History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States Part 32

"5. In submitting amendments at this time, we invite a dispute upon the question of the degree of legislative a.s.sent necessary to their adoption. If ratified by the Legislatures of less than three-fourths of all the States, their validity will be denied, and their enforcement resisted."

Mr. Wilson, of Ma.s.sachusetts, replied to Mr. Buckalew's imputations against New England. "The Senator gave us to understand that he had not wasted reason, thought, and culture upon the stormy pa.s.sions engendered by the war, but now, when reason had resumed her empire, he had come forth to instruct his country.

"The Senators from New England, unlike the Senator from Pennsylvania, remained not silent during the great civil war through which the nation has pa.s.sed. They have spoken; they have spoken for the unity of their country and the freedom of all men. They have spoken for their country, their whole country, and for the rights of all its people of every race. Their past is secure, and the imputations of the Senator from Pennsylvania will pa.s.s harmless by them.

"When the Const.i.tution was formed, New England had eight of the twenty-six Senators--nearly one-third of the body; now she has twelve of the seventy-two Senators--one-sixth of the body. Her power is diminishing in this body and will continue to diminish. When the Const.i.tution was adopted, quite as great inequalities existed among the States as now. The ill.u.s.trious statesmen who framed the Const.i.tution knew and recognized that fact; they based the Senate upon the States, and upon the equality of the States. They were so determined in that policy of equal State representation in the Senate that they provided that the Const.i.tution should never be amended in that respect without the consent of every State.

"The Senator suggests that the Senators from New England are actuated by local interests and love of power in their action regarding the admission of the Representatives of the rebel States. Nothing can be more unjust to those Senators. It is without the shadow of fairness or justice, or the semblance of truth. I can say before G.o.d that I am actuated by no local interests, no love of power, in opposing the immediate and unconditional admission of the rebel States into these chambers; and I know my a.s.sociates from New England too well to believe for a moment that they are actuated by interest or the love of power. Thousands of millions of money have been expended, and hundreds of thousands of brave men have bled for the unity and liberty of the republic. I desire--my a.s.sociates from New England desire--to see these vacant chairs filled at an early day by the Representatives of the States that rebelled and rushed into civil war. We will welcome them here; but before they come it is of vital importance to the country, to the people of all sections, to the interests of all, that all disturbing questions should be forever adjusted, and so adjusted as never again to disturb the unity and peace of the country. It is now the time to settle forever all matters that can cause estrangement and sectional agitations and divisions in the future. Nothing should be left to bring dissensions, and, it may be, civil war again upon our country. The blood poured out to suppress the rebellion must not be shed in vain."

Prominent Republican Senators bringing earnest opposition to bear against the proposed const.i.tutional amendment, and a sentiment evidently gaining ground that it did not meet the requirements of the case, caused its friends to urge it with less zeal than had at first characterized them. Meanwhile, other important propositions coming up from the Committee of Fifteen, which occupied the attention of the Senate, as detailed in a subsequent chapter, the subject of changing the basis of representation was allowed to lie over for nearly a fortnight.

On the 5th of March, the subject being resumed, Mr. Pomeroy addressed the Senate. He feared that the nation was not ready to adopt a const.i.tutional amendment such as the necessities of the country required. "This nation," said he, "although severely disciplined, has not yet reached the point of giving to all men their rights by a suffrage amendment; three-fourths of the States are not ready. And any patchwork, any 'step toward it' (as said the chairman of the committee) which does not reach it, I fear to take, because but one opportunity will ever be afforded us to step at all; and lost opportunities are seldom repeated."

Mr. Pomeroy did not think the case was without remedy, however, since "the last const.i.tutional amendment embraced all, gave the most ample powers, even if they did not exist before; for, after having secured the freedom of all men wherever the old flag floats, it provided that Congress might 'secure' the same by 'appropriate legislation.'

"What more could it have said? And who are better judges of appropriate legislation than the very men who first pa.s.sed the amendment and provided for this very case?

"Sir, what is 'appropriate legislation' on the subject, namely, securing the freedom of all men? It can be nothing less than throwing about all men the essential safeguards of the Const.i.tution. The 'right to bear arms' is not plainer taught or more efficient than the right to carry ballots. And if appropriate legislation will secure the one, so can it also the other. And if both are necessary, and provided for in the Const.i.tution as now amended, why, then, let us close the question of congressional legislation.

"Let us not take counsel of our own fears, but of our hopes; not of our enemies, but of our friends. By all the memories which cl.u.s.ter about the pathway in which we have been led; by all the sacrifices, suffering, blood, and tears of the conflict; by all the hopes of a freed country and a disenthralled race; yea, as a legacy for mankind, let us now secure a free representative republic, based upon impartial suffrage and that human equality made clear in the Declaration of Independence. To this entertainment let us invite our countrymen and all nations, committing our work, when done, to the verdict of posterity and the blessing of Almighty G.o.d."

On the day following, Mr. Saulsbury took the floor. His speech, ostensibly against the pending measure, was a palliation of the conduct of the Southern States, and a plea for their right of being admitted to representation in Congress. All that the Senator said directly upon the subject under discussion was contained in the following paragraph:

"Now, suppose your const.i.tutional amendment pa.s.ses. If it pa.s.ses, it ought to meet with the respect of some body. If this const.i.tutional amendment shall be presented to the States who are now represented in Congress, and shall be adopted by simply three-fourths of those States, is there any body that will have the least respect for it?

Then suppose you could go with the bayonet--which I think now, under the brighter dawn of a better day which we begin to realize, you are not going to have the liberty to do--suppose you were to go with the bayonet and present it to the other eleven States, and they, acting under duress, not as free agents and as free men, could get some people in their section so miserable and poor in spirit and craven in soul as to vote to adopt in their Legislatures such an amendment, would it command the respect of any body in this land? Not at all.

Open your doors, sir; admit the Representatives of the Southern States to seats in this body; require no miserable degrading oath of them; administer to them the very oath that you first took when you entered this body, and the only oath that the Const.i.tution of the United States requires, and the only oath which Congress has any right to exact, an oath to support the Const.i.tution of the United States; and then, if you think your Const.i.tution is defective, if you think it needs further amendment, or if you have not sufficiently exhausted your bowels of mercy and love and kindness toward your sable friends whose shadows darken this gallery every day, submit your amendments to the States represented in the Congress of the United States; and if they choose, acting freely as citizens of their States, to agree to your amendments, it will command the respect of themselves, but still it will not command mine. I should despise a people who would voluntarily a.s.sume so degrading a position."

On the 7th of March, Mr. Sumner occupied the attention of the Senate for three hours, with a second speech in opposition to the proposed const.i.tutional amendment. He used very strong language to express his abhorrence of the proposition: "It reminds me of that leg of mutton served for dinner on the road from London to Oxford, which Dr.

Johnson, with characteristic energy, described 'as bad as bad could be, ill-fed, ill-killed, ill-kept, and ill-dressed.' So this compromise--I adopt the saying of an eminent friend, who insists that it can not be called an 'amendment,' but rather a 'detriment' to the Const.i.tution--is as bad as bad can be; and even for its avowed purpose it is uncertain, loose, cracked, and rickety. Regarding it as a proposition from Congress to meet the unparalleled exigencies of the present hour, it is no better than the 'muscipular abortion' sent into the world by the 'parturient mountain.' But it is only when we look at the chance of good from it that this proposition is 'muscipular.'

Regarding it in every other aspect it is infinite, inasmuch as it makes the Const.i.tution a well-spring of insupportable thralldom, and once more lifts the sluices of blood destined to run until it comes to the horse's bridle. Adopt it, and you will put millions of fellow-citizens under the ban of excommunication; you will hand them over to a new anathema maranatha; you will declare that they have no political rights 'which white men are bound to respect,' thus repeating in a new form that abomination which has blackened the name of Taney. Adopt it, and you will stimulate anew the war of race upon race. Slavery itself was a war of race upon race, and this is only a new form of this terrible war. The proposition is as hardy as it is gigantic; for it takes no account of the moral sense of mankind, which is the same as if in rearing a monument we took no account of the law of gravitation. It is the paragon and masterpiece of ingrat.i.tude, showing more than any other act of history what is so often charged and we so fondly deny, that republics are ungrateful. The freedmen ask for bread, and you send them a stone. With piteous voice they ask for protection. You thrust them back unprotected into the cruel den of their former masters. Such an attempt, thus bad as bad can be, thus abortive for all good, thus perilous, thus pregnant with a war of race upon race, thus shocking to the moral sense, and thus treacherous to those whom we are bound to protect, can not be otherwise than shameful. Adopt it, and you will cover the country with dishonor.

Adopt it, and you will fix a stigma upon the very name of republic. As to the imagination, there are mountains of light, so are there mountains of darkness; and this is one of them. It is the very Koh-i-noor of blackness. Adopt this proposition, and you will be little better than the foul Harpies who defiled the feast that was spread. The Const.i.tution is the feast spread for our country, and you are now hurrying to drop into its text a political obscenity, and to spread on its page a disgusting ordure,

"'Defiling all you find, And parting leave a loathsome stench behind.'"

Having presented his objections to the pending proposition, at great length, he summed them up as follows: "You have seen, first, how this proposition carries into the Const.i.tution itself the idea of Inequality of Rights, thus defiling that unspotted text; secondly, how it is an express sanction of the acknowledged tyranny of taxation without representation; thirdly, how it is a concession to State Rights at a moment when we are recovering from a terrible war waged against us in the name of State Rights; fourthly, how it is the const.i.tutional recognition of an oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, and monopoly founded on color; fifthly, how it petrifies in the Const.i.tution the wretched pretensions of a white man's government; sixthly, how it a.s.sumes what is false in const.i.tutional law, that color can be a 'qualification' for an elector; seventhly, how it positively ties the hands of Congress in fixing the meaning of a republican government, so that, under the guarantee clause, it will be constrained to recognize an oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, and monopoly founded on color, together with the tyranny of taxation without representation, as not inconsistent with such a government; eighthly, how it positively ties the hands of Congress in completing and consummating the abolition of slavery according to the second clause of the const.i.tutional amendment, so that it can not, for this purpose, interfere with the denial of the elective franchise on account of color; ninthly, how it installs recent rebels in permanent power over loyal citizens; and, tenthly, how it shows forth, in unmistakable character, as a compromise of human rights, the most immoral, indecent, and utterly shameful of any in our history. All this you have seen, with pain and sorrow, I trust. Who that is moved to sympathy for his fellow-man can listen to the story without indignation? Who that has not lost the power of reason can fail to see the cruel wrong?"

Mr. Doolittle mentioned some facts which he thought would prove the apprehension of an increase of the basis of representation in the South to be without foundation. "The destruction of the population,"

said he, "both white and black, during the civil war, has been most enormous. Of the white population, there were in those States in 1860, of white males over twenty years of age, about one million six hundred thousand. Nearly one-third of that white population over twenty years of age has perished. The actual destruction of the black population since 1860 has been at least twenty-five per cent. of the whole population. The population of the South has been so destroyed and wasted and enfeebled in consequence of this war, that I do not for one, I confess, feel those apprehensions which some entertain that, if they are admitted to representation under the Const.i.tution just as it stands, they will have any increase of Representatives. My opinion is, that after the next census their representation will be diminished unless emigration from the North or from Europe shall fill up their population and increase it so as to ent.i.tle it to an increased representation."

Mr. Doolittle argued that the amendment was capable of being evaded by a State disposed to disfranchise colored men: "I do not see," said he, "that there is any thing in the resolution which would prevent South Carolina or any other State from pa.s.sing a law that any person who was born free, or whose ancestors were free, should exercise the elective franchise, and none others. That would exclude the whole of the colored population, and yet would leave the State to have its full representation. There is nothing which would prevent the State of South Carolina or any other State from saying that only those persons who had served in the military service, and their descendants, should exercise the elective franchise. That would exclude the colored population, and the Union population, too, if they refused to serve in the army."

Mr. Doolittle closed his remarks by advocating an amendment basing representation upon actual voters under State laws.

Mr. Morrill, of Maine, addressed the Senate in support of the proposition to amend the Const.i.tution. He said: "Some amendment is rendered absolutely necessary, unless the American Const.i.tution is to give to the nation the expression of utterly contradictory sentiments, saying involuntary servitude no longer exists, in one portion of it; in another, bearing on its front in marked contrast, that three-fifths only of the 'other persons' are to still const.i.tute the basis of representation."

He recalled a time not far remote when amendments of the Const.i.tution were adopted by those who now oppose any alteration of the fundamental law: "I do not forget," said he, "that within the last five years a cla.s.s of statesmen and politicians, who now resist all propositions for an amendment of the Const.i.tution, here and elsewhere urged and demanded amendments of the Const.i.tution of the nation. What were the circ.u.mstances then? Several States threatened to dissolve this Union; several States had taken an att.i.tude hostile to the Government of the country. They demanded the extension, the protection, and the perpetuation of slavery; and upon that question the country was divided. Then amendments to the Const.i.tution were proposed without number here, elsewhere, and every-where. Amendments to the Const.i.tution seemed to be the order of the day. To what end, and for what purpose? To increase the power in the hands of the few who wielded the political power in those States, and who were demanding it.

Referring to an argument presented by the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr.

Morrill remarked: "But yesterday we had an additional reason given why this amendment should not be adopted; and that was that it was wholly unnecessary, because, it was said, by the events which were transpiring in the country in regard to the recent slave population, there need be no apprehension of excess of representation based on the whole 'numbers' instead of three-fifths, from the important fact that they were pa.s.sing away. If I gather the force of that argument, it is this: we are to base no legislation and no action upon the idea that this race, recently slave, now free, is part and parcel of the American people, the object of our care, solicitude, and protection.

They are pa.s.sing away--dying; let them be represented as slaves now, and let them never enter into the basis hereafter of the representative system. Sir, that is the old argument--an argument worthy of another period than this. Our people have been an inexorable people, in some respects, in regard to the races that have been within their power. In the march of our civilization across the continent, the iron heel of that civilization has rested upon the Indian, and he is pa.s.sing away. We seem to contemplate the probable extinction of the Indians from our limits with composure. He is a nomad; he is a savage; he is a barbarian; he is not within our morals or our code of law; he is not within the pale of the Const.i.tution, but flits upon the verge of it, outside our protection, the subject of our caprices, and sometimes, I think, of our avarice. And, now, if any consequence is to be attached to the remark of the honorable Senator from Wisconsin [Mr.

Doolittle] yesterday, this 'inferior race' is not to be the subject of our solicitude. They, too, are pa.s.sing away; it is not worth while to change your Const.i.tution in regard to them. Let them be represented as two-fifths slaves on the old basis until they shall have perished, and then your Const.i.tution will need no amendment. The laws of a fearful antagonism of superior and inferior races are expected to accomplish what, if American statesmanship does not incite, it contemplates with apparent satisfaction."

Mr. Wilson, of Ma.s.sachusetts, profoundly regretted to see indications that the amendment was doomed to defeat. He said: "My heart, my conscience, and my judgment approve of this amendment, and I support it without qualification or reservation. I approve of the purpose for which it is introduced. I approve it because I believe it would sweep the loyal States by an immense majority; that no public man could stand before the people of the loyal States in opposition to it, or oppose it with any force whatever. I approve it because I believe if it were put in the Const.i.tution every black man in America, before five years could pa.s.s, would be enfranchised and weaponed with the ballot for the protection of life, liberty, and property."

Referring to the opposition brought to bear against the measure by his colleague, Mr. Wilson said: "We are also told that it is immoral and indecent, an offense to reason and to conscience. Sir, this measure came into Congress with the sanction of the Committee on Reconstruction, composed as it is of men of individual honor and personal character, and as true to the cause of the colored race as any other men here or elsewhere. It comes to the Senate by an overwhelming vote of the House of Representatives. It is sustained by ninety-nine out of every hundred of the public journals that brought the present Administration into power, and were it submitted to the American people, it would, I am quite sure, be sustained by men in the loyal States who believe that the soldier who fought the battles of the republic is the equal of the traitor who fought against the country. I see no compromise in it, no surrender in it, no defilement of the Const.i.tution in it, no implication that can be drawn from it against the rights or interests of the colored race. On the contrary, I believe the black men, from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, would go for it and rejoice to see it adopted."

Mr. Wilson described the results that would follow the adoption of this amendment. "Being incorporated in the Const.i.tution, the practical effect would be this, and only this: it would raise up a party in every one of these States immediately in favor of the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of the colored race. That party might be animated and influenced by the love of power, by pride, and by ambition. These men might begin the contest, for they would not like to yield the power of their States in Congress; they might begin the battle animated by no high and lofty motives; but as soon as the discussion commenced, it would address itself to the reason, to the heart, and to the conscience of the people. The advocates of negro enfranchis.e.m.e.nt would themselves speedily grow up to believe in the justice, equity, and right of giving the ballot to the black men. There would be discussion on every square mile of the rebel States. Appeals would be made to their pride, to their ambition, to their justice, to their love of fair play, to their equity; all the interests and pa.s.sions, and all the loftier motives that can sway, control, and influence men, would impel them to action. They would cooperate with the friends of freedom throughout the country; would seek their counsel and aid. They would be the left wing of the great army of freedom, of elevation, and improvement in the country. We would give them our influence, our voices, and our aid in fighting the battle of enfranchis.e.m.e.nt. They would have the support and the prayers of the poor black men of the South; and before five years had pa.s.sed away, there would not be a rebel State that did not enfranchise the bondman."

Referring to the policy of "enlightened Christian States," in refusing the right of suffrage to the negro, Mr. Wilson said: "After all the fidelity and heroic conduct of these men, prejudice, party spirit, and conservatism, and all that is base and mean on earth, combine to deny the right of suffrage to the brave soldier of the republic. G.o.d alone can forgive such meanness; humanity can not. After what has taken place, is taking place, I can not hope that the const.i.tutional amendment proposed by the Senator from Missouri will receive a majority of three-fourths of the votes of the States. I, therefore, can not risk the cause of an emanc.i.p.ated race upon it. In the present condition of the nation we must aim at practical results, not to establish political theories, however beautiful and alluring they may be."

It was the understanding of the Senate that the discussion would close and the vote would be taken on the 9th of March. On that day Mr.

Fessenden took the floor in reply to objections urged by those who had previously spoken. In reply to the objection that the advocates of this measure were wrong in attempting to accomplish by indirection that which they could not accomplish directly, Mr. Fessenden said: "If negro suffrage can be secured by the indirect action of an amendment of the Const.i.tution which appeals to the interest of those who have hitherto been and who are yet probably the ruling cla.s.s among whom this large population is situated, and with whom they live, it will be far better than to run the risk of all the difficulties that might arise from a forcible imposition, which would create ill-feeling, generate discord, and produce, perhaps undying animosities."

To the objection urged by Mr. Hendricks, that it was intended for a party purpose, Mr. Fessenden replied: "Has he any right to attack the motives of those who support it? Must it necessarily be attended with benefit to a particular party? If so, it is necessarily attended with injury to another party, of which the honorable Senator is a prominent member; and it would as well become me to say that his opposition to it is for party purposes and for party objects as it became him to say that its introduction and its support were intended for party purposes. It is well known here and out of this Senate that the honorable Senator from Indiana is a gentleman who never, in any of his addresses here, says any thing that is in the slightest degree calculated to effect a party purpose, and has so little of that party feeling which presses itself upon other men as to be hardly suspected of being a party man at all." [Laughter.]

Mr. Fessenden thus replied to the objections of two opponents of the measure: "The Senator [Mr. Hendricks] objected to this measure upon another ground, and that was, that in one sense it was intended as a punishment, and that was wrong; and in another sense it was what he called a bribe, a reward, and that was wrong. If he considers it a punishment, he differs very much from his leading a.s.sociate on this question, the honorable Senator from Ma.s.sachusetts, [Mr. Sumner,] for he does not consider it a punishment at all. The Senator from Ma.s.sachusetts says there is nothing punitive in it. On the contrary, it is a reward to these States; it is conferring power upon them; it is strengthening power in the hands of the whites of the South, and only oppressing the colored race. Behold how doctors disagree! They operate upon the same patient, and are operating at the same time, with different remedies and in different directions.

"Suppose it is a punishment, and suppose it is a bribe, a reward; it does not differ very much from the principle upon which all criminal legislation is founded, to say the least of it. We punish men when they do wrong. I never heard that it was an objection to legislation that it punished those who perpetrate a wrong. I never heard that it was an objection to legislation that it held out rewards to those who did right."

Referring to Mr. Buckalew's argument, Mr. Fessenden remarked: "Eight out of sixteen pages of his speech were devoted to abuse of New England, and to showing that New England had too much power, and that it ought to be abridged in some way. "He closed those remarks by saying (for which I was very much obliged to him) that he did not despise New England. We are happy to know it. I will say to him that New England does not despise him that I am aware of. [Laughter.] I am not aware that it is really affected in any degree by the elaborate attack of eight pages which he delivered against New England on that occasion, and which he thought were views so important that he could not be justified if he failed to give them utterance."

Of Mr. Sumner's part in the debate, Mr. Fessenden said: "On this subject I think he has occupied about eight or nine hours of the time of the Senate, and on the last occasion, while saying that principles were to be considered, he has undertaken to designate the character of this proposed amendment. I have already stated who the men were who were in favor of it. What does the Senator call it? I have chosen a few, and but a few, flowers of rhetoric from the speech of the honorable Senator: 'Compromise of human rights,' 'violating the national faith,' 'dishonoring the name of there public,' 'bad mutton,'

'new muscipular abortion,' 'a new anathema maranatha,' 'abomination,'

'paragon and masterpiece of ingrat.i.tude,' 'abortive for all good,'

'shocking to the moral sense,' 'the very Koh-i-noor of blackness,'

'essential uncleanliness,' 'disgusting ordure,' 'loathsome stench;'

and the men who support it, if they pa.s.s it, will be 'Harpies,'

'Pontius Pilate, with Judas Iscariot on his back.'

"The Senator from Ma.s.sachusetts makes several points against this proposition, to which my answer is the same. His first point is, that it recognizes 'the idea of inequality of rights founded on race or color.' I deny _in toto_ the correctness, or even the plausibility, to a man of sense, any point that he has raised on the subject. There is not one of them that is tenable; and more than that, there is not one of them but what is just as tenable against the proposition he is in favor of to found representation on voters as this. What lawyer in the world ever heard that a denial is an admission? What lawyer ever heard that a penalty is a permission? By this proposition, we say simply this: 'If, in the exercise of the power that you have under the Const.i.tution, you make an inequality of rights, then you are to suffer such and such consequences.' What sane man could ever pretend that that was saying, 'Make an inequality of rights and we will sanction it?' We do not deny--n.o.body can deny--that the power may be thus exercised. What we say by this amendment is, 'If you attempt to exercise it in this wrongful way, you create an inequality of rights; and if you do create an inequality of rights'--not we, but you--'if you undertake to do it under the power which exists in the Const.i.tution, then the consequence follows that you are punished by a loss of representation.' That is all that is in it."

Having replied to the most of Mr. Sumner's objections in order, Mr.

Fessenden said: "The last point of the Senator is, that this proposition is 'a compromise of human rights, the most immoral, indecent, and utterly shameful in our history.'

"Mr. President, I stand rebuked, but I do not feel so bad as I might.

The Committee of Fifteen, the friends and a.s.sociates of the honorable Senator, stand rebuked. More than two-thirds of the House of Representatives and a large majority of this body, all the political friends and a.s.sociates of the Senator, stand charged with proposing a compromise of human rights the most immoral, indecent, and shameful in our history! All I can say with regard to that is, that neither on its face, in its effect, nor in its intention is it any compromise. None such was dreamed of."

Mr. Fessenden thus described the remarkable combination of Senators opposing the amendment: "I can not close, however, without saying how amusing seems to me the character of the opposition to this joint resolution. That opposition is composed of men of all shades of opinion. The Democrats on the other side of the House oppose it because they say it is unjust to the Southern States; my honorable friends who have been some time with us are opposed to it because--I do not know why, except that the President is opposed to it, and I believe that is the ground; my honorable friend from Ma.s.sachusetts objects because it is unjust to the negro. Why, sir, just imagine all the gentlemen opposed to this resolution met in caucus together, and looking around at each other, would there not be a smile on all their faces to see what company they had fallen into? I think Senators would be surprised to find themselves there, and, like the countryman looking at the reel in the bottle, they would consider how the devil they did get there. [Laughter.] It would be a very strange meeting; and yet they are all against this proposition."

After a running debate between several Senators, the vote was taken upon the subst.i.tute proposed by Mr. Henderson as a const.i.tutional amendment, viz.: "No State, in prescribing the qualifications requisite for electors therein, shall discriminate against any person on account of color or race." The amendment was lost--yeas, 10; nays, 37. The question was then taken on Mr. Sumner's subst.i.tute, which was simply a joint resolution providing 'there shall be no oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, or monopoly invested with peculiar privileges, and no denial of rights, civil or political, on account of color or race, anywhere within the United States." This resolution was lost--yeas, 8; nays, 39. The vote was then taken on the amendment proposed by Mr.

Yates, providing that no State shall make or enforce any distinction between citizens of the United States on account of race or color, and that all citizens shall hereafter be protected in the exercise of all civil and political rights, including the right of suffrage. This amendment was lost--yeas, 7; nays, 38. The vote was then taken upon the original amendment as reported by the joint Committee of Fifteen.

The following was the result:

YEAS--Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Trumbull, Wade, Williams, and Wilson--25.

NAYS--Messrs. Brown, Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Guthrie, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, Nesmith, Norton, Pomeroy, Riddle, Saulsbury, Stewart, Stockton, Sumner, Van Winkle, Willey, and Yates--22.

ABSENT--Messrs. Foot, Howard, and Wright--3.