January 28, 1869

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The order of the day is now before the Senate.

Mr. WILSON. Will the Senator from Nevada allow me to put on its passage a bill that will save a few hundred thousand dollars, and which it is very important should be acted upon at once?

Mr. STEWART. I am afraid of this resolution losing its place altogether, and I cannot yield to anything. There are so many Senators pressing me that I must now insist on the consideration of the constitutional amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The order of the day, the joint resolution (S. R. No. 8) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, is now before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole, and the pending question is on the amendment reported by the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. President, I do no propose to occupy the time of the Senate in discussing this great question at any length. It is the culmination of a contest which has lasted for thirty years. It is the logical result of the rebellion, of the abolition of slavery, and of the conflicts in this country during and before the war. Every person in the country has discussed it; it has been discussed in every local paper, by every local speaker; it has been discussed at the firesides; and now we are to place the grand result, I hope, in the Constitution of the United States. And let me remind my fellow Senators that it is well that this work be now done, for we have realized the force of the very pointed sentence which was read here from the Swiss address, that "undetermined questions have no pity for the repose of mankind." This question can never rest until it is finally disposed of. This amendment is a declaration to make all men, without regard to race or color, equal before the law. The arguments in favor of it are so numerous, so convincing, that they carry conviction to every mind. The proposition itself has been recognized by the good men of this nation; and it is important, as the new administration enters upon the charge of the affairs of this country, that it should start on this high and noble principle that all men are free and equal, that they are really equal before the law. \Ve cannot stop short of this.

J t must be done. It is the only measure that will really abolish slavery. It is the onlyguaraatee against peon lawsand againstoppression. It is that guarantee which was put in the Constitution of the United States originally, the guarantee that each man shall have a right to protect his own liberty. It repudiates that arrogant, self righteous assumption, that one man can be charged with the liberties and destinies of another. You may put this in the form of legislative enactment; you may empower Congress to legislate; you may empower the States to legislate, and they will agitatethe question. Letitbe madetheimmutable law of the land; let it be fixed; and then we shall have peace. Until then there is no peace. I cannot add to the many eloquent speeches that have been made on this great question in this House. I will not attempt it. i want a vote. I will not occupy time. The proposition itself is more eloquent than man can be. It is a declaration too high, too grand, too noble, too just, to be ornamented by oratory. 1 hope we shall soon have a vote upon the question,

Mr. BUUKALIiW. Mr. President, I propose to offer an amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is an amendment pending.

Mr BUCKALEW I am informed that there is an amendment of the committee pending. 1 will await the disposition of that. I suggest that the vote be taken on that at once. I believe there is no controversy about it; it is a matter of detail; and then I will offer my amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Ferry in the chair.) The question is on the amendment reported by tlie Committee on the Judiciary, to strike out—

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

And in lieu thereof to insert:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote, and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Now, Mr. President, I propose the following, as an article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to be added to this resolution.■

The second clause, first section, article tvW of the Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:

fach State sHli appoint, by a vole of the people lyereof qualified tnvotefor Ue yre e iU Oiv H in Congress, Ift number of electors 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 and profit under theOnited States, shall be appointed an elector; and the Congress shallhave 7 ower to prescribe the manner lit which such electors shall be chosen by the people.

Mr. President, the provision of the second article which it is proposed to amend reads at present as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in puch manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State inay be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, sball be appointed an elector."

The changes proposed in that provision of the second article are two: in the first place, that electors of President and Vice President shall be chosen by the people of the several States instead of being chosen as the Legislatures of the States may direct. That will always secure the direct voice of the people. Instead of the electors being chosen by the Legislatures themselves, or being chosen in some other way which they may prescribe, a voice by the people will be secured at all times and under all circumstances. 1 suppose this is an improvement in our system which will receiveunanimousapproval. Idoubt sir whether there is any sentiment or opinion in the coun try in favor of reposing the power at present confided in the Legislatures to them in future time.*

I pass, then, to the second proposition in this amendment, which is that Congress may prescribe the manner in which the electors shall be chosen by the people of the several States. At present this power is reposed in the Legislatures of the States. By another provision of the same article it is provided that Congress may determine the time of choosing electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes, which day shall be the same throughout the United States. The power, then, as to fixing the time of the presidental election resides in Congress by virture of the Constitution as it no w stands. The amendment in addition to that will give to Congress the power of prescribing the manner in which the people shall choose electors. This amendment which is a very desirable one, indeed, can be secured in no other manner than the one proposed by me; that is, by an amendment to the Constitution. It is morally impossible that the Legislatures should regulate the manner of choosing the electors so as to secure reform. Now, what is the fact? Many years ago the Congress of the United States abolished the general ticket system in the States for choosing Representatives in the lower House of Congress, because it was seen to be attended with great evils, inconveniences, and mischiefs which required the hand of reform. Fortunately the power existed in Congress to apply reform, and Congress did It required that each State electing more than one member to the House of Representatives should divide itself into single districts, and that a Representative should be elected from each. It was only because that power resided in Congress that that reform was possible at the time it was secured. Some of the States in fact resisted it. I believe two or three States continued to elect by general ticket in spite of the act of Congress, but they were finally compelled to conform themselves to the new and improved system which was established by Federal law; and we now have, therefore, in the election of Representatives in the other branch of Congress, a single district system established and enfored by congressional power. But Congress had no power to reform file system of choosing presidential electors by general ticket. The consequence is that we have that old, imperfect, clumsy, and often unjust mode of selecting presidential electors; and I 'believe that a general opinion exists throughout the country—among thinking and intelligent men at least—that we should have some change and reform in that particular.

I repeat, however, that the only mode in which you can secure that reform, or any other reform in the manner of choosing presidential electors, is to arm Congress with authority to establish a general system, a new and improvf d plan applicable to all the States. If you leave the Constitution unchanged the States will not introduce any new mode of electoral action. The political majority, for instance, in the State of New York, one of the great States, will not, by dividing their State into single districts, or by allowing the voter to cumulate his votes upon a less number than the whole number of electors to be chosen, consent to break, divide, and reduce the political power of his party in that State so long as other States do not at the same time adopt the new plan; and there is very good reason why they should not. Why, sir, a politician in the State of New York would see that he would injure his party, and injure it seriously, by breaking the power of the State as an aggregate body in the presidential election, while other States adhering to the old system and still electing by general ticket, would take the advantage of the change thus made by the State of New York.

This practical difficulty, this impediment, will always prevent the adoption of any reform by the States themselves, each acting for itself and separately from all the others in the manner of choosing electors of President and Vice President. There is, then, a necessity that this power shall be placed in the hands of Congress, and that Congress, by a general and uniform rule, shall apply this improvement to our system of elections throughout the country. Here it can be introduced, and doubtless it will be introduced promptly and at once whenever you have the power conferred upon the two Houses. This is all I choose to say at present upon the amendment to the Constitution of the United States which I have proposed; but I will add a few words by way of explanation.

I do not propose that this amendment which I offer shall embarrass the consideration of the amendment which is pending before the Senate. The two propositions, although they both relate to electionsandto electoral rights, arequite distinct from each other, and they deserve separate and distinct consideration in Congress and in the country. If, therefore, the Senate shall approve this amendment, my idea is that the formal part of the resolution which provides for the submission of the amendment to the different States shall be changed so that the amendments shall be submitted to be acted upon separately, so that the fate of one shall not necessarily be the fate of the other, that the several Legislatures who come to act upon the subjects embraced iu this resolution of amendment can separate them, can adopt the one and reject the other, if they choose.■ repeat, it is not my intention to embarrass the consideration of the original proposition, but to obtain a distinct consideration for this, and although I offer it now, early in the consideration of this subject, I do not care to have an immediate vote upon it. I hope the debate will go on upon the amendment presented by the Senator from Nevada, and that after due consideration I shall be able to obtain a favorable vote upon this amendment which I have proposed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Ferry.) The quesiionis on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WILSON. I hope that amendment will be agreed to.

.\lr. MORTON. It seems to me the amendment is proper 111 every particular. I am forit.

Mr. SHERMAN. Let the amendment be read.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment proposed by Mr. Buckalew.

Mr. STEWART. From the reading of that proposition it strikes me rather favorably, but it is a matter that ought to be examined by a com mittee, and certainly to attach it here would embarrass the original resolution. I should like to have the naked proposition with regard to suffrage submitted by itself; and I would suggest to the Senator from Pennsylvania to introduce his proposition as a separate measure and have it referred to a committee.

Mr. BUCKALEW. 1 drew this amendment with the intention of offering it to day as a separate resolution, and of having it referred to the Committee upon Representative Reform, and of calling a meeting of that committee for this evening to consider this very question. All I desire is that we have an opportunity to obtain the vote of the Senate on this proposition before the resolution now pending passes beyond the reach of amendment. That is my only purpose.

Mr. SHERMAN. If I understand the reading of the amendment the only change made in the Constitution is to require presidential electors to be elected by congressional districts.

Mr. BUCKALEW. No, sir: the Senator is in error. There are two changes proposed by my amendment. The first is that the choice of presidential electors shall be by popular vote, instead of being as the Legislatures of the States may prescribe—a change to which F suppose there is no objection in any quarter. It is very proper. The second change is that Congress shall have power to prescribe the manner of choosing presidential electors. They already have the power to fix the time; and I merely propose to confer upon Congress the power to regulate the manner of choosing presidential electors, under which Congress may prescrihethe single district system, or any other improved mode.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I would suggest, with regard to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania, that while it is very important in itself, and certainly has much in its favor, it is hardly germane to the pending proposition. The amendment to the Constitution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary relates to the right of suffrage. Now, as I understand the proposition of the Senator from Pennsylvania, he proposes to add to the amendment determining the right of suffrage a further amendment determining how presidential electors shall be chosen. Is it expedient for the Senate at. this moment, in considei itig the other and more important, question, to embark upon the question presented by the Senator from Pennsylvania?

I know what a history the proposition of the Senator from Pennsylvania has in its favor. I believe it may be traced substantially to the greatest mind that has been called to consider our Constitution; certainly the greatest of those who at the beginning of its history contributed his powers to its illustration, i mean Alexander Hamilton. This proposition will be found substantially in his writings; never, however, carried into practical life. 1 do not say that I will not support it; I do not say that it is not proper that it should be embodied in the Constitution of the United States; but I simply submit now to the Senate whether it is expedient to complicate the great question of suffrage with this other question, important as it may be.

Mr. STEWART. I do not understand that the Senator from Pennsylvania presses the question now,

Mr. BUCKALEW. The Senator from Massachusetts will remember that the first and very material part of this amendment does relate to the subject of popular suffrage, and it is equally as extensive as the original amendment to which it is offered. It proposes to take from the Legislatures of the several States the power, which they now possess, of directing how presidential electors shall be chosen, and to provide that the people of the several States themselves shall exercise the right of suffrage in the choosing of those electors in the several States.

The second branch of my amendment also relates to the subject of suffrage. It provides that Congress may direct the manner in which that right of suffrage by the people of the several States shall be exercised in the particular of selecting electors of President and Vice President of the United States. Consequently, both branches of this proposed amendment to the second article relate to the subject of popular suffrage, and to the manner in which that right shall be exercised. The amendment is, therefore, most germane, is most appropriate, is most legitimate; and offered as an addition to the proposition presented by the Senator from Nevada no objection can lie to it upon thatground. I repeat, however, sir, that I only desire that this subject shall be considered distinctly and by itself at some time before the present measure passes from before the Senate.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I merely wish to inquire whether if this is adopted as an amendment the two propositions would be submitted as one article, or whether there would be a separate vote on each.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I explained before that it was my design, as soon as it should be in order, to offer to change the formal part of the resolution so that it shall be submitted separately and distinctly from the other.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. STEWART. I should not like to vote for it as an amendment to this proposition nor as an additional section. I would rather it should be considered by the committee and come up separately.

Mr. BUCKALEW. It is offered as a new section.

Mr. STEWART. But it is in the same article, and both are to be submitted together. I prefer that each single proposition should be submitted alone. So I shall vote against it as an amendment, and hope it will not be put upon this resolution, although it strikes me favorably in itself from the reading of it. I hope the Senator will not press it as an amendment. If he does my vote will be against it, but not on its merits. I shall oppose it as an amendment.

Mr. ANTHONY. I was absent for a moment when the Senator from Pennsylvania introduced his proposition. Do I understand that it goes to regulate in any way the suffrage, or only the mode of electing, whether it shall be by the Legislature or by districts or by the popular vote?-

Mr. BUCKALEW. Itis that Congress may prescribe the manner in which presidential electors shall be chosen, and also that they shall be chosen by the people in the several States.

Mr. ANTHONY. Then the only power that it gives is to decide whether the election shall be by districts or by general ticket. Is there anything more than that?

Mr. BUCKALEW. It does decide that the people shall choose the electors. Next, it leaves to Congress the regulation of the manner in which they shall be chosen.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-! tion is on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania.

The question being put, the amendment was declared to be agreed to.

Mr. STEWART. I suggest that we cannot have two amendments at the same time. I call for a division on the question. I do not think the Senate intends to put these two propositions together. We cannot have two propositions pending before the Senate at the same time unless we unite them. I call for a division

Mr. SUMNER. I suggest to my friend who has this resolution in charge that it seems to me the Senate ought to have the proposition of the Senator from Pennsylvania on its table in print before it undertakes to embody it in the Constitution of the United States. The proposition has not passed through the ordeal of any committee. It comes from the careful brain of my excellent friend, [Mr. Bcckai ew but then I presume that even he would not expect that we should receive from him alone a text of the national Constitution without ajiy consideration by a committee or others of the Senate. I think, therefore, in some way that we ought to secure for his proposition, important as it is, more careful consideration than it has had merely from being read at the desk. I hope that it will be printed and will be brought up for consideration on some other day when we proceed with this business.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, the objection that I would have to the amendment, of the Senator from Pennsylvania would be the very opposite to the objection that would come from the Senator from Massachusetts. The proposition of the Senator from Pennsylvania is so obviously right that in no Legislature of the Union, I presume, would it meet with any hostility, but it, would be a popular element in any amendment proposed, and would give strength to the proposition of the Senator from Nevada. Idesire, if this amendment conferring universal suffrage shall go to the people, that it shall go alone, without that which gives it particular strength over and above its own claims to strength. That is the objection I have to the proposition of the Senator from Pennsylvania, for I think experience, as far as it has shown anything upon this subject at all, shows that the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania is a proper one, that the mode of selecting presidential electors should be otherwise than it is now regulated in the Constitution. But as the measure itself is right ill my opinion I cannot vote against it. I do not see why any Senator who desires that the original proposition shall go with strength before the State Legislatures should object to this amendment, for lam sureits tendency would be to strengi hen the other proposition.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A division is called for on the question of agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I trust that the Senate will not adopt this amendment. The amendmentto the Constitution which has been proposed by the Judiciary Committee has been considered by the people of the United States and been discussed before them for years; it has been discussed in Congress; it has been referred to a committee, and this is the result of all that deliberation.

Now, this amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania may be a very good one: but it would be a very hasty mode of altering the fundamental law of the country for the Senate of the United States, on the mere suggestion of an amendment, to change that which has been the law of the country ever since its foundation. I think there may 4 e a good many objections in this amendment. It provides that Congress may regulate the manner of choosing presidential electors. That is taking the whole subject of suffrage from the States and giving it to Congress. It is the broadest step that has been made, if I understand the amendment

Mr. BUCKALEW. The Senator is mistaken in supposing that this takes the whole subject of suffrage into the hands of Congress. It is a mere power of regulation of the manner in which the suffrage may be exercised. The Senator will remember that the Constitution now provides that Representatives in the lower House of Congress shall be chosen by the electors in each State qualified to vote for members of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature. That is the rule already in Ae Constitution. Then, in the first clause of this amendment it is provided that the electors in each State qualified to vote for Representatives in Congress shall choose presidential electors—leaves it to the same rule which now obtains in the choice of Representatives. The same class of voters shall choose presidential electors that choosc Representatives. There is nothing new introduced.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That is very true, as stated by the Senator; and yet the amendment does contain these clear words: that" Congress shall have power to prescribe the manner in which such electors shall be chosen by the people." Just how far these words would carry us certainly merits more deliberation.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I beg the Senator to look to the first clause of the amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The first clause of the amendment corresponds with the statement made by the Senator from Pennsylvania, but these other words may in some manner conflict with his construction. I hope, at all events, that we shall have time to look at it, and therefore that it will not now prevail.

Mr. WILLEY. Mr. President, we have an illustration just now, it seems to me, of the propriety of giving mature consideration to this proposition by a committee. Already upon the floor of the Senate the purport of the proposition seems to be a matter of doubt. Although, like other Senators, I favor the proposition, certainly a matter of such grave import" as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, affecting such important interests, before it is incorporated into the Constitution ought to be the result of mature deliberation. Every word of it should be considered carefully; and the purpose of the Senator from Pennsylvania ought to be so expressed that that purpose can hereafter be carried out so that there may be no doubt about it. I suggest to the Senator from Pennsylvania whether, in order to carry into effect beyond all controversy his purpose, it would not be better to have the matter referred to a committee, so that, the bearing of each word may be considered and weighed, and so that the purpose which he evidently designs, proper in my estimation, may be truly accomplished by the proposition when it comes up for consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BUCKALEW. 1 do not care to crowd a vote on members if they are not ready for it now.« If the Senator from Nevada is willing that this resolution shall be within reach of amendment to morrow I shall be content to withdraw this proposition for the present, so as to have it considered this eveningand proposed as an amendment to morrow

Mr. STEWART. I desire to hold on to this resolution and get a vote, if possible, to day I do not want to delay it for any consideration. It is a simple proposition, and I shall have to resist all amendments that are not germane to the proposition, and I must ask the Senate to dispose of it because there is other pressing business, and if this is delayed for a day or two we shall lose it altogether at this session. It is very important that if passsed at all it should be passed at an early day. Senators all appreciate that, importance. For that reason I do not feel disposed to discuss it; it has been discussed sufficiently. I hope no new matter will be introduced that will embarrass getting a vote on the d stinct proposition contained in the resoluti Oil.

Mr. FOWLEIl. Mr. President, I see no reason why these propositions should not go together. The objection which has been urged against the proposition of the Senator from Pennsylvania, because it does not come from a committee, I do not. think a valid one. I do not know of any great or thoroughly clean proposition that has ever been made which lias not come from the careful consideration of a single individual mind. I would rather take a proposition well weighed by an individual who has had the subject before him for a considerable length of time, and has carefully examined it, than the result of the deliberations of a committee after a certain number of individuals have compared their views and brought their ideas together. Indeed, no very great expression can come from a committee; it must be the emanation of the conviction of some individual, personal mind. I would, therefore, be willing to take this amendment without referring it to a committee.

In regard to the proposition to amend the Constitution, I will say that it i3 known that I am altogether in favor of manhood suffrage, and have been for years. I do not know, however, that I prefer to see the Constitution changed to perfect that purpose. It is a matter that to some extent ought to be left to the reflection of the people, and the change ought to be made by the people of the various States themselves. I would rather see an indication on the part of the people of the United States expressive of their entire confidence in the freedom of the individual than to see us put into the Constitution an arbitrary and fixed rule that cannot be changed and cannot be reformed without revolution.

Besides that, there is another objection in my mind to this provision going into the Constitution, and that is this: if it is intended to be an expression of the fact that the American people have risen to the point of acknowledging the freedom of the individual—that the individual is free—if this is to be an expression of individual freedom, it does not go far enough. While I am in favor of all citizens of the United States having the right to vote and hold office, without respect to race or color. I would rather go a little further than that. I would not by any means be willingto debar the women of the country from giving their suffrage or their expression in regard to the authority of laws to control or govern them, as I do not believe that any responsible person can be controlled' by the authority of any other one. There is no reason why you, sir, should be governed by any other person; and if there is any argument why you should vote, that argument will apply equally well to any intelligent woman in the country. I cannot see the force of the argument which would give to natives of China, of Africa, and of India a right to control the destinies of the women of this country—and recollectlam an advocate of that right—and exclude from a voice my mother or my sister or my wife, an American woman, from the exercise of this inestimable privilege. I intend, when the proper stage is reached, to move an amendment to this proposition for the benefit of the women of the country.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I inquire if the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania is disposed of?

Mr. BUCKALEW. I want the amendment adopted.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is 011 the amendment proposed- by the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I respectfully ask the Senate to pass upon this amendment which I have offered at this time. If the subject were to go over until to morrow and the measure could then bo within reach of amendment I would offer it for consideration at that time, and in the mean time have it printed; but it is so simple that printing it will convey no additional information to a single member of the body. It is, in the simplest language, that the people of the United States shall choose their presidential electors, and that the power to meddle with or molest their right shall not be in the State Legislatures; and it is also that Congress shall possess the same power in regard to the manner of choosing presidential electors that they now have in regard to choosing Representatives in Congress, and may prescribe the same rule, or any other uniform and equal rule, which will secure to the people of the United States fair representation. That is all there is in it.

Now, if at the suggestion of the Senator from New Jersey I stand aside with my amendment, do not offer it upon this proposition, and bring it up hereafter, there is not time for its consideration at the present session. It is this difficulty which induces me to press upon the Senate the convenience and the propriety of now voting upon this subject; and if we should discuss it for a week not a single member of the Senate would be enlightened in the slightest degree with reference to the merits of the proposition. It is a subject perfectly familiar in Congress and out of Congress from one end of the country to the other. It is just one of those things that can be seized upon, commanded completely by our mind when first presented. Subsequent debate and prolonged consideration would produce no changes of opinion.

I am very glad, but I am not at all surprised, to hear every gentleman who has spoken upon this subject express a feeling favorable to the proposition. Why is this so? Because there is no objection to it, and because every one upon the mere statement of the amendment sees that it is one which would be adopted as a matter of course by probably every State Legislature in the country.

Besides, as I said before, it cannot embarrass the original proposition in the slightest degree because we propose to make it separately and distinctly from the other amendment accompanying it to this State Legislatures. If it have any effect, as suggested by the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Hendricks,] it would be to give an odor of popularity to the whole resolution. At all events, even those who would be against the first proposition could say "Well, Congress at all events has sent us a proposition to which we can accede, which is a real measure of reform—a valuable improvement in our system of government."

Now, sir, if this were a subject that required a careful study of language; if it were an involved proposition contained in several paragraphs, it might be well enough to pause over it; but the amendment follows the exact language of the present second clause of the first section of the second article throughout, from beginning to end, with the exception of inserting the three or four lines which secure to the people of the United States the right of suffrage in selecting presidential electors, and give to Congress that necessary and indispensable power to the introduction of any improvement in the manner of selecting them which they now possess in regard to the Representatives in the other House of Congress. The power is identically the same, and presidential electors, under the amendment, are hereafter to be chosen by the same men that choose Representatives in Congress. I insist, therefore, that there is nothing new, nothing novel, nothing surprising, nothing requiring deliberation or prolonged debate in order to the comprehension of this subject. I respectfully ask, then, that the vote be now taken; and I will suggest, in addition, that as we are now in Committee of the Whole, the adoption of this amendment does not put it beyond the reach of the Senate. When the resolution shall be reported to the Senate and be on its third reading it will still be within reach of a vote, and if anybody can suggest any objection to it then that objection can be made.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, this proposition on the present occasion is an entire surprise to me, and I doubt not it is to many other Senators. It proposes a radical change in the system of choosing the President of the United States. Is the Senate ready to enter upon the consideration of that question—how shall the President of the United States be chosen? My friend from Pennsylvania who presents us this proposition has doubtless considered carefully the whole subject in all its bearings. He is doubtless prepared to express an opinion on a question greater than that which he has presented—whether the President of the United States shall be chosen by the people directly, without the intervention of Electoral Colleges. His proposition assumes that there shall be Electoral Colleges; that that early, but I may say now effete, system shall continue with a new sanction in the Constitution.

Sir, if there is to be a change I would prefer a much more radical change than that now moved by the Senator from Pennsylvania. I should prefer that the President of the United States should be chosen directly by the people of the United States without the intervention of any Electoral College. That college has become a sham. It is nothing but a name. It has never fulfilled the original idea of the founders when they constituted it, A practical question well worthy of debate is whether what has become nothing but a name shall not cease to exist. Now, sir, if we are going into the question of how the President, of the United States shall be chosen, I prefer to present the question on a higher plane. I ask the Senate to consider whether this whole system of Electoral Colleges shall not be made to disappear. I would much rather do that than prop it up by supplementary provisions like that now proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from Pennsylvania whether,' under the last clause of his amendment, which provides that Congress may regulate the manner in which the presidential electors shall be elected, it would not be competent for Congress to pass an act authorizing minorities to be represented in the Electoral College?

Mr. BUCKALEW. If the Senator asks me the question I will answer very promptly: as a matter of course Congress could do so.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I suppose so; and therefore we see how important the proposition is, and one which is not certainly to be passed upon within half an hour. Whether we are prepared to say that the Congress of the United States shall have at any future time the power to authorize minorities to be represented in the Electoral College, is a grave question which ought to be pondered carefully before voted upon, and therefore I hope that this amendment will not be adopted.

Mr. BUCKALEW. The Senator from New Jersey makes a suggestion which is pertinent, of course. The very object of establishing single districts was to divide representation in the States. I alluded to that subject before Congress did to pass such a law in regard to the choosing of Representatives in the lower House of Congress. Now, it is to get away from the very evil which the Senator from Massachusetts has depicted as attending upon Electoral Colleges that I propose to give this power to Congress. He justly denounces the Electoral Colleges as a sham. Why, sir, they are worse than a sham; they are positively pernicious. These elections by general ticket, it is understood throughout the country, are unjust and unfair. However, I do not propose to introduce any new plan here in this amendment; I only propose to leave it open to the judgment of Congress.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania, upon which a division is demanded.

A division being had, it appeared that there was not a quorum voting.

Mr. STEWART. I call for the yeas and nays.„

Mr. BUCKALEW. To save embarrassment for the moment, as I suppose the debate will go on upon the general subject, I withdraw the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I will offer it hereafter.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I desire to offer a substitute for the proposition reported by the committee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senater from Oregon is not now in order, and will not be until the resolution shall be reported to the Senate, as already the amendment reported by the committee has been adopted, and he proposes to strike out that which has been already adopted. The amendment of the Senator from Oregon will be in order when the resolution shall have been reported to the Senate.

Mr. WILLIAMS. There was a misapprehension about that, I suppose, on the part of the Senate, particularly on my part. I did not know that the adoption of the amendment reported by the committee would cut off all other amendments.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will remark that that amendment can be amended by adding to it, but not by striking out that which has already been adopted.

Mr. STEWART. The question can be tried in the Senate.

Mr. DAVIS. I move to amend the resolution by adding:

And this and all* future proposed amendments to the Constitution, whether proposed by the Congress or a convention called by Congress on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, instead of being submitted to the Legislatures or to conventions of tlio several States, shall be submitted to the vote of the people of each State; and if a majority of the people entitled to vote on the proposed amendment in three fourths of the several States shall vote in favor of the proposed amendment it shall, to all intents and purposes, be a part of the Constitution.

Mr. President, the party in power professes to be very democratic. I believe it makes louder pretensions to democracy than the Democratic party ever did or now do. But what is its practice? The honorable Senator from Nevada, who has charge of this measure, wants to submit his proposed constitutional amendment to Legislatures already elected. He wants to attach the amendment to the Constitution by the first heat. How do he and his friends carry out their professions of democracy? The Legislatures already chosen are to act upon this amendment, although they were elected by the people in advance of it and without regard to it. Now, my proposition is that neither the Legislatures already chosen, nor those which may hereafter be chosen, nor any convention chosen in the several States, shall be called upon to act on the ratification of this proposed amendment to the Constitution, but that that question shall be submitted directly to the people of the various States.

Now, sir, what necessity is there for having a proposition to amend the Constitution submitted either to a Legislature or a convention in a State called for the purpose of acting on the proposition? They cannot add to the proposition; they cannot subtract from it; they cannot modify it. The proposition is to be voted for or against as a totality, as an entirety, as a matter beyond the control of the body to which it is submitted either for acceptance or rejection.

If the people are capable of self government if they can comprehend a simple proposition submitted to them to amend their constitution, which proposition when they act by a Legislature or convention of the State, that convention or Legislature has no power whatever to vary, where is the utility, the good sense, or the principle of submitting it to an intervening body either called a Legislature or a convention of the people of the State? Let the question come before the people of the State just as questions in relation to their own constitution are thrown before them. \V When a State proposes to amend its constitution it either submits to the people all the amendments as an entirety, or it submits the several amendments as distinct and separate propositions. Here the honorable Senator from Nevada proposes to submit a distinct proposition for an amendment of the Constitution. He desires and proposes that it shall be submitted to the Legislatures now in existence, now in being. I am opposed to it; among other reasons for this one: these Legislatures have not been chosen with a view to the question or principle involved in the proposed amendment of the Constitution. They have been chosen irrespective of that question of principle, in ignorance of it. They have been elected not with a view to act upon it. The people in selecting and choosing them had no reference whatever to what would be a proposed amendment of the Constitution before them, such a one as is embodied in the proposition that is now before the Senate.

Can the Senate of the United States, the Congress of the United States, the people of the United States, be engaged in a more important and solemn matter than that of amending their fundamental law? Is it a matter of substance that these propositions to amend the Constitution shall go before the people of the States, and shall be acted upon by the people of the States either through their Legislatures or their State conventions called for that particular and special purpose? If it is not an idle form—I agree that it is in practice nothing else—but if it is not intended to be continued as an idle form, why submit this important matter of amending the Constitution of the United States to a body that has been chosen some considerable time previously, and that was elected and chosen with no reference whatever to so important a. matter?

But, Mr. President, I go further than that. I say that it is unseemly; it is not in accordance with the principles and analogies of our system of government, and it is unsafe iu practice to submit these amendments either to the Legislatures already elected of the States or the Legislatures to be hereafter elected, or to conventions elected in the States for the sole purpose of considering the proposed amendment. The best, the safest proposition, that in most analogy to all the principles of our Government, is to submit a proposition which cannot be changed, cannot be modified, can in no way be altered, not to a Legislature or a convention, but to the sovereign people themselves.

Sir, what objection is there to my proposition? There cannot be any objection on principle, but there may be an apprehension, and 110 doubt is an apprehension to a considerable extent, that if the submission of an important proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States is withdrawn from the existing Legislatures and is submitted directly to the people of the States the people of the States will reject it. I cannot conceive of opposition to the amendment which I have offered upon any other consideration than a fear to trust the people themselves with the decision of this important question. I therefore make the proposition in perfect good faith. It' the proposed constitutional amendment was in accordance with my views and principles, which it is not, I would say as a permanent, unalterable principle of amending the Constitution of the United States, whenever a proposition to that effect has been made either by Congress or by a convention called by the States in obedience to the recommendation of Congress, that the proposed amendment should be submitted to the people themselves in their primary and sovereign capacity. I am utterly opposed to superseding the sovereignty of the people on the great question of altering their fundamental law in relation to a most important and vital principle. I am altogether opposed to the sovereign power being superseded by Legislatures that have already been elected without any reference whatever to the action of its members upon such a proposition.

I therefore hope, Mr. President—no; I cannot say I hope—I desire that my proposition shall be accepted. I have no idea that it will be, no faith that it will be, because it would defeat the purposes of the gentlemen who propose and advocate this amendment if they were to submit it to the sovereign people of their respective States. They are the most beautiful party in the world in theory, altogether for democracy, for the power of the people, the sovereignty of the people, their right to amend or alter, modify or abolish their governments as they see proper. These are the beautiful theories of this Radical party; but whenever the Radical party are asked to put their theories into practice, and the practice threatens to jeopardize any favorite proposition of theirs, they have the greatest facility in the world of putting aside their theories. Gentlemen, is not this so? If it is not. come up and vote to lay this proposed amendment to the Constitution before the sovereign people of your respective States.

Mr. SHERMAN. Would that not violate the Constitution?

Mr. DAVIS. It would not violate the Constitution. I propose to change the Constitution in that respect. What would be done in the State of my honorable and most respected friend if my proposition should be adopted? Why, sir, negro suffrage would not touch bottom; it would be ingulfed so deep that it would never be heard of again. What would be done in the Empire State, which my honorable friend [Mr. ConkunqJ represents in part so ably? They might adopt it with a property qualification, but never in that latitude which is contemplated by the father of the measure, the distinguished and immortal Senator from Nevada. [Laughter.] What would become of this constitutional amendment in the State of Kansas, the State represented by the honorable Senator, [Mr. Pomeroy,] who, in relation to questions of order, is always the oracle of this body? What would become of it in Michigan?

Mr. POMEROY. If the Senator will allow me, I think the Legislature of my State will adopt this constitutional amendment in twentyfoui hours.

Mr. DAVIS. That is not my proposition. I have no doubt the honorable Senator believes so, and that is the very reason why he would vote against my proposition. My proposition is that it shall not be submitted in the State of Kansas to a Legislature already elected, manipulated, and I suppose as much committed as the human mind and will can be committed; but I want it submitted to the people of Kansas. Are you afraid to trust your people? If you are they ought to be afraid to trust you, and I am not satisfied that they would not have much more ground for their distrust than you would have. [Laughter.] No, gentlemen. If you are Democrats, if you are devoted to the principles that the people

Air. THAYER. We are Republicans.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, if you are Republicans you ought to adopt my proposition. What does a republican mean? He who represents the will of his constituency. Now, I ask if his constituency cannot express its will better than he can upon a proposition to adopt or reject an amendment to the Constitution? No, gentlemen; you are not going to have this amendment tried, but you will be tried and you will be found wanting, all of you. [Laughter.]

Mr. THAYER. We have been tried.•

Mr. DAVIS. But you may be tried again m the forum of the sovereign people some of these days. There will come a day of retribution. It is along lane that never turns. Yours has run for rather a long time in the same direction, and in a direction to the common ruin of Government, and people. It is time for you to change the route of your lane. Why will you reject this propositi >n? If you do, as I know you will, the people will say that you are more devoted to your own interests, to your own faction, to your own continuance in power, to the offices and spoils and plunder of the Government, than you are devoted to the Government itself and to their interests. That is what the people will say; I do not say so. [Laughter.]

Mr. THAYER. The people spoke last fall.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; the people spoke last fall, and what did they say? They just said that General Grant should be President. Every man who has any notion, any political fantasy, any pet idea that he imagines General Grant would support, says that the people in electing General Grant decided in favor of his whim and his notion. That is all nonsense. The people last fall decided upon one question, and that was that General Grant should be President of the United States. They never decided any principle.

Now, sir, I submit this proposition to the Senate. It is one that I would make in any political position or with any political relations that it would be possible for me to have. I believe the proposition is right in itself. I do not want gentlemen to continuean unconstitutional, unjust, and mischievous system of legislation. 1 want them to do what is right and just for the people, under the Constitution, and that will promote their good and prosperity. So far as they make propositions of that character I assure them they shall have my support, and I think I am making a proposition of that kind now.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky tells us that in proposing this amendment we are seeking to perpetuate our power. A word to the Senator on that point. He knows and I know that this whole struggle in this country to give equal rights and equal privileges to all citizens of the United States has been an unpopular one; that we have been forced to struggle against passions ns and prejudices engendered by generations of wrong and oppression; that we have been compelled to struggle against great interests and powerful political organizations. I say to the Senator that the struggle of the last eight years to give freedom to four and a half millions of men who were held in slavery, to make them citizens of the United States, to clothe them with the right of suffrage, to give them the privilege to be voted for, to make them in all respects equal to the white citizens of the United States, has cost the party with which I act a quarter of a million of votes. There is not to day a square mile in the United States where the advocacy of the equal rights and privileges of those colored men has not been in the past and is not now unpopular. Yes, sir, the cause of the poor, wronged, oppressed negroes has been, now is, and for some years will continue to be, an unpopular cause. The public man or the political party that honestly and zealously espouses their cause will continueto be misunderstood, misrepresented, and maligned. In the past the true and tried friend of the black man has been made to feel the hatred and power of the enemies of the black race. It is too much so now, and I fear it will be so in some portions of the country for years to come.

But my doctrine is, no matter how unpopular it is, no matter what it costs, no matter whether it brings victory or defeat, it is our duty to hope on and struggle on and work on until we make the humblest citizen of the United States the peer and the equal in rights and privileges of every other citizen of the United States. Sir, I do not intend to cease my efforts until that end is fully accomplished. Let us give to all citizens equal rights, and then protect everybody in the United States in the exercise of those rights. When we attain that position we shall have carried out logically the ideas that lie at the foundation of our institutions; we" shall be in harmony with our professions; we shall have acted like a truly republican and Christian people. Until we do that we are in a false position, an illogical position—a position that cannot be defended; a position that I believe is dishonorable to the nation with the lights we have before us. Through all the contests of the past thirty five years 1 have looked to the final consummation of the perfect equality of citizens of the United States in rights and privileges and the complete protection of all citizens in their rights and privileges. Peace can only come in all its power and beauty by the complete triumph of equality and justice.

To the Senator from Kentucky I say he may accuse us of anything else but the idea of advocating this policy with a view of obtaining votes or Strength or power. He lias already taunted us with the weakness of this cause; he has asked us how it would be if we sntmnitod to the people this amendment; he tells us that in certain States we would be voted down. Sir, all our knowledge assures us that every single question pertaining to the rights of the black men of this country during the s ruggle of the last nine years instead of bringing us votes has cost us votes. We have had to battle against the persistent opposition of the Senator himself. We have had to battle against the powerful opposition of those with whom he has chosen to act; and, more than all, we have had to battle against the prejudices, as I think the ignorant prejudices, of a portion of our countrymen; against the prejudices, too, of a small portion of our own political friends. When the proposition was made to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia I remember that the Senator made an earnest, I may say a passionate, speech against it, in which he prophesied great evil to the city and to the country. I remember, too, that at that time there were many Republicans in Congress who hesitated and doubted; there were many Republicans throughout the country who hesitated and doubted. We had to drag along with us a great many of our reluctant political associates. When we put muskets into the hands of black men to help to fight the battles of the country we not only had s ern opposition here in the Senate and in the House of Represent1 atives, but we had it in the country; we had it in the ranks of the Army; we had it everywhere. We acted contrary to' the sentiment and feeling of a great portion of the men who are with us. So it was on every question, until we came to Mr. Lincoln s proclamation of emancipation; that proclamation which the earnest men in the Senate and in the House of Representatives—which you, sir, and many of us here—pleaded and begged for day after day and month after month, because we knew it would put the country in harmony with the decrees of Almighty God. When it came it encountered a storm of passion and prejudice. State after State fell away. Thousands turned their backs upon Mr. Lincoln. That act of emancipation, so gloried over to day cost us for months the support of many of those who had acted with us. We bad to encounter the sternest denunciation of those who were against us.

The crowning act of emancipation, the great constitutional amendment, was sternly resisted. The fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution, the civil rights bill, the Freedman s Bureau bill, every measure that we have passed to enlarge the rights and privileges of that emancipated race, to protect them, to lift them up, has encountered not only the sternest opposition of those who were against us politically, but it has encountered the prejudices of a portion of those who" ordinarily vote with us. Men who have been trusted and honored, who have held seats in these Chambers and in the Cabinet, have hesitated, have faltered, have left us and joined the ranks of our defamers. This constitutional amendment, which if it be submitted to the people and sustained by the States is to crown the great work, to make every citizen equal in rights and privileges, will cost us the opposition of some of our political associates. But no matter what timid friends say about it, it is right, absolutely right, and it is our duty in the light of to day to take the responsibilities of our position, submit it to the people of the country, and do all we can to have it speedily ratified by the States. When it becomes a part of the Constitution, as I have faith it will, then the great work, so far as legislation is concerned, will have been accomplished. Then we shall have equality among all male citizens of the United States at least; and then we will protect the citizens of the country in the exercise of those rights. With an administration coining into power pledged to liberty and equality of rights and privileges, pledged to peace, I believe before the lour years pass away we shall become' accustomed in all parts of the country to see all classes of our citizens peacefully exercising their rights. When that day comes, as come it "will if we are true and brave, we shall have peace and good neighborhood and kindly feeling all over the country; these questions that have excited so much of passion and prejudice will have passed away; the country will be lifted up and carried forward. When the work is achieved all sections of the country will thank God that it is accomplished, and the people will wonder why it was that they ever made any opposition to its accomplishment.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, it is not my purpose to discuss the amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States now before the Senate. My opinions have been on one or two occasions expressed to the Senate upon that subject. I think that the history of the last two or three years does not strengthen the position of gentlemen• who claim that the right of suffrage ought to be extended to the colored population. The governments that have been established in some of the States under that policy are not such a success in protecting person and property and promoting the prosperity and peace of the people as will justify any very confident demand made by the friends of this measure.

The question which I wish to discuss just now is that of the proper submission of this amendment to the people or to the States. I am not able to concur in all of the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky. One of the features of his proposition- is that the amendment may be submitted to the people of the States to be voted upon in the popular way by the people. I am not aware of any provision of the Constitution of the' United States authorizing the ratification of an amendment in that mode So far as the future is concerned, I have no doubt that we may so amend the Constitution. The question which I wish to speak of now is, hovv shall this amendment be considered by the people? It is radical and important, and it should be decided in the country according to the will and the pleasure of the people. How can that be done? In the absence of a constitutional provision authorizing it, I cannot see how it can be submitted to a popular vote in the States. There are only two modes of ratification: one is by the Legislatures of the States, and the other by convention s called in the States; and it seems to be competent for Congress to decide upon the mode of ratification as between these two modes. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dixon] has proposed a submission to conventions in the States, as I under stand it. That is the nearest possible approach that we can now make to the people with this amendment. I wish we could provide, but I am not clear that it is practicable, that this amendment shall not be considered by any Legislature already selected. If it could be submitted to Legislatures the members of which g are hereafter to be elected that would answer every purpose, as I think, desired by the Senator from Connecticut; but I suppose it is not j racticable or possible for Congress to say to the States what particular Legislature shall consider the amendment. I am not sure upon that question, I wish I could feel sure that we might say that the Legislatures now elected shall n ot consider it. I want, in some mode or other, the people to pass upon this measure. Ii they decide that suffrage in this country shall be without limit, then, of course, it becomes their voice; it becomes right so far as Government is, concerned; but until that is done no submission will be altogether satisfactory. So that I know of no mode by which we can secure .the voice and judgment of the people except that suggested by the Senator from Connecticut; and what I wish to say now to the Senate is in favor of that proposition.

I submit to honorable Senators on all sides that none of lis to dSy politically stand in a position to deny this proposition. It is proposed by the Senator from Connecticut that the people in the selection of delegates to the State conventions shall have a voice upon this matter. It is their matter. It is ours no further than we constitute a part of the body of the people. The' Senator from Connecticut proposes that the people shall speak upon the great question of changing the Constitution of the United States in regard to the exercise of political power. Is that unreasonable 1 Is it not right? Did not this Government come from the people through State conventions? Is it not right that when we change it we shall come as near to the people as is possible?

Who says that a member of a Legislature' elected last: summer or fell ought to act upon a question that was not considered by the people when they elected him? Did I understand some Senator to say that this question was considered in the election? I think some Senator interrupted the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and called his attention to the election of last fall. I call your attention to the election of last fall, honorable Senators, and I ask you now to stand upon the pledge of honor that your party made to the people in the election last fall.

The position of the Democratic party last summer, I presume, is nota question of doubt or of uncertainty. That the Democratic party, in castingits vote for Seymour and Blair, did not vote for negro suffrage, is plain enough. That the Republican party last fall in voting for Grant and Colfax cast a vote against universal suffrage is as plain. You took the question away from the people. You said that they need not considerit. Yousaid that they should not consider it last summer; and now I understand it to be proposed to submit it to Legislatures that are not again responsible to the people, but that were elected before this question is submitted. The second section of the Chicago platform, not yet a year old, declared the doctrine of the Republican party, and -I simply ask honorable Senators now to make the pledged and plighted faith of their party to the country good and true, and not in the face of the nation and of humanity to give it the lie:

"The guarantee by Congress of equal suffrage to all loyal men at the South was demanded liy every consideration of public safety, of gratitude, and of justice, and must be maintained."

That is plain enough. In that you say that the guarantee of suffrage to all the loyal men in the South was called for by high considerations and must be maintained. Your party took plain ground upon that question; but in the northern States, in the State that I have the honor to represent in this body, what position did you take? You go on to say:

"While the question of suffrago in nit the loyal Statesproperly belongs to the peouleof those States.' Not yet a year old is this political faith, declared by the grand council of your party, upon which Grant and Colfax stood before the people; and now you propose, without giving the people a voice or a hearing upon the question, to say that the right to control suffrage in the northern States does not belong to the people of those States.

I ask honorable Senators, upon this question of submission for ratification, what that plighted faith of a great party to the people did mean? Was it an evasion? If so, your party is unworthy of a nation s support. Was it a trick and a fraud? Then you are not only unworthy of a nation s support but worthy only of the condemnation of virtuous manhood everywhere and in all ages. To the people you submitted the question last fall, did you? You interrupt the Senator from Kentucky and say that the election last fall meant, something! If so, what did it mean? You said to the party when they cast ballots for Grant and Colfax: Your ballot, if it means anything on this subject means just two propositions: first, that in the southern States Congress shall maintain equal suffrage' to loyal men; but in the other States, in the northern States the right to control suffrage belongs tothe people of those States,"'- Did it belong to them? Then give them a voice upon it and make this declaration of your party true, and not stand before the nation and before the- world as declaring a falsehood in a national platform.

Circumstances may change in a country so as that ►he policy of a party must change somewhat. I have heard much said about "the logic of events." I have heard inconsistencies in political action and conduct and faith apologized for upon the general proposition of'; the logic of events." But since the 20th day of May last up to the present hour what events have occurred that change this question? The negroes were free then—as free as now; your understanding of the subject was as ample then as now; and you said that in Indiana the right to control suffrage properly of right belonged to the people of that State. Now you propose to take it away from them, and, whatever may be the voice of Indiana, if you can get the concurrence of three fourths of the State Legislatures you propose to say to the people of Indiana, "It is not properly your right to control suffrage; it does not belong to you; our Chicago platform was false upon that subject." Men may be untrue to their political faith elsewhere, where offices are to be obtained, where political power is to be held; but in the Senate of the United States may I not appeal to the representatives of great States to stand by pledged and plighted faith? Now, is this wrong that is asked by the Senator from Connecticut? He asks that this amendment shall be submitted to the people, the people whose Government you propose to change, that they may have a voice on this question; not that the men who hold office now in the Legislature of the "State of Indiana, but thegreat body of voters, three hundred and seventy thousand of them, in the State of Indiana, shall be heard upon this amendment. I almost understood the argument of the Senator from Massachusetts to be an admission that the people were against it. If the people are against it what right have you to change the Government? Is it not the Government of the people, made by them and for themselves?;

Then, Mr. President, the proposition is a distinct one. Now, inasmuch as you propose to take a position contrary to the position upon which your President elect was chosen by the people, now as you propose to throw upon Mie country a new position upon this question, the proposition of the Senator from Connecticut is that it shall go as directly to the people as can be under the circumstances of the case. My appeal then is, that Senators will so amend this proposition as that it shall go to the people. Then, when they decide it, let it stand. Mr. STIiWAllT. Mr. President, there have been fourteen amendments to the Constitution of the United States heretofore ratified. They have all been submitted to the State Legislate es for ratification, and have been ratified by the various Legislatures. That has been the course pursued from the beginning of this Government until now. Never before was it pretended that such a ratification was not a ratification by the people. In the beginning of the Constitution it isdeclared that "we, the people, do ordain this Constitution," &c.; and in this Constitution ordained by the people a mode of amending it was pointed out by the people; and that was to submit the amendment to the individual States. In the Chicago platform we did take the position that this matter to a certain extent belonged to the States; and that is what influenced several members of the Senate against legislation who had formerly thought there was power to legislate directly upon this subject; they thought they were committed to submit it to the several States. The platform says that so far as the rebel States are concerned it is the duty of Congress to maintain equal suffrage. It says further that the other question should be submitted to the several States and it is not to be pretented that that platform meant that it should be submitted for ratification in any unusual manner. We have adopted the manner adopted from the fouuda* tion of the (Jovernmentof taking the sense of the pp ople

A literal construction of the amendment "would prevent any action whatever, because the Constitution does not point out any mode of taking the popular vote. In neither of the modes prescribed by the Constitution', do the people act directly. There is no way of amending the Constitution so as to let the people act directly on the amendment. As the Constitution is now, you can submit the question to- the Legislature or to a convention in the State—to no other body. It has been thought that the Legislature reflected more directly the will of the people than a convention irregularly called; and heu ee from the foundation of the Government all constitutional amendments' proposed by Congress have been submitted to the State Legislatures for action.

Sir, it is very strange that whenever the Constitution of the United States can be construed to deny rights it is sacred with some y. but whenever it can be used to secure fright and liberty we are complained of for following the Constitution. Does the Senator from Indiana suppose that the Republican party intended in the Chicago convention to cltnnge the Constitution or to limit the power of Congress to submit propositions to the. several States under the Constitution? No such construction is fair; no such construction can be maintained. The people understood perfectly well that Congress had power to submit amendments to the Constitution and ask for the action of the several States. They did regard that as a pledge against legislation; and that is the embarrassment in the way of legislation; but they did not regard it as a pledge against submitting propositions to amend the Constitution in the ordinary way.

Air. DIXON. Mr. President

Mr. PO MEUOY If the Senator desires to go on to night I shall not ask him to yield; otherwise, 1 desire to ask the Senate

Mr. DAVIS. With the permission of the honorable Senator from Connecticut, I will ■withdraw the amendment which I proposed.

The PRES i D E N Tpro tempore. The amendment, is withdrawn.

Mr. DIXON. Mr. President

Mr. BUCKALEW, With the permission of the Senate, I desire to move that the amendmentoffered by me to this resolution be printed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That order will be entered if there be no objection.

Mr. BUCivALEVV, I also desire to offer a resolution for reference.

By unanimous consent, leave was granted to introduce a joint resolution (S. li. No. 209) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States; which was read twice by its title.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I move its reference to the select Committee ou Representative Reform.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. DIXON. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts who last spoke [Mr. Wilson j informed the Senate that the proposition to extend the right of suffrage to all the races

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, as the Senator from Connecticut is desirous of making some remarks of moderate length, and it is late, i move that the Senate adjourn.

Mr. WILSON. i 1 ask leave to call up a bill. Let this matter go over until to morrow

Mr. EDMUNDS. As the Senator from Connecticut is willing to go on, I withdraw my motion.

Mr HENDERSON Ihavean amendment to offer to the measure that is pending; and I desire to offer it and have it printed.

The PRESIDENT. It will go .ordered,

Mr. WILSON. I now move to lay this resolution aside informally for the purpose of taking up Senate bill No. 811, to provide for the reduction of the military forces, and for other pui poses. I think we can pass the bill ia ,fif teen miuutes.;-

the PRESIDENT pro tempore. That can enly he done by unanimous consent.,!;

Mr. STEW ART. I shall object^- because if we commence that there are So many, other things which other Senators will want to bring up. If we can keep this resolution before the Senate we can dispose of it to morrow

Mr. WILSON. This bill will only take a few -moments.

Mr. STEWART. Bat if I give way to one there are others who wish to take up other bills.-

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is entitled to the floor.

Mr. EDMUNDS. With the assent of the Senator from Connecticut, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

Mr. STEWART. Before that motion is put I desire to say to the Senate that I shall try very hard to morrow to get a vote on this resolution, and I hope the Senate will stand by me until we reach a vote.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Vermont, that the Senate proceed to the Consideration of executive business.

The motion was agreed to; and after some time spent in executive session the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned.