February 9, 1869

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. President, the effect of the amendment suggested by the Senator from Massachusetts clearly is that aliens shall not be discriminated against on account of race or color. As it stands, the clause is that citizens shall not be discriminated against on account of race or color. There is a great difference made by striking out the word" citizens."

While I am up, inasmuch as the Senator from Massachusetts has spoken quite freely in reference to naturalization, I would like to be informed if the Senator has made uphis mind, as he introduced the bill, that it would be wise for this nation to open naturalization without any restriction to the hordes that are coming to ns from Asia?

Mr. SUMNER. I would inquire of my friend what restriction he would suggest? I should rather not answer what seems to be a hypothetical question; certainly a very general question.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. My question was whethcrthcre should ho no restriction. I had expressed my views very freely yesterday. I believe that he should not introduce into this country hordes of pagans and heathen. I think we are under every obligation to give our own people equal, unrestricted rights. I do not feel that obligation toward the people of Asia if it cannot be extended to them without imperiling the interests of our own country.

Mr. SUMNER. I content myself for the present with saying that the word "white" should be struck out of the statute book That is necessary to bring our laws and institutions in harmony with the Declaration of Independence. Whether, that being done, there can be any limitation calculated to meet the precise difficulty to which the Senator calls attention I am not prepared at this moment to say, though I do not despair of finding some way of meeting that difficulty. But then I think we must begin by being true to ourselves and true to the Declaration of Independence. That speaks for all men without any distinction of color, and we must bring all our institutions into harmony with that text.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I certainly sympathize fully with the views so frequently expressed here in favor of the great maxim of the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal;" but I do not remember that the Declaration of Independence said anything as to granting naturalization. On the contrary, the early history of this Government shows that the fathers were most careful, and had a system of naturalization much more strict than which has been adopted in recent years by this country.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I would not under any circumstances vote for this amendment if the proposition offered by the Senator from Massachusetts were adopted; and moreover, I should conceive it to be my duty to the extent of my influence within the humble sphere in which I move to defeat its adoption by the States.

In the fii st place, I wish to correct an impression that seems to prevail here as to the wishes of the Chinese upon the Pacific coast to become citizens of the United States. I know that application has been made by a Chinaman to the courts of California for naturalization, and the question was litigated in those courts as to whether or not a Chinaman could be naturalized according to the laws of the United States; and the courts decided that he was not within the meaning of those laws a white man, and therefore could not be naturalized. That is one reason why more applications or greater efforts have not been made on the part of the Chinese to become citizens of the United States. Now, sir, it is a fact that these Chinese are acquiring property upon the Pacific coast. There are individuals of the Chinese nation who seem to own or have the control of large masses of other Chinese. What the particular relation is between these prominent individuals of the Chinese nation and the masses I cannot describe; but I know that there is some relation by which certain individuals seem to have the absolute control of large masses of the Chinese, as mneh as the southern slaveholders at one time had the control of their slaves. These people will inevitably, if an opportunity is afforded, seek to become citizens of the United States; for they are upon the Pacific coast for the purpose of promoting their interests, and they have sense enough to see that the possession of the political control of that country would redound greatly to their benefit. The authorities in China might send over hundreds of thousands of Chinamen to the Pacific coast instructed to become citizens for the purpose of securing in every possible way the productions of that vast and rich country for the benefit of the Chinese empire.

Sir, what does naturalization amount to, so far as a Chinaman is concerned? He has no more regard for the obligation imposed by a Christian oath than he has for the whistling of the idle wind. Everybody understands that a Chinaman does not recognize the obligation of an oath imposed upon him according to the forms of our country and our courts. Hundreds and thousands of them might come under such circumstances to be naturalized and take the oaths prescribed by law, and at the same time to all intents and purposes be foreigners; for according to their religious views and opinions those oaths have no obligation upon them.

Mr. CONNESS. I will remind the Senator at this point that when they offer themselves ia our courts as witnesses they never take our oaths at all.

Mr. HOWARD. I beg to inquire of the honorable Senator from Oregon whether there is not something in the nature of an oath under which the conscience of a Chinaman can he supposed to be bound; something to secure the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in trials at law?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I suppose there is a Chinese system of swearing, although I have never seen it adopted in courts.

Mr. CONNESS. If the Senator will allow me, I will state what it is, for I have seen it more than once. They are sworn by two modes: hv burning a piece of paper which they regard as having some sacred character or other, and by bringing a chicken into court and cutting its head off. Those are the two modes of administering oaths.

Mr. HOWARD. That is considered by the Chinese as a sort of sacrament, I suppose, binding upon their conscience?

Mr. CONNESS. I do not know their ideas with regard to it.

Mr. HOWARD. I merely inquired because it is a rule of the common law that a heathen or foreigner may be sworn according to the forms of his own religion.

Mr. CONNESS. The universal opinion is that it does not induce them to tell the truth.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I desire, without protracting this debate, to make one commentary upon the views expressed by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts in reference to the application of the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence to this question. 1, of course, subscribe to the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence. But, sir, it is not possible that that Declaration ever was or ever can be so understood as to give to foreigners in the United States the. same rights that native born citizens possess. Is it possible that when the Declaration of Independence declares that all men are created equal and are entitled to the same inalienable rights, in effect it means that an Englishman or a Frenchman has the same right to participate in the political control of the United States that a man has who is born in this country? Can the Declaration of Independence be made to mean any such thing? Did the men who framed that instrument intend to say that a man in Great Britain, or in Prance, or in Turkey, or in Russia, though he might be born free and equal with us, though he might be entitled to the inalienable rights secured in that instrument, should in this country possess the same political power that a citizen born in this country should possess? Nobody, I think, can possibly give the Declaration of Independence any such construction. The framers of the Constitution did not mean that, or if they did they violated their own construction of the instrument, for they expressly provided in the Constitution that no man but a natural born citizen of the United States should be President of the United States. That was a practical construction of the Declaration of Independence. While I will go, I think, as far as any reasonable man in this country can go or can be desired to go to give to the citizens of the United States, naturalized and native born, equal political rights, I say that this country has the absolute power to protect itself from Chinamen or any other sort of foreigners by such legislation as in its judgment is necessary for the purposes of protection. And in protecting itself from these hordes of foreigners, who may come here cither from, selfish or hostile motives; in protecting itself from these people living on the other side of the ocean, it does not in any respect violate the Declaration of Independence-

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, one remark only, and then I shall close what, I have to say. As I have read the Declaration of Independence, it says" all men are created equal." It does not say, "all white men." Senators about me say it does not say" Chinamen 1 or except ‘‘Chinamen.’’ There is nothing on the subject of Chinamen. But now since my friend from Oregon has found in the suggestion that I made on this amendment the empire of China and all her millions of population, I certainly shall not press it any further. I conceived that in making the suggestion 1 did I was adding something to the improvement of the pending proposition. I find I have opened an immense debate, and therefore 1 ask leave to withdraw tte amendment.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Before the Senator from Massachusetts takes his seat I wish to ask him one question.

The PRESIDENTpro tempore. Theamendment is withdrawn.

Mr. WILSON. I desire to move an amendment.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I believe I have the floor for the purpose of asking a question. I believe that about a year ago the most extraordinary honors that this country has ever bestowed upon any foreign people in its history were bestowed upon the representatives of the Chinese Government visiting the capital.

Mr. SUMNER. Last summer.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I understand that those persons belonged to the aristocracy of China. Now, I want to know if it was the purpose of the Committee on Foreign Relations in urging what was then done that we should bestow honor upon the aristocracy of that old monarchy, and contempt and hatred upon the laborers of that country who come among us?

Mr. SUMNER. So far as I can speak for them, and certainly speaking for myself, there was no such idea.

Mr. WILSON. I desire to offer an amendment to the amendment. It is a modification of the proposition that was acted on a short time ago. It is to strike out all of section one of the article reported by the committee, and to insert:

No discrimination shall be made in any State among the ciuzens of the United States in the exercise of the elective franchise or in the right to hold office in any State on account of race, color, nativity, property, education, or religious creed.

I will simply say that this amendment is more comprehensive, fuller, and juster than any amendment that has been offered, I think, and. therefore I think it is strong enough, and I hope the Senate will adopt it.

Mr. SHERMAN. We have debated the phraseology of this amendment so long, andso much debate has been exhausted upon it, that it is not worth while to spend any more time. I am satisfied that the report of the Judiciary Committee, which only extends to the African race and secures to them the elective franchise, is not broad enough when we are about to change the Constitution.- I much prefer the language read by the Senator from Maine a while ago as the report of the Committee on Reconstruction two years ago; but now I believe it is wise to wipe out a multitude of discriminations in the constitutions of the several States that make discriminations on account of religious faith, color, property, &c. In the State of New Hampshire no man is allowed to hold office by her constitution unless he believes in the Protestant faith, although I believe that provision is now practically a dead letter. In Rhode Island naturalized citizens are not allowed to hold office or to vote in certain cases. In Massachusetts they exclude people who cannot read by a test that is not practical in character and is useless.

It seems to me, as the Republican party are about to lay the foundation for a political creed, that the broadest and safest and best foundation for it is universal suffrage, protecting all men above the proper age and with the proper residence in the right to share in the elective franchise and in the right to hold office. The amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts is carefully worded so as not to exclude or change the Constitution of the United States in prescribing the qualifications of the President of the United States or of a Senator. The Constitution requires that the President must be a native born citizen of the United States. No one wishes to change that. It provides also that a Senator shall have resided in his State so many years, and shall, ifhe be a naturalized citizen, be more than nine years a citizen. This amendment does not change that provision. It only requires that in a State for local offices no discrimination shall be made against any citizen of the United States, because when a person is naturalized the theory of our law is that he should be placed on an equal footing in all respects with the nativeborn citizen, except where he has been expressly excluded by the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. It seems to me, if we are to have a party platform, that this proposition will give us the best one. Senators have made this a party question undoubtedly. The debate last night shows that it is intended to make this a party question, and to oppose it as a party creed. I am willing myself to accept as a party creed the broad general principle that every man of a given age and prescribed residence shall have an equal voice in making the laws and enforcing the laws of the United States.

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. President, I had the honor to offer an amendment, which I intend to call up at the proper time for consideration, to be added after the amendment of the committee, in these words:

But Chinamen not born in the United States and Indians not taxed shall not be deemed or made citizens.

That is a plain and simple provision. I am satisfied from the persistence of our friend from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] thathe willporsevcre until he has stricken the word" white11 from the naturalization laws; and whenever the naturalization laws are so amended they will let in the Chinese. This proposition of mine is intended to prevent Chinamen from being naturalized. If Senators will not now, in the inception of this question, make a provision to prevent the naturalization of these people, you certainly cannot prevent it when the time arrives when a mere majority will sweep the word" white 11 from the naturalization laws. I am satisfied, from, the determination and persistence of the Senator from Massachusetts, that it is merely a question of time, a year or two perhaps, when that word will be stricken from the naturalization laws. As he has stated, he has a bill before the Judiciary Committee to effect that purpose. Now, the question is whether we will nip this thing in the bud; whether we will preventthe naturalization of Chinamen. For my .part I should not feel that I had done the duty devolved upon me as the representative of the Stat© which I have the honor in part to represent here unless I had made some effort to obtain the action of the Senate upon this subject.

These people are coming to our shores in great numbers.' They may in a few years outnumber our population. They bring with them institutions of paganism which they are establishing here. In San Fraa cisco they now have their places of worship in which idols are set up, and there they worship them. The question is whether you desire to allow this class of people to come in and overthrow the Christian institutions established on the Pacific coast by the American people, a Christian people? It seems to me the proposition is a very plain one. The amendment that I offer to the amendment of the committee is very simple, and I desire to take the sense of the Senate upon it, whether they will take this subject up now and prevent this sort of immigration from coming in, which is proving hurtful and destructive to a portion of our institutions, taking possession of the valuable mines there; and then these people return to their own country taking from half a million to a million dollars on every steamer, perhaps, that leaves for China, with them. The question is whether we are willing to abandon the Pacific States to this class of people, or whether we are prepared to take some action to prevent them from flooding us in such great numbers as may come if we extend the right of suffrage to them.

Mr. STEWART. I suggest to the Senator from Oregon on this point that I think it more appropriate to make provision on this subject in the naturalization laws than in the Constitution of the United States. This constitutional amendment only relates to citizens. The question will arise whether we can make citizens of these people. I have no doubt that the Senate or any other body of men, when they come to learn the facts, will see the utter futility of making citizens of the Chinese. You can much more readily make citizens of the Comanches and get them to adopt your manners and customs, and they would not be liable to such complete control as the Chinese. The idea of naturalizing them is entirely out of the question, as any one will see on investigation. Such a proposition never could pass this body after investigation. I will trust it with any man in the world who will examine the subject. There is too much of detail in it to go into it now. Whenever the question of their character and their fitness to become citizens of the United States is examined, I venture to say there will not be one dissenting voice upon the impropriety of attempting to make citizens of them in that way.

Mr. CORBETT. That may be a question for the courts to decide. My own impression is that it has been decided heretofore, under the naturalization laws as they now stand, that the word" white" excludes those people. They are copper colored people and stand the same as the Indian in color, and they are regarded not as white people but as a colored race. Therefore they are not recognized by the naturalization law as it now stands. All you have to do, in my opinion, isto adopt this constitutional amendment and then strike out the word "white11 from the naturalization laws, and our friend from Massachusetts has got it just where he wants it. Then there will be no discrimination, and three or four hundred thousand of these people may be brought to the Pacific coast and take possession of it. It is a question for the Senate to determine. I feel that I cannot vote for this constitutional amendment unless there is a guarantee that the Pacific coast shall notbe flooded with an immigration of perhaps a million people of that class. I have made up my mind that unless there is some provision to guard us in this respect I shall not vote for this constitutional amendment.

Mi-. HOWE. I rise to claim the applause of the Senate, i& the first instance, because I have sat here through all these days and nights and hai e not up to thistime opened my mouth upon this grave question; ajwl next, I claim the ap-, plause of the Senate for the declaration I am about to make, which is, that I shall vote with all my might for the amendment now moved by the Senator from Massachusetts; and I have to assign this reason for that: I believe itto be a crime for ^country to raise a citizen who is not fit to vote;- and I believe it to be a great wrong for a country to make acitizen of an alien who is not fit to vote. I believe our friends on the Pacific coast, may, by a properly guarded naturalization law, properly enforced, keep from, and it is their business to exclude from- the rights and privileges of American citizens all people, whether they come from Africa, Asia, or Europe, an d of whatever color they may be, who are not fit to exercise the right of suffrage. I concede, after having made these declarations, what I have often said on this floor, that we have living among us men raised by us who are not fit to vote; but they are here. It is mainly oar fault that they are not fit to vote. I think the safer way is to admit them now, at this late day, to the exercise of this privilege. But if the nation goes to sleep upon the idea that when they have admitted them to the ballot box they have done all that is necessary to open a way for them as individuals, or for the country, to heaven, they will make a mistake. They have then but assumed a new responsibility and heavier responsibility; and that is, to address themselves with all the energies which belong to this Republic to fit them for the discharge of the duty we are about to impose upon them by this amendment. I shall vote for this amendment because it admits all citizens to this one plain, natural right, as I conceive it to be.

Mr CAMERON Itisalongwhile, Mr President, since I first became acquainted with the tactics of parties in Congress, but I never before saw a great party, a party controlling power as well by its numbers as by its principles, come here without any mode of procedure oil such a question as this. I believe we have fifteen or more propositions now before the Senate as amendments to the original resolution of the House of Representatives. Wo have been now twenty seven hours in session, and to my mind we are not a bit nearer a conclusion than we were yesterday at twelve o clock That brings to my mind the fact that this great party of ours is censurable itself. Here is a minority of only twelve or fourteen gentlemen in the Senate agreeing to go with us sometimes, and sometimes not; but watching all the time for our errors and putting us in the wrong whenever they can, and we are willing to remain here and suffer ourselves lo he thus driven from the proper path, not by our enemies, but by— 1 was going to say our egotism, that would not be a Senatorial term, and I will not use it—but by the great desire of gentlemen to make this thing perfect. Almost every Senator has a proposition of his own, drawn by himself, expressing his own views, and it seems to be thought that no one else can correct or improve it.

I am in favor of the proposition of the Senator from Massachusetts because it invites into our country everybody; the negro, the Irishman, the German, the Frenchman, the Scotchman, the Englishman, and the Chinaman. I will welcome every man, whatever may be the country from which he comes, who by his industry can add to our national wealth. Our friends from the Pacific coast are afraid of that simple, frugal people, lest they should destroy their liberties. 1 have no such fears. These Senators tell us, at the same time, that Chinamen will never become citizens. If they will not become citizens what harm will they do us under this amendment to the Constitution/ W e are told that they come here and labor and send all the result of their toil to their own country. They do send a great deal j but what they send is not a tithe of the wealth which they gjve to us by 4heir industry and their frugal habits.

I trust that this amendment will be adopted, and I hope that we shall dispose of this subject; very soon. For my own part, I have been here twenty seven hop?, but I will remain fiftyseven longer, if it be necessary, until we dispose of th question. I know it is hard upon the old gentlemen of the Senate; but not on us young people. -[Laughter.] We can stand it; and we will remain here as long as we can do good to our country.

But, Mr President L must express my surprise at this talk about the poor Chinaman. I never heard of his doing any harm to anybody in America. He has enriched the Pacific slope by his toil. He has made that great railroad which is the miracle fif the world by his patient industry. Who ever heard before of a people doing so much work ia so short a space of time and getting so little reward for it as they have done? We- might just as well say that the Irishmen who came into Pennsylvania and New York and Indiana and Illinois and Iowa, and gave their labor to make the canals and the railroads which have enriched those States, should be prevented from becoming citizens. The Chinese who are now here will probably return to their own country; most of them, however, in their coffins, for their bodies are always carried away after their dissolution; but their children, who remain here, will after awhile imitate our people, adopt our institutions, and become citizens of our country, and by their toil add to the wealth of the country. I did not intend to say a word on this subject. I have listened, as I said, for more than twenty four hours, hoping every moment that the wisdom of the Senate would induce it to adopt some plan by which we should dispose of this question, and, after a while, get to some of the current business of the country. I suppose by to morrow morning we shall come to a conclusion. I have only said thus much because it might have seemed strange that I was the only roan in this body who had not said a word during this discussion.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator irom Oregon, [Mr. Cobbett.]

Mr. TRUMBULL. 1 thought the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] offered an amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. But the Senator from Oregon offers to amend the portion of the joint resolution proposed to be stricken out, and therefore it has a preference over the other amendment.

Mr. CORBETT. I ask for a vote upon my proposition.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I hope that amendment will not be adopted. When we are striving to amend the Constitution of the United States upon the great principle of securing equal rights to all, it seems to me to be very inconsistent with that action to insert a clause that the people of the most populous portion of the globe are to be excluded from this provision. When we are declaring that the Hottentots and cannibals from Africa shall have the right to vote and to hold office, it seems to me paradoxical to insert a clause that citizens of the oldest empire of the earth, citizens from that country which in many respects excels any other country on the face of the globe in the arts and sciences, among whose population are to be found the most learned and eminent scholars in the world, shall be excluded. When we are seeking to carry out the great principles of human rights, that proposition seems to me so remarkable that I cannot think it can obtain any considerable support in this body.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is 011 the amendment of the Senator from Oregon.

The amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilsox] to the amendment reported by the committee.

Mr. HOWARD. I wish to call the attention of (the Senator from Massachusetts to the query whether his amendment does ,not change the rule now with regard to the qualifications of President of the United States?

Mr SUMNER and others.' Oh, no.

Mr. HOWARD. I beg the .Clerk to read it again. I fear that it does.

Mr. SUMNER. No; it does not. I have looked at it carefully.

The Chief Clerk read tbe amendment to the amendment, as follows

No discrimination shall be made .in any State among the citizens of the United States in the exercise of the elective franchise or in the right to hold office in any State on account of race, color, nativity, property, education, or creed.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator from Michigan will see that the amendment is carefully confined to holding office in any State. It does not apply to any office held under the Constitution of th® United States, because the Constitution of the United States declares who shall hold office and the qualifications for holding office under the United States. This amendment would only affect the State constitutions so far as they prescribe the qualifications for holding office in the State. It seems to me it is very clear on that point.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will ask the Senator does it mean to include Representatives in Congress and other officers under th§ United States?

Mr. SHERMAN. That is left. It merely provides as to who shall hold office in a State that no one can be excluded from holding otBce in any State for any of these causes, but, as a matter of course, the Constitution of the United States prescribes who shall hold offices under the laws of the United States, and this does not change in any respect the Constitution as to who shall hold office under the United St tss

Mr. TRUMBULL. While this amendment does not undertake to change the qualifications of members of Congress and of President of the United States, it abolishes the constitutions of perhaps all, certainly of half, the States of the Union. Since this amendment was proposed I have sent for the constitutions of the various States. I have looked at only three or four, but I find that in the constitution of the State of Maine it is provided—■

"The Governor shall, at the commencement of his term, be not less than thirty years of age and a natural born citizen of the United States."

Nobody can be Governor of that State, by the constitution which they have adopted, unless he is a natural born citizen. Now you propose to amend the Constitution of the United States so that there shall be no distinction between citizens in holding office in Maine. Turning to the constitution of the State of New Jersey, I find:

"The G ovcrnor shall be at least thirty years of age, and shall have been for twenty years, at least, a citizen ot the United States."

Turning to the constitution of the State of Indiana, 1 find this:

"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor, or Lieutenant Governor, who shall not have been live years a citizen of the United States."

The constitution of Iowa declares that—

"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who has not been a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State two years next preceding the election."

How it may be in the State of Ohio and in the other States I have not had time to look; but I apprehend it will be found, in looking into the State constitutions, that qualifications are required not only for the chief executive officer, the Governor, but also for members of their Legislatures, and, probably, of the judiciary also, which this proposition would abolish. Now, is it proposed to do that? Is there any complaint? Should we amend the Constitution of the United States, except to remedy some defect or some evil? Is anybody complaining in Maine of the constitution of that State, which prescribes certain qualifications for the Governor? Does anybody complain in New Jersey or in Iowa or iu any of the other States of the qualifications which the people of those States have prescribed for holding office there, in this respect? I have heard of no such complaint, and I think we should not amend the Constitution of the United States so as ruthlessly, without cause, to overturn the constitution, perhaps, of every State of the Union.

Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, we are now about to amend the fundamental law in regard to suffrage. The amendment, as it is proposed by the House of Representatives and as it is reported by the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, confines the limitation upon State power to the "single subject of race or color, just as if that was the only subject upon which there could be an abuse; just as if that was the only important consideration. Now, sir, that we are at work on this subject, can we stand justified before the people of this nation if we do not make this limitation apply to other possible abuses? This amendment, as offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, proposes to say that there shall be no discrimination on account of race, color, nativity, property, education, or creed. I think there is no more principle, there is no more justice in requiring a man to have a certain amount of property before he shall be allowed to exercise this right that is indispensable to the protection of his life, liberty, and happiness, than there is in requiring him to have a white skin. If the right of suffrage is a natural right, if it belongs to all men because they have a right to have a voice in the Government that controls their action,' if it is necessary to all men as a means of protecting other acknowledged natural rights, how can you make it depend upon property?

Now, sir, this question is before us, and we cannot refuse t o adopt the pending amendment without saying substantially to the States, "While you shall not disfranchise a man on account of color, you may disfranchise him because he has not got property." Are we willing to place ourselves as a Senate, and are my Republican friends willing to place themselves as a party, before the country on that ground? I will not do it for one.

The same may be said in regard to educational tests. I believe all educational tests in this country are humbugs. They do no good. When you come to consider the question of voting as a natural right, what right have you to take it from a man because he cannot read and write? He may be, nevertheless, a very intelligent man, and he has his rights to defend and preserve just like other men, and the right of suffrage is just as important to him as it is to anybody else. What right have you to say that he shall not have it because he cannot read and write?

The same is true in regard to the qualification of religious faith. The State of New Hampshire now excludes any man from her house of representatives unless he belongs to the Protestant faith. That exclusion is contrary to the whole spirit of Our institutions; and now that we are at work on this subject, and the question is brought before us, are we at liberty to reject this amendment, and thus say to New Hampshire, in substance and by implication, that she may continue to exclude men from office on account of their faith?

In regard to nativity, if we reject this amendment we say to the States, '"You cannot exclude men because of their color, but you are still left at liberty to exclude them because of their nativity." Are we prepared to say that? I am aware that the question of colored suffrage has brought the subject before Congress; but, now that it is here, we are bound, as wise legislators, if we are entitled to that character, to consider and to guard against all the abuses that may arise upon that subject.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, it seems to me that this amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts is entirely too sweeping. It contemplates a complete revolution in the State constitutions. It takes away from the States the right to require any particular residence of a citizen of the United States before he is permitted to hold office. Let me give you a single instance. Take the clause in the constitution of my own State which declares that—

No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor or Li euten ant Govern or who shall not havebeeif ••five years a citizen of the United States and a resident of this State two years next preceding the election."

He must have been a- citizen of the United States at least five years from the date of his naturalization before he can be elected Governor of that State; and I presume an analogous provision is contained in most of the constitutions of the States. If it is not it certainly ought to be, in my judgment. But this amendment abolishes all discrimination of this kind as to holding office. It gives the right to hold office to one citizen as much as to another, if I understand it rightly.

There is another view to be taken of this. In my own State, as is the case in Indiana, I think, and probably many of the new States in the West, persons who have simply declared their intention to become naturalized citizens are allowed, after a certain residence in the State, to vote and to hold office. What is to be the condition of that class of persons under such an amendment as this? No discrimination can be made against citizens, and that clause would leave to the Legislatures the right to discriminate in favor of unnaturalized foreigners, and prefer them, if they saw fit to do so unwise a thing, even to citizens of the United States, whether native born or naturalized. Sir, this amendment is entirely too sweeping; it runs a plowshare through all the State constitutions and overturns the most important State regulations that can be found. For my part I am not prepared to go so far as that. I am willing to cure the evil of which complaint has been made, and to give to the black man the right to vote, if situated within the United States, in all cases in which I would give a white citizen of the United States the right to vote. But I will not go so far as to overthrow and uproot the very foundations of the State constitutions.

Mr. YATES. I simply wish to make one remark. I think the people have just as good a right to select a man born upon foreign soil, if he is their choice, as one born upon American soil, if in their judgment he is the most competent.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire._ Mr. President, allusion has been made several times in the debate to the religious test in the constitution of New Hampshire. The restriction is that none but those of the Protestant religion shall be members of the house of representatives. It is true that there is such a restriction in our constitution, but as a matter of fact it is a dead letter as I have said once before. Catholics are allowed to hold seats in our Legislature and to hold office in the State, and I presume the people of the State would not object to having that restriction in our constitution set aside.

But, sir, I am opposed to the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts for another reason. I do notoppose itbecause it overrides that part, of our constitution particularly, nor am I against it because it sets aside conditions of suffrage generally. I want no distinction of caste, or color, or property, but I have always been in favor of the law of Massachusetts. I have hitherto been in favor of an educational test as a restriction upon the right of suffrage; nor am I prepared to say now, as one gentleman has said, that this is an idle restriction; that it is doing violence to the civilization and the Christianity of the age to retain an educational test in our constitution or in our law.

I have been reminded, during this debate, of what Neander says in the introduction to his Church History. He says that civilization moves in spirals, now advancing and then receding, but on the whole making progress. That is illustrated in nothing better than in this question of suffrage. Under Henry IV, of England, suffrage was nearly or quite universal; but under Henry VI it was restricted, as the law says, because manslaughters and disturbances of the peace had been so abundant throughout the realm on account of universal suffrage. To day tho tide is turning back again and suffrage is being extended. I am glad that it is so. I hope the time is not distant when every man in England and in every other country will be so intelligent that he will be qualified to take- part in the G overnment under which he lives. That is the goal to which all good Governments are approaching. Everyman who is protected by Government I hope at no distant day will be prepared to take part in the administration of that Government.

But, sir, it is certainly true that self government is not possible until 'a people have advanced somewhat in civilization; and it presupposes the maintenance of that intelligence by commerce and schools, by the press, and' restrictions of law upon the influx of barbarism and arbitrary power from abroad. A restriction of that kind is no wrong done to the voter, for it simply protects the purity and integrity of the Government under which all his rights are secured. The consumer has just as much right to complain of a protective tariff which guards national industry and capital against the serf labor of Europe as an ignorant population have to complain of the restriction ot intelligence which guards the political institutions under which they live. Why, sir, the voter discharging the obligation of an elector fulfills an official duty as truly as the judge exercises the functions of an office when he administers justice between man and man; and as some .knowledge of law is a prerequisite in the judge to the proper discharge of his duties, so it would seem that some intelligence, some mental discipline, some little knowledge of the laws and spirit of a country is necessary to a safe participation in its government.

Now, sir, I do not think that the character of these remarks is behind the age and the spirit of our times. At any rate, the^ are in keeping with the utterances of our fathers; they are in keeping with the utterances of the best writers upon political philosophy in every age; and I do not apprehend that we are so much wiser than the past that we can set at nought all the experience and wisdom of other days.

Suffrage is the most sacred of all our rights; and why should we throw open this porta! of political power and let into the strongholds of our Government the emissaries of arbitrary power, th® minions of despotism? Why should we let barbarism come in like a flood? It you do that the period may not be far distant when you will have so degraded the intelligence of your people that they will be unequal to self government, and then, like the early republics, you will roll down the bloody grade of revolution into the most abject and absolute despotism.

I know that as we stand to day an educational test may not be necessary; but it will do no harm. If the people have the intelligence prerequisite to self government an educational test will not limit very much the extent of suffrage. There will be about as many votes cast with it as without it. It is simply a safeguard against a possible evil. I would have theinteljigence prerequisite to the exercise of suffrage very low, so that it may be easily reached by our foreign population or by any of our native population who may lack the means of education. I desire it, among other things, as an encouragement to popular intelligence. I say simply this, that the way to suffrage should be open to all. To deny it on account of race or color or want of property is doing violence to the civilization of our age, and insults Christianity; but to protect and guard it against the incoming floods of ignorance and barbarism ia simply to preserve the jesvel of liberty. This is my view of this subject, both as an abstract and practical question. For this and for no other reason am I opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. CONKLING. Mr. President

Mr. DIXON. Will the Senator from New Hampshire allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. There are half a dozen gentlemen who want the floor, I have not given up the floor; but I will give way.

Mr. WILSON. I hope Senators will allow me a single instant to allude to one point. I wish to say to the Senator from New Hampshire, who has referred to the State of Massachusetts, that the educational test in that State is practically of no value whatever. I do not believe it keeps five hundred men from the elections in that State. I was opposed to it when it was adopted. I .did not believe a word in it, and I believe less in it now-.■ Last autumn, I remember, we had several hundred foreigners where I live who became voters. Our friends supposed we might have a pretty sharp contest, and they came to me and said Probably fifteen or twenty of these men cannot read and write; do you not think we had better put the educational test to them?’’ I said to my friends what I have always said, Never do it." I would be ashamed to look a man in the face when I put such a test to him. I believe in manhood, and I believe the ballot is an educator, and I do not believe in any such petty tests. I think it is anything but creditable to any part of the country.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. Will the gentleman allow me to- ask him a question?

Mr.' WILSON. Certainly.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. I wish to ask the gentleman if he thinks selfgovernment is possible among the Hottentots or the Micronesians?

Mr. WILSON. No; I do not think it is. I am sorry that my friend should put such a question as that. Wo are not talking about Hottentots; we are talking about the people who come here from western Europe, who are of our race, who are naturalized in the United States. I wish to say one single word to the Senator upon this point. We have heard to day since we have been here, a great deal said about barbarians in Africa. The answer is that we are not dealing with barbarians in Africa; we are dealing with four million men whose ancestors have been for two hundred years in this country, and we are not dealing wiih Hottentots.

Mr. DIXON. If the Senator from Massachusetts will allow me

Air. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. I should like to say a word.

Mr. DIXON. I should like to ask the Senator from New Hampshire a single question. 1 wish to ask him whether the object of this whole proposition to umend the Constitution ik not to let iuthe Hottentots, whom he declares to be so unfit for self government?

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. Yes, sir; it is to let in those of African descent in our country. But if you retain the right to make an educational test it will apply to black men as well as to white men.

Mr. DIXON. I understood the Senator to object to Hottentots, as such, irrespective of color.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. Not at all; I simply asked the question of the gentleman from Massachusetts if he supposed that self government was possible among the Micronesians or the Hottentots, because ho thought such a test was petty and ridiculous.

Mr. WILSON. In our country?

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. Well, it is not in our country, for there is a possibility of a number of those uneducated foreigners, who do not understand the spirit of our institutions, coming into any State so as to override the native citizens of that State, You have got ninety thousand Chinamen today in California, and they are coming in in floods. Now, the only question for us to settle is, whether it is quite safe to take from California the right to guard its own institutions against that flood of barbarism that is coming in upon us. One word about the educated Chinamen that gentlemen have talked so much about. They are nutab well educated as gentlemen have represented. They understand something in relation to Chinese science; but that is entirely behind our day and age. Their arts do not come up to the arts of this country and of Christian countries generally. They are not a well educated people.

Mr. CONKLINGr. Mr. President, I have been silent during the long debate which still proceeds, and I promise to occupy but few moments now. The original proposition pending came from the Committee on the Judiciary. I was not present in committee, although I am regular in my attendance there, when the action, whatever it may have been upon this subject was taken, and therefore I had no part in the phraseology, the form, or the substance which has occupied the Senate. It follows that I have no preference byway of pride, of paternity, or relationship for any of the multiplied versions before us.

The honorable Senator from Ohio [Mr. Sherman] tells us that be sees among all these forms a preference due to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts,[ Mr. Wilson,] and now immediately pending. But for this announcement by the Senator from Ohio I should have deemed this amendment open to much question and uncertainty. Let us see in part, at least, what it is. It consists of two members. I read the first member separated from the second:

No discrimination shall be made in any State among the citizens of the United States in the oxerotseof the elective franchise on account of race, color, nativity, property, education, or creed.

I omit for the moment the words relative to eligibility to office. Had the Senator considered how far this may revolutionize and undo the constitutions, the enactments, and the customs of the States? Take the test of property. No discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise in case of any election shall be made on the score of property. What becomes of all the elections held under provisions of municipal charters, which are participated in by freeholders or tax payers alone? What becomes, in- the cities of the State of New York, of wholesome restrictive provisions in municipal charters, restraining the expenditure of money? beyond a certain sum, unless a majority or two thirds of the tax payers of the city, that is to say the stockholders in the corporation, at an election to be held for that purpose, shall authorize additional expenditure? Is there anything in the history of the last few years which demands of this body a proposiliou to molest safeguards such as these? But again, no discrimination whatever in the exercise of the elective franchise—I emphasize the expression "in the exercise of the elective franchise —shall be made on account of nativity. Will some Senator tell me what the effect of this would be upon the reforms now suggested in reference to naturalization? For example, the honorable Senator from Massachusetts does not intend to deprive the State of New York of the power to make regulations concerning registry and other incidents in the exercise of the elective franchise. Suppose the State of New York requires that naturalized citizens shall produce their certificates of naturalization when their names go down upon the registry, and when their ballots go down into the box. Would not that, I submit to Senators, be a discrimination touching the exercise of the elective franchise on account of nativity? If it would not, why not? All naturalized persons being required to produce proof of their naturalization—required, if yon please, to produce proof not demanded of other citizens of the place where they live, of the length of time for which they have lived in a precinct or at the number of a street in a city, would not that be a discrimination touching the exercise of their rights, and touching the exercise of the elective franchise, and does it not rest upon reasons of nativity?

Again, suppose the laws of naturalization shall provide that nine months or six months, so as to remove the act from proximity to an election, shall intervene between the act of naturalization and the deposit, of a vote by the recipient of the certificate, would not that be a discrimination peculiar to that class of citizens, and would it not be made on the ground and solely on the ground of foreign nativity? I know it may be said that the provision touching naturalization might be that the certificate itself should not take effect, that no vigor should be imparted to it when it was granted, nor until a certain period had elapsed. It is possible—probable, if you please—that by some careful arrangement of legislative provisions by way of circumlocution or circumvention you could navigate around a constitutional amendment of this sort; but is it well, is it wise to imbed in the bulwarks of the Constitution requirements or impediments which are to become the occasions of skill in the department of evasion?

I will not multiply words, however, but will come to the second member of the proposition:" No discrimination shall be made as to the right to hold office in any State on account of —1 do not read all the exclusions—" property, education, or creed." Can a State provide that a judge shall be a lawyer? I doubt it if the language I have read be imported into the Constitution. Can you provide that law and the classics together must be pursued as a study for three years or seven years to entitle ail applicant to admission to practice in the courts? The honorable Senator may say that the profession of the law, or the right to exercise it, is not an office or the holding of an office. The Supreme Court has gone very near overruling him upon that point, should he rely upon it. But let us suppose that attorneys and counselors would not be embraced, can you provide that a man to hold an office requiring medical skill shall be educated and licensed as a surgeon? Can you provide that a chaplain in a State prison shall be a clergyman of some Christian denomination? Can you provide that no man shall be eligible to election as surrogate or as recorder unless he has the skill, even the readiness of penmanship and grammatical composition, or the legal attainments fitting him for the place?

In the jurisprudence and in the arrangements, statutory and municipal, general and endemic, to which I am most accustomed, nothing is more common, nothing is more inwrought in the system than the idea that the requisite skill and attainments shall be a part of the merit of the person to be selected or appointed to office. But all this is to disappear in the face of this amendment.

Education in any degree whatever, either as a qualification of suffrage or ofBceholding, a standard of intelligence above the most groveling and besotted ignorance is to be beyond and above the power, above the prerogative of the States. Sir, licentiousness is not liberty and excess is not wisdom; and if it be true that an amendment such as this is the best which has been hammered out on the anvil of this debate, perhaps that fact may prove, as I have silently suspected for several days, that a small number of Senators, such as this body can furnish in large numbers, might take the various propositions suggested and from them all or beyond them all deduce something better, some simple thing, preserving all that need not be disturbed, and rejecting all that is ambiguous and hurtful. As I was not present in the Judiciary Committee when assent was given to one form of amendment I hesitate to suggest any course in derogation of the wish or the view of the committee. I refrain, therefore, from making a motion or making more than a general suggestion; but it seems to me that with so many propositions before us, and with a proposition so open to criticism as this, receiving the preferential approval of several Senators, we might profitably consider whether it would not be well to resort to some more exact and speedy mode of perfecting a proposition than has been found in the long continued debate conducted so ably by those who have shared it.

To submit to the States for their determination whether they will surrender a portion of their sovereignty or jurisdiction is the matter proposed. It is believed that if the States will relinquish their power to determine qualifications for suffrage it will quiet a disturbing agitation. Our whole function is to submit to them the question whether they will or will not do this. I will vote to submit this question, but I prefer to submit it free from needless and objectionable concomitants. I would submit it alone, certainly not together with propositions to surrender also other and different things, better now as they are than as they will be when yielded up.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, I regret very much to prolong this discussion. I feel very much as the Senator from New York does, that we have already exhausted our time and our patience; but there are a few observations made by him to which I will reply very briefly. The House of Representatives sent to us an amendment to the Constitution proposing to abrogate and change the constitutions of at least thirty States in the Union. It proposes to declare that all distinctions made in those constitutions on account of race, color, orprevious condition of slavery shall be swept away. It deals, therefore, with the most difficult problem of political economy, the right of suffrage. The Committee on the Judiciary, of which the honorable Senator from New York is a member, report to us an amendment changing the House resolution somewhat by extending this provision to those holding office, so that no discrimination shall be made against a person of African descent holding any office of honor, trust, or profit in the United States. This changes the constitutions of at least thirty States of the Union. Among others it changes the constitution of the State of Ohio. This is a very sensitive question with our people. The great body of the party to which I belonghave long been in favor of dispensing with and repealing all discriminations on account of color, but we made an appeal to the people two years ago ou this subject and were defeated; and I may say that no change can be made in the Constitution likely to excite so much popular feeling as this proposed change to extend to the negro race in the State of Ohio the elective franchise. I say this freely, because I am in favor of giving to them every right which is conferred by the Constitution and laws on white people.

When we proposed to deal with this question of suffrage we were met with this difficulty: here is au amendment to the Constitution that must be acted on by two thirds of both Houses of Congress and must get the assent of three fourths of the States of the Union; and yet we put this proposition 011 so narrow a ground that we are constantly apologizing for its weakness. Why should we protect the African in the enjoyment of suffrage, when in certain States of the Union even naturalized citizens cannot vote? Why should we protect the descendant of the African, when in certain States of the Union a man who has the misfortune not to be able to read and write cannot vote? Why should we apply this supreme remedy of the Constitution only in favor of this particular class of citizens? Senators must see at once that to rest this constitutional amendment upon so narrow a ground is not defensible, and therefore it has been sought to extend the operation of this constitutional amendment so as to reach other abuses. We know that in certain States of the Union there are educational tests, and there are tests growing out of birth, tests growing out of color, tests growing out of religious belief. None of these exist in the State of Ohio, except as to color. None of these exist in the more modern constitutions. Most of them are the relic of the same sentiment that incorporated property qualifications in all the constitutions of the old States. They have been swept away by time. Now, when we are dealing with the question of suffrage, why not sweep them all away, and say that a man of proper age and proper residence, whatever may be his color or religious opinions, shall vote?