherwise American women who are our social superiors would outrank us all. Then, again, as to intelligence the freedman holds tlie same relative position as in regard to social standing. We grant that he is inferior intellectually to the educated whites. It is the legitimate fruit of slavery and not adefect of race. But if he he inferior to one class, he is most assuredly equal or even superior to that otherclass known as the poor whites; and if his intelligence in general be limited, it is encouraging to know that there are many exceptions, instances of learning and culture, which indicate capacity. 'The present secretary of State of Florida is a gentleman of talent and learning, and yet he is an African pure and simple. The important question, however, is not as to the comparative, intellectual or social status of the" negro, for intelligence and refinement and social elevation alone do not avail to make the genuine American citizen. The crowning virtue of American citizenship is patriotism, Nothing is more clearly written in the history of the immediate past than that intellect becomes the instrument of treason when patriotism is wanting. Just here the southern negro appears to decided advantage. lie possesses this indispensable virtue. Intellectually and socially below the dominant class, but equal, at least, to the poorer class of southern whites, he is, if weexcept the southern loyalists, who are limited in number, infinitely superior to them all as a patriot; and I weigh my words well when I say that if his ignorance were as rayless as the darkest midnight, if he never had a dozen thoughts in all his life and never changed J1 1 course, his steady, unflinching love of this Union would render him a far safer depositary of the right of suffrage than he who has compassed all knowlege and all science and hates his country.

If. then the characteristics of race are not the qualifications of voting nor indicates the presence or absence of these qualifications; if that special intelligence which perceives that honesty and faithfulness to our national flag is the best policy is a better quality in the citizen than any degree of intelligence that fails to perceive this; if a love of the Union that "has never failed or flinched in time of trial is superior to any general virtues where patriotism is wanting; if all these constitute the qualifications for the exercise of the elective franchise, then I earnestly hope that an amendment ■will pass which, when ratified' by the requisite number of States, will secure to the negro the right of suffrage now, henceforth, and forever.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. Davis.]

Several Senators: Let it be read.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment of Mr. Davis, which is to add to the amendment of Mr. Stewart—

But Congress having authority to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States only, this provision is not intended to apply to or in any way to affect the principles and forms of the governments of the several States as organized by their respective constitutions.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I now offer the following amendment as a substitute for the report of the committee:

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

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This is a substitute for the amendment of the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. WARNER. I ask if a motion to strike out is now in order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Not to strike out.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. President, conscious of my inability to handle instructively a subject of such magnitude as the one under consideration, I had determined to remain a listener, and to cast a silent vote for the proposed amendment. But feeling that no one can bo excused from the exercise of what influence he may possess, though it be never so small, for the correct decision of a measure fraught with such results, I am constrained to add the little that I may to swell the volume of the wave of that political reform which 1 deem so essential to our strength and perpetuity as a na' ion. I approach the subject with a hesitancy due to a measure involving such grave consequences to the future of our country.

Mr. President, believing, as[ do, that Congress has already entire control over the question of suffrage in the States, I had hoped to have an opportunity of voting for the passage ofalawduringthecurrentsession, which should declare that power and establish equality of suffrage in all the States.

I hold that suffrage is one of those natural rights, which, like the right to traffic, to emigrate, to possess and own property, the right to the fruits of one s labor, or the thousand other undisputed rights which pertain to us as responsible persons, are inherent, and guarantied by the spirit if not by the letter of the Constitution. The right to vote is the most necessary and the most sacred of all rights, because it underlies all, and without which we are secure in the enjoyment of none.

There is no middle ground in this question. We must concede the right of suffrage to every one who stands as our equal in the scale of creation, or we must deny it to all. It is universal suffrage or autocracy. If we deny the one we are of necessity forced back to the other. To deny it we must concede that some were designed by nature to be above others in the scale of political right. If any one race has the exclusive right by nature to make the laws of the country, then we are forced by the same system of logic to admit that some one class of that race is specially endowed with this sacred gift, for if one race is so endowed the same must be true of classes, families, and individuals, and so we find ourselves reverting back to the most absolute forms of monarchy. From this there is no escape, except upon the broad ground that the right of suffrage is one of nature s ordination, and therefore universal, not to be restricted except for incompetency or the commission of crime—circumstances which render that restriction imperative for the preservation sftid well being of society and of government. It is upon this principle that all forms of republican government and law are based, and without which those forms would be tyranny and oppression, in that they would deny the right of the individual to participation in the formation of laws for his protection and for his government.

Being a natural right, it is not legitimate) within the power of the Government, State or national, to withhold or restrict it, while the national Government especially, as the sovereign head, has or .ought to have the power, as it is its duty, to see that every person, who confesses to it allegiance, is protected in the exercise of that right.

Suffrage is the basis of republicanism—underlying our entire political structure; and to deny that the General Government has entire jurisdiction of the subject is to deny that it has the power to protect the citizen in one of his most sacred and most solemnly guarantied rights.

To admit that the individual State may of its own volition deny or abridge a right so essential to the preservation of personal and political liberty in defiance of the General Government would be to concede the doctrine of State rights in its most odious form—that the lesser has power over the greater—that the subordinate parts of the Government may usurp the powers of that Government, and diminish its force by circumscribing and eventually destroying its base, which is the right of suffrage.

No process of reasoning can convince me that there is any power in the State to thus diminish and take away the popular foundation of a Government made by th e people, upon the people, and for the people.

It is by this process of reasoning, and to me it appears conclusive, that I am convinced that no form of Government accomplishes fully the purpose of its institution until it is sustained by and administered through the suffrages of all its people; that the duty of protection in all natural rights on the part of the Government is coextensive with the duty of allegiance on the part of the citizen, ncuwiatter of what race, color, or sex.

So long as the States are permitted to establish and maintain these distinctions in respect to suffrage, there can be no uniformity of political right. That clause of the Constitution is practically nullified which declares that—

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."

The first section of the fourteenth amendment declares that—

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States subjectto the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Again, that—•

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge any privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Now, a black man in Alabama, twenty one years of age, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which he resides, and is invested with the right of suffrage by the laws of the United States. If New York, or Ohio, or Kansas denies that man in their States the same right, do they not abridge a most important privilege? Port he correction of this abridgment of privilege I would interpose the speediest means within reach— a congressional enactment, clearly authorized, it seems to me, by the fourth section of the same article. But if gentlemen prefer the other and perhaps more effective though less speedy remedy—an amendment of the Constitution—let us have that. But if that is to be done, let us make it complete; give Congress the power to correct all inequalities by empowering it to compel the most tardy to keep pace with the most advanced on this important question. The immediate purpose of the proposed amendment is of course to enfranchise the negroes in all the adhering States, as has already been done in all the seceding States.

I had hoped that the State which I have the honor in part to represent here might be the first of the free States to extend the right of suffrage to the black man, and I confess to a degree of disappointment and humiliation at the failure of the attempt when it was made. That proud distinction has gone from us, and another State has secured that, the remembrance of which will in all coming time be a source of grateful pride— the credit of having been the first in the Union to voluntarily acknowledge the equality of human right, and to rebuke the class legislation of the past by the most practical of all tests, the enactment of impartial manhood suffrage.

Let not our opponents, however, seek consolation in the fact of past failures. Remembei that the abolition of slavery itself, the existence of which at any time under our system of civilization is fast becoming a source of astonishment, was secured only after fortyyears of agitation. No present failure will deter or permanently postpone this great reform in Kansas or elsewhere; and let me say to the people of all the States, as I have said to those in my own, that there can be but one issue to this controversy, and that will be, as is always the ease where the contest is between right and wrong—the triumph of the party of progress: for until we extend the right of suffrage to the colored men of our own States we shall bejustly obnoxious to the charge of insincerity, and of enforcing it upon others for merely partisan purposes, a criticism which no party, however strong, can afford to provoke. Until we prove our sincerity in the advocacy of impartial suffrage by accepting it for ourselves, we stand convicted of a most glaring inconsistency.

Not only that, but its tenure in the reconstructed States is greatly weakened and its maintenance hazarded so long as there is any considerable number of States in the North who refuse to accept it for themselves as a political principle, while they enforce it upon others. By the enforcement of negro suffrage in the South we have barely established the principle. It stands upon no practical and enduring basis until it shall prevail to such an extent throughoutthe Union as to characterize our system of suffrage. The ballot is as much the bulwark of liberty to the black man as it is to the white.

To continue his exclusion from the ballot box in any considerable portion of the Union is to encourage future efforts for the deprivation of that right in the States where it now exists. That gone, it would be but a single step to the reduction of the negro again to slavery. Already we have seen one of the reconstructed States taking the initiatory steps which, 'if not checked, would inevitably lead to this result. Black men aredeniedthe right to hold office now; thenext step will be to take from him the ballot, and the next his freedom.

The history of the last presidential canvass ought to be a warning to prompt and decisive action, that this question may be definitely and permanently settled before the country becomes again convulsed by another quadrennial contest for mastery between its two great political parties. Certainly no one here can desire to see repeated the issue then presented, of the naked sword, or a repudiation of the act of emancipation, and of all the guarantees of protection which the Government had vouchsafed to its friends in the late rebellious States.

The only sure protection of this nation against the ultimate reestablishment of that institution, is by the adoption and rigid maintenance in all the States of the doctrine of impartial suffrage. I might say further, and all the logic of history would bear me out in the assertion, that in no way can national and individual liberty be so fully secured, and the harmonious working of all the elements of our politics and society so effectually sustained, as by the establishment of universal suffrage in its broadest and completest sense. As no human being of mature age and mental development was ever designed by nature to be beneath another in political right, sono one has t be right to assume to himself political guardianship over another.

The rebellion demonstrated the fact that the surest guarantee of peace and permanence in our political fabric is equality of political right, regardless of all fictitious and arbitrary distinctions. It demonstrated that so long as suffrage is withheld, even from a class numbering but an eighth of our population, as was the case before the war. we stand upon a volcano, liable at any moment to be ingulfed in its fires; that there is no surety of permanence in a government which denies that right to a single human being under the shadow of its banner. The highest type of human government is that in which all the rights of all its people are recognized and protected by its laws, and without that perfect republican government cannot exist.

The first great and sufficient reason why the negro should be admitted to the right of suffrage in all the States is that it is right. From this stand point the subject should be mainly viewed, freed from all considerations of mere expediency or partisan necessity, although these should be allowed their proper weight. One of our greatest statesmen has laid it down as a political axiom—and it is a good and safe one—that we should" render equal and exact justice to all." In excluding from the polls eves a single person who has interests and responsibilities in common with ourselves, do we not falsify this axiom? For it will not be denied that the negro has the same interests at stake; that he is under the same obligations and responsibilities for the preservation of the public peace, for the conservation of the public good and the advancement of the public weal in all respects as ourselves. He is endowed with the same aspirations for improvement, for a higher and better life, and with the same instincts which are common to us all. He is susceptible to the same motives which move us all, capable of the same degree of cultivation and the same ambition to achieve it. Why, then, does the distinction exist? Simply because he has been a slave. So, also, were white men enslaved at a not very remote period of the world s history. In every nation of Europe white men were once held in the most abject and degrading servitude for many centuries. In England, for hundreds of years, a period quite as long as negroes have been enslaved in this country, white men wore metallic collars on their necks as marks of their bondage; yet no one pretends that any portion of the white race should now be disfranchised because they had at some former period been enslaved.

The fact that the late enslavement of the black man gives rise to the prejudice against his enfranchisement now is a most potent, argument in favor of that enfranchisement by the Republican party. In the early days of the Republic, when slavery had assumed such an ascendency in the minds of men as to obtain a tacit recognition in the Constitution, many of the States conceded the right of suffrage in some form or other to the free negroes, but perceiving the absurdity and inconsistency of enfranchising one part and enslaving another part of the same race, the spirit of slavery propagandism set to work to reduce all to the same level, so far as poli ical rights were concerned, with the intention and expectation of reducing all to the same level of abject servitude.

In this success had well nigh been reached when the sins of the institution became too flagrant to be longer endured by the humanity of the nation, and its encroachments upon the free spirit of the country became so monstrous and glaring as to demand its utter extinction. The denial of the right of suffrage to the negro in any of the States and on any terms was demanded and enforced by the slave States directly and solely in the interest of slavery. With a portion of the race free and enjoying the political rights of citizeuship, it. was foreseen that slavery itself was endangered. That right was therefore cut off and the free negro reduced to a condition approximating slavery, in the vain hope that his aspirations for liberty might thus be crushed and the institution rendered perpetual and secure. This fact, alone should be a sufficient argument in favor of the removal of the negro from a condition the furthest possible from thathe so lately occupied that no possible future contingency could bring about his reSuslavement. So long as he is denied the ballotin anyportion of the Republic, just so long is he denied the power to resist any political or social revolution which might bo inaugurated for that purposo..

No class, no race is truly free until it is clothed with political power sufficient to make it the peer of its kindred class or race and enable it to resist the contingencies of popular commotion. No nation can be truly republican which denies to any portion of its citizens equal laws and equal rights.

By perpetuating this discrimination between whites and blacks we should remember that we are sustaining a discrimination established by the enemies of the Union and of popular government in the interest and for the perpetuation of slavery.

It is useless to say that slavery is dead, and that therefore we need feel no apprehension from it in the future. The disqualification of the free negroes of the country before the war was one of the strong adjuncts of slavery, without the aid of which it could not have lived a day. It is now the last prop upon which its friends depend for its future reestablishment. Remove that and all hope for them is forever gone. Slavery is not dead, however, until all its supports are removed. It will never die until the negro is placed in a position of political equality from which he can successfully bid defiance to all future machinations for his enslavement. Until he is clothed with the ballot he is without that power, and is in constant danger from the cupidity of men who have been and expect again to be his masters. Without the ballot he is the slave of public prejudice and public caprice—the foot ball of public scorn. He is powerless to secure the redress of any grievance which society may put upon him. There is not a single argument in favor of his liberation from physical servitude which does not apply with equal force in favor of his enfranchisement. In no other way can he be disenthralled from the meshes of impotency and public contempt in which he is now cast and made a respectable and useful citizen than by his investiture with the rights of manhood, which will make him, as he was designed by his Maker to be, our peer in the State. There are many races of people in the world quite as distinctive in their characteristics as the negro and quite as dissimilar from each other, yet none of them are excluded from the ballot on account of those dissimilarities. The people of all other countries and races may immigrate to our shores, and, after undergoing a prescribed process of naturalization, become citizens, enjoying all political rights in common with ourselves; yet hers is a wan born and reared among us, necessarily educated in all the ramifications of our political system, folly appreciating their worth and value, and, if need be, ready to lay down his life for their maintenance, but he cannot vote, though essentially one of us, simply because his Maker has given him a hue of a darker shade than we ourselves wear. What justice is there in this? Even the wild Indian of the plains, whose hands are red with the blood of murdered women and children, may become a citizen and cast a vote which shall affect the public weal equally with that of the most enlightened and humane among us; yetthe negro, who is vastly his superior in intelligence, in humanity, in industry, and in all that pertains to good citizenship, is deemed unworthy to have a voice in affairs of the State in which ho was born and reared and which concern him as nearly as any of us. What, democracy is there in that? Howlongcau we expectto maintain a democratic form of government if we determine that such unjust' distinctions shall continue to exist? Even the man whose parricidal hand has been raised for the destruction of the Government that has nurtured and protected him niafy forswear his crime and bo received into' full felldwship in the political fold, reinvested with all the political privileges and prerogatives which his treason had forfeited; yet the man who bared his breast to the blows of that same traitor far the preservation of a Government whose entire enginery had been used to rivet the chains of servitude upon him is told to stand back, that this is a white man s Government; that he is of too dark a hue to be safely intrusted with the exercise of those rights for which hfe spilled so much of his blood, as precious to him as ours is to us.

During the war we were all very glad to witness the alacrity with which the negroes flocked to our standard. He was deemed good enough to stand shoulder to shoulder with us on the bloody field, but now that the time of trial is past too many are prone to forget the lesson learned in the hour of danger, and to conclude that the negro, though good enough to die for liberty, is far too inferior a being to enjoy its .fall blessings now that it is permanently won. What encouragement do we give to his patriotic Impulses by such a course? We cannot expect to enjoy a perpetual immunity from war; and with a race in our midst numbering many millions thrust back from the enjoyment of rights which it has fairly earned, and which every consideration of justice and even expediency prompts us to accord, told that they are good enough to fight but not good enough to Vote, where may we look for that splendid reserve corps in an hour of trial like the last?

If we would strengthen the nation in the arts of war or of peace we must foster and encourage every element within it that is calculated to yield strength. We must concede to the negro race that which it has so signally earned By its services in the field, by its moderation in victory, and its commendable ambition displayed in its efforts for intellectual advancement. We must confess its rights and claimsupon us, as the dominant race, by reason of its common origin, common interests, and common humanity.

It is objected that the passage of this resolution would be an act of bad faith toward the States; that tjie issue of negro suffrage was not made in the election of the members of the several Legislatures which will be called to act upon it, and therefore that it should be postponed until that issue can be tried before the people in some future election of their State Legislatures. Gentlemen forget that this has been a standing issue in every State of the Union for the past three years; that it has been actively and everywhere discussed during that time. It has been voted upon in several States, and already adopted in two.

There is another point, Mr. President, which gentlemen forget, in speaking of the observance of good faith. It may be a pertinent inquiry whether we have kept faith with the negro in this matter. Has he not, after all, more to complain of than anybody else, in the continued deprivation by the States of a right, privilege, or immunity, whichever you choose to call it, guarantied to him in the most solemn and binding form by the Constitution itself? Personal liberty is of little moment to him without the power to maintain it by the ballot. In ten States, in the District of Columbia, and in the Territories we have decreed to him the ballot. Are not his rights as sacred in all the other States as in these ten? Is he any less a man in those ten States than in the others whose representatives here have enacted him a voter there? Every man who voted for the enactment of negro suffrage in those ten States and the Territories stultifies himself unless he also votes to enact it in his own State. His enfranehisement in the South was an implied pledge, at least so regarded by me at the time, given in the name and with the approbation of the people we represent, that the same thing should be done everywhere under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. That pledge yet stands unredeemed, and the people of the States now withholding this right should be the last to complain of bad faith in' the adoption of the pending proposition.

It is objected, also, that the proposition is centralizing in its. tendency; that the investiture of Congress with power over suffrage in the States will disturb the equilibrium subsisting between the State s and the General Government and result in the absorption by the latter ofprerogatives properly belonging to the former thus endangering the cardinal principles of republicanism underlying our political system. I cannot but regard ground for this appehension as exceedingly remote. In my judgment the greatest danger that our system of government ever has or ever will be called upon to meet is not centralization, but the reverse; that it is upon diffusion, and not upon any probable concentration in the central Government of political power that we may look with apprehension in our political future.

Mr. President, I am not a friend of the principle of decentralization, as it is termed—I call it disintegration—which for so many years characterized our form of government. One of the inevitable sequences of our great civil war was the demonstration of the necessity for a strong, centralized Government, such as we never had, and such as Washington, and Hamilton, and many of the fathers contended for—a Government able to act promptly and effectively when assailed from within or without; a Government able to protect itself against all contingencies, near or remote, liable to threaten its existence or embarrassment.

Decentralization under the specious guise of State rights and State sovereignty was implanted in our forms against the judgment of some of the wisest men of our formative period. The people and statesmen of that day proceeded to the erection of a political fabric smarting under the burning wrongs they and their fathers had endured under the crushing tyrannies of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and it is not surprising that the tendency of public sentiment should have forced the framers of the Government toward the other extreme and approximated that decentralization which brought anarchy upon the ancient republics, and will bring anarchy upon all republics which fail to maintain in the central powertho ability to protect not only itself, but also the source of its power, the individual; for as every individual is a component part of the Government, with whose consent only that Government exists, so the more completely the individual is protected in all his rights the more permanent and enduring becomes the central and supreme political power of the country.

To illustrate: our Government is based upon the confessed theory that the citizen is the sovereign source of all political power; that in submitting to the restraints of law and yielding his adhesion to established forms of government he does so upon the express condition that in the enjoyment of the rights he does not surrender he shall be protected and made more secure by that Government. But how is it with the dearest of all his rights, the right of suffrage—the right of one man to be in all respects politically the peer of another? The Constitution guaranties that there shall be no infringement of individual rights by the States. Is that guarantee regarded by the States or enforced by the General Government? Certainly it will not be contended that it is while one third of the citizens of the southern States are denied the rights of citizens of many of the northern States, or while one of the States of the Union ejects from office persons whose right to official position is undisputed in many others, or while Massachusetts requires the citizen of Illinois to possess a prescribed degree of education before she will admit him to her polls, or while New York compels the voter in Iowa and Minnesota to show a fixed amount of real property before he is allowed to vote under her laws.

These irregularities existing, who is to be the umpire between the several States for the settlement of controversies which are liable to arise out of them? Who is to stand as the champion of the individual and enforce the guarantees of the Constitution in his behalf as against the so called sovereignty of the States? Clearly no power but that of the central Government is or can- be competent for their adjustment, and it is equally clear that unless that power may be enforced by the central Government; that Government fails of the object of its institution and develops within itself the seeds of its own disintegration; for when Government fails to protect the individual in any of his rights, it forfeits to the degree of that failure its claim upon his allegiance and support. This may be the direct and legitimate result of withholding from the General Governmentthe very power which itis now proposed to assert, and which is opposed from apprehension of a centralization of political power in the Federal Government.

It is, of course, impossible to say what would' have been the effect of a larger investiutre of power in the Government at the formation of the Constitution; but this much is clear, that all the political disturbances of the country from that day to this have been the fruit, more or less directly, of the decentralizing policy which obtained in the Convention.

Tried in the fiery crucible of civil war, that principle has been divested of much that gave it weight in the minds of the early patriots, and its unsoundness in theory and dangerousness in practice most fearfully demonstrated. It had its origin in the lied Republicanism of revolutionary France transplanted to our shores, it ■was fostered in nullification, and reached fullgrowtij perfect development in treason and rebellion.

Under the crucial tests of that rebellion our system has been largely divested of the alloy which found a lodgment through the prejudices and honest fears of its framers. We have practically ceased to be a confederacy, and have become essentially a nation. That loose, undefined, and hybird sovereignty which was once supposed to reside in the General Government, but which was the constant prey of another sovereignty supposed to reside in the States, has given way in the popular mind to a well defined compact, and undisputed jurisdiction on the part of the General Government over all questions involving the political status and political rights of the individual—to a popular confession of all powers in that Government requisite for its own protection and maintenance or for the protection of all its citizens.

Thus it is that that gigantic rebellion, before whose awful front the stoutest hearts quailed and the firmest lips grew pale, has been overruled to a far higher purpose than many had dreamed of. That purpose was not the mere confounding of the malcontents who for a generation had been plotting the destruction of the Republic, not merely to demonstrate to the world the vitality and effectiveness of the republican principle of government, but to crystallize and solidify us into a complete, compact nationality, the medium of amore enlarged and perfect liberty than any nation or race hail hitherto enjoyed. It has demonstrated the fact that the power and usefulness of human government rests, after all, with the people, not with a part of the people, not with any distinctive race or class which may happen to predominate, but with all the people; that no part, owing allegiance to the Government and subject to its laws can be denied a fair and equal participation in the exercise of its functions without detracting from its efficiency and endangering its perpetuity.

It is this lesson, evolved from the teachings of the last eventful decade, which has given such stimulus to the project of enfranchisement throughout the country. It is this which has forced the conviction upon- the minds of so many of our people that the revolution so well begun by the General Government in the enfranchisement of the late slaves of the Southand of the negroes of the Territories would be incomplete without the extension of the same boon by the same power and to the same class in all the States, to sweep into oblivion all distinctions of caste, class, or race, in the political arena. What could be a more fitting finale of a revolution which has absorbed such countless treasure and such wealth of manly energy and human blood?

That is what it is proposed to accomplish by this resolution, and I trust there will be no flagging or hesitancy till our laws recognize and protect to the fullest extent consistent with the interests and well being of society and good government every right with which the God of nature has endowed His creatures, and clothes with their protecting panoply the humblest man or woman that bears allegiance to our Hag. Then, and not till then, will ours be a republican Government and a nation in their truest and highest sense, because it will be a Government by all the people, upon all the people, and for all the people.

Mr. FOWLER. Mr. President

Mr. HENDRICKS. If the Senator from Tennessee will give way, I will move an adjournment. It is hardly necessary to sit here any later to night

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr Thayer in the Chair.) Does the Senator from Tennessee yield the floor for that motion?

Mr. FOWLER. Yes, sir.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then the question is on the motion of the Senator from Indiana, that the Senate adjourn.

The motion being put, there were on a division—ayes 11, noes 21; no quorum voting.

Mr. DRAKE. I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FESSENDEN. You do not want any quorum on a motion to adjourn.

Mr. TRUMBULL. But the vote discloses the fact that there is no quorum present, and you can do no business.

Mr. DRAKE. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 14, nays 37; as follows: YEAS—Messrs Buckalew, Cameron, Davis, Dixon, Fowler, Hendricks, Howard, McCreery, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Pool, Vickers, Whyte, and yates—

NAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Harris Howe Kellogg. McDonald, Morrill 1 ot Maine, Morton, Nye, Osborn, Robertson Ross, Sawyer, Sherman, Spencer, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer. Tipton. Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Warner, Welch, Willey, Williams, and Wilson—37.,^„

ABSENT— Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Conness, Doolittle. firttnunds. Grimes, Henderson, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Rice, Saulsbury, and Sprague—15. So the Senate refused to adjourn.

Mr. FOWLER. Mr. President, I am aware that the hour is late, and that Senators do not like very much to b© kept out of bed, at this time at any rate, and are liable to become somewhat impatient. I regret it very much, and would gladly have given them an opportunity to adjourn and get a rest; but they have chosen otherwise, and they must be contented, of course, to abide the result. It was not my wish to keep them here at this lute hour, and if it were I would not have done it.

Mr. FOWLER proceeded to address the Senate at length. [See Appendix.]

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President

Mr. HENDRICKS, (at eleven o clock and thirty minutes p. m.) Will the Senator from Michigan yield to a motion to adjourn? It is evident that we cannot finish this matter unless we sit until a very late hour.

Mr. HOWARD. If I supposed there was any probability of the Senate adjourning I would give way for such a motion, but I apprehend that is not probable.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan does not yield the floor?

Mr. HOWARD. I have no objection to the motion being made if the Senator from Indiana insists upon it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Michigan yield the floor for the motion, to adjourn?

Mr. HOWARD. I will, if the honorable Senator from Indiana presses his request.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER put the question on the motion, and declared that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. McCREERY. I call for a division.

Mr. CAMERON. I think, with a little consultation, we might agree to close this debate to morrow

Mr. FERRY and Mr. DRAKE. Debate is not in order on the motion to adjourn.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No debate is in order on the motion to adjourn.

Mr. HENDRICKS. We ought not to be compelled to sit here all night.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A division is called for on the motion to adjourn.

The motion was not agreed to; there being on a division—ayes 10, noes 27.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, I do not intend at this late hour of the night to enter largely into the discussion of this question, but rise rather for the purpose of presenting, as briefly as possible, some views which I entertain upon it.

It will not escape the attention of any man that there is an anomaly in the Constitution of the United States. While to all other Governments that I know of in the world, properly called governments, pertains the faculty of regulating and prescribing the qualifications of voters, it is a very singular fact that no such faculty belongs to the Government of the United States. The first clause of the Constitution, although it does not impart any power to the States in reference to the qualification of electors, recognizes the undoubted fact that the States then possessed the right to prescribe qualifications for the electors within their own limits, and authorizes those same electors to be the electors of the Representatives in Congress, and of the electors of President and Vice President, so that it has always been out of the power of Congress under the Constitution to prescribe who shall and who shall not vote for Representatives in Congress or for electors of President and Vice President.

In this respect the Government of the United States is subject entirely to the action of the State governments; and herein consists this strange anomaly. Certainly, ordinarily speaking, the power of regulating suffrage ought to pertain to the Government which is to be affected by it. Our fathers, however, did not see fit to grant to the Federal Government any such authority; and I believe the present is the only attempt which has been made since the foundation of the Government to interfere with this right of the States to prescribe the qualifications of voters not only within their own limits, but as to the Federal Government.

Now, sir, on looking over the amendment which has been proposed to us by the Committee on the Judiciary, although I am in favor of conferring the right of suffrage on the colored man as such, I do not find the provision expressed so clearly in that amendment as I wish it were. Indeed, sir, the frame of the amendment, its form, its legal intendment, interpretation, and effect are to me all very objectionable. It declares that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Observe, sir, and I call the attention of Senators to the clause, "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States." Sir, the United States have never granted to any citizen of the United States m the States, nor abridged to him, the rin ht to vote. The Government of the United States has not intermeddled, nor has it the right to intermeddle, with the right of voting; and it is hardly proper language, therefore, to say that this right, with which the Government ot the United States cannot intermeddle, shall not be denied, or abridged by the United States. It is hardly intelligible language to me as lawyer.

Again there arises from that peculiar form of expression," shall not be denied or abridged by the United States." what, to my mind, is a very plain implication that in respect to other matters except race, color, or previous condition of servitude, the United States may, through its proper organs, if the Government shall see fit, abridge or deny to citizens of the United States in a State the right to vote or to hold office. For instance, the implication arises that for any other cause, whether it be religious belief, or a want of moral training, or defect of education, or whatever other test Congress may see fit to prescribe, the right to vote may be taken away from the citizen of the United States by act of Congress. Certainly I do nt t apprehend that the Committee on the Judiciary intended any such thing; but so plain to me is this implication that under such a clause Congress would have the right to deny or abridge the right of voting for some other causes than those mentioned in the article, that I certainly can never give that amendment my vote, for I will never agree, here or elsewhere, that the Congress of the United States or any State government shall have it in its power to say to a citizen of the United States "You shall not vote or hold office because your religious creed is not so and so, or because you do not belong to and commune with this, that, or the other religious denomination." I prefer to adhere to the present provisions of the Constitution of the United States in all these respects—the Constitution which prohibits utterly and forever the setting up of any religious test. I am willing, as I have already remarked, to extend to the colored man, who is a citizen of the United States, the right to vote and to hold office, like any other citizen; but I prefer to do it in direct and plain terms, so that he who runs may read, without circumlocution, without indirection, but plainly, in terms that are intelligible to the lowest capacity. I shall, therefore, at the proper time, propose an amendment to the amendment now before us, which will be in the following words:

Citizens of the United States, of African descent, shall have the same right to vote and hold office in States and Territories, as other citizens, electors of the most numerous branch of their respective Legislatures.

Thus adopting the constitutional language of electors having the qualifications of electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures. It seems to me that this expression meets exactly the case which is before us. Why not come out plainly, manfully, and frankly to the world and say what we mean, and not endeavor to darken counsel with words without knowledge, by circumlocution, by concealing or endeavoring to conceal, the real thing which we aim at? Give us, then, the colored man, for that and that only is the object that is now before us. The sole object of this whole proceeding is to impart by a constitutional amendment to the colored man who has become free in the United States the ordinary right of citizens of the United States, and that is the whole of it. I do not wish by any form of words to conceal the fact or to blur the fact that I am in favor of extending to this class of men the right to vote and to hold office in the United States. Sir, they exist among us at this time, not by their own consent, but by the fault of our fathers and of our mother country, whose merchants, moved by the love of gain, brought them to this country and consigned them to slavery. They have ever been a disturbing element in our politics. The fact of the American people holding in bondage so large a number of human beings has been a blot upon our national reputation, has been a source of discredit to the American people abroad._ That long and great controversy finally culminated in the recent rebellion. That rebellion necessarily led to the emancipation of the slaves. They are now free. More than four millions ot that race have become emancipated, and are now enjoying, under an act of Congress and under an amendment of the Constitution ofthe United States the rights of citizens of the United States. We have made them such. "Whether it be for their benefit or our benefit, for their disadvantage or our disadvantage, the fact has become fixed; they are free and are citizens ofthe United States, endowed with all the civil rights which belong to white men who are citizens of the United* States, and the only question now before us and before the country in reference to them is, shall they not only be •allowed their civil rights, but shall they for all future time find in the Constitution of their country a guarantee of their political rights as citizens and as political equals with you and Sir, it is impossible in the very nature of things that so large aportion of citizens of the United States as the black portion now are can for any considerable length of time remain in our midst without enjoying the right of suffrage. That •would be a great anomaly in our condition. It would be a state of things entirely inconsistent with the genius and mild, beneficent, democratic spirit of our Government. Sir, if they are to remain citizens of the United States, to have the right of eating the bread which they earn, of having a title to the clothes which they earn; if they are to be permitted to purchase houses and lands, to become fathers and mothers, with all the domestic rights which pertain to that condition belonging to them, we must sooner or later see to it that they are citizens possessed of the right to vote and to be represented in the legislative bodies who have control of their persons and their property. Upon the principle of republican government they are entitled thus to be represented; and it will be impossible for the American people, however strong maybe the spirit of caste, however odious the black man may be in the eyes of some of our fellow citizens—it will be utterly impossible to continue this black race in a state of pupilage, of inferiority in respect to political rights for any considerable length of time; and I think, therefore, for their security, for our own security, as an act of justice to them and of security and strength to the Union itself, and the glory of the American people, this thing ought to be done, and I am prepared to vote for it.

Mr. President, much has been said against the present proposition being made at the present time. We are told that this proposition has been suddenly and unexpectedly sprung upon the country; that it has not been a subject of discussion, and was not at the last presidential canvass. Well, sir, I recollect very well that another measure of considerable importance at least was sprung upon the country without any previous discussion. 1 do not think, however, that this proposition has thus been sprung, or that it is a surprise upon the people of the United States by any means. Certainly the Democratic party cannot make any such complaint against the .Republican party. They remember too well the KansasNebraska act, which was passed in the month of May, 1854—a measure that was taken up suddenly, discussed but briefly in Congress, as to which there had been no advice given beforehand to the country, and for which the public was utterly unprepared; and that, the most important measure that had passed Congress for many and many a year, was thrust through both Houses of Congress and became a law without having been previously discussed at theprimary meetings of even the Democratic party. I think that party has suffered somewhat in consequence of practising that surprise upon the country.

But, sir, it is said that this measure is not admissible under the Chicago platform, and that the whole Republican party represented, as it is properly supposed to have been, are estopped in pais, I suppose, as he lawyers say, from urging it upon the consideration of Congress, and the honorable Senator from Indiana, in his zeal and fervor to make a strong point upon the Republican party ia that regard, called our attention very fervidly, very emphatically, to the language of that platform. I think myself ifhe will reread that portion of the platform upon which he made comments so severe, I will not say offensive, he will discover that there was no ground whatever for the censure which he threw out upon that convention and upon the Republican party. He told the country in emphatic tones that that party, if it should adopt this amendment of the Constitution, would beguilty of perfidy, under the weight and disgrace of which they could not endure. I do not profess to repeat his language, but such was the substance of it—that it was a desertion of the platform and the principles of the platform. Now, sir, what does the platform say? The second article of the platform is in the following words:

"The guarantee by Congress of equal suffrage to all loyal men at the South"—

That is, to the colored men at the South, of course, for they were loyal. The honorable Senator will confess that—

"was demanded by every consideration of public safety, of gratitude and of justice, and must be maintained."

That is, the guarantee by Congress of equal suffrage to all loyal men at the South. What are we endeavoring to- do here by this very amendment now under discussion but to carry out that same principle of guarantying to all loyal men at the South as well as at the North the principle of equal rights?

While," proceeds the article, "the question of suffrage in all the loyal States properly belongs to the people of those States."

Certainly, Mr. President, it belonged to the people of the loyal States, but it did not belong to the people of the States recently in rebellion. The question of suffrage, so far as the rebel States were concerned, had passed from them, and had by forfeiture, produced by rebellion, attached itself to the Congress of the United States, whose duty it was to deal with that question as to the rebel States according to the principles of justice.

Mr. NORTON. Mr. President

Mr, HOWARD. The Senator will excuse

Mr. NORTON. I should like to ask the Senator from Michigan a question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan does not yield.

Mr. IIOW ARD. 1 have no objection, if the Senator from Minnesota wishes to put a question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan yields the floor.

Air. NORTON. I desire to ask the Senator from Michigan if the intention, the meaning of that platform was that suffrage in the loyal States was merely a question of propriety or of right; whether it properly as a matter of propriety belonged to them or belonged to them as a matter of right?

Mr. HOWARD. Well, Mr. President, the honorable Senator has got a little ahead of the game, and if he had not been so impatient and allowed me to proceed with my remarks I possibly might have given him an answer. I will endeavor to do so now:

While the question of suffrage in the loyal States properly belongs to the people of those States."

Does anybody doubt it? Did anybody ever doubt it? It properly belonged to those States because the Constitution ofthe United States, which was in full force as to the loyal States, recognized it as one of the reserved rights of the States at that time. And it not only properly belonged to the people of the loyal States at that time, but constitutionally belonged to them'. There is no doubt about that. Why, then, do we hear so much said about the perfidy of the .Republican party in now seeking to make an amendment by which suffrage shall be regulated in the various States? The quibble turns upon the little word" properly," which was plainly, taken in connection with its context, used in the sense of" constitutionally." That was all.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senator has just now said" that no one ever questioned that that was the proper construction of it, and that of right under the Constitution, as it then was and still is, the right to regulate suffrage exclusively belongs to the States. I think the Senator ia mistaken in saying that no one doubted that. I think one of the most distinguished of his party, the Senator from Massachusetts, does hold that Congress, for the northern as well as the southern States, can regulate suffrage.

Mr. SUMNER. Does the Senator refer to

Mr. HENDRICKS. I do, sir.

Mr. SUMNER. I have never taken the ground which the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Frelingiujysen] this morning undertook to answer, nor the ground attributed to me now by the Senatorfrom Indiana, [Mr. Hendricks.] I have never raised the question whether a State had the power to regulate the suffrage or not; but I insist that under the Constitution ofthe United States, conceding to every State the power to regulate the suffrage, there is no power to establish an oligarchy of the skin; and I say that to claim such a power for a State, merely under the power to regulate the suffrage, to my mind is an insult to the Constitution, to its framers, and to common sense.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I did not wish to misrepresent the Senator, and I do not think I did. Does the Senator not claim that? Has he not in debate claimed and by bills proposed the exercise of a power by Congress to regulate suffrage in the States?

Mr. SUMNER. I beg the Senator s pardon. If he will read the bills—I have introduced a great many—they have always gone to the single point that under the Constitution of the United States no State had a power to deny suffrage on account of color. There is where I stand. I raise no question of the power of the States to regulate suffrage; I go into the question of the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and I insist that under that you cannot without falsifying every rule of interpretation which will be found in any book of jurisprudence, without falsifying every sentiment of the heart, say that under the power to regulate you can disfranchise a race. Every presumption is to be in favor of human rights. Some of the bravest sentiments of English jurisprudence have all gone in that direction, even to the extent of saying that that man is impious and cruel who does not favor human rights. There I stand. In every interpretation of the Constitution, in the construction of every word and phrase in it, I give to it a meaning in favor of human rights; and when I am asked what is meant by the term "to regulate," I say to determine the manner of elections, not to disfranchise a race. When I am asked what may be qualifications, I say clearly those things which may be acquired, those things which are attainable to human effort, not those things that by the providence of God are unattainable. Sir, it is an insult to God and to humanity to say that such a thing can be a qualification. There I stand. Therefore, let the Senator understand me. I have been very clear and explicit from the beginning. I never have claimed for Congress under the existing Constitution the power to regulate. I never have ventured to deny it, because much can be said even in favor ofthe power to regulate. But I do insist that under the power of making regulations you cannot disfranchise a race, you cannot degrade the country, you cannot degrade the age.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President

Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not wish to impose upon the Senator from Michigan, but I hope he will allow me just one word further. I do not think I understand the Senator from Massachusetts now, though he is the master of language. That I may understand him I will ask him one further question. Has he not claimed that where the States have denied the suffrage to the negro people Congress may interfere and give in those States the suffrage to the colored people?

Mr. SUMNER. Of course I have.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Under the existing Constitution?

Mr. SUMNER. Of course I have. Tome it is as plain as the sun.

Mr. NORTON. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Michigan yield to the Senator from Minnesota?

Mr. NORTON. I wish to ask the Senator from Massachusetts a question.

Mr. HOWARD. No; I think I will bring the colloquy to an end just here.

Mr. SUMNER. I shall be very glad to answer it.

Mr. HOWARD. There will be full time to answer it.

Mr. McCREERY. Will the Senator from Michigan indulge me in asking him one question?

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, Mr. President.

Mr. McCREERY. I wish to ask one question, and have a categorical answer. [Laugh-

Mr. HOWARD'. I cannot assure the Senator about a categorical answer.

Mr. McCREERY. Will you suspend your remarks for a motion to adjourn? [Laughter.]

Mr. HOWARD. If the honorable Senator will excuse me, I am nearly through with the few remarks I have to offer.

I was not present to listen to the speech of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts which has been referred to by the honorable Senator from Indiana, and I cannot therefore undertake to say whether I do or do not concur in the doctrines of the Senator from Massachusetts. It is not necessary for my purpose to enter into that arena. I was commenting upon the aspersions which have been cast upon the Republican party by the honorable Senator from Indiana and others in this Chamber for now asking for an amendment of the Constitution of the United States respecting suffrage after the party had adopted the Chicago platform. Now, sir, that convention acted in presence of the historical fact that from the beginning the States had regulated the qualifications of electors, both in the choice of State officers and in the election of Representatives to Congress and electors of President and Vice President; and they say that in the loyal States that right properly belongs to the people of the States, and that is all they say, plainly referring to the historical fact that the States had exercised that right from the beginning. They do not allude to any possible attempt on the part of Congress or to attempts on the part of conventions of the States to change that ancient rule. But at the same time the fact is perfectly public, it is perfectly well known to the honorable Senator from Indiana and to the whole world, that the question of colored suffrage was discussed iu Congress and out of Congress since the beginning of the year 1866; and perhaps there is nothing more notorious than that so far as the rebel States were concerned the Republican party were in favor of imparting to the colored race the right of voting as they had done in all the reconstruction acts which they had passed since the 4th of March, 1864. This, then, is no new question before the country; it is no surprise upon the country at all; and all that has been said by honorable Senators on this subject, it seems to me, has had in view more the making of a sharp point politically and in a partisan sense than to illustrate the real doctrines which lie at the bottom of the subject.

I shall vote to impart to the colored man, wherever he may be found within the limits of the United States, if he be a citizen of the United States, the same rights both in regard to his property and liberty and to his political rights and privileges, as pertain to the white man; and I shall do it because we have made him a citizen of the United States; and on this question I have no fear of going before my constituents or any constituency in the United States and before the tribunal of history.