ment by charging us here with being nothing but " catamounts. Such a method of treating these great questions will not settle the present difficulties of the country, nor heal the bleeding wounds of the Republic. Such a course of proceeding will not bring back our country to the enjoyment of the blessings of civil liberty and those great principles of constitutional freedom for which our revolutionary fathers fought. Sir, I had hoped that after the investigation we have had upon the different subjects which have agitated this Congress, the time had come when gentlemen upon both sides of the House would turn their hearts from bloody strife to a contemplation of the blessings of peace and union in this land.

I do not mean, sir, as is now proposed by the measure under consideration, to have peace by disunion, but I mean to have peace by restoring and referring to the instrumentalities by which the Constitution and the Union were first established by our fathers; and I believe, if these instrumentalities, which were founded in a spirit of compromise, charity, friendship, love, and affection, were employed in this House, the bonds which have been torn asunder by four years of bloody war will be again cemented together.

I believe while I am here sustaining the opposition to this joint resolution, I am fortified by one who holds the reins of power in the presidential chair, a patriot and statesman, a man whose whole ambition is to have back again that glorious Union, and the old flag with every star there emblazoned upon it the emblem of victory and of the unity of all the States, whether North or South. He wants all the States, as heretofore, to be represented in reference to the legislation of the country.

While the proposition which has been produced here is not so rabid as some of the propositions agreed to be submitted by this committee, yet I say that it is fraught with great danger and evil to the country, and the elementary foundations upon which the liberties of this Union have rested for seventy-five years are about to be thrown down and trampled in the dust; and that glorious flag which was carried in triumph during the last war is about to be trampled under foot, and the time has arrived when Andrew Johnson and the Democratic party have determined to put that flag upon their shoulders and to plant it upon the dome of the State capitol of South Carolina, and to have it waving there as it is over the dome of the Capitol of the United States, representing a union of love and equal representation.

Now, sir, I have examined these propositions with some minuteness, and I have come to the conclusion different to what some others have come, that the first section of this programme of disunion is the most dangerous to liberty. It saps the foundation of the Government; it destroys the elementary principles of the States; it consolidates everything into one imperial despotism; it annihilates all the rights which lie at the foundation of the Union of the States, and which have characterized this Government and made it prosperous and great during the long period of its existence.

This section of the joint resolution is no more nor less than an attempt to embody in the Constitution of the United States that outrageous and miserable civil rights bill which passed both Houses of Congress and was vetoed by the President of the United States upon the ground that it was a direct attempt to consolidate the power of the States and to take away from them the elementary principles which lie at their foundation. It is only an attempt to ingraft upon the Constitution of the United States one of the most dangerous, most wicked, most intolerant, and most odious propositions ever introduced into this House or attempted to be ingrafted upon the fundamental law of the Federal Union.

It 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 process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What are privileges and immunities? Why, sir, all the rights we have under the laws of the country are embraced under the definition of privileges and immunities. The right to vote is a privilege. The right to marry is a privilege. The right to contract is a privilege. The right to be a juror is a privilege. The right to be a judge or President of the United States is a privilege. I hold if that ever becomes a part of the fundamental law of the land it will prevent any State from refusing to allow anything to anybody embraced under this term of privileges and immunities. If a negro is refused the right to be a juror, that will take away from him his privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, and the Federal Government will step in and interfere, and the result will be a contest between the powers of the Federal Government and the powers of the States. It will result in a revolution worse than that through which we have just passed. It I will rock the earth like the throes of an earthquake until its tragedy will summon the inhabitants of the world to witness its dreadful shock. I believe it will be, if that contest comes between Federal and State powers, a time when nature will bleed with agony in every part. That, sir, will be an introduction to the time when despotism and tyranny will march forth undisturbed and unbroken, in silence and in darkness, in this land which was once the land of freedom, where the sound of freedom once awakened the souls of the sons and daughters of America, when from the mountain-tops to the shore of the ocean they drank in the love of liberty.

I assert that the second section of this proposed amendment is unparalleled in ferocity. It saps the foundation of the rights of the States, by taking away the representation to which they would be entitled under the present Constitution.

When the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] brought forward a proposition from the committee on reconstruction to amend the Constitution of the United States, interfering with the elementary principles of taxation and representation, the principles for which our fathers fought when they rebelled against the tyranny of King George and the English Parliament who undertook to tax the people of the colonies without representation, the proposition was defeated in this House upon the ground that it would destroy a fundamental principle, that there should be taxation only according to representation.

This, sir, is precisely such a proposition as that. It declares that if the southern people refuse to allow the negroes to vote, then all that portion of the male colored population of twenty-one years of age and upward shall be excluded in the basis of representation-shall not be counted in ascertaining how many Representatives the States are entitled to.

The honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] has the frankness to state to the House what the object and purpose of

the second clause are.

He says:

"The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so to shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive."

Yes, gentlemen, it is but the negro again appearing in the background. The only object of the constitutional amendment is to drive the people of the South, ay, and even the people of the North, wherever there is much of a negro population, to allow that population not qualified but universal suffrage, without regard to intelligence or character, to allow them to come to the ballot-box and cast their votes equally with the white men.

Why do you not meet this question boldly and openly? Why do you undertake to deceive the people by offering to them an amend ment which you say is based upon a principle of justice, that only the voting population shall be represented, when you admit by your leader in this House, the honorable gentleman [Mr. in this House, the honorable gentleman [Mr. I

STEVENS] who introduced into the committee this whole scheme of disunion and despotism, that the object of this amendment is to force the southern States to grant to the negro unrestricted suffrage?

Sir, I want it distinctly understood that the American people believe that this Government was made for white men and white women. They do not believe, nor can you make them believe the edict of God Almighty is stamped against it-that there is a social equality between the black race and the white.

I have no fault to find with the colored race. I have not the slightest antipathy to them. I wish them well, and if I were in a State where they exist in large numbers I would vote to give them every right enjoyed by the white people except the right of a negro man to marry a white woman and the right to vote. But, sir, this proposition goes further than any that has ever been attempted to be carried into effect. Why, sir, even in Rhode Island to-day there is a property qualification in regard to the white man's voting as well as the negro. And yet Representatives of the eastern, middle, western, and some of the border States come here and attempt in this indirect way to inflict upon the people of the South negro suffrage. God deliver this people from such a wicked, odious, pestilent despotism! God save the people of the South from the degradation by which they would be obliged to go to the polls and vote side by side with the negro !

Mr. KELLEY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROGERS. I am always willing to yield, but in a half-hour speech I cannot.

The committee dare not submit the broad proposition to the people of the United States of negro suffrage. They dare not to-day pass the negro suffrage bill which passed this House in the Senate of the United States because, as I have heard one honorable and leading man on the Republican side of the House say, it would sink into oblivion the party that would advocate before the American people the equal right of the negro with the white man to suf frage.

And I do not believe that the gentlemen who favor this amendment believe that a single proposition contained in it will ever be adopted by three fourths of the States. Why do you not do something practical? We have been here something like six months. We have labored, toiled, and endeavored to bolster up the remains of the old Union, and you come in at this late day of the session with a proposi tion which you know--and I put it to the conscience of any man on the Democratic or Republican side of the House-will never be adopted by three fourths of the States.

Sir, I want some principle embodied in a constitutional amendment that the southern States will accept. I desire to see the Union restored, the Union of our fathers. I want peace, prosperity, happiness, greatness, grandeur, and glory such as characterized this nation when the Democratic party had control. people as shall meet their approbation. Do I want you to put such a proposition before the not pretend that you are in favor of the unity of the States when you offer a proposition which every reasonable, honorable, conscientious man must know will never be adopted by the States. Do you believe the people of the South will close their eyes to the teaching of ages and wait for shackles and chains to convince them that their liberties are endangered and allow no awakening convulsions to shake their rugged minds until despotism shall eat out their

vitals?

I am not unmindful of the lessons taught us by the despotism of the Old World. I remember Poland and Hungary, and I stand here protesting against this measure which is more wicked than the tyranny practiced upon them. I believe under God that Andrew Johnson will plant the flag of liberty on every hill-top of this land until the tidings shall go forth to the civilized world that the United States of Amer ica are united in one bright constellation based upon equal representation.

You come out with another proposition, in the third section, to disfranchise a million voters, and I think I can say with safety that a speech has not been made on the other side wherein something was not said in favor of the enfranchisement of the human race, and yet you come here to-day, in the face of heaven and this Congress, and undertake to enunciate a doctrine that will, if carried out, disfranchise seven or eight million people, and that will put them in a worse condition than the serfs of Russia or the downtrodden people of Poland and Hungary until the year 1870. It is an entire change of front. You have been all the time maintaining the principle of representation based upon the voting population, and now, when these people have been so unfortunate as to be burdened with a free colored race, in consequence of the sins of northern fanatics and secessionists, you propose to disfranchise seven or eight million who had no original participation in the matter.

Why, sir, the Scriptures tell me that when Christ came upon the earth the fallen world had been doomed to punishment for the commission of sin and had been assigned to eternal damnation. And I am informed by the same Scriptures that Christ gave His body, His blood, and His soul as a propitiation for the sins of mankind. Now, I ask you to emulate the noble example of the Saviour of the world. Let us treat our southern brethren like men, like freemen, like fellow-citizens. And we will have a laurel crown placed upon our brows, if not here, then in heaven, and we shall receive the plaudit, "Well done, good and faithful servants of the Republic.

There is no honor in standing here and abusing the southern people. The revolution through which we have just passed was such a revolution as Abraham Lincoln, when a member of Congress some years ago, said that the people had a right to engage in as an effort to throw off a Government they did not like and to establish another that they preferred. The people of the South attempted to revolutionize the Government; they arrayed large armies against the United States and failed. And if we had failed in our revolution against Great Britain I have no doubt there would have been found in the Parliament of that country radicals who would have urged against us what the radicals here urge against the people of the South.

Our people have shed their blood and spent their treasure in profusion to preserve this Union. The bones of our brave soldiers are now bleaching upon the soil of Virginia. I have not yet forgotten that the sacred tomb of Washington, around which our soldiers gathered and renewed their vows to preserve the institutions of liberty bequeathed to us by our fathers, is in the soil of Virginia, one of the States which a majority of the members of this Congress are trying to keep out of this Union.

Rebellion or revolution never has been considered by the civilized world as having that odiousness and moral turpitude that attaches to men for the commission of henious crimes. And when the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] undertakes to charge the great masses of the South as being murderers like Probst, he goes counter to the history of the world, and against the revolution which in the end gave Magna Charta to England, and which handed down to this country those bulwarks of liberty upon which our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are founded. I say they are not murderers, they are not thieves, they are not felons; they are simply political convicts before the altar of patriotism. And the patriotic man who now sits in the presidential chair has, in the spirit of Christianity and humanity, extended to these men pardons, which I say, which the courts say, which tradition says, and which the history of the world says, relieve their recipients of all the effects consequent upon the crime. Mr. KELLEY. As the gentleman has referred to me personally

Mr. ROGERS. I cannot be interrupted, for I have but thirty minutes.

Mr. KELLEY. I have to say

Mr. ROGERS. I cannot be interrupted. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. ROGERS] is entitled to proceed without interruption.

Mr. KELLEY. As the gentleman misrep

resents me

Mr. ROGERS. I cannot yield.

Mr. KELLEY. And will not yield for an explanation.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] is not in order and will take his seat.

Mr. KELLEY (taking his seat.) I must pronounce his statement false.

Mr. ROGERS. I say the gentleman must not come here and vilify the people of the South in this way by comparing them with murderers, and by bringing in the argument that they are as deserving of reprobation and punishment as the monster Probst. I say the masses of the people in the South are not to blame for this war at all. It was the leaders of the South, such men as Yancey and others there, and the fanatical demagogues of the North, some of whom the President has named, (I of course except those upon this floor,) who are guilty of this war.

Sir, you can never win the affections of any people by treating them in the manner in which you propose to treat those people by these measures. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] is an honest man; I give him credit for that, for I have taken particular notice and studied his caliber, and I believe he is honest in his opinions.

Yes, sir, the honorable gentleman [Mr. STEVENS] says that these persons can come in after the 4th of July, 1870. This resolution does not guaranty any such thing. We must refer to the bill with which the committee accompany the resolution. That bill provides that every State in this Union that is now unrepresented must, before being allowed to have Representatives here, even though they can take the test oath, ratify this constitutional amendment. Though this constitutional amendment should be ratified by three fourths of the States, not one of the eleven States now unrepresented can have representation here unless each State itself joins in ratifying it. Is that fair? It has been said by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania that nineteen States three fourths of those that have never passed acts of secession-are sufficient for the ratification of this constitutional amendment. Why, then, do you seek to compel each of the southern States to ratify the amendment and alter its constitution and laws in conformity thereto, before you will admit here, on taking the usual oath, such honorable and. loyal men as are now presenting themselves as Representatives from the State of Tennessee and the State of Arkansas?

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, in my half hour I shall confine myself to the amendments of the Constitution now under consideration. When the bill reported by the committee of fifteen comes up for action by this House I may desire to say something in regard to it.

I intend to vote for this amendment in the form reported, with the exception of the third section. It is not all I could wish; it is not all I hope may yet be adopted and ratified; for I am not without hope that Congress and the people of the several States may yet rise above a mean prejudice and do equal and exact justice to all men, by putting in practice || that self-evident truth" of the Declaration of Independence, that Governments "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," and giving to every citizen, white or black, who has not forfeited the right by his crimes, the ballot. But I do not think it is becoming in a legislator to oppose some good because the measure is not all he wants.

The first section of the amendment proposed is 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 its laws.

So far as this section is concerned, there is but one clause in it which is not already in the Constitution, and it might as well in my opinion read, "No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." But a reaffirmation of a good principle will do no harm, and I shall not therefore oppose it on account of what I may regard as surplusage.

66

Equal protection of the laws" can there be any well-founded objection to this? Is not this the very foundation of a republican government? Is it not the undeniable right of every subject of the Government to receive "equal protection of the laws" with every other subject? How can he have and enjoy equal rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without "equal protection of the laws?" This is so self-evident and just that no man whose soul is not too cramped and dwarfed to hold the smallest germ of justice can fail to see and appreciate it.

The second section of the amendments proposed is as follows:

SEC. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this 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.

I like this better than the one this House adopted some time since, and which was defeated in the Senate. That amendment I declared then, as I do now, that I did not like. It received my vote in common with many other members of this House, but with hesitation, doubt, and protest. I will not reiterate the reasons now; but, sir, I have no sympathy with nor approval for the denunciations which the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] has seen fit to hurl at those Senators who differed with him and defeated the adoption of that amendment. I rather admire their patriotism, their courage, and their sense.

The amendment, however, now under consideration is free from what I considered the most objectionable features of the other.

The Constitution now provides for the apportionment of Representatives according to the "whole number of free persons" and "three fifths of all other persons." Consequently, before emancipation, three fifths of the slaves were enumerated, which gave to the slave States nineteen Representatives in Congress, and as many electors of President, based upon a constituency of slaves alone. But now there are no "other persons;" all are free; and when the other two fifths are added in the enumeration they will give the late slave States thirteen more Representatives and electoral votes than before, making thirty-two Representatives and electors for the four million emancipated slaves. Now, this amendment says to those States this: "If the freedmen are so degraded. and ignorant as to be unworthy of enfranchisement; if they are not capable of governing themselves, but must be held in subjection to and governed by their late masters, then they are not fit to govern the country through the votes of others." They shall not by any such prestidigitation, be dead at the ballot-box, but alive here, dumb, without a voice for their own government, and with thirty-two voices on this floor, and thirty-two votes for President and Vice President. They shall not be used to swell their rebel masters into giants and dwarf the loyal and patriotic men of the free States into Tom Thumbs! If you deny to any portion of the loyal citizens of your State the right to vote for Representatives you shall not assume to represent them, and, as you have done for so long a time, misrepresent and

oppress them. This is a step in the right direction; and although I should prefer to see incorporated into the Constitution a guarantee of universal suffrage, as we cannot get the required two thirds for that, I cordially support this proposition as the next best.

This amendment, too, I fully believe, will in a reasonably short period bring universal suffrage.

The fourth section of this amendment, repudiating the rebel debt and claims for slaves, will be most heartily adopted and approved by every loyal man in the nation. Every man or woman who holds a Government bond, or who pays a tax, every crippled soldier or widow of a dead soldier, who holds a pension certificate, and everybody who hates treason and rebellion, and prays for the prosperity of the Government, will rejoice at its adoption.

The third section excludes all persons who voluntarily adhered to the rebellion. giving it aid and comfort, from the right to vote for members of Congress, and for electors for President and Vice President until the 4th of July, 1870. I cannot regard this section as of any practical value. I believe it to be difficult, if not impossible, of fulfillment; and I have fears that it may greatly embarrass, if not defeat, the adoption of the other sections should we pass it through this House.

If the rebels are to be disfranchised at all, they should be for a longer period. Again, some rebels are deserving of a total and lasting disfranchisement, while others who are embraced in this provision are not near so criminal. But such a provision would be taken to imply that all shall have the right to vote after July, 1870. Besides, there is a large class of men, both in the North and South, equally, yea, and more, guilty than thousands of the misguided men who will be disfranchised by this provision, who will not be affected by it. I allude to those politicians and others at the South who, keeping themselves out of danger, set on the ignorant and brave to fight for what they were told by these rascals were "their rights; and to other politicians, editors, "copperheads," in the North, some of whom were and are members of Congress, who encouraged them and discouraged our soldiers.

tion gives them in this end, amendments would be impossible, for their votes, added to those already here, who have been upon their side throughout the war, will always prevent their adoption.

What would be the result in such a case? Mr. Speaker, I tremble for my country when I contemplate the possibility of such a conclusion to the bloody struggle we have gone through. Let me enumerate some of the calamities which will follow:

1. There would be the admission to Congress, and other places of power, of unrepentant and unwashed murderers and traitors.

2. The driving from their borders of every loyal man and woman who has been faithful to the Government.

3. Repeal of the civil rights bill, and grinding to the very depths of misery, compared with which slavery would be a boon, the four million freedmen.

4. Assumption by the General Government of the rebel debt, and payment to rebel masters for their slaves.

5. They would extend the pension laws to embrace the traitors who fought against the Government, and would pay the claims of rebels for damages by the war.

6. They would elect for the next President not Andrew Johnson, as some suppose, but Robert E. Lee, who might possibly reward his northern friends by giving places in his Cabinet to Fernando Wood, of New York, and Vallandigham, of Ohio.

Such is the picture. Why, sir, rather than such a consummation, a thousand times rather that we had never pulled trigger or drawn sword to maintain the integrity of the Government. Better, a million times better, that we had saved the blood its preservation has cost us. Why, sir, the very bones of the uncoffined dead would turn in their graves at such a result of their sacrifice. I know, and with shame confess it, that there are recreants and apostates among us, not many, I thank God, however, but some there are now in Congress, who have been trusted by an honest and confiding constituency, but who prefer to bask in the sunshine of executive favor, who rather "crook the pregnant hinges of the knee where thrift may follow fawning," and betray their trust; but their number is small.

The tribe of Judas has never been a very flourishing one, for those who do not, like Judas, in remorse hang themselves, very soon wither under the scorching indignation of mankind. There are not enough of them, I trust, to defeat what is absolutely demanded by the country.

Then, with the exception of the third section, I am heartily for the amendment, and if instead of that section we could incorporate a provision into the Constitution which should forever disqualify all the leading rebels from holding any office under the United States, thus making "treason odious" and traitors infamous, the country would hail it with joy. But, Mr. Speaker, there are men in this House who are opposed to making any amendments to the Constitution, as they say, "until the revolted States are represented here." They say that those States are entitled "of right" to have their Senators ud Representatives in this Capitol. They say that it is wrong to enact any legislation affecting those States without first consulting them." This is the pretense. The real fact is they know very well that if each of those States had its two Senators in the other end of the Capitol, and the members which the present basis of representa

And the country does demand that we ingraft upon the organic law of the nation, placing them in the custody of the whole people, beyond the reach of party or faction, or of sudden passion, to repeal them, these or similar and stronger amendments. The preservation of the Government requires it. The

preserved without it. The financial credit of the Government will be ruined unless it is done. These things to me seem inevitable.

But those gentlemen upon the other side of the House, whose vocation seems to be to oppose every measure which is in the interest of the Government and of humanity, think it would be an excellent idea to have the rebels here, to themselves vote upon and fix the conditions of reconstruction. A most happy idea! Having failed to destroy the Government by a resort to arms, now only once let them in here under the old apportionment, which makes a rebel of South Carolina as big as two or three loyal men of Illinois, let them in with the blood of slain patriots yet dripping from their fingers, and the doubly damning crime of starving prisoners still blackening their souls, and then talk about amending the Constitution.

Sir, the Constitution makes Congress the judge of the election and qualification of its own members. The Constitution also declares that "the Government" (not the President) "shall guaranty to cach State a republican form of government." When a Territory makes

application for admission as a State, the Congress has first to pass the law, and fix the terms for its admission.

The States in rebellion revolted, destroved their State governments as States of this Union; fought us four years for a separate nationality; were vanquished. Now, who shall determine the conditions upon which Congress shall receive their Senators and Representa tives again? Who shall say whether they have readopted a republican form of government?

The President seems to suppose it his prerogative. But the President will yet learn that he is not the "Government." He dictated to those States conditions, what they should and should not put into their constitutions, and cannot Congress, the representatives of the people, the real " Government," do the same? The whole copperhead fraternity applaud the President. Rebels South and sympathizers

with rebellion North glorify Andrew Johnson; the devilish company of traitors praise him; the confederates of Booth and Payne praise him; the importers of poisoned clothing praise him; the glorious company of Jeff. Davis, his cabinet, his congress, his generals, with all the enemies of freedom in our own land, glorify him; and the enemies of liberty and republican institutions throughout the world, all who were on the side of the rebellion and against us throughout the war, praise and magnify his name. These, together with a few Judases and Esaus, applaud Andrew Johnson. Yet he dictated conditions to the rebel States, and cannot the law-making power of the Government do the same?

Sir, it is high time that traitors and the world shall know that the same men who preserved the Government from destruction, who made the laws, furnished the means, and did the fighting necessary for its preservation and defense, ought to and will reconstruct and do what is necessary to maintain it. The same who dictated terms to rebels in the field ought to and will dictate the terms upon which, and which only, they may be received into fellowship and power again. Men to whom the people have intrusted positions of high honor and power may apostatize and betray them for a little season, but they are sure to be crushed under the wheels of the great car of the people's wrath.

There are some who suppose that men who have given limbs and health and the best years of their lives for the salvation of their country, can now be bought for a petty post office; that fathers who have laid their sons upon the altar of their country are to be turned aside with the hope of a little temporary, contemptible patronage. Such persons do not know the American people, the Union people of the North. They have sacrificed too much to turn back now; their patriotism is made of better material, of sterner stuff than that. A people, in whose every house there is either a returned soldier or the vacant chair of one who never will return, cannot be bought with any such stuff. And it is strange that men in high places do not know these things. Are they both blind and deaf? Why, sir, a man need not read the papers to find it out. If he will but put his ear to the ground he may still hear the tramp, tramp, tramp, of the men who marched with Sherman to the sea, and with Grant to Richmond and Vicksburg, still keeping time to the same music, and still animated and inspired by the same determination. The very air is vocal with the loud demands of the people; while the invisible spirits of half a million of the noblest men who ever lived, and who sleep the sleep which shall know no wakening until the last great roll-call is sounded, beseech us that we do not let their sacrifice be in vain.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. DAWES.]

Mr. DAWES. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss the merits of this measure, for I give it, with the exception of the third section, my hearty support. I shall vote for the amend

ment if I cannot get the section excluded. But I prefer not to stake the infinite good of the remainder upon the uncertainty of ever incorporating the third section in the Constitution. I desire now to call the attention of the House again to the question which I raised yesterday, and to which my colleague [Mr. BANKS] has referred in the remarks which he made a short time ago, namely, that of a possible contest in the Electoral College. I do feel that the question, notwithstanding the easy solution of it to which he has arrived, has more of a serious character in it than seems to have suggested itself to his mind; and with the indulgence of the House I will endeavor to show it.

There is no legislation in the land the upon subject. The only provision governing the counting of the votes of the Electoral College is in the Constitution itself; and it is in these words:

"The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates; and the votes shall then be counted.'

But who shall decide, if there be a dispute, whether a vote has come from a man legally chosen? There is no tribunal yet erected to determine that fact. Chancellor Kent says that it is casus omissus, a case that has not been provided for by the framers of the Constitution; that there is no provision in the laws or the Constitution of the United States by which that may be determined. Whether or not it be beyond our power under the Constitution to make such provision, certain it is that we have made no such provision. Chancellor Kent said upon this point, as reported in the debate in connection with the very case which has been cited by my colleague, that of the Wisconsin vote in 1856, that it was a casus omissus, and neither law nor the Constitution itself had provided a solution of the difficulty. When the nation should be involved in such a contest he trembled for the result. He speaks of it in his Commentaries in the following words:

"The Constitution does not express by whom the votes are to be counted and the result declared. In the case of questionable votes and a closely contested election, this power may be important; and I presume, in the absence of all legislative provision on the subject, that the President of the Senate counts the votes and determines the result, and that the House are present only as spectators, to witness the fairness and accuracy of the transaction."

Upon the occasion alluded to by my colleague, Henry Winter Davis used this language:

"Now, sir, no strict constructionist, or wide or loose constructionist, can find any function confided to both Houses together or to one separately, which enables them to pass, preliminarily, upon the point whether one vote shall be counted or another rejected. No judgment is called for at all. On the contrary, the Constitution carefully avoids asking for any judgment by anybody upon a mere count."

The idea of referring this to the two Houses in their separate capacity for solution involves at once another difficulty. The two Houses in their separate capacity act as legislators, and legislators alone, and their functions are all prescribed by the Constitution itself. This is not one of them. They cannot as separate bodies act upon the genuineness of the election of a member of the Electoral College, for they have not been constituted for any such purpose nor clothed with any such power. They are not clothed with the judicial power of passing upon the validity of an election of President and Vice President; and suppose the Senate comes to one conclusion and the House to another, what is the result? Suppose the Senate in the Wisconsin case had determined that Mr. Buchanan was elected and the House in its separate capacity had determined that no one was elected, the Constitution requires that the House, thereupon, shall proceed immediately, yes, immediately is the command of the Constitution, without the concurrence of the Senate, to choose a President. Then comes the terrible peril in which this country will be involved, the ordeal through which it will have to pass where the House of Representatives determine one way and the Senate the other.

I do not mean to say it is not within our power under the Constitution to provide a tri

bunal; upon that question there is no occasion to remark. I have only to say that as yet no such tribunal has been provided. On the occasion alluded to by my colleague it was the opinion of learned men both in the House and in the Senate that the country barely escaped a revolution. They did not decide, as I understood my colleague to say, by passing into their respective Halls whether the vote of Wisconsin should be counted or not. The question was not decided, and remains to be decided to this day. After being in convention and witnessing the opening of the votes, the Senate of its own motion left this Hall and went into their separate Chamber before the work was completed and there undertook to complete by concurrent action, by joint committee of the two Houses, whatever failed to be done here in the meeting of the two bodies, growing out of the dispute

about the Wisconsin vote.

But, Mr. Speaker, they failed to accomplish anything. Their resolution was laid upon the table. So with a similar resolution in the House. To-day it has not been decided whether those votes of Wisconsin should be counted or not. Now, suppose the disputed vote had determined the result, and suppose the House differed in its conclusion with the Senate of the United States, and the House elected one man President and the Senate declared that another man was elected. It needs no argument and no suggestion from me to show the House the peril in which the nation would have been involved, and all this in a time of comparative peace. That is one objection I have to the third section in the proposed amendment of the Constitution unless you erect some tribunal to decide the question which may be made. It increases that peril by increasing the danger of a contest, and at a time, too, when there is not yet peace. The embers of war are still glowing. Still, as I said before, am disposed to vote for it if that cannot be stricken out, but I will give it my hearty support, and so will every loyal heart, if not embarrassed by that clause.

Let me read, if I have a moment's time, what was said by a distinguished gentleman who has since been Governor of his State, Mr. Washburn, of Maine, when the peace of our country came so nigh being disturbed by the Wiscon

sin case:

"The Constitution provides that the President of the Senate, in the presence of the two Houses, shall open all certificates, and that the votes shall be counted, and the person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be President of the United States, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and so in regard to the Vice President. The votes shall be opened in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives and then counted. By whom? There is no provision of the Constitution, or of law, that they shall be counted by the Senate or the House, or by a joint convention. There has been no joint convention, nor could there have been any. The assemblage here could do nothing for which it had not the authority of law, and there is no law authorizing the count of these votes by a joint convention, or prescribing the rules and regulations to be observed therein. It was the duty of the President of the Senate here, in the presence of the two Houses, to open the certificates, and to cause the votes to be counted. The Houses had directed how they were to be counted, by a teller appointed on the part of the Senate and two tellers appointed on the part of the House. These tellers made the count, and here, in the presence of us all, made their report to the President of the Senate; and the President of the Senate, in the presence of the two Houses, and in exact conformity with the provisions of the Constitution, did declare the whole number of votes, and did declare who had the majority. Nothing but that could have been done. There was no power on the part of the Senate, or on the part of the House, to interfere with the execution of this duty precisely as specified in the Constitution and in the resolution of the the two Houses.

"I hold, therefore, that no motion whatever can be made, and that the meeting, under the Constitution, the law of 1792, and the joint resolution, is functus officio. I have no doubt, sir, that there is here a casus omissus, that there is no law and no provision of the Constitution by which anything can possibly be done except what has been done by the President of the Senate in presence of the two Houses. I hold that he ruled aright when he refused to entertain the motions made to him, and when he announced from the chair, in presence of the Senate, and to the House, what had been declared to him by the tellers. That is all that he did, and all that he had authority to do. I am, at the same time, very clear that it is of the highest importance that there should be some legislation on this

subject. All that we can now do is to acquiesce in the decision that has been made, and to set ourselves to work immediately for the passage of a law which will prevent any trouble or difficulty of this kind in future. I received a letter but a few days ago from a gentleman eminent for his wisdom and ability, who states therein that the late Chancellor Kent, of New York, had told him that here was clearly a casus omissus that there was no power, either in the House or Senate, or in a joint convention, to interfere and participate authoritatively in counting and declaring the votes and deciding upon their validity; and he said that the Chancellor added that he feared the time might come when the country would be shaken to its center on this point."

Mr. Seward and Mr. Collamer in the Senate, on the same occasion, expressed similar views, each declaring the impotency of the two Houses or any tribunal known to the law to solve the difficulty, and at the same time each rejoicing at the escape from peril which the immateriality of the vote in question had secured, but pointing out the terrible danger to which the nation would be exposed if ever a material vote in the Electoral College should be questioned. [Here the hammer fell.]

EVENING SESSIONS.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I rise to a privileged question, and move that evening sessions be hereafter dispensed with. I do so for the reason the House is so far ahead of the Senate that it is unnecessary for us to come here at night, and for the further reason that the reporters are utterly overwhelmed with labor.

The motion was agreed to.

RECONSTRUCTION-AGAIN.

Mr. BINGHAM obtained the floor.

Mr. BANKS. I ask the gentleman to allow me one moment to say a word of reply to my colleague.

Mr. BINGHAM. I am willing to yield if it does not come out of my time, otherwise I must proceed.

The SPEAKER. It will come out of the gentleman's time.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I beg the House to remember that the three several measures reported by the committee on reconstruction must be considered together as an entirety in order to determine the merit of the question immediately involved before the House in the adoption of the constitutional amendment. I do not believe myself, sir, that the purpose for which this committee was organized by the House would be fully attained if nothing more were to be done by the Congress of the United States than simply to send to the people of the several States the proposition reported by the committee for the amendment of the Constitution.

There are three measures, Mr. Speaker, and not, as some gentlemen seem to argue, but one, that have been reported by this committee. The first of these measures is a conditionprecedent to the reorganization and restora tion to political power of any State lately in insurrection. That measure has more than once during this debate been lost sight of by gentlemen who have spoken.

No State lately in insurrection, according to one of the measures reported, in case it shall become a law of the United States, can ever exercise political powers in this Union until the pending constitutional amendment shall first have become a part of the Constitution of the United States, by the consent of the Legislatures of three fourths of the States now maintaining their constitutional relations to the Government, and by the subsequent consent of the insurrectionary State itself, the State also conforming its own constitution and laws to all its requirements.

Additional to this there is yet another measure reported by the committee to which I attach great importance, and to which I doubt not the loyal people of this country of every section will attach great importance. That is the bill which disqualifies forever from holding any office of honor or trust within the Republic every leading and marked actor in the late rebellion. By that bill the president and vice president of the late confederate States so

called will be excluded; the members of the Thirty-Sixth Congress who in any manner aided this rebellion will be excluded; all persons who were educated at the national academies, naval or military, who have been endowed by the people with the power of knowledge, a gift next in value to the gift of the understanding with which the breath of the Almighty has given them, are excluded; the persons who represented this confederacy of treason and crime in any part of the habitable globe are excluded; and above all and beyond all, all persons who in any manner subjected to untimely death by exposure or neglect or the slow torture of famine or poison the captive defenders of the Union, are forever excluded.

The mere statement and concession of the people's right to exercise this power, which is undoubtedly the sovereign right of the American people, by a congressional act, ought to have suggested to the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] that if it is needful in this great work of reconstruction further to disfranchise the participants in this rebellion, it can be done in like manner by an act of Congress, and without a constitutional amend

ment.

The franchise of a Federal elective office is as clearly one of the privileges of a citizen of the United States as is the elective franchise for choosing Representatives in Congress or presidential electors. They are both provided for and guarantied in your Constitution. Why, then, prohibit rebels from the enjoyment of the first for life by an act of Congress and restrict the second for a term of years by a constitutional amendment? To be sure we all agree, and the great body of the people of this country agree, and the committee thus far in reporting measures of reconstruction agree, that the exercise of the elective franchise, though it be one of the privileges of a citizen of the Republic, is exclusively under the control of the States. But, sir, the committee never intimated and never intended to intimate by any measure they have reported that any State lately in insurrection can exercise either that power or any other until it is restored to its constitutional relation to the Union save by the express or implied consent of the Congress of the United States, nor that after being restored they can exercise that power contrary to the express conditions prescribed by Congress for their restoration. The power to prescribe these conditions is exclusively in Congress.

That is the philosophy of every measure of reconstruction now pending before the House. And that is wherein it is opposed to the opinions of gentlemen on the other side of the House who have spoken, I am sorry to say-and I say it without the slightest intention of giving offense to any man-not in the spirit of representatives of the people, but in the spirit of partisans. For myself, I cannot approach the discussion of this great question, which concerns the safety of all, in the spirit of a parti

san.

God forbid that I should approach this subject in any other character than that of a representative of the people-a representative of the people not unmindful of the oath which I took, sir, before your tribune.

Mr. WRIGHT. I rise to a question of order. The gentleman, by reflection, seems to infer that we do not represent the people, and that we are unmindful of our oaths.

The SPEAKER. That is not a point of order under parliamentary law, but an interruption without the consent of the member speaking.

Mr. BINGHAM. The want of the Republic to-day is not a Democratic party, is not a Republican party, is not any party save a party for the Union, for the Constitution, for the supremacy of the laws, for the restoration of all the States to their political rights and powers under such irrevocable guarantees as will forevermore secure the safety of the Republic, the equality of the States, and the equal rights of all the people under the sanctions of inviolable law.

I trust, Mr. Speaker, that after the roll shall have been called this day, and the departing sun shall have gilded with its last rays the dome of the Capitol, it will not be recorded by the pen of the historian that the sad hour had come to this great Republic which, in the day of its approaching dissolution, came to the republic of ancient Rome, when it was said Cæsar had his party, Antony had his party, Brutus had his party, but the Commonwealth had none ! I speak to-day, Mr. Speaker, to the party that is for the Republic; to the party that is for the Constitution; to the party that is for the speedy restoration to their constitutional relations of the late insurrectionary States, under such perpetual guarantees as will guard the future of the Republic by the united voice of a united people against the sad calamities which have in these late years befallen it.

Mr. Speaker, the final settlement of this grave question which touches the nation's life is at last with the people of the loyal Statesthe loyal people of the Union. To the end, therefore, knowing, as the committee did know, that parties must dissolve, that men must perish from the earth, but that the Commonwealth is for all time, if its laws be just and its people be faithful, they propose to the several States a perpetual covenant in the form of a constitutional amendment, never to be broken so long as the people adhere to their cherished forms of government, which, when ratified, will secure the safety of all and the rights of each, not only during the present generation, but throughout all generations, until this grand example of free government shall itself be forgotten. The amendment reported by the committee is as follows:

ARTICLE.

SEC. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SEC. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this 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, in the year 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 enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. The necessity for the first section of this amendment to the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, is one of the lessons that have been taught to your committee and taught to all the people of this country by the history of the past four years of terrific conflict-that history in which God is, and in which He teaches the profoundest lessons to men and nations. There was a want hitherto, and there remains a want now, in the Constitution of our country, which the proposed amendment will supply. What is that? It is the power in the people, the whole people of the United States, by express authority of the Constitution to do that by congressional enactment which hitherto they have not had the power to do, and have never even attempted to do; that is, to protect by national law the privileges and immunities of all the citizens of the Republic and the inborn rights of every person within its jurisdiction whenever the same shall be abridged or denied by the unconstitutional acts of any State.

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to say that this amendment takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it. No State ever had the right, under the forms of law or otherwise, to deny to any freeman the equal pro

tection of the laws or to abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen of the Republic, although many of them have assumed and exercised the power, and that without remedy. The amendment does not give, as the second section shows, the power to Congress of regulating suffrage in the several States.

The second section excludes the conclusion that by the first section suffrage is subjected to congressional law; save, indeed, with this exception, that as the right in the people of each State to a republican government and to choose their Representatives in Congress is of the guarantees of the Constitution, by this amendment a remedy might be given directly for a case supposed by Madison, where treason might change a State government from a republican to a despotic government, and thereby deny suffrage to the people. Why should any American citizen object to that? But, sir, it has been suggested, not here, but elsewhere, if this section does not confer suffrage the need of it is not perceived. To all such I beg leave again to say, that many instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever. Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, "cruel and unusual punishments" have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citi. zens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none.

Sir, the words of the Constitution that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States' include, among other privileges, the right to bear true allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and to be protected in life, liberty, and property. Next, sir, to the allegiance which we all owe to God our Creator, is the allegiance which we owe to our common country.

The time was in our history, thirty-three years ago, when, in the State of South Carolina, by solemn ordinance adopted in a convention held under the authority of State law, it was ordained, as a part of the fundamental law of that State, that the citizens of South Carolina, being citizens of the United States as well, should abjure their allegiance to every other government or authority than that of the State of South Carolina.

That ordinance contained these words:

"The allegiance of the citizens of this State is due to the State; and no allegiance is due from them to any other Power or authority; and the General Assembly of said State is hereby empowered from time to time, when they may deem it proper, to provide for the administration to the citizens and officers of the State, or such of the said officers as they may think fit, of suitable oaths or affirmations, binding them to the observance of such allegiance, and abjuring all other allegiance; and also to define what shall amount to a violation of their allegiance, and to provide the proper punishment for such violation."

There was also, as gentlemen know, an attempt made at the same time by that State to nullify the revenue laws of the United States. What was the legislation of Congress in that day to meet this usurpation of authority by that State, violative alike of the rights of the national Government and of the rights of the citizen?

In that hour of danger and trial to the country there was as able a body of men in this Capitol as was ever convened in Washington, and of these were Webster, Clay, Benton, Silas Wright, John Quincy Adams, and Edward Livingston. They provided a remedy by law for the inva sion of the rights of the Federal Government and. for the protection of its officials and those assisting them in executing the revenue laws. (See 4 Statutes-at-Large, 632-33.) No remedy was provided to protect the citizen. Why was the act to provide for the collection of the revenue passed, and to protect all acting under it, and no protection given to secure the citizen against punishment for fidelity to