February 8, 1869 (2)

All that 1 wish to say, and I may as well say it now as to wait until the last moment when we come to the final vote, is that I deprecate the attempt on the part of the Republican party to pass this constitutional amendment because we get no aid from anybody else. Those who carry the name of Democrats, who talk the most before the people about the equality of men and the largest liberty, the freedom of the ballot, and all that, are found resisting, if they can, the security of that liberty or the extension of that ballot. I say, then, that I deprecate the party which is charged with securing these ,rights to the citizens of the United States, departing, as it seems to me, from a safe and secure position, resting on the Constitution as it is," as the Democratic phrase used to be, where I believe under the authority of a law of Congress, not enlarging the Constitution but merely enforcing its guarantees, you can give the ballot to every man in the Union, and sailing away upon an unknown sea of experiment and hope and uncertainty in time and in result, and leaving the country to suppose, and leaving the courts to suppose when it comes to them, that you have given a legislative interpretation against the existence of any such privilege under the Constitution as it is. ifou will, therefore, have given up a reasonable and a moral certainty that you have in your grasp for an uncertainty that as you chase it will go further and further away. I am in favor, as undoubtedly every man who hears me knows, of the object that these amendments wish to attain.

Mr. WARNER. I will ask the Senator from Vermont how long he thinks it would be before the construction which he gives to the Constitution, namely, that the right to vote and hold office inure to citizenship, would be so far enforced as to practically give to every citizen the right to vote and hold office?

Mr. EDMUNDS. I think that depends upon the courageous fortitude and the vigorous, aggressive assertion of that right under the Constitution that the two Houses of Congress may show. I believe if we were to pass a law under the fourteenth article of amendment which should assert and put into practical operation what I believe to be the true spirit and life of it, that it would not be two years, or one year, before in three fourths of the States—more than you can get in one year or ten years for any new amendment of the Constitution it would be an accomplished fact.

Mr. HOWE. What do you want of a statute?

Mr. EDMUNDS. We do not want anything of a statute except merely to put into practical operation by the will of the law making power of the nation, and by, therefore, the administrative functions of its officers, the life that is contained in the Constitution, just as we want a law to enforce a hundred provisions of the existing Constitution, and as we have it.

Mr. HOWE. But I wish to ask my friend if the function that he speaks of is not ip the individual voter himself, and his right being secure of that, if the local law does not provide all the opportunities to enforce it; whether those two things do not make the right comPlMr! EDMUNDS. Unquestionably the right is complete. I hope my friend does not suppose that I am arguing to show that anything remains to give a right to a citizen to vote, it that article can bear that construction. What I say is, that, as it seems, in the States these qualifications and exclusions are kept uf), as i am proud to say they never were in mine, it needs the sharp stick of intervention to put the Constitution in force, as it required the sharp stick of intervention to put it in force in South Carolina when Mr. Hoar went down there in order to give some rights to citizens and was driven away. It requires intervention, sir, not intervention above the law, or in spite of the law, but intervention in the name of the law, and with the law sa the swo d

My. FOWLER. Before the Senator leaves that point I should like to ask hina a question to see whether I understand him. .Turning to the first section of the fourteenth article I find that it provides that the individual shall possess all the rights and privileges of the highest class, and then that all persons born or naturalized in the United States shall possess all the rights that the highest class possess, including the right to vote. Is that his interpretation of that article?

Mr, EDMUNDS. I have substantially answered that question. I should weary the patience of the Senate were I to repeat it.

Mr. FOWLER. I do not wish the Senator to repeat it. I simply wanted to know whether that was his interpretation. I could not understand him.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I would be happy to answer my friend again at length if the time and latience of the Senate would permit me; but I lave substantially answered that already, and I will only occupy the attention of the Senate for a moment or two more.

As I was saying, sir, what I deprecate is— although I am heartily, as I suppose every person who hears me is in favor of the object that we are seeking to obtain—that it appears to my humble apprehension that in endeavoring to reach that object, to attain that great and beneficent practical end, we are turning our back upon the point of destination and walking directly away from it. That is the difficulty with me. We are making progress backward; because as will be claimed, not as I confess with true argument and philosophy, but with a claim that it will be found impossible to resist, we are going away from that which is secured to ns to that which is far from being secure, but is among the most uncertain of all things.

Now, sir, where is the great stress at this moment to reach the practical end? In all the southern States where the great body of this disfranchised class or race now are I mean disfranchised practically—they have acquired a right to vote under local constitutions, to say nothing of tlie fourteenth article; and they will never lose it except through a convulsion as great as any we have lived to witness. History does not record an instance where any class or race, however inferior gentlemen may suppose them to be, however ignorant they may be, have ever given up or lost political privileges they had once attained, except through the convulsions of revolution and anarchy. These people, therefore, in these ten States will maintain the practical exercise of the right to which they have recently been admitted, and there is no "danger whatever except through the convulsion to which I have referred, and against that you have the constitutional power ot the whole nation which you are bound to exercise, that they will go backward. On the contrary, as they assist to mold the institutions their own institutions will assist to elevate them, as they have all other men who entered upon the race of civilized life. They will go .forward if you let them alone, instead of going backward. Where, then, is the pressing necessity? There are a few thousand disfranchised m New York; there are a few thousand m Connecticut; there are a few thousand in Maryland and Kentucky: a few here and a few there, a mere fraction in the great mass ot the nation. Not that I would not do everything to give them the practical rights that their brethren have in other States, but I say the pressure upon us now, as a, practical question, is not so great, as it seems to me, as to drive us away from the experiment of congressional intervention under the Constitution that we have broad enough and strong enough to uphold it, to the untried, and to me the somewhat hopeless experiment of undertaking to reaffirm the same doctrine in new language and under new conditions. If we wait for a constitutional enactment to give them fresh rights, we shall wait, iri ftfy' opinion, Until 'every person who is now forty years o d #ill have' passed away, .and we shall find ourselves at the end of five yestrs or ten years 'further, so far as our action goes, from sStainmg the point of Ttfn fergal liberty' and u tiey than we are now; t>

■That is all desire to? say, ted lam sorry t haVe' been, obliged tin' say so 'touch.*". f Mr. DB AKB Mr. President, I would not prirtjfect this debate atnome ntlongerif it were not that the honorable Senator from Vermont, ft seems to me, has taken an. exceedingly erroneous and detrimental view of "the first section of the fourteenth article of amendments to the Constitution. We have arrived atthe stage 6f the debate upon this great question when it is exceedingly important that we should un- (terktand precisely what we are about and express our views with the utmost perspicuity that 'we are capable of, for now is the time ■when we are to select the language that is to go into this amendment.-

The honorable Senator from ni Vermont takes t ie position that the fourteenth article of amendment does in fact now, at this moment Of time, confer the right to vote upon "all citizens of the United States. X am constrained to differ from the Senator from Vermont in ffistt view; and I think it will b e apparent to the Senate, by a very brief examination of the terms of "that section, that no such claim can be rightfully based upon it. Let us look at the first sentence of that section:

"AH porsons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are oitizensof theUnitedStatesandof the State wherein they reside."

Does the honorable Senator contend that that sentence is the one which confers upon njen the right to vote? If he does, then every State provision with regard to voters is completely overridden and put out of sight. Where they require a man to reside in a State twelve months that is abrogated and annulled by this sentence, if that be operative to confer the right of suffrage; because the very moment that a man takes up his residence in a State, it may be upon the very morning of the day of election, he can go to the polls and deposit his ballot, notwithstanding the declaration of the constitution of that Stale that he shall have resided there one year, or two, as is the case in some States.

I do not think that the honorable Senator from .Vermont will claim that that sentence of the first section of the fourteenth article confers upon any man the right of suffrage. It is simply, and never was intended for anything else than, a definition of what constitutes a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State—a question that had been debated in this country about which judicial decisions pro and, con had been given, and about which the opinions of Attorneys General of the United States had been given; and yet it was never settled, and probably never would be settled until settled just in this way.

Now, sir, lot us look at the next portion of that sentence which, from the remarks of the honorable Senator, I take to be the one that he considers to cover the right to vote. It reads thus:

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

To make the argument of the Senator from Vermont good, it must be that he holds that a privilege of a citizen of the United States is to vote-.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Is it not one of yours? DilAKE. Itis: but I am a citizen also of Missouri, and under her constitution entitled to vote. I say a citizen of the United States merely is not entitled to vote anywhere in the united States. There is not a spot of land in the United States where a man is entitled to vote merely because he is a citizen of the United States. He must comply with the terms of the local constitution or the local law.

Mr. SUMNER. May I put a question there to my friend

Mr. DRAKE. CeHainly.

Mr. SUMNER. Does the Senator take into view the clause of that amendment by which Congress is expressly empowered- to- enforce the amendment

■■Mi. DRAKE;' I do.

Mr. SUMNER. Is there not a -source of pjowe r in that

Mr. DRAKE. There is a source of power to enforce all that is written in thatamendment. Mr. -SUMNER. That isr to enforce the immunities ttnd privileges of citizens. Congress has plenary power to enforce those immunities and privileges. What more can it have? What amendment can you invent now that will give Congress so much as it has there?

Mr. DRAKE. Mr. President, there is the very assumption again that the word "privileges" embraces the right to vote; and that is the very thing I am disputing. I say again, and I call upon any Senator lire who can do it to show me where in the United States a man can vote merely because he is a citizen of the United States. I say, fearlessly, nowhere within the limits of the territory of the whole United States. There is, wherever he may be, a local constitution or a local law which prescribes something more than to be a citizen of the United States in order that he shall vote. Every Senator here knows that fact as existing in his own State, and therefore it is that it is impossible that the word" privileges" as contained in this section of the Constitution can embrace the right to vote because a man is a citizen of the United States.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. I should like to call the attention of the gentleman to one point, as I do not wish to speak myself on this subject. If the construction which the Senator from Vermont puts upon this first section of the fourteenth amendment is true, will it not abrogate the educational provision with regard to the right of suffrage in Massachusetts? Will it not abrogate the religious test which is in the letter of the constitution of New Hampshire for office holding and the requirement of residence also?

Mr. DRAKE". I would say with regard to that, that there is just one conclusion to which the constitutional lawyer must come if the construction claimed by the Senator from Vermont is correct; and that is that every single provision contained in every constitution of every State of this Union is wiped out by that single sentence, except the mere requirement that the man shall be a citizen of the United States, and that it imposes that requirement upon every man in every State, notwithstanding the constitution of the State may admit men to -vote who are not citizens of the United States. If it be true in any sense whatever that that language of the Constitution referring to the privileges of citizens of the United States means the right of every citizen of the United States to vote, then every single provision in every State constitution in this country, except that merely, is completely wiped out by that section. I do not think that that is a correct construction of this sentence. I think we have more to do. I think that sentence referred only to the privileges and immunities which attach to men as citizens of the United States.

Mr. EDMUNDS. What are those?

Mr. DRAKE. Personal, sir; the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Do you think, then, that a citizen of the United States would have a right to acquire real estate in your State except he took it by or in conformity to your law 1

Mr. DRAKE. No, sir; that is a mere matter of local form.

Mr. EDMUNDS. A mere regulation.

Mr. DRAKE. A mere regulation as matter of local form.

Mr. EDMUNDS. So is the residence of the voter.

Mr. DRAKE. But this does not have the effect of wiping out that regulation.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It does if it is construed iu that way.

Mr. DRAKE,' If it is to be construed as giving the right to vote, then, as I said before, it does wipe out everything else, and we stand here then before the whole country claiming that a; constitutional amendment, whioh was adopted -without any man in the nation ever saying that it meant that thing, does sweep out from the constitutions of all the States all the requirements of age, of residence, of property, of education. Everything of that kind is swept away b^ that one clause, and all men who are citizens- of the United States are entitled to vote wherever" they may happen to be at the time of the election.

'Mr. EDMUNDS.■ I hope the Senate wil] not be frightened out of any fair construction of the fourteenth article, or any other article, by the tremendous consequences which my friend from 'Missouri has painted. I do not think it would be very .frightful if it should happen that the clause in the constitution of New Hampshire which requires a certain religious test—I do not know -whether it is Mahommedan or Christian or what it may be—for holding office, or the clause in any other State constitution which limits the right to vote to persons of a particular race, were swept away. The question is, after all, what is the fair, legal construction that can be fairly put upon language which is to he interpreted favorably and beneficially for the enlargement of the rights of men. The argument that the Senator from Missouri has addressed to us is based purely upon consequences that he supposes to be absurd or inconvenient which are to flow from that construction. He, like a wise dialectician, evades 'and -turns his back upon the meaning of the words that are contained jn the article. He is careful not to tell you, sir, how broad the word "privilege" is. He is careful not to tell you the true scope and definition of citizenship; but he swims away in a cloud of eloquence that always surrounds him to these ghastly consequences of a Methodist being entitled to hold office in New Hampshire, and a man who cannot read being entitled to vote in Massachusetts.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. If the gentleman will allow me, I will read that sentence in our constitution. Speaking of a member of the Legislature it says:

"He shall be at the time of his election an inhabitant of the town, parish, or place he is chosen to represent; shall be of the Protestant religion, and shall cease to represent such town, parish, or place immediately on hiOeasing to be qualified as aforesaid."

I will say that although that is in the letter of the Constitution, and goes far back, having a history whichis not at all disgraceful to New Hampshire, it is now a dead letter. I have myself sat in the Legislature with a Catholic, an able, patriotic, noble man, who hazarded his life on many a battle field for the preservation of the country. But it is there, having its origin far back in the history of the State?

Mr. EDMUNDS. I did not intend to open any question of reproach to the Commonwealth of New Hampshire. I have no doubt that she framed her institutions according to the spirit of the time when she entered upon political life. I cannot stop now to discuss either the history or the present wisdom or the effect of that clause. I only referred to it in reply to my honorable friend from Missouri.

Now, sir, to condense, the key to this whole question between my friend and me is here: if it is one of the essential privileges of citizenship, as my friend knows that, it is to him and to me, to vote, to exercise political power, then the Constitution says that the privileges which belong to him and me shall not be denied or abridged by any State.

Mr. Drake rose.

Mr. EDMUNDS._ If the honorable Senator will be quiet for a minute, if he will "possess his soul in patience," as 1 know he can, I shall soon be through.

The Constitution does not say that the privileges and immunities of a particular class, a chosen few, shall not be denied or abridged. It does not declare that in the State of New Hampshire the privileges and the immunities of Protestants shall not be abridged or denied. It dees not say that in Massachusetts the privileges and immunities of those who can restd and write and know how t© defend themselves shall not be denied; but it is a comprehensive term as well in the objects ovef which it rests as in the subject of which it speaks; and the difficulty which my friend has suggested, that it wipes away every regulation of the exercise of rights in the States because it gives those rights, is purely imaginary. Every lawyer knows, every statesman knows, every intelligent man in the country knows that it is one thing to have a right which is absolute and inalienable, and it is another thing for the body of the community to regulate equally and fairly the exercise of that right.

My friend admits that one of the privileges mentioned in that instrument to me is the privilege of liberty, and yet I may be daily deprived of my liberty under the regulations of the State, which apply to us all alike. If I am deprived of it, rightfully or wrongfully, I can only get restored to it by the process of the law under the regulations that legislation shall provide. My friend admits that one of the privileges of a citizen of the United States is to hold property. Where is he to hold it? He must hold it in some State or Territory, must he not? Now, then, is he to acquire it in spite of the State law by an instrument unwitnessed, unsealed, unsigned? By no means. He must conform to the regulation of the local law which declares that his deed must be witnessed by two witnesses, must be sealed, must be acknowledged, must be delivered. And yet no man here thought of supposing that a privilege of a citizen was denied, although it is confessedly by my friend agreed to be a privilege, from the fact that the States regulate the exercise of it. Just so is the right to vote. I am a citizen of the State of Vermont, I am entitled by the confession of all in this argument, I suppose, to exercise political privileges there; and yet the law of Vermont declares that in order to exercise political privileges there I must reside in a certain place and for a certain length of time. Does anybody suppose that that denies the inherent and inalienable right that belongs to me under the constitution of Vermont? By no means. The ■whole argument of my friend is set aside by a simple recurrence to the sole principle that he supposes, because this right exists, it exists without the possibility of regulation. That is the whole of the argument. Now, as I say, everybody knows that a right may be perfectly secure and yet may be subject to regulation. All that he has described—residence, time, everything—is merely that regulation of minu tiaj which tends to uphold and secure rather than to destroy this great right and privilege that belongs to the citizen in 'a republican or democratic government to participate in the selection of its rulers.

Mr. DRAKE. Will the Senator, before he sits down, allow me to ask him one question? I do not wish to protract the debate. I wish simply to ask one question of the honorable Senator. I have no remarks to make upon it. I wish to inquire of the Senator whether, when he votes at the polls in the State of Vermont, he votes there as a citizen of the United States or as a citizen of Vermont?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Both.

Mr. DRAKE. Then both being done, one would not suffice. The citizenship of the United States would not suffice.

Mr. EDMUNDS. The Constitution answers that question. It declares that because I am a citizen of the United States I am a citizen, for that reason, of the State of Vermont, if I reside there. That is the very language of it.

Mr. HOWARD. I wish to say but one word on this subject. I feel it a duty to make a single remark. As many of the Senators well know, I served on the joint Committee on Reconstruction, who reported the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution to the Senate and to the House of Representatives; and I am not unfamiliar with the object of that amendment. It Was discussed at great length before«the committee, and by the committee, as well as in the Senate; and I feel constrained to say here now that this is the first' time it ever occurred to me that the right to vote was to be derived from the fourteenth article. I think suchtt construction cannot be maintained. No such thing was contemplated on the part of the committee which reported the amendment; and if I recollect rightly, nothing to that effect was said in debate in the Senate when it was on its passage.

One word further. The construction which is now sought to be put upon the first section of this fourteenth article, it seems to me, is plainly and flatly contradicted by what follows in the second section of the same article. After declaring in the first section that—

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

And after declaring that—

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

The second section goes on to say:

"Bufcwhen the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, 01- the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State," &c. Plainly and in the clearest possible terms recognizing the right of each State to regulate the suffrage and to impart or to declare the necessary qualifications of voters for members ofthe House of Representatives, electors of President and Vice President, and members of the State Legislature. Sir, can anything be clearer? Here is a plain, indubitable recognition and admission on the very face and by the very terms of this fourteenth amendment of the right and power of each State to regulate the qualifications of voters.

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator is aware that that was denied at that time, and it would not have passed the Senate had anybody attributed to it that meaning. That I am able to say. It could not have passed the Senate. The Senator knows very well that there was an amendment, as it came from the House of Representatives, that was susceptible of such an interpretation; and I felt it my duty to oppose it, which I did at great length and most elaborately, precisely on the ground that it did abandon to the States the power to discriminate against colored persons; I refused to support that amendment, and I associated myself with, others in that refusal. The Senatorfrom Illinois [Mr. Yates] took part in that discussion and he was associated with me in consultation to defeat the amendment. We did defeat it, and on that ground; that it conceded to the States the power to discriminate against colored persons. We said we would have nothing to do with any such proposition. Then this article was brought forward, and it was sustained on that avowed ground, that it did no such thing.

Mr. CRAGrlN. Will the Senator from Michigan allow me to make a suggestion to set the Senatorfrom Massachusetts right? The Blaixe amendment, to which he refers, was in the reconstruction acts, and not in the constitutional amendment.

Mr. SUMNER. Ibeg the Senator s pardon; it was a constitutional amendment that came here with a two thirds vote from the House of Representatives.

Mr. HOWARD. I have but another word to say. The occasion of introducing the first section of the fourteenth article of amendment into that amendment grew out of the fact that there was nothing in the whole Constitution to secure absolutely the citizens of the United States in the various States against an infringement of their rights and privileges under the second section of the fourth article of the old Constitution. That section declares that—

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

There it was plainly written' down. Now, sir, it seems to me, that' unless' the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from -Massachusetts can derive the right of voting from this ancient second section of 'the fourth article upon the ground that the citizens of each State are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States they must give up the argument; and I assert here with confidence that no such construction was ever given to the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution':

Nobody ever supposed that the right of voting or of holding office was guarantied by that second section of the fourth article of the old Constitution. The commentators upon the Constitution apply it simply to the right of purchasing, owning, holding, and enjoying property by the citizen of one State, lying ana being situate in another State, of receiving property by descent, &c.; relating to those personal rights and privileges connected with property which it was intended by the Convention which framed the Constitution to make common and uniform among the citizens of the United States; but never applying it to political rights of any description, either of voting or of holding office.

Now, sir, the first section of the fourteenth article, in the first place, makes the declaration that—

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

That had not previously been enacted.- Then follows the inhibitory clause, which was deemed so important by the committee, that—

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

The immediate object of this was to prohibit for the future all hostile legislation on the part of the recently rebel States in reference to the colored citizens of the United States who had become emancipated, and who finally were declared to be citizens by the civil rights bill passed by Congress. It was to secure them against any infringement or violation of their rights by those southern Legislatures, That is the whole history of it.

Mr. Cragin obtained the floor.

Mr. SUMNER. The Senate must meet very soon again, and can then come to a vote oa all these different propositions and give them the attention they deserve. I therefore move that the Senate adjourn.

Mr. CRAGIN. I have only a few words to say; they will not occupy five minutes, and I prefer to say what I have to say now.

Mr. SUMNER. I think the Senate had better adjourn. It is now nearly eight o clock in the morning, and we had better go home for a short time.

Mr. STEWART. That will compel us to have a night session again in order to dispose of this subject.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the Senatorfrom Massachusetts, that the Senate adjourn.

Mr. STEWART called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 11, nays 3"; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Fowler, Hendricks, MeCreery, Norton, Ramsey, Saulsbury, Sumner, Vickers, and Yates—11.

NAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Corbett, Cragin, Drake Ferry 1 Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Harris, Howard, Howe, Kellogg, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Osborn. Patterson of .New Hampshire, Rice, Robertson, Ross, Sawyer, Spencer, Stewart, Thayer. Trumbull, Van Winkle. Warto, Warner, "Welch, Willey, Williams, and Wilson—87.

ABSENT—Messrs. Bayard, Conkling, Conner, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds Fessenden fcri lines. Henderson, Morton, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy. Pool, Sherman, Sprague, Tipton, and Whyte—18. So the Senate refused to adjourn.

Mr. CRAGIN. Mr. President, I did not think that I could possibly be tempted to say anythingin reference to the question nowunder consideration; but the position taken by the Senator from Vermont greatly surprises me. When I remember the struggle that we had here in the passage of the fourteenth amendment; when I remember that it was announced upon this floor by more than one gentleman, and contradicted and denied by no one so far as I recollect, that that amendment did not confer the right of voting upon anybody, J say I am surprised that such a position should be taken at this late hour inthe debate. There is no doubt won the question. It was the understanding o f Congress and of the people of this country that that amendment did not confer and did not seek to confer any right to vote upon any citizen of the United States. That amendment was passed after the passage of the civil rights bill. Thai; law had not been carried out. It had not been enforced. It was passed also for the purpose of deciding once and forever that the emancipated slave was a citizen of the United States. There .were other reasons which entered into the consideration of that question. But that it conferred the right to vote was distinctly disclaimed on this floor in the caucus which has been alluded to here to night and, for one, I am not willing to have it go out from this Senate that we passed that amendment understanding that it conferred any right to vote.

I wish to say," "Mr. President, that this new development in .this debate is calculated to defeat any action of Congress on this subject It is calculated to defeat the proposed constitutional amendment. I do not presume that that is the object of the Senator from Vermont; bat I do believe that the debate will be prosecuted upon this line of argument for the purpose of defeating the amendment, and I want the country to understand it. It is for that reason mainly that I rise to enter my protest against any such construction being put upon that fourteenth article of amendment as derived from the understanding of those who passed it in this branch and the other branch of Congress.

Mr. YATES. Mr. President, in consequence of bad health, I hoped and almost prayed last night, to myself, that the Senate would adjourn, so that I might be able to enter upon this discussion. I rise now simply to state what I consider the facts iri regard to the point at issue at the present time.

I introduced the first bill into the Senate of the United States to enforce suffrage in every State, North as well as South, East as well as West, by congressional enactment. The bill of the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sc hiker,] as he himself stated, in a speech at the time or contemporaneous with the fact, referred simply to the States lately in rebellion. Before the adoption by the States of the fourteenth article of amendment, I maintained the position that when by the war the slaves became free they became citizens; that a man who was free was a citizen, whether he was white or black; that the color of the skin made no difference. I assumed that by the amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery, the slaves being made free became citizens entitled to all the rights, civil and political, of other American citizens. I maintained that if the offspring of a man from a foreign country became a citizen and entitled to vote, because a man happened to be born in America and was black, that did not disfranchise him. That was the point which I made, that if the child of a man from China or from any foreign country in virtue of his father s naturalization became at the age of twenty one a citizen, the child of an American born freeman, whether he was black or white, became a citizen; and if the child of an emigrant from a foreign soil was entitled to vote at the age of twenty one the child of an American bora citizen ought to be entitled to vote at the age of twenty one although God in His providence had burnt upon his complexion a different h«e from that with which he had endowed us, as we call ourselves, more favored people.

I took that ground, and I have maintained it to this day, and I believe it will yet be adopted by the American people; because I have not as much faith as some gentlemen have that this constitutional amendmentwillever be adopted. I shall vote for it, however.; and there I par), with my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts; for if I cannot obtain what I" aimed a t when I first entered the Senate of the United States, I can see no inconsistency in attempt-, ing to secure by a constitutional amendment what I have failed to secure by what I consider a proper interpretation of .the Constitution of. the United States.

J maintain, then, that by the abolition of slavery four million slaves were upon our hands, and they and. their children were as free as you, sir, and your children, or me and mine; and sp they were in the sight of law, of reason, of Heaven, and of earth. That proposition cannot be denied by any man unless he makes color the distinction, for the circumstances are the same. They are born in the same land, born free under the same institutions, under the same circumstances; and I defy human power to see a distinction unless it. is the color of the skin, or unless it is upon the principle of the Dred Scott decision, that because a man has been a slave therefore he is to be excluded from the benefits and privileges of civil and political society.

On this ground I then asserted the broad and bold proposition that being a citizen, although he was black, he was entitled to vote just as much as though he were white. The white citizen was entitled to vote. Nobody denies that. Then, was not the black citizen entitled to vote? I am utterly unable to see the difference between the two unless the prejudice of caste still hung around the Republican party, recognizing the same feeling and prejudice of caste that is now recognized by my friends on the other side of the Chamber.

Becoming citizens, there was a clause in the Constitution giving Congress the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the abolition of slavery. I contended that the abolition of slavery conferred citizenship. It was not the mere act of emancipation. Mere emancipation would be a curse to the African, and a living shame upon the age in which we live if we would deprive them of the kind protection of a master—and I know they were kind in most instances, for I am a southern man and the son of a slaveholder—and then send them forth with every man their enemy and call it freedom 1 To say that the African should only have his civil rights without his political rights would be worse than slavery.

That was the first point upon which I based the very lengthy argument I then made as showing that Congress already had power to grant them the ballot. Then the second point I made was, that the citizens of each State had the same right in every other State; arguing that if a man could vote in New Hampshire or Massachusetts or New York, he had the same right in Illinois, under the Constitution of the United States. The third point upon which I based my argument was, that it was the duty of Congress to guaranty a republican form of government to every State, maintaining, as I did, that no Government was republican even in form unless it was a Government of the people, the whole people, by the people and for the people; not of a part of the people, but of all the people. I took the position that that alone, according to my notion, was a republican form of government. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Hemdkicks] remembers that he himself propounded to me, as I recollect very well, perplexing questions at the time. As I have said, that was my third position; the fathers had inserted in the Constitution that it was the duty of Congress to guaranty to every State a republican form of government, and I insisted that that clause meant something. I said that these were no idle words in the Constitution of the United States; that they meant something or they meant nothing. The only question, then, was whether that was a republican form of government or not in which colored citizens were excluded from voting. And here arose the great debate. The bill which I introduced, as you will remember, sir, received only four votes. Afterward, in the discussion o f tho fourteenth article, the question arose as toiho rights .of citizens and who, was a citizen-- That question w as .discussed at great length. My distinguished colleague read authority after authority to .show that to be a citizen was to be invested merely with civil and not with political rights, although some of the authorities which he introduced, as I understood them, went rather tp sustain the view that they were ,to. have. political as well as civil rights. When the question came up on the consideration' of the fourteenth amendment a debate arose as to who were citizens. -It was a long and elaborate debate. Authorities were produced to show that under the civil law a citizen was ijot invested with- political rights. It was said that the African had the right to acquire property, to testify ini the courts of justice, to sue .and be sued, to plead and be impleaded, but that he had no right to vote. And, after a long debate it was decided by the Senate upon that interpretation.

I shall most cheerfully vote for the amend-" ment of the Senator from Massachusetts, for my faith remains unchanged. I believe, that is the only way; 110 1 will not say the only way, but probably the surest way by which we shall accomplish our purpose will be to assert that which the Constitution of the United States meant to assert. It meant to assert the principles of the Declaration, of American Independence. The Constitution of' the United States was made and framed by the men who framed and made the Declaration of Independence; and if they did not in the Constitution of the United States carry out the principles contained in the Declaration of Independence, then history does not do them justice, because they never by any act that we know of in history ignored the principles of the Declaration of American Independence. Not in the Constitution of the United States, not in any act of Congress, did they ever ignore the Declaration of American Independence, which proclaimed the great doctrine which we stand maintaining to day that all men are created, not by man but by God himself, equal and entitled to equal rights and privileges. I repeat again, that by a most lengthy and elaborate argument my colleague maintained the contrary ground, which was confirmed by the solemn verdict and decision of the Senate. That decision, as I think, was contrary to every rule of fair interpretation, contrary to the principles of the common law; ami it was that a citizen was not, as such, entitled to vote. Sir, the badge of an American citizen is the right to deposit his ballot in the ballot box When I was a young man waiting and craving to cast my vote for Henry Clay I never felt that I wore the badge of an American citizen till I arrived at the age of twenty one years and could deposit that ballot. This was the position which the Republican party should have taken. It was the clear, straightforward, honest way to accomplish a great purpose. I merely say that in the hour of peril they lacked the nerve, as they never before had in my recollection of the history of this party. There, in the Constitution of the United States, written plainly as the stars upon the sky, is the power of Congress to proclaim citizenship—the right to vote in every State of this Union, North, South, East, and West—as plainly as any amendment you may adopt can get it there. I shall vote for your amendments, but they are surplusage so far as a fair, correct, legal, judicial understanding of the powers in the Constitution is concerned.

Mr. President, come in whatever way it may, if not in my way, by congressional enactment, then by amendment to the Constitution—come suffrage, come free ballot, come liberty—come enfranchisement in any manner, shape, or form, and I welcome it with open arms. Senators talk of a fourteen years' contest. Why, sir, I am astonished that the Senator frorri Massachusetts should talk of a fourteen years' fight, when, sir, you remember that so far as you are concerned it has been a twenty five years' fight.

Mr. WILSON. I referred simply to the fact that I had been a witness of the struggle for fourteen years in the Senate. It was here before I eame. I only referred to my term here.

Mr. YATES. I remember well, when I was serving my fourth terra in the Legislature- of «iy State, taking up an article and reading that a gang of slaves, manacled together, women two and two, and men two and two, with heavy manacles, were being sent from the slave pen in Washington to be Sold in the New Orleans market; and I remember that it was stated that one brawny negro, as he passed the Capitol of the United States, raised his manacled arm and shouted in delirium," Hail Columbia, happy land!" That day I introduced a resolution into the house of representatives of Illinois instructing her Senators and requesting her Representatives in the Congress of the United States to vote for the passage of a Jaw for the abolition of the slave traffic in the District of Columbia; and from that day to this, if there has been anything for which I have had an ardent desire and for which I knew there would be abundant success, it was to advocate the cause of this poor, unfortunate race of God s down trodden poor. Then, sir, I waged eternal war against the black laws of my State—laws that disfigured, that darkened, that blackened the pages of humanity and of human history; From that time I was for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia; sustained by four associates in the Legislature of my State.' I was for the repeal of that enormous iniquity which now stands out in bold relief and sends a shudder through the world in contemplation of the fact that this was a free republican Government. I allude to the fugitive slave law.

I may say that ever since 1838, when the blood of Elijah Lovejoy besprinkled the soil of my own beautiful State of Illinois, I swore, as Owen Lovejoy swore over the dead body of his brother, that I would fight, and fight on and fight, ever until this cursed enormity, this curse of human bondage should be blotted from this country forever. 1 have maintained my faith; and here to day if the bill of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] shall pass, I say hail, all hail, glorious day! If this bill shall pass to day by my vote, and it shall be adopted by the people of the United States, I shall have accomplished the mission for which I have continued in political life. As the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Wilson,] with a great deal of feeling, eloquence, and beauty, said this morning, with a feeling that touched every heart as it did his own to his great credit," God will bless those who take care of His lowly and His poor."

What has been the course of the Democratic party? I do not wish to say hard things, for like every Democratic Senator on the other side of the House personally; but it has been the proud mission of the Democratic party—oh, glorious mission! oh, proud record —for the last twenty years to degrade, to sink down, to crush, to override this poor unfortunate race. It was opposed to their emancipation; it cannot be denied Democrats, for good motives, I have no doubt in most instances, opposed their emancipation. To oppose the elevation of the black race seems to have been their mission. In future history they will be recorded as the enemies of this poor down stricken race. That is their record. They cannot disabuse themselves of that record. History has settled it upon them. Look at their record: opposition to the acts necessary to the abolition of the slave traffic and the emancipation of slaves in the District of Columbia; opposition to the repeal of the slave law, advocacy of the Crittenden amendment, of all the compromise measures, aiding the rebels in the war, perhaps not by design, but by inaction, by sympathy, by speeches in Congress alleging that we had not the power to do this and do that, opposing every measure for a vigorous prosecution of the war. There you stand; there is your record; such is the proud record of the Democratic, party and now professing to act in the name of- liberty. You are the enemy and oppressor of the poor, opposed to freedom in a free government, opposed to enfranchisement now in a land where all men twenty one years of age who are free are citizens and entitled to vote, one man being entitled to the franchise just as much as another whether he be black or white, unless you make color a ground of distinction.

On the Other hand, look at the bright record of the Republican party. It has stood by the country in its dark hours of trial; it has raised And equipped armies to put down the rebellion; it has carried on successfully and -without disturbance of the prosperity and interests of the people in the loyal States the most gigantic war known in the history of the world; and it is due to the valor of its followers, to their imperishable prowess, to Grant and SI ermanand Parragut and Sheridan and the brave boys in blue everywhere, that our proud flag waves in harmony over the land and over the sea, and the rebellion is crushed out.

Mr. President, I do not deny that I stated in one x f my messages that to members of the Democratic party we were as much indebted for assistanceas to the Republican party. Democrats in the State of Illinois came to their country s cause with as much loyalty as Republicans after the war was begun, except the leaders who established a rebel camp in the capital of the State, having a large majority in that locality, while I happend to be Governor in a minority. They established a rebel camp there, and it is one of the proudest and sweetest recollections of my life that I dissolved that camp and sent them home.

I will say further that Democrats constituted nearly one half of the force Illinois sent to the field, two hundred and sixty thousand men; but most of those Democrats on coring back, having seen southern institutions, oecoming acquainted with southern masters and the system of slavery, enrolled themselves in the Republican ranks, and hence the triumphant majority that we now have in the State of Illinois• -a majority so great that in the last campaign when questions were put as to how this State would go and how that State would go, Illinois was set down with the certain list. When the word came to us," Watchman, what of the night?" the response from Illinois was "All well," in the vindication of the great truths and principles of republicanism.

Mr. President, I glory in this record. There is no sweeter music since the morning stars sang together end the sons of God shouted for joy; there is no sublimer spectacle since the angel appeared to the shepherds as they watched their flocks by night and the glory of the Lord shone around them and the multitudes of the heavenly host sent forth their proclamation, "On earth peace, good will toward men!" There is no brighter record than the sufferings, triumphs, and achievements of the Republican party. We have triumphed over opposition, over the Democratic party, over the rebels, over the prejudice of caste in favor of God s humanity and human liberty, universal, eternal, undying human liberty based on the principles of God s immutable justice. There is no sweeter music than that to me as an ardent, devoted Republican citizen and Senator.

Mr. President, 1 leave this question. If I had time, if I had health and strength, I should desire, if this debate were continued, to give my views at length upon this question. I do not wish to come in conflict with my distinguished friend from Massachusetts, but so far as the word citizen is concerned, so far as the intention of the Legislature was concerned, (and that is one rule of determining the meaning of a statute or an enactment,) my colleague and other distinguished men on both sides of the House took the position that to be a citizen did not confer political rights; and so far as the intention of the Congress at the time was concerned, I must in truth say that it was decided against us. It was held, so far as that section jn the article was concerned, that l y virtue of being a citizen a man could not claim therefore to be entitled to suffrage. With these views I leave the question.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Mr. Presi.-,..* dent, when this debate was Started a week ago I looked forward at the early manifestations for prolonged debate with great dread, but I had no conception that it was' to last th& length of titte. I have felt that any earnest man ia ftvor of any amendment whatever would best serve his country by silence; and now, sir, when there are no attractions in the galleries, and when certainly there is no member present, I am sure, who is desirous of hearing further debate, and when our reporters are nearly exhausted

Several Senators. We are ourselves.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I believe we can succeed in reaching a vote if our own friends will consent to believe that they will some time or other have an opportunity to be eloquent in the Senate of the United States.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Missouri. [Mr. Drake.]

Mr. HENDRICKS. I have been somewhat surprised at the debate for the last two or three hours—more surprised than refreshed. There has been a discussion for three hours as to whether already the negro is clothed with suffrage, when the majority is about to pass an amendment to the Constitution which will settle the question. Now, I am not going to discuss that question. I hope its discussion has come to a close, and that we can come to a vote upon this amendment and get through. I have just a word or two to say in reply to the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Yates.] I do not propose to take up much of the time of the Senate.

He has repeated what I regard as a slanderous attack of my colleague on the Democratic party. I refrained from making any reply to that last night, because I did not desire to see anything like a political discussion grow up. I am sure the minority has said nothing in the course of this debate that was calculated to invite any attack of that sort; but if geutiemen are able to make considerable out of their own records by a comparison, it is cheap capital, and I am not offended at it. I am perfectly willing they shall do it.

I am not going back to defend the Democratic party and its record. It is a great record. It is connected with some of the most important events of this country, covering the great part of its history. This I can say, whenever the Constitution of the United States required a duty of that party it was performed. While upon the Constitution, it was the duty of the Democratic party, as I think it was the duty of every manofthe country, todefend the South in their constitutional rights, that duty Was discharged. I think it is no cause of reproach now and never will be before a just and fairminded community. I am not going to argue the question with the Senator from Illinois and my colleague whether the Democratic party was true or false during the war. It is not a subject for argument. That Senator knows as well as any Senator that Democrats in every single neighborhood of his State, not missing any two square miles, rallied at the call that he repeated as did the Republicans. I know that was so all over Indiana.

Mr. YATES. I said so.

Mr. HENDRICKS. It was so all over Indiana, everywhere. To day there is one half, if not a clear majority, of the returned soldiers in Indiana who vote with the Democratic party, and they do it upon the ground that they were deceived by the political policy of the Republicans; that you gave a solemn pledge to them when they went into the war that it should be prosecuted for the purpose of rest :-ing the Union, and after the war was over they believed that you did not keep that pledge. I want to say to the Senator from Illinois and to my colleague, when they boast of the efficient aid that the Republican party gave to the war, I deny it. As a party it was a burt, an evil, and a curse in the prosecution of the war. Therewasno division of sentiment in the North that is worthy of mention until a political cast asgiva to the war, until politics wasbrought into the prosecution of the war for the sake of building up a political ppw er in this country and holding office and controlling the money of the country. Until tliatwagr done, anduntil a political character w s -attempted to he given to the war,' there .was ®o division of sentiment in the i iortbu did that Not the Democrats. They did n ot seek it. They did no t desire it. It was forced upon them, and when they, differed in regard to the political policy that, was urged, the# it was charged that the Executive was the Government, and that they had no right to question the will, of the Government, and that it was hostility to question the political policy of the Government. No, sir; as readily did the Democrats in the Northwest respond to the call that was made by the President, and repeated by the Governors, as did the gentlemen of any other party.

-Mr. YATES.• Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? Did he consider the amendment abolishing slavery as a violation ,of the pledge of. the .Republican party not to interfere with slavery?

Mr. HENDRICKS. That was a constitutional amendment;

Mr. YATES. Yes, sir.

Mr. HENDRICKS. That was after the close of, the war.-

Mr. YATES. Did you regard the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery as oneof the acts of the Republican party which you say violated faith?

Mr. HENDRICKS. I was not referring to that.

Mr. YATES. Do you consider it as one?

Mr. HENDRICKS. Will the Senator repeat his question?

Mr. YATES. Do you consider that the amendment abolishing slavery, which was a measure of the Republican party, was one of the breaches of faith on the part of the Republican party. Do you so consider it?

Mr. HENDRICKS. It was not that to which I particularly "referred. That did not occur during the war. That was not one of the political movements that brought about the difference of opinion in the North, and brought discord and weakness instead of strength. Whenever politics was introduced for partisan purposes during the war it resulted in these things, in weakness

Mr. YATES. I will

Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senator will allow me to answer his question. I said that the soldiers of Indiana had turned in large numbers against your party; that many who went out Republicans now vote the Democratic ticket, because you pledged that the war was for the restoration of the Union, and when the war was over you would not let the Union be restored. .They know that, they feel it. They know that that condition of things is not the fault of the Democratic party. They know that at a time when there was peace and quiet at the South, when General Grant said that the condition of the southern country was very much better than he had supposed, after he had visited that section of the country, just then with that report laid before Congress you commenced proceedings by which State governments in harmonious action, in. practical relations with the General Government, were torn down; and in their stead military power was established, and it has brought no good, in my judgment, but immense evil to this country.

^r- YATES. The Senator will allow me to say that I believe it was very much due to the persuasive eloquence and popularity of the Senator himself that a large number of the returning volunteers were induced to support the Democratic ticket. It was from admiration of himself.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, I make no claim of that sort, I am speaking of the effect m the State of Indiana of the policy of the Republican party. The soldiers understand exactly what they fought for, and they think they have not been aliowed to reap the results of the war because of the.- policy that has been adopted since, a distracting, disturbing, revolutionary policy, which .would not allow the Government to remain where it \^as, but must tear .down and- build up constantly. Sir, I did not intend $t. this time to go into anything like a political debate. I have not Bought it in this discussion. The only reference made by myself that could b e considered as political, was his I said in the commencementof this debate that, Republican gentlemen were bound by their platform of last year upon this question; that they could not in good faith to the country take away from the States the control of suffrage when -a year ago they solemnly declared that it properly belonged to the States. And in my judgment that criticism upon their course did not call for denunciation, which is cheap rhetoric; it did not call for partisan discussion, and I do not intend 1o be drawn into it any further than I have so far.

Mr. YATES. I do not intend to be drawn into it either. So far as the Senator charges that the Republican party has violated its pledges, that is a fact which does not depend upon his word or mine. That is a matter of history. The Republican party did what was necessary to carry on this war, to .achieve this victory, and it will do what is necessary now to carry out and obtain the fair fruits and results of the victory. It will seal its grand record by the enfranchisement of a whole race of human beings, and thereby liberate the white man more than it does the black man, liberate him from the tyranny of slaveholders and elevate the black, and not leave as floating waifs upon society four million people without rights, with no masters, with no protection, with no privilege, with no ballot, with no voice to defend their rights. Thus the Republican party finishes its work.

Upon the other point to which the Senator has referred I am glad to be acquainted with the facts in the case. The fourteenth amendment was worded as it was because of the position assumed by the Senator from Massachusetts and myself and certain other persons in the Senate whom it is not necessary to mention. We maintained that Congress had the power by congressional law to enforce suffrage upon all the States in every section of the Union. It was unpopular.. The Republicans viewed the scheme with jealousy. For that reason, to exclude that conclusion, the declaration was made that the question of suffrage properly belonged to the States. If you ask me, then, how I could support that platform, (which I presume will be the next question,) I answer, I do not deny that the question properly belongs to the States. I think any community, any power, has a right to reach down and lift a man up from bondage and stamp freedom upon him.• I believe the States have the power, and I believe Congress has the power, and therefore I could support and maintain the Chicago platform. That is all I have to say.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. President, I simply wish to say that if this proposition has any friends in the Senate they can further it very much by not talking about it.

Mr. NORTON. Mr. President, in the brief remarks that I had the honor to submit to the Senate this morning between four and six o clock I referred to the Senator from Indiana who sits next to me [Mr. Morton] as verifying and corroborating my statement that this proposition was partisan. I am delighted now to find that the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Yates] comes in and testifies to the same effect; and directly after I closed what I had to say then in those brief remarks, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] concurred, or seemed to concur, with me in the statement that this measure was purely a party measure.

Mr. YATES. Who makes it partisan? It is right to pass it, and who makes it partisan?

Mr. NORTON. When I say partisan I do not use the word partisan in an offensive .sens® at all. I use the word partisan to distinguish the measure as; a party measure. It is urged singly, solely, and Simply "by a party for party purposes. Th ere had: been, no Senator, during all the long discussion of this measure, who had avowed this measure to be 8 measure of the party; but if I remember aright and I think I do, in the remarks that I made I referred to the fact that this .measure had not been honored a d distinguished above other measures, by a caucus, but I referred to the remarks, of the Senator from Indiana, who did distinctly avow that this was a, party measure. The Senator from Illinois now announces that it is a party measure. The Senator from Massachusetts, directly, after I concluded .my remarks agreed that it was a party measure.

Mr. YATES. I said it was a Republican measure; I did not say a party measure,

Mr. NORTON.- It is a Republican measure. What does it mean? It means that it is a measure of the party, proposed by the party, passed by Congress as a party measure, -submitted to the Legislatures of the States as a party measure, and when the Legislatures of the States come to act upon it party discipline is to be brought to bear upon them to make them adopt it. The result is that if it is adopted as an amendment to the Constitution you have there incorporated upon the Constitution a measure that is not required or asked for by the body of the people. Party asked that it be there, and the party puts it there. They put it there by virtue of party discipline and party machinery. Who is there of the Republicans of the Senate who has advocated this measure as a measure of right outside and beyond what may be the sentiments of the party that is dominant in this body? Nay, sir, who is there in this country among the people that asks for the adoption of this measure save and except those who come from that party? I am more than gratified that both the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Massachusetts who vented himself after concluded my remarks, about six o clock this morning, come to my rescue and corroborate what I said, that this is a partisan measure, advocated and supported by a party, and if adopted will be adopted by a party and not by the people of this country.

I only rose to avail myself of what the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Massachusetts had furnished me with to substantiate what I said in the remarks I made this morning.

Mr. YATES. I think my friend, the Senator from Minnesota, was elected by the Republican party to the Senate, was hi? not?

Mr. NORTON. I was; and, Mr. President, I am glad that the Senator from Illinois

Mr. YATES. I have only to say that I think the party made a mistake.

Mr. NORTON. I am gratified for that, too. I am glad, Mr. President, that the Senator from Illinois has the frankness and the candor—and I have always known him, so far as I have known him, to be a gentleman of frankness and candor—to remind me of that fact openly, and not like the Senator from Massachusetts, who took the floor after I surrendered it this morning aboutsixo clock and by insinuations and intimations would have it inferred that some one had left his party while they were going on prospering and to prosper with triumphs and victories.

Weak men, said the Senator from Massachusetts, have left them; timid men have left them. It would have been far more manly in my judgment jf that Senator had mentioned who were the timid men and who were the weak ones who had left them. I accord to the Senator from Illinois commendation for his candor in reminding me that I was elected as a Republican. But, Mr. President, when I was elected and took my seat in this body, Republicanism did not then mean, nay, sir, there had been never a suggestion from my own State, from the nation, in Congress, anywhere, that Republicanism meant separation and dissolution of this Union. Never then had there been a suggestion that the Congress oftheUnitedStates might, under the theory of the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Scmxjsb,] absorb the powers of the States and control what under the Constitution belonged to the States. Never had there at that time been what, is now suggested by the Senator from Massachusetts, the idea that Republicanism meant a severance of the bond of Union which held these States together. When I tools my seat here I supposed that 1 was representing the loyal sentiment of the people of my State in holding that the war through which we had passed, and from which we were just then emerging was a war for .the preservation of the Union and the rights of the States. But, sir, I had. not been long in this body till I found my mistake. I struggled against it for a while. I know other Senators here who struggled against it. I know other Senators, and I see them now, and have had them in my eye, who struggled with me against the idea that the successful prosecution of the war involved and brought about and produced the severance of the Union and the separation of ten States from the Union. I know how long the Republican party paused on the brink of that precipice. J stood then in full communion with them.

It was suggested a moment ago that something was said about what occurred in caucus. I will not go into that lest I might betray confidence, but I think I may say what the country knows, that the dominant party in the Senate of the United States then did caucus upon the great question of the day. They did consider and deliberate upon it, and the result was that by pressure from members of the other House and from outside the Senate of the United States was brought to the point of agreeing that ten or eleven States should be left out of the Union, and they did not care to devise means by which they should be brought in.

Sir, for long weeks it was a question of consideration with the dominant party in this Chamber what treatment should be extended to the people of those States; how they should be regarded. I, new, young, fresh, modest in this body had but little to say; nay, sir, I said nothing, because I had just taken my seat in the Senate, and it was not becoming in one so recently elected to a seat in the Senate to take an active and suggestive part in these matters. But, sir, I watched carefully the suggestions of others and the actions of others, and I saw that while day after day the matter was deliberated upon and postponed and adjourned, at the very last moment, by virtue of party discipline and pressure from the other House and pressure from the outside, the dominant party in this body was willing to agree that no member should be admitted into this body from the southern States without the consent of the other House. Sir, I do not think the Senator from Illinois should remind me of the fact that I was elected as a Republican, for in the history of the party since I have been a member of this body I have stood true to the principles on which I was elected. I stood faithfully to the principles of the party as they enunciated them when I was elected, and I was not willing to yield my opinion and my judgment—ay, and to disregard my duty to those who elected me at the behest of a caucus. Sir, I have now in my eye Senators who then stood with me, Senators who then agreed with nie that these were great public questions concerning the country and not party questions, matters in which was involved the welfare of the country and not the particular success of the party.

Some of those Senators left me; but I stood, as I believed, upon the practical foundation of the Republican party at that time that we should as speedily as possible restore those eleven States to their practical relations to the Federal Government. I believed that we should exert ourselves to bring them in; I believed that we should do all in our power toward bringing those States into practical relations with the Federal Government. But, sir,, there was a party stronger than my friends and myself. They set themselves about devising a plan by which they should keep those States out. They set themselves about Revising a plan by which they should not come in. At that very day there were knocking at the door of the House of Representatives, representatives elected by the loyal' men of the State of Tennessee; but by party discipline and party machinery they were kept out. I thought in my humble way this was wrong.

A new member, unsophisticated as I was, I thought the first duty of Congress was to set about to devise some way by which they should be admitted, and those States brought again into practical relations with the General Government. There were a few of us who agreed with that. But your committee of fifteen was organized, and they resolved that no representatives were to be admitted into. one House without the consent of the other. Aftei long delay the report of that committee was made. Read that report all through, take it) from beginning to end, and tell me, candid men, tell me, you who read it for the purpose of information, leaving out the conclusions that the men who wrote it had adopted; tell me, you who are fair men; tell me, you who are patriots, you who believed in and desired the reconstruction of the Union, wherein and why those States were excluded.

Sir, the interests of the Union, of the General Government were not in peril. The Union would have been as safe, nay, sir, it would have been safer, as subsequent events have shown, if they had been at once admitted. Did they seek the glory or renown of the Federal Government? Did they seek the prosperity of the people? Did they seek the happiness of the people in those States or in the' North? All would have been well if we had admitted those States to their practical relations to the Government, but you would not do it. The majority of that committee reported that it was not safe to admit them again to their proper relations with the General Government.

Mr. NYE. Mr. President, will the honorable Senator allow me to make a suggestion?

Mr. NORTON. Certainly.

Mr. NYE. I wish to propound a question to the honorable Senator whether he would not just as lief write this out? It seems to be history entirely. I am familiar with it, but would it not do as well for his constituents to have him write it out? The question under consideration is quite a different one.

Mr. NORTON. I am very much obliged to the Senator from Nevada for the suggestion. It is history, but it has never been written, and the men who made the history have never been willing to let it be written.

Mr. NYE. I should like to know of the honorable Senator how he comes to know so much about the caucuses when he never attended them but two or three times, and took no part in them? He has never voted with the Republican party since he has been in the Senate, to my knowledge, not even on a question of adjournment.

Mr. NORTON. I attended eaucusses enough to know what was proposed to be done. I have said nothing as to what occurred in caucus while I was there that I am aware of; but if I have I will take it back. I am speaking of facts; I am drawing inferences legitimate, as I think, from the facts as they exist. If the inferences arc distasteful to the Senator from Nevada, I should like to see him make a better state of facts.

Mr. NYE. Mr. President, inferences would not be distasteful if the honorable Senator stated the facts as they were; and yet as a matter of taste it is wholly distasteful to me that he attended Republican caucusses when he was not coiiperatiug with them, and should come in here and tell what they did. That would be disgraceful. If, on the other hand, he attempts to give history he should give it as it is. I assure the honorable Senator that he does not disturb my nerves at all; but here we are, having been twenty hours in session, and the honorable Senator is telling things that are not at all pertinent to the question. I thought by i simple suggestion his own, spnse of propriety would see this

Mr. NORTON. The Senator is very kind in his suggestions and I appreciate' them, but so for as caucusses are concerned I- do next thiok I have revealed any more than has been revenlediby others, in the Senate. Certainly I did not intend to reveal anything that occurred in caucus while I was there. I was drawing legitimate inferences from what transpired after that time, and I think I drew legitimate infer* ences from the facts known to, exist. A s to my consuming time, I would remind the Se n ator from Nevada that we commenced last evening about seven o clock and I have not consumed more than three hours during that time. [Laughter.]

Mr. HENDRICKS. Will the Senator alio* me to move that we take a recess until eleven o clock

Mr. SUMNER. Let us say twelve o clock Let us have a regular adjournment.

Mr. HENDRICKS. There is no necessity of enduring this sort of physical labor; we accomplish nothing.

Mr. NORTON. Tf the Senator will allow me I will finish in a moment. I only have said what I have in reply to the suggestion of the Senator from Illinois in regard to what the Republican party had done and how they did it, and his reminder to me that I was elected as a Republican. I have admitted that 1 was elected as a Republican, and I have said this much to show wherein and when I differed with the Republican party upon the question of reconstruction and the measures that have arisen

Mr. HENDRICKS. If the Senator will allow us to take a recess he can finish his speech afterward.

Mr. NORTON. I have nearly finished.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I suppose there cannot be objection to a recess until eleven o clock that we may get something to eat. I do not know that the good of the country demands our starvation. I move to take a recess until eleven o clock

The PRESIDENTfiro tempore. The motion cannot be entertained except by unanimous consent, there being another matter pending:

Mr. STEWART. I hope we shall not take a recess.

Mr. SUMNER. An adjournment is in order.

Mr. NORTON. I had nearly concluded when the Senator from Illinois chose to remind me that I was elected as a Republican, and that reminder has suggested to me what I have said.

I know that this measure is a pure party question, and as I have seen many party measures carried before in this body I suppose^ this will be; and I have only said as much as I have because I thought it was necessary, or at least proper that I should say it in vindication of my course, having been elected as a Republican. I believed that the Republican party meant after the war closed to restore the Union; I believed they meant to set themselves to work, diligently and faithfully, earnestly and vigilantly, to bring about the restoration of the practical relations of the States with the General Government. I found that their representatives did not do that. I found that, on the contrary, they set themselves diligently, faithfully, vigilantly, persistently, in season and out of season, day and night, to devise, if possible, some means by which they should keep these States out of representation in the other House and in this. When I saw and became satisfied of that—and, Mr. President, it did not take me long to see it—1 saw that the path of the patriot, 1 saw that the duty of the statesman, I saw that the course ofthe man who desired to restore his country and bring to it its olden time reunion, and glory, did not lie with that party and with the prosecution of its measures and what it proposed. So I left it. I saw, too, that there were other Senators besides myself and the very few that remained with tne who were r«ady tod willing, nay; were anxious to go with us, but the pressure from the other end of the Capitol and from the outside was too great for them to withstand it and they swung in with the majority. We had no alternative but to leave them and we did leave them. Thus far I think I have vindicated, if I have been true in the statement of facts, my coarse in response to the suggestion of the Senator from Illinois when he asked me if I was not elected as a, Republican.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Missouri to the amendment of the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. DRAKE. I ask that it be read again. The Secretary read as follows:

No citizen of the United States shall on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, be by the United States or by any State denied the right to vote or to hold office.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. HOWARD. I now offer the amendment to which I referred during the discussion as a substitute for the pending amendment. It is as follows:

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.

Mr. SUMNER. As there is a possibility that that amendment may be adopted—certainly in some respects it is preferable to the one reported by the committee— I should like to amend it.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A further amendment is not in order. This is an amendment to an amendment.

Mr. SUMNER, If we are to have a constitutional amendment now, I want to have it as complete as possible, so that it shall provide against any possible necessity of any amendment hereafter. It will be observed that this amendment of my friend from Michigan, like the amendment of the committee, is confined simply to the right to vote and hold office. It seems to me that we ought to make a complete work, and to provide for full equality of rights in all respects. If there be any other particular under the head of right, we ought to secure it to all persons, without distinction of color. I propose, therefore, to add to the amendment of my friend from Michigan these words: