« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
man upon this floor not identified with the Democratic party who still sustains what he understands to be the executive policy, I will offer him five minutes of the brief time remain||ing to me to show to the House and country where the policy of the President differs from the ancient and consistent policy of the Democratic party.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I will show the gentleman.
Mr. BOUTWELL. The gentleman is not called upon.
With all kindness I desire to ask my friend who represents the sixth district of the city of New York [Mr. RAYMOND] whether he does not see that these propositions, which are sustained by the President and the Democrats throughout the country, if carried into effect portend the destruction of the Government.
people and governments of the eleven rebellious States, have not in any way changed the constitutional relations which previous to the war subsisted between those people and States on the one hand and the national Government on the other; and, as a consequence,
3. That those States respectively, and the loyal people thereof, have an immediate and unquestionable right of representation; provided, always, that in each case the person elected now is, and heretofore has been, loyal to the Government and a supporter of the Constitution of the country, of which fact each House is the sole judge on the question of the right of a claimant to a seat; and therefore,
4. That no legislation or amendment of the Constitution is necessary, or even proper, as a prerequisite to the full exercise of the right of representation in the Congress of the United States by the people and States lately in insurrection.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will insert the words "the loyal people" I think he will state the position some Democratic gentlemen take.
Mr. BOUTWELL. That is the difference between the gentleman from Pennsylvania and his friend, Mr. Stephens, of Georgia. Possibly there may be no difference. Stephens insists that if a man be loyal to-day there shall be no inquiry into his previous character.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I do not know by what authority the gentleman classifies me with Mr. Stephens.
Mr. BOUTWELL. I will not make any classification disagreeable to the gentleman. I wish to ask whether he means by the word "loyal" a man who declares himself to be loyal now, or does he propose to ascertain whether the man has heretofore been loyal?
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I mean to say, on the question of representation, that when a man comes from a State, competent to be qualified as you and I have qualified, we should admit him.
Mr. BOUTWELL. That is a proposition, and not an answer to the question.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman has urged the great consistency of the Democratic party. If he will allow me, I will send to the Clerk's desk, to be read, a portion of the Chicago platform. I would like to show the inconsistencies of his own party.
Mr. BOUTWELL. I have no time for the inconsistencies of any party. When I have proved the consistency of the gentleman's own party I think he ought to be satisfied. They have been consistent in wrong-doing so far as the interests of the country are concerned, and upon the point I make an observation which I desire to have considered in connection with the distinction with which I preface it.
I do not say that every man who supports the propositions which I have stated here today gave aid and comfort to the rebellion and participated in treason, but the converse of this proposition is true, and the country ought to notice the fact. The instincts of men are higher than the reason of men, for through the instincts God teaches without the intervention of fallible logic and theories of reason. The instincts of men are right on all these matters. The affirmative proposition that I lay down is, that as far as there is any testimony before the country, every traitor of the South and every sympathizer with treason in the North sustains the policy of the Democratic party and the President. That is an alarming fact.
Mr. CHANLER. The gentleman dropped his voice and we have not been able to hear the last words which he uttered.
Mr. BOUTWELL. If I have said something that the gentleman from New York did not hear I commend him to the Globe of tomorrow morning, for I do not propose to make any change in what I said.
Mr. CHANLER. The gentleman's argument was evidently confined to his own party as we did not hear it here.
Mr. BOUTWELL. Now, then, we traverse these propositions, and if there be any gentle-l
First, chiefly we traverse the Democratic propositions by a resolution now before this House in this particular. We admit equality of representation based upon the exercise of the elective franchise by the people. The proposition in the matter of suffrage falls short of what I desire, but so far as it goes it tends to the equalization of the inequality at present existing; and while I demand and shall continue to demand the franchise for all loyal male citizens of this country-and I cannot but admit the possibility that ultimately those eleven States may be restored to representative power without the right of franchise being conferred upon the colored people-I should feel myself doubly humiliated aud disgraced, and criminal even, if I hesitated to do what I can for a proposition which equalizes representation.
Can any party or any man defend the proposition now before the country to allow the States lately in rebellion to come in with their power undiminished, so that two rebel soldiers, whose hands are dripping with the blood of our fellowmen, whose opinions as to the right of this Government to exist are unchanged, shall exercise the political power of three loyal Union soldiers? Yet the gentlemen who support this proposition ask the country to accept these States here with their representation undiminished. And those echoing the language of Alexander Stephens are unwilling that the Constitution shall be amended in this particular until the return of the eleven States, thereby rendering it absolutely impossible that there shall be any adjustment of these difficulties after the return of those States.
I can do no less than say that I believe that the man of whatsoever party or State who adopts this proposition or uses his influence for its support by the people, is recreant to the cause of justice, of liberty, and of humanity on this continent. And yet, to that doctrine, so full of injustice, and so flagrant in principle, the Democratic party is committed. And in this hour of the nation's peril it is our sad misfortune that we are compelled to admit that he who has received the suffrage of a generous people for the second office in the gift of the country accepts that as his doctrine."
The justification of all this is " once a State always a State;" that there is no power in the General Government to resist this policy; and that we who say that nothing shall be done in the way of restoration to political power to those States until this inequality is adjusted, are ourselves disturbers of the public peace and advo
cates of disunion.
Well, sir, I am for a Union, and for that Union only in which there is substantial justice among the men and between the States composing it. I accept one fact, and no gentleman can escape the force of that fact, and that is, that these eleven States are not to-day represented in the Congress of this country, and with my consent they never shall be until this inequality is adjusted, or its adjustment provided for. That is the fact. How it has come to pass that they are not represented is not material to the business we have in hand: I accept the statement made by Mr. Lincoln in his last public address, that these States are out of their proper practical relations to the Union,
and I assert as a necessary and natural consequence that they cannot get into their proper relation except by our consent who represent the loyal States of this country. This is the material fact, and it is wholly unnecessary at the present time to inquire into the truth or falsity of the various theories which have been presented on the subject.
Some objection has been made by gentlemen on this side of the House, as well as the other, to the third section of the article reported by the committee. I freely confess that the adop tion of the third section is not necessary to the subject-matter which we have in hand. My own views of reconstruction lead me in the opposite direction. I should prefer to include those who are our friends rather than exclude even those who are our enemies. But inasmuch as gentlemen on this floor are not prepared, as they say, to include those in the gov erning force of the country who have sustained the country, I see no safety in the present except in some sort of exclusion of those who are its enemies. We are to consider what sort of enemies these men are. We have defeated them in arms, but in the proposition of the Democratic party, we invite them to the only field in which they have any chance of success in the contest in which they have been engaged.
They have been beaten, and what do you ask, and what do you offer? You ask them to come into the councils of the nation where they have a chance of success, and where the only chance of success remains. Who are these men? They are the men who to-day are radically, honestly, persistently, and reli giously opposed to this Government if this Government exercises its functions. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. ELDRIDGE] may not have heard of what Mr. Stephens told the committee; and who is Mr. Stephens? Mr. Stephens was believed to be the most conservative, most Union-loving man in the whole southern country; and if the opinions to which I shall refer be his opinions, with how much stronger reason may we suppose that they are the opinions of those to whom for merly he himself was somewhat opposed. What does he tell us? He tells us that in 1861 he protested against the action of the secessionists, not because he believed that they had not a constitutional basis upon which to stand, but because he thought secession bad policy, and he says that to-day his opinions are unchanged; that is to say, Mr. Stephens believes that this Government has no right to exist if the insignificant State of Florida, for instance, thinks it ought not to exist; and what Mr. Stephens believes, according to his own testimony, is believed by the great majority of the people whom he represents in Georgia, and in various portions of the South, and whose views he understands. These are the men that you are invited to receive into the Government of the country, men who deny the right of this Government to exist.
It is said by gentlemen on the other side of the House that when they present a Representative here he must be a loyal man. I need not say to gentlemen acquainted with the technicalities of the law, that a loyal man, for all purposes of representation, is a man whose disloyalty cannot be proved. When we open the doors of the Senate and of this House to representatives from that section of the country, they will only have to present men who cannot be convicted of having participated actively and willingly in the work of treason; but they may send men here who represent treasonable and disunion opinions, and we shall have no power to protect ourselves against them. When ever was a more insidious idea presented to the people of this country than that there is any security in demanding merely loyal representatives? We are false to our duty if we do not go further and require that in each of these States, before they are allowed representation, the masses of the people shall be loyal, for the representative will reflect the views of the people. You cannot gather figs from thorns, or grapes from thistles. You
must wait, if it be necessary to wait, until there is a loyal controlling public sentiment in each one of these States. It is nothing to this country that Tennessee sends Mr. Maynard, a loyal man, here. We want to know what Tennessec is; and the circumstance that Mr. Maynard is himself a loyal man, if his State is not loyal, is a reason why he should neither ask to be received or we submit to his admission. And it is not sufficient that there be loyal districts in the State. A State is represented in the Senate and in the House as a State. There is no constitutional capacity for representation except through State organization. Representatives in this House are apportioned by the Constitution among the several States.
When we find that Tennessee is, as a whole, loyal to the Government, then we may accept Representatives from Tennessee, and trust to the people to send loyal men here. But if we accept Representatives from Tennessee because they, individually, are loyal, while Tennessce herself is disloyal, you will have thrust into this House and into the Government of the country disloyal men; and what does it portend? Mr. Stephens denies the constitutional efficacy of our amendment abolishing slavery. He says that slavery has been abol⚫ished by the States. He says that the law taxing the people of this country has no constitutional force, because they are not represented. Do you not see that his insidious and dangerous doctrines, which are responded to by the whole Democratic party of the country, portend the destruction of the public credit, the repudiation of the public debt, and the disorganization of society?
We are the conservative, the order-seeking, the Union-loving, the loyal men of the country. They who oppose measures for the pacification of the country with reference to the rights of the States and the rights of men are the disorganizers, the disloyal and dangerous men of this Republic.
Sir, it will be found that the Union party stands unitedly upon two propositions. The first is equality of representation, about which there is no difference of opinion. The second is, that there shall be a loyal people in each applicant State before any representative from that State is admitted in Congress. And there is a third; a vast majority of the Republican party, soon to be the controlling and entire force of that party, demand suffrage for our friends, for those who have stood by us in our days of tribulation. And for myself, with the right of course to change my opinion, I believe in the constitutional power of the Government to-day to extend the elective franchise to every loyal male citizen of the Republic.
If I have any time left I will yield it to the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. WILSON.]
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BOUTWELL] has two minutes of his half hour left.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. That is so short a time I will not avail myself of it, as it will not admit of any reply from the gentleman from New York, [Mr. RAYMOND.]
SUFFRAGE IN THE TERRITORIES.
Mr. JULIAN, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill concerning the elective franchise in the Territories of the United States and the admission of new States into the Union; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.
INCREASE OF PENSIONS.
Mr. TAYLOR, by unanimous consent, introduced to bill to increase the pensions of certain disabled officers of the volunteer service; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
Mr. ORTH asked and obtained leave of absence for his colleague, Mr. FARQUHAR, for two weeks from last Monday.
Mr. STEVENS. I desire to give notice that unless the House shall feel otherwise inclined I will to-morrow, at three o'clock, call the previous question, and ask a vote on this joint resolution. Several of our friends wish to go away to-morrow evening, and I desire that they shall have the pleasure of voting for this measure before they leave the city.
Mr. SPALDING. Mr. Speaker, the report of the committee has elicited in this House a most searching criticism. It is approved and disapproved, either wholly or in part, according to the views entertained by the particular individuals who have obtained the floor.
It does not, in all respects, come up to the standard which my imperfect judgment had erected, but I have lived long enough to know that very few things of a public character can be accomplished without some abnegation of one's own notions of propriety, and a respectful deference to the opinions of others.
The joint committee on reconstruction was made up of able and patriotic men. They have labored assiduously for nearly six months, and have now given to us the result of their deliberations in certain proposed amendments of the Constitution, and sundry propositions for legislative enactment.
Regarding it as more important that some definite projet be presented by Congress to the people of the United States than that the plan itself approach very nearly to perfection, and fearing the effect of amendments upon the successful passage of the measures proposed through Congress, I have brought my mind to the conclusion that I shall best subserve the cause of patriotism and the country's good by voting severally and collectively for the measures reported by the committee.
We are in the process of legislation to bring back into the councils of the nation a class of citizens who during the last five years have avowed the most inveterate hostility to our Government and its free institutions, and who have waged a most cruel war against our peo ple upon the battle-field. Does any sane man believe that the loyal people of the United States who have submitted to these great sacrifices, who have incurred the risk of losing the benefit of the free institutions handed down to them by our fathers, who have, by the bravery of their sons, put down this accursed rebellion upon the battle-field; I say, does any reflecting man suppose that we are so bereft of our senses as to admit these same men, "without a why or a wherefore, " into the Halls of Congress to make laws for our government, and the government of our fellowcitizens at home, who are quite as loyal as ourselves? Sir, it is idle to say that any sane man expects it. It seems to me that the only question for our consideration is, what guarantees may Congress exact from this rebellious people-a people who not only fought us, but who declared time and again that they detested our principles of government, and that they would sooner unite with the monarchies of Great Britain and France than live under our free Government with the race they in derision termed "the Yankees?"
As to the first measure proposed, a person may read it five hundred years hence without gathering from it any idea that this rebellion ever existed. The same may be said of the second proposition, for it only proposes that, the bondsmen being made free, the apportionment of Representatives in Congress shall be based upon the whole number of persons who exercise the elective franchise, instead of the population.
It has been said in high places that treason was the greatest of crimes, and that it should be made known for the benefit of all coming generations, and as an example to the civilized world that traitors would surely be punished. We have heard it said by those in authority that the leading traitors should be tried and hung, while the infatuated rank and file might be pardoned. That is very well; but I would inquire, what leading traitors have been hung? What leading traitor has been hung? What leading traitors or what leading traitor will be hung?
Mr. GRINNELL. Mrs. Surratt. Mr. SPALDING. "Mrs. Surratt!" She was tried and sentenced and hung as an assassin, and not as a traitor.
Now, sir, we propose to amend the Constitution of the United States in several respects.
The third section-and this is the one to which exception is taken by my friends on the right and left-proposes that no person who was actively engaged in rebellion against our Government shall have the right to vote for members of Congress or for electors of the President and Vice President of the United States until the year 1870. Is this exception- . able? Is it objectionable? If it be so, it is, in my judgment, for the reason that the duration of the period of incapacity is not extended more widely. I take my stand here that it is necessary to ingraft into that enduring instrument, called the Constitution of the United States, something which shall admonish this rebellious people and all who shall come after them that treason against the Government is odious; that it carries with it some penalty, some disqualification; and the only one which we seek to attach by this amendment is a disqualification in voting-not for their State and county and town officers, but for members of Congress, who are to be the law-makers, and for the Executive of the United States, this disqualification to operate for the short period of four years. Now, sir, will any patriotic, any loyal man object to putting this memorial upon the Constitution as they would put "memento mori" upon the head of a tombstone?
But, sir, there is another reason why we should ingraft this provision upon the Constitution. All our congressional legislation may be considered as ephemeral. I know that my friends on the other side of the House always take courage when we advance the idea that at some remote period they may gain possession of the controlling power in these Halls and carry measures according to the dictates of their own wisdom and sense of patriotism. Sir, let the effect fall where it may, and give consolation to whom it will, I still declare that all these matters are within the bounds, not only of possibility, but of probability, that at some not very remote period, if we admit Representatives from the rebel States into this Hall without qualification, the prospect is that, in conjunction with their friends who have so strongly sympathized with them during the four years of this recent strife, they will repeal many, if not all, of the measures which we have adopted for the welfare and the salvation of the country. Hence I insist that something of this sort should go into the Constitution, where it shall require not only the action of the Senate and the House of Representatives, but the action of the State Legislatures to erase it. For this reason, and because it is dangerous at this moment to receive these men here to make laws for the loyal people of the country, I go for the adoption of this third section, which disqualifies active and known rebels from participating in the election of Federal officers.
Mr. Speaker, much is said, much has been said-too much, sometimes, has been saidabout the difference between Congress and the Executive of the nation. Sir, I look upon this subject in a somewhat different light from some of my friends whose superior wisdom I am proud to acknowledge. I feel that under our Government we owe some deference to the station of the President of the United States; and I feel that, however we may differ in sentiment with the incumbent of that high office, we ought, at all times and under all circumstances, to treat him respectfully. Hence I would have preferred, from the first hour of this Congress to the last, that there should have been no personal abuse of the incumbent of the presidential chair.
I honor my friends for standing up manfully
to their own opinions. There is a difference between the President and Congress; and, as I conceive, that difference amounts to this: the majority in Congress believe that it would be prejudicial to the best interesis of our Government and nation to receive back, immediately and unconditionally, the men who were lately in rebellion. I believe this, as I believe any other great truth which was ever set before my mind for belief. I have no doubt upon the subject. Hence I cannot but be surprised that a gentleman who has gone through the rugged experience of the President of the United States should be willing and ready to trust these men now without having some of these guarantees which we are insisting upon. It is a difference of policy, as gentlemen say Let it be a difference of policy. We will admit that our policy is to receive back these rebellious States with suitable guarantees.
bellion 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.
The third section prohibits, until the 4th of July, 1870, from voting for Representatives in Congress and for electors of President and Vice President of the United States, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort.
The fourth section provides that—
It is the policy of the President of the United States, in the faith that they will conduct themselves loyally and properly, to receive them without these guarantees.
I suppose these to be the respective systems of policy of the President and of Congress. While we maintain steadfastly what we believe to be the rights of the legislative branch of this Government, while we adhere firmly to our opinions and go on legislating for such measures as we suppose the public good demands at our hands, and do it firmly, decidedly, independently, may we not, at the same time, do it without casting personal reproach upon or indulging in personal abuse of the incumbent of the presidential chair? Sir, I believe I have the character among my constituents of being sufficiently radical for all useful purposes. I am prepared to vote here with my party friends, side by side with him who goes for the most extreme measures, but at the same time I deny the necessity of using personal invectives toward the Executive of the nation or the heads of the Departments. It cannot be necessary. It is not justifiable. We have all business to transact for our constituents with the President and the Departments. We must necessarily be brought into contact with them, and we expect to be received and treated by them as gentlemen. Why cannot we speak of them without indulging in vilification and abuse?
I have already said that, believing in the wisdom, patriotism, and sagacity of the committee which has reported the measures under consideration, I shall avail myself of their praiseworthy labors and shall vote for one and all of their propositions. I am content to take the whole of them, and hope they will be put through both branches of Congress, so that the people may see that we have a policy as well as the President.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the committee on reconstruction, through their honorable chairman, [Mr. STEVENS,] have reported to this House a proposition for certain amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which, if approved by two thirds of both Houses and then ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, will become a part thereof.
The article of the proposed amendment contains five sections.
The first provides that 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 of law, nor deny to any person within process its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The second section provides that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But whenever in any State the elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age, or in any way abridged, except for participation in re
The third section, though it seems just on its face, I doubt the propriety of embodying it with the other amendments, as it may retard, if not endanger, the ratification of the amendment in regard to representation, and we cannot afford to endanger in any manner a matter of such vital importance to the country. I therefore, Mr. Speaker, propose to strike out this third section and submit it as a separate and distinct proposition, which certainly ought to meet the approval of all our friends. I cannot concur with the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BOUTWELL] that every part of a State must be strictly loyal before allowed a representation in Congress. I fear if that doctrine should be carried out some of our northern States would be left without representation in Congress; that rulo might, however, suit very well for Massachusetts where they seem to be nearly all of one opinion.
The honorable gentleman, to enforce his views, repeated a portion of what Alexander H. Stephens, late vice president of the socalled southern confederacy, stated before the committee on reconstruction. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the sentiment expressed by that rebel southerner ought to have any bearing upon the action of this House, except so far as to prevent him from ever having a seat in either branch of Congress or holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. The honorable gentleman from New York, [Mr. RAYMOND,] in his remarks, seemed to think we ought not to irritate the southern people. While I do not wish to inflict any unnecessary hardships upon those States, we certainly have right to demand of them a sure guarantee, and they ought to thank their God that they have been dealt with so leniently after inflicting upon the country a debt of nearly $3,000,000,000, and causing such great affliction throughout the land.
The word "slave" was not very palatable to the venerable gentlemen who framed that Constitution, and therefore they used the words "all others," which, of course, meant slaves. Before the rebellion the slave States had a representation in Congress of nineteen for slaves and about five for free blacks, and slavery being now abolished, the other two fifths would I do not wish to be understood that I would add say thirteen more, making about thirty- screen the leaders of the rebellion from punseven Representatives from the black man's ishment, for on them rests the sin of misleading population. Now, conceding to each State the great mass of the southern people. These the right to regulate the right of suffrage, they people may be thankful if they are permitted ought not to have a representation for male to live within and under the protection of the citizens not less than twenty-one years of age, United States, and enjoy their property, or a whether white or black, who are deprived of portion of it, without participating in the affairs the exercise of suffrage. This amendment will of the Government whose very life they had settle the complication in regard to suffrage and attempted to destroy; but Congress does not representation, leaving each State to regulate object to a representation from those States that for itself, so that it will be for it to decide when a sufficient guarantee is given by ratifywhether or not it shall have a representation ing the requisite amendments to the Constitu for all its male citizens not less than twenty-tion of the United States, provided they send one years of age. here loyal men.
I feel rejoiced that my worthy colleague [Mr. STEVENS] has consented to forego some of his views in order to meet those of his Republican friends in this House in regard to amendments; and I hope the same frankness will be manifested at the other end of the Capitol.
Neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation already incurred in aid of insurrection or war against the United States, or for any claim for compensation for loss of involuntary service or labor.
And the fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.
These proposed amendments now being under consideration, I will give my views briefly in regard to them.
As to the first, it is so just that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny equal protection of the laws, and so clearly within the spirit of the Declaration of Independence of the 4th of July, 1776, that no member of this House can seriously object to it.
The next, as to representation, I deem the most important amendment, and is in fact the corner-stone of the stability of our Government. In the Constitution of the United States of 17th of September, 1787, in section two, under article one, it is provided that
those States whose Legislatures may have adjourned will, immediately after the approval of these amendments by Congress, convene the Legislatures in order that they may ratify them.
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.'
This amendment, Mr. Speaker, if adopted, will give the country a sufficient guarantee against any contingency that might arise in the admission of representatives from the States lately in rebellion-I mean such men as did not voluntarily engage in the rebellion, and can take the oath prescribed by existing laws. I do not regard the amendment of the constitutions of those States of much practical importance, for the same power that makes the amendments may unmake; but to annul an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requires the consent of two thirds of both Houses of
Congress and a ratification by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by a convention in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress; and if this amendment is adopted it is not likely it will ever be altered so as to endanger the loyal States-I mean by the loyal States those States that aided us in putting down the rebellion.
Mr. Speaker, as we have now a large Union majority in both Houses, it is the time to pass the requisite amendments, so as to have the same submitted to the respective States for ratification, and I trust that the Governors of
The fourth section is to prohibit the assumption by the United States, or any of the States, of the rebel debt incurred in aid of the insur rection or war against the United States, or any claim for compensation for loss of invol untary service or labor.
The importance of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is manifest, as there is no telling what influence may be brought to bear upon Congress at some future day when southern people have seats upon this floor. And as to the States it is necessary, in order to encour age emigration to those States, that there should be some security against inflicting such debts upon those who may choose to settle there. This amendment is also demanded by the loyal people of the country, and is similar to one which passed this House by an almost unanimous vote in the early part of the session.
The fifth section gives to Congress the power to enforce the provisions of this article by ap
propriate legislation. This of course is requisite to enforce the foregoing sections, or such of them as may be adopted, and is too plain to admit of argument; and in fact is not, as am aware, contested by any gentleman in this House.
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 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 4th day of July, 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be 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. The Congress shall have power to enfore by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. This amendment is not, as I believe, all that ought to be offered by that committee and passed by this House and made by the loyal Legislatures of the United States a part of our organic law; but it is right as far as it goes, and upon careful examination I find contained in it no compromise of principle. That being settled I am willing to defer to the opinions of other gentlemen, and be content with the || best that can be obtained.
In conclusion, I would repeat, Mr. Speaker, what I had occasion once before to announce on the floor of this House, that the only three amendments I deem important to the Constitution of the United States as a sure guarantee were these, to wit:
1. That the representation in Congress shall be apportioned among the several States according to the quakfied voters of each State;
2. That the rebel debt incurred in the late rebellion shall never be assumed by the United States or any State; and
3. To allow a tax or duty on exports, so that foreign countries which purchase cotton shall pay a duty thereon. And it is not probable that it would be imposed on any other staple exported, and besides, the duty thus derived would doubtless amount to a very large sum in aid of replenishing the Treasury. This latter might reach some of those who in the late rebellion were aiding the rebels.
It is true this latter proposition is not now before the House, but it is before the Judiciary Committee, and I trust that committee will soon report favorably, and I certainly cannot doubt | its passage by a two-thirds vote.
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled an act (H. R. No. 352) to incorporate the National Theological Institute; when the Speaker signed the
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
Mr. CULLOM, by unanimous consent, introduced an act to regulate proceedings before justices of the peace, and for other purposes; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia.
COMPENSATION TO A CLERK.
Mr. CULLOM also, by unanimous consent, introduced the following resolution; which was read, and referred to the Committee of Accounts:
Resolved, That the compensation of John Bailey, assistant disbursing clerk, be, and the same is hereby, increased and made the same as that of the Journal clerk, beginning with the present Congress.
Mr. ELIOT. Mr. Speaker, at an early day during this session I offered for the consideration of the House the following propositions:
1. That the United States as conquerors in war now have the political power of the States recently in rebellion.
2. That, until action by Congress, the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, has authority to organize and maintain government within said States.
3. That the said States are not entitled to take part in the government of the United States until Congress shall, on such terms as it may prescribe, confer upon them the power to act.
4. That, disclaiming all desire to impose on them hostile or burdensome conditions, and mindful only of irreversible guarantees against future disunion or secession and of plighted faith to all who have aided in the overthrow of this rebellion, we declare it to be an indispensable condition for the recognition of said States that their constitutions should secure to all the inhabitants thereof equal rights before the law without distinction of color or race.
The resolution embodying these propositions was referred, under the rule of the House, to the committee on reconstruction, and the action of that committee is now before the House in the form of a proposed amendment to the Constitution and of two bills, which will be considered in their order.
The proposed amendment contains five sections, and they are as follows:
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 be included within this
political rights of all citizens will under its operation be, as we believe, ultimately recognized and admitted.
In the fourth proposition submitted by me in December last I stated what, in my judgment, we ought to demand. But that cannot be had. The time will come, I do not doubt, when in this Union of ours all men will stand
equal before the law in their political and civil rights.
One amendment to the Constitution has been
passed by this House and rejected by the Senate. I felt compelled to vote against it here although I regretted to be separated from friends whose judgment I respect. But for the reasons which I briefly gave at the time I could not unite with them upon the proposition then made.
The amendment now offered, while it is not all I could ask, is not open to the objections which then controlled my vote.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I shall very briefly give my reasons for sustaining the report of the committee and voting for the amendment which they offer to the House.
I support the first section because the doctrine it declares is right, and if, under the Constitution as it now stands, Congress has not the power to prohibit State legislation discriminating against classes of citizens or depriving any persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any persons within the State the equal protection of the laws, then, in my judgment, such power should rights bill, and I did so under a conviction that be distinctly conferred. I voted for the civil we have ample power to enact into law the provisions of that bill. But I shall gladly do what I may to incorporate into the Constitution provisions which will settle the doubt which some gentlemen entertain upon that question. The second section, Mr. Speaker, is, in my judgment, as nearly correct as it can be without being fully, in full measure, right. But one thing is right, and that is secured by the amendment. Manifestly no State should have its basis of national representation enlarged by reason of a portion of citizens within its borders to which the elective franchise is denied. If political power shall be lost because of such denial, not imposed because of participation in rebellion or other crime, it is to be hoped that political interests may work in the line of justice, and that the end will be the impartial enfranchisement of all citizens not disqualified by crime. Whether that end shall be attained or not, this will be secured; that the measure of political power of any State shall be determined by that portion of its citizens which can speak and act at the polls, and shall not be enlarged because of the residence within the State of portions of its citizens denied the right of franchise. So much for the second section of the amendment. It is not all that I wish and would demand; but odious inequalities are removed by it and representation will be equalized, and the
The third section, Mr. Speaker, disables until July 4, 1870, those who voluntarily sought to destroy the Government from taking part in the election of President and Representatives in Congress.
Will any gentleman venture upon this side of the House to argue that such men should be restored at once to all their political rights within the Union? It is clear upon adjudged law that the States lately in rebellion, and the inhabitants of those States, by force of the civil war and of the Union triumph in that war, so far have lost their rights to take part in the Government of the Union that some action on the part of Congress is required to restore those rights. Pardon and amnesty given by the President cannot restore them. Those men cannot vote for President or for Representatives in Congress until in some way Congress has so acted as to restore their power. The question, then, is very simple: shall national power be at once conferred on those who have striven by all means open to them to destroy the nation's life? Shall our enemies and the enemies of the Government, as soon as they have been defeated in war, help to direct and to control the public policy of the Government? And that, too, while those men, hostile themselves, keep from all exercise of political power the only true and loyal friends whom we have had during these four years of war within these southern States.
Mr. Speaker, if this war has not been fought in vain; if our young men have not in vain offered up their lives in battle for their country; if the treasure and life of this land haye not been sacrificed for naught, this thing must not be done.
But, Mr. Speaker, this section is not vital to this amendment. It may be stricken out, and the affirmative value of the amendment will yet be retained. I do not agree with those gentlemen who have contended that the amendment would be in effect deprived of its great value if the third section is omitted from it. The objection to it, the only objection which I remember to have heard, excepting that made by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. GARFIELD,] which was answered by his colleague, [Mr. SCHENCK,] is based upon the argument that the section would be practically inoperative. If that can be shown it should not be retained. But I have this to say in reply to this suggestion: there are two descriptions of persons who may be affected by this section. There are, first, the masses of men who do not direct affairs, but are themselves guided and controlled by others. There are, as we have reason to believe, multitudes of these men who had no heart for the rebellion, as they could see no profit to themselves even in its success. They were led into it, seduced into it, dragged into it; yet, being engaged, they may have so far voluntarily aided as to be within the letter of this section. From their early life these men had been accustomed to defer to the will of others. Now, there may be difficulty in applying this provision to such as these. Indeed, I am not anxious that it should be too generally applied. And it would probably be found, in the practical operation of this section, that such men were not so "voluntarily" acting as to be embraced by its terms. The will was wanting. They engaged in the rebellion more by force of the will of others than of their own. But this section would reach the solid rebels, the men of weight, of personal force, of high social character and position, the leaders in the various circles; these men would be reached. There might be doubt as to the others, but here there would be no doubt. In every community the leading men are known; because they were leaders they are known. They have controlled affairs, they have formed public opinion, they have swayed and directed and planned. Without these men of leading character, and strong will, and personal individual energy, the rebellion could not have gained its great propor
tions. These men knew well what they wanted, and they knew well how they might most surely succeed. Whether in field or camp or council, in the army or in civil life, in cabinet or counting-room, in city or in country, these men are known; there can be no doubt as to them,
Now, when the whole efforts of these men were directed against the Government, I want to ask if there is any reason or propriety or decency or sense in permitting them now at once not only to be remitted to all political power, and thus to determine, so far as they can, by whom the legislation of Congress shall be conducted, and who shall be our President, but also to determine themselves the very questions involved in the reconstruction of the Government. We have become conquerors, have we not? Tell me, I pray you, when was the magnanimity of the conquering force ever taxed as the magnanimity of this nation would be by such a proposition? If this third section is stricken from the amendment I shall still support it. But unless I shall be satisfied by the arguments which I may hear that it will be so impracticable to enforce the provisions contained in it that it would be substantially inoperative, I shall vote to retain the provision in the amendment as reported.
Mr. Speaker, the fourth section of the amendment commends itself to all of us without argument. It does not need to be defended.
tions for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.".
And for one, I am content to approve the action of the committee, and to commend it to the favor of the people whom we represent.
I can have no doubt that the duty is laid upon us by events which we could not control so to legislate that the restored Union shall be perpetual. Our people demand this now at our hands. The responsibility is fearful, but it is glorious too, if only we do right. Never had any Congress such questions to determine. They enter into the whole future life of the Republic. We have seen the false corner-stone knocked from beneath the temple. It must be replaced by a corner-stone of righteousness, solid and square and true. And that work is in our hands, and it must be done.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe if this amendment shall be adopted here and the bills reported shall be substantially enacted, the great work committed to us will be quickly and well accomplished. If it be possible let us act together. It is not possible that all of us can be fully satisfied. But this amendment is, in my judgment, safe and sure common standingground. Let us place ourselves upon it. There is room enough for all.
Mr. SHELLABARGER. Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a single suggestion in connection with the thought that has been uttered by my friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. ELIOT,] in regard to the practicability of executing a provision of the Constitution or law of Congress which should exclude from the elective franchise those who are disloyal. Now, sir, I admit and have always admitted the practical difficulties which are there. As I said before, I say to-day, I would not myself apply to the masses of the common people of the South any exclusion from the elective franchise. I would not extend it to a single person whom I was not compelled to extend it to by my duty to the public.
I make this general remark for the purpose of doing what I now do. I do not fully agree with my colleague who spoke yesterday, that it would require standing armies to execute this law or this provision of the Constitution, but I suggest to him, and to all other right-minded gentlemen in regard to this matter, this really is not surrounded by any practical difficulties after all, and will not require standing armies for its execution if we are to have any Government at all. In vindication of that proposition, let me remind my colleague, and all other gentlemen who make this objection, that there is a plain provision in the Constitution to which we may recur in execution of this amendment or this statute, as I hold we may give it the form of a statute. I will read it:
The times, places, and manner of holding elec
Now, sir, there is the very law indicated in certain resolutions introduced by my friend from Rhode Island [Mr. JENCKES] on this subject for the execution of this provision. It indicates a method for the exccution of any
provision that Congress may put into the Constitution. It will not require standing armies. Here there is an act providing a method for holding elections in States for Federal offices. You can have registry laws. Upon this registry list you may place the names of men who are to be disqualified, and you may also have the names of all who are qualified to vote under the law. There they will stand, there they will be, to be referred to by your Government in the execution of its laws. And when it comes to this House or to the Senate to determine whether a man is duly elected you can resort to the ordinary process applicable to a trial in a contested-election case in either body, as to whether he has been elected by the men who were entitled to elect him.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I rise, Mr. Speaker, simply to finish what I desired to say when the hammer fell as I was addressing the House before, and for the purpose, also, of giving the gentleman from New York [Mr. RAYMOND] an opportunity to submit anything in reply that he may desire.
I undertook, when I was on the floor before, to show that the remark the gentleman made to-day in justification of his vote against the civil rights bill was not in harmony with his action as a member of the House in the introduction of a bill guarantying the rights of citizens without distinction of race or color, and also in submitting to the House a proposition, which I read to the House, for the benefit of the freedmen.
I stated that I could not see that the position taken to-day was consistent with that presented by the bill and the proposition to which I re
ferred, for it seems to me that the second section of the bill, as I have stated before, and the proposition to which I referred, embodied the principle of the first section of the civil rights bill.
I was about to remark, when my time expired, that if the gentleman intended his explanation to apply only to those portions of the civil rights bill which succeeded the first section, it might raise another question, namely, whether, after declaring all persons born in the United States citizens and entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizens, it would be competent for the Government of the United States to enforce and protect the rights thus conferred, or thus declared by the second section of the bill which the gentleman introduced.
Now, as I understand his remark to-day, it was directed to the principle involved in the first section of the civil rights bill which related to the rights to be protected by the provisions of that bill. That being conceded, the power to protect those rights must necessarily follow, as was laid down in the well-known case of Prigg vs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where the Supreme Court declared that the pos session of the right carries with it the power to provide a remedy.
Now, sir, it seemed to me that there was an inconsistency between that record and the explanation of to-day, and as I do not wish to do the gentleman any injustice in this regard, I yield part of my time now for expla
Mr. RAYMOND. Mr. Speaker, I supposed it was a matter of very little consequence to any one but myself what my record might be. I do not wish here to enter into a detailed examination of that record. Those who are more concerned in regard to it than myself will probably do that for me here or elesewhere.
But with regard to my position upon this civil rights bill and the principles involved in it, I think I can explain in a very few words what it is so as to be understood by all. Almost at the very outset of this session, before the civil rights bill, which passed here and which is now the law of the land, had been reported, I introduced a bill proposing, first, to strike out the word "white" in the naturalization laws, and, secondly, declaring that all persons born in this country heretofore, or hereafter to be born, should be, and were thereby declared to be, citizens of the United States.
In some remarks that I submitted upon the subject I stated that my object was either to recognize the citizenship of the men lately already, or to confer upon them citizenship if freed from slavery, if that citizenship existed they were not now citizens, and Congress had power so to confer it.
I also said that I proposed a section in the bill which declared them to be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of other citizens of the United States, whatever those rights may be.
And it followed as a necessary inference that they were to have the same security for the enjoyment of those rights and the same remedy for their violation as any other citizen had; whatever laws Congress might make to protect other citizens in the enjoyment of their rights, they were also entitled to the protection of those laws. But the civil rights bill, when it came before us for our action, contained not only this declaration, in which I fully agreed, but it contained a provision by which the Government of the United States undertook to secure to them and to all other citizens the enjoyment of certain rights, and to provide for their violation certain remedies within State jurisdiction, where it seemed to me Congress under the existing Constitution had not the right so to act. It was this provision which rendered it impossible for me, with these opin ions, to vote for the bill.
It was the remedy provided, one feature of which was giving power to the judiciary of the United States to imprison officers of the State courts for enforcing State laws, which I did not think Congress had the right to do; it was this