President would not be unjustly affected by the third section of the amendment. To which Mr. Stevens replied: "None of those who have been fully pardoned are affected by this provision."

Mr. Finck, of Ohio, thought it an inauspicious time to propose or make changes in the Constitution. He condemned the course which had been pursued by the majority in Congress; and said that, stripped of all disguises, the proposed measure was a mere scheme to deny representation to eleven States; to prevent indefinitely, a complete restoration of the Union, and perpetuate the power of a sectional and dangerous party. He further said:

"What is the theory on which these propositions are based?

"This Union is composed of thirty-six States; and by law, in full force, but the provisions of which are defied and utterly disregarded, this House is legally and constitutionally to be composed of two hundred and forty-one members; but we have Representatives here from only twenty-five States, and only one hundred and eighty-four members.

"The constitutional number of Senators is two for each State, and when full that body would now consist of seventy-two, while it is in fact composed of but fifty. So that eleven States are denied all representation in both branches of Congress, although the Constitution provides that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate;' and the right to representation in the House is equally clear.

"But this House by the mere exertion and combination of numbers excludes from its deliberations fifty-seven members; and the Senate by the same power excludes twenty-two members from a voice and vote in that chamber. And it is, sir, in this strange and extraordinary condition of our affairs that we are gravely invited to proceed to change the Constitution in such a manner as to deeply and materially affect every State whose representatives are excluded from Congress; and we are further asked to say to these States thus excluded, that if they refuse to debase themselves as equal States in the Union and decline to ratify and approve by affirmative action these changes, their exclusion shall be perpetual.

"I ask gentlemen to pause and reflect before they commit themselves to so monstrous and revolutionary a scheme as this.".

Mr. Garfield, of Ohio, followed, and said: "First let me say I regret more than I shall be able to tell this House that we have not found the situation of affairs in this country such and the public virtue such that we might come out on the plain, unanswerable proposition that every adult intelligent citizen of the United States, unconvicted of crime, shall enjoy the right of suffrage." He expressed his entire approbation of the amendments, except the third, which was liable to a double construction relative to its effect upon those who had been

pardoned, and the whole section would have been far more defensible if the disfranchisement had been made perpetual.

The joint resolution was fully debated in the House until the 10th, when Mr. Stevens withdrew his motion to recommit and moved the previous question, which was seconded, and the main question ordered, when the joint resolution was passed by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clark, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eggles ton, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell, Griswold, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, McClurg, McIndoe, McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Plants, Price, William H. Randall, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Stillwell, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Schenck, Schofield, Shellabarger, Spalding, Stevens, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wil son, Windom, Woodbridge, and the Speaker-128. NAYS-Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Boyer, Chanler, Coffroth, Dawson, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grider, Aaron Harding, Harris, Kerr, Latham, Le Blond, Marshall, McCullough, Niblack, Phelps, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Ritter, Rogers, Strouse, Tabor, Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Wha Ross, Rousseau, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Smith, ley, Winfield, and Wright-37.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Brandagee, Culver, Denison, Farquhar, Hale, Hill, Hogan, John H. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James M. Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Marvin, Nicholson, Noell, Pomeroy, Sloan, Starr, and Wentworth-19.

In the Senate the debate on the joint resolu tion commenced on May 23d, by Mr. Howard, of Michigan, who endeavored to present the views and motives which influenced the committee in presenting the report. A great number of witnesses, he said, had been examined as to the political and social condition of the Southern States, and the result of their inves tigations was the joint resolution presented. He then stated the privileges and rights already secured under the Constitution to the citizens, and said: " Now, sir, there is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guaranties. 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 carry ing 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 guaranties. 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 guaranties, 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, whoever he may be, 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 sufîrage 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 despotism.

"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 laws 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 same protection before the law as it gives to the most powerful, the most wealthy, or the most haughty. That, sir, is republican government, as I understand it, and the only one which 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 section of the proposed 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 to 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, threefourths 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 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 be 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.

"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 1860, 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 slaveholding 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 war is to increase the Representatives of the late slaveholding States?

"The committee thought this should no longer be permitted, and they thought it wiser to adopt a general principle applicable to all the 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 ine quality in fixing the basis. The committee adopted numbers as the most just and satis factory 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 tho sand and sixty-seven. In five of the New Eng land 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 st 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 calcu lation 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 popu lation from voting, they will do it at the loss at least of twenty-four Representatives in the other House of Congress, according to the rule established by the act of 1850. It is not to be disguised-the 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 pen alty of refusing will be severe. They will doubtedly 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.

"I did not favor the third 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 Legis latures. 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 Legisla ture 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."

Mr. Wade, of Ohio, said: "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.

S. 2. 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 propet, or because of alienage, or for participation in rebellion or other crime.

S.3. The public debt of 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 defence of the Union, or for payment of bounties or pensions incident to such war and provided for by law, shall be inviolable. But debts or obligations which have been or may hereaf ter be incurred 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 to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. This amendment was subsequently withdrawn. Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, said: "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."

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 be apportioned among the Several States according to their respective numbars; but if in any State the elective franchise is shall be denied to any of its inhabitants, being ale 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 excluded shall bear to the whole number of male citizens over twenty-one years of age.

Mr. Wilson: "Before the 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 the proposed 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 take part in rebellion against the Government thereof, shall be eligible to any office under the United States or of any State.

Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, said: "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 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.

"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 enforced in any court, or assumed or paid by the the United States are illegal and void, shall not be United States or any State, or by its authority; nor shall any compensation ever be made for the loss or emancipation of any slave.

Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, moved to add to the resolution the following additional section:

Sec. 6. This amendment shall be passed upon in each State by the Legislature thereof which shall be chosen, or the members of the most popular branch of which shall be 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 be valid if made after three years from the passage of this resolution.

On May 29th, Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, moved to strike out the third section of the amendment, which motion was adopted unanimously.

amend section one of the article by adding after Mr. Howard, of Michigan, then moved to the words "section one," the following words, to constitute a part of the section:

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

He further moved to amend the second section by striking out the word "citizens," in the twentieth line, where it occurs, and inserting after the word" male " the words "inhabitants, being citizens of the United States; " and by inserting at the end of that section the words "any such State."

The third section, he said, "has already been stricken out. Instead of that section, or rather in its place, I offer the following:

Sec. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or an 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