February 9, 1869

Mr. RAMSEY. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate resolution No. 186.

Mr. STEWART. I object to that.

Mr. RAMSEY. There seems to be a difference of recollection with regard to the understanding that the Senator speaks of, that this hour was to go into the consideration of the constitutional amendment. The Senators on this side had no understanding of that kind.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think we had better go on with the business that we had on hand this morning. We cannot now transact the ordinary business of the Senate.

Mr. RAMSEY. I have no desire to violate any nnderstandingof the Senate if it was clearly made and so understood.

Mr. STEWART. I so understood it. I said it.

Mr. ABBOTT. Everybody so understood it, I" think.

Mr. STEWART. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the constitutional amendment.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 402) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States; the pending question being on the amendment of Mr. Wilson, to strike out section one of the proposed article of amendment reported by the Committee on the Judiciary and to insert:

There shall be no discrimination in any State among the citizens of the United States in the exercise of the elective franchise in any election therein, or in the qualifications for office in any State, on account of race, color, nativity, property, education, or religious belief.

Mr. WILSON. I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate in discussing this proposition. I simply ask a vote upon it, and I should like to have the vote taken by yeas and nays.

Mr. ANTHONY. I understand that is a substitute for the amendment reported by the committee.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is proposed by way of substitute, and on this question the yeas and nays are demanded.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 19, nays 24; as follows: YEAS—Messrs. Cattell, Conness, Grimes, Harlan, Harris, Howe, McDonald, Morton, Ramsey, Ross, S Were” Sherman, Sumner, Van Winkle, Wade, Welch. Williams, Wilson, and Yates—19.

NAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Anthony, Bayard, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuvsen. Howard, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Norton, Nye, Patterson of Tennessee, Rice, Robertson, Spencer, Stewart Trumbull Vickers, and Willoy—24.

ABSENT— Messrs Buckalew, Cameron, Chandler, Cragin, Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Henderson, Hendricks, Kellogg, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Osborn. Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy Pool Saulsbury, Sprague, Thayer, Tipton, Warner, and Whyte—23.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. SAWYER. I move to amend the amendment by striking out all of section one of the amendment reported by the committee and inserting the following:

The right to vote and hold office in the United States and the several States and Territories shall belong to all male citizens of the United States who are twenty one years old, and who have not been or shall not be duly convioted of treason or other infamous crime: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall deprive the several States of the right to make such registration laws as shall be deemed necessary to guard the purity of elections and to fix the terms of residence which shall precede the exercise of the right to vote: And provided, That the United States and the several States shall have the right to fix the age and other qualifications for office under their respective jurisdictions, which said registration laws, terms of residence, age, and other qualifications shall be uniformly applicable to all male citizens of the United States.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. STEWART. I am requested by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Henderson] to present an amendment which he has inclosed to me by letter, requesting me to present it in his name to the Senate. I am opposed to the amendment, but I offer it in his behalf that the Senate may act upon it.

ThePRESIDENTproiempore. The amendment to the amendment- will be read.

The Chief Clerk. The amendment is to insert at the end of the pending amendment the following:

Nor shall such right to vote after the 1st day of January, 1872, bedenied or abridged for offenses now committed, unless the party to be affected shall have been duly convicted thereof.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. FOWLER. I now offer my amendment, to strike out all of section one of the amendment reported by the committee and to insert:

All the male citizens of the United States residents of the several States now or hereafter comprehended in the Union, of the age of twenty one years and upward, shall be entitled to an equal vote m all elections m the State wherein they shall reside; the period of such residence as a qualification for voting to be decided by each State, except such citizens as shall engage in rebellion or insurrection, or shall be duly convicted of treason or other infamous crime. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 9, nays 35; as follows: YEAS—Messrs. Bayard, Cragin, Dixon, Fowler, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Sherman, Van Winkle, and Wilson—9.

NAYS Messrs Abbott, Anthony, Cattell, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Davis. Drake, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Harris, Howard, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Morton. Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pool, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson, Sawyer. Spencer, Stewart, Tipton, Trumbull, Vickers,' Wade, Welch, Willey, Williams, and Yates—3o. ABSENT—Messrs. Buckalew, Cameron, Chandler, Doolittle, Edmunds. Fessenden, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Kellogg, McCreery, Morrill ot Maine Norton Osborn Pomeroy Saulsbury Sprague, Sumner, Thayer, Warner, and Whyte—22.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CONNESS. In the first line of the committee s amendment the word or’’ occurs between the words "States" and "by." I move to insert the word "nor" instead of or;" so that it shall read:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not bedenied or abridged by the United States nor by any State.

The word "or" there is an alternative, and I think it could scarcely have been intended. It is very proper in the second line, where it comes in between the words '"deniedand "abridged," but in the third line I think it should be" nor" nor by any State:' —so as to make it prohibitive to each. J That certainly is what was intended.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from California to the amendment of the committee. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WILLIAMS. How does the amendment, of the committee read now? Let it be read as amended.

The Chief Clerk. The amendment, as amended, reads as follows:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States nor by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Mr. VICKERS. I desire to offer an amendment to the amendment. It is to insert at the end of the amendment the following:

Nor shall the right to vote be denied or abridged because of participation in the recent rebellion.

I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr, HENDRICKS. I suppose the effect of that amendment— I ask the honorable Senator from Maryland if I understand it correctly —is to remove the disability to vote, but leaving the disability to hold office as already provided in the Constitution and laws; so that, if I understand it rightly, the effect would be to allow all the colored people and also all those who are at present disabled because of connection with the rebellion to vote.

Mr. VICKERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS. 1 shall vote against this amendment; but I do not wish to have it understood that I wholly disapprove of the proposition made. I think it is improper to put a matter of that kind in the Constitution or make it a part of a constitutional amendment. Whenever any legislation of that kind is proposed, I do not wish to have it understood that I shall oppose it. If it is in proper shape I shall vote for it.

Mr. ANTHONY. The same vote that is required to adopt this amendment can extend the same relief by legislation.

Mr. HENDRICKS. TheSenatorfrom Rhode Island is altogether mistaken. There is no condition in the l fourteenth article of amendments to the Constitution which disables a party from voting. The Senator from Rhode Island is thinking of the provision .of the fourteenth article which excludes from the right to hold office, and that disability may be removed by a two thirds vote of Congress.

And in reply to the Senator from Oregon I will say that I think his proposition is not tenable. He says that this provision ought not to go into the Constitution. If any portion ol' the amendment now proposed should be a part of the Constitution, why not this? The subject of the proposed amendment is the suffrage. You propose to say that color shall not disable from suffrage; and while you are removing the disability of color, allowing all men without regard to their color to vote, the Senator from Maryland proposes to remove the disabilities that may be imposed by State law or State constitutions because of participation in rebellion. His proposition simply is that the disability to hold office shall continue; but that while you allow all the colored people to vote at the same time you shall allow ail the white people to vote. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 21, nays 32; as follows:

YEAS —Messrs. Bayard. Buckalew. Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Ferry, Fowler, Grimes, Harlan, Hendricks, McCreery, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Pool, Ramsey, Robertson, Sawyer, Xrumbull,\ an\\ Winkle, Vickers, and Wilson—21.

NAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Anthony, Cattell. Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett. Cragin, Drake, I essen den, Frelinghuysen, Harris, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson oi New Hampshire, Rice, Ross, Sherman. Spencer, Stewart, Sumner Thayer Tipton, Wade, V, Welch, Willey, Williams, and Yates—32.

ABSENT —Messrs. Cameron, Chandler, Edmunds, Henderson, Kellogg, McDonald, Morrill oi Maine, Osborn, Pomeroy, Saulsbury, Sprague, Warner, and Whyte—13.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. BAYARD. Imove to amend the amendment by inserting after the word "vote" m the first line the words" for electors of President and Vice President and members of the House of Representatives of the United States;" and by inserting after the word" office'' in the second line the words "under the United States;" so as to make the clause read:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote for electors of President and Vice President and members of the' House of Representatives of the United States, and hold office under the United States, shall not bo denied or abridged by the United States nor by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 12, nays 42; as follows: YEAS—Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Grimes, Hendricks, McCreery, Norton, Saulsbury, and Van Winkle—12.

NAYS—Messrs. Abbott. Cattell, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Ferry, Frehng huy sen, Harlan Harris Howard Howe McDonald Moi gan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pool, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson, Ross, Sawyer, Sherman, Spencer, Stewart, Sumner, Thaver, Tipton, Trumbull. Vickers, Wade, Warner, Welch, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and yates—42.

ABSENT—Messrs. Cameron, Chandler, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fowler, Henderson, Kellogg, Osborn, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Sprague, and Whyte—12.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. DIXON. Mr. President, the Constitution provides that in submitting a proposed amendment of the Constitution of the United States to the people Congress may elect between two modes of submission, may either submit it to the Legislatures for their ratification or to conventions in the States. The present proposition as it now stands is that the amendment shall be submitted for ratification to the Legislatures of the States. It is well known that most of the Legislatures, I think a majority of the Legislatures, have already been chosen; at any rate a large number of them. I have not examined to see how many of them, but I think more than half the Legislatures to whom this proposition would necessarily be submitted, are already chosen.

This is admitted ou all hands, it is acknowledged by every Senator who has participated in the debate, to be a most important change in the policy of this Government. Heretofore the question of suffrage has been left wholly to the States. The United States Government has refrained from all interference; the States have been left free to make such qualifications touching suffrage as they might think proper. Whatever those qualifications mi ht be, 1 do not know that there has been any limit whatever upon the power of the States in this regard. Now, sir, it does seem to me that in regard to a change of this radical character, which proposes to take from the States their power over suffrage and invest that power in the National Government, the people should be heard, that they should express their sense; that the States should be heard, that they should have an opportunity to say whether they are in favor of this change or not, whether they are willing to give up this great right which they have heretofore enjoyed. It is utterly impossible that they should be heard on this subject as they ought to be heard if the question is submitted to Legislatures, for the reason I have stated, that Legislatures are chosen and it is out of the power of Congress to provide that any given Legislature, any particular specified Legislature, shall act upon this subject. It must go to Legislatures generally. Those already elected have the same power to act as those which may be chosen hereafter.

This is not important to Connecticut alone, but to the whole country. I therefore propose—and I trust I shall have the vote of the Senate upon the subject—that this question shall be left to conventions of the people in the various States. My colleague has spoken of the expense of that mode of proceeding. Certainly when we are voting away millions and millions in the shape of subsidies the expense of a convention in the States cannot be a sufficient object to overcome and counterpoise the very great advantage of submitting this question to the people for their consideration.

Now_, sir, I propose in the recital of this resolution to strike out the words" the Legislatures of" where they occur, in the first instance, and insert the words "conventions in;" and, in the second instance, -where the word "Legislatures" occurs to strike out "Legislatures" and insert "conventions."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is not quite in order now. It will be after the amendment moved by the Senator from Nevada from the Committee on the Judiciary is disposed of.

Mr. DIXON. I supposed the other amendments were disposed of. 1 am willing to wait until they are.

Mr. SUMNER. The Senate has .already, on the motion of the Senator from California, [Mr. Conness,] made an alteration of form, not of substance, in this proposition. I will suggest one more. The amendment reads as follows: The right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall be denied abridged bytlie United States nor by any State.

It will appear tliatthe words" United States" is used twice in two lines, the first time, as it seems twme, without any necessity and almost without any significance. I would suggest, therefore, that after the word" right" and before" to vote" the words "of citizens of the United States" should be struck out; so that the clause will read:

The right to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, nor by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Mr. STEWART. I hope that will not be done. I admit the sentence will be a little more direct, but I think the words have some meaning. I think voting appertains to citizenship.«

The P RESIDENT pro tempore. It is proposed to strike out the words" of citizens of the United States" in the amendment.

Mr. STEWART. I hope the amendment will not prevail, because I think the words do not obscure the sense, and they have some meaning and connect the right to vote and to hold office with citizenship. The amendment without these words might be misconstrued, at least in the popular mind. It might not be misconstrued by a critical mind, but it would lead to misapprehension in the popular mind.

Mr. SUMNER. I may be mistaken, but I cannot see the possibility of any misconstruction. Ou the contrary, the sentences to me are much clearer with these words out. These words burden the sentence without giving it any force. The proposition in this amendment is that the right to vote shall not be abridged on account of color. In that statement you reduce it to its minimum.

Mr. MORTON. I ask the Senator if his amendment should be adopted making it read thus, "The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of race, color," &c., would not that give the right to vote and to hold office affirmatively to any man without naturalization? It would make a man competent to be President of the United States without being a citizen of the United States.

Mr. SUMNER. I beg the Senator s pardon. The proposition is that the right to vote shall have no limitation on account of color. That is the amendment we are seeking to establish: the right to vote shall have no limitation from color. It does not go beyond that.

Mr. STEWART. On account of race, too.

Mr. SUMNER. Color or race. I am simplifying it now; I am reducing it to its minimum. The right to vote shall not be abridged on account of race or color; that is the proposition we want to establish. There is no occasion to burden it by the words "of citizens of the United States;" they are absolute surplusage there, and they burden the sentence. It is not a matter of any great consequence, however.

Mr. TRUMBULL. There is this significance in the motion of the Senator from Mas-! sachusetts, as it strikes ifle, and this only: the amendment of the committee as it stands confines or limits the right to vote to citizens of the United States, or rather prevents citizens being denied the right to vote on account of color. If you strike out the words "citizens of the United States" you extend this amendment. Now, in some of the States citizenship is not a requisite to suffrage; persons who ar§ not citizens vote in some of the States of the Union. There would be nothing in this amendment, as the committee have reported itr to prevent those States discriminating againstpersons who are not citizens on account of race or color; but if the amendment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts is adopted the State of Michigan and the State of Indiana, which formerly, and I believe now, allowed persons to vote without naturalization, could not discriminate against unnaturalized persons on account of race or color; but if the commit. s amendment is adopted they could so discriminate. So that striking out these words enlarges the scope of the proposition and takes from the State of Indiana, by way of illustration, the power of discrimination among unnaturalized persons on account of race or color. In Illinois citizenship is now a requisite for voting, but prior to 1847 citizenship was not required as a requisite for voting. After ail, there has been a great confounding ot terms, it seems to me, in this debate—in which I have taken no part, and I do not propose to take any now—by supposing that citizenship had anything to do with voting iu this country. Citizenship and the right of suffrage were never synonymous terms; they do not necessarily go together at all. But if this amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts is adopted it will not bo in the power of Indiana to discriminate against persons who are not citizens on account of race or color. I think that is the extent and significance of the proposed amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, the gist of the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts would be to make the Chinese eligible to office and to vote. As the amendment is presented by the Committee on the Judiciary it provides that the right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States nor any State on account of race or color. That does not admit the Chinese, because the Chinese are not citizens of the United States, and cannot be naturalized under the law as it now stands, because the naturalization laws contain the word" white." This will not enfranchise the Chinese, because the Chinese are not citizens of the United States; but if you strike out these words, then you make the Chinese, without being citizens, eligible to office and to vote.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I agree entirely in the construction which the honorable Senator from Indiana gives to the proposition of the Senator from Massachusetts. Not only would it authorize the Chinese to vote, but it would authorize the Indians to vote in every State and Territory of the Union.

Mr. MORTON. That is so.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You could not hinder their voting. But there is another view of the amendment as proposed by the Senator from Nevada which has not yet been presented in the Senateand which deserves some attention. If the original amendment be adopted as it stands, it allows all citizens to vote and prevents the State from decitizenizing—if you may use that expression —or disfranchising anybody on account of race or color who is naturalized by the law of Congress; and it puts at the same time into the power of Congress the whole question of citizenship. Pass the original proposition as it stands, and Congress by a simple act of a majority can strike the word "white" from your naturalization laws and naturalize one hundred thousand Chinese in Oregon or California at their pleasure, and Oregon and California will have no power over the question. Or, further, adopt the amendment proposed by the committee, and Congress, having the power over the question of citizenship, may for any reason they think proper decitizenize any class in the community. Congress decitizenized those men who disobeyed the draft or ran away from the draft, who did not obey the law of Congress on that subject. Congress passed a law declaring that they were no longer citizens of the United States. If you adopt the original amendment as it stands you give Congress control over the question of citizen-" ship, the whole power over suffrage in each of the States. Congress can citizenize whom they please and decitizenize whom they please, and the States cannot help themselves. I agree that the effect of the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts is precisely what the Senator from Indiana says. I suppose that the word" citizens" is put in there mainly to secure the support of our friends on the western coast to the proposition, inasmuch as they think they are safe against the Chinese becoming citizens for the present under the naturalization laws. But when the great question comes to be agitated, when the great Senator from Massachusetts, true to his doctrine as he is and, ever llSs been and ever will be—for we can swear to that now just as well as if we had seen it already—begins with the naturalization laws to give his sledge hammer blows at this terrible word "white" in the naturalization laws, then our friends from California and Oregon will understand the meaning of this amendment.

Mr. SUMNER. I beg to remind my friend that I have a bill for that purpose now before the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, he has alreadybegun his blows.

Sir. SUMNER. That committee have not reported the bill. They have kept it in their committee room I hope the Senator from Wisconsin will help me to get it out of the committee room

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You see, fellow citizens [Laughter.] I beg pardon; but I have been up all night. [Laughter.] You see, Mr. President

Mr. STEWART. 1 do not understand that the Senator from Massachusetts is in favor of naturalizing pagans from what I heard him say the othccrday. I should like to understand how that is.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Senator from Massachusetts has stated very distinctly that he has a bill already pending, and has sent it 1 0 the Committee on the Judiciary, in which, true to his doctrine of abolishing all distinctions of race and color, this awful word "white" is to be stricken out of the naturalization laws, so that the Chinese can be naturalized on coming into California just as well as the men of European descent who come into the States on the eastern shore.

Now, Mr. President, I say the amendment pressed by the Senator from Nevada gives the whole power to Congress over the question of suffrage in all the States, because Congress having the power of naturalization and the power over citizenship can say who shall be citizens and who shall not, and the States cannot help themselves.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Allow me to inquire of the Senator if the Congress of the United States has any power over citizenship except as to foreigners.

TMr. DOOLITTLE. The Congress of the United States enacted a law during the war, by which every man who refused to obey the draft was decitizenized, and it was declared that he should not vote. In the State of Wisconsin several hundred men, notwithstanding the laws of the State, under a law passed by Congress, were deprived of their right of suffrage.

Mr. TRUMBULL. As a punishment for crime, I presume.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. As a punishment for crime, without any trial or conviction, just simply by act of Congress and putting to them a test oath or some measure of that kind, without trial or conviction.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I suppose it was entirely competent for Congress to prescribe the penalty for violations of its laws, or for a State to do so. They might go so far as to execute a deserter; and in that case, I suppose, he would lose his right of citizenship if he were executed.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am not speaking of the propriety of the act of Congress in disfranchising men who deserted the draft; I am speaking of the question of power

Mr. TRUMBULL. The question I asked was whether it was in the power of Congress to naturalize the native born persons of the country whom the Constitution of the United States, as now amended, says are citizens of the United States. I agree you can punish a man for crime.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The new amendment to the Constitution may have prohibited the exercise of that power; but however that may be, certainly there is no restriction upon Congress over the laws of naturalization; and they may, and, judging by all the history of the p ast they probably will, strike the word "white" Out of the naturalization laws. I have seen my honorable friend from Massachusetts, when he stood as near alone as he stands now on that question—on the great question of reconstruction—when he had no more of his party to stand with him than he has now on the question of striking the word "white" out of the naturalization laws and admitting the Chinese to naturalization, and, judging by the past, I think in the future, ringing the changes as he can and he will on this great question of his, which he has done so much to spread through the country, of no distinction on account of' race or color, he will plead with the people of this country, "You have given citizenship to all of African descent; why shall you not give citizenship to the descendants of the Celestial empire—the children of an empire older than any other ill civilization, far higher in civilization than all the governments or tribes of Africa." He will press you on that question. I did not know that he had a bill pending already to that effect. I was only judging of what he would do by what he has done; but it seems that I had overlooked the important fact that he has already begun to press it, and he will press it and you will yield to the pressure, and the thing will be done. I have seen the Senate yield heretofore to his pressure on such questions, and they willyield again on this very question, and our friends from California and Nevada and Oregon may just as well understand it now as understand it one, two, three, or five years hence. The thing is coming. Adopt this amendment and you may consider it the same as accomplished when you look to the future in a very little time.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Is not the Senator himself in favor of striking out the word "white" from the naturalization laws? Has he any objection to that?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am not in favor of striking it out from the naturalization laws. I think the grandest mistake this Government has ever made has grown out of this very mistake which I think the honorable Senator from Massachusetts entertains, but which he has successfully persuaded the people of the country to listen to and yield to. Perhaps he is right and perhaps I am wrong in all my ideas on this subject, but he has carried the people with him, or enough of the party of the majority with him, to compel the majority to go for his measures, and he has been successful.

Mr. FESSENDEN. What measures?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. My honorable friend from Maine asks me what measures. I will tell my honorable friend. I remember very well when my honorable friend from Maine, in a speech in this body in reply to the Senator from Massachusetts, who had proposed that negro suffrage should be extended to the States of the South as a condition of reconstruction, resisted it, and in the speech he made to the Senate he said that, as everybody knows?, the question of suffrage belongs to 'the States for themselves. That was his opinion entertained then.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish to say a word.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If my honorable friend will allow me I will state the time when, so as to call his attention particularly to it; for anything between the honorable Senator and myself is entirely unanticipated by me. It was in 1866, at the time when it was proposed as the first measure of reconstruction to submit to the governments, which you subsequently declared to be provisional in the States of the South, a constitutional amendment before any of these measures of reconstruction by military operations were adopted. It was in that speech to which I refer that the honorable Senator made as chairman of the Committee on Reconstruction when he replied to the proposition of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I think the Senator will not find anything of that sort.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. My honorable friend has spoken so much on the subject, and his recollection is so clear, that if I had not examined his language myself and given particular attention to it 1 would not state it with as much positiveness as I do; but I am sure that he used the language that I attribute to him. The language was this: that the question of suffrage belongs to the people of the States, as everybody knows, and we have no right to force it upon them; and then the Senator used an argument in favor of submitting the amendment to them. What I spoke of the Senator yielding to the Senator from Massachusetts is this: the Senator from Massachusetts took the ground in the beginning that the States of the South were conquered territories, and that Congress had the power to impose upon them just such terms as it pleased, and therefore could impose ofi them universal negro suffrage.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The remark I made, which has been sometimes quoted in regard to the doctrine of the Senator from Massachusetts, applied directly to a series of resolutions which were laid on the table by him, one of which was that those States were territories, and must be treated as such. That I did not agree with at that time, and I said at that time that the Senator from Massachusetts, in my judgment, stood alone upon that great question, and, in my humble judgment, he stands alone now. There has been nothing done, so far as the reconstruction measures are concerned, that has ever taken the ground that those States were mere territories of the United States, and to be treated in the same way. The remark that I made extended to that and nothing more. That I said or might have said at that time or at some other time that, as the law stood, the right to regulate suffrage be‘longed to the States, by the Constitution, 1 will not deny. I thought so then, and I think so now.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And I certainly, with my honorable friend from Maine, have no controversy. I had no intention to allude to him.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I was misunderstood in my remark in regard to the honorable Senator from Massachusetts. It was confined entirely to that idea which I have stated, and went no further.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. On this point, perhaps, in the heat of discussion, in referring to the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, I have dwelt longer than I should on what I suppose is to be the coming future on the naturalization question. I still incline to the opinion that he will succeed In spite of the remonstrances of the Senators from California and Oregon, in striking out the word "white" from the naturalization laws, and the Chinese will then, under this amendment, become voters in those States.

Mr. YATES. I wish to inform the Senator that it seems to me on this very day, by a vote of 24 to 19, we have declared that there shall be no restriction upon suffrage on account of .race, color, intelligence, education, or property. So the Senator from Wisconsin is right that the party is committed to universal suffrage, pure and simple. The theory of this great Government is a government of the people, for the people, by the people, and, to use the other language of Mr. Lincoln in that connection, may it never perish from the earth.

Mr. CONNESS. Mr. President, I wish to say that the speech made to us by the honorable Senator from Wisconsin is not a new one. It is not th$ first time within the last three or four years .that the honorable Senator has undertaken to make capital for the political party he. lias so recently joined, bya certain class of praise and .commendation of the Senator from Massachusetts. That the Senator from Massachusetts is entitled to his praise and the praise ,of others I do not rise to deny. That were futile on my part; but, tl e honorable Senator warns the Senators on the Republican side of this Chamber that they are but the mere tail to the kite which the Senator from Massachusetts is; that he is the great progressive man, the originator of liberal measures, and that other Senators here deny and refuse to support th m at first but are eventually brought to their Support; by tha t means representing indirectly yphat be does not djrectly to the Senator from Massachusetts that he has a very unpopular position, and he undertakes to make the I opublican party of the country responsible for that position.

Now, Mr, President, if the honorable Senator from Wisconsin had confined himself to a discussion of the naturalization laws and their application to persons who apply for the privileges of citizenship, he might have made us, simply consulting the experience of the party which he has so recently joined, a most interesting speech. That party have found new modes of naturalizing citizens, and without the word ‘‘white’’ being stricken out of the naturalization laws, as proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts, they have managed to march to the polls regiments of voters that, I undertake to say, are as unworthy to cast a vote as any Chinaman on the Pacific coast. Ignorance, Mr. President utterignoraneeofnknowl edge of this Government, and utter want of devotion to it and attachment to it, when possessed by any person, cannot by reason of even naturalization laws make an honest or faithful voter of that person. If the word "white" were stricken out of the naturalization laws to day and, the courts of this country should do their duty, examining as they are held to examine every person of foreign birth as to his devotion to republican institutions, as to his personal character, his fitness to perform the functions of a citizen, there would be no difficulty, and no harm done. But it being notorious that they are loosely and improperly applied, it becomes then of course an important question as to whether the word *‘white’’ shall remain inserted, and be a part of the naturalization laws or not. I suppose it will not be gaiusayed by any person who is acquainted with the Chinese character and population that not one in ten thousand of them has any capacity whatever for American citizenship. If there should be an educated man, a Republican or Democrat if you please, in character, who had Chinese birth and origin, but a devotee of republican institutions, I would be willing to admit him to citizenship at once, for you would have in him a supporter and defender of republican institutions and society. Therefore, sir, in the shape that the proposition is before us, namely, to strike out the words proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts, I am opposed to it. 1 desire that none but citizens shall vote, and I wish to continue the word "white" in the naturalization laws, because it excludes no one that may not properly be excluded unless perchance a man 111 ten thousand of Chinese origin; and with any prospect of the obtainment of power by the party to which my honorable friend from Wisconsin belongs, it would be a very dangerous thing indeed to change the naturalization laws so aa to give that party a chance at the Chinese vote.

But, sir, 1 did not propose to say anything on this subject of a partisan character except to notice the effort of the Senator from Wisconsin, who endeavors constantly to make a little capital for his party at the expense of the Republicans in the Senate. I do not deny to the honorable Senator from Massachusetts that he is liberal and broad in his statesmanship, even upon other subjects and in other regards than upon this question of human rights. It has been my experience—and I am very glad to say it here—that I have found him upon general measuresoneof the broadest and most liberal of statesmen; and when he has propositions to make that commend themselves to me I am always proud to be able to support them. His amendment at present I cannot vote for.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, it is quite refreshing after the weary twenty four hours we have spent together here to hear the ringing voice of the Senator from California. Wo missed his society, but I am sorry that the first demonstration is some" little unpleasantness" on his part because the distinguished leader of the party received some little commendation from a gentleman who does not agree with him in polities. Why, do not we all know that exactly what the Senator from Wisconsin said is entirely true, that there is no one single proposition suggested by the Senator from Massachusetts for the last six years up to the presenttime that has not been made by him a success with his party; and when that is said, why should it disturb the philosophical equanimity of the Senator from California? I am glad to see him here, but I am sorry that he should he disturbed by a thing that ought to give him great pleasure. Indeed, in the excitement of the times I thought he was in a" muss" last night, but he is here safe again, and it gives us a great deal of pleasure.

Mr. President, this little strike that he makes at a liberal naturalization of foreigners 1 do not sympathize with. Anybody that comes to this country of our race, abandoning the despotisms of thcjOld World and seeking this land that ho may he free and happy and that his children may become a part of our society, has my sympathy, and I would rather make the laws for the naturalization of foreigners more liberal than to make them more difficult. But, sir, 1 do not suppose it is necessary to discuss that 011 this particular proposition, and therefore 1 shall not extend my remarks. My purpose was to express my gratification at seeing the Senator from California return 111 good health into this body.

Mr. FESSENDEN, Mr. President, it was far from my design to say a word upon the subject under debate; but my honorable friend from Wisconsin has made a remark here which might have a tendency to place me in a position before the country that I have no wish to occupy. It would seem to convey the idea that I had on some occasion opposed the extension of the elective franchise to t he colored people. There can be 110 greater mistake than that, because 011 no occasion have I placed myself in that position. Now, sir, I have before me some proof on this subject to show that I was very early committed to the proposition now under consideration substantially.

It will be recollected that I was the chairman on the part of the Senate of the joint Committee on Reconstruction raised at the first session of the Thirty Ninth Congress. While that committee ivas deliberating the subject of the basis of representation came up, and came up early. It was, in fact, the first question that was submitted to the committee. While that question was pending a sub committee was selected by that committee to report to the general committee some proposition as a basis of representation. I was chairman of that sub eom mittee also, and for the sake of showing my position on the subject, if Senators will allow me, I will read to the Senate a very short portion of the journal of that committee:

The chairman from the sub committee on the basis of representation reported that the sub com mittee had directed him to report the following lor the action of the joint committee, the first two as alternative propositions, one of which, with the third proposition, to be recommended to Congress for adop. tion:

"Resolved by the Senate and, House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of bothHouses«oncurring.) That •the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which, when they, or either of them shall be ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, shall be valid as part ol said Constitution, namely:

"Article—.

"Representatives and direct taxes shall" be apportioned among the several States within this Union according to the respective number ot citizens of the United States in each State; and all provisions in the constitution or laws of any State whereby any distinction is made in political or civil rights or privileges on account of race, creed, or color shall be inoperative and void."

Or the following:

"Article—..

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among tho several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of citizens of .the United States in oaoh State: Provided, That whenever the elective franchiso shall be denied or abridged on account of race, creed, or color all persons of such race, creed, or color shall be excluded from the basis of representation."

That is what was called the Blaine amendment.

"Article—.

Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States in every State the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property."

Mr. WILSON. Will the Senator tell us what date that was?

Mr. FESSENDEN. I have not the date; but it was very early in the action of the committee. I will remark in passing that the first proposition was drawn by myself and submitted to the sub committee and adopted as one of the alternatives, and the second was the Blaine proposition.

"The joint committee proceeded to consider the report of the sub committee

Mr. Stevens moved that the last article be separated from whichever of the other two should be adopted by the committee and be considered by itself. The question was taken by yeas and nays, and decided 111 the affirmative—yeas 10, nays 4; absent and not voting 1.

"So the motion was agreed to.

Mr. Stevens moved that the committee take the second named of the alternative proposed articles as the basis of their action,

The question was taken by yeas and nays; and it was decided in thoaffirmative—yeas 11, nays 3; absent and not voting 1."

I will only say, without reading the vote, that I voted in the negative, preferring the first proposition, as did also my colleague 011 the committee, the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard,] if I recollect aright. Now, that it may be thoroughly understood, I will read it again;

Representatives and direct taxes shall bo apportioned among the several States within this Union according to the respective number of citizens of the United States in each State; and all provisions in the constitution or laws of any State whereby nny distinction is made in political or civil rights or privileges on account of race, creed, or color, shall be inoperative and void."

When I introduced as chairman of the committee the second amendment, which was the Blaine proposition, the committee having agreed to it, I stated that that prop osition was not my proposition, although 1 felt obliged to sustain it as the decision of the committee, but that I preferred a proposition which went to the root of the whole matter and abolished all distinctions on account of race, creed, or color. Being thus early committed to the proposition now before the Senate, I shall not be likely to vote against it. My opinion then was that all these side propositions which went half way, which provided modes of escape, limiting; the evil, but not striking at the very root of would be found without that effect which we wished to produce, and that the sooner we began at the thing, although it was probable it might not be adopted at once, yet in process of time, in my judgment, it would b e adopted, and it was the only way which could secure an equality of rights and privileges.[ early entertained that opinion, and expressed it before themeetuig of that Congress.

Mr. NORTON. I desire to inquire of the Senator from Maine if the report of the joint Committee on Reconstruction did not put the amendment that it proposed to the Constitution on. the idea that the States should have control of the question of suffrage, leaving it to them lo bear a penally which that amendment provided for; and if the Senator from Maine did not in a speech, while that amendment was pending, urge it as leaving it to the States, they suffering a penalty if they disfranchised any class?

Mr. FESSENDEN. Unquestionably. That amendment speaks for itself, and I defended it and supported it as well a s T was able.

1 was saying, sir, that I was early of the opinion and expressed it before that Congress met that mere laws and agreements and provisions in State constitutions would be found in the end lobe totally without sufficient force to effect the purpose. Laws could be changed; provisions in State constitutions could be changed after the .States were once admitted; and I came to the conclusion that there was nothing which would afford a sure ground except a provision in the Constitution of the United States that could not be changed.

Mr. NORTON. Mr. President

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator will be kind enough not to interrupt me again. After I get through he may ask me any question, if he desires to do so.

But, sir, the majority were of a different opinion, not that they differed with me at all in their views with regard to what ought to be done; but they believe it would be impossible at that time to carry it through Congress or to obtain for it the support of the requisite number of States. Consequently I was directed to report the Blaine amendment, which, as the Senator says, does recognize most distinctly the power, which nobody at that time denied, of the States to regulate suffrage under the Constitution of the United States, and made a, provision which, had it been adopted, I think might have been attended with very good effects, because the amendment as reported at that time made it strongly the interest of those States to admit all their people to the suffrage and reject none, because the rejection would have been attended with a loss of political power. It will be recollected that the honorable Senator from Massachusetts- [Mr. Sumner] opposed very strenuously the adoption of that amendment, and it was defeated in the Senate, not obtaining the requisite number of votes to propose it to the people; but afterward we adopted another amendment j recognizing the same principle unquestionably, but very much weaker, and which, in my judgment, you will always find it very difficult to enforce, not having the vitality and strength of that which we first introduced.

Now, sir, I do not feci disposed to argue upon this matter. I have simply stated precisely the position I occupied then, and I remain of the same opinion now. If at any time, as is probable, 1 ever opposed the introduction of any law that was proposed, or opposed the idea of prescribing to the States as States anywhere that they should do this or that with regard to suffrage, it was put upon the ground that I state now, and upon the objection I always entertained, that the States had the control of suffrage under the Constitution of the United States. The only way now in which the States formerly in rebellion are iied up and restrained upon that subject is by provisions in their own constitutions which we insisted upon afterward in framing the reconstruction laws, to which they assented, and which are made, I think, irrepealable; but even that, in my judgment, does not afford anything like the protection that would be afforded by a provision in the Constitution of the United States that no such distinction shall exist under any circumstances whatever.

With regard to the form which it. is to have, I am not particular provided it effects the purpose. 1 am usually of the opinion that where there is so much difference we had better adhere to the report of the committee, if that report seems to be well founded: and for that reason I have voted against the amendments that have been proposed on all sides of this Chamber, because oil examining the report of the Committee on the Judiciary of Senate I am of the opinion that that does effect the purpose by proper and apt words, and goes far enough to effect all that we desire to accomplish in relation to that particular point.

Having said this in answer to a suggestion made by the Senator from Wisconsin to explain precisely the position I do hold on this subject, f will not trouble the Senate with any further remarks.

Mr. NORTON. The Senator from Maine, I fancy, seemed to have the idea that I was interrupting him for a purpose not exactly proper. I had certainly labored under the impression, after reading the report of the committee of fifteen and the speech of the Senator from Maine on the constitutional amendment reported by that committee, that the Senator had been opposed to the idea of Congress undertaking to regulate suffrage in the States. I supposed the report of the committee and the amendment they proposed left suffrage with the States; but as they might regulate suffrage they were subject to the penalty provided for in the amendment. I certainly had no desire to interrupt the Senator except to ascertain whether I was correct in the view I had.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator is perfectly correct in his supposition. I have always taken that ground, but that does not apply at all to the power of the States themselves or the people of the States to change their constitutions, and to make such provision in regard to suffrage as they shall see fit.

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

Mr. SUMNER. I shall certainly not enter into the controversy between the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Wisconsin. It seems to have been conducted, part of it, over me. The record will show distinctly what I have done and what I have failed to do. I wish to be judged by the record; that is all. This allusion to it I make now with great reluctance and simply in passing to what is the question before the Senate.

In discussing the question before the Senate Senators have introduced the topic of naturalization, and allusion has been made to a bill which I introduced nearly two years ago striking out the word "white" from the naturalization laws. It was for some time on the Calendar, and was at last, against my desires, referred lo the Committee on the Judiciary. I was opposed to its reference to that committee, for I feared that I should never see it again; and now, though I have more than once pressed for a report from that committee, there is no report, and the bill is still slumbering, so far as I know, in the committee room

Mr. TRUMBULL. I deem it proper to say, as the Senator from Massachusetts speaks complainingly of the action of the Committee on the Judiciary, that that bill basbeen considered by the committee and referred to one of the members of the committee with all the other bills on that subject, and there has been considerable time spent in preparing a bill with regard to the naturalization laws. He must be aware that the Committee oti the Judiciary are very much crowded with business at the present session; over one hundred and ninety references have been made to that committee at this session. That matter is in the hands of one of the members of the committee, who is examining it, and hopes soon to be able to report.

Mr. SUMNBIi. Sir, I know well the weight of business on the Committee on the Judiciary; I wonder that they are able to do so much as they accomplish; but the Senator will pardor. me if I remind him that the bill in question was referred a long time ago and before the general question of naturalization was brought under discussion. It is now, as I understand, considered in reference to a general bill. Very well, sir; I am glad that it is under consideration. and I only hope that we shall get a report. And now as to the practical value of a bill striking out the word "white.'* The discussion thus far has had in mind only the Chinese; but allow me to remind' Senators who have pressed the Chinese so constantly upon our consideration that there is another race, the African ruct!, which cannot be naturalized in the United States. No African coming from Cuba, from San Domingo, from Hayti, under the existing naturalization laws, can become a citizen. Isthatright? Is it not a grievance? I have a great many letters from the South detailing cases of positive hardship because colored persons could not, enjoy the benefits of naturalization and thereby enter into the citizenship of the United States. Several of those letters I kept in my drawer here to read should a discussion arise. They may be here now, but I cannot lay my hands on them at once. Suffice it to say there are several cases in Georgia, one in Florida, and one case that excited much sympathy in Norfolk, Virginia—cases of positive hardship. All these might have received relief by the timely action of Congress. Now, I am brought to the suggestion that I made, and I certainly should not have made it had I anticipated that it would have awakened such a discussion. I simply proposed to strike out the words "of citizens of the United States," believing that that would give clearness and vigor to the proposition without in any way modifying its meaning.

Mr. HOWARD. How will it read then?

Mr. SUMNER. It will read as follows:

The right to vote and hold officeshallnotbedenied or abridged by the United States nor by any St at eon account of race color or previous condition of servitude.

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Morton] reminds us that that would let in Indians. Clearly not; for under other provisions of the Constitution Indians are excluded. It would let in nobody that ought not to be letin. What we are acting upon now is the right to vote, and we are seeking to declare that there shall be no limitation of that right on account of race or color. That is all that we are seeking to do in the proposition of the committee, neither more nor less, and my object in making the suggestion I have made was to improve the language of their amendment.

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

Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, there can betio mistake about one thing: that if the words "citizens ofthe United States" be stricken out, as suggested by the Senator from Massachusetts, the effect is to take away from any State the right to discriminate on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery in the case of Chinese, and that a Chinaman will be made eligible to office and will have the right to vote. Now, we do not intend anything of that kind, and I think the Senator does not intend that.

Air. SUMNER. He would not without naturalization; of course this does not supersede naturalization.

Mr. MORTON. It dispenses with naturalization unquestionably. As the proposed amendment now reads, the right of any citizen of the United States is not to be denied or abridged on account of race or color. Now, if you strike out the words "of any citizen of the United States," the clause will read that the right to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition. I understand that the phrase "citizen of the United States" is put in to protect us against Chinamen. It protects us in this way, because as the naturalization laws now stand 'Chinamen cannot be naturalized; but 1 believe that the word "white" will be stricken from the naturalization laws. I believe that it will be consistent, and it will be harmonious with the condition of things in this country after the adoption of this amendment for impartial suffrage, that the word 'j white" shall be stricken from our naturalization laws.

Sir, slavery will soon be abolished in Cuba. It will not be long before it will be abolished in Brazil. It will soon have no existence in the West Indies. There will be emigration of colored persons from the West Indies, perhaps from Brazil, to the United States; and the demand will be made that colored persons shall have the right to be naturalized because they have the right to vote and they have the right to hold office in the United States, and when that demand is made it should be granted. There can be no question that the right will be granted when the demand is made. But then there may be a deluge of Chinese on the Pacific coast. I think there ought to be some words of exclusion for the Chinese. The negro race in our midst, having lived here for generations, know no other civilization than our own. The Chinese belong to another civilization, one that can never unite or assimilate with ours. They never can become American citizens in heart and feeling. They never can fuse with us. They have a civilization that holds them from us and will do so as long as we shall live; and I doubt whether their children born in this country can or will assimilate with our civilization.

Now, they are not seeking to become American citizens, but the tune may come when they will find out their power, and then they will desire to become American citizens. They are now treated most brutally, as I am advised, in California and everywhere upon the Pacific coast. Their personal and civil rights are not regarded. They have submitted to this up to the present time; but as their numbers increase they may soon come to outnumber the white people upon that coast. It is not impossible that in the next ten or twenty years they may outnumber all other populations upon that coast; and then they will come to understand their power, and then the cruelties and brutalities that they now suffer and have suffered from the time they first went there may drive them to seize the political power into their hands. The fact that they have made no such attempt up to this time does not prove that they may not yet do it. When they come to understand their power, when they have smarted for years and years under the cruelties that are inflicted upon them, they may suddenly rise up and grasp the power upon that coast. Sir, this is possible, and it is even probable. They are human beings; they have feelings and they have interests, and they will not always submit to what they are submitting to now; and they are intelligent, although they do not speak the English language. They will some time come to understand their power, and when they are in the majority they will rise up and seize it. Therefoi e it seems to me there ought to be some provision made against a catastrophe of that kind. They can never mingle with us; they never can be a part of the American people; they will have a civilization that will stand like a wall of iron over them and us, between their children and ours. I believe they will seize and hold power if it shall be placed within their hands or within their reach for their own protection; and who can blame them? We cannot do it. They have already suffered cruelties and indignities and outrages, as we are informed, thatshock humanity itself. They will not always do it. As was said yesterday by somebody, they come from China, an immense hive of human beings, several hundred millions; they have come rapidly under the circumstances; but that tide may suddenly increase a hundredfold, and they may in one year pour over from fifty to one hundred thousand upon that coast; it is not among the improbabilities; and when they do that, if you place this" pelitical power within their reach they will seize it for their protection, not being part of the American people, not in sympathy with us, but for their own protection, and humanity will be on their side.