States" did mean not owing allegiance to any body else. The Indians are not subject to our jurisdiction.

Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, said that who is a citizen of the United States is, at present, an open question. There is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of citizenship in a State. The amendment proposes to define what citizenship is in the best way that can be devised. He further thought that in one sense the Indians were a part of the people of the United States, being within the Territorial limits. The United States may exercise jurisdiction over all the tribes. The courts would sustain this jurisdiction. The amendment proposed should, therefore, be accepted.

Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, asked if it were not a matter to be decided by Congress alone, whether to treat with the Indians by treaty, or govern them by direct law. He said: "I asked the question whether, under the Constitution, under the powers of this Government, we may extend our laws over the Indians and compel obedience, as a matter of legal right, from the Indians. If the Indian is bound to obey the law, he is subject to the jurisdiction of the country; and that is the question.

"Now, sir, this question has once or twice been decided by the Attorney-General so far as he could decide it. In 1855 he was inquired of whether the laws of the United States regulating the intercourse with the Indian tribes, by the general legislation in regard to Oregon, had been extended to Oregon; and he gave it as his opinion that the laws had been extended to Oregon, and regulated the intercourse between the white people and the Indians there. Subsequently, the Attorney-General was asked whether Indians were citizens of the United States in such sense as that they could become the owners of the public lands where the right to acquire them was limited to citizens; and in the course of that opinion he says that the Indian is not a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth, but that he is a subject."

Mr. Howard, of Michigan, said in reply: "According to the ideas of the honorable Senator from Wisconsin, as I understand them, this consequence would follow the adoption of his amendment: all that would remain to be done on the part of any State would be to impose a tax upon the Indians, whether in their tribal condition or otherwise, in order to make them citizens of the United States. The great objection, therefore, to the amendment is that it is an actual naturalization, whenever the State sees fit to enact a naturalization law in reference to the In

dians in the shape of the imposition of a tax, of the whole Indian population within their limits. There is no evading this consequence."

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, said: "I do not presume that any one will pretend to dis

guise the fact that the object of this first section is simply to declare that negroes shall be citizens of the United States. There can be no other object in it, I presume, than a further extension of the legislative kindness and beneficence of Congress toward that class of people. "The poor Indian, whose untutored mind

Sees God in clouds, or hears Him in the wind,' was not thought of. I say this, not meaning it to be any reflection upon the honorable committee who reported the amendment, because for all the gentlemen composing it I have a high respect personally; but that is evidently the object. I have no doubt myself of the correctness of the position, as a question of law, taken by the honorable Senator from Wisconsin; but, sir, I feel disposed to vote against his amendment, because if these negroes are to be made citizens of the United States, I can see no reason, in justice or in right, why the Indians should not be made citizens. If our citizens are to be increased in this wholesale manner, I cannot turn my back upon that persecuted race, among whom are many intelligent, educated men, and embrace as fellow-citizens the negro race. I therefore, as at present advised, for the reasons I have given, shall vote against the proposition of my friend from Wisconsin, although I believe, as a matter of law, that his statements are correct."

The question was taken, and resulted as fol

lows:

YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson, McDougall, Norton, and Riddle-10.

Creswell, Edmunds, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, HarNAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Clark, Conness, Cragin, ris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams, and Wilson-80.

ABSENT-Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Dixon, Lane of Indiana, Nesmith, Saulsbury, Sprague, Wright, and Yates-9.

The first and second amendments proposed by Mr. Howard were then agreed to. To the amendment offered as section three, Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, moved to amend by inserting during his term of office," before the words "have engaged." The motion was lost, and the amendment of Mr. Howard agreed to, by the following vote:

the words 66

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Edmunds, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams, and Wilson-32.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson, Norton, Riddle, and Saulsbury-10.

ABSENT-Messrs. Brown, Dixon, McDougall, Nesmith, Sherman, Wright, and Yates-7.

The section four of the amendment then came up for consideration, which declares that the obligations incurred by the United States shall remain inviolate. Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, said:

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

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

"In this weighty business now before us what are the facts? The House sent us four propositions to change the Constitution in one bill.

Upon discussion it was found that probably no one of the propositions, nor any proposed modification thereof, could receive the required vote. Two-thirds of the Senators, belonging to one political party, retired from the Senate to consider and agree upon a bill. Each Senator by going into the secret caucus, agreed and became bound to vote for whatever the majority of the caucus should adopt. A section or an entire bill may be adopted by a bare majority of the caucus, much less than one-half the Senate, but the entire two-thirds must vote for it in the Senate, not because it is right, but because the majority of the caucus has said so; and thus an amendment of the Constitution may be adopted by the Senate when a majority of the body would vote against it if no party obligation rested upon them. What Senator would dare propose to shut these doors against the people, that we in secret might take steps to change their great charter of liberty? The people would not endure it, but in congregating thousands would burst them open and demand to know all that was said and done upon a matter of such interest to them. The present proposed amendment has been decided upon in a conclave more secret than has ever been known in this country.

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

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

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

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

"What citizenship is, what are its rights and duties, its obligations and liabilities, are not

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

'None so poor to do it reverence.' "The second section now demands our attention. The intent and effect of that section is to take away representation in Congress in a the States in which the right of voting is not given to the negroes. The purpose is to constrain every State to confer the right of Toting upon the negroes; and in case of refusal, the penalty is loss of representation. The secon does not rest upon the proposition that those whom the States treat as unfit to vote stall not be represented, for it is so framed as continue to the Northern and Eastern States their twenty Representatives that are based pon a non-voting population. It is so framed, 150, as to continue to the States of Maryland, Tennessee, West Virginla, and Missouri, their full representation, although during the war

VOL. VI.-13

the military power was so used in those States as to place the political power in the hands of a few, who so exercised it as to exclude the residue of the people from the ballot-box. You say that if the States treat the negroes as unfit to vote, then they shall not be voted for; that no representation shall be allowed for them; then, I ask, if in some of the Northern States the foreigner is denied a vote for five years, why shall he be voted for? If in Maryland, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Missouri, the majority are treated as unfit to vote, why shall the minority vote for them and be represented for them? Come, now, let candor and truth have full sway, and answer me, is it not because you believe that the few in these States now allowed to vote will send radicals to Congress, and therefore you allow them to send full delegations that it may add to your political party power? And I now submit to your patriotism, to your love of our country, if we have not come upon most dangerous times, when our Constitution is to be torn up and remodelled that a political party may make its power more secure, that it may hold on to the offices, and shape and control sectional policies.

"Mr. President, I now venture the prediction that this thing cannot succeed; that in this land of intelligence and love of liberty and right, permanent power cannot be built upon inequality, injustice, and wrong. If the principle be right that none but voters ought to be represented, why do you not say so? If you think the negro ought to have the right of voting; if you are in favor of it, and intend it shall be given, why do you not in plain words confer it upon them? It is much fairer than to seek it by indirection, and the people will distinctly understand you when you propose such a change of the Constitution. I am not for it directly, nor will I coerce the States to its allowance. If conferred by the free action of the States, I am content. Within the limits of constitutional right and power I will support all measures necessary and proper for the protection and elevation of the colored race; measures safe and just to both races; but I do not believe that it is for the good of either race that they should be brought into close social and political relations.

"The third section provides that no person shall ever hold any office under the United States, or under any State, who, having at any time taken the oath prescribed by the Constitution as an officer of the United States or of any State, shall engage in rebellion or give aid and comfort to the public enemies. The proposition to exempt from the operations of the section those who against their will were compelled to participate in the rebellion, was voted down; and the section now stands excluding from all offices every person of the described class who either voluntarily or involuntarily became connected with the rebellion; and that, too, notwithstanding the party may be under the shield of the President's pardon. This

harsh and sweeping measure will include many excellent men whose services now in the work of reconciliation would be of the greatest value to the country-men who displayed heroic courage in standing out against the secession movement, but who afterward yielded obedience to and served the established government de facto. This measure is in the spirit that pursued the supporters of Cromwell and the Parliament after the Restoration. It is in the spirit of vengeance after men are beaten and have surrendered, and cannot bring a blessing to our country. Senators say that the measure is not penal in its character. Why not? When pardoned, are not these men eligible to State and Federal offices? And do you not propose to strip them of their eligibility because of their crime?

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

"The fifth section declares the debts contracted in aid of the rebellion illegal, and prohibits their payment. Mr. President, who is so stupid as to have supposed these debts legal, or that they had any valid existence for one hour after the de facto government of the Confederate States ceased to exist? Who is so silly as to fear their payment? The least that may be said of this section is that it would be harmless, but I would regret to see the face of the Constitution marred by a provision so unnecessary and trifling.

"The sixth and last section provides that Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the

article. When these words were used in the amendment abolishing slavery, they were thought to be harmless; but during this session there has been claimed for them such force and scope of meaning as that Congress might invade the jurisdiction of the States, rob them of their

reserved rights, and crown the Federal Gover ment with absolute and despotic power. As construed, this provision is most dangerous. Without it the Constitution possesses the vital ity and vigor for its own enforcement through the appropriate departments.

"Mr. President, I have now briefly examined the provisions of this article, and cannot resist the conviction that some of them are useless, while others are vicious and dangerous. Nor can I resist the conviction that this measure is pressed, not because of an exigency in our affairs, but to carry out a party programme. The President has his policy. You oppose him. You charge him with usurpation, while at the same time you are straining every brace and timber in the Constitution to secure to your selves absolute control; indeed, you reach out beyond the Constitution, and by amendmenta proceeding to be resorted to only upon rare and solemn occasions-you grasp after, and with the avidity of hunger, clutch power."

The amendments proposed by Mr. Howard were adopted. Numerous amendments were then offered to the second section, relative to the basis of representation, which were largely debated and rejected, and the action of the Committee of the Whole reported and approved by the Senate by two-thirds vote. The joint resolution, as amended by the Senate, was as follows:

Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constite tion of the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representati of the United States of America in Congress at (two-thirds of both Houses concurring), That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Consti tion of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid as part of the Constitution, namely:

ARTICLE. Sec. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdicti thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the United States; 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 pretection of the laws.

Sec. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among bers, counting the whole number of persons in each the several States according to their respective nu State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of elec tors for President and Vice-President of the United and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the States, Representatives in Congress, the executive Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the ma inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellica or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such

State.

Sec. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Represent ative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress,