CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



153 



chise, or of any other rights, on account of color or 



I II.TM.US .sliul I bo equal before the law, 

 ire -if tin- State by a solemn imblic 

 ilio assent of tin 1 Si air to this tunda- 

 .1 ciiiiiliiinii, and shall transmit to the Pn'sidi-nt 

 ted M.nr> an authentic copy of such as- 

 iver the same shall be adopted, upon the 

 i|it \vhrivof, he shall, by proclamation, 

 nice tin' l'ai-, whfivupim, without any furthtT 

 mi (In- |iart of Congress, this joint reso- 

 lution shall taki: i-ll'fi-t. 



Now. sir, there \viis an endeavor to give the 



to the colored people to vote in the State 



nnessee, and to muke that a condition on 



which she should be restored to her relations 



to tho Union. I desire the attention of Sena- 



. hi) may not recollect how this important 



ition was voted upon, to the names of 



those who voted for and against it. I trust 



that gentlemen are not about to change their 



front now. There is nothing in my judgment 



which ought to lead to any such change, for 



this is a much stronger case in the direction I 



argue it, than the one that was up here last 



year. The yeas and nays were taken on this 



proposition, and resulted yeas 4, nays 34; as 



follows : 



Those who voted in the affirmative are, Messrs. 

 Brown, Pomeroy, Sumner, and Wade 4. 



" I voted for it myself, last year. I voted 

 for just such an amendment as you have got 

 here." 



Mr. Sumner: "I hope you will vote for it 

 always." 



Mr. Wade: "Well, sir, that would be giving 

 great weight to my judgment to overrule 

 thirty-four Senators by it. But let us now see 

 what the weight of authority was against me on 

 that occasion. 



Those who voted in the negative are, Messrs. An- 

 thony, Buckalew, Chandler, Clark, Cowan, Cres- 

 well, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Foster, 

 Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, 

 Howe, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lane, Morgan, Merrill, 

 Nesmith, Norton, Poland, Ramsey, Riddle, Sherman, 

 Sprague, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams, 

 and Wilson 34. 



"There you had almost the whole Senate 

 against such a qualification to the admission of 

 the State of Tennessee, a rebel State that came 

 here, not complying even with the requisitions 

 of your constitutional amendment. This Ter- 

 ritory has not adopted, but I pledge my word 

 ami my honor that she stands ready, just as 

 soon as you shall admit her into this Union, 

 the very next day, if her Legislature is in ses- 

 sion, to adopt your constitutional amendment. 

 There is no doubt about it." 



Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, said : " The Sena- 

 tor from Missouri proposes, as an amendment to 

 the bill for the admission of Nebraska, a funda- 

 mental condition to be accepted by the people 

 of Nebraska, which shall forever prevent the 

 State of Nebraska from disfranchising any per- 

 son on account of color, and shall secure that 

 all shall bo permitted to exercise the elective 

 franchise. And he cites as a precedent the case 

 of Missouri. Now, Mr. President, in my judg- 



111. nt, mid with all due respect to rny honorable 

 friend, that case is no precedent at all, and for 

 this simple reason : the constitution "!' Missouri 

 when it asked adiui-i<,n contained a clause di- 

 rectly in hostility to the Constitution of the 

 I'uited States, and therefore the Congress of 

 the United States insisted that that dau-> in the 

 constitution of the State of Missouri which was 

 in hostility to the Constitution of tho United 

 States should be forever declared null and void 

 and the State should never undertake to en- 

 force it. But, sir, what he now proposes to 

 attach to tho bill for the admission of Nebraska 

 is a very different thing. He does not propose 

 to strike from the constitution of Nebraska a 

 section which is in hostility to the Constitu- 

 tion of the United States. It is a section which 

 tho Constitution of the United States expressly 

 permits. That is tho difference. What Con- 

 gress forbade to Missouri was something in vio- 

 lation of the Constitution of the United States. 

 What, lie seeks to forbid to Nebraska is that 

 which the Constitution of the United States ex- 

 pressly permits, because the Constitution of the 

 United States as it is certainly allows the sev- 

 eral States to define the qualification of electors, 

 and all of the States in the exercise of that 

 power have imposed qualifications, sometimes 

 of property and sometimes of race and color. 



" And, Mr. President, not only is the propo- 

 sition of my friend from Missouri to attach a 

 fundamental condition which is in hostility to 

 the Constitution of the United States as it is, 

 but is in hostility, also, to the Constitution of 

 the United States as it is proposed to be amend- 

 ed by the very amendment which is now pend- 

 ing before the Legislatures of the several States. 

 This constitutional amendment, which was sub- 

 mitted by Congress last summer, in the second 

 section in express words implies this power in 

 the several States, because the second section 

 expressly says : 



When the right to vote at any election for the 

 choice of electors for President and Vice-President of 

 the United States, Representatives in Congress, the 

 executive and judicial officers of a State, or the mem- 

 bers of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of 

 the male inhabitants of such State being twenty-one 

 years of age and a citizen of the- United States, or in 

 any way abridged except for participation in rebel- 

 lion or other crime 



then the basis of representation shall be 

 changed. That second section of the constitu- 

 tional amendment, which was submitted by Con- 

 gress last summer, which is now pending before 

 the States, and which, for aught we now know, 

 may be adopted by a sufficient number of States 

 to make it a part of the Constitution of the 

 United States, gives to each State tho very 

 power which this amendment to this bill denies. 

 Can we do it ? Can we do it under the Con- 

 stitution as it is ? When the Constitution as it 

 is gives to each State the power to define the 

 qualification of its electors, can we, the Congresa 

 of the United States, set np some fundamental 

 article which shall override tho Constitution ? 

 Can we enter into a compact with one of the 



