CONGRESS, U. rf. 



237 



William GK Steele, Stiles, Strouse, Stuart, Thomas, 

 Tracv, Wadsworth, Ward, Webster, Whaley, 

 Wheeler, Chilton A. White, and Joseph W. White 

 47. 



In the Senate, on the 31st of March, the House 

 Dill of the usual form to provide a temporary 

 government for Montana was considered in 

 Committee of the AVhole, \vhen Mr. Wilkinson 

 proposed as an amendment to strike out the 

 words u white male inhabitant, " and to insert 

 " male citizen of the United States, and those 

 who have declared their intention to become 

 such." 



The amendment was agreed to, and also 

 other amendments. When the bill was reported 

 to the Senate, the amendments ordered to be 

 engrossed, and the bill read a third time, Mr. 

 Saulsbury, of Delaware, called for the Yeas and 

 Xays, saving : u My object in asking for the yeas 

 and nays is simply on account of the amend- 

 ment which has been adopted to this bill. As 

 I understand it, the amendment which has been 

 adopted, if, as is contended by those who now 

 administer the affairs of this Government, a 

 negro is a citizen of the United States, gives 

 the privilege to every 'negro in the land who 

 shall be in this Territory for the period of 

 thirty days, not only to vote but to be eligible 

 to any office in that Territory ; and it may be, 

 if the people shall be so unwise as to do it, that 

 a negro may be elected to the office of legisla- 

 tor of the Territory, or Delegate in Congress. 

 Being opposed to the whole system of giving 

 to this subordinate race any such privileges, I, 

 for this reason, shall record my vote against the 

 passage of this bill." 



Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, suggested as fol- 

 lows : " I was about to say, in order to explain 

 my reason for asking for the reading of the 

 amendment, that if the object of the Senator 

 from Minnesota (Mr. Wilkinson) is to put it be- 

 yond all doubt that Africans in the Territory 

 shall be permitted to exert all the political 

 rights that under the bill will be exercised by 

 white men, he had better say ' all black men,' 

 instead of saying 'all citizens,' because the 

 Supreme Court of the United States has de- 

 cided, and that question was directly before the 

 court in the Dred Scott case, that a person of 

 African descent is not a citizen of the United 

 States. The objection to the authority of that 

 decision did not apply at all to that particular 

 question ; it was to the other question which a 

 majority of the court decided as to the uncon- 

 stitutionality of the Missouri restrict' ou. The 

 opinion of a large p a-t of the public, not onlj 

 confined to what may be called laymen, but in- 

 cluding a great, many professional men, was 

 that, so far as that question was concerned, the 

 decision of the court was extra-judicial ; but 

 as far as related to the other question, the 

 capacity of the African to sue in the courts of 

 the United States, there was no doubt in the 

 mind of any body that the decision, until it 

 shall be reversed by the court itself, is conclu- 

 sive, and conclusive upon ' the question that a 



person of African descent is not a citizen of 

 the United States within the meaning of the 

 Constitution." 



Mr. Wilkinson, of Minnesota, in reply said: 

 "I am willing that it shall stand as it is, and 

 let the decision of the Supreme Court be what- 

 ever it may. I simply wish to strike out the 

 qualifying term there, and let the results take 

 care of themselves. I neither want ' white' 

 nor ' black ' put into this bill." 



Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, followed, say- 

 ing: "I take it that each branch of the Gov- 

 ernment can interpret the Constitution for it- 

 self. I think that Congress is as good an 

 authority in its interpretation as the Supreme 

 Court, and I hope that Congress, in its legisla- 

 tion, will proceed absolutely without any re- 

 spect to a decision which has already disgraced 

 the country, and which ought to be expelled 

 from its jurisprudence." 



Mr. Johnson replied : " Mr. President, if the 

 opinion of the Senator from Massachusetts was 

 conclusive upon all such questions, guided and 

 controlled the public mind, it might be con- 

 sidered now as settled that the decision of the 

 Supreme Court in that case was a disgrace. 

 But I have yet to be advised that the honor- 

 able member, either by nature or by education, 

 has attained so much intellectual celebrity, or 

 possesses such transcendent mental ability as 

 to be able to pronounce ex cathedra against a 

 decision pronounced by the Supreme Court of 

 the United States. There are many men, tho 

 equals of the honorable Senator, to say tho 

 least, intellectually, who think that that de- 

 cision was any thing but an outrage. 



" The suit was instituted by Dred Scott, who 

 was of African descent, in the courts of the 

 United States. The master against whom the 

 application for his freedom was instituted, 

 pleaded that because he was an African he 

 was not a citizen ; and as the act of 1789, con- 

 stituting the circuit courts of the United States, 

 limited the jurisdiction of that court in cases 

 of that description to controversies between 

 citizens of different States (following in that 

 respect the language of the Constitution), he 

 maintained that upon that ground irrespective 

 of the question whether he was free or not, by 

 having been carried into the State of Illinois 

 where slavery did not exist, or having been 

 carried north of the Missouri compromise line, 

 where slavery was prohibited the suit itself 

 must be dismissed. The Supreme Court de- 

 cided contrary to the opinion of the court 

 below, who ruled against the objection thaf 

 the objection was well taken; and of course 

 they decided that any judgment pronounced in 

 that case by the court below, whatever may 

 have been the judgment, or any judgment which 

 the Supreme Court should have pronounced in 

 that case, would be of no avail if the court had 

 no jurisdiction over the parties to the contro 

 versy. 



" The Chief Justice in giving the opinion of 

 the court, however, and speaking '-n that par- 



