February 9, 1869

Now, the Senator from New York, when we are about to vote on this general proposition, finds difficulties; but if he would apply his mind he would find that those difficulties disappear very easily when they are examined. What are they? The first and chief one he makes is growing out of our naturalization laws. We allknowthatour naturalization laws are defective, that they ought to be remedied. But when a citizen of the United States is naturalized under our laws, then by the act of Congress we declare that he is a citizen of the United States, and there ought to be no longer a distinction between such a citizen and a native born citizen. No man can dispute that. We may, however, very easily guard against the difficulty that he suggests by declaring that no man shall be deemed a citizen until ho has taken the final oath, as it is called, under our naturalization laws. In my judgment a provision of that kind is necessary. A person ought to apply for his naturalization papers, he ought to make the second oath and make the proof required under the law; and then, in one year or six months or two years after this proof is complete, he ought to be allowed to vote. After he is declared bythelaws of the United States a citizen of the United States, he ought then certainly to have equal privileges with the native born citizen.

The Senator says there will be difficulty about theregistry laws. Notatall. The registry laws apply to all, native and naturalized, without distinction. There can be no difficulty. lie also speaks about the municipal law. Mr. President, I do not know that in the State of New York only property holders are allowed to vote at municipal elections in that State; but under the laws of Ohio and under the laws of all the western States every man, whether a property holder or not, can vote at every municipal election. The constitution of Ohio, which I have before me, declares that at all elections all citizens above the age of twenty one years shall vote; and that is the constitution of a great majority, probably thirty or more of the States; and if when we are making these changes we sweep away some of the foolish provisions of the old constitutions I think we do no harm.

So take the case of attoneys. An attorney is not an office in the proper sense, nor did the Supreme Court decide it was an office in the sense in which we use the term; and so of the cases he mentioned of particular qualifications for particular offices. Those are not affected at all by the provisions of this amendment. The amendment applies one general, universal rule, that whenever the laws of the United States make a man a citizen the laws of the United States and the State must recognize his right to hold office and to vote at all elections. That is all there is of it; and we should not be safe, in my judgment, in stopping short of this general provision.

I believe that there is scarcely an example in the history of this country where these limitations upon the elective franchise and upon the right to hold office have been enforced. In the early history of the Government all remember the ease of John Randolph, where the question was made upon him that he was not old enough to hold the office of Representative in Congress. His reply was given, "ask my constituents,’’ and he was sworn in although he was but twenty four years of age. So Albert Gallatin was sought to be excluded from the office of Senator of the United States for want of residence in this country after he became a citizen, and I believe he was finally excluded; but everybody who participated in it was ashamed of it. I believe he was finally excluded by the vote of the Senate, or by his own action. Now, I doubt whether in any State of the Union these provisions which make discriminations between citizens can be or would be enforced.

Mr. SUMNER. General Shields was excluded from the Senate.

Mr. SHERMAN. General Shields was kept out for a time, and afterward reelected and sent back. There is no case, so far as I can now recall, in the history of this country, where these exceptional exclusions and discriminations against particular citizens have been enforced, or where public sentiment would allow them to be enforced. If the people of Ohio, as they have a right to do, choose to elect a naturalized citizen Governor of the State of Ohio within one year after he lives there, it is for the people of Ohio to determine. And, sir, this attempt to control, to limit, and regulate the power of the people in the election of their officers, will always bo regarded with disfavor, and generally will be entirely ignored.

The Senator from Massachusetts tells us that the restriction in the constitution of Massachusetts that requires that before a man can vote he shall read and write is not practically ob served; and so the Senator from New Hamp shire says as to the provision of the constitution of that State which requires a man to be a Protestant before he shall hold office. It is utterly disregarded in practice, and so it will be as to all these provisions in the State constitutions; and so it ought to be, because these discriminations between citizens are not founded in good reason, they are not founded in popular judgment, and when they are brought to the practical test they will be swept away like chall'. 1 believe now that since we are compelled by our position to adopt an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, since public opinion requires it, since the necessity for protecting four millions of freed people in the southern States compels us to treat with this question, we ought to deal with it with all the lights of modern civilization, with all the lights of our modern constitutions, and plant our work upon the solid basis of impartial, and you may say, universal suffrage.

We ought to deny to States the right to discriminate between citizens on account of anything except age, residence, and sex. I11 all other respects citizens should have an equal right to vote. We ought to regard it as a fundamental principle of our Government that all persons arriving at a certain age are entitled to equal rights. We can fairly base our action upon that fundamental principle and submit that action to the people with a certainty that it will be adopted. But, sir, if I go before the people of Ohio with a constitutional amendment such as that which is sent to us by the House of Representatives, or that which is proposed by the Judiciary Committee, how shall 1 be met? Take the prejudice and feeling of that people known to me and known to all Senators, and when I go before them how shall I be met? I shall be told "Here are white citizens excluded from voting in Massachusetts because they cannot read and write; here are people excluded from office in New Hampshire because they are not Protestants. Why do you not correct these evils at your own door, evils brought upon the country by your own friends, and why should you protect only and seek to extend only the right of suffrage to the colored race, who are just emancipated from bondage, who are ignorant, who are without the capacity, probably, for self government unless they become enlightened?" How can you answer it? It is impossible to answer, especially when you meet a prejudiced people who have got to vote on this question. The people of Ohio come from all the old States, many of them from Virginia and Maryland and other of the old slave States. They are full of prejudices. Unless you show that you are willing to adopt a universal rule which tramples down their prejudices, and the prejudices of the people of other portions of the old States where they have not adopted, probably, the more advanced rules on this subject -unless you can show that you have dealt with this question in an enlightened spirit of statesmanship, you will be borne down by popular clamor. It will be said this is a mere party expedient to accomplish party ends, and not a great fundamental proposition upon which you should base your superstructure.

Therefore, Mr. President, notwithstanding the criticism of my friend fr©m New Y ork, which I consider very -ingenious, I think he and' all Our bth r friends here can Overcome all the difficulties that he points out and put crar action upeta the basis of universal suffrage.

Mr. HOWE. Mr, President, I am very sorry for this occasion. I am riot quite prepared to say" with Mrs. Partington that I never open my month without putting my foot in it, [laughter,] but I am- prepared to say that I never opened' my mouth in a' debate of this kind without experiencing the difficulty of closing it finally. If the labor imposed upon this Congress was that of framing an amendment to the Constitution which should be beyond the power of criticism to be employed by a mind so acute and metaphysical as that of the Senator from New York, I should think with him we had better, probably, recommit this resolution to a committee, and a committee of the whole, and give up the idea of passing it at this session. How easy it is to raise objections to any statute or to any paper or to any clause of either nobody knows better than the Senator from New York, and nobody knows so well as he except those who have had the opportunity of hearing him try it, as we have. But how easy it is to remove many of these objections I think the honorable Senator from Ohio has just shown. He has relieved me from the necessity of saying anything, and he has relieved me from the desire of saying much; but I wish to add one or two words to what he has offered.

Mr. President, the very, purpose and aim of this effort to amend the Constitution is to impose additional disabilities upon the power and authority of States. The great purpose is to strip from them the power to exclude from the right of suffrage men who happen to be colored differently from what we are; and now all about me I find Senators who say they are willing to do that. On the o lier side of the Chamber we have heard it asserted over and over again that this is imposing the greatest of all possible hardships on the power of the States and exposing them to the greatest of all possible dangers. That we hear from the other side of the Chamber, and on this side the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from New York and the Senators surrounding us say, "Yes, we are willing to do that; we are willing to say that in spite of the wish of any State every man of any color may vote."

What is the difficulty? Senators bring in here the constitutions of different States, and with an air of consternation they flourish them in our faces and they say," This State, for certain reasons, has excluded certain men from holding certain offices, and this State has excluded certain other men from holding office for certain other reasons," and they say this broad, sweeping amendmentthat you propose rims the plowshare under all these provisions and upturns them all. I will not stop to debate the question howfarthis provision does upturn these restrictions and interfere with the powers of the States; but I wish to ask my friends to give their attention to this one consideration, that when a State says a certain man or a certain class of men shall not be eligible to office it says the people of that State shall not elect tliera to those offices. When a State says that a man shall not be elected Governor of that State until he has been a citizen of the United States for a certain number of years, the constitution of that State says that the people shall not elect a certain man to be Governor. It is a restriction not more upon the right of the individual then it is upon the right of the people, and so far as we lift off this restriction we do enfranchise the whole body of the people of that State; and I am, in this point, of view astonished when I hear Senators stand up here, one after another, and say, "Yes, in spite of all the prejudice which has been piled upon us by our false education for half a century, in spite of all these, we can stand up here and say we will let the negro vote; but we are shocked at the idea of letting the white people have the privilege of electing a few other individuals if they choose to these offices." Senator s are alarmed at that as a dangerous innovation, and yet are entirely content to let this whole body of people come in and have the same right of suffrage that the other body of the people have indulged heretofore.

Now, Mr. President, as I said in the outset, the direct purpose of this effort to amend the Constitution is to put the ballot in the hands of' the colored race here. The effect of the clauses which have been criticised by the Senator from New York and others is only to still further enfranchise the white voters of the States; and in that point of view it does not alarm me very much, for no matter how soon or how completely you strike down these restrictions, I am entirely satisfied that the people of my State never will elect a man for Governor unless they want him to be Governor, and when they want him to be Governor I am entirely willing that they should have him.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President

Mr. STEWART. Before the Senator proceeds I wish he would allow me to make amotion to rescind the order for an evening session and let us go right on. I think we can fiuish this matter in a little while.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think the demand that we shall remain here has become rather unreasonable. It has been the practice of the Senate when a majority desired to arrive at a vote and the minority continued the debate so as to be in the way at all, then to sit it out. But to compel those who are opposed to a measure to stay here day and night, until the majority shall agree among themselves and become prepared for a vote, is rather an unreasonable demand. I am willing to endure a good deal, but there is a limit to the right and propriety of this kind of business. It is not the minority that has been delaying the business of the Senate. We have occupied comparatively but little ofits time. Itis the dissension, the want of agreement, among the majority; the want of preparation to come to the vote. I feel myself that we ought to adjourn until to morrow rest, and come here with fresh minds. This thing of passing upon amendments to the Constitution of the United States when we are completely physically and intellectually exhausted I do not think is a reasonable demand Upon us. We have been here nearly thirty hours now without sleep and almost without food. It is upon the principle that they used to compel a jury to decide a verdict or starve. If the minority were preventing action, then I should say at once the proceeding was more reasonable.

Mr. President,, I had not expected to vote for any of the amendments that should be proposed. 1 am not in favor of any restrictions upon the States in regard to suffrage or in regard to the qualifications of officers of tlie States; but upon carefully regardingthe amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Wilson,] I think it is better than the original proposition. Therefore I am willing to give it my support; not that I approve of it, not that I expect to vote for it if it be adopted, but simply, as a selection between the two propositions, 1 select that which is the least objectionable. I select that, because if we are to go into this question at all I am willing to meet the Senator from Massachusetts, and say that men shall not be excluded from voting or holding office because of any questions of property, of nativity, or of religious belief or creed. As I think his amendment is better than the original, I will depart in this vote from the purpose 1 had resolved upon— to vote for none of the amendments.

Mr. STEWART. I move that, the order for a recess be rescinded.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That motion can be entertained by general consent. The Chair will put the question on rescinding the order for a recess from four to seven o clock The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilsok] to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Stewart.]

Mr. CONNESS. On that amendment I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 31, nays 27; as follows: YEAS—M ssrs Abbott Cameron Cattell Conner, Cragin, Fairy, Grimes, Harlan, Harris, Hendricks, Howe, McDonald, Morton, Osborn, Pool, Bice, Robertson, Ross, Sawyer, Sherman, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Van Winkle, Wade. Warner, Weleh, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates—31.

NAYS—Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Chandler, Cote, Conkling Corbett Dixon, Doofittlo, Drake, Edmunds, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, McCreery, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Ramsey, Saulsbury, Spencer, Sprague, Stewart, Trumbnll, Vickers, and Whyte—27.

ABSENT—Messrs. Bayard, Davis, Fowler, Henderson, Howard, Kellogg, Norton, and Pomeroy—8.

So the amendment to the amendment Was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment as amended.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I inquire of the Chair whether that vote will precede a vote upon the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. Dixon,] or whether it is necessary that the vote be taken upon his amendment now. I understand that after this amendment is agreed to as amended then the question will be upon the resolution as amended. Will further amendments be in order?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be in order to offer further amendments. The question now is on the amendment as amended.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I move to add to the end of the resolution, whenever in order, the following

Mr. SHERMAN. I imagine it is not now in order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment as amended.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Now, I offer my amendment, to add:

That the foregoing amendment shall be submitted for ratification to the Legislatures of the several States tiio most numerous branches of which shall be chosen next after the passage of this resolution.

1 will simply remark that I spoke on this amendment on Friday evening last. My reasons for offering it were then set forth. I do not choose now to repeat them. All I ask of the Senate is the yeas and nays on the adoption of the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 13, nays 43; as follows: YEAS—Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Hendricks, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, Saulsbury, Van Winkle, Vickers, and Whyte—13.

NAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessemlon Frelinghuysen Harlan. Harris, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pool, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson, Ross, Sawyer, Sherman, Spencer, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull Wade Warner, Welch, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates—43.

ABSENT—Messrs. Anthony, Grimes, Henderson, Howard, Kellogg, McDonald, Norton, Osborn, Pomeroy, and Sprague—10.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. DIXON. I now offer my amendment. It is in the fourth line of the resolution to strike out the words "the Legislatures of" and insert "conventions," and in the sixth line to strike out the word "Legislatures" and insert "conventions so as to read:

That the following article be proposed to conventions in the several States as an amendment to tha Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of s tid conventions, shall be held a part of said Constitution.

I ask that the question may be taken by yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted— yeas 11. nays 45; as follows: YEAS—Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Hendricks, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee. Sau sbury Tickers, and Whyte—11.

NAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbeft, Cragin, Drake. Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Harris, Howe, Kellogg, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill ofMaine, Morrill of Vermont, Nye, PattersonofNew Hampshire, Pool, Ramsey. Rice, Robertson, Ross, Sawyer, Sherman, Spencer Stewart Sumner Thayer lipton, Trumbull, Van Wmkle, Wndo, Warner, Welch, Wi llev Williams, Wilson, and Yates—45.

ABSENT—Messrs. Antbony, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Howard, Morton, Norton, Osborn, Pomeroy, and Sprague—10.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mi*. MORTON. I offer the following amendment, which is reported unanimously by the Committee on representative Reform, to come in as an additional article:

Article—.

The second clause, first section, article two of the Constitution of the United States shall be amended to read as follows: each State shall appoint, by a vote of the people thereof qualified to vote for Representatives in Congress, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in tlie Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust and profit under the United States, .shall be appointed an elector; and the Congress shall have power to prescribe the manner in which such electors shall be chosen by the people.

Mr. DRAKE. Mr. President, I would inquire of the honorable Senator from Indiana whether there is any danger of a question arising in the event of the adoption of this proposition in connection with this amendment of this kind: that a Legislature might be willing to ratify one of the propositions and not the other, and yet both being associated under one resolution it could not do that thing, it would be compelled to adopt or reject both of them?

Mr. MORTON. I will answer the Senator by saying that I propose to amend the previous part of the resolution so as to provide for ratifying either article without affecting the other. Of course it would not be proper to make one dependent on the other.

Mr. DRAKE. If it isso statedthata Legislature can choose between them, ratify one and refuse to ratify the other, I do not think there is any objection to coupling them, if the Senate choose to adopt the latter.

Mr. MORTON. That point is to be precisely provided for, I will say to the Senator.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to this amendment.

Mr. MORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 27, nays 29; as follows: YEAS—Messrs. Buckalew, Cattell, Dixon, Doolittle, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks, Kellogg, McDonald. Morton. Patterson of New Hampshire, Pool. Rice, Ross, Sawyer. Spencer. Van Winkle, Vickers, Wade, Warner, Welch, Whyte, Willey, Williams, and Wilson—27.

NAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Cameron, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Drake, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Harris, Howe, McCreery. Morgan, Morrill of Maine. Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Patterson of Tennessee, Ramsey. Robertson. Sherman. Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, and Yates—29.

ABSENT—Messrs, Anthony, Bayard, Edmunds, Henderson, Howard, Norton, Osborn, Pomeroy, Saulsbury, and Thayer—10.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. SUMNER. I move an amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

That the right to vote, to be voted for, and to hold office shall not be denied or abridged anywhere in the United States under any pretense ot race or color; and all provisions in any State constitutions or in any laws, State, territorial, or municipal, inconsistent herewith are hereby declared null and void.

Sec. 2. That any person who, under any pretense of rn ee or color willfully hinders or attempts to hinder any citizen of the United States from being registered, or from voting, or from being voted for, or from holding office, or who attempts by menaces to deter any such citr cn from the exercise or enjoyment of the rights of citizenship above mentioned, shall be punished by a fine not less than $100 nor more than £3 000 or by imprisonment in the common jail for not less than thirty days nor more than one year.

Sec. 3. That every person legally engaged in preparing a register of voters, or in holding or conducting an election, who willfully refuses to register the name or to receive, count, return, or otherwise give the proper legal effect to the vote of any citizen under any pretense of race or color, shall be punished by a fine not less than $500 nor more than Si OUO or by imprisonment in thecommon jail for not less than three calendar months nor more than two years.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted. That the district courts of the United States shall have exclusive juHt dietion of all offenses against this act; and the district attorneys, marshals, and deputy marshals, th corambsioneis appointed by the circuit and territorial court: of the United States, with powers of arresting, imprisoning, or bailinaaffendcrs, and every

40m -No, 66. other officer specially empowered by the President of tho United States, shall be, and they are hereby, required, at the expense of the United States, to institute proceedings against any person who violates this act, and cause him to bo arrested and imprisoned or bailecL as the case may be, for trial before such court as by this act has cognizance of the offense.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, Thatevery citizen unlawfully deprived of any of the rights of citizenship secured by this act under any pretense of race or color may maintain a suit against any person so depriving him, and recover damages in the district court of the United States for the district in which such person mav bo found.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Mr. President, I raise the question of order that the matter under consideration is an amendment to the Constitution, and this is a bill; and although relating to the same subject, it is not germane.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The point of order is not subject to argument.

Mr. BAYARD. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is of opinion that it is in Older. The Chair cannot take cognizance of questions of incongruity.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I had intended before this debate closed to review the arguments against the power of Congress in this matter and to indicate what I believe to be very important to the welfare of this country

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If my honorable friend from Massachusetts will allow me I will move that the Senate adjourn.- This is a very important question. 1 will make that motion.

Mr. SUMNER. Not on my account.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. On account of the Senate.

Mr. SUMNER. In one moment I shall be done. I was saying that I had hoped before this debate closed to have an opportunity to review the arguments, but the Senate will observe that I am not in any condition to address them, strong as is my desire. I have not the voice. I do wish, with my whole soul, that I could impart to the Senate something of the strength of my own convictions 011 the practical importance of this measure and its complete harmony with the Constitution of the United States, not only iu its original text, but with all its supplementary requirements. It will lake some time, perhaps, to review these various points and to answer the objections that have been adduced. Suffice it to say, that listening to all that has been said, 1 have heard nothing calculated to impair the strength of my conviction both as to the power of Congress and the duty of exercising it on the present occasion. I believe, sir, in not exercising it you give up now a great, a golden, an incomparable opportunity of securing peace to the country. "Let us have peace;" that is the aspiration which meets us from every quarter, and I utter it now most solemnly, "let us have peace.”’ For myself I know no way of attaining it now except through an act of Congress. I have done my duty in presenting the measure to the Senate. It is now in their hauds.

Mr. BAYARD. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment, unless it is ruled out of order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is not ruled out of order.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. EDMUNDS. As the yeas and nays are ordered upon this proposition I wish merely to say, without going into any farther debate, that I shall vote for this amendment for two reasons: first, because I am inclined to the opinion that Congress has tliepowertopass such a law; and second, because I think, whether they have or not, itis a vast improvement, over the amendment that lias been adopted, whatever might be the final vote on the proposition. I do not, by voting for it, commit myself to the details of the amendment, which I have not examined. I merely vote for the principle.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 9, nays 47; as follows;

TEAS—Messrs. Edmunds, McDonald, Nye, Ross, Sumner, Thayer, "Wade, Wilson, and iates—9.

NATS—Messrs. Abbott, Anthony, Bayard, Bitekalew. Cameron, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harlan, Harris, Hendricks, Howe, McCreery, Mtfrf an Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Patterson of New, Hampshire, Pool, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Sherman, Spencer, Sprague, Stewart. Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Warner, White, Willey, ajid Williams—47.- k

ABSENT— Messrs Cattell, Henderson* Howard* Kellogg, Norton, Osborn, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Tipton, and Welch—10.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. WAKN ER I offer au amendment j and ask for the yeas and nays on it. I think this debate has shown that the great necessity is a positive amendment,' My amendment is to strike out all after the word "article" and insert the following:

No State shall makeoronforce any law which shall abridge or deny to &-ny male citizen of the United States, of sound mind and over twenty one years of age, the equal exercise of the elective franchise at all elections in the State wherein he shall have such actual residence as shall bcprescribed bylaw, except to suckot said citizens as have engaged or shall hereafter engage in rebellion or insurrection, or whotnay have been or shall be duly convicted of treason or other crime of the grade of felony at common law; nor shall the right to hold office be denied or abridged on account of race, color, •nativity, property, religious belief, or previous condition of servitude."

Mr. ANTHONY. Is that in order? Does it not propose to amend what has already been adopted?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It ia not in order to strike out that which has been agreed to until we come into the Senate.

The joint resolution was reported to the Senate as amended.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. WARNER. I now move my amendment as an amendment to the amendment made as in committee, and I ask for the yeas and nays on it.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

The question was put on the amendment to the amendment; and it was declared to be rejected.

Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAGIN. Let me appeal to the Senator to withdraw the call for the yeas and nays. We have voted many times on these amend ments, and most of us would be glad to getaway.

Mr. WARNER. I should like to have the yeas and nays.

Tlie yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 5, nays 17 as follows:

TEAS —Messrs. Conkling, Kellogg, McDonald, Spencer, and Warner—5.

WAYS—Messrs. Abbott. Anthony, Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Ferry, l ossen den, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Harris, Hendricks, Howe, MeCreery, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Mori ill of Vermont, Nye, Oi born P ittcrson of Tennessee, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson, Ross, Saulsbury. Sawyer, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, TruinhuH, Van Winkle, Vickers, Whyte, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates— 17

AUSFiNT—Messrs. Bayard. Edmunds, Grimes, Henderson, Howard, Morton, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Pool, Sumner, Tipton, wade, and Welch—14.

So the amendment was rejected.

The amendment made as in Committee ef the Whole was concurred in.

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the joint resolution to be read a third time.

Mr. MORTON. Is it too late to offer an amendment?

Mr. ANTHONY. Certainly it is; the joint resolution has been ordered to be engrossed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is too late to offer an amendment without a reconsideration.

Mr. MORTON. I was on my feet, and thought I addressed the Chair in time.

Tife PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator move a reconsideration?

Mr. MORTON. I could not do that. I did not vote m the affirmative.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Senator from Indiana was standing on the floor and addressed the Chair: but in the confusion in the Chamber at the time undoubtedly the Chair did not hear him.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With the consent of the Senate the question will be considered as open, if there is any mistake about it, and the Chair will receive the amendment.

Mr. MORTON. I desire to renew the amendment I offered in regard to electing electors directly by the people. I think it was not correctly understood when the vote was taken upon it before. There certainly can be no objection to the amendment. It is very important. It is to be submitted separately; the one is not made dependent upon the other; and it will Certainly add strength to the whole measure before the people. It will popularize the whole thing. I therefore offer the amendment again, and desire to have a vote of the Senateupon it.

The PRESIDENT jpro tempore put the question on the amendment; and declared that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. MORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. CAMERON. I should be glad to hear the amendment read.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment; which was to insert as an additional article the following:

ABWCLK XVI.

The second clause, first section second article ofthe Constitution of the united States shall be amended to read as follows: each State shall appoint, by a vote of the people thereof qualified to vote for Representatives in Congress, a number of doctors equal 'to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United Estates, shall be appointed an elector; and the Congress shall have power to prescribe the manner in which such electors shall be chosen by the people.

Mr. HARLAN. I wish the Senator who has offered this amendment would explain what he intends to effect by it; in what mode it changes the present manner of electing electors.

Mr. MORTON. Mr. President

Mr. CAMERON. If the Senator from Indiana will allow me a moment, I will say a word. I do not see how I can vote for that amendment. If he will allow the people to vote directly for President and Vice President I will agree to any amendment he will offer for that purpose; j but I cannot see what we shall gain by this proposed amendment. If the people are allowed to vote at once for President and Vice President and you count the votes all over the United States, that will come up to the notion which I have held for along while on the subject, for I think the people ought to be brought directly in contact with the candidates for whom they vote.

Mr. MORTON. As the Constitution now is, it provides that—

Each State shall appoint in such manner ns the Legislature shall direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives."

In other words, it is now left to the Legislature. The Legislature may elect the electors themselves, as was always the case in South Carolina. That is a very dangerous power, placing it in the power of one State, in a close presidential election, where the election might turn upon the vote of that State, with a Legislature elected perhaps a year before, to meet and repeal the law permitting the election of electors to the people and appoint them by a direct vote of the Legislature, as in the case of South Carolina.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Florida so elected last year.

Mn MORTON. Yes, sir. This amendment requires these electors to be appointed directly by the people, and leaves to Congress the mode of regulating that appointment or selection just as Congress may now regulate the election of Representatives.

Mr. CONKLING. It makes no change except to guaranty an election by the people.

Mr. MORTON. That is all: to guaranty an election by the people.

Mr. HARLAN. I wish to inquire again whether under this provision it is contemplated by die honorable Senator that an elector may be elected from each congressional district, or by districts to be arranged by Congress in each State?

Mr. MORTON. It gives the power to Congress to require the election by districts; it leaves the manner of election to Congress just as it is now left in regard to Representatives.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I will ask the Senator whether Congress would not also have the power to provide by law for minority representation under that?

Mr. MORTON. I suppose it would have the same power that it has in regard to the election of Representatives. The proviso is entirely analogous. The effect is simply to refer it to the people instead of to the Legislatures of the States.

Mr. SHERMAN. I wish to ask a question of the Senator. This is a very important matter upon which we are now to vote. I do not want to take up time or delay action, but under that amendment, if I understand it from the hasty reading I have given to it, a partisan Legislature can either district the State and compel the election of electors by districts, or it may, if it chooses, require them to be elected on a general ticket. The Legislatures cannot elect the electors themselves, but they may require it to be done either by general ticket or by districts, and thus a partisan Legislature may control the matter just as it seems proper. Several Senators. They have that power

Mr. SHERMAN. This does not change itMr. PESSENDliN. It gives Congress the power to change it.

Mr. SHERMAN. The only change, if I correctly read it, is that the Legislature shall not. itself elect the electors, but it may either require them to be elected by a general ticket or by a separate district vote.

Mr. FESSENDEN. They can do that now.

Mr. SHERMAN. And 1 say this does not change it.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It puts it in the power of Congress to change it.

-Mr. CONNESS. I call for the reading of it again before the vote is taken.

The Chief Clerk again read theamendment. The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll on the amendment.

Mr. HENDRICKS, (after first voting in the affirmative.) I am not sufficiently satisfied that this ought to be adopted at this time. Therefore 1 change my vote; I vote "nay."

The result was then announced—yeas 37, nays 19; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Dixon, Doolittle, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Gnmcs, Harlan, Howe, Kellogg McDonald. Morrill of Maine, Morton, Osborn, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pool, Ramsey, Rice, "Robertson, Ross, Sawyer, Spencer, Thayer, Vickers, Wade. Warner, Welch, Whyte, Willey, Williams, and Wilson—37.

NAYS—Messrs. Abbott, Chandler, Cragin, Davis. Drake, Edmunds, Frelinghuysen. Harris, Hendricks, McCreery, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of Tennessee, Saulsbury, Sherman, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Yates—10.

ABSENT—Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Henderson, Howard, Norton, Nye, Pomeroy, Sprague, Sumner, and Tipton—10.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORTON. There is another amendment connected with this providing for its separate submission which should be adopted along with the amendment, so that there will be no controversy about that.

Mr. WILSON. I suggest to the Senator from Indiana that he is periling the whole measure by this proposition.

Mr. MORTON. I move to amend the preliminary part of the resolution so as to make it read:

Be it resolved, &c„ (two thirds of both Houses concurring,) That the following articles bo proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as amendments to theConstitution of the UnitedStates which when ratified, or either of them, by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall bo held as part of said Constitution.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I wish to ask a question of the Chair. As these amendments are to be submitted separately, do they not require the vote here to be taken separately?

Mr. EDMUNDS. You cannot do that. It is one resolution.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is all one resolution.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. My point is to ascertain whether, one being carried by a majority merely, it is competent for the Senate to pass upon the whole together?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Perhaps they would have to be divided. They are separate propositions.

Mr. CONKLING. On agreeing to the resolution would that be so?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There ara two distinct amendments to the Constitution proposed.

Mr. EDMUNDS and Mr. CONKLING. But it is only one resolution.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Is it not like a bill of several sections which have been amended, and at last the question is upon the passage of the bill? Now, here is a joint resolution.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on the third reading of the resolution.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Has any member a right to ask for a division of the question?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Not upon the passage of the resolution.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The language of the resolution providing for the separate submission of the two propositions will be again read.

Mr. FERRY. When that is read I desire to call the attention of the Senate to the language of it, for I think, as it is now worded, it provides that if one of them should be ratified both of them shall become parts of the Constitution.

The Chief Clekk. The resolution now reads: He it resolved, &c., (two thirds of both Houses concurring.) That the following articles be proposed to the Legishituresof theseveral States as amendments to theConstitution of the United States, which, when ratified, or either of them, by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall bo held as part of said Constitution.

Mr. SHERMAN. That is, if either of them is ratified, both are to be a part of the Constitution. [Laughter.] This proposition involves an irretrievable difficulty, and I believe is unconstitutional, because I do not believe you can submit separate amendments in this way.

Mr. DRAKE. I suggest that the language be changed, so as to read," either of which when ratified, shall become a part of the Constitution."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be so modified if there be 110 objection.

Mr. GRIMES. I move to recommit the resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary with the various amendments, and let them put it into proper phraseology. We shall never get it in order here, I fear.

Mr. DRAKE. It is all right now if the Clerk will make the amendment I suggested. Let us hear it now.

The Chief Cleric. The resolution now is: Be it resolved, &e„ (two thirds of both Houses concurring,) That the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States a* amendments to the Constitution of the United States, either of which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall be held as part of said Constitution.

Mr. MORTON. That is it.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question will betaken on the first proposition, which requires a two thirds vote.

Mr. EDMUNDS. There is only one resolution, and that resolution declares that "the following articles shall be submitted to the Legislatures of the States." You cannot divide that resolution.■

The PRBSIDENTpro tempore. Tho question is on ordering the amendments to be engrossed, and the joint resolution to be read a third time.

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed. and thejoint resolution was ordered to a third reading.

The resolution as read the third time.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on the passage of the joint resolution.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I shall vote for this measure, with the understanding and on the assurance that the naturalization laws shall not be changed so as to enable Asiatics to become citizens of the United States. If they are changed in that way I shall feel myself at liberty to oppose the ratification of this amendment by the States.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I want to state to my friend from Oregon that he cannot have any such assurance from me, as one Senator.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I have not asked the Senator for any assurance, and I should not expect any if I did.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, we have now got a new proposition before this body that has not been debated at all: one that proposes to deprive the State of "Vermont of the right that the Constitution has given her from the foundation of the Government to have an equal representation according to the number of her Senators and Representatives in the choice of President and Vice President, and proposes to give it to Congress which may be of an entirely different political opinion from the people of the State of Vermont, and to permit that Congress to tell us, by cutting up the body of the State into districts, that the State as a State shall have no choice in the election of President at all.

Mr FERRY DoesVermonthaveanychoice in the election of Representatives in Congress

Mr. EDMUNDS. She has the choice the Constitution gave her.

Mr. FERRY. She will have the same under this amendment for electors.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Exactly; but the Constitution as it stands gives her a much wider choice. The Constitution as it now stands leaves to the State of Vermont the right to decide in what manner, through her chosen representatives, her five electors shall be elected. Now, it is asked that the State of Vermont shall surrender that right that belongs to her to Congress, who, according to their own predilections, may every four years district and redistrict that State and every other one where the majority in Congress can gain votes by it, in order to elect a part of her electors of a different political opinion from that of the majority of her people. I say that is a blow against the rights of the States, and rights of the States that are not based upon any inequality in manhood or any inequality in any other right of a citizen, and it is a long stride in favor of consolidating the powers of the Government in Congress. I am quite ready to make all the strides necessary in favor of liberalizing the rights of the people; but I am altogether opposed to taking away from the smaller States the power as States, through their Legislatures, to elect the requisite number of electors for President of the United States. It overthrows the whole system upon which the Government was founded; and Senators, if they would reflect upon it, I am sure would be satisfied that that is the case. I do not know but that it is designed to do so.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I rise to a question of order. I ask for a division of the question.

Mr. WILSON. I move a reconsideration of the vote on the amendment,

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I insist upon a division of the question. The Senate may adopt the first part of the proposition and reject the rest. It is manifestly a proper question for a division.

Mr. CONKLING. What is the question the Senator wants divided?

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I want the last proposition in relation to the presidential electors to be voted upon separately from the first.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the resolution.

Mr. CONKLING-. I beg to state to the Senator from Vermont that the only question is on agreeing to the resolution, and you cannot divide that question.

Mr. WILSON. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment of the Senator from Indiana was adopted.

Mr. CONKLING. Did the Senator vote in the affirmative?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir; I did. I will first move the reconsideration of the vote ordering the joint resolution to a third reading, with the view of then submitting the other motion.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to.

Mr. WILSON. Now I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was adopted.

Mr. MORTON. Upon that question I shall ask for the yeas and nays. I desire to say one word in answer to my friend from Vermont, [Mr. Edmuxds.] His objection is wholly without foundation. What interest the smaller States can have in the continuation of the present anomalous condition of the Constitution on the subject of choosing electors it is impossible to see. It is right in the small States, it is right in the large States, it is right everywhere to allow electors to be chosen by the people; and that is the substance of this provision. We know that the people everywhere desire this. The danger likely to result from the continuation of the present system has been shown on a former occasion. It would place it in the power of a single State at any time, where the election of President might turn upon the vote of that State, to call the Legislature together and change the law, withdrawing the vote from the people, and allow the Legislature to choose the electors. If there is any one thing upon which this country. is wholly agreed it is that these electors should be chosen by the people, and that there should be no power to withdraw that choice from the people. As the matter now stands, the electors can be chosen in every State by the Legislature, and the presidential election becomes simply a senatorial election. That is all there is of it. But this proposition submits the matter to the people, and it cannot be withdrawn from them. It seems to me there ought not to be a single division of opinion upon this question.

Mr. WHYTE. In order to enable the Senate to reflect upon the fearful condition of things which subjects the State of Vermont to the control of Congress, I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

The motion was not agreed to.

Mr. ANTHONY. What became of the motion of the Senator from Iowa? Is not his motion pending to recommit this resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. I did not know that ho made that motion.

Mr. ANTHONY. I make that motion. I move to recommit the whole subject to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. STEWART. On that motion I call for the yeas and nays. A recommitment is the end of the resolution.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. GRIMES. I will say to the Senator from Nevada that I suppose the Senate has more confidence in the Judiciary Committee than to believe they would attempt to smother this resolution.

Mr. STEWART. There will not be time to consider it.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Why not?

Mr. STEWART. The Committee on the Judiciary would not attempt to smother it; but it is very evident that they would be required to spend some days in considering a new proposition, and then there would not be time to bring it before the Senate and dispose of it at this session.

Mr. ORAGIN. There is no doubt that if this resolution is recommitted it will end it for this session; and any man who thinks the contrary, it seems to me, ought to know better. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 17, nays 38; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Doolittie, Edmunds, Fowler, Grimes, Headricks, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, Saulsb ury Sprasrue, Trumbull, Vickers. and Whyte—17.

KAYS—Messrs. Abbott. Cnttell, Chandler, Cole, Conness. Crftgin, Drake, Ferry, Fessenden, Hurlan, Harris, Howe, Kellogg, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of V ermont, MortoD, Nye, Osborn, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pool, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson, Ross, Sawyer, Sherman, Spencer, Stewart. Thayer, Van Winkle. Wade, Warner Wolen WiUey Wilson, and Yates—38.

ABSENT—Messrs. Buckalew, Cameron, Conkling, Erolmghuyson, Henderson, Howard, Norton, Pomeroy, Sumner, Tipton, and Williams—11.

So the motion to recommit was not agreed to.

Mr. BUCICALEW. I was a member of the committee which considered this subject. We had nearly a full meeting, and gave it a very thorough consideration. We had papers and a considerable amount «ef information upon the subject before us, and it was thoroughly examined. As a member of the committee I joined my colleagues very willingly in the recommendation of this provision; butl have avoided entering, for my part, into the debate so far, in order to save the time of the Senate. But a few remarks now seem to be required.

The figures collected by members of the committee show the present condition of things in regard to choosing Presidents in a deplorable light, and prove that there is danger head of difficulty in our country from the imperfect machinery of the electoral colleges.

In the presidential election of 182 1 between Jackson and Adams, Jackson, with a popular vote one half greater than Adams, received fourteen electoral votes less than his due share, making a difference or change of twenty eight in the electoral colleges between them. He received more votes from the people than Adams and Crawford combined, and yet they outnumbered him twenty six in electoral votes. In the presidential election of 1828 the Jackson electors were chosen by an average of 3 652 votes each; the Adams electors by 6 170 votes. In 1802 the result was: Popular vote. Electors. Ratios. Jackson GS7 502 219 3 139 Clay 550 189 49 11 223 Wnt- 7 Floyd- 11

The total popular vote of Jackson and Clay was 1 2 37 691 and their electoral votes combined 268. A common ratio for them, therefore, was 4 018 from which it results that Clay should have had 119 and Jackson 149 electoral votes. Clay lost 70 electors, making a change of 140 in the result as between them. Jackson should have had30electoral majority; but he had 170, or more than five times his true majority. I will now cite more recent cases:

Presidential Election. 1852.

Popular vote. Electors. Ratio*. Pierce 1 5S5 545 254 6 242 Seott 1 883 537 42 32 846 Hale 157 296

3 126 378 296

Six thousand Pierce voters obtained an elector while 32 000 were required for a Scott elector! Now, dividing the whole popular vote by the whole number of electors we obtain the average or common ratio of votes to each elector of 10 562 Tf electors, then, had been obtained by the several candidates in proportion to the reported popular vote for each the result would have been: Pierce, 150; Scott, 131; and Hale, 15. By the defective plan upon which electors were chosen it appears, then, that Pierce had 104 more electoral votes than his due share; that Scott had 89 less than his share, and that Hale was deprived entirely of electors. And it is to be remembered that the 104 electoral votes to Pierce in excess of his due share really count 208 upon the result in the electoral colleges, because they are deducted from the other candidates.

Take next the presidential election of 1860. Popular vote. Electors. Patios. Lincoln 1 866 452 180 10 369 Douglas 1 375 157 12 114 596 Breckinridge 847 9o3 72 11 777 Bull 590 631 39 15 144

4 680 193 303

Common ratio, lT 446 Lincoln should have had 121 electors, Douglas 89, Breckinridge 55, and Bell 38. Douglas obtained less than one seventh of the electoral vote which belonged to him upon the popular vote. Though second in choice with the people he was the lowest in the electoral vote of the four candidates. If by a slight change of' vote- in; a few States the election had gone to the House of Representatives he would have been" ruled out, as the House must choose from the three candidates highest in electoral vote, and Breckinridge or Bell would probably have been elected by the House.

I might refer to several other presidential elections. For instance, in 1864, the ratio for the Lincoln electors was 10 292 and for the McClellan electors 86 274 In 1868 the difference between the ratios of Grant and Seymour electors was somewhat less, but still very remarkable. In both those elections the popular majority, as reported, secured the result they desired. But this was fortunate or accidental rather than a certain result under our electoral system as now constituted. The election of 1824 proves that a plurality as well as a minority candidate may suffer heavy loss of electoral votes and in fact be defeated. And the subsequent cases must convince us that there is danger of defeat i future elections even to majority candidates.

Tiie conclusion to be drawn from the facts in our political history is that nt any time a candidate with aniinority of votes given to him by the people of the United States may have a majority in the Electoral College. 1 have referred to these facts not only to show that the Committee examined the subject, but that they acted wisely in recommending the proposition before us. It is in ray opinion wise and timely. It will secure to the people the right of choosing electors, and will render possible any plan or measure of reform in regard to the manner in which such electors shall bo chosen.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on reconsidering the vote by which the amendment of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Morton] was adopted.

Mr. DRAKE. That is the amendment known as article sixteen. Is that it?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is the amendment. It is moved that the vote by which that amendment was adopted be reconsidered.

Mr. CONNESS called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 26, nays 28; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conncsss Crngin Drake, Edmunds Forty Fessenden, l rolinKlnivsen Harris. Howe. KcIIobk. Morgan, Morrillof Maine, Morrillot Vermont, .Nye, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Whyte, Willey, Wilson, and Yates—26.

NA YS—Mcsm'?. Abbott, Buckalew, Conkling, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Grimes, Harlan, Hendricks, McDonald, Morton, Osborn, X Patterson of New Hampshire. Patterson of Tennessee, Pool, Itiee, Robertson. Ro s Sa wver Spencer, Sprague, Van Winkle, Vickers, Wade, Warner, and Williams—28.

ABSENT—Messrs. Anthony. Bayard, Henderson, Howard, McCreery, Norton, Pomeroy, Saulsbury, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, and Welch—12.

So the motion to reconsider did not prevail.

Mr. CHANDLER. I desire to ask if the two amendments can be voted upon separately, fori wish to vote for one and against the other.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. They cannot be separated. The whole proposition is now one resolution, and it cannot be divided.

Mr. CHANDLER. Then I suppose I can vote against both propositions.

Mr. CORBETT. As I said before, being assured by the Senator from Massachusetts that he will press his bill to strike the word white" from the naturalization laws, I shall feel compelled in that view of the case, as the result will be to allow the Chinese to be naturalized and become citizens, to vote against this measure.

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the joint resolution to be read a third time.

The resolution was read the third time.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On the passage of this resolution the yeas and nays must be taken to ascertain whether the constitutional two thirds required is obtained. The Clerk will therefore call the roll.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 39, nays 16; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Abbott, Cameron, Ca ttell Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Cragin, Drako, Ferry, Harlan, Harris, Howe, Kellogg-, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Osborn, Pool, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson, Ross, Sawyer, Sherman. Spencer, Stewart, Thaver, Van Winkle, Wade, Warner, Welch Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates—39.

NAYS—Messrs. Anthony. Bayard, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fowler. Grimes, Hendricks, McCreory, Patterson of Tennessee, Saulsbury, Sprague, Vickers, and Whyte—16.

ABSENT—Messrs. Buckalew. Fessenden, jPreling huysen. Henderson, Howard, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Sumner, Tipton, and Trumbull—11.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Two thirds having voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution is passed.