May 23, 1866

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which was read as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amei ica in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring.) That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid as part of tlic Constitution, namely:

Article—.

Sec. 1. No 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 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.

Sec. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may bo 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 ef its male citizens 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 one years of age.

Sec. 3. Until the -1th day of July, in the year 1370, all persons who voluntarily adhered to tlio late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall bo excluded from the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and for electors for President and Vice President of the United States.

Sec. 4. Neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation already incurred, or which may hereafter be incurred, in aid of insurrection or of war against the United States, or any claim for compensation for loss of involuntary service or labor.

Sec. 5. Tim Congress shall have power to enforce o by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, 1 regret that the state of the health of the honorable Senator from Maine [Mr. Fessenden] who is chairman, on the part of the Senate-, of the joint committee of fifteen, is such as to disable him from opening the discussion of this grave and important measure. I was anxious that he should take the lead, and the prominent load, in the eonduetof this discussion, and si ill entertain the hope that before it closes the Senate will have the benefit of a full and ample statement of his views. For myself, I can only promise to present to the Senate, in a very succinct way, the views and the motives which influenced that committee, so far as I understand those views and motives, in presenting the report which is now before us for consideration, and the ends it aims to accomplish.

The joint resolution creating that committee intrusted them with a very important inquiry, an inquiry involving a vast deal of attention and labor. They were instructed to inquire into the condition of the insurgent States, and authorized to report by bill or otherwise at their discretion. I believe that I do not overstate the truth when I say that no committee of Congress has ever proceeded with more fidelity and attention to the matter intrusted to them. They have been assiduous in discharging their duty. They have instituted an inquiry, so far as it was practicable for them to do so, into the political and social condition of the insurgent States. It is very true, they have not visited any localities outside of the city of Washington in order to obtain information; but they have taken the testimony of a great number of witnesses who have been summoned by them to Washington, or who happened to be in Washington, and who had some acquaintance with the condition of affairs in the insurgent States. I think it will be the judgment of the country in the end that that committee, so far as the procuring of testimony upon this subject is concerned, has been not only industrious and assiduous, but impartial and entirely fair. I know that such has been their aim. I know that it has not been their purpose to present to Congress and the country in their report anything unfair or one sided or anything of a party tendency. Our anxiety has been to ascertain the whole truth in its entire length and breadth, so far as the facilities given us would warrant.

One result of their investigations has been the joint resolution for the amendment of the Constitution of the United States now under consideration. After most mature deliberation and discussion, reaching through weeks and even months, they came to the conclusion that it was necessary, in order to restore peace and quiet to the country and again to impart vigor and efficiency to the laws, and especially to obtain something in the shape of a security for the future against the recurrence of the enormous evils under which the country has labored for the last four years, that the Constitution of the United States ought to be amended; and the project which they have now submitted is the result of their deliberations upon that subject.

The first section of the amendment they have submitted for the consideration of the two Houses relates to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, and to the rights and privileges of all persons, whether citizens" or others, under the laws of the United States. It declares that—-

No State shall makeor enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 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.

It will be observed that this is a general prohibition upon all the States, as such, from abridging the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States. That is its first clause, and I regard it as very important. It also prohibits each one of the States from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within the jurisdiction of the State the equal protection of its laws.

The first clause of this section relates to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States as such, and as distinguished from all other persons not citizens of the United States. It is not, perhaps, very easy to define with accuracy what is meant by the expression, "citizen of the United States," although that expression occurs twice in the Constitution, once in reference to the President of the United States, in which instance it is declared that none but a citizen of the United States shall be President, and again in reference to Senators who are likewise to be citizens of the United States. Undoubtedly the expression is used in both those instances in the same sense in which it is employed in the amendment now before us. A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws. Before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, the citizens of each State were, in a qualified sense at least, aliens to one another, for the reason that the several States before that event were regarded by each other as independent Governments, each one possessing a sufficiency of sovereign power to enable it to claim the right of naturalization; and. undoubtedly, each one of them possessed for itself the right of naturalizing foreigners, and each one, also, if it had seen fit so to exercise its sovereign power, might have declared the citizens of every other State to be aliens in reference to itself. With a view to prevent such confusion and disorder, and to put the citizens of the several States on an equality with each other as to all fundamental rights, a clause was introduced in the Constitution declaring that" the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."

The effect of this clause was to constitute ipso facto the citizens of each one of the original States citizens of the United States. And how did they antecedently become citizens of the several States? By birth or by naturalization. They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizen s in the several States. They are, by constitutional right, entitled to these privileges and immunities, and may assert this right and these privileges and immunities, and ask for their enforcement whenever they go within the limits of the several States of the Union.

It would be a curious question to solve what are the privileges and immunities of citizens of each of the States in the several States. I do not propose to go at any length into that question at this time. It would be a somewhat barren discussion. But it is certain the clause was inserted in the Constitution for some good purpose. It has in view some results beneficial to the citizens of the several States, or it would not be found there; yet I am not aware that the Supreme Court have ever undertaken to define either the nature or extent of the privileges and immunities thus guarantied. Indeed, if my recollection serves me, that court, on a certain occasion not many years since, when this question seemed to present itself to them, very modestly declined to go into a definition of them, leaving questions arising under the clause to be discussed and adjudicated when they should happen practically to arise. But we may gather some intimation of what probably will be the opinion of the judiciary by referring to a case adjudged many years ago in one of the circuit courts of the United States by Judge Washington; and I will trouble the Senate but for a moment by reading what that very learned and excellent! judge says about these privileges and immunities of the citizens of each State in the several i States. It is the case of Corfield vs. Coryell, found in 4 Washington s Circuit Court Reports, page 380. Judge Washington says;"

The next question is whether this act infringes that section of the Constitution which declares that 'the citizens of each State shall he entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States?'

"The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental, which belong of right to the citizens of all free Governments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are it would, perhaps, ho more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under thefollowin2 general heads: protection by the Government, tho enjoyment oflifeand liberty, with therightto acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject nevertheless to such restraints as the Government may justly prescribo for thegencral good ofthewhole, Therightofacitizen of one State to pass through or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus,- to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold, and dispose of property, either real or personal, and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State, may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental, to which may be added the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised. These, and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities, and the enjoyment of them by the citizens of each State in every other State was manifestly calculated (to use the expressions of the preamble of the corresponding provision in the old Articles of Confederation the better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States of the Union 1

Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be—for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature —to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable seai ches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.

Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution orrecognized by it. are secured to the citizen solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. States are not affected by them, and ithas been repeatedly held that the restriction contained in the Constitution against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation is not a restriction upon State legislation, but applies only to the legislation of Congress.

Now, sir, there is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any ot these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year. The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees. How will it be done under the present amendment? As I have remarked, they are not powers granted to Congress, and therefore it is necessary, if they are to be effectuated and enforced, as they assuredly ought to be, that additional power should be given to Congress to that end. This is done by the fifth section of this amendment, which declares' that" the Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article." Here is a direct affirmative delegation of power to Congress to carry out all the principles of all these guarantees, a power not found in the Constitution. The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoeverhe maybe, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. It prohibits the hanging of a black man for a crime for which the white man is not to be hanged. It protects the black man in his fundamental rights as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man. Is it not time, Mr. President, that we extend to the black man, I had almost called it the poor privilege of the equal protection of the law? Ought not the time to be now passed when one measure of justice is to be meted out to a member of one caste while another and a different measure is meted out to the member of another caste, both castes being alike citizens of the United States, both bound to obey the same laws, to sustain the burdens of the same Government, and both equally responsible to justice and to God for the deeds done in the body?

But, sir, the first section of the proposed amendment does not give to either of these classes the right of voting. The right of suffrage is not, in law, one of the privileges or immunities thus secured by the Constitution. It is merely the creature of law. It has always been regarded in this country as the result of positive local law, not regarded as one of those fundamental rights lying at the basis of all society and without which a people cannot exist except as slaves, subject to a depotism. As I have already remarked, section one is a restriction upon the States, and does not, of itself, confer any power upon Congress. The power which Congress has, under this amendment, is derived, not from that section, but from the fifth section, which gives it authority to pass Irws which are appropriate to the attainment of the great object of the amendment. I. look upon the first section, taken in connection with the fifth, as very important. It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction. It establishes equality before the law, and it gives to the humblest, the poorest, the most despised of the race the same rights and the fame, protection before the law as it gives to the most powerful, the most wealthy, or the m )st haughty. That, sir, is republican government, as I understand it, and the only one whi h can claim the praise of a just Government. Without this principle of equal justice to all men and equal protection under the shield of the law, there is no republican government and none that is really worth maintaining.

The second s ction of the proposed amendment reads as follows

Sec. 2. Representativesshallbe apportioned amongthe 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 citizens not less than twentyone 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—

That is, citizens as to whom the right of voting is denied or abridged— shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not less than twenty one years of age.

It is very true, and I am sorry to be obliged to acknowledge it, that this section of the amendment does not recognize the authority of the United States over the question of suffrage in the several States at all; nor does it recognize, much less secure, the right of suffrage to the colored race. I wish io meet this question fairly and frankly; I have nothing to conceal upon it; and I am perfectly free to say that if I could have my own way, if my preferences could be carried out, I certainly should secure suffrage to the colored race to some extent at least; for I am opposed to the exclusion and proscription of an entire race. If I could not obtain universal suffrage in the popular sense of that expression, I should be in favor of restricted, qualified suffrage for the colored race. But, sir, it is not the question here what will we do; it is not the question what you, or I, or half a dozen other members of the Senate may prefer in respect to colored suffrage; it is not entirely the question what measure we can pass through the two Houses; but the question really is, what will the Legislatures of the various States to whom these amendments are to be submitted do in the premises; what is it likely will meet the general approbation of the people who are to elect the Legislatures, three fourths of whom must ratify our propositions before they have the force of constitutional provisions?

Let me not be misunderstood. I do not intend to say, nor do I say, that the proposed amendment, section two, proscribes the colored race. It has nothing to do with that question, as I shall show before I take my seat. I could wish that the elective franchise should be extended equally to the white man and to the black man; and if it were necessary, after full consideration, to restrict what is known as universal suffrage for the purpose of securing this equality, I would go for a restriction; but I deem that impracticable at the present time, and so did the committee.

The colored race are destined to remain among us. They have been in our midst for more than two hundred years; and the idea of the people of the United States ever being able by any measure or measures to which they may resort to expel or expatriate that race from their limits and to settle them in a foreign country, is to me the wildest of all chimeras. The thing can never be done; it is impracticable. For weal or for woe, the destiny of the colored race in this country is wrapped up with our own; they are to remain in our midst, and here spend their years and here bury their fathers and finally repose themselves. We may regret it. It may not be entirely compatible with our taste that they should live in our midst. We cannot help it. Our forefathers introduced them, and their destiny is to continue among us; and the practical question which now presents itself to us is as to the best mode of getting along with them.

The committee were of opinion that the States are not yet prepared to sanction so fundamental a change as would be the concession of the right of suffrage to the colored race. We may as well state it plainly and fairly, so that there shall be no misunderstanding on the subject* It was our opinion that three fourths of the States of this Union could not bo induced to vote to grant the right of suffrage, even in any degree or under any restriction, to the colored race. We may be right in this apprehension or we may be in error. Time will develop the truth; and for one I shall wait with patience the movements of public opinion upon this great and absorbing question. The time may come, I trust it will come, indeed I feel a profound conviction that it is not far distant, when even the people of the States themselves where the colored population is most dense will consent to admit them to the right of suffrage. Sir, the safety and prosperity of those States depend upon it; it is especially for their interest that they should not retain in their midst a race of pariahs, so circumstanced as to be obliged to bear the burdens of Government and to obey its laws without any participation in the enactment of the laws.

The second section leaves the right to regulate the elective franchise still with the States, and does not meddle with that right. Its basis of representation is numbers, whether the numbers be white or black; that is, the whole population except untaxed Indians and persons excluded by the State laws for rebellion or other crime. Formerly under the Constitution, while the free States were represented only according to their respective numbers of men, women, and children, all of course endowed with civil rights, the slave States had the advantage of being represented according to their number of the same free classes, increased by three fifths of the slaves whom they treated not as men but property. They had this advantage over the free States, that the bulk of their property in the proportion of three fifths had the right of representation in Congress, while in the free States not a dollar of property entered into the basis of representation. John Jacob Astor, with his fifty millions of property, was entitled to cast but one vote, and he at "the ballot-box would meet his equal in the raggedest beggar that strolled the streets. Property has been rejected as the basis of just representation; but still the advantage that was given to the slave States under the Constitution enabled them to send at least twenty one members to Congress in 1860, based entirely upon what they treated as property number sufficient to determine almost every contested measure that might come before the House of Representatives.

The three fifths principle has ceased in the destruction of slavery and in the enfranchisement of the colored race. Under the present Constitution this change will increase the number of Representatives from the once slaveholding States by nine or ten. That is to say, if the present basis of representation, as established in the Constitution, shall remain operative for the future, making our calculations upon the census of 1800, the enfranchisement of their slaves would increase the number of their Representatives in the other House nine or ten, I think at least ten; and under the next census it is easy to see that this number would be still increased; and the important question now is, shall this be permitted while the colored population are excluded from the privilege of voting? Shall the recently slavchold-. ing States, while they exclude from the ballot the whole of their black population, be entitled to include the whole of that population in the basis of their representation, and thus to obtain an advantage which they did not possess before the rebellion and emancipation? In short, shall we permit it to take place that one of the results of emancipation and of the v war is to increase the Representatives of the late slaveholding States? T object to this. I think they cannot very consistently call upon us to grant them an additional number of Representatives simply because in consequence of their own misconduct they have lost the property which they once possessed, and which served as a basis in great part of their representation.

The committee thought this should no longer be permitted, and they thought it wiser to adopt a general principle applicable to all tlie States alike, namely, that where a State excludes any part of its male citizens from the elective franchise, it shall lose Representatives in proportion to the number so excluded; and the clause applies not to color or to race at all, but simply to the fact of the individual exclusion. Nor did the committee adopt the principle of making the ratio of representation depend upon the number of voters, for it so happens that there is an unequal distribution of voters in the several States, .the old States having proportionally fewer than the new States. It was desirable to avoid this inequality in fixing the basis. The committee adopted numbers as the most just and satisfactory basis, and this is the principle upon which the Constitution itself was originally framed, that the basis of representation should depend upon numbers; and such, I think, after all, is the safest and most secure principle upon which the Government can rest. Numbers, not voters; numbers, not property; this is the theory of the Constitution.

By the census of 1860, the whole number of colored persons in the several States was four million four hundred and twenty seven thousand and sixty seven In five of the New England States, where colored persons are allowed to vote, the number of such colored persons is only twelve thousand one hundred and thirtytwo. This leaves of the colored population of the United States in the other States unrepresented, four million four hundred and fourteen thousand nine hundred and thirty five or at least one seventh part of the whole population of the United States. Of this last number, three million six hundred and fifty thousand were in the eleven seceding States, and only five hundred and forty seven thousand in the four remaining slave States which did not secede, namely, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. In the eleven seceding States the blacks are to the whites, basing the calculation upon the census of 1860, nearly as three to five. A further calculation shows that if this section shall be adopted as a part of the Constitution, and if the late slave States shall continue hereafter to exclude the colored population from voting, they will do it at tlie loss at least of twenty four Representatives m the other House of Congress, according to the rule established by the act of 18 50 I repeat, that if they shall persist in refusing suffrage to the colored race, if they shall persist in excluding that whole race from the right of suffrage, they will lose twenty four members of the other House of Congress. Some have estimated their loss more and some less; but according to the best calculation I have been able to make, I think that will be the extent. It is not to be disguised committee have no disposition to conceal the fact—that this amendment is so drawn as to make it the political interest of the once slaveholding States to admit their colored population to the right of suffrage. The penalty of refusing will be severe. They will undoubtedly lose, and lose so long as they shall refuse to admit the black population to the right of suffrage, that balance of power in Congress which has been so long their pride and their boast.

It will be observed, however, that this amendment does not apply exclusively to the insurgent States, nor to the slaveholding States, but to all States without distinction. It says to all the States, "If you restrict suffrage among your people, whether that people be white or black or mixed, your representation in Congress shall be reduced in proportion to that restriction." It holds out the same penalty to Massachusetts as to South Carolina, the same to Michigan as to Texas.

Mr. CLARK. If the Senator will pardon me for a moment, I wish to inquire whether the committee s attention was called to the fact that if any State excluded any person, say as Massachusetts does, for want of intelligence, this provision cuts down the representation of that State.

Mr. HOWARD. Certainly it does, no matter what may be the occasion of the restriction. It follows out the logical theory upon which the Government was founded, that numbers shall be the basis of representation in Congress, the only true, practical, and safe republican principle. If, then, Massachusetts should so far forget herself as to exclude from the right of suffrage all persons who do not believe with my honorable friend who sits near me [Mr. Sumner] on the subject of negro suffrage, she would lose her representation in proportion to that exclusion. If she should exclude all persons of what is known as the orthodox faith she loses representation in proportion to that exclusion. No matter what may be the ground of exclusion, whether a want of education, a want of property, a want of color, or a want of anything else, it is sufficient that the person is excluded from the category of voters, and the State loses representation in proportion. The principle applies to every one of the States in precisely the same manner. And, sir, the true basis of representation is the whole population. It is not property, it is not education, for great abuses would arise from the adoption of the one or the other of these two tests. Experience has shown that numbers and numbers only is the only true and safe basis; while nothing is clearer than that property qualifications and educational qualifications have an inevitable aristocratic tendency thing to be avoided.

Mr. STEWART. 1 wish to call the attention of the Senator to the word "abridged" before he passes from that branch of the subject. I should like to understand the operation intended by that expression.

Mr. HOWARD. The word "abridged" I regard as a mere intensitive, applicable to the preceding sentence, "but whenever, in any State, the elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens not less than twenty one years of age, or in anyway abridged" to any portion of its male citizens not less than twenty one "exceptfor 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" —that is, the number of citizens as to whom it is either denied or abridged— shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not less than twenty one years of age."

I suppose it would admit of the following application: a State in the exercise of its sovereign power over the question of suffrage might permit one person to vote for a member of the State Legislature, but prohibit the same person from voting for a Representative, in Congress. That would be an abridgment of the right of suffrage; and that person would be included in the exclusion, so that the representation from the State would be reduced in proportion to the exclusion of persons whose rights were thus abridged.

Mr. STEWART. Take a case of this kind: suppose that in the South they should allow the negroes to vote who had been in the Army, or who had educational qualifications: would those who did vote be included in the basis of representation, or would that be an abridgment of that class of persons so that they would all be excluded?

Mr. HOWARD. It is not an abridgment to a caste or class of persons, but the abridgment or the denial applies to the persons individually. If the honorable Senator will read the section carefully I think he will not doubt as to its true interpretation. It applies individually to each and every person who is denied or abridged, and not to the class to which he may belong. It makes no distinction between black and white, or between red and white, except that if an Indian is counted in he must be subject to taxation.

But as to the principle of representation. I beg to call the attention of Senators to two passages which I will read from the Writings of Mr. Madison, whose reflections upon the right of suffrage were at once the most enlightened and profound, to show what were his ideas respecting the right of suffrage and the persons to whom it ought to be granted. It applies to this whole subject. They apply as well to the negro as to the white man. Mr. Madison has been discussing the question of confining the right of suffrage to freeholders, and he observes:"

Confining the right of suffrage to freeholders and to such as hold an equivalent property, convertible, of course, into freeholds. The objection to this regulation is obvious. It violates the vital principle"—

Here my honorable friend from Massachusetts will observe what I regard as the vital principle of republican government; it is not representation because of taxation; it is this— "the vital principle of free government, that those who are to be bound by the laws ought to have a voice in making them."

That is the point; that those who are to be bound by the laws ought to have a voice in making the laws.

Mr. JOHNSON. .Does the honorable member read from Madison s Writings?

Mr. HOWARD. The fourth volume of Madison s Writings, page 25.

Mr. SUMNER. Is that applicable to all without distinction of color?

Mr. HOWARD. Certainly it is, and whether they can read and write or not. The point is that the person who is bound by the laws in a free Government ought to have a voice in making them. It is the very essence of republican government. Again he observes, page 27:" Under every view of the subject it seems indispensable"—

I wish the attention of my honorable friend from Maryland to this, for I know how much he reverences the character and talents of James Madison—

"Under every view of the subject"

Every view of the subject," not a partial view, but every view which had presented itself or could present itself to the mind of that great "it seems indispensable that the mass of citizens should not be without a voice in making the laws which they are to obey, and in choosing the magistrates "who are to administer them. And if the only alternative be between an equal and universal right of suffrage for each branch ot the Government, and a eonflnementof the entire right to a part of the citizens itis better that those havingtho greater interest at stake, namely, that of property and persons both, should be deprived of half their share m the Government, than that those having the lesser interest. that of personal rights only, should be deprived of the whole."

Now, apply that great principle as broadly as it is laid down by Mr. Madison on the page from which I have read, and how can any man of true republican feeling, attached to the essential principles of our system of government, refuse the right of suffrage to the whole negro population as a class?

Mr. JOHNSON. Females aswell as males?

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Madison does not say anything about females.

Mr. JOHNSON. "Persons."

Mr. HOWARD. I believe Mr. Madison was old enough and wise enough to take it for granted there was such a thing as the law of nature which has a certain influence even in political affairs, and that by that law women and children were not regarded as the equals of men. Mr. Madison would not have quibbled about the question of women s voting or of an infant s voting. He lays down a broad democratic principle, that those who are to be bound by the laws ought to have a voice in making them; and everywhere mature manhood is the representative type of the human race.

I have but very little to say, Mr. President, as to the third section of this amendment. It reads as follows:

Sec. 3. Until the 1th day of July in the year 18'°. all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the light to vote for Representatives m Con- £rj QSs and for doctors for President stud\ icc President of the United States.

It is due to myself to say that I did not favor this section of the amendment in the committee. I do not believe, if adopted, it will be of any practical benefit to the country. It will not prevent rebels from voting for members of the several State Legislatures. A rebel, notwithstanding this clause, may vote for a member of the State Legislature. The State Legislature may be made up entirely of disloyal elements, in consequence of being elected by a rebel constituency. That Legislature when assembled has the right, under the Constitution, to appoint presidential electors itself if it shall choose to do so, and to refuse to refer that question to the people. It is the right of every State. It is very probable that the power of the rebel States would be used in exactly that way. We should therefore gain nothing as to the election of the next or any future President of the United States. Rather than this, I should prefer a clause prohibiting all persons who' have participated in the rebellion, and who were over twenty five years of age at the breaking out of the rebellion, from all participation in offices, either Federal or State, throughout the United States. I think such a provision would be a benefit to the nation. It would ostracize the great mass of the intelligent and really responsible leaders of the rebellion.

Mr. CLARK. I will state to the Senator that I have drawn an amendment something of this kind, which I will read, to see how it would meet his view, if he will permit me at this time:

That no person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress or permitted to hold any office under the Government of the United States who, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution thereof, shall have voluntarily engaged in any insurrection or rebellion against the united States, or given aid or comfort thereto.

That would exclude all those who had taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, thereby acknowledged their allegiance to that Government, and had proved false to that oath by joining the rebellion.

Mr. HOWARD. I am by no means sure that I should not be quite willing to support such an amendment as that suggested by the honorable Senator from New Hampshire.

Air. JOHNSON. Will the honorable member from New Hampshire inform me whether he proposes to offer that as an amendment?

Air. CLARK. That was my idea in drawing it. Air. HOWARD. The fourth section of this amendment declares that—

Neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation already incurred, or which may hereafter be incurred, in aid of insurrection or of war against the United States, or any claim for compensation for loss of involuntary service or labor.

I take it for granted that no member of this body would oppose the adoption of this section of the amendment. I do not believe the people of the United States will object to declaring that the whole of the rebel debt shall be eternally repudiated and extinguished debt contracted iu the prosecution of the most wicked war with which the earth was ever cursed, against a Government that was never felt by them except in the benefits it conferred. Such a debt can never be assumed or paid by the loyal people of the United States, and if suffered to remain in quasi existence it can only be left in that condition as a subject of political squabbling and party wrangling.

The assumption of the rebel debt would be the last and final signal for the destruction of the nation known as the United States of America. Vv Whatever party may succeed in so wicked a scheme, by whatever name it may be called and under whatever false guises or pretenses it may operate, if it succeed in assuming this indebtedness, puts an end first to the credit of the Government, and then, as an unavoidable consequence, to the Government itself. I do not propose to spend time upon this branch of the subject. I simply refer to it as a necessity of such magnitude as in my judgmentto demand our action and the action of the States of the Union without delay. It is necessary to act, to extinguish this debt, to put it beyond the pale of party controversy, to put it out of sight, and to bury it so deep that it can never again be raised to life in such manner as to become a theme of party discussion. The amount of that debt is probably not less than five billion dollars. We do not know its exact amount, and I am not sure that it is possible ever to ascertain it; butjf there should ever be a fair prospect of its assumption by the United States or by the States it is perfectly certain that the evidences of it would multiply thicker than the leaves in Vallombrosa. Those evidences are a great curiosity in the history of commercial affairs. I hold in my hand a specimen of the confederate currency. I will read it for the information of Senators and to give it a permanent registration among our proceedings: Richmond, December 1 1862 No. 81413.

Six months after the ratification of a treaty of peace between the Confederate States and theUnited States of America, the Confederate States of America will pay to the bearer on demand 8100.

Signed by the Treasurer and countersigned by the Begister of the Confederate States of America, at 1 Richmond.

Such is the kind of commercial security upon which the rebellion was chiefly waged against us. The confederacy issued its promises payable six months after a treaty of peace should be ratified between these States and the United States. I hardly think that in a lawyer s office that would be regarded as negotiable paper. I doubt very much whether the bearer of such a security would be able to sue upon it, even in a court of South Carolina. It is payable not exactly upon the happening of a contingency, but upon the happening of what is and ever will be a total impossibility. "Six months after a treaty of peace." Itisnotyetdue, and of course never will become due. It was never expected to become due by any man who had a thimblefull of brains; but was used as part of that vast system of humbug, deception, and imposture by which the southern people were deluded. Their bogus government never expected to pay it.

Sir, the peace of the country ought not to be disturbed or jeoparded by the agitation of any such question as the assumption of the rebel debt. It becomes the character and dignity of the Government, which has spent so much of treasure and blood in putting down this wicked rebellion, to give an assurance to the people of the United States, whether loyal or disloyal, and to all the people of the civilized world, that this rebel debt thus contracted is never to be paid, that it shall never be recognized as the foundation of any claim or any contract whatever: and such an assurance will be also an especial compensation to the holders of the "cotton loan" in England, which has created so much sensation both on the other side of the Atlantic and on this. I confess I am not without a little anxiety on this point. I wish to give those martyrs to the cause of the confederate States of America," those who so generously lent that mushroom government their cold cash upon the promises contained in the cotton bonds, a final assurance as to the real value of their securities, and that they are never to look to the United States or to any State of the Union for indemnity on account of moneys advanced by them in the piratical scheme of destroying the Government of the United States. Sir, I do not believe in paying traitors, nor do I believe in indemnifying men abroad who, with their eyes open and a malignity in their heart beyond all parallel, gave them aid and comfort. Nor do I see the propriety of keeping this question open before the country, and enabling the foreign holders of cotton bonds to keep the political atmosphere of this country in a turmoil for the future with a view ultimately of getting their pay from somebody. It is time for us to put our hands upon this whole thing and to extinguish all hope.

The next clause is a very simple one. I have already remarked upon it; and shall spend no more time upon it. It gives to Congress power t enforce by appropriate legislation all the provisions of this article of amendment. Without this clause, no power is granted to Congress by the amendment or any one of its sections. It casts upon Congress the responsibility of seeing to it, for the future, that all the section; of the amendment are carried out in good faith, and that no State infringes the rights of persons or property. I look upon this clause as indispensable for the reason that it thus imposes upon Congress this power and this duty. It enables Congress, in ease the States shall enact laws in conflict with the principles of the amendment, to correct that legislation by a formal congressional enactment.

Mr. WADE. I move to amend the joint resolution by striking out all after the word "article" in line eight, and substituting the proposition which I send to the Chair to be read.

The Secretary read the words proposed to be inserted, as follows:

Sec. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of persons born in the United States or naturalized by the laws thereof; nor shall any State 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.

Sec. 2. No c ass of persons as to the right of any of whom to suffrage discrimination shall be made, by any State, shall be included in the basis of representation, unless such discrimination be in virtue of impartial qualifications founded on intelligence or property, or because of alienage, or for participation in rebellion or other crime.

Sec. 3. The public debtof the United States, including all debts or obligations which have been or may hereafter be incurred in suppressing insurrection or in carrying on war in defense of the Union, or for payment of bounties or pensions incident to such war and provided for bylaw, shall be inviolable. But debts or obligations which have been or may hereafter beincurred in aid of insurrection or of war against the United States, and claims of compensation for loss of involuntary service or labor, shall not be assumed or paid by any State nor by the United States. Sec. 4. The Congress shall have power tocnforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.

Mr. WADE. I do not rise now for the purpose of arguing this question at any length; and it is with very great deference that I offer an amendment to the proposition reported by the committee who have had this particular subject under consideration so long. I know that they are infinitely more competent than I am to deal with it; but there are so many conflicting views in regard to this whole matter, and it is so vitally important to the interests of the country that we get the proposition upon which we shall unite as near right as we can, that after all it seems to me to be proper that every Senator who believes he can by possibility improve the plan which has been brought forward by the, committee should offer his amendment for the consideration of the body. I do not know that the proposition which I have now submitted will be deemed an improvement upon what they have brought forward; but nevertheless there are some things in it that appear to me to be better, and an improvement upon their report.

In the first section of the proposition of the committee, the word "citizen" is used. That is a term about which there has been a good deal of uncertainty in our Government. The courts have stumbled on the subject, and even here, at this session, that, question has been up and it is still regarded by some as doubtful. I regard it as settled by the civil rights bill, and, indeed, in my judgment, it was settled before. I have always believed that every person, of whatever race or color, who was born within the United States was a citizen of the United States; but by the decisions of the courts there has been a doubt thrown over that subject; and if the Government should fall into the hands of those who are opposed to the views that some of us maintain, those who have been accustomed to take a different view of it, they may construe the provision in such a way as we do not think it liable to construction at this time, unless we fortify and make it very strong and clear. If wo do not do so there may be danger that when party spirit runs high, it may receive a very different construction from that which we would now put upon it. I find that gentlemen doubt upon that subject, and I think it is very easy now to solve that doubt and put the question beyond all cavil for the present and for the future.

In the first clause of the amendment which I have submitted, I strike out the word citizens," and require the States to give equal rights and protection of person and property to all persons born in the United States or naturalized under the laws thereof. That seems to mo to put the question beyond all doubt.

The Senator from Maine suggests to me, in an undertone, that persons may be born iu the United States and yet not be citizens of the United States. Most assuredly they would be citizens of the United States unless they went to another country and expatriated themselves, if they could do so bj' being adopted in that other country by Some process of naturalization that I know nothing about; for I believe the countries of Europe—certainly it is so in England—have always held that a person born within the realm cannot expatriate himself and become a citizen of any other country or owe allegiance to any other country. I think, then, the first section of my amendment covers the whole ground.

Mr. h FESSENDEN. Suppose a person is born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this country.

Mr. WADE. The Senator says aperson may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside near 1 the United States in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States, although born in Washington. 1 agree to that, but my answer to the suggestion is that that is a simple matter, for it could hardly be applicable to more than two or three or four persons; and it would be best not to alter the law for that case. I will let it come under that well known maxim of the law, ds minimis lex non curat. It would make no difference in the result. I think it better to put this question beyond all doubt and all cavil by a very simple process, such as is the language of the first section of the amendment I have offered. I do not know that the corresponding section reported by the committee would leave the matter very doubtful; but that which I have proposed is beyond all doubt and all cavil now and hereafter, and it is as easy to adopt it as it is the other. I regard it as an improvement, and therefore I think it ought to be adopted.

The second section is in regard to the apportionment of representation; and here I like the provision I have proposed better than the corresponding one of the committee. There is no doubt or cavil about it; and it contains some elements which I think make it entirely preferable to the other proposition. There are some reasons, and many believe there are good reasons, for restricting universal suffrage, and upon such principles as not to justify the inflicting of a punishment or penalty upon a State which adopts restricted suffrage. It is already done in some of the New England States Massachusetts, for instance. I believe the constitution of that State restricts the right of suffrage to persons who can read the Constitution of the United States and write their names. I am not prepared to say that that is not a wise restriction. At all events, a State has the right to try that experiment; but i if she tries it, under the report of the committee! she must lose, in the proportion that she has j such persons among her inhabitants, her representation in Congress. I do not think that ought j to be so. I think we should leave the subject: open to the States to act as they see fit about it. I think my amendment in this respect is plainer and more practicable than the proposition of the committee. The entire population is taken, in the first instance, as a basis. The census always discriminates between the black 39th Oontk Ipt Skss —No "174. and the white population, and it makes several other discriminations; and therefore it is, and will be at all times, perfectly easy and practicable to ascertain exactly how much of the population of a State shall be counted in the basis of representation under my amendment. Under the other proposition, it seems to me, you must have a census commission all the time in operation in order to keep pace with the variations that will take place from time to time.

Under this amendment you ascertain the classes of the population, and when any dis- 1 discrimination shall be made upon any of these I subjects the whole of that particular class will j be excluded. There is only one question to: be determined. If the exclusion is because I of race or color, the question is what amount I of colored population is there in the State, and in exactly that proportion she is to lose j representation. If any class is deprived of the privilege of voting there should certainly be some restriction on the representation of the 1 State which excludes them. In that particular I think my amendment is a great improve- i ment on the provision reported by the committee. My amendment is such that a calcu- j calculation can very easily be made of what the restriction of representation is under it. I have' not myself calculated it; but we know that! some of the States would lose more than half! their representation; South Carolina would, and I think Mississippi would, and some other j of the States would lose largely if they ex- I eluded their colored population from voting;' and I think they ought to be restricted in the j proportion that the excluded portion bear to: the whole. i In the next place, my amendment prohibits: and renders null and void all obligations in- I curred in rebellion and insurrection against the United States or for the purpose of aiding rebellion or insurrection; and in that particular it is precisely the same as the corresponding section of the original proposition v which was so eloquently defended and enforced by the Senator from Michigan. I agree with all that he said on that subject, and the proposition reported by his committee and the one I have submitted are the same in that respect; but then my amendment goes to another branch of■ this business almost as essential as that. It puts! the debt incurred in the civil war on our part! under the guardianship of the Constitution of the United States, so that a Congress cannot! repudiate it. I believe that to do this will give great confidence to capitalists and will be of j incalculable pecuniary benefit to the United. States, for I have no doubt that every man who' has property in the public funds will feel safer when he sees that the national debt is withdrawn from the power of a Congress to repudiate it and placed under the guardianship of the Constitution than he would feel if it were left at loose ends and subject to the varying majorities which may arise in Congress. I consider that a very beneficial provision, which is not in the original proposition. j This section of my amendment goes further, i and secures the pensioners of the country. "We i ought to do something to protect those wounded patriots who have been stricken down in the cause of their country, and to put the security 1 of their pensions and their means of support j beyond the power of wavering majorities in'■ Congress, who may at some time, perhaps, be j hostile to the soldier. In the condition of' things around us we have 110 great guarantee now that rebels will not ere long be in these! Halls, deadly hostile to everything that shall j benefit the soldier who was used as an instrument in their downfall and their conquest. Let i the policy which I understand to be that now j prevailing at the other end of the avenue be j adopted, and we have no security and no guarantee that the widow of your dead soldier, who died in the cause of his country, will not be deprived of the pittance that we give her as a support. I am anxious to put the pensions of our soldiers and their widows and children; under the guardianship of the Constitution of; the United States. They ought to be there, along with your public debt. I think no gentleman will deny that it is very essential that the debt incurred in this war should be placed under the protection of the Constitution of the ■United States, especially when we are now prosecuting a doubtful war with your Executive as to whether open and hostile rebels shall not have seats in Congress. If they are admitted here to act with their sympathizers at the North, who have constantly opposed every policythat looked to the remuneration of those engaged in the war on our part, who have been opposed to every war measure, who voted against paying your Army in the field, or doing anything to defend the country, what will be the result? Under the dictation of such a policy, should it prevail, who can guaranty that the debts of the Government will be paid, or that your soldiers and the widows of your soldiers will not lose their pensions? I hope that whether my amendment be adopted or not, any amendment to the Constitution which shall finally prevail will contain a clause like this.

Mr. President, I have stated nearly all the differences between my amendment and the proposition of the committee. I have left out of the amendment the third section of the resolution, because as the Senator from Michigan has said it does not seem to me to amount to much. Practically I do not believe it would have any effect. I am for excluding those who took any leading part in the rebellion from exercising any political power here or elsewhere now and forever; but a s that clause does not seem to effect that purpose, and will probably effect nothing at all, I do not think it is of any consequence that it should have a place in the measure. I hope another clause will be placed there by the amendment sngj gested by the Senator from New Hampshire. 1 I shall be very glad to see that adopted either I as an amendment to my proposition, if it should prevail, or, if not, as an amendment to the original proposition.

I have seen other suggested amendments which I should like to have prevail. The Senator froffi Nevada [Mr. Stewart] has submitted a proposition which in my judgment is of the most important and essential ehai acter Could my voice and my vote prevail to give efficacy to his proposition, he should not fail to have it. I am for suffrage to our friends in the South, the men who have stood by us in this rebellion, the men who have hazarded their lives and all that they hold dca>' to defend our country. I think our friends, the colored people of the South, should not be excluded from the right of voting, and they shall not be if my vote and the votes of a sufficient number who agree with me in Congress shall be able to carry it. I do not agree in this particular with the Senator from Michigan. He yields to the provision in the committee s resolution on the subject reluctantly, because he does not believe three fourths of the States can be got to ratify that proposition which is right and just in itself. My own opinion is that if you go down to the very foundation of justice, so far from weakening yourself with the people, you will strengthen yourself immensely by it; but I know that it is not the opinion of many here, and I suppose we must accommodate ourselves to the will of majorities, and if we cannot do all we would, do all we can. I propose for myself to contend for all I can get in the right direction, and finally to go with those who will give us anything that is beneficial. That is my doctrine. I wish and I hope that on due reflection the Senate will adopt the amendment of the Senator from Nevada, at least as an alternative to some of these propositions, leaving the States to take his proposition if they will in lieu of the one we give to them. I should like to see even that, for I believe they would take his in preference to the one we shall probably give them.

But. sir, notwithstanding I say all this, 1 am not finding fault with the doings of the com-- mittee. I know the difficulties of their task. I know the great variety of opinions that prevail on this subject. I know its importance. I know that the committee lias been most unreasonably assailed from outside because it has not earlier brought forth its measures. My only wonder is that they could finish their labors and bring forward these propositions one after another as they have done, and so satisfactorily as they have. When I offer this amendment of mine, I only do it for the consideration of the Senate, and not because I have the vanity to suppose that I could improve anything they had agreed upon. It may be that after men have struck out a course of proceeding, have broken the road, and submitted their doings to us, it is easy to criticise and sometimes easy to amend. That is all I claim. I do not suppose that if I had been on the committee I could have drawn up a proposition so good as this is that they have brought forward; and yet it seems to me, having the benefit of what they have done, that looking it over, reflecting upon it, seeing all its weak points, if it have any, I could, without having the ability of that committee, suggest amendments that would be beneficial. 1 trust I have done so, or certainly! would not have brought this forward. If it meets the approval of the Senate I shall be glad, because to me it seems to be better; but if not, I shall go for their proposition. All I wished to do now was barely to bring my amendment before the Senate and submit it for their consideration. Hereafter, perhaps, I may or may not have something more to say about it.

Mr. WILSON. If the Senator from Ohio intends to press this amendment to a vote I trust he will consent to some modification of it. In the second section I think the word "property" should he stricken out. That section reads, "no class of persons as to the right of any of whom to suffrage discrimination shall be made by any State shall be included in the basis of representation, unless such discrimination be in virtue of impartial qualifications founded on intelligence or property, or because of alienage, or for participation in rebellion or other crime." I certainly think we ought not to put the word "property" as a qualification for suffrage in this country into the Constitution of the United States. If we are to have anything of that kind I think it should be a qualification on account of taxation, not on account of property, but taxation, paying a proportionate part to support the Government. I do not think such a qualification as this should go in the Constitution, and I cannot vote for this proposition as against the proposition of the committee. Then there are words in the third section that I think should be stricken out. Those words are, "and shall not be taxable by any State."

Mr. WADE. Those words are not in the amendment I have offered. They were in the amendment as first submitted and printed, but they are stricken out of the amendment as now offered.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I think the proposition had better be printed as it now stands amended.

Mr. WADE. Very well.

Mr. WILSON". I am very glad that the Senator from Ohio has stricken out those words which were in his original amendment. I wish simply to say upon that point, that for one, I can consent to vote for no proposition that does not go squarely to the country, that the national debt hereafter created shall be taxed like all other property. I do not believe in the wisdom of having two or three thousand millions of capital in thiscountry placed beyond taxation. Vy e did it in time of war, in an hour of need. .(will adhere to that with all fidelity. It is as sacred as any pledge we ever made, as sacred as the blood of our soldiers. But I will consent to no measure that changes one dollar of that property into a new loan, and does not subject it to taxation equally and like all other property. I believe the safety of the debt itself demands that.

Mr. WADE. Nothing more need be said about taxation, for that is not in the amendment I have offered. It was in the printed copy I first, submitted; but on consideration I struck that out, thinking the amendment would be better without it, more acceptable to the Senate, and certainly more acceptable to myself. As to the suggestion of the Senator from Massachusettsthattheword "property" should be stricken out I will say that there is no member of the Senate more opposed to making a property qualification for voting than I am. I never would vote for it nor submit to it if I could help it. But it is presented here only as one of those alternatives which the States may adopt. Some of them have adopted it before, and may do so again. It is only to be left optional with them to do this and other things. We do not recommend that they should do it; we do not recommend even an educational basis; we simply present the matter to the States. Asa general thing the bias of my mind is entirely in favor of free suffrage to every man who is subject to the laws, in the language of Madison. That is the principle which would govern me if the matter were left to me; but we are now legislating with regard to the States, giving them a right to fix this matter for themselves.

If the State of which I am a member, where I could reach it, should undertake to prescribe a property qualification, you would find me opposed to it all the time. I am not very averse to an amendment of my proposition which shall strike out the word "property." I simply thought it would be as well to leave that matter to the States and not to restrict their representation if they should adopt a property qualification applied to all, giving equal suffrage, making no class discrimination. I am not very much opposed to striking out, the word "property;" I should not like to lose a vote for my amendment on that account, although I did not suppose it was placed in my amendment in such a position as to subject me to the suspicion of being in favor of the property qualification. If the Senate is opposed to it, I am perfectly willing that that word shall be stricken out, as I think it can be without mutilating my amendment. I now move that the amendment be printed in the form in which I have submitted it. 'The motion was agreed to.

Mr. WILSON. As amendments are being offered, I desire to submit an amendment, for the purpose of having it printed, to the second section of the article reported by the committee, and also an amendment to the third section.

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask for the reading of them.

The Secretary read the amendment proposed by Mr. Wilson to the second section, which was to strike out the section and in lieu of it to insert the following words:

Representatives shall bo apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers; but if in any State the elective franchise is or shall be denied to any of its inhabitants, being male citizens of the United States, above the age of twenty one years, for any cause except insurrection or rebellion against the United States," the basis of representation in such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of male citizens so excluded shall bear to the whole number of male citizens over twenty one years of age.

Mr. WILSON. Before tlie other amendment is read, I wish to state in a single word the distinction between the proposition just read and the section of the committee s proposition for which it is offered as a substitute. In the original proposition the language is" citizens of the State," in this it is" inhabitants being male citizens of the United States." I think the distinction is of vital importance. Now, let the Secretary read my other proposition.

The Secretary read theproposed amendment, which was to strike out section three, and in lieu of it to insert the following:

That no person who has resigned or abandoned or may resign or abandon any office under the United States, and has taken or may taltc part in rebellion against the Government thereof, shall be eligible to any office under the United States or of any State.

Mr. WILSON. I will simply say in regard i to this proposition, which I desire to have printed, that I am in favor of striking out the third section of the proposition of the committee, and I prefer simply to strike it out rather than to insert anything in place of it; but I submit this motion so that if we are to have anything inserted in its place, we shall give the people an opportunity of voting upon a proposition which says that the men who resigned or abandoned offices under the Government of the United States, whether civil or military, and engaged in rebellion, shall never hold any office under the Government of the United States, or under any State.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish to suggest to my friends that if they desire to offer amendments it would bo better to move each amendmentseparately, either in the place of some section in the resolution reported by the committee, or as an addition. The difficulty of presenting propositions together as a substitute for the whole is that we are compelled to vote upon them as a whole. If a Senator wishes to substitute one provision for another, let that be a motion distinct by itself.

Mr. WILSON. Mine is.

Mr. FESSENDEN. But the honorable Senator from Ohio has moved a substitute for all the five sections of the article reported by the committee. Perhaps I might vote for some one of the sections he proposes, but I cannot for all together. The purpose can be accomplished by simply moving one section as a substitute for another, or by offering his amendments as additional provisions.

Mr. WADE. Well, I can take that course.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Hendricks in the chair.) But one of the amendments proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts is now in order. The Chair understands the Senator, however, to propose his two amendments simply with a view of their being printed. Is there any objection to the reception of both amendments with a view to their being ordered to be printed?

Mr. CLARK. I suppose these amendments are all offered for the purpose of bringing them to the knowledge of the Senate and having them printed, and that no rule of the body will be enforced upon them.

.The PRESIDING OFFICER. If that be the unanimous wish of the Senate, it will be so ordered.

Mr. CLARK. I propose to offer as an amendment to the third section the proposition which I read some time ago to the Senate, but it would not be in order for me to do so now if any rule of the Senate was to be enforced upon it. I desire to offer an amendment to the third section, for the purpose of having it printed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no objection the order will first be made to print the amendments submitted by the Senator from Massachusetts. The Chair hears no objection.

Mr. CLARK. I desire to offer this as a substitute for the third section of the committee s resolution:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or be permitted to bold any office under the Government of the United States, who, having previously taken an oath to support tbeponstitution thereof, shall have voluntarily engaged in any insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort thereto.

I wish also to propose an amendment to the section in regard to the rebel debt, in these words:

Debts incurred in aid of rebellion or war against the United States are illegal and void, shall not be enforced in any court, or assumed or paid by (he United States or any State, or by its authority; nor shall any compensation ever be made for the loss or emancipation of any slave.

I prefer to make the provision in regard to the rebel debt a little more specific and to go a little further. I am not content to say that it shall not be paid by the United States or any State, but I want to say that it shall not be enforced in any court, either in an action or byway of set off nor shall any debt incurred by any city or municipal corporation in aid of rebellion ever be paid. I do not want that any citizen of my State or any citizen of any other loyal State who shall go down into that country shall ever be taxed to pay one cent of the rebel debt, and I want to say to the world that every particle of it is to be forever repudiated and remain unpaid that wo will not acknowledge it or suffer any of our courts to enforce it.

Mr. JOHNSON. Was the first amendment of the Senator proposed as a substitute for the third section?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir. The third section does not seem to be satisfactory to a great many persons, and yet I think something of the kind, looking toward the exclusion of many of those who participated in the rebellion from participation in the administration of our Government, is desirable. The section as it stands in the committee s plan provides that no person who has been engaged in the rebellion shall be allowed to vote until 1870. That is about four years off. Now, it will probably be a year and a half before this amendment can be agreed to by the States; they will be allowed to have until that time; and then it will only be an exclusion for a couple of years. I am afraid that the obstruction they will make to the adoption of the plan will be more serious than all the advantage we can derive from it. I much prefer that you should take the leaders of the rebellion, the heads of it, and say to them, "You never shall have anything to do with this Government," and let those who have moved in humble spheres return to their loyalty and to the Government.

Mr. HOWARD. Allow me to suggest to the Senator from New Hampshire, by way of amendment to the amendment offered by him to the third section, that he strike out, the word "voluntarily," so as to exclude thatelass of persons absolutely without qualification.

Mr. CLARK. I shall have no objection to any amendment of that kind.

Mr. HOWARD. Any person who has taken an oath to support the Constitution as a member of Congress or as a Federal officer must be presumed to have intelligence enough if he entered the rebel service to have entered it voluntarily. He cannot be said to have been forced into it by pressure; but as the amendment of the honorable Senator now stands it leaves open as a question of fact whether he actually entered the rebel service voluntarily or involuntarily.

Mr. CLARK. I will adopt the suggestion of the Senator from Michigan, and I will adopt any other suggestion that seems proper in regard to this amendment. I throw it out merely as a general idea or proposition. It may not be satisfactory to all minds; it may need amendment; it may possibly go too far; but I throw it out to the Senate and desire to have it printed as embracing a general proposition the main feature of which I think should be agreed to, and as a substitute for the third section proposed by the committee.

Mr. HOWARD. I am inclined to think I will support that amendment with that modification.

Mr. CLARK. I do not propose further to discuss the subject, but submit the amendment and ask that it be printed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment proposed by the Senator from New Hampshire will be printed, unless there be objection.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I desire also to submit an amendment with a view to have it printed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair •will receive the amendment and an order will be entered for its printing if there bo no objection.

The amendment of Mr. Buckalew is to add to the resolution the following additional section:

Sec. 6. This amendment sliaU bo passed upon in each State by the Legislature thereof which shall be chosen, or the members of tile most popular branch of which shall bo chosen next after the submission of the amendment, and at its first session; and no acceptance or rejection shall be reconsidered or again brought, in question at any subsequent session; nor shall any acceptance of the amendment bo valid if made after three years from the passage of this resolution.