June 8, 1866

I took the ground that the former slaves in every State of the United States, being made free by this amendment, occupied precisely the same position with any other part of the bodypolitic, that a son of a colored man born in the State of Wisconsin under the broad regis of this amendment to the Constitution, had the same rights that my .son had. I maintained that by this amendment to the Constitution, iind by the promises of Abraham Lincoln made In his proclamation of emancipation, the former slave should be maintained in liis freedom; that being like any other man, and not unlike him in any respect, under this amendment to the Constitution, he had the same right, the ■same inherent, if you choose, God given right; and further, if he had not that right naturally or civilly or politically, he, by his heroic valor, his prowess upon many a glorious battle field where he had fought side by side with our own brave sons and brothers, had become entitled to it.

I took the ground which I maintain to day that suffrage is the only remedy for the evils by which we are surrounded. It is the only thing that can kill secession, the only thing that can divide the South or introduce a loyal element there which will be a counterbalancing force, the only thing which will secure us a loyal representation from the South and a loyal people in the South.

I further held that if we went before the American people without indirection or disguise upon this broad proposition, we should sweep a large majority of the northern States, we should carry some of the southern States, and we should establish this country upon the solid foundations of permanent peace and happiness.

Mr. President, 1 have therefore sent to the Chair the amendment which, with the consent of the honorable chairman of the committee, 1 am allowed to propose; an amendment which says that nothing in the sections which wo are about to adopt shall be construed to mean that the rights, franchises, and privileges already secured by the Constitution of the United States to any American citizen shall be impaired or in anywise affected. Such an amendment can do no harm. If the power for which I contend does not exist in the Constitution now, these words can at the worst be regarded but as surplusage; while the thousands and the hundreds of thousands of the American people who this day believe that the power does exist there, the hundreds of thousands who believed it to exist there even before this amendment, like my friend from Massachusetts, will the more readily support the amendments which the committee have reported when they see and when they feel assured that there is nothing in the amendments which will deprive the citizen of rights already guarantied by the Constitution of the United States. Believingas Idoasalawycr. believingin my heart that under the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery within the United States every inhabitant of the United States (excepting unnaturalized foreigners whose case is regulated by the Constitution) is as free a« I am, and entitled to the same rights and privileges that[ am, I have sent to the Chair this amendment which 1 desire to propose, so that there shall not be even a color for any judicial decision proposing to deprive men of rights which are already guarantied by the recognized law. Mr. President, if the Senator from Pennsylvania who sits by my side [Mr. Cowan*] were here, I would say to him that it is not radicalism that I fear. My fear is not that this Congress will be too radical; I am not afraid of this Congress being shipwrecked upon any proposition ofradiealism; but 1 fear from timid and cowardly conservatism which will not risk a great people to take their destiny in their own hands and to settle this great question upon the principles of equality, justice, and liberality. That is my fear.

So far as my position is concerned, it is unchanged; my convictions are the rather strengthened, and if I had it in my power today, I would write it in plain words upon the face of the Constitution, plain as the stars upon the sky, not in tortuous and hard to bo under stood propositions, but I would write in the fundamental and unchangeable law of the land, that the Declaration of American Independence was a verity, that all men were created equal; and having the powers which this Congress now has, I would prove my belief by making that Declaration a reality. If this Congress of the United States could adjourn on the 4th day of July, I860, having accomplished this great result it would be the greatest epoch in the annals of time. At the termination of such a war as this, with its mighty events, signalized by its grand armies and its greater issues, and by the blazonry of the great achievements of our sons upon so many glorious battle fields after so much blood and so much treasure had been spent, I could hope that the Congress of the United States would come up to the grand results that are taught by the events of this war, and by the emergencies by which we are surrounded, and proclaim the true principle and the only principle upon which this Government can live.

I am true to the theory of my Government. J believe, I religiously believe, that the strong common sense of all the people, of the populace, of America is the salvation of the Government of the United States. My distinguished friend from Wisconsin, [Mr Boolittle,] and he is really my friend, claimed that he was the saviour of our party because he had prevented the issue of negro suffrage from being made in the State of Wisconsin last fall. Sir, a man who could claim to be the instrument of conferring these great and inalienable rights upon his fellow men might with some propriety claim to be the saviour of his party and of his country. Does the Senator remember the gallant regiment from the State of Wisconsin, one thousand strong, who went out and bore up our flag amid the storm and thunder of battle? And he call himself a saviour of the country because he has been the instrument in the hands of Providence of preventing I them from exercising the right of suffrage! Sir, his comparison of himself with our blessed Saviour was true in only one respect that I know of, and that is that he will most certainly be crucified. If, on the other hand, lie could have come forward and said," I stood by you; you were true to your country in the hour of its calamity and its affliction; we called you to the help of the Government; you came and stood by us in the hour of our calamity;" if he had made a sacrifice of himself in such a glorious act of humanity and human liberty, (if sacrifice it could be called,) it might not be considered blasphemy to compare himself to Him whose mission upon earth it was to proclaim liberty to the captive, to break every yoke, and let the oppressed go free. Not so much of a victory was that in Wisconsin. The honorable Senator said with an air of triumph that negro suffrage had been beaten by nine thousand votes. Look at it. After i two hundred years of foul oppression, of accumulated prejudice against a race, when politicians dare not, assert their opinions, at the very first election in the State of Wisconsin negro suffrage lacked only nine thousand votes, according to his statement, of being carried: and I am prepared to believe that with his powerful influence it would have been carried triumphantly.

Mr. President, we may legislate on this question of suffrage. We may attempt by indirection to find direction. We know what we want and what we have got. Suffrage is upon us. Colored men vote in Wisconsin to day under the authority of legal decisions. Iowa has boldly proclaimed by a majority of her citizens that she is for suffrage. Connecticut gained upon her last vote. Even in the slave States. Tennessee and Texas are on the verge of suffrage; and before these resolutions shall have passed the Congress of the United States suffrage, in spite of all of our legislation, will be an accomplished fact. Four million people set free in this country will override all political platforms and opposing forces. Seven hundred and fifty thousand voters loyal and true to the Union must and shall be had in favor of the preservation of this Government and the principles of human liberty.

It is to me the strangest thing in the world that while we deny to four million loyal men— men who have been loyal under all circumstances, who have been true to the country everywhere, in war and in peace—while we deny to them the rights of American citizens, we are prepared to extend all privileges to the men who have tried to destroy and to overthrow the Government. There is no propriety, there is no good taste in such yearnings over rebels and traitors, while we deny right and justice to our friends.

We listened to the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowan] a day or two ago. and he seemed, to think that to deprive a man of the right to hold an office was the highest punishment that could possibly be inflicted upon him; and he supposed a most affecting case, but a case which is utterly impossible, that my friend from Michigan had been a traitor, and that he wanted to be a candidate for the United States Senate, and his wife and children would gather around liim and say, "Why cannot my husband or my father be a Senator? He is ns great as any of those men there; why cannot he bo a Senator? Simply because lie has not the right to hold an office. It is a punishment; it is the mark of Cain upon his brow; it is the wolf head upon his brow. He has no right to be a Senator; otherwise my husband or my father would be in the Senate as well as other people."

Sir, let us suppose another ease. Here is a man, Winder, or Dick Turner, or some other notorious character. He has been the cause of the death of that boy of yours. Ho lias shot at him from behind an ambuscade, or he has starved him to death in the Andersonville prison, or he has made him lie at Belle Isle subject to disease and death from the miasma by which he was surrounded. When he is upon trial and the question is, "Sir, are you guilty, orare you not guilty'!" and lie raises his bloodstained hands, deep dyed in innocent and patriotic blood, the Senator from Pennsylvania. rises and says, "For God s sake do not deprive him of the right to go to the Legislature." The idea is that if a man has forfeited his life, it is too great a punishment to deprive him of the privilege of holding office.

But I stated that. I should make but a very ■few remarks, and 1 now come to the point which is more interesting to all of us, and that is. strange as it may seem, with these views in my mind, and while I subject, myself to the criticism of my distinguished friend from Indiana, Mr. Hkn drh Ks J I shall support these propositions. They are not such as I approve. They do not come up to the stand point which 1 have set for myself. I think that Congress has failed to come up to the stand point of the people in this regard; but, at. the same time, as 1 ciiimot get the position for which 1 have no earnestly contended, I will sit quietly bv, as I have sat quietly by, and take the next best proposition that t can get. 1 believe in the good common sense of my friend from Maine [Mr. 1 kssknhi n who says flint if he cannot get. the best dinner ho will take the next best: if he cannot get the best proposition lie will take the next best, proposition, f have a good deal of faith like that of my friend from Ohio; and while 1 would not state the proposition quite so broadly as he does, _>ot I always feel perfectly safe when 1 am in the hands of a good Republican Union party; audi would rather trust to the wisdom of the Senator from Maine and the collective wisdom of the Senators by whom I am surrounded than to stand foolishly by myself and assert that I was the only man in the world who understood this question. 1 only act upon a principle that, the Senator from Indiana and myself and all of us act, upon here every day. Wo propose to amend propositions, and if those amendments fail wo go for the proposition itself, notwithstanding our amendments are not adopted, notwithstanding the best thing is not in it; and that is my position to day

There are other points in these constitutional amendments to which 1 will not refer, except to say that my judgment approves of them. I am for the exclusion of traitors and rebels from exercising control and power and authority in this Government until they have shown fruits meet for repentance. I am for the repudiation of the rebel debt. T am against compensation for slaves, as I am against compensation for any other rebel property. But above all there is in the first section a clause that I particularly favor. It is this:

All poison;! bom in iLc United Status, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are oitiKon s of the United States and of the States wherein they Reside.

And then it goes on to provide that their rights shall not be abridged by any State. We have here, in the Constitution of the United States of America, a guarantee which protects us from future judicial tyranny such as we have experienced under the decisions of the Supreme Court. We have a declaration as to who are citizens of the United States. If this amendment of mine could be adopted, that in the constitutional amendments which wo submit we do not propose to conflict with any rights which have been heretofore guarantied by the fundamental law, the Constitution of the United States, I should be still more satisfied.

But, sir, there is another feature in this proposition, and that is that although we do not obtain suffrage now, it is not far off, because the grasping desire of the South for office, that old desire to rule and reign over this Government and control its destinies, will at a very early day hasten the enfranchisement of the loyal blacks.

While gentlemen upon the other side of the Chamber are opposed to these measures as too radical, I am opposed to them, so far as I might present points of opposition, because they are. not radical enough. At all events, therefore, we have the medium between extremes; we have moderation. If we do not meet the views of the Radicals on I he one hand, nor the views of the pro slavery Democracy upon the other, we at all cvems ba e the medium, the moderation which hasbuen agreed upon by (lie collective wisdom of the American Senate. I am glad that I can go before my constituents and say that, in the whole history of the world there never were such terms of moderation and of magnanimity proposed to a vindictive foe as by these resolutions which have been reported by the committee of fifteen.

Mr. VKSShlN V KN I ask leave to make a report. 1 have here an extended report IVom the. committee of fifteen", so called, the committee on reconstruction, giving their views and reasons with reference to the joint resolution which they submitted to the Senate and the conclusions to which they arrived. It was my hope that some time in the course of this debate, before the vote was taken, I might have the opportunity to lay the whole report before the Senate and have it, read, but it is now so late an hour, and as gentlemen are desirous of taking the vote, and it has been agreed to take it to day that J do not feel that it would be right, to attempt to have it read in detail. I therefore move that it be laid upon (lie table and printed.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. .JOHNSON. It was understood in committee that if there should be an}' member who did not agree with the majority of the committee he would ho at liberty to make a counter or minority report, and I merely rise for the purpose of saying that as such is the condition in which I stand, and in which two or three other members of the committee stand, I shall avail myself of that privilege at as early a day as possible.

Mr. McDOUGALL. Mr. President, there is no one who more admires the rhetoric or the elocution of the Senator from Illinois than 1, for 1 have known him from ancient days; but the people of Illinois a long time ago said by a formal act of legislative power that no person of African blood should go into the State of Illinois; and that is now, I believe, still on your statute book

Mr. YATES. It is in the constitution.

Mr. McDOUGALL. I remember very well, for 1 inhabited in and about that part of the world a long time ago, then it was thought improvident in the State of Illinois to allow colored people to come within their lines, and it was incorporated into their fundamental law; i and that has not heeu, if I am correct, changed; up to this time. I ask the Senator from Illinois if it has been.

Mr. THUMB ULL. The constitution has not been altered; the law has been.'

Mr. McDOUGALL. I only mention this as I (he text for my own opinion, for 1 was converI sant with that State at that time, and the people then held that a negro or a man of African descent was not. a valuable property in the State of Illinois. That is the opinion there now, and when it comes to be questioned by my friends from Illinois, they will find that there is the same opinion in Illinois yet. They think yet that Government belongs to the white race. That is the simple, clear proposition. It is refuted. The converse is affirmed in Massachusetts and some other places, and I saw there was a meeting in Boston a short time since where they said that if the right of suffrage was not granted t o the African there would be a bloodier war than the last war through which we have gone. I will give you a response to that, coming from a different part of the country. It is from a secessionist. I will state it exactly. He came back home, and had reintegrated himself. A friend of mine met him at Louisville, Kentucky, and said to hinl, How are you, Benham? llow about this being down on Beauregard s staff?" lie replied, l I was there." How about it now?" He answered," I tell you that I am the best Union man in the United States, and if you will give me a chance I will prove it, ami I will prove it in this wise: let Massachusetts and company undertake to secede, and then I will prove my Unionism."

Mr. HOWARD. I do not wish to call the Senator from California to order; but he must be aware that, his observations are not very pertinent to the question now before the Senate, and I am very anxious to bring this measure to a final vote before we adjourn.

Mr. McDOUGALL. I will not occupy the floor longer. I mean to say this by way of affirmation of my opinions upon one of the gravest questions that has arisen in these times, f believe firmly, and I believe sternly, that this is a Government where there should be no mongrel races. I would not permit it if 1 had the power to resist it, and I will give my voice against it, and 1 give it now.

ThePRES 11 ING0PK1CE R. (Mr. Pomeroy ill the chair.) The question before the Senate is on the amendment of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Yii j iamk as a substitute for the second section of the resolution. the amendment has been modified by the mover, and it will bo read as modified.

The Secretary lead the amendment as modified, which was to strike out the second section of the resolution and to insert the following in lieu thereof:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the povei i Slates according to their resp eeiive numbers, eniintiu? tiie whole number of persons in each ■State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive, and judicial officers ot a State, or the members of the Lctdi lutuie thereof, is denied to any ot the male inhabitants of such State, boms twenty one years of age and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male eitizensshail bcarto the whole number of male citizens twenty one years of age in such State.

Mr. HOWARD. I have one word to say upon that amendment. I desire to state, as briefly and clearly as I am able, some of the consequences to which it will lead if adopted. It declares that when the right to vote at any election for those five several classes of public officers shall be denied to any person of twentyone years of age and a citizen of the United States, that person .shall not be included in the count in forming the basis of representation. How is this to be carried out, supposing it to be adopted? AVhatwill be its practical workings when made a part of the Constitution by a formal ratification? The census taker will find it necessary, whenever he makes the count of the inhabitants of the particular State or district where he is acting, to ascertain, as precisely as he is able, and to note down in his tallies the various persons within the State who are capacitated to vote for any one or all of these five classes of public officers. For instance, he will be required to note down in his returns what classes of voters are allowed to vote for Governor of the State; how manyare authorized to vote for Lieutenant Governor; who are authorized to vote for members of the State Legislature; who for electors of President and Vice President of the United States; who for the judicial officers of the State; and so on to the end of the category. Without this exact information to he furnished from the State, it will be readily perceived that it will be impossible to fix and settle the ratio of representation which the State shall be entitled to. No one class of the voters for these several classes of public officers is to be held as the standard and test for the number of persons in that State to be included in the count in the formation of the basis of representation. It appears to me that it introduces a rule which is so uncertain, so difficult of practical application, as not only greatly to increase the expenses of ascertaining the basis of representation by Congress in procuring the necessary information, but in many cases the returns must be so inaccurate and unreliable as to be next to worthless.

As 1 said before, I do not wish to consume the time of the Senate, but it is at once to be perceived that if this rule shall bo adopted, its operations will be felt in every election of a justice of the peace, in every municipal corporation of the United States, where, by the municipal law of the place, a justice of the peace is to be elected for a justice of the peace is a judicial officer in precisely the same sense that the Chief Justice of the United States is such. We know very well that the States retain the power, which they have always possessed, of regulating the right of suffrage in the States. It is the theory of the Constitution itself. That right has never been taken from them; no endeavor has ever been made to take it from them; and the theory of this whole, amendment is, to leave the power of regulating the suffrage with the people or Legislatures of the States, and not to assume to regulate it by any clause of the Constitution of the United States.

One class of qualifications may by a State be made necessary in the election of a Governor; another set in the election of the members of the Senate in that State another in the election of members of the most numerous branch of the Legislature; another set of qualifications may be required by the State in the election of its several judicial officers; another in the election of electors of President and Vice President of the United States; and so on to the end of the chapter. It is a system which must necessarily vary as the laws and constitutions of the States vary; and a system which, therefore, must necessarily lead to great difficulty in its practical operations and results, and in many cases be almost entirely worthless for want of the necessary exact information which Congress should acquire and use in fixing the basis. A class of voters may be excluded from voting for a justice of the supreme court in their State who may, within their municipal limits, be allowed to vote for justices of the peace. This amendment would exclude from the count, all those voters, citizens of the State, who were not permitted to vote for a justice of the supreme court; and there is no telling how far this may extend, or where these disabilities may lead, and what the ultimate results may be. I far prefer some simple standard; and if it be in order I beg to submit to the Senate, as the result of the best consideration I have been able to bestow, a simple amendment to the amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon. My amendment will i refer to his printed amendment offered yesterday. If it shall be adopted the whole section will read thus; arid I desire the attention of the Senate for a moment to the text of the amendment if it shall be adopted, as I propose to amend it:

Representatives shall bo apportioned among the several States according to their respectivennmbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But whenever the right to vote at any election held under the constitution and laws of anyStato formembers of the most numerous branch of its Legislature is denied to any male inhabitant of such State, being twenty one years of age and a citizen of the United States, except for participation m rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall bo reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty one years of age in such State.

This will leave the simple test to be the qualifications of a voter for members «f the most numerous branch of the Legislature of the State; and it has no connection with any Other State officer.

Now, sir, let me say one word more. By the Constitution of the United States those persons in a State who are privileged to vote for members of the most numerous branch of its Legislature are the persons authorized to elect members of the Congress of the United States. The rule is invariable throughout the States. Why not introduce into this amendment this ancient, simple, invariable, and easily working test, instead of the variable and shifting qualifications embraced in the amendment of the honorable Senator from Oregon?

I propose also to strike out the words" or in anyway abridged"' in the eighth line of the printed amendment. I do not know, and I have not yet been able to find any gentleman who did know, what an abridgment of the right to vote really is. It strikes me it is a! misapplication of terms. The right to vote j is a unit. It is indivisible, as indivisible as J a mathematical point, and as incapable of j abridgment. If a man possesses the right[ to vote, he possesses it in its entirety, if lie j does not possess it, he does not possess it either conditionally, qualifiedly, or at all. He must possess it wholly or not at all. I am not able to see how this right can be abridged. It seems to me this language is introducing confusion and uncertainty into our constitutional amendment. It is an invitation to raise questions of construction, and it will be followed, in my humble judgment, and as I fear, with an unending train of disputations in courts of justice and elsewhere, and there is no possibility of foreseeing what in the end will be the decision of the Supreme Court as to the meaning of the language "orin any way abridged." To me it is incomprehensible'. I felt it a duty due to myself thus to express my objections to the amendment of the Senator from Oregon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan proposes two amendments to the amendment submitted by the Senator from Oregon. The first amendment will be read.

The Secretary read the amendment, which was to strike out in the fourth line of the amendment, after the word" taxed" the words— But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the execute e and judicial officers of a State, or the membeisof' the Legislature thcicof—

And to insert in lieu thereof:

Butwhenever the right to vote at any eloctionlield under the constitution and laws ot any State for members of the most numerous branch oi its Legislature. So that the amendment, if amended, will read:

Representatives shall lie apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number ot persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. Butwhencvertheright to vote at any election held under the constitution and laws of any State for members of the most numerous branch of its Legislature is denied to any ot the male inhabitants of such State, ii c

Mr. HENDRICKS. It is not my purpose to delay the vote but a moment. 1 have desired to accommodate the Senator who wishes to leave, and" shall not be in the way of that result, but it is my duty to call the attention of the Senator from Michigan to the language of the first section. He says that the word "abridged" as found in the second section in its connection with the right of suffrage, is of such uncertain meaning that it ought not to be used in the Constitution; that it would carry cases into the courts; and therefore the word ought not to be used. Now, I find the same word used in the first section of this article, and in a very important connection, if possible in a more important connection than that in which it is found in the second section:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

If the chairman was going to say the chairman of the caucus, but 1 will not say that —if the distinguished Senator who has this measure now in charge says to the Senate that the word "abridged," in its connection with the rightof suffrage, is of such uncertain meaning that it should not be used in the Constitution in that connection, is it proper that that word shall be used in the first section in relation to the rights and privileges and immunities of citizens?

Mr. HOWARD. I think so, undoubtedly; because it is easy to apply the term "abridged" to the privileges and immunities of citizens, which necessarily include within themselves a great number of particulars. They are not a unit, an indivisible unit, like the right to vote.

Mr. COWAN. I should like to make the inquiry again, how the abridgment or the extent of the abridgment is to be determined in the several States where it is abridged for non payment of taxes, or abridged for 11011- residcnce and all that kind of thing.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The language of the first section would be identical with the second if it were "denied or abridged." Now the Senator says he cannot understand what it means when wo speak of "abridging" the right of suffrage. Then I ask what it means when we speak of" abridging" the rights and immunities of citizenship. It is a little difficult to say, and I have not heard any Senator accurately define, what are the rights and immunities of citizenship; and I do not know that any statesman has very accurately defined them; but even in reference to that, which of itself is not very certain but to some extent vague, a word is now used, as the Senator says, of uncertain legal meaning. He is willing that wo shall say" abridge" the rights and immunities of citizens, but not willing that we shall use the word" abridge" the rightof suffrage. Of course, the abridgment of the right of suffrage does not apply to the particular individual when he comes to east his vote, that he shall cast a part of a vote. It does not mean that. It must relate to the class that shall enjoy it. An abridgment of the right of suffrage must relate to the class to which it applies or extends.

Mr. President, my purpose in calling attention to this is to say that this proceeding by the amendment of the Constitution is not so safe as it ought to be. What have we witnessed within the last two days? The measure first came from the committee of fifteen, where it was considered for long sessions of the committee, and brought before us. as it was claimed, in a very perfect state. A little discussion showed that it would not stand the test. Senators were opposed to this and that of the different propositions. Then it went to a peculiar assembly, and was considered there. It comes back, and even the Senator who brings in the report is now dissatisfied. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Sherman] yesterday admitted that he was dissatisfied; that it was not what ho desired. The Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Yates,] so very able and eloquent to day says it is not what it ought to be; and 1 desire to say, in explanation, that the criticism that I made yesterday 011 the position of the Senator from Ohio does not apply to the Senator from Illinois. The Senator from Illinois did not understand the logical force of the point which I made. I did not say that when a proposition is before a body, if an amendment is offered to that, proposition, and you lose your amendment, therefore you must necessarily vote against the original proposition because you cannot get the best that you think might bo done. My point upon the Senator from Ohio was this, that the original proposition being here, and an amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, the Senator from Ohio said in his place that the amendment was the better of the two propositions, but he was going to vote against an amendment which was better than the original proposition. That is the very reverse of the position occupied by the Senator from Illinois. 1 acknowledge that the position of the Senator from Illinois is a very correct one. 1 do not choose to vote against a measure simply because an amendment which I think would improve it is defeated, if the original measure commands my judgment.

Now, sir, this measure, which I believe can accomplish no good for the country, is condemned in part by the Senator from Ohio, in part by the Senator from Illinois, in part by the Senator who now proposes an amendment; but all three of these Senators say they will vote for it, not that it is right, but that it is the best they can get under the circumstances. I do not expect the judgment of each man to be perfectly satisfied with every proposition; but, sir, the Constitution ought not to be amended for the purpose of making a platform for a political campaign. The Constitution of the country ought to be amended that it shall be the permanent fundamental law of the country. The embarrassment here is, not that it is difficult (o define such general propositions as ought to find their way into the Constitution, but the difficulty in the phraseology here is to include this, and to exclude that, to leave general propositions, to leave a principle, and to fix up a thing for a particular purpose. When the Senator from Michigan says that the southern negroes ought not to be counted if they are regarded as unfit to be voters, I understand that proposition; but when he turns around and says that the people, of Missouri, who are decreed by the rest of the people of that State as unfit to be voters, shall be represented, 1 do not understand such a proposition; and where you undertake to express opposite thoughts m the same sentence you find difficulty ol pln aseoiogy If you will say in plain words that nobody shall be represented in Congress who is not recognized by the State as a voter, I understand it; but when you say that a man in the State of Georgia shall not be represented because the people of Georgia count him unfit to be a voter, and in the State of Missouri, a man, who is counted as unfit to be a voter, shall be represented there, I do not understand tin; principle. When you have to fix up a Constitution to include some things and exclude others, for partisan purposes, you do find difficulties of phraseology. It cannot be made easy. The difficulty is in the thought, not in the use of the English language; and that is tlie very difficulty that we have in this ease. TIow do you want to!' abridge" the right of siiilrageV What is meant by it? What is meant by "abridging" the rights and immunities of citizens? Wc do not know, the Senator from Michigan says. Why shall we allow representation to a non voter in one State, and disallow it in another, upon principle? You say that the negro in Georgia, because he is not. allowed to be a voter by the people of Georgia, shall not be represented, and you say that the criminals, because they are criminals, in Missouri, excluded from the right of voting, shall be represented. Where is the principle and the right of it?

Sir, this thing will be discussed before the people. Although it is clothed in doubtful sentences, it will come to be understood. 1 believe the people of this country are just; and I do not think the people of this country will say that the voter in Missouri ought to represent two men, when the voter in another State is denied that. But, sir, my purpose was simply to suggest to the distinguished Senator from Michigan ihatthe same doubtful word was used in the first section that he objects to in the second.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Michigan to the amendment of the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I ask that the question may be divided, so that the vote on striking out the words "'or in any way abridged" may be taken separately.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is a separate amendment. The question now is on the first amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan to the amendment of the Senator from Oregon.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the second amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan to the amendment made by the Senator from Oregon, which is in line eight of the amendment to strike out the words "or in any way abridge."

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

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

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CLARK. I now move the amendment which 1 have heretofore offered striking out the fourth and fifth sections of the resolution and inserting a substitute: and I desire to modify the substitute by striking out the word "forever," in the last line, which does not add anything to its force.

The Secretary read the proposed substitute for the fourth and fifth sections, as follows;

Sec. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shn i not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any ,State shall assume or pay any debt oroblifsation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for tlic loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall bo held illegal and void.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not understand that this changes at all the effect of the fourth and fifth sections. The result is the same.

Mr. CLARK. The result is the same.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I desire to insert in the first section, by general consent, after the word "born," the words" or naturalized;" so that the clause will read;

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are cttizen s of the United States ami of the .State wherein they reside.

Mr. HOWARD. There is no objection to that.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. 1 00 LITTLE. I now offer the amendment which 1 gave notice of, the effect of which is to submit these several sections as so many separate articles, any one of which may be adopted or rejected by the States. I move to strike out all after the enacting clause of the resolution and to insert the following:

That the following articles be proposed to theLegislatu is of the several States as amendments, to the Constitution of the United States, which, or either of which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall bo valid as part of the Constitution, namely:

Article—. All persons born in tlio United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens oi the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Jio State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States: nor shall any State deprive any pei on of life, liberty, or property, without due proec s of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article 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. -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 loss than twenty one years of ago in such State.

Article—. Noperson shall beaSenatoror Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice, President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Article—. The obligations of the United States, incurred in suppressing insurrection, or in defense of the Union, or for payment of bounties or pensions incident thereto, shall remain inviolate.

Article—. Neither th United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aicl of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim on account of the loss or emancipation ofanyslave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims, shall be forever held illegal and void.

Article—. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of these articles.

I shall not make any speech on this subject. I simply state the fact that this is in accordance with the precedents. The first amendments to the Constitution submitted to the States were twelve in number, and they were submitted as separate articles. Ten of them were adopted; two of them were rejected by the States. All the other" amendments that have ever been submitted have been submitted as separate articles.

Mr. JOHNSON. And the language was the same," or either of them."

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I have not the acts before me, but that is so. The reason is obvious. In all legislation a single member has the right to demand a vote on every single proposition; and as these distinct propositions are to be submitted to the Legislatures of the several States, they ought to bo submitted in such a way that they may ratify or reject either of the propositions. Now, they are entirely distinct from each other; the first defining citizenship; the second on the subject of representation; the third in relation to disfranchisement; and, as I amended, the fourth and fifth sections are combined in one, having reference to the public debt and the rebel debt. They arejill distinct, independent propositions. They ought not to be submitted in such a way that they must all be accepted or all rejected by the States, but the States should bo permitted to act upon each of them separately. I will not take up the time of the Senate in discussion, because I know the desire is to vote.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The amendment submitted a year ago was in two sections; so that this is not without precedent.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The last section was simply to enforce the first.

Mr. JOHNSON. They were not disconnected at all.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I merely mention this to correct the statement of the Senator.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It was substantially the same, and gave no other power but to enforce the first; that is all.

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

Mr. JOHNSON. On that question I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 11, nays 38; as follows; YEAS— Messrs. Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson, McDougall, Norton, Riddle, Saulsbury, and Van Winkle

NAYS —Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cra in Creswcll, Edmunds, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood. Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates—o3.

ABSENT—Messrs. Brown, Buckalew, Dixon, Nesmith, and Wright—5.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. DAVIS. I desire to move an amendment to the third section.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that the third section being an amendment agreed to in committee, it is not in order to amend it now, but it will be in order when the joint resolution shall be reported to the Senate.

The joint resolution was reported to the Senate as amended.#

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution is now open to further amendment.

Mr. DAVIS. I now move to amend the third section, in line thirty three by striking out the words "or under any State," and in lines thirty five and thirty six by striking out the words "or as a member of any State Legislature or as an executive or judicial officer of any State;" so that it will read:

Sec.3. That no person shall be a, Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall haveengagedin insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each House remove such disability.

I have barely a word to say in explanation of this amendment. This section operates upon all officers, both of the United States and of the States, who took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and it excludes them from office in the future, as well in the States as in the United States. The object of my amendment is simply to limit the effect of the violation of the Constitution to cases where the officer who took the oath was a United States officer, to exclude the ineligibility from State officers, and to restrict it entirely to Federal officers.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. DAVIS. I have another amendment to offer. It is to insert at the end of section four:

But the obligation of the United States to pay for private property taken for public use in all cases shall remain inviolate.

I will explain this amendment in a word. Section four reads as follows:

The obligations of the United States incurred in suppressing insurrection, or in defense of the Union, or for payment of bounties or pensions incident thereto, shall remain inviolate.

Mr. HENDERSON. That has been stricken

Mr. CLARK. But it has been inserted again in another form.

Mr. DAVIS. The effect of my amendment is simply to insert a provision that the obligation of the United States for the payment of private property taken for public use shall also remain inviolate.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. DAVIS. I have one more amendment and then I have done. I send it to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that the amendment that the Senator proposes is to a part that lias been stricken out, and does not apply and cannot be made to apply to the text as it now stands, and therefore is not in order.

Mr. DAVIS. I will inquire if there is not inserted in lieu of that which is stricken out something to the same effect.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Something to the same effect has been inserted, and the amendment can be made to apply to that.

The Secretary read the amendment, which ■was in section four, line three, after the word "bounties," to insert the following words:

Including bounties promised to the owners of slaves enlisted into the military service of the United States by the act of Congress of February 29 1861

Mr. CLARK. That amendment is in order.

Mr. DAVIS. I have but a word to say on the amendment. The Congress of the United States passed an act which I have before me, but which I will not read, in which they pledged the payment of certain bounties to the loyal owners of slaves that might be enlisted into the armies of the United States either from volunteering or by being drafted. I merely propose a guarantee in this clause for the payment of those bounties.

The amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on concurring in the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole. The question will be taken on all the amendments collectively unless some Senator desires a separate vote. ["Altogether."]

Mr. HOWARD. I wish to reserve the amendment to the second section for a separate vote. 39tii Cong. 1st Sess —No 191.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment will be reserved.

Mr. JOHNSON. There are two or three of these sections that I should be willing to vote for, but I cannot vote for the whole. I think, therefore, we had better take the vote separately.

Mr. SHERMAN. I think we had better take the vote 011 the sections separately.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator ask for a separate vote on all the amendments?

Mr. SHERMAN. I ask that each section be read, and that the vote be taken on them separately.

Mr. GRIMES. That cannot be done, as I understand. They are all embodied in one resolution. The idea suggested by the Senator from Ohio is substantially the proposition of the Senator from Wisconsin, which was voted down. I know that his proposition was to submit these sections as articles to the States separately; but all these propositions are before us in one joint resolution.

Mr. SHERMAN. Each section lias been amended, and as a matter of course wo can act on them, separately.

Mr. GRIMES. You can act on the amendments separately.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on concurring in the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole, and the question must be taken on each amendment separately if called for by any Senator. The first amendment will be read.

The Secretary read the first amendment, which was to insert at the beginning of the first section the following words:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Mr. McDOUGALL. I move that the resolution under consideration be postponed until Tuesday next at one o'clock.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It was agreed yesterday that we should take the vote to day

Mr. HOWARD. I hope it will not bo postponed. It was understood that we should come to a final vote to day

Mr. McDOUGALL. Inmakingthe motion, I wish to give the reason why i make it. This business of amending the Constitution should be carefully done; and about many of those provisions I am myself still in great doubt, though I have looked at them as carefully as I could. I do not think we should hasten constitutional amendments. It takes a great deal of hard work to get out foundation stones, and now we are undertaking to lay foundation stones. I say the measure had better be manipulated a little more than it has been, so that we may know that we do exactly right whether we affirm or disaffirm the proposition.

Several Senators. Let us vote.

Mr. McDOUGALL. I am not disposed to vote upon it at all. Of course I can be subjected to the power of a majority as organized in caucus; but I must say it is the first time in the history of this Republic that legislative matters and great constitutional questions were settled in party caucus. That has transpired for the first time in our history during the recent Avar and during the past, and present Administrations. It deprives men of the right of counsel. Those who have the violence and strength of the majority can exert it; but 1 have a right to be heard upon all these questions. There is no party organization that has the right, under our system of government, to so organize themselves that they shall supersede the system under which our Government was established, and when they do it it is an act of tyrannous power. It is glorious to have a giant s power, but tyrannous to use it like a giant.

The motion to postpone was not agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on concurring in the amendments made as in Committee ot the Whole to the first section of the proposed article.

The amendments were concurred in.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am decidedly in favor of the first part of the section which defines what citizenship shall be, and in favor of that part of the section which denies to a State the right to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, but I think it is quite objectionable to provide that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," simply because I do not understand what will be the effect of that.

Mr. FESSENDEN. We have agreed to that.

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand not.

Mr. CLARK. We have concurred in the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole to the first section.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is all. Ycu have not agreed to the words to which I now object. I move, therefore, to amend the section as it now stands by striking out the words" make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State;" so as to make it read:

No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Mr. CONNESS. Have all the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole been voted upon?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been.

Mr. CONNESS. Are they not first in order?

Mr. CLARK. Oh, we may as well vote on this amendment now as it is moved; it saves time.

The amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment made as in Committee of the Whole was to strike out the second section and insert a substitute for it, which will be read.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The will of the Senate in regard to those amendments has been so emphatically expressed that I think we may as well take the vote on all of them without reading them. We all know what they are.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator from Michigan called for a separate vote.

Mr. HOWARD. Only upon this amendment.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Then upon the others let us have one vote and be done with them.

Mr. TPbUMBULL. The question now is on striking out the second section and inserting another. Lot us have the yeas and nays on that.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. GRIMES. Is the question on concurring in the amendment or striking it out?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On concurring in the amendment.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The question is on striking out the second section and inserting that amendment instead of it.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Wo made the amendment in committee. Now the question is on concurring in if.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Very well, but concurring in that strikes out the second section and puts in another section in place of it. Those who are in favor of striking out the second section as it was printed and inserting what was offered by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Williams] will say" ay," and those who are in favor of adhering to the section as it is printed will say 'lno."

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 31, nays 11; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Anthony, Clark, Conness, Cowan, Cragin, Creswell, Doolittle, Edmunds, I essenden Foster, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Howe, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, McDougall. Morgan. Morrill, Norton, Nye, Poland. Pomeroy, Itamsev. Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams and WilS°IS AV S— Messrs Chandler. Guthrie, Hendricks, Howard, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Saulsbury, Sprague, Trumbull, Wade, ;md Yiites—11.

ABSENT— Messrs. Brown, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Nesmith, Riddle, and Wright-".

So the amendment to the second section was concurred in.

Several Senators. Now let us vote on all the other amendments together.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If such be the pleasure of the Senate, the question will be taken collectively on all the other amendments.

Mr. JOHNSON. I hope not. I want a separate vote on the third section.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the

Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not understand this. Can this resolution be adopted by voting on sections separately?

Mr. FESSENDEN-. No.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is now concurring in amendments made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. SHERMAN. No amendment was made to the third section.

Mr. HENDRICKS. That is what I want to understand. I understand that there is no amendment from the Committee of the Whole to the third section.

Mr. FESSEis DEN. Yes, we struck out the third section as reported and inserted a substitute for it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole to the third .section.

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask for the yeas and nays on that.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. SHERMAN. The third section was the original section that came from the House disfranchising the son thorn people from voting. That has been stricken out.

Mr. HOWARD. The question is on concurring in the amendment we made to the third section.

Mr. SHERMAN. That was to strike out the third section which came from the House and insert another.

The question was taken by yeas and nays, with the following result:

YEAS —Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cowan, Cnuan, Creswell, Davis. Doolittie, lvlmumls, FussOEulon, Foster, Grimes, Guthrie, Harris, Henderson, Umidrioks, Itowaul, Ifown, Kirkwood, Lane of Iwliuna, J Lane ot Kansas, MeL ou™all Morgan, Morrill, Norton, Nye, PoUml, l Pomeroy, IUmsoy. Saulsbury, Sherman, lewai t nSmimer Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates—t J

NAY—Mr. Johnson—1.

ABSENT—Messrs. JSrnwn, Buckalew, Dixon, Nesmith, Riddle, and Wright—0.

Mr. HENDRICKS, (before the result was announced.) I think the vote just taken is not correctly understood.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No discussion is in order; the vote lias not been announced.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I am not going into any discussion, but 1 have aright to ask of the Chair the precise question in time to let any gentleman change his vote if he desires to do so. The motion was not originally to strike out the third section as it came from the House and to insert another. They were separate motions. Then ought there not to be two votes upon this section now?

Mr. SHERMAN'. 1 suppose any Senator can call for a division.

Mr. HENDRICKS. There is no need to call for a division because there were two distinct motions. There was first a motion to strike out and afterward a motion to insert something else. Now, the precise question before the Senate is whether the third section as it came from the House shall bo stricken out, and then there will be another question not yet voted upon by the Senate, whether we shall insert the third section which was agreed to as in Committee of the Whole. That is the way it stands.

Several Senators. Oh, no.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President

Mr. CONNESS. I object to discussion at this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The discussion is not in order; the vote has not been announced.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not about to discuss the question. The Senator from California need not suppose that I propose to occupy the time of the Senate unnecessarily. I proposed to strike out the original third section as it came from the House.

Mr. CONNESS. I rise to a question of order. It is not in order to discuss a question after the call of the roll has been commenced.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The result of the vote has not been announced, but the roll has been called.

Mr. JOHNSON. If I am not in order I will take my seat; but it is barely possible that the Senator from California may not bo in order.

Mr. CONNESS. I am quite aware of that; but I believe I have a right to raise the question of order.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not object to that.

Mr. CONNESS. Very well; then let the Chair decide.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No discussion is in order until after the vote is announced; but, by common consent, Senators may be allowed to explain their own votes, but no extended remarks can be allowed.

Mr. CONNESS. There is no right to explain a vote.

Mr. JOHNSON. I moved to strike out the third section as it came from the other House. That motion was carried, and afterward what now appears upon the face of the resolution as the third section was proposed and adopted as a separate amendment. I voted just this moment to strike out what was adopted. The effect of that would have been to restore the original third section, perhaps, but I meant when that was done to move to strike out the third section so as to leave no such section.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question

Mr. HENDRICKS. What question?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question was on concurring in the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole, which was to strike out the third section and insert other words in lieu of it. The result of that vote is 42 iu the affirmative and 1 in the negative. So the amendment is concurred in. The Secretary will read the next amendment.

The Secretary read the next amendment, which was to strike out the fourth and fifth sections, and to insert the following section in lieu of them:

8rcc.—. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts inclined for payment, of pensions and bounties for services m suniiresMiit insurrection or rebellion, shall not bo questioned. l But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or p iv any debt or obligation ineunvd ia aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the lo s or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be hold illegal and void.

The amendment was concurred in.

The amendments were ordered to bo engrossed and the joint resolution to bo read a third time. The joint resolution was read the third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. This joint, resolution having been read three times, the question is on its passage.

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

Several Senators. The yeas and nays must be taken, of course.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 83, nays 11; as follows: YEAS—Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin CieMvcll Edmunds, lessen den, Foster, (Jrimes, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner Trumbull Wade, Willey, William!,, Wilson, and Yates—33.

NAYS— Messrs Cowan, Davis, Doolittie, Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson, McDougall, Norton, Riddle, Saulsbury, and Van Winkle—11,

ABSENT—Messrs. Brown, Buckalew, Dixon, Nesmith, and Wright—5.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution is passed, having received the votes of two thirds of the Senate.