January 23, 1869

Mr. STEWART. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate joint resolution No. 8, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I do not propose to press it to a vote to day, but 1 wish the Senate to commence the consideration of it, so that we can get through with it at an early day.

The question being put, there "were, on a division—aves 18, noes 7; no quorum voting.

Mr. STEWART, i call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. POMEROY. I have no objection to proceeding at. a very early day to the consideration of that resolution; but I have an amendment which I intended to submit to it, and 1 desired to submit it with some remarks upon it. If the resolution is going to be pressed to day 1 shall not be prepared to do so.

Mr. STEWAIIT. I presume there will be no definite action had to day upon it. There are amendments to be offered by several Senators. 1 merely desire to bring the subject before the Senate.

Mr. POMEROY. To take up such a subject in the morning hour merely for remarks is hardly customary.

Mr. STEWART. I want to fix a day for its consideration.

Mr. TRUMBULL. We have upon the table a great many bills that will take very little time, and which ought to pass; some of them of public importance. I have charge of several such, and if I could get the attention of the Senate for half an hour or an hour they could be passed, and ought to be passed to promote the public interests. I think there would bo no objection to them if we could get the consideration of the Senate to them; and the only opportunity to consider them is in the morning hour. Bills of a controverted character have been under discussion which have taken up all the time of the Senate. Now it is proposed by the Senator from Nevada to call up a proposition to amend the Constitution in the morning hour. We shall just use up the morning hour, and it will prevent the passage of a good many bills that there would be no objection to it we could get attention to them. The constitutional amendment doubtless will be more or less discussed, and we cannot get through with it in the morning hour. Let it come up at one o clock some day and' have the attention of the Senate, and let us then hold 011 to it until we get action; but it. seems to me we shall accomplish nothing if we take lip in the morning hour an important matter of that kind, which unquestionably cannot pass between now and one o clock I think we had better go on with the ordinary business; and that is the reason why I have voted against taking it up at this time. It is poor economy ol' time.

Mr. STEWART. The session is drawing to a close, and if there is to be action on this subject at this session it is very unpoi taut that it should be at an early day. Since the resolution was reported 1 have been trying to get the floor every day to urge it forward; but it is utterly impossible to get it up after the morning hour, I want to call it to the attention of the Senate particularly. I believe that there is a general I concurrence that it should be passed at this session. 1 do not think that it will involve long discussion; at all events, I do not propose to make any protracted remarks, if any, on it. I do not care to make any. It is an amendment that is well understood. The principles upon which it is based have been discussed at great length at each session for several years, and it is necessary to get action very soon. I understand that on Monday next the chairman of the Committee on Finance will occupy the time of the Senate with business from that committee, and I do not know for how many days. When that financial question is opened it may last a long time; I cannot tell. There is other business pressing, and I felt called upon this morning to call this subject to the attention of the Senate, and as it is very important 1 will move to make it the special order for Thursday next. I now desire to call it up for the purpose of making that motion. If we can get to it 011 Thursday next it will be making progress. Of course 1 cannot interfere with the business of Monday next unless the chairman of the Committee on Finance will give way 011 that day. 1 now ask that the resolution be taken np, with the view ot making it the special order for Thursday.

Mr. CONKL1N G. I do not. see why this proposition may not be voted upon in the morning hour without fixing a future day and without deferring other business. It relates to a very important subject, upon which there has been, and there might still be, indefinite debate; but, debate upon it would naturally be conducted for the purpose of influencing those here who are to listen to the debate. As no canvass proceeds iu the country now, the temptation would seem to be slight to debate for the purpose of effect beyond the limits of this Chamber; and it seems to me that every Senator must have formed definitely his opinion in reference to the real question involved in this amendment. If so, I see no reason why we should not vote upon it promptly and speedily; and unless it shall turn out by experiment or by a declaration of Senators that they intend to indulge in protracted debate, it seems to me the vote had better be taken at once; and I suggest to the Senator from Nevada that unless an avowal shall be made by some Senator that he wishes to occupy time in discussing a question which I think has been subjected, I may say to the utmost rigor of discussion already in Congress and in the country, he had better hold on to his motion and see whether it cannot be disposed of now.

Mr. STEWART. I should like to have the yeas and nays on the question of taking it up. The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 33, nays 9; as follows: YEAS—Messrs. Abbott, Cameron, Cattcll. Chandler, Cole, Cotikling, Corbett, Drake, Edmunds, Fcssenden, J relinghuysen Grimes, Harlan, Harris, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Osborn, Pool, Koss, Sawyer, Sherman, Spencer, Stewart, Sumner, Xhayer, Trumbull, Wade, Williams, and Wilson—33.

NAYS—Messrs. Bayard, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Hendricks, McCreery, Norton, and Vicker s—9

ABSENT—Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Conness, Cragin, Ferry. Henderson. Howard, Howe, Kellogg, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Pofneroy Ramsey Rico, Robert on Saulsbury, Sprague, Tipton, Van Winkle, Warner, Welch, "Whyte, Willey, and Yates—24.

So the motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole,, proceeded to consider the joint resolution (S. R. No. 8) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United Stales. The joint resolution, as originally introduced by Mr. Henderson', reads as follows:

Re tohed bit the Senate and Ilouieof Representatives of the United States of Amertaa in (Jonarens aivembled, (two thirds of botli Houses concuriing,) That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures ot the several Slates as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid as part ol the Constitution, namely:

Article XV.

No State shall deny or abridge the right of its citizens to vote and hold office on account of race, color, or previous condition.

ThoCommittcoon the Iudieia ry proposed tostrike out the words of the projected article, and to insei t,: The right of citizens of the Unwed States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by t Jie United States or any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The Congress, by appropriate legislation, may enforce the provisions of this article.

The PKESIDliNTpro tempore. The question is on the amendment proposed by the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. WILLIAMS. 1 desire to move an amendment to that.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I understood that when we voted to take np this resolution it was to fix a day for its consideration. I voted to take it up with that understanding. The Senator from Nevada said he wished to fix a day for its consideration. We cannot get through with it in the morning hour, of course.

Mr. STEWART. 1 did not know that it was so understood. I intended to adopt the suggestion of the Senator from New York, but if any Senator voted to take up the resolution with that view and desires to have it postponed, of' course I will make such a motion. I move (hat this joint resolution be postponed until 1 hursday next and made the special order for that day at one o clock

Mr. SUMNER._ On the question of postponement and making aspecial order for Thurs-. day I desire to call the attention of the Senator who has this resolution in charge to the pending question now before theiSouse of Repiesentatives. It is understood that they are this very day acting on a similar proposition, and under their rules, with the previous question, it is supposed that within one or two davs I hev will arrive at a result. Now, the question which I have to submit, to my friend iswhether it would not be better for us to act on the proposition that shall come to us from the House of Representatives? That, of course, will be advanced one stage further to the result which we are all trying to reach.

Mr. STEWART. If that proposition should be passed in the other House to day our committee will have time to look at it and have it before the Senate on Thursday, if this resolution be postponed until that day; and we can then act upon the House resolution, making this an amendment to it, or making such other amendments as the committee may suggest or the Senate may decide upon. In making this motion I desire to have it understood that the subject matter in whatever form it may be here—a resolution from the House, if they shall pass one, or, if not, this resolution—is to be considered on Thursday next.

Mr. DIXON. Before the vote is taken on the motion to postpone, perhaps this* is a proper time to give notice of an amendment which I propose to offer when the subject shall he before the Senate, so that the Senate may have time to consider it. Article five of the Constitution, which relates to the proposition of amendments by Congress, provides that—

The Congress, whenever two thirdsof both Houses shall deem itnecessary shallproposeamendinentsto this Constitution, or on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which in either caseshall be valid to allintents and purposes as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or tho other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."

Now, sir, this proposal of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides for its ratification by the Legislatures of the States, instead of by conventions; and that has been the usual mode, and I am not sure but that it has been the uniform mode of proposing amendments to the Constitution when they have been proposed by Congress. At any rate it has been the mode in recent times. Now, sir, there are reasons, and it seems to me very strong reasons, existing at this time why this proposition, if submitted, should be submitted to conventions and ratified by conventions of the States, instead of by the Legislatures. I propose, therefore, when the matter shall come before the Senate for its consideration, to move to strike out the word "Legislatures" and insert "conventions," so as to urovide that the proposed amendment shall not be .valid until ratified by conventions of three fourths of the Slates.

The reasons for this I will not give now at any length; but I will barely state that it seems to me so important a proposition as this should be ratified by bodies selected for that very purpose. In my own State it is peculiarly important, because in the first place the Legislature in that as in other States is not chosen for that purpose; and then again, as is well known, the Legislature of the State of Connecticut does not represent the people in consequence of the peculiar mode of our representation. It may be said that the same remark may apply to a convention; but I take it if Congress order the ratification to be made, if at all, by a convention, it would be in the power of Congress to say that the convention should be chosen in such a manner that it should represent the people; that it should be chosen in some mode, distributing its members in some way, so that the convention would represent the people of the State.

If it is proposed by the sovereign power of Congress to the people of the whole country to change the suffrage laws of the State of Connecticut, it does seem to methat Connecticut, asacomponentpart of the whole country should have the power of expressing its opinion on that subject aside from all other questions, and that the question should be presented to the people of the State of Connecticut for their consideration; and the only mode of doing it is, as it seems to me, to submit it to a convention of the people chosen for that purpose. Then the voice of the people will be expressed. But it will be very difficult to secure an expression of the voice of the people by the Legislature, especially if that Legislature were chosen before the subject was submitted to them. In this case, I agree, in the State of Connecticut the Legislature would be chosen subsequently; but there are many existing Legislatures in various States of the Union to which bodies it is proposed to submit a proposition of this kind, where the people to this day have never for a single moment considered it. Take for example the Legislatures now in existence, the Legislature of Massachusetts, the Legislature of Illinois, the Legislature of Maine, the Legislatures of perhaps a majority of the States of the Union, already chosen; they are to consider a question of this kind which the people have' never had an opportunity to canvass or to express in any manner their opinion upon. That is a reason why at least the body to ratify should be a body chosen subsequently to this period. That would be accomplished by the amendment I propose to offer.

I will not now go into this subject at any length. My object in giving the notice is that the Senate may have time to think of it, and that Senators may consider whether in a matter of such vast importance as this, a matter which goes to the very root of our republican institutions, changing the mode of suffrage in the States, and not only changing the mode of suffrage but changing the principle of suffrage; that is, taking it from the people of the States and giving it to Congress, the voice of the people should not be distinctly and unmistakably pronounced.

Now, air, it is not only a question as to what the precise mode of this change, as in this instance, but it is a question as to whether the right of regulating the suffrage in a State shall be left with the people of the State, as has been done from the foundation of the Government, to this time. I will not now enlarge upon the question; but when the joint resolution comes before the Senate for consideration, I may take the opportunity of expressing my views more at length.

Mr. FERRY. I should like to ask my colleague a question with his permission, whether he proposes that' Congress shall not only direct that the amendment shall be submitted to conventions, but also direct in what manner the State of Connecticut shall elect its convention, and how the convention shall be composed? It I understand my colleague correctly, he prefers to depart from the usual custom in oases of constitutional amendments, which have been, ordinarily, as he says, submitted to the Legislatures of the States. But in the case of the State of Connecticut, one reason for his proposed change is, as he says, that our Legislature does not represent the people. Does he therefore propose that Congress shall legislate as to the mode in which the State of Connecticut shall choose its convention?

Mr. DIXON. Why, Mr. President I threw out that idea, so far as I did hint at it at all, with a view of answering what I supposed might be an objection to submitting the question to conventions, and that was that the convention would be precisely like the Legislature so far as the representation is concerned. I thought that my colleague and others might say, what do you gain by submitting it to a convention, because a convention to be chosen now by the State of Connecticut would be probably founded on the representation in the Legislature, so that the convention would be the same thing, and therefore there would be no advantage in that except that the convention would be chosen afterward, and in our State there would be no advantage in that respect because the Legislature is chosen afterward. I therefore hinted at that objection, and meant barely to say that if that was an objection it might be provided for by Congress.

Mr. FERRY. Does my colleague mean to have Congress provide that Connecticut shall choose a convention in a particular way?

Mr. DIXON. I am coming to that. I suppose there would be full power in Congress to legislate in regard to the mode of choosing conventions- The Constitution provides that Congi gress may submit amendments to conventions of the States, ami if my colleague will look at the Constitution he will see that the subject is left, I might say. almost in an obscure state as to the mode in which an amendment to the Constitution is to he presented to conventions. The language is, that it may be submitted to the Legislatures or conventions. The question would at once arise, how shall that convention! be chosen? I take it, there would be power in Congress, under the clause which gives Congress power to pass all laws necessary to carry the Constitution into effect, to provide for the mode of choosing that convention. I think that is a constitutional power.

Mr. FERRY. The question I ask is. would my colleague have the power exercised

Mr. DIXON. That is a question of policy which would require consideration, if it were necessary to accomplish the great purpose of enabling the people to pass upon this subject in the proper manner I would not object to it. If it is a constitutional power existing, it would certainly bo 110 encroachment. Whether that would be proper or necessary, I will say to ray colleague, I do not know; that, would be a question for after consideration; but[ can tell liiin that it would be far better for Congress to pass a law on the subject providing for a proper mode—that is ifCongress has the power, if the power exists—than to submit this question to a body which cannot express the opinions of the people. It is certainly important, that the people should have the opportunity to express their sentiments 011 this question. In the State of Connecticut, our unfortunate, I may say rotten borough system of representation, gives the city of New Haven, with fifty thousand inhabitants and nearly ten thousand voters, the same representation itytlie Legislature which the smallest town in the State has with only one hundred and fifty voters. That is the mode of representation in the State of ConiH Ctieut to day The city of Hartford and the city of New Haven, with nearly twenty thousand voters between them, and paying more, than one fifth of the, whole State taxes of the State, if I am not mistaken, have only four 1 representatives in the Legislature. This sometimes works a grievance. It tnav, 1 agree, sometimes work for the advantage of the people of the State, and perhaps of the whole country. It sometimes sends a Senator to this body who misrepresents the people of the State. It may in particular instances, as in the very ease which now exists, work perhaps for the advantage of the people of the State in the' election of my most worthy and estimable successor. But, sir, there is a prejudice, perhaps not umeasonable, in the minds of the people of this country in favor of the Legislature responding to the sentiments of the people of the State, and although in the choice of a •Senator it may not be of as much importance, because that is, although for a term of somewhat, long duration, after all rather temporary, still in a change of the fundamental law of the country with regard to suffrage it is important. I will say one word more with regard to the question proposed by my colleague. If it is necessary to answer it further, I will say to him frankly that I do not know what would be the proper mode of choosing the convention. It occurred to me, as I looked at the Constitution, that it was somewhat difficult to say how it should be done, but I think it could be provided for. and 1 have no doubt his ingenuity would enable him to devise a mode by which conventions could be chosen in the States which should represent the sentiments of the people of those States; and that is all I desire in this connection.

Air. FERRY. I wish it, to be understood that the drift of my colleague s argument is, that in submitting this amendment to the Constitution to the people of Connectieutlie would have our system of representation changed, not by the act of the people of that State, but by act of Congress. Such is the drift of his argument.

Mr. DIXON. One word further, with the consent of the Senate, on that question. I do not know that there is any other method of changing the mode of representation. Perhaps it might be submitted to the Legislature. I do not know but that Congress would have power to authorize the Legislature to point out the mode in which the convention should be chosen; but at any rate, if Congress is to do it, it should be remembered that it is to do it by existing power and authority. If the power exists in Congress, then there is nothing very shocking to my mind in the exercise of the power.

Mr. POMEROY. I do not desire to interrupt this discussion, but simply wish to say that it is far from my desire to put any obstacle or stumbling block in the way of the passage of the resolution. I am for the enfranchisement of every human being in this country who is an American citizen. But if we are going to change the fundamental law I do not propose to allow the States to make any inequalities among their citizens unless they have committed crime. The equality of the citizen is the doctrine which, so far as I am concerned, I shall insist upon putting into the Constitution of the United States a j a part of the fundamental law.

Mr. GRIMES. Without regard to sex or color?

Mr. POMEROY. Yes, sir; without regard to sex or color. If the resolution is to be postponed, as I suppose it is to be, 1 shall prepare an amendment looking in that direction.

Mr. WILSON'. 1 wish to inquire of* the Chair if the question before the Senate is not on the postponement of this subject, to next Thursday, and making it a special assignment for that day?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on postponing the, further consideration of the joint resolution until Thursday next, and making it the special order for one o clock on that day.

Mr. POMEROY. There can be no object in making it a special order. The unfinished business takes precedence of a special order, and nothing can be gained by making this resolution a special order.

Mr. STEWART. I hope it will be made a special order.

Mr. WILSON", (to Mr. Stewart.) Do not contend for that. It will not make any difference.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It takes two thirds to make it a special order.

Mr. STEWART. 1 have no doubt there will bo two thirds willing to make it a special order.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Special orders are very embarrassing to the transaction of business at this period of the session.

Mr. SHERMAN. I may as well give notice now that I feel bound, by what 1 stated the other day, to call up the currency bill reported from the Committee on Finance on Monday next, and I trust the Senate will then be prepared to take up and consider that subject, and kindred subjects that may be presented byineiubers of the Senate.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Do you mean the currency bill regulating the national banks, oi respecting the public debt?

Mr. SHERMAN. The bill I reported on Monday last; and I now give notice that in three days, which I think will be sufficient, I hope to secure action of the Senate upon that bill. I shall therefore vote for the proposition of my honorable friend from Nevada, hoping that in three days we may dispose of the other• subject.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I ask leave to submit an amendment as an additional section to the proposed article of amendment to the Constitution which has been called up, which I desire to have printed.-

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The order to print will be made if there be no objection. The question now is on postponing the further consideration of the joint resolution; until Thursday next, and making it the special order for that day at one o clock That motion! requires the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate, and the yeas and nays will have to be called if there is any opposition to it.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I object to special orders at this period of the session. They always prove exceedingly embarrassing to the transaction of business, and it was for that reason that the Senate changed the rule so as to require a two thirds vote to make a special order. I hope it will not be done in this instance. I have no doubt the Senator from Nevada can call up this resolution on Thursday next without making it a special order.

Mr. EDMUNDS. The railroad bill was made a special order the other day, I think.

Mr. SHERMAN. No; there has been no special order this session, I believe.

Mr. FESS END EN. I will not object to the resolution being postponed until next Thursday, and 1 have no doubt the Senator can call it up then. I shall probably vote for taking it up.

Mr. STEWART. I do not know whether I can get it up ornot. That is the trouble.

Mr. FESSENDEN. There will be no difficulty about it, judging by the vote this morning. Mr. POMEliOY. There is no advantage in making it a special order.

Mr. S 1 EW ART. There are two advantages that will be secured bv making it a special order.

Mr. GRIMES. What are they?

Mr. STEWART. In the first place, we shall secure the attention of the Senate to the subject at, that time, and it will take a vote of the Senate to put it, out of the way; but if it is not made a special order I have no doubt that it will be antagonized by a dozen measures on that occasion, and one of them may obtain precedence of it, because somebody will be very likely toget the floor before I can. Then, again, if it is made a special order it will be a decision by the Senate that they intend to consider it at that time. This is a very important subject. By postponing it until Thursday its consideration is put oil' until wo hear from the House of Representatives. They will probably take action to day and sufficient time will be allowed for action by our committee, if it should bo deemed necessary, and we can dispose of the matter next week. I hope we shall have a vote on the question whether the joint resolution shall be* made a special order or not. I want to take the sense of the Senate on that point,

Mr. FESSENDEN. As I shall not vote to make any subject a special order at this period of the session, 1 ask for the yeas and nays on the motion. It is a matter of indifference to me how the Senate decide it.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas and nays will have to be called, as there is opposition to the motion.

Mr. POMEROY. Is the motion susceptible of division?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair thinks not.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 37, nays II; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, C oibett Cragin, Drake, iidiinui'ls, i'Vi i Vi i y l Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harlan. Iiow~ iint Howe McDonald, Mm nlt of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Osborn, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pool, Rice, Ross, K uvycr Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, 'Warner, Willey, Williams, and -Wilson—57.

N AY S—Messrs. Ji iyunJ Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Hendricks, McCreery, Noi ton, Patterson ot Tennt oe Vickers, ami Whyte—11.

ABSENT AIcsm s Abbott, Anthony, Buckalew, r owior, Harris, Henderson, Kellogg, Morgan, Jlonili ot Maine, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Robertson, Saul bn y Spencer, Sprague, Tipton, Welch, and Yates—18.

So (two thirds voting affirmatively) the joint resolution was made the special order for Thursday next at one o clock