CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



105 



and >1 '"a poors in this Chamber, and 



,u;ils in the sincerity with which they 

 In ild the principles they profess." 



Mr. SUIIIIHT: "Mr. President, you have 



: th.- s, naior from New York, and there 



s. The Senate has heard hitn. Was there 



niii^ In my remarks to-day to justify hi* 



assault? Is ho not a volunteer, as ho always 



. olunteer, in assaulting me? Sir, I shall 



]. >i repel his assault. My course in this Cham- 



i'.T ueods no defence against him. There must 



Wronger arm than his to call me to any 



effort 



" The simple question is a practical one. 

 I low shall we most serve our country? The 

 Senator from Now York says in one way. 

 Humbly, sir, I say in another way. I am in 

 favor of the bill which he is now pressing up- 

 on the Senate. It shall have my vote as thus 

 far it has had my vote ; but I also am in favor 

 of another proposition that I wish to engraft 

 upon that bill. Do I err? How? Why? Do 

 I ask too much? What I ask I know has ex- 

 citod debate to-day ; but has not every similar 

 proposition, when brought forward and pressed 

 to a vote, excited debate ? Let the debate go 

 forward and I shall accept the result. Mean- 

 while I shall not cease to strive for these two 

 tfreat objects: one the original purpose of the 

 bill, to impose safeguards upon naturalization, 

 the other I have now moved, to bring our natu- 

 ralization law in harmony with the Declara- 

 tion of Independence and the Constitution of 

 the United States. 



"Is not that a worthy object? Do I deserve 

 censure, rebuke, assault, because I make this 

 endeavor? I do it simply and sincerely, re- 

 garding it as my solemn duty. I should fail 

 as a Senator if I did any thing less. Nor have 

 I in any respect impeached any Senator who 

 differs from me. I have made no allusion 

 to the course of the Senator from New York 

 except to say that his proposition now was to 

 abandon the great principle of American insti- 

 tutions." 



Mr. Conkling : " To sacrifice." 



Mr. Sumner : " ' Sacrifice ; ' that is the word 

 I nsed, and it is the true word to sacrifice a 

 great principle. There it is emblazoned in the 

 Declaration of Independence 1 , and you are 

 called now to drag it down. There it is, a 

 mighty light to our political system, and you 

 are called to blot it out ; and this is on the 4th 

 day of July ! Sir, I will say nothing more now." 



The question being taken, resulted as fol- 

 lows: 



YEAS Messrs. Bayard, Boreman, Chandler, Conk- 

 ling, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Drake, Edmunds, Ham- 

 ilton of Maryland, Ilaralin, Harlan, McCreery, Mor- 

 ton, Nve, Eamsey, Saulsbury. Scott. StewartJStock- 

 ton, 'fhurman. Tipton, Vickers, Warner, Willey, 

 Williams, and Wilson 27. 



NAYS Messrs. Brownlow, Fenton, Harris, Kel- 

 l"_ r -r, McDonald, Merrill of Maine, Pomeroy, Bevels, 

 Robertson, Boss, Spencer, Sprague, Sumner, and 

 Trumbull 14. 



ABSENT Messrs. Abbott, Ames, Anthony, Buck- 

 ingham, Cameron, Carpenter, Casserly, Cattell, Cole, 



Ferry, Flanagan, Fowler, Gilbert, Hamilton of Tcxa. 

 Howard, Howe, Howell, Johnston, Lewi*, Morrill of 

 Vermont, Norton, Oiborn, Patterson, Pool, Pratt, 

 Bioe, -Sawyer, Schurz, Sherman, Thayer, and YaU; 

 81. 



So the motion to reconsider was agreed to. 



The President pro Umpore : " The question 

 now recurs upon the amendment of the Sena- 

 tor from Massachusetts." 



Mr. Morton, of Indiana, said : " The Sena- 

 tor (Mr. Sumner) has talked a great deal about 

 the Declaration of Independence, and I have 

 been trying to make the application of it ; and 

 he will facilitate my effort by answering a 

 question. It is this : whether he places the 

 right of a Chinaman, for example, to become 

 naturalized, to become a citizen of the United 

 States, upon the same natural and moral level 

 that he does a colored man to be clothed with 

 political rights, to have the right of suffrage, 

 and to have political equality conferred upon 

 him? In other words, has the Chinaman a 

 natural and moral right to become a citizen of 

 the United States?" 



Mr. Sumner: "I answer that he has not; 

 but I answer with equal confidence that, if the 

 United States undertakes to legislate on nat- 

 uralization, it is bound by the Constitution of 

 the United States, interpreted by the Declara- 

 tion of Independence, to make no distinction 

 of color. I do not say that we are bound to 

 admit everybody to our naturalization ; but I 

 do say, and I challenge question, criticism, and 

 reply, that, if we undertake to legislate on the 

 subject, we can make no distinction of race or 

 color." 



Mr. Morton : " One question further. The 

 Senator admits now that the Chinaman has no 

 natural or moral right to demand citizenship. 

 Therefore, we may refuse it without violating 

 any right that he has. I call the Senator's at- 

 tention to the fact that the declaration of right 

 made in the Declaration of Independence was 

 of a natural and God-given right to every man, 

 the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 

 happiness, given by God, and which no earthly 

 government had the right to take away from 

 him. Now, according to the Senator's ad- 

 mission, and with the character of the Dec- 

 laration of Independence, why quote that per- 

 petually on this subject ? I submit to the Sena- 

 tor that it has no application. I submit that 

 the question as to whether we will naturalize 

 the Chinaman is a question of policy and ex- 

 pediency, and not a question of natural right, 

 and therefore is not to be discussed upon the 

 Declaration of Independence. Nobody, I pre- 

 sume, objects to conferring the right of nat- 

 uralization upon men of African descent or of 

 African blood ; but there is a feeling of dread 

 in this country with regard to what might be 

 considered as an inundation or an avalanche 

 of the vast population of China. Therefore, 

 the question, as to whether we shall invite 

 Chinamen here by naturalizing them, is not a 

 question of natural right to bo discussed from 



