June 4, 1866

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the pending question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Howard, to insert the following after section three of the proposed article of constitutional amendment:

Sec. 4. The obligations of the United States, incurred in suppres ing insurection, or ill defense of the Union, or for payment of bounties or pensions incident thereto, shall remain inviolate.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, nothing but a sense of imperative duty induces me to address the Senate upon this occasion. The Constitution is to be changed; the foundations of the Government are to be disturbed; some of the old oak timbers are to be removed, and timber of recent growth is to be substituted. Upon the foundations fixed by the fathers our institutions have rested firmly and securely for three quarters of a century. They have stood unmoved by the contests of ambitious leaders, the angry strife of parties, and the rolling waves of war. In peace and in war: in the" turbulence of times of financial embarrassment, and the corruptions attendant upon the accumulation of great wealth; in every possible state and condition of our society, the Constitution has borne the test; and the fact now stands conceded that it established a system of government entirely adapted to our wants and condition as a people. This is proven beyond cavil and question by the prosperity and individual happiness that attended our growth, and the greatness and power to which we attained. The prosperity of the citizen, his security and happiness, and the might and grandeur of the nation attest the excellence of our form of government. The blessings of the past are our guarantee for the future if we but maintain our institutions as they are.

And now, sir, in this the most unsafe period of our history; when the passions excited by the war are yet fierce; when- sectional controversies run high, and party strife is raging; when eleven States are absent from this Chamber, and other sections, seizing the opportunity, seek to aggrandize their power, and to fasten upon the country a partial and unequal policy; when the lust for power and gain carries men be3 ond the restraints of justice and right; at such a time I cannot remain wholly silent when I see the hand of the partisan and the self-constituted reformer laid upon the sacred work of the fathers. In such a case to speak is a man s duty, though none may heed. But, Mr. President, it is hard work to speak when c one knows in advance that no argument, however just and forcible, and no appeal, however patriotic, can i influence a single vote: that the authority and i' law of a political party is over every Senator i of the majority; and that it remains now only I to register the decree of the secret caucus.!

At the meeting of Congress, but before the President had delivered his message, and before his views had been officially communicated, the I Republican members, in caucus, determined to! raise a committee of fifteen to "'inquire into the condition of the States which formed the] so called confederate States of America, and I report whether they or any of them are entitled I to be represented in either House of Congress." In most indecent haste the resolution passed both branches, and the committee became fastened upon Congress and the country. Because of its party origin, the work it had to do, and the secret character of its proceedings, that committee came to be known in the country as the "revolutionary tribunal," the "directory," and the" star chamber." Its first report was made some months since, in which it was proposed to reduce the representation of the southern States, but by the aid of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumner,] who submits to party restraints upon his judgment with impatience, that measure was defeated. Its second report is now upon our desks. It passed the House, but when it came under discussion in the Senate, and had to bear the test of the independent judgment of Senators, it was found wanting, and its defeat became almost certain. A second defeat of a party programme could not be borne; its effect upon the fall elections would be disastrous, A caucus was called, and we witnessed the astounding spectacle of the withdrawal, for the time, of a great legislative measure, touching the Constitution itself, from the Senate, that it might be decided in the secret councils of a party. For three days the Senate Chamber was silent, but the discussions were transferred to another room of the Capitol, with closed doors and darkened windows, where party leaders might safely contend for a political and party policy.

When Senators returned to their seats I was curious to observe who had won and who lost in the party lottery. The dark brow of the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Clark] was lighted with a gleam of pleasure. His proposed substitute for the third section was the marked feature of the measure. But upon the lofty brow of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Stewart] there rested a cloud of disappointment and grief. His bantling, which lie had named universal amnesty and universal suffrage, which he had so often dressed and undressed in the presence of the Senate, the darling offspring of his brain, was dead; it had died in the caucus; and it was left to the sad Senator only to hope that it might not be his last. Upon the serene countenance of the Senator from Maine, the chairman of the fifteen, there rested the composure of the highest satisfaction; a plausible political platform had been devised, and there was yet hope for his party.

Mr. President. I recognize the propriety and necessity of conventions and caucuses to regulate all questions of organization and political policy; but I have never felt myself authorized to subordinate my judgment as a representative of the people to the decision of any body of men other than those I represent. To me it seems clear that each Senator owes it to the country to vote upon every important measure and every proposed modification thereof according to the dictates of his own judgment and conscience. The Constitution requiies that two thirdsof the Senators, each answering for himself, shall agree to a proposed amendment before it can be submitted to the States. In this weighty business now before us what are the facts? The House sent us four propositions to change the Constitution in one bill. Upon discussion it was found that probably no i one of the propositions, nor any proposed modification thereof, could receive the required j vote. Two thirds of the Senators, belonging; to one political party, retired from the Senate i to consider and agree upon a bill. Each Senatov, by going into the secret caucus, agreed and became bound to vote for whatever the majority of the caucus should adopt. A section oi an entire bill may be adopted by a bare majority of the caucus, much less than one half the Senate, but the entire two thirds must vote for it in the Senate, not because it is right, but because the majority of the caucus has said so; and thus an amendment of the Constitution may be adopted by the Senate when a majority of the body would vote against it if no party obligation rested upon them. What Senator would dare propose to shut these doors against the people, that we in secret might take steps to change their great "charter of liberty? The people would not endure it, but in congregating thousands would burst them open and demand to know all that was said and done upon a matter of such interest to them. The present proposed amendment has been decided upon in a conclave more secret than has ever been known in this country.

So carefully has the obligation of secrecy been observed that no outside Senators, noteven the sharp-eyed men of the press, have been able to learn one word that was spoken, or one vote given. An Egyptian darkness covers the proceeding. The secret could not be more profound had the conclave assembled down in the deep and dark caverns of the earth. If you change the Constitution have the people not the right to know how and why it is done, what was proposed and said, and how each Senator voted 1 Is it not their business? Or indeed have they masters, party chieftains, who may say to them" Wegovern youobey Isit not a fact that shall arrest attention that since this measure was reported from the caucus scarce an explanation has been conceded, and not one amendment offered or voted for by a single Senator who was in the caucus, so exacting and imperative is the obligation, and so literally is party authority obeyed. Sir. if the people can only come to know how this thing has been done, I believe they will refuse their indorsement.

I now propose a brief examination of the measure as it came from the caucus. It proposes an additional article of five sections, making that number of amendments or additions to the Constitution.

For the first section the virtue is claimed that it defines citizenship of the United States and of the States. T will read that part of the section:

All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

What citizenship is, what are its rights and duties, its obligations and liabilities, are not defined or attempted to be defined; but these vexed questions are left as unsettled as during* all the course of our history, when they have occupied the attention and taxed the learning of the departments of Government. But this is certain, that the section will add many millions to the class of persons who are citizens. We have been justly proud of the rank and title of our citizenship, for we understood it to belong to the inhabitants of the United States who were descended from the great races of people who inhabit the countries of Europe, and such' emigrants from those countries as have been admitted under our laws. The rank and title conferred honor at home and secured kindness, respect, and safety everywhere abroad; but if this amendment be adopted we will then carry the title and enjoy its advantages in common with the negroes, the coolics, and the Indians. When the Senator from Wisconsin proposed an amendment excluding the savage Indians of the forest I believe every Senator who had been in the caucus voted against it. No one was authorized to change a word that the caucus had used, but I am not quite sure that the people of Minnesota will regard the obligation to a caucus as a sufficient reason why the Senator from that State [Mr. Ramkey] should seek to confer the rank, privileges, and immunities of citizenship upon the cruel savages who destroyed their peaceful settlements and massacred the people with circumstances of atrocity too horrible to relate. How our citizenship will be esteemed at home and abroad should this amendment be adopted we may judge by consulting the sentiments with which we regard Mexican citizenship. We feel that it defines a mixed population, made up of races that ought not to mingle—whites, negroes, and Indians—of whom twenty thousand could not cope with four thousand soldiers of the United States of pure white blood on the field of Buena Vista. It was the work of many generations to place the name and fame of our citizenship so high that it ranked with the proudest titles on earth; but the mad fanaticism and partisan fury of a single year may so degrade it as there shall be"

None so poor to do it reverence."

The second section now demands our attention. The intent and effect of that section is to take away representation in Congress in all the States in which the right of voting is not given to the negroes. The purpose is to constrain every State to confer the right of voting upon the negroes; and in case of refusal, the penalty is loss of representation. The section does not rest upon the proposition that those whom the States treat as unfit to vote shall not be represented, for it is so framed as to continue to the northern and eastern States their twenty Representatives that are based upon a. non voting population. It is so framed, also, as to continue to the States of Maryland, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Missouri their full representation, although during the war the military power was so used in those States as to place the political power in the hands of a few, who so exercised it as t o exclude the residue of the people from the ballot-box. You say that if the States treat the negroes as unfit to vote, then they shall not be voted for; that no representation shall be allowed for them: then, I ask, if in some ofthe northern States the foreignerisdcnied avote for fiveyears, why shall he be voted for? If in Maryland, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Missouri the majority are treated as unfit to vote, why shall the minority vote for them and be represented for them? Come, now, letcandor and truth have full sway, and answer me, is it not because you believe that the few in these States now allowed to vote will send radicals to Congress, and therefore you allow them to send full delegations that it may add to your political party power? And 1 now submit to your patriotism, to your love of our country, if we have not come upon most dangerous times, when our Constitution is to be torn up and remodeled that a political party may make, its power more secure, that it may hold on to the offices, and shape and control sectional policies.

Mr. President, I now venture the prediction that this thing cannot succeed; that in this land of intelligence and love of liberty and right permanent power cannot be built upon inequality, injustice, and wrong. If the principle be right that none but voters ought to be represented, why do you not say so? If you think the negro ought to have the right of voting: if you are in favor of it, and intend it shall be given, why do you not in plain words confer it upon them? It is much fairer than to seek it by indirection, and the people will distinctly understand you when you propose such a change of the Constitution. I am not for it directly, nor will I coerce the States to its allowance. If conferred by the free action of the States, I am content. Within the limits of constitutional right and power I will support. all measures necessary and proper for the protection and elevation of the colored race; measures safe and just to both races; but I do not believe that it is for the good of either race that they should be brought into close social and political relations. God has marked the peculiarities of each, lie has put. them asunder, and it is not the right, much less the duty, of man to join them together. Our institutions rest for their support upon the intelligence and virtue of the people, and who may say that the untaught negroes, so lately manumitted, are qualified to exercise the privileges and discharge -the duties of an American citizen? Why then coerce the States to their enfranchisement?

Mr. President, it is my duty to call attention to the peculiar and involved form of expression adopted in this section. Instead of excluding from the enumeration the class to whom the elective franchise is denied, which would be easily understood, it is provided that the basis of representation in such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not less than twentyone years of age in such State." Why the abandonment of that which is of plain meaning for that which is involved and difficult? This measure is to go to the people for their judgment, and should have been clothed in plain, honest language. As a party platform, it may serve a purpose that the meaning is covered; but as a part of the people s Constitution its obscurity is a vice. One needs to be a mathematician to be sure that lie comprehends the full force of the proposition. But I will again venture the opinion that it means as if it read thus: no State shall be allowed a representation on a colored population unless the right of votingis given to the negroes—presenting to the States the alternative of loss of representation or the enfranchisement of the negroes, and their political equality. In Indiana there are many thousands of the colored race, the number having greatly increased during the past five years because the constitution and laws of the State have not been executed. The policy of the State has been to discourage their immigration, and that policy has been dictated by the desire to protect the white labor. The presence of negroes in large numbers tends to degrade and cheapen labor, and the people have been unwilling that the white laborer shall be compelled to compete for employment with the negro. To confer the right of voting is to encourage their immigration into the State and to defeat what experience has shown to be a wise policy. Now, is that State to be denied a representation upon that population because she will not make the negro a voter, while New York continues to hold the four members in Congress to which she is entitled because of a white population to which she denies the right of voting? We could not with patience agree to that. The colored population of New England is so small that she is not perceptibly affected, whether she allows or disallows to them the elective franchise, but in the agricultural regions of the West and South they are numbered by thousands and millions, and in many localities they are so numerous that to give them the elective franchise is to throw public affairs into their hands. That is impossible, and the adoption of this amendment is to strip agriculture ofits proper voice and influence in Congress and in the election of the President and relatively to add to the already swollen power of New England. Were a blow aimed at the representation of Illinois, would I not raise my arm to avert it? And why, sir? Because it is her right under the compact of the fathers, and also because the interests of Indiana and! Illinois are identical; they are both agricultural States, and the members of Congress who guard and protect the rights and interests of either State cannot neglect those of the other. The same is true of all the agricultural States ofthe West and the South. "Discussing this question at an earlier day of the session, I had occasion to say:

"The States and country that rest, upon the Ohio and Mississippi rivers and their tributaries have a common interest. They cannot cease to be agricultural States. The plow must L turn wealth up to the men of the West."'**"

Shall we so permanently arrange the representation of the country that agriculture cannot hold up itshead? Shall wo so permanently adjust representation as that the spindle and ihe loom shall always be more productive and honorable than the plow and the harrow? Sir. I do not consent to it; and without any reference to sectional feelings and sentiments, I ask for the West simply equality m the legislation of Congress.

"Now, Mr. President, if it is right to change the representation in the House of Representatives, that is, to disturb the foundations of the Government so as to readjust representation, and, as Senators claim, to make it equal and just, why is it not equally right to disturb the representation in tlie Senate? I know very well the reply will be that the Constitution itself forbids an amendment of that instrument in respect to representation in the Senate; but, sir, the power that made that provision can unmake it; the power to amend the Constitution can reach that very provision and change the representation in the Senate. I know it is said that representation in the Senate is one of the Federal features of the government; but that argument has lost its force when we are taught in these latter times that State rights' are not to be respected, and that all power is now in the Federal Government. Suppose we undertake to make representation in the Senate equal, how would it stand? The six New England States, with a population of 3 135 253 have twelve Senators in this body, while the six great agricultural States of the W est—Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, and Missouri—hare a population of 8 414 525 with a representation of twelve Senators. With nearly three times the population of New England, we have the same representation. If those States have this advantage in this body is it fair to try to cutoff the representation of agriculture in the other end of this Capitol? While Indiana has a population of 1 350 428 Rhode Island —a glorious, gallant little State—has a population of 174 620 So far as representation in the Senate is concerned, one man in Rhode Island has a voice and power in the legislation of this country equal to eight men in Indiana. Taking the entire New England States, one man in New England has the voice and power in legislation in the Senate of nearly three men in the West. Is that right, is that just, when you are talking about equality of representation? I do not want to change that feature in ounGovernment. I wish to stand by the State representation as our fathers established it. I do not want to take any of the political power from New England that our fathers agreed she might have. I will stand by their representation as firmly as they will, but I do not like that they shall ask to reduce the representation of the West and Southwest."

Mr. President, I am aware of the plausible argument that by the results of the war the slaves have been made free, and as the Constitution now stands will all be counted, and thus by the rebellion the representation of the South, so far as it rests upon the colored population, will be increased two fifths. Perhaps a sufficient answer is found in the fact that the slaves were not made free by the voice of the South, but by the constitutional amendment which was demanded by the North; and that the North cannot well complain of a consequence of her own act. But, sir, in any view, is this a sufficient reason why we should not only deny to the southern States the increased representation caused by the freedom of the slaves, but also take from them the three fifths representation which they have always enjoyed under the Constitution? But, sir, if you will amend the Constitution at this most unfortunate time, and while the States most to be affected are unrepresented, I will meet you upon a ground you cannotquestion, and will propose thatthe southern States shall have no increase of representation by reason of the freedom of the slaves; and to that end I offer the following amendment, so that the section shall read;

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed, and excluding, also, two fifths of such persons as have been discharged from involuntary service by any proclamation of the President of the United Statesor by the amendment of the Constitution of the United States since the year 1861, and to whom the elective franchise may be denied.

If, now, the objection is made in good faith that the evil you would avoid is the increase of southern representation by the freedom of the slaves, then this amendment is agreeable to you and will be accepted. But it will not be accepted if the purpose really is to reduce the representation of the agricultural sections and thus relatively increase the power of the manufacturing interests, and perpetuate a policy that enriches the capital of one section and bears heavily upon the capital and labor of another. For five years no opportunity has been lost to build up the interests of the eastern States. "With that end in view tariff and internal tax laws and drafts have been adjusted, and banking capital distributed; so that now almost every investment of capital in that section yields j from fifteen to one hundred per cent profit,' while in Indiana and Illinois the bushel of i corn that ought to be worth to the farmer fifty j cents, being manufactured into whisky is taxed 1 eight dollars; the bushel yielding four gallons. Mr.- President. I rejoice in the prosperity of any section when it is the result of legitimate trade, under equal laws, for then it is the prosperity of the whole country; but 1 call upon western Senators to hesitate before they surrender a representation that is a reliable support to our great interest, agriculture.

The third section provides that no person shall ever hold any office under the United States, or under any State, who, having at anytime taken the oath prescribed by the Constitution as an officer of the United States or of any State, shall engage in rebellion or give aid and comfort to the public enemies. The proposition to exempt from the operations of the section -those who against their will were compelled to participate in the rebellion, was voted down; and the section now stands excluding from all offices every person of the described class who either voluntarily or involuntarily became connected with the rebellion; and that, too, notwithstanding the party may be under the shield of the President s pardon. This harsh and sweeping measure will include many excellent men whose services now in the work of reconciliation would be of the greatest value to the country— men who displayed heroic courage in standing out against the secession movement, but who afterward yielded obedience to and served the established government de facto. This measure is in the spirit that pursued the supporters of Cromwell and the Parliament after the' Restoration. It is in the spirit of vengeance after men are beaten and have surrendered, and cannot bring a blessing to our country. Senators say that the measure is not penal in its character. Why not? When pardoned are not these men eligible to State and Federal offices? And do you not propose to strip them of their eligibility because of their crime? I suppose the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull] by referring to the criminal code of his own State will find it prescribed as a punishment for crime that parties shall be '1 disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit." That is as much a punishment as the fine or the imprisonment, and is found in the criminal codes of many of the States. It is a penalty when the court and jury strip the accused of his right to hold office. What is it, then, when done by Congress?

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Willey] says that it is a measure of safety for the future—a precaution. So the judge tells the convicted criminal the law esteems him unfit to hold office, and as a precaution the right is taken from him. As a penalty for crime this measure is ex post facto; and if it were a measure of ordinary legislation would therefore be unconstitutional. Mr. President, do you think there will enough good come of this to justify us in departing from the principle which is found in the Constitution of the United States and of every State in the Union, that a man shall be punished only according to the law in force at the time the act is done?

The fourth section provides that the public debt shall remain inviolate. Who has asked us to change the Constitution for the benefit of the bond holders Are they so much more meritorious than all other classes that they must be specially provided for in the Constitution? Or, indeed, do we distrust ourselves, and fear that we will all become repudiators? A provision like this, I should think, would excite distrust, and cast a shade on public credit. But perhaps the real purpose is so to hedge in the bond holders by constitutional provision as that they never may be taxed; that Congress can never assent to their taxation, and so that three billions of capital may bear no portion of the public burdens. Such would be the effect of this amendment. Who has attacked public credit, or questions the obligation to pay the public debt? Are the bond holders not receiving their interest, even in advance, and in gold? Why then do they ask this extraordinary guarantee? They trusted the good faith of the people, and there is no breach of that faith. When things entirely unusual are asked, it is well for the people to inquire, why it is, what is the purpose, and how far will it carry us? The provision about bounties and pensions is but a blind. The man who wrote the section knew that pensions and bounties need no guarantee; that their payment is secured not only by law, but there is also the pledge of the honor and the hearts of the people.

Mr. President, I stand by the public credit, which is public honor and individual safety. But, sir,' how shall we uphold our credit and secure our creditors? By just laws, by equal taxation, by distributing equally over the entire nation the burdens of Government, that they may rest upon the shoulders of all sections and interests. Then there will be no discontent, no grumbling, but a satisfied people, in their strength, will carry every obligation of the Government until discharged, and public credit will then be as firm as the solid foundations of this Capitol.

The fifth section declares the debt s contracted in aid of the rebellion illegal, and prohibits their payment. Mr. President, who is so stupid as to have supposed these debts legal, or that they had any valid existence for one hour after the de facto government of the confederate States ceased to exist? Who is so silly as to fear their payment? It was amusing to observe that the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard,] in making an argument for this section, showed that it was wholly unnecessary, for he read one of the confederate notes, and upon its face it appeared that it was not to become due and payable until six months after the independence of the confederate States should be recognized by the United States. Will that note now in the Senator s pocket ever become due? The Senatorlaughed at the suggestion. The debtor has ceased to exist; the debt, according to its own provisions, can never become due, and each of the southern States has by constitutional provision repudiated it and prohibited the payment of any portion thereof. If there ever was a defunct and buried debt, without legal or moral force, the recognition and payment of which is in every way impossible, it is the debt, the continued existence of which it is now proposed to recognize by a prohibition of payment in the Constitution. The least that may be said of this section is that it would be harmless, but I would regret to see the face of the Constitution marred by a provision so unnecessary and trifling.

The sixth and last section provides that Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the article. When these words were used in the amendment abolishing slavery they were thought to be harmless, but during this session there has been claimed for them such force and scope of meaning as that Congress might, invade the jurisdiction of the States, rob them of their reserved rights, and crown the Federal Governmentwith absolute and despotic power. As construed this provision is most dangerous. Without it the Constitution possesses the vitality and vigor for its own enforcement through the appropriate departments.

Mr. President, I have now briefly examined the provisions of this article, and cannot resist the conviction that some of them are useless, while others are vicious and dangerous. Nor can I resist the conviction that this measure is pressed, not because of an exigency in our affairs, but to carry out a party programme. The President has his policy. You oppose him. You charge him with usurpation, while at the same time you are straining every brace and timber in the Constitution to secure to yourselves absolute control; indeed, you reach out beyond the Constitution, and by amendment— a proceeding to be resorted to only upon rare and solemn occasions—you grasp after, and, with the avidity of hunger, clutch power. Why this reaching after power on your part? Is it not enough that for five years you have held all the offices of the country, and through the favoritism of the Departments your partisans and followers have grown rich and powerful? Or is it so sweet to govern men that the possession of power is indispensable to your happiness? Upon what fact may you charge the President with usurpation? When he came into office he found eleven great States and eight million people under his absolute sway and government. His authority was as absolute and supreme as is that of the Czar of Russia over his extended dominions. The persons and property of the people were under his control. In his hands there seemed to be the issues of life and death. Did he like you clutch this power and seek to extend it? Did he say it is sweet to govern. No, Senators; laying down absolute power, he said to the people,'' Place your States again in practical relations with the United States, and govern yourselves; I will be the President, exercising only those powers with which the Constitution has clothed me." I submit to the candid judgment of men if this was not an exhibition of sublime and heroic devotion to principle and renunciation of power? And when you handed him the Frcedmcn s Bureau bill, and authorized him to appoint an army of officeholders to fill the whole country with his partisans, when you offered to give him a patronage such as no man had ever before held, he refused it all; but in accordance with his convictions of duty vetoed the bill. Twice he refused the crown of power, not, like Cassar, pushing it gently from him with the back of his hand, but firmly and in the face of most formidable opposition. The position of the President and those who support his Administration upon the great question now agitating the country is so well and accurately expressed by an eloquent friend, that I will borrow his words:

"1. That no State has the legal right to sever its connection with the Federal Government.

"2. Failing in such an attempt they remain in their ancient places, fixed, immovable, and shorn of none of their attributes as States.

"3. The right to immediate representation in Congress as living, lawful, and legitimate members of the Government.

"4. That the American Union is restored, andstands unbroken, without flaw or blemish, and with domestie tranquillity in all her borders in the presence of the nations of the earth."

'Mr. President, upon this great question of a restored Union we go to the country. The Army has done all its work, there is nothing more for it to do, and the sons of the Republic have returned to their homes. All opposition to the authority of the Government of the United States has ceased, and peace reigns throughout our borders. Shall the Union in all respects stand restored, and we be again a united and powerful people? Shall trade and commerce return again to their ancient channels, and prosperity attend all the pursuits of the people? You may throw yourselves across the pathway of the people, and by shouting copperhead and sympathizer hope to frighten the timid, but you will not be able to check or turn them in their onward progress, because they now follow a banner upon which is written in letters of light" reconciliation and Union."

The PRESIDING- OFFICER, (Mr. Clark in the chair.) The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Michigan to insert an additional section as section four.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment of Mr. Howard was in section [four] five, line forty six to strike out the word "already" before the word "incurred;" in line forty seven to strike out the words "or which may hereafter be incurred;" in line forty eight to strike out the words" of war" and insert the word "rebellion in line forty nine to strike out the words "loss of involuntary service or labor" and to insert" the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be forever held illegal and void;" so that the section will read:

Sec. [-1] 5. Neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for compensation for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be forever held illegal and void.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I did not notice that the fourth section was agreed to. .Was it agreed to?

-Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Then I shall move a reconsideration, as I propose to offer an amendment to it.

Mr. HOWARD. I move to amend the amendment to the [fourth] fifth section, in line fortynine, By striking out the words "for compensation for" and inserting the words "on account of," so as to prevent the repetition of the word" for."

Mr. HARRIS. I do not see that that improves it at all. I think it is quite well enough as it is. I would not change it.

Mr. HOWARD. The object is merely to prevent the repetition of the word "for." It now reads, "any claim for compensation for the loss," &c.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It will make better phraseology.

Mr. HOWARD. I propose simply to make it read," or any claim on account of the loss or emancipation of any slave." It makes it more harmonious.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was adopted.

Mr. HOWARD. There is one other amendment that escaped my attention. In line thirty the word "that," at the beginning of section three, should be stricken out. It is entirely superfluous. The section will then read:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector, &c.

The PRESIDING; OFFICER. The amendment will be made if there be no objection, being a verbal amendment.

Mr. FESSENDEN. There is a little obscurity, or, at any rate, the expression in section four might be construed to go further than was intended, and I have rather come to the conclusion that it was best to put sections four and five in one single section; and I ask the Chair, as section four has been adopted and also the amendments to section five, if it will be at any time in order to strike out both and insert a substitute for the two sections.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Clark.) It is in order now, in the opinion of the Chair, to strike out those sections and insert a substitute, and it will also be in order when the joint resolution is reported to the Senate.

Mr. FESSENDEN. But section four has been agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been agreed to, but it will be in order to strike that out with something else, and insert a substitute.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Theseamendments will come up in the Senate in their regular order, as I understand.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. They will.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will omit offering my amendment, then, until the resolution is reported to the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan have now been disposed of.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I offer the following amendment to come in as a new section:

Sec.—. Every person not mentioned or described in section three of this article who shallhave engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States and against whom no prosecution for treason has been instituted before the expiration of years from the termination or suppression of such insurrection or rebellion, who shall thereafter before a court of record make oath to support the Constitution of the United States, shall thereupon be forever acquitted and discharged of and from all pains, penalties, liabilities disabilities and disqualifieationsincurred under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of any State, by participation in such insurrection or rebellion, and if previously a citizen of the United States shall be thereby restored to all rights, privileges, and immunities of citizenship. But nothing in this section contained shall prevent the Congress passing a general or special act of amnesty as to any or all persons included in its provisions before the expiration of the said years.

I do not propose, Mr. President, to detain the Senate for a moment by advocating the■ provisions of this amendment. If they do not commend themselves )to Senators I am sure that nothing I could say would help thecase. The object is easily perceived. It is, if we can, to make a finality of this matter; that while we have excluded certain, persons. from representation and from participation in the Government, the large class of persons. who will still remain shall at some time—and I have left the number of years blank—be released .from the pains and penalties they have incurred, or are supposed to have incurred, for it is exceedingly doubtful, I presume, what disabilities the mere fact of having engaged in the rebellion imposed upon them without a trial and conviction of treason. I have framed the amendment with, a view, of course, as it is proposed to go into the Constitution, of applying to the future as well as to the present case; and I think if our attention could be drawn to this point, and all the amendments that are proposed here were considered in that light, we should be more able to separate ourselves from the feelings and prejudices of the moment and to act understandingly upon the subject.

I propose by this amendment that all those persons who are not embraced in the third section, which section, I take it, will include the most of those who were the instigators and fomenters of the rebellion, and all against whom no prosecution for treason shall be commenced within a certain number of years, shall upon the expiration of that time, by taking an oath thereafter to support the Constitution, in the usual form, be exonerated from all pains and penalties in consequence of their action. I need not say that there is something due to these people, even when their delinquency is fully admitted. They are now in a situation where they know not what will be their future, and I think it is due to the business of the country and to the more early resumption of the former friendly relations that existed between us and the people of those States, that something of this nature should at this time and in this connection be ingrafted upon the Constitution, or should accompany the section which excludes certain descriptions of persons.

I trust, sir, at any rate, that this amendment, or the spirit of it—for I am not anxious about the words—may receive such consideration from the Senators in the majority as will induce them to give it a fair hearing. It is offered in good faith. I have not shown it or named it to a single person. If there is any responsibility attending it, it is wholly my own. I am certain, from my own knowledge and from the interviews I have had with many of the southern people since I have been here, and from my knowledge and interviews with such persons in my own State, that it is more important to them that some time should be fixed when their disabilities shall terminate than that the time should be either early or late. I have left in blank the time to be fixed. If it was an open question, if it related only to the future, I should be inclined to fix the time at not exceeding three years; but taking into consideration the circumstances under which we are placed it may be fixed at a longer period if such be the judgment of the Senate. I do not know, at this moment, at what time this rebellion terminated or was suppressed in a legal point of view. I know that, in case of foreign war peace is generally made by treaty, and that treaty is not in force until it is proclaimed to be in force by the President, and by that treaty notice is generally given where and when hostilities shall cease; that is to say, in reference to vessels that are in foreign seas and in different parts of the world. There has been, I believe, a proclamation by the President, in which he stated that the rebellion was at an end, but the State of Texas was omitted from that category. Whether that would be the proper time to fix as the time when the war or rebellion terminated or was suppressed I cannot say, but I think that this is an endeavor, at least, to afford a means by which the constitutional amendments now pending may be made a finality. You exclude by a section already adopted certain persons from being members of this body and from holding other offices. In the next place it is left open to you by the amendment, i have proposed until the expiration of whatever number of years may be fixed, to institute proceedings against any others whom you think ought to be proceeded against. Having made the election, then, to exclude one class entirely and to prosecute another class, the residue are those whom I propose to declare freed from the pains and penalties and disabilities and disqualifications they have incurred. It is to meet that case, to make, if I can, a finality of this matter, that I have proposed the amendment, and my own judgment is that the requisite number of States are more likely to adopt the amendment in gross with some provision of this character, at least, accompanying it; that is to say, that the mass of the people South, including a great many who were misled by those upon whom they usually depended for information as to the proper conduct they should pursue, and who were forced into the service under other circumstances, wherein they cannot be said to have been morally blamable, should be relieved and released at once. At present they do not know what is to be their fate, and that uncertainty is preventing things settling down in quiet: in the southern States. I ask Senators again to give this proposition a fair consideration before they reject it.

Mr. HOWARD. I hope the amendment will not be adopted. I do not see any propriety in incorporating into the Constitution any provision relating to amnesty or pardon— a subject which is already provided for by the act of 1862 and by the Constitution itself. There is full power already in the hands of the President of the United States, under that act of Congress, to pardon every rebel who has participated in the civil war, conditionally or unconditionally, as he may see fit. He has, besides that special clause in the act of 1862, the general pardoning power given by the Constitution of the United States, which he can exercise even before conviction if he sees fit to do so. I therefore look upon this amendment as entirely unnecessary and not productive of any beneficial result. Besides, it looks to me like a deformity incorporated in the Constitution of the United States. We are now settling the fundamental principles upon which our Government is to be conducted hereafter, and I think we should omit any reference to that subject.

Mr. DAVIS. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. SHERMAN. In addition to what the Senator from Michigan has said, it seems to me that this is a subject for legislation, not for constitutional amendment. We have already provided that the President of the United States may do precisely what would be done by this proposed amendment; and if more liberal legislation is required hereafter, and the Presidentfailstoextendainnesty so broadly as it should be, Congress has always power to relieve, by a general act or special act, from the penalties of crime, and may provide for a general amnesty by law. I therefore submit to the Senator from West Virginia whether, although his proposition seems to be a reasonable and proper one, it is worth while to put it in a constitutional amendment, when it is of so temporary a character, and the matter may be regulated by law.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. The amendment, it will be seen, removes disqualifications and disabilities, and from what 1 have heard and read, nobody believes that the amnesty granted by the President will have that effect. At any rate, there is a difference of opinion; it is a moot point as to what effect that amnesty will have; and, again, it is a moot point and has been debated here upon the floor of the Senate, I think, within a few weeks, as to the right of the President to pardon before conviction. These points have both been denied, and denied by those to whose opinions some weight is attached. My reason, therefore, for proposing that this proposition should accompany these amendments to the Constitution is that everybody may know, as it were, in advance, what is likely to be his fate.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 8, nays 2G; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Guthrie, Hendricks, Riddle. Van Winkle, and Willey—§.

NAYS—Messrs. Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Edmunds, i Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Morgan, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Wade, Williams, Wilson, and Yates—26,

ABSENT—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Buckalcw, Creswell, Dixon, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, McDouprall, Morrill, jS Nesmith, Norton, Saulsbury, Sprague, Trumbull, and Wright—15.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I now offer the amendment which I before suggested to the second section. It is to strike out all after the word "taxed," in that section, in these words: T But whenever in any State the elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its male inhabitants being citizens of the United States not less than twenty one years of age, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation in such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not less than twenty onoyoars of age in such State.

And in lieu thereof to insert these words:

And excluding also two fifths of such persons as have been discharged from involuntary servitude by any proclamation of the President of the United Statcsorbytho amendmenttothcConstitution of the United States since the year 18bl, and to whom the elective franchise may be denied.

I will make a very brief explanation of this amendment. The effect of it will be to leave the representation of the southern States just where it was before the war. It is objected and urged as a reason for a constitutional amendment that the slaves, having been made free, are now all counted in the basis of representation, and that the effect of that is to increase the southern representation. To avoid this objection this amendment is proposed, so that the representation from the southern States shall be upon precisely the same basis that it was before the war.

I desire to explain one portion of the amendment. It speaks of persons made free by any proclamation of the President or by the amendment of the Constitution. I do not myself believe that the proclamation of the President had the effect in law of emancipating the slaves I believe that that work was done by the constitutional amendment; but as other Senators hold that the proclamation had the effect to make the slaves free, out of deference to their views I have used that expression.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If I correctly understand the effect of the amendment of the Senator from Indiana, it is that until the elective franchise is extended to the colored men of the South they are to be counted in the basis of representation just as they have heretofore been counted; that is, three fifths of them are to be counted, and no more. I am inclined to vote for this amendment, because I believe it would be more likely to be adopted both by the States South and by the States North. The effect of it ijj to count the colored population of the South as they have heretofore been counted until they shall be enfranchised; and of course when enfranchised they will all be counted. The southern States, in my judgment, would vote for that proposition sooner than for the pending proposition as reported by the committee, because it does not decrease their representation. The northern States would vote for it because it secures them in their proportion of political power against any increase on the part of the southern States by virtue of the emancipation of the slaves at the South, while it tends in the same direction with the amendment reported by the committee as it now stands. That amendment as it now stands excludes five fifths until they are enfranchised. This amendment excludes two fifths until they are enfranchised. For my part, one of the greatest anxieties I have about constitutional amendments, if they are to be submitted, is, that they be submitted in such a shape that the States will ratify them, so as to close up this matter and have an end of it. For this reason I am inclined to vote for the amendment.

The amendment was rejected.-

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I desire now to move some amendments to this second section. I propose to offer as a substitute for it the following:

After the census to be taken in the year 1870, and each succeeding census. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to the number in each State of male electors over twenty one years of age qualified by the laws thereof to choose members of the most numerous branch of its Legislature; and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States according to the value of the real and personal taxable property situated in each State, not' belonging to the State or to the United States.

I shall not go into any lengthy argument on the subject of this amendment, but simply state in the briefest words possible the grounds upon which I offer it. In the first place, I am in favor of it upon the ground of principle. I believe that in the House of Representatives the voting population of the country should be represented; that a voter in Wisconsin should have precisely the same voice in theHouseof Representatives as a voter in Massachusetts or a voter in Kentucky or a voter in South Carolina; that if twenty thousand voters in Wisconsin are permitted to speak one voice or cast one vote in the House of Representatives, twenty thousand voters in South Carolina should not be permitted to cast any more than one voice or one vote. I believe that a constitutional amendment based upon this principle, the principle of the representation of voters, is more likely to be acceptable to the States than the proposition which is reported by the committee and pending before the Senate. You may say that the effect of it may be very much the same, that if the States at the South do not choose to make voters of their colored population that population will not be represented in the House of Representatives, and you may say that is the effect under the pending amendment; but the principle upon which it is based is very different, and when you are asked to vote for a measure upon one principle it is a very different thing from what it is when you are a jked to vote for what may perhaps be the same in effect upon another principle.

I am for this, because it is no new conviction with me. It has been the conviction upon which I have acted during the whole of this struggle. It is the ground upon which my political associates in Wisconsin, and I believe the men of all parties in the State of Wisconsin, stand fully committed, in favor of the proposition to let representation be based upon the voters of the several States. If you say to the States of the South, "You must be deprived of one half of your representation or let your negroes vote," that is one thing; but if you say to the States of the South, "As a principle, it is but just that the men who vote shall be represented in the House cf Representatives," they may yield to your principle when they may not be prepared to yield to it in the form in which you present it.

Mr. President, I have looked a little into this subject to see what the effect will be. A friend of mine has prepared a table showing how this proposition will operate in the several States. This table shows the number of Representatives to which the States are now entitled, the number to which each would be entitled on the voting basis, and the number to which they will be entitled by the reconstruction amendment as proposed by the committee. The estimate is made upon the figures of 1860. l he State of Maine has five Representatives under the present apportionment. She had 100 718 voters in 1800, and upon the voting basis which requires 20 400 voters to be entitled to one Representative in the other House, she would have five Representatives. A Senator asks me how the voters can be ascertained. Their number can be ascertained when you take the census, like any other fact.

Mr. GRIMES. The amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin provides for the voting basis, not the basis of citizenship. In Wisconsin a man can vote who has been on this continent only six months. Does the Senator intend to include such persons as those in his basis in the State of Wisconsin?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. According to my amendment they would be embraced.

Mr. GRIMES. They would be embraced in Wisconsin; but would they be embraced in1 Massachusetts?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It depends 011 what Massachusetts decides on that question.

Mr. GRIMES. On the State law.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Certainly.

Mr. GRIMES. Then the purpose and object, or atany rate the legitimate result of this amendment, would be to degrade the elective franchise so as to allow every man to vote on the same platform, 011 the same basis.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Not at all. Youramendment proposes to allow the States to say who shall vote. Upon that subject I propose to take the sense of the Senate in both forms, both on the question of "male electors" and "male citizens of the United States." I wish certainly to accommodate myself to the judgment of the honorable Senator from Iowa, for I desire to secure his support, if it is possible, though I have some doubts about that.

Now, Mr. President, to come back to this table, the State of Maine had 100 718 voters in 1860, and she has five Representatives on the basis of population. On the voting basis she would still be entitled to five Representatives; but upon the reconstruction basis as reported by the committee Maine would gain one Representative and have six. So under this reconstruction amendment Maine gains one. How is it with New Hampshire? She had in 1800 C5 923 vote s and she has three Representatives on the present basis. New Hampshire would also have three Representatives upon the basis of the reconstruction amendment as reported by the committee. So New Hampshire is not affected, whichever way the thing stands, if it stands on the Constitution as it is, if it stands on the Constitution as the committee propose to amend it, or if it stands 011 the Constitution as it is proposed to be amended by the amendment which I have just offered.

We now come to Vermont. Vermont upon the present apportionment has three Representatives. In 1800 she cast 41 014 votes. Vermont would have but two Representatives upon the voting basis, because the fraction would not be large enough to give her three, but under this reconstruction amendment Vermont would still retain three Representatives. Nextwecometo Massachusetts. Massachusetts upon the present appoi tionment has ten Representatives. She had in 1800 100 175 voters. Upon the voting basis Massachusetts would have eight Representatives, so that my amendment would reduce her representation by two; but upon the reconstruction amendment as offered by the committee Massachusetts would have eleven, gaining one. Thus we see that Maine would gain one and Massachusetts would gain one, while Vermont and New Hampshire remain the same under the committee s amendment. Connecticut has four Representatives upon the present apportionment. She had 79 246 voters in 1800, so that she would have four Representatives upon the voting basis. Connecticut would also have four Representatives under the proposition of the committee. So Connecticut is not affected; she stands indifferent so far as the number of her representation is concerned. Rhode Island has two Representatives under the present apportionment. In 1860 she had 19 051 voters, so that the voting basis would give her but one Representative, whereas under the reconstruction amendment as reported by the committee she would have two. Thus it appears that upon the voting basis New England would lose four Representatives, whereas under the reconstruction amendment as proposed by the committee she would gain two Representatives. How does it stand withNew York? New York now has thirty one Representatives. She had in I860 675 176 voters. Upon the voting basis New York would gain three and her representation would be thirty four So upon the reconstruction basis as reported by the committee New York would also gain three. New Jersey has five Representatives under the present apportionment. Upon the voting basis, as New Jersey had 121 125 votes in 1860, she would have six, or a gain of one; and according to the reconstruction amendment as proposed by the committee, New Jersey would gain one.

How is it with Pennsylvania? Pennsylvania has now twenty four Representatives. The number of her voters in 1800 was 470 442 Upon the voting basis, Pennsylvania would have the same number, twenty four Representatives, her fraction being very large. Upon the reconstruction amendment as reported by the committee she would gain one.

Mr. COWAN. Oh, no. We have one hundred thousand negroes in Pennsylvania, and under that proposi ion we should lose one.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Perhaps that may be so. Ohio has under the present apportionment nineteen Representatives. She had in 1860 412 141 voters. Upon the voting basis Ohio would have twenty two Representatives, again of three, whereas, under the reconstruction amendment, she would have twenty, a gain of only one. Indiana, under the present apportionment, has eleven Representatives. She has 272 113 voters. Upon the voting basis Indiana would have thirteen Representatives, a gain of two, whereas upon the proposed amendment of the committee, Indiana would have twelve Representatives, a gain of one. Illinois has fou'teen Representatives under the present apportionment, with 839 093 voters. Illinois would have seventeen Representatives upon the voting basis, again of three, whereas, according to the proposition of the committee, Illinois would have but fifteen, a gain of only one. Michigan has under the present apportionment six Representatives, with 153 537 voters. Upon the voting basis Michigan would have eight Representatives, a gain of two, while upon the proposition of the committee she would have seven, a gain of one. Wisconsin has six Representatives, with 152 180 voters. Wisconsin, like Michigan, would have eight Representatives on the voting basis, a gain of two, whereas, upon the proposition of the committee, she would have but seven, a gain of one. Iowa now has six Representatives, but she has one of her Representatives upon a fraction. She had but 128, 331 voters, so that according to this table her representation would remain the same on the voting basis.

Mr. IvIRKWOOD. How does the Senator arrive at the number of voters in 1800?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. By the number of votes cast in the presidential election of 1800. I am speaking on that basis. Perhaps there are still more voters that did not vote, and you might be entitled to more if you counted them all. It would make it still better for you.

Mr. CRAGIN. With the permission of the Senator from Wisconsin I desire to ask him a question,

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Certainly.

Mr. CRAGIN. Suppose there are more voters, would it not. change his whole calculation?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Undoubtedly.

Mr. CRAGIN. Take, for instance, the State of Vermont, adjoining New Hampshire. The population of the two States is about the same, but in New Hampshire the contests are always close, and we bring out almost the last vote.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You do not lend them any of your voters. [Laughter, j

Mr. CRAGIN. In Vermont, according to the Senator s table, the number actually voting was 40 000 and over, and the Senator reduces her representation from three to two; but if the actual number of votes were counted Vermont would have the same as New Hampshire. It spoils his whole calculation.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. That maybe so, but my amendment provides for the representation being based on the voters as returned by the census, so that there will be no mistake about that. If Vermont has the voters she will not lose representation. Every voter in Vermont has just as much right to be represented as a voter in Wisconsin. The calculation 011 which I am relying is based upon the actual vote cast in 1800.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It is based also, I suppose, 011 the idea that the southern States will not enlarge their voters but that they will remain as they are now.*

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am taking the actual votes cast in 1860, and supposing that the laws remain the same on that subject. The State of -Minnesota is now entitled to two Representatives. She cast 34 790 votes in I860. Upon the voting basis she would be entitled to two Representatives, the same that she has now, for she has one upon a large fraction at present. California has now three Representatives. She cast in 18G0 118 840 votes, which would entitle her at the rate of twenty thousand voters to a Representative, to six Representatives, giving her an increase in her representation of three members. Oregon has one Representative and will have but one, because the voters in Oregon in I860 amounted to 14 410 who cast their votes in the election that year, and the population of Oregon probably is not such as to entitle her to more than one Representative, and may not be for some time to come. So also of Nevada.

Now. Mr. President, if we look to the late slave States, the State of Delaware under the present apportionmenthas one Representative. She had 10 039 voters in 1800, and upon the voting basis or any other basis the State of Delaware will have but one Representative. Maryland has under the present apportionment five Representatives. Maryland had 92 502 voters in 1860, and if you give to her the benefit of a large fraction, a fraction of twelve thousand out of twenty thousand which entitles to a vote, Maryland would still have, on the voting basis, five Representatives: and under this reconstruction amendment she would have the same.

West Virginia has three Representatives under the present apportionment. Her voters in 1860 are computed to be about 50 000—the accuracy of that calculation I cannot vouch for —-which would give her the same number of Representatives which she now has. Virginia, the remaining part of Virginia is entitled to eight Representatives under the present apportionment. On the voting basis of 117 223 she would be entitled to but six Representatives, which would be a reduction upon the State of Virginia of two, and the same reduction follows under the apportionment which is proposed by the committee.

Kentucky has now nine Representatives under the present apportionment. Kentucky had 145 258 voters in 1860, which would make her entitled to seven Representatives 011 the voting basis, and a large fraction, almost entitled to eight; but upon the voting basis Kentucky would lose two, and upon the proposition of the committee Kentucky will lose two of her Representatives. The effect upon her, therefore, is the same. Missouri is entitled to nine Representatives under the present apportionment. Missouri had 165 518 voters ill 1800, which would entitle her to eight Representatives, which would be a loss of one when she is reduced to the voting basis. North Carolina is entitled to seven Representatives undertliepresentapportionment. Upon the voting basis, as she had 96 230 voters in 1800, she would be entitled to but five, receiving one upon the large fraction of 10 000 South Carolina, under the present apportionment, is entitled to four Representatives. I have here an. estimate as to the amount of votes that were cast in the State of South Carolina, as her Legislature elects the presidential electors, and therefore no accurate computation could be made as to the voters of South Carolina; but her voters were estimated at about 50 000 It is calculated that upon the voting .basis, therefore, South Carolina would have three Representatives, and she will have the same under the proposition of the committee. Georgia is entitled to seven Representatives under the present apportionment. In 1860 Georgia had 100 365 voters, which would entitle her upon the voting basis to six Representatives. Florida had but 14 347 voters in 1860. She is entitled to but one Representative under the present apportionment, and cannot, under any circumstances, at present at least, be entitled to more than one.• Alabama has six Representatives under the present apportionment. She had 90 357 voters in 1860, which, upon the fraction of ten thousand and upwards, would entitle her to five Representatives upon the voting basis, and she would be entitled to the same number iftider the reconstruction amendment proposed by the committee. Mississippi is entitled to five Representatives under the present apportionment. She cast 69 120 votes in 1860, which would entitle her to four Representatives upon the voting basis, which would be a loss of one. Louisiana is entitled to five Representatives- under the present apportionment. She had 50 510 votes in 1860, which would entitle her to but three Representatives on the voting basis.

Of course this is based upon the assumption that the colored people of the South are not yet permitted to cast votes. When they become enfranchised these States will be entitled to increased representation. Texas is entitled to four Representatives under the present apportionment. She cast 60 986 votes in 1860, which would entitle her, on the voting basis, to three Representatives, or a loss of one. Arkansas is entitled to three Representatives under the present apportionment. She cast 54 053 votes in 1860, which would entitle her to three Representatives upon the voting basis, which is the same as upon this report of the committee. Tennessee is entitled to eight Representatives under the present apportionment. She had 145 333 votes in 1860, which would entitle her to seven Representatives, and a large fraction, but she would lose one if placed upon the voting basis, and the same upon the report of the committee.

Mr. President, if we recapitulate the whole According to the computation of this table, under the present apportionment the North or the old free States have one hundred and fiftyseven Representatives, the South or the late slave States eighty five making a majority in favor of the North or the old free States of seventy two in the House of Representatives. Upon the voting basis, the North or the old free States will have one hundred and seventytwo Representatives, while the South or the old slave States will have but seventy, and thus give to the old free States a majority in the Electoral College of one hundred and two. Thus it will be seen that this proposition to base representation upon the voting basis is three in favor of the old free States; and while New England, which, with her comparatively small population, has twelve Senators in this body, loses but four, and the great agricultural States of the Northwest, one of which I represent, will gain twelve in the House of Representatives. while such are the results, it seems to me it does not militate at all against the proposition which I have introduced. California, which now has three, would be entitled to six Representatives. I desire not to dwell at any great length on this subject.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Before the Senator leaves that part of his argument, I should like to ask him a question with his permission. Representation is now based upon population, and it is estimated, and I suppose there is not much doubt about the correctness of the estimate, that there are in the State of New York four hundred thousand foreigners not naturalized. Those foreigners give to the State of New York at this time three Representatives in the House of Representatives. The Senator proposes, by adopting voters as the basis of representation, to strike out those four hundred thousand foreigners, and at the same time he says New York will gain three in her representation. I should like to have an explanation of that difference.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, there were cast in 1860 4 731 193 votes, which, according to that estimate, would give 20 400 voters to each Representative elected. The State of New York cast in 1860, 675 156 votes, which, divided by 24 400 gives New York thirty four Representatives.

I think these tables will be found, upon calculation to be sufficiently accurate to illustrate all that is necessary to be shown upon this subject. The principle that voters should have an equal voice in the choice of Representatives in the House of Representatives, the popular bra neh of the Government, is a principle upon which we can stand and contend. We can ask men, even when it disfranchises the States of the South, to vote for that, when you cannot so well go to them and say,'" Gentlemen, you must consent to lose one third, one fourth, or one half of your representation unless you will allow the colored population to vote." That is a different question. You may say the effect produced is the same; but when you are arguing for a principle, that is to say, that the voice of the voter is what is to be heard in the House of Representatives, they will yield to the principle and accept it and vote for it when they would not vote for it presented in its present form. I ask for the yeas and nays upon this amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I am satisfied that my friend from Wisconsin is entirely in error in respect to the number of voters in the State of Vermont. He bases himself merely upon the election returns of the election of I860, if I understand him. The population of Vermont is more than 315 000 and if my recollection is not very much out of joint, in times gone by, when contests were approximately close there, we cast more than 60 000 votes; and I have no doubt to day that the number of male citizens of the State of Vermont, of that population of 315 000 and upward, is more than 60 000 so that in the particular instance that he recites as to that State there is an undoubted error in his figures of more than 16 000 voters; and if, as it often happens in States where the contest is not close, similar differences exist, the value of his tables is of course totally destroyed. Mathematics is one of the sciences where, if you leave out one link or make one error, the result flows through the whole problem, and therefore it will undoubtedly turn out that there is no reliance whatever to be placed upon the figures which my friend from Wisconsin has so ingeniously framed.

But, Mr. President, the question is broader and deeper than the mere selfish one of gain to this State or to that State. It is a question which enters into the profoundest philosophy of government, wh ther it is a true principle that the mere accident of the right to vote is to determine the representation of a community. The fathers who founded this Government acted upon the idea not only that the representation, as a principle, in general was to be based upon population, independent of the franchise, independent of citizenship, but there was also always to go with it, for the security of every part of the country, that other principle, that direct taxation, the "involuntary burdens which the citizen must bear, must stand always guarded by the right of representation; and therefore it was provided that representation and direct taxation should always go hand in hand in the same ratio.

Now, the proposition of my friend from Wisconsin is that we shall discard this timehonored principle, which in my judgment is an impregnable one, that we shall discard the original principle that all society in some form is to be represented in a republican Government, and select a particular few, who are themselves always to decide how that few shall be made up, who are not only to exercise all the powers and privileges of Government, but to exercise that other power and privilege of imposing the burdens upon some other section or some other class of the community; that is to say, if the East happens to be numerous in men and short of money, the eastern men may vote the taxes upon the western property, or the reverse.

I know how impatient the Senate is, and without entering at large upon this interesting and profound topic, in my judgment, the proposition of the Senator from Wisconsin is one which is full of inherent error, both in principle and practice, and I shall vote against it.

Mr. POLAND. I had prepared some remarks with reference to these amendments generally, and in the course of those remarks I had attempted to discuss the question that is raised upon this particular amendment. Perhaps it may be appropriate that I should deliver them now, although all that I might say is not perfectly germane to this amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Does the Senator from Vermont desire to go on this afternoon, or would he prefer to go on to morrow

Mr. POLAND. I am not particular.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If the Senator will give way I will move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

Mr. POLAND. It is immaterial to me.

Mr. HOWARD. I hope that motion will not be agreed to.

Mr. SHERMAN. There are quite a number of amendments to be offered, and I think we might as well proceed with them now, and the Senator from Vermont, if he desires it, can have the floor to morrow

Mr. POLAND. It is quite immaterial to me whether I proceed to night or to morrow morning. I give way to the motion for an executive session.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I understood the Senator from Vermont to say that he rather preferred to submit his general remarks oil the subject of reconstruction upon this amendment, and he desired to do it before the amendment was acted on by the Senate. It was with that view that I rose to move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

Mr. POLAND. I yield to your motion.

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