^^tWuY-t', %iM^Om^''^' ' t^i^'^l'^' \j HON. ¥1. M. STEWART, OF NEVADA, IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, FEBRUARY 28 AND MARCH 1, 18G6. The Senate having under consideration the follow- ing resolution: Be it TMolved hy the Ilnvae of RcprcientritiveR, (the Senate concurring,) That in order to close asitation upon a question \vhieh seems likely to disturb the action of the Government, as well as to quiet the un- eertaintv which is a£;itatinfr the minds of the people of the eleven States which have been declared to be in insurrection, no Senator or Representative shall be admitted into either branch of Congress from any ofsaid States until Congress shall have declared such State entitled to such representation. Mr. STEWART said : Mr. President : I should not regard tire reso- .lution under consideration as a matter of any great consequence if it stood alone, for I do not believe that it would have an.y binding force upon anyl)ody. But at a time when the country • is in agitation over conflicting opinions between Congress and the Executive ; when the voice and the hearts of the American people are up- lifted for ]>eace ; when we must either have peace or destruction ; when the very existence, per- haps, of our free institutions depends upon the calm, just, and patriotic disposition of all ques- tions, a resolution comingfromthe commucee of fifteen is a matter of grave consideration, and demands from everyone a careful examination. We slionld iuvcstigatc this matter and ascertain whether it will have any bearing toward har- mony and peace, for if each step that is taken now is not in the right direction it may do great • harm. We are, as it were, in this great contest like a rivulet. The contest has commenced in Congress ; it is now like a stream on the moun- tain side, which can easily be turned aside with the foot ; but if we throw slight obstructions in the way of the current of peace, until accumula- \ted difficulties form a torrent of discord, sweep- ing us doAvn into an ocean of trouble, it may be past human ] lower to avert the calamities which will threaten our country. I regard this resolution as a stumbling block, as an obstruction, as something that will retard peace and_ Union. It is said in its defense that it is simply declaring that Congress has power, that this power is in the Constitu- tion of the United States, that it has been re- peatedly declared by acts of Congress and res- olutions of this body. If that be true, why throw this new element of discord now into our already confused deliberations? There are dif- ferences of opinion about it; but if those who have brought forward this resolution as a dec- laration of power are correct in supposing that the power is ingrafted in the fundamental law, the Constitution of the United States, why is this agitating question to occupy the attention of Congress? That Congress has the power to exclude southern members from seats here is best proved by the fact that it lias done it for the last twelve months, and still continues to do it, notwith.standingthewar has ceased. The world knows that we can do it, because we have done it. The first thing when I came into these Halls was a proposition to admit Tennessee and Louisiana, and I believe the honorable Senator from Illinois was anxious then that they should be admitted. I voted for the postponement of the question, for the reason that I was not then certain that the organizations there existing would be able to sustain themselves and main- tain their own existence. I was not sufficiently familiar with the question, and I voted to post- pone the consideration of the matter. We did not let them in then. We proved our power to keep them out. They have come here again at this session and asked for admission. They have not 3'et been admitted, not even within these Halls, although some of the members they have sent were always truly loyal and served in your armies or were distinguished citizens who had been tried in the fiery furnace of scission, where rebellion raged with all its fury, and had come out true to the Union. Even they are excluded from this Hall. Have we not the power? Has not that been suffi- ciently vlndic;rted? I think the world will an- swer, yes. Then, if you have the power to keep them out, if you have done it, if you have been exercising that power, why declare that yon have it? If there is no good result from a proposition of this kind, there may be evil. There are with regard to the ultimate result sought to be arrived at by this proposition dif- ferences of opinion. I have said before, there are two sets of opinions in regard to the mode of allowing the States to come back. There is a difference of opinion among good men. That difference of opinion threatens the very U-.)*'iAHjXa **'< destruction of the country. I have felt that embarrassment ever since I have been here. I came as thoroughly desirous of having this Union restored upon just and equitable princi- ples as any man ; and I am now desirous that all the States should be represented by loyal men. I yield to -no man in that desire. I have sustained this Government to the best of my ability throughout this war, and from its very first inception I have done it under all cir- cumstances and on all occasions ; and now in this issue I care not for self; I care not for the plaudits of men. If I can aid in contributing to bring about a restoration of these States and save this country from further war and future anarchy ; if I can aid in securing what has been accomjilished by our glorious warriors in the field; if I can aid in preserving that for poster- ity; if I can aid in the consummation of the prayers of those who love this country, it is my duty to do that ; and the smiles of power or the frowns of enemies or of those who may desire to detract from my motives are nothing to me. I love my country more than party. I love my country more than self-aggrandizement. I love my country more than miserable forms. If we can get the substantial thing, I shall be satisfied. But upon this proposition there is a diversity of opinion. It must lead to' a conflict of opinion, and its only operation, if it have any operation at all, is to delay union and peace. All profess to desire the same result. I hope their professions are sincere. I am bound to take it for granted that both Congress and the President desire to arrive at the same result. They want the Union restored. They want the governments of the southern States in the hands of the loyal men. I well recollect when this controversy commenced. It was Ijefore I came here ; it was at the time Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation of reconstruction, which was, I think, in July, 18GJr. That proclamation was telegraphed to Nevada, where I live, and where we were struggling to maintain the Union cause ; and I recollect the opposition that that policy met. I remember the powerful protest of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wauk] and Mr. Davis, of Maryland, and the discussions upon it. I recollect going upon the stump and say- ing that these were minor controversies ; that what we wanted was the Union ; that the Union men would stand together, and go through the war successfully; that these matters were de- tails which we could arrange afterward, which would not deprive us of union. When I came here at the last session there was a controversy on these subjects ; but I had no idea that Union men would not be willing to yield their peculiar notions sufficiently to enable us to accomplish the great object. Mr. Johnson lias gone on with the same plan, except that he has restricted it somewhat ; he has restricted tlie number of persons to whom amnesty was extended by Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Johnson has excluded many from the right of voting and the right of holding oifice who oth- erwise would have been entitled. He has added some eight conditions to those which Mr. Lin- coln prescribed. Organizations have grown up in the southern States by the non-action of Congress. The war of rebellion' was over- thrown; the President must do something; he was not a dictator ; he simply took the issues of the war, and said to these men, ' ' Frame your governments upon this basis aud come to Congress for representation." Now, while I have not heard any substantial argument against what he did, while I have not heard any substantial argument against the forms of government set up in the southern States, I have constantly heard argument after argument for three long months to show, not- withstanding all this, that Congress had some power which had been overlooked in some way and was not being brought into proi^er exer- cise. I have heard argument after argument day after day here to show how we could keep these States out of the Union, but I have waited in vain for arguments to show how we could get them in. It is said that this resolution is a proclama- tion of the i^ower and an assertion of the right of Congress to declare when a State is entitled to representation. The President denies that Congress has the power to determine the ques- tion whether a State is entitled to representa- tion in the Senate of the United States, for the Constitution expressly provides "that no State without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate," and the whole instru- ment is based upon the right of each State to representation in Congress, and that right as an abstract right cannot be taken from any State because its people have been in insurrec- tion or for any other cause; but the abstract right must remain in each State as long as the Constitution and Union exist. But he does not say that therefore you have no power tt> keep traitors out of Congress. He says that all the acts of traitors in a State are void, that they cannot take a State out of the Union, but still you are to judge of the quallficfitlonti ot* your own members, you- are to investigate the "subject, and he says that covers the whole ques- tion. He says that you may determine upon the elections, returns, and qualifications of members, and in determining upon their elec- tion of course you will determine upon the qual- ifications of the parties who elected them. If the election is of a member from a congres- sional district, cannot the other House of Con- gress investigate the matter to see if the parties , who cast the votes and elected the member had the right of suftrage? If the election is of a Senator, cannot we inquirewhether the parties who cast the vote for him were acting in obe- dience to the laws of the United Staters and qualified to vote in the Legislatures of the States where they did vote? The respective Houses can inquire into the qualifications of the voters who send the parties here, Avhether they be State Legislatures, or whether they be thecon- stituents generally in a district. There is no doubt about that ; and the same result can be IN EXCHANQC accomplished in that way, in pursuance of the Constitution, that is sought to be accomplished in another mode. It seems to me that the power to susj^end the right of a State to representation may im- ply a dangerous power and may imply a right to suspend it for any reason that Congress may see fit. That is the danger about it. The power to suspend the right of a State to be repr^ented may hereafter be a terrible precedent. The President wishes to avoid that. Mr. Lincoln during the whole war carefully avoided deny- ing the right of a State to representation. He constantly denied that the Union was dissolved, that the laws admitting the States had been abrogated, that any of their acts while in re- bellion were legal so far as to take away the right of a State to representation. He said that the iDCople who rebelled had no right to repre- sentation, they were not in harmony with the Government, but they had not overthrown our Government, and that was a very material con- sideration that was carried all through the first part of the war. It was regarded as a very im- portant point never to be yielded. Mr. Lin- coln and his Administration cai-ried it through. Every proclamation issued by him speaks of the insurrection of the inhabitants and not of the States. We have gone on thus far, and if we can get through without announcing that dangerous principle that these acts of secession were really valid, if we can get these States back in any other way, if we can have loyal men to represent them and reconstruct them without acknowledging that the rebellion was a success, it is regarded by Mr. Johnson, and it is regarded by a great number of loyal men, as an important proposition. There is no provision in the Constitution conferring such a power upon Congress. No authority of the kind is expressed in that in- strument, nor can I find any. place where it is implied by just implication. In fact it was never anticipated that States would attempt to go out of the Union; and when they attempted to do it, we said that not being anticipated in the Constitution, that they could not do it le- gally, and any attempt on their part would be absolutely void. We started with that idea. This was simply a continuation of the discus- sion that commenced while Jeff. Davis was in this Hall. We said that they could not break the laws of Congress, that they must still be en- forced. Whether right or wrong, we have con- tinued on that idea. I say it is not necessary or proper to change it and get up a different declaration unless some great good can be ac- complished or some great necessity exists for it. If there has been any action of Congress upon the subject, admitting that acts of seces- sion were lawful or valid, 1 simply say that it was without warrant of the Constitution or laws, and if we have any precedents of that kind they are sufficient without the aid of a resolution which has no binding force upon the Senate. I have another objection to this resolution, and it is a very important one. The resolution upon its face contains an untruth. The main recital of this resolution is not true in regard to a fact which has been heretofore regarded as important, whether it be really important or not. I do not regard it as so important as some do. It speaks of the eleven States which have been declared to be in insurrection. I ask when and by whom were eleven States declared in insurrection? The proclamation of the Presi- dent, issued on the KJth of August, 1861, did not declare the States to be in insurrection ; but Abraham Lincoln, acting upon the same theory which the President is to-day carrying out, said, "I do hereby doclare that the inhabitants of certain States and parts of States," naming them, "are in a state of insurrection against the United States." Now, whatever you may do here which you admit has no binding force or effect on anybody, I protest against the re- cital of a fact which shall change the condition of things as they existed at the time of the issu- ance of that proclamation, or that shall place our late Pi-esident in a false position in regard thereto, because if there was any point upon which he was careful it was that. I have ex- amined all his proclamations, and he uniformly speaks of the insurrection of the inhabitants of the States. He always claimed that every loyal man in those States had a right to the protec- tion of the laws of Congress, and that if there was but one tenth of them loyal they might form a State government. That I thought was of doubtful propriety, because I did not believe they could maintain it, but he all the while coTi- tended for the rights of those who remained loyal. He said that the inhabitants of a State might rebel, but the State never, and that all the laws of Congress, and the solemn compact of the Constitution should ever remain as a shield to every loyal man who might dwell in the South. That was the theory, and it is not a very preposterous one. It is the one on which we fought the vv-ar. It is the one that we in- serted in our platform ; and I protest that that proclamation of the 16th of August, 1861, shall not be made to declare that President Lincoln ever said or intimated that a State was in re- bellion, for the language of the proclamation is as I have read. He declared the inhabitants of States and parts of States in insurrection. Now, if this resolution was made to conform to the truth it v^'ould read thus : That hi order to close agitation upon a question which seems lilccly to disturb the action of the Gov- ernment, as well as to quiet the uncertainty which is agitating the minds of the people of the eleven States whose inhabitants have been declared to bo in insur- rection, no Senator or Representative shall be admit- ted into either branch of Congress from any of said States until Congress shall have declared such Stato entitled to such representation. Now, is that a correct principle? Is it cor- rect abstractly? It has no importance except as a declaration of principle. It is not legis- lation. It will have no legislative effect. There is no other excuse for it except its purity of i:)rinciple. It is simply a declaration of prin- ciple. It is not to accomplish any ulterior end* It is simply brought in here as a grand declar? I 4 tion of some important principle. In passing bills, when there is a desire to reach some legit- imate end, I can excuse inaccuracies in the statement of reasons ; but if we are going to have a broad declaration of principle, I wantit not only to conform to the truth, but to be a principle vipon which we can stand. Then, if this resolution be correct in principle, it means that if a portion of the people of a State go into insurrection that State shall be excluded from representation in Congress just so long as Congress may elect. I do not say that that principle ever will be, and I hope it never may be, applied to any other section or to this section again ; but I ask you, are you willing to apply it to other sections? If a part of the people of a State rebel, you say Congress may then exclude loyal Representatives from the Congress so long as they may elect to do so. Suppose the inhabitants or parts of the in- habitants of a State should be declared by the Pres^i^ent to be in insurrection, and there should be a collision between the Congress and the President ; suppose the President should hap- pen to declare some section particularly hostile to him or to his party to be in insurrection, the question as to the right of the fetate to represen- tation would be open and Congress would pos- sess full power to exclude it. It does seem to me that this resolution is not of sufficient im- portance as an enunciation of principle that we should take up the time of Congress to consider it for a very long period at this important crisis. Why take time now to consider a resolution which its friends admit amounts to nothing, and which cei'tainly cannot be maintained in point of principle? It is fortunate for the chairman of the committee of fifteen who re- ported this resolution to the House that this new doctrine was not understood, or at all events not aj^plied, at the time of the " whisky insur- rection' ' or the buckshot war in Pennsylvania. Is it not a dangerous doctrine to admit, first, that a State may lose its right to representation, or, in other words, go out of the Union, and sec- ond, whether the State has done so or not is a matter which Congress may determine ? Jeff. Davis said that a State could go out of the Union, and that the State was the proper tribu- nal to determine when that fact was accom- plished. That roused the whole loyal heart of the people of the North. They rose against it. They fought it in these Halls. Mr. Lincoln came into power. You undertook to deny it, and it was the intensity and logic of that dis- cussion that was then had which went through this rebellion and saved the country. This res- olution says, in fact, that a State may go out of the Union, but that Congress is the sole judge when that fact has been accomplished. That is the difference. I do not care much whether the State judges or Congress judges. The Con- stitution is fixed ; they cannot go out. I deny their power to go out, and I deny the power of Congress to put a State out or to force a State out, and I also deny the power of rebels and traitors to do it. We did deny it, and when they attempted to do it and submitted it to the arbitrament of war we decided the case on the battle-field that the laws and the Constitution of the United States were supreme and para- mount and could not be destroyed. I do not want to take that declaration back. I have got- ten into the habit of arguing it in that way. I have been through political campaigns and met copperheads on that issue, and I do not like to be compelled to recall my words and admit that I am wrong, because there are many men who can understand this issue and meet us on it. It may be said that Congress is a safer tribu- nal before which to try that question than a single State ; but are we certain that the ma- jority of Congress may not some day, if this principle shall be maintained and become a precedent, find it convenient for party purposes, or tq gratify sectional prejudices, to make other divisions or exclude from the Union other States besides tliose referred to in this resolution ? The principle is a dangerous one; and if the reso- lution be adopted it may do more harm than will at first appear ; but if we are simply here to declare principles, and notto legislate or take action, I say declare correct principles. It has cost too much blood and treasure to vindicate the integrity of the Union and to establish its indivisibility for us to admit that such a thing could be possible under any circumstances. But it may be said that denj-ing the right of a State to representation is not denying the fact that the State is in the Union. I ask what is the difference? Would any Senator here say that if every man in the State of South Caro- lina was as loyal as the Senator from Michigan had been, as true and as faithful to the cause as he has been during this war and after the rebellion was over, although during the war they had been overcome by treason, and elected the honorable Senator from Michigan and sent him here, that he should not be received ? If they were every one that way, I ask, would you think of excluding him? I think not. I say, how can a State be in the Union and not be entitled abstractly to representation, that being the object for which the Union was formed? But we are told by some that the States whose inhabitants have recently been in rebel- lion are not States at all; but that question can hardly arise under this resolution, for the resolution itself calls them States, and I shall not question the truth of that recital ; for the argument of the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. Howe,] although an effort of marked ability, failed to convince me that any State has been either killed or committed suicide, and since that Senator's great effort the Supreme Court of the United States have added to the execu- tive branch of the Government their authority to the effect that the Union has not been dis- solved. Upon the breaking out of the rebel- lion that court declined to hear cases from the States whose inhabitants were declared to be in rebellion, but not for the reason that those States had gone out of the Union. If this discrimination between a State and its inhabitants is foolish, why does the Supreme Court keep up that distinction? The Supreme Courtall thewhllecalls them States, but speaks of the interruption of process by the insurrec- tion of the inhabitants, and assigned that as a reason why it would not hear cases from those States. The Supreme Court said that the in- habitants of certain States have been declared to be in insurrection ; we cannot carry out our process there, and will not hear those causes. That is what they said when the rebellion broke out. They did not base their reason, mark you, on the fact that the States had gone into rebellion, but that the inhabitants of the States had gone into rebellion, and they could not issue process. That is the reason why they did not hear cases during the rebellion. But at the present term the court has set sev- eral causes from Louisiana and other southern States, which could only))e done upon the sup- position that these are States in the Union, for the Supremo Court could only exercise such jurisdiction as is conferred by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Tiie Constitu- tion and the judiciary acts under which the court entertains jurisdiction in these cases apply to States, as the court have repeatedly held. The jurisdiction that this court exercises over the Territories is altogether distinct, and is derived from that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States ; and the court has frequently decided that be- fore any jurisdiction could be exercised in aTer- ritory, Congress must expressly authorize the exercise of such jurisdiction by law. I am not aware that Congress has passed any law by which a case could be brought either from the Territory of Tennessee or Louisiana, and no law can be found authorizing the court to hear and determine cases to wliich I have referred unless they originated in States in this Union. Will you say, if they are States, that all States have not the right of representation as an ab-. stract right? There may be no one worthy to represent them ; and, unfortunately for the loyal men of the South in many sections, they did not have loyal men to represent them. It was unfortunate for us that we had not the power to succor them and guaranty to them repre- sentation. It was unfortunate for us that we had to turn them over to be slaughtered by the cruel conspirators. But I deny that they lost their citizenship. I deny that the State of Tennessee was ever out of the Union. I deny that the President of the United States is or ever has been an alien. I deny that Maynard is an alien. I deny that Brownlowis an alien. I deny that any loyal man who stood firm in the darkest night of the rebellion is an alien. I will not vote for any motion, rule, resolution, or other proceeding that can imply such a thing by tlie most casuistical argument ; and I say that this resolution is capable, I think, on a fair construction, but it is capable at all events of the construction that the Union of the States has been dissolved. There is no use in throw- ing these irritating questions into the already too much excited state of the public mind. But it is said, to what does this argument lead? Have we not the power to prevent.trai- tors and rebels from taking seats in this Sen- ate ? Jeff. Davis said we had no power to make war upon them unless we admitted they were a foreign power. They said we had no right to make war unless we admitted they were out of the Union, that we could not make war upon a State. We replied to Jeff. Davis, we do not propose to make war upon a State, but we will make war upon traitors. That is the way we met the argument. That is the way the Union soldiers met the argument. Now, you say that if we admit that a State is in the Union, and that it has the rights of a State, we cannot keep traitors out of Congress. I deny it. It does not follow. The Senate has no right to allow traitors to come into this Hall, because they are not qualified. We have a right to expel them after they come here. We are bound to do it. If a man is elected by a disloyal organ- ization, in violation of good faith to the Govern- ment, you have a right to inquire into that as a part of his election. You have done it and can do it without any congressional action. I intend to see that disloyal persons are ex- cluded, so far as my vote goes, but I do not intend to admit that the logic of Jeff. Davis wag correct. The power of the Senate to protect itself is too well understood for anybody to doubt it. It can just as well protect itself as it can with the other House to help it. Suppose that a person should come here claiming to be a Sen- ator, and the question should arise whether the Legislature that elected him was loyal. Sup- pose that some of the members of that Legis- lature had been convicted of treason and were not entitled to seats in that legislative body, but were mere usurpers in it, and his creden- tials v/ere here, would we not investigate the fact to see whether he "obtained the requisite number of legal votes to elect him, and would we call upon the House to help us in the decis- ion of that question ? You say that otherwise it may happen that a State may be represented in the House and not in the ' Senate, or vice versa. May it not happen that certain districts of a State are en- titled to representatio;i, and the whole State not be entitled to representation ? Supposti that a district is truly loyal, as has been the case in several instances ; suppose that every man, woman, and child within that district is willing to stand by the flag, and a member is elected by and goes to the other House from that district, have the laws of that State been, so abf-ogated, is the State out of the Union so that that House cannot investigate the fact whether his loyal constituents shall be there represented ? It may be that the majority of a State may be loyal, and may organize a loyal State gov- 6 ernment, and there may be districts in that State that cannot be represented, or districts that will not send i^roper men. I deny that ■when you admit the right of a State to repre- sentation you are bound to admit all the dele- gation from that State at once. You are to investigate the cases of the persons who come here, and see whether they come up to your standard. Each House can do that better sep- arately than they can jointly, for a joint rule may not work well. Do you pretend to say that if there is a district in the South that has always been loyal during this war, Jeff. Davis had the power to deprive those people of the right of representation? If so, why? Because he has abrogated the laws of Congress; and for no other reason. Davis never did have control of East Tennessee. He was simply a raider there. Those people stood out from the begin- ning to the end. They fouglit treason where it •was darkest and thickest. Do you say that, not; ■withstanding he could not quench their insa- tiable thirst of liberty and loyalty, notwith- standing he could not nuifke them false to the Union l)y burning their houses over their de- fenseless heads, and by robbing them of their property, he could render them incapable of enjoying the privileges to which they are enti- tled under the Constitution ? If these people in the case I have supposed have lost their right of representation, it is not from their titatus ; because in that section the ataius was just as good as anybody's, but ft-om the fact that there was some validity in the or- dinance of secession ; and if we admit that va- lidity, and say that we are forced to readmit the State or pass any resolution that may be so construed, the precedent will surely injure the perpetuity of our Government. It is admitting a rotten plank. It is admitting that a part of the people of a State may deprive the remain- der of the rights which they have under the Constitution. That is something that the last Administration and the Union party i« the late struggle were tenacious about. This resolution says that they shall not be admitted until Congress shall declare those States entitled to representation. If that is so how is Congress to declare it? I ask in all seriousness, how shall they declare it? Suppose they do it by a law, that law must assume, as this resolution does, that these eleven States are not States in the Union and entitled to representation, no matter how loyal the State governments or the Senators or Representa- tives who apply for admission may be ; but the President — and here is his crime — has ex- pressed a different opinion. He holds that loyal men representing State governments in these rebellious States that are in conformity to the • laws of the United States may be admitted to Congress. If you say, how do we know that their constitutions are in accordance with it, how do we know that they have such constitu- tions, I say examine them, just as you do in every case. Suppose the State of California should change her constitution, as she has once done, and elect a Senator and send him here, would you have to readmit the State? I hold that no State has gone or can go out of the Union, and consequently so far as being in the Union is concerned they at all times remain the same. The loyal men in those States have a right to the Constitution and laws of the United States ; the disloyal have not the right of representation ; the loyal have, and if there is a sufficient rumber of loyal men to govern the State, they have the right to form a State government. In the darkest time of the rebellion I deny that the right to represent Tennessee in this Hall by those who were loyal ever was for a moment suspended, but their power to obey the law, their power to represent it was pre- vented by treason. They were overpowered, and they were denied their right of represen- tation, not by Congress, not by the Govern- ment. This war was to maintain for them that right which rebellion had sought to take away from them, and had for a time suspended the harmonious relations of the State to the Gen- eral Government; and it will be too much to admit that this Government has ever been in such a fix that the people thereof were really not entitled to the protection of the Consti- tution, and because they were denied it this war was brought on, this war was prosecuted. A man may have a right to a farm, and a trespasser may keep him out of it, but if he sues on his right, he recovers not a new farm, not a new title, but he recovers the title he had before. We said that the loyal men in the South had a right to the Union, to the laws, to repre- sentation, that rebels had no right to take these from them ; they had no right to usurp the au- thority of this Government, and we called upon the loyal masses to rally to our aid. We tried the suit before the god of battles, and, thank God, we won it, and we restored to those loyal men their right of representation, which existed all the time, but which traitors attempted and did for a time prevent them from enjoying. In discussing these questions, it is embar- rassing for any one to do so without taking into consideration all the circumstances by which we are surrounded and the other ^propositions of this committee, and I propose to take up the other propositions, so as to see from time to time how this bears upon the general question. There is another proposition of the committee of fifteen, which, if passed, will obviate the ne- cessity of passing this, and obviate the necessity of any further constitutional amendment, and I think obviate the necessity of any more State Legislatures or conventions. To that I propose to call the attention of the Senator, and it may be if we pass that, it is everything that it is necessary to do. I believe it accomplishes the whole work. All other legislation to fix guar- antees is very unimportant if the article recently reported is passed, and I call the special atten- tion of the Senate to this proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States. The resolution has not been at all discussed here, and my only object in calling attention to it is to show that it is apart of the work of this same committee, and to estimate if possible how long legislation will have to be delayed if this reso- lution passes. The merits of one depends so much upon the other that it is impossible, it seems to me, to consider one fairly, and par- ticularly the one under consideration, without an examination of the others, in order to see whether it is necessary to wait for their final adoption or whether they are ever likely to l)e adopted. The propositions are three in num- ber ; the one which immediately preceded the resolution under consideration proposes the fol- lowing as an amendment to the Constitution: Article — . The Consrres? sliall hnve power to m.ake all laws which shall be necessary and proper toseeure to the citizens of each State all privileges and immu- nities of citizens in the several States; and to all per- ^ sons in the several States equal protection in the I rights of life, liberty, and property. This resolution has not been discussed. My only object in calling attention to it in this con- nection is that this part of the plan of recon- struction for which time is asked may not be overlooked. If I understand it correctly, it would work an entire change in our form of government. The first clause is not very ma- terial perhaps. It provides that Congress may pass laws to carry into effect apart of the Con- stitution of the United States as it now stands, which might be all well enough if the United States courts had not already complete juris- diction to make part provisions of the Consti- I tution effectual ; for a citizen of each State will enjoy all the privileges and immunities of citi- zens of the several States, unless some State should pass a law abridgingthat right, which law would be unconstitutional, and the courts would be bound so to declare. I repeat, the present provision of the Consti- tution will have all the effect of securing to the citizens of each State all the rights and immu- nities of the citizens in the several States, un- less some State passes a law which denies that right. Then the United States courts have jurisdiction. Missouri once undertook that ex- periment in the memorable contest of 1819-20. An act was passed to allow Missouri to form a State government with slavery, provided cer- tain territory should be reserved to freedom. She organized a constitution, and came here for admission with a clause that.negroes and mu- lattoes should not enter the State, or rather she > said that the first session of the Legislature should pass such a law. Congress decided that this was in violation of the constitutional pro- vision that the citizens of each State should enjoy all the rights and immunities of citizens of the several States, /ind Mr. Clay, after the subject was discussed for weeks and weeks, offered a proviso which was adopted, and sent the State back. The proviso said that she might come into the Union if her Legislature would consent never to exercise that power : and it was sent back because it was in conflict with the Constitution of th(? United States. I believe Illinois aud some of the western States did practically carry this out for awhile, refusing to allow free negroes to go among them ; but it was not for the want of a law but for the want of somebody to enforce it. The courts were open to anybody to enforce it. We had law enough. Why empower Congress to pass a law when you have the protection of the Constitution ? But that is not the material part of this resolution ; I v/ish to call the atten- tion of the chairman to it, for I am in earnest about my construction and believe that I am correct. The last clause taken in connection with the first part of the sentence, omitting the intervening words, reads as follows : The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to all persons in the several States, equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property. That is to say, Congress shall have power by law to make all the laws in all the States affecting the protection of either life, liberty, or property, precisely similar; for the protection of life, liberty, and property, must be equally secured to all persons in all the States. And how shall this be effected, unless the laws are equal? And how shall they be made equal except by Congress? The laws of the several States in this Union are very dissimilar in many respects, and some may afford greater protec- tion to life, liberty, and property than others ; but Congress must examine and modify all these laws, so that they shall afford the same protec- tion in all the States that they do in any. The only way this could be accomplished, would be for Congress to legislate fully upon all subjects affecting life, liberty, and property, and in this way secure uniformity and equal pi-otection to all persons in the several States. When this was done, there would not be much left for the State Legislatures, for I apprehend that the great body of the laws of the several States as in fact of any government relate to the protec- tion of life, liberty, and property. Undoubtedly this had reference to some other subject. It undoubtedly had reference to pro- tecting the negro or something of that kind, but it does not say that they shall have the same rights and privileges in the several States as in any State, but it says throughout the United States. The laws affecting life, liberty, and property shall equally secure these end's. Congress must pass all laws affecting life, lib- erty, and property, and I would like to know what is left to the States after you pass all these laws ; and it must be done so as to secure these ends equally to all persons. We shall have no necessity for State Legislatures when that is done. But I hardly think when this is examined that anybody will favor it. We have got along so far so well that I hardly think we are willing to say that the laws of the States shall not continue to afford protection to all persons within their limits. I think the com- mittee had in view one object, but by their amendment would accomplish another. Is all action going to be postponed until this amendment is adopted by the States ? I do not 8 think it -will ever be adopted, and if adopted there will be great difficulty in making laws equal in Massachusetts and in South Carolina so as to protect life, liberty, and property in the same way in both. It seems to me that the grammatical, legal, and necessary construction of this proposed amendment can hardly have been intended by its framers. Mr. S. gave way for a motion to adjourn. Thursday, March 1, 1866. The Senate resumed the consideration of the res- olution relating to representation of southern States. Mr. STEWART continued : Mr. President : Before the meeting of Con- gress, various propositions were suggested in the public prints for amendments to the Con- stitution as guarantees for the future security of the country. It was feared that there would be an effort on the part of the late rebel- lious States to embarrass the Government by attempts to assume, in some form, obliga- tions incurred in support of the rebellion. I was one among the number who had some fears on this subject, and although most of the southern States had expressly repudiated the rebel debt, still I felt that it would not be un- reasonable to place that repudiation beyond recall, by a national compact, and it seemed to me that no one could complain of such com- pact byway of amendment to the Constitution, inasmuch as the justice of the i^rojjosition was manifest to all, and denied by none, the only objection being that it was a work already ac- complished, and no danger was to be appre- hended from that source. I still think that an amendment of this kind, properly worded, would be readily adopted by all the States, both North and South, and might prevent harm to the country. At all events, it would be a guar- antee of some value to loj^al men, and need not retard for a single day the work of reconstruc- tion, for with the present state of feeling the South would be quite as ready to adopt it as the North. It is but a declaration of a conceded proposition i:)erfectly in harmony with the spirit of the Constitution and the verdict of the war. But this is not a proposition under consid- eration. There was another question growing out of the abolition of slavery which changed the basis of representation in the South from the entire population, less two fifths of the slaves, to the whole population without any reduction whatever. The public mind was much exercised over this question, and the general verdict of the people, as manifested through the press, was that the basis of representation should be so changed as not to accord to the South increased representation as a reward for rebellion, and it was generally conceded that that could be accomplished by adopting male citizens of the United States over the age of twenty-one years, who are allowed to vote in their respective States, as the basis of repre- sentation, and the assessed value of property, both real and personal, as the basis of taxation. Both of these propositions are embodied in the resolution which I shall offer as a substitute for that reported by the committee: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to the number of male citizens of the United States in each State over twenty-ono years of age qualified by the laws thereof to choose members of the most numerous branch of its Legis- lature. And direct taxes shall be levied in each State according to the value of real and personal property situated therein not belonging to the State nor to the United States. These propositions appeared for a time tu meet with universal favor, for they aj^peared to be founded in justice and equality. It based the political power of the country upon the num- ber of voters, giving each an equal voice ; giving a voter in California the same representation here as one in Mississippi ; making an elector in Ohio equal to one in Kentucky. It said to the South, " If your negroes, women, and children do not vote they shall not be counted ; not be-, cause they are negroes, women, and children, but because they are not voters. ' ' It said to the North, "If3'Oudo not allow your aliens and women and children to vote they shall not be counted ; not because they are aliens, women, and children, but because they are not voters.' ' It left the control of the elective franchise where the Constitution of the fathers had placed it, within the jurisdiction of the several States, only limiting their representation in Congress to such male citizens over the age of twenty-one years in the several States as the States themselves would trust with the ballot. This, it was thought, would be a sufficient inducement to all the States to extend the right of suffrage to all who could safely exercise that right. It would not only secure to the negro a fair prospect of be- ing enfranchised when his advancement in civ- ilization shall have entitled him to that high prerogative, but would also allow that privi- lege to be conferred upon him gradually, as it has been done in some of the States of New England, whr-ro he now enjoys many of the privileges as well as all the rights of citizenship, and so fast as he is enfranchised in any State he is counted in the basis of its representation. This is the most favorable position for the ne- gro to occupy, for it avoids the necessary con- flict that must arise in forcing the emancipated slave, all unprepared for the conflict, upon a politicaLequality with his late master — a posi- tion which the Senator from Maine himself has told us no one will contend is desirable. This resolution accomplishes another object quite as important in my estimation as the ques- tion of rej^resentation itself, and that is, it holds out an inducement to the South to allow the northern emigrantto vote, and makes the prop- osition recently brought/orward in the Virginia Legislature to require five years' residence be- fore a Union soldier from the North can vote in the Old Dominion quite as detrimental to Virginia herself as to the American citizen to whom she denies the elective franchise. Here let me say that the idea suggested in the prop- osition to require five gears' residence to qual- ify an American citizen to vote in Virginia, is 9 the most unfriendly and disloyal manifestation since the fall of the rebellion, and its malice is only surpassed by its folly. Would not the fact that voters only are counted in the basis of rep- resentation, operating with other things, induce the South to abandon such madness ? It is said by the Senator from Maine that we arc aecustosaed to the idea that representa- tion should be based upon population, that it is a part of the genius of our institutions 5 but let me ask that Senator, if such be the case, why make an exception as in his proposition ; why make any change in the Constitution what- ever? Have we not become accustomed to the whole Constitution as it is, and if such an argument be soitnd, does it not prove too much? But what was the real reason why the propo- sition to make voters the basis of representa- tion was abandoned ? It was a gentleman from \ New England, I believe, who suggested that it would not operate fairly upon the old States from which the young men who have built up the West have emigrated, leaving a surplus of females, and a comparison was instituted be- tween Vermont and California, and upon this l^artial view, without any examination into the general effect of the amendment, the whole plan was abandoned and a system of indirec- tion adopted which I shall hereafter discuss more at length. Were the fears of New Eng- land well grounded ? Is it a fact that her non- voting population bearsa greater proportion to the whole population than that of the great States of the northwest? An examination of the census of 18(J0 shows the reverse to be true. For while the East has a greater proportion of females, the West has a greater proportion of minors, and strange as it may seem, that while the white males over twenty years of age in the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, Illi- nois, and Wisconsin constitute only one third of the whole population, or eleven in thirty- three, in the New England States the ratio of white males over twenty to the balance of the population is as eleven to twenty-nine — I do not pretend that my figures are exactly correct, as I was compelled to omit fractions, but are sufficiently so for the purposes of this argument. Tested by another rule, taking Mr. Coxklixg's table, prepared with great care, we find that representation based on white suffrage would give an increase of nine Representatives in the States east of the Alleghany mountains, namely, ^ one to Connecticut, two to Massachusetts, one to Maine, one to New Jersey, and four to New York, while the States west of the AUeghanies would gain only five. This, however, might be somewhat modified on account of the foreign males over twenty which we have no means Ijy the census of separating from the aggregate of white males over that age. But the changes occasioned by this element would certainly not be prejudicial to the East, the preponderance of foreigners being in the West, and the popu- lation of California, which has been held up as an example of the extreme injustice and ine- ,£uality of this proposition, is nearly fifty per cent, foreign. When actual voters are made the basis and not white males over twenty, by which we now only approximate the result, Vermont will not cry out against the unjust representation of California. Suppose California should be largely repre- sented for a few years until population should regulate itself; suppose she should have one or two Representatives more than Vermont, with one hundred and seventy-five thousand voters to eighty- seven thousand in Vermont; with a territory greater than all New Eng- land and the middle States combined ; with $50,000,000 a year exports, while Vermont has only $850,000; with $210,000,000 worth of property, while Vermont has only $179,000,000 ; with $1,200,000 worth of manufactures and productions, while those of Vermont are valued at only $437,000 ; and finally, paying into the national Treasury on account of internal rev- enue nearly ft)ur million dollars, while Vermont pays less than eight hundred thousand, and with the third port of entry in the United States. If, sir, I repeat, she should have one. or two more Representatives than Vermont, would a great wrong be committed? I take Vermont and California, for between these the compar- ison is usually instituted. Take the proposi- tion of the committee, and California has two Representatives and Vermont three, for Cali- fornia will never allow her Chinese population to vote, and they mvist be excluded from the basis of representation. You say they are not citizens. Why have they not become so? Be- cause they khow very well that they will not be allowed to vote in any event ; and consequently California is not much troubled with their ap- plications for citizenship. But let it be known that California cannot afford to exclude them from the right of suffrage, and the question will be at once forced upon her to decide whether she will allow Chinese to vote or lose her just representation in the Halls of Congress. The same question will be presented to Nevada and the other Pacific States in the next five years, and the Chinaman will become the negro of the Pacific. But it may be said by some, let him vote. I can only say to them, you do not know the Chinaman. They will reply that this is the argument of the South, that Senators from the North do not ]^now the negro. But is there no force in the argument even as to the negro, who is an American, generally a believer in the Christian religion ? And with how much more force can this argument he used with regard to the pagan Asiatic, speaking an un- known tongue, and being a stranger, and ever remaining an alien and a stranger, to our lan- guage and our institutions. The following is the proposition of the committee : Article — . Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within tlus Union according to their respective num- bers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed: J^i-ovided,Thii,t wlienever the elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color, all persons therein ofsuch race or color shall be excluded from the basis of representation. 10 What are the arguments in favor of this strange proposition? The only one that I have yet heard is, that it will force the South to universal suffrage or deprive her of an ac- knowledged right ; for the proposition asserts that population is the just basis of representa- tion, but that the late slave States shall be excluded from that liasis until they will extend suffrage to the blacks. But it may be said that this provision applies equally to the blacks of the North with those of the South. This is a mere subterfuge, for every one knows, so far as the practical question is concerned, that there are no negroes in the North, or not a sufficient number, to make any material dif- ference whether they are included or excluded. The non-voting poijulation of the North con- sists of aliens, women, and minors. The non- voting population of the South consists of ne- groes, women, and minors. The North will exclude on account of alienage, f^x, and age, and avoid the operation of the proviso ; while the South and the Pacific coast must either confer universal suffrage on negroes and Chi- namen, or lose their just representation. This will ever l)e a source of discontent, and it will be hard to explain to fair-minded men why an alien, and even an alien enemy, should be rep- resented in the North and a free negro unrep- resented in the South. But it is said that the South can avoid this inequality and injustice by enfranchising all the negroes — for mark, they must all be enfranchised, or none are counted — a measure which the chairman of the com- mittee who reported this resolution tells us is not desirable or proper. But how will this proposition be received by the people of the nineteen original free States which deny suffrage to the few comparatively intelligent negroes within their jurisdiction? When you tell them that you propose to punish the South for not extending universal suffrage to her emancipated slaves, can they with any propriety inflict this punishment by a constitu- tional amendment when they are guilty of the same offense with far less provocation ? What will fifteen original slave States, who are to be punished by tliis proposition, say when you tell them that you deprive them of their just representation because they refuse to do what every fair man must admit they cannot and ought not to do, to enfranchise the late slaves without the slightest preparation for the exer- cise of that important privilege? If I were compelled to choose between the proposition of the committee and the resolution offered by the Senator from Missouri to confer universal suffrage at once, I should accept the latter, because it \js bold and affirmative, and has every reason in its favor that can be offered in support of the resolution of the committee without the conclusive argument of indirec- tion to disgrace it in the eyes of bold, honest men. Show me where or when the American people ever indorsed an indirect or equivocal proposition. The politician may waver and shrink from responsibility, but the peojile are honest and fearless, and whenever they are pre- pared to amend the Constitution, they will amend it in plain and direct terms for plain and direct reasons, and if it be true that no amendment to avoid this evil which is supposed to exist can be adopted in plain terms with the consent of the American people, it is some evidence that no great necessity exists, and is quite conclusive evidence that no amendment can be carried, for Congress cannot cheat the American people. I do believe that if we had not become wise above our day and generation, but had adopted the plain and simple proposition of voters as a basis of representation, that we could have been successful. But the proposition under consid- eration is heartily approved by none, and must fail sooner or later. It is illogical on its face, and contains within itself its own 1)est refuta- tion and condemnation. " Better endure the ills we have," than to fall into this labyrinth of confusion worse confounded. Suppose you pass this resolution, and it should become a part of the Constitution, what may be the consequences ? You have dejiarted from the original compromises of the Constitution ; yoii have deprived the »South of just representation for not doing a thing which you confess she ought not to do ; you have established the pre- cedent that whole sections may be punished by constitutional amendments ; you have com- menced a crusade upon the compromises of the Constitution, abandoning principle, and con- fessing that your justification rests upon expe- diency alone. Where shall this crusade end? May not the time come when the giant States of the Mississipi^i valley, now free from the Gulf to the Lakes, soon to teem with a hundred mil- lion inhalutants, shall inquire b}' what warrant of authority New England holds twelve places in this Senate Chaml)er? Will New England then reply, by equality of right, or, by the com- promises of the Constitution? Ifby the former, may not these mighty States demand a count, and if by the latter, may not this proposition be brought up in judgment against her as hav- ing repudiated those compromises? May not Kentucky some day say to Rhode Island, was it just for j'ou, in the day of your power, to de- prive me of representation, for revenge? May not Virginia one day complain of Connecticut, and may she not, by the cooperation of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other great States, have the power to make that complaint effectual? Beware how you kick a sleeping lion. The South is now free ; the shackles of bondage have fallen from the slave, and idleness must depart from the homes of the whites. Why should not the richest half of the na- tional domain some day become the most pop- ulous andijowerful? I know to-day the South looks broken and. destroyed, prostrate, misera- ble, weak, and poor, but this war has done far more for the South than it has for the North. It has broken up an institution tluit was de- stroying the white man and impoverishing the countr}^, and has opened the fertile fields of that vast region for free labor ; and if this resolution 11 passes, the sons of New England and the young men now residing in the North will be heard joining their voices with the natives of the South Sroclaiming against the injustice which we have one to their adopted country. We can punish men, we can besiege and overrun a country, but an attempt to punish rich land, which is to be inhabited by New England Yankees like our- selves, is a doubtful exercise of power. But this ijrojjosition comes from the commit- tee on reconstruction, and for that reason, and that reason alone, we arc to presume thatithas something to do with that subj«>ct. How or in what way it will harmonize existing difficulties or give any additional security to the North, I am unable to comprehend. Its manifest injus- tice will inspire nothing but heart-burnings and discontent, and excite new enmities not only against the Government but against the negro, who will be regarded as the cause of a great calamity and a grievance to be removed from the land, and some mode will be devised where- by to evade the law by placing the distinction on some other ground besides race or color. Is the question of representation so impor- tant after all as has been supposed? It is said that the two fifths of the slaves who were not counted will give the original fifteen slave States eighteen more Representatives. But this calculation is based upon the hypothesis that the loss and mortality in the North have been equal in proportion to that in the South, and that there has been no greater proportional increase in the North than in the South during the past five years. The fact is, there can be no new apportionment of Re^jresentatives until the new census is taken ; and does any one doubt thai the loss of the South in actual deaths and emigration, added to the fallui-e of increase, will more than equal the two fifths of the slaves that will Ije added to the basis of representation by their emancipation? Be- side all this, the progress of the North has not been materially retarded by the war. By the census of 1860 the fifteen slave States, reject- ing the two fifths of the slave population, had eighty-five Representatives in Congress, and the nineteen free States one hundred and fifty- six. It is safe to say that a census to-day, based upon the Constitution as it now is, would not increase the representation of the original slave States, but it is certain it would decrease it. But there is another fact which Is very impor- ^ tant in this connection. We have gained over to freedom someof those original slave States. Missouri to-day, with nine Representatives, is quite as radical as Massachusetts ; and Mary- land is only one step behind Missouri, so that we may take fourteen frorn the eighty-five and add it to the one hundred and fifty-six : and we hope to be able before long to add to this list Union men from Tennessee, and other south- ern States ; and we Intend to exclude from both Halls of Congress all but loyal men. Can we not in this way, with our present majority, keep the rebels from taking charge of this Government, for the present session of Con- gress, and for the next, and until we either depart from principle or disobey the will of our constituents and are hurled from power? There is no danger of rebels obtaining the ascendency unless we ourselves take positions which cannot be sustained before the country. But although I do not regard the da:nger of no amendment equal to the danger of adopting the illogical proposition of the committee, still I think my substitute, making voters the basis, better than no amendment, and if the idea had not been abandoned witliout investigation it would have 25assed both Houses and gone to the country long before this. It is the only true principle, if a change is to be made, upon which representation can be based. We must either take population or votes. If we take population, no amendment is necessary. A coercive proviso in favor of the negro will be a coercive proviso • against the proposition. But what objection is there to the principle of adopting voters as the basis of represen- tation? It is the voters, after all, who are the ultimate source of all political power. They decide all political questions by their votes. Their voice is assumed to be the voice of the people, and why should one elector have a greater voice than another, on account of his surroundings? Why should the young men of the East, who are surrounded by mothers and sisters anxious for their emigration to the undeveloped West have a greater voice in the councils of the nation than their more enter- prising brothers, surrounded by the most prod- igal and bounteous gifts of nature, and burning with a laudable desire for such representation and legislation as shall lead to the development of the homes of their adoption ? Do not the mighty resources of the West require more rep- resentation, more care, more ability in the open- ing of new channels of trade and new avenues of wealth than Is required in following the grooves of legislation in which the eastern States have so harmoniously moved from the organization of the Government until now? But the objections on the ground of there being a greater non-voting population in the East, than the West have been shown to be without foundation, and the principle that a voter in the North is equal to a voter in the South, I am willing to advocate anywhere as an independent, abstract proposition — independ- ent of negro or any other suifrage ; but I am not willing to maintain a proposition which assumes that population is the only just basis, and denies its universal application to coerce negro suf- frage, or to accomplish any other object. 1 must be permitted to digress for a moment to examine the position of the Senator from Massachusetts; for it so happens that we agree in our ojipositlon to this resolution. He opposes it because he contends that the Constitution has already conferred power to extend suifrage to the negro, and for other reasons. I oppose it because I believe it is unjust, and for other reasons. But I do not wish to be understood as agreeing with him in his principal reason of 12 opposition ; for if there is anything clear to my mind, it is that the question of suffrage is ex- clusively within State jurisdiction under the Constitution as it now stands. It is contended that the provision in the Constitution that the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government denies to the State the power to exclude the negro from the elective franchise. A strange construction, indeed! When this Constitution was made, a majority of the States were not only excluding the negro from voting, but ab- solutely treating him as a chattel, and continued so to do during all the brightest days of the B^epublic. I tancy that it would have taken something more than the eloquence of the Senator from Massachusetts to have convinced the Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States that a majority of its mem- bers, and a majority of the States there repre- sented for the purpc^se of forming a more per- fect Union, were not republican in form, but that it was reserved for a son of Massachusetts tO! ascertain that the framers of the Consti- tution intended and made it the duty of the United States to guaranty to Virginia and tke other slave States a different form of govern- ment from that which existed, until a wicked conspiracy sought to destroy the Union of the States and the free government of the fathers. But the honorable Senator inquires, wherein does the Constitution,guaranty to the States the right to regulate the elective franchise? A new doctrine ! Where, I ask, in that instrument have the States conferred that power upon the United S.tates? The power existed in the States before the formation of the Constitution ; and the Constitution provides that — " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the peo- ple." But in this case we have something more than the mere fact that the power to regulate the question of suffrage was not conferred by the States upon the United States, and was there- fore reserved ; for we have the express recog- nition and acknowledgment of the right of the States to determine the qualification of electors or voters in the second section of the first arti- cle of the Constitution, wherein it is provided that the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors (or voters) of the most numerous branch of the State Legis- lature. These plain provisions of the Constitu- tion have been sanctioned by uniform practice for over three quarters of a century, and vindi- cated, sustained, and expounded by every patriot and statesman of the present and former gener- ations until now, and clearly and strongly main- tained by the great constitutional expounder, and the predecessor of the Senator from Mas- sachusetts through a long life of service and usefulness, but never in more marked or unmis- takable language than in his reply to Hayne : "To