CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



131 



knowledge on the part of the people who elect- 

 ed them that they would be called upon to 

 consider so grave a proposition as the annul- 

 ling of their own State constitutions on the 

 question of suffrage." 



The motion of Mr. Boutwell to reconsider 

 was agreed to, when a motion was made to re- 

 commit the joint resolution to the Judiciary 

 Committee. This motion was afterward with- 

 drawn, and the joint resolution came before 

 the House as follows : 



Be. it resolved, oy the Senate and House^ of Represent- 

 atives of the United States of America in Congress as- 

 sembled (two-thirds of both Houses concurring), That 

 the following article be proposed to the Legislatures 

 of the several States as an amendment to the Consti- 

 tution of the United States, which, when ratified by 

 three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be held as 

 part of said Constitution, namely : 



AETICLE . Sec, 1. The right of any citizen of the 

 United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged 

 by the United States or any State by reason of the 

 race, color, or previous condition of slavery of any 

 citizen or class of citizens of the United States. 



Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce, 

 by proper legislation, the provisions of this article. 



Mr. Boutwell: "I move to amend section 

 one by striking out the word ' the ' before 

 'race.'" 



The amendment was agreed to. 



Mr. Boutwell then said: "Mr. Speaker, I 

 am of opinion, upon the whole, that the 

 amendment, as it came from the committee, 

 which says that 'the right of any citizen of 

 the United States to vote shall not be denied 

 or abridged,' is a comprehensive and explicit 

 declaration. I thought so when it was drawn, 

 and on the whole I think it best for the amend- 

 ment that I should not undertake to incorpo- 

 rate into it the language used by the gentle- 

 man from Ohio (Mr. Shellabarger) ; but, in or- 

 der that the sense of the House may be tested 

 upon the question not that I am myself of 

 the opinion that it will add any thing substan- 

 tial to the value of the amendment I will 

 propose to add to section one the words l nor 

 shall educational attainments or the possession 

 or ownership of property ever be made a test 

 of the right of any citizen to vote,' and on 

 that amendment I will ask the previous ques- 

 tion." 



Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, said: "It must oc- 

 cur to the gentleman from Massachusetts, on a 

 moment's reflection, that the designation of 

 property and educational qualifications recog- 

 nizes the right in every State of establishing 

 a religious test ; and I ask the gentleman why 

 he will insist on the previous question upon a 

 proposition which, as it stands by a well- 

 known rule of construction, commits this House 

 to the monstrous proposition that every State 

 in the Union may establish a religious test as 

 a qualification of the elective franchise. The 

 exceptions made by the gentlemen are, I be- 

 lieve, a property qualification and an educa- 

 tional qualification, and the result is, in the 

 words of one of the foremost jurists of Amer- 

 ica, that every other thing not included in this 



exception may be made a test, and that is the 

 reason I object to it." 



Mr. Eldridge : " I ask the gentleman if, in 

 the view he has taken of the proposed amend- 

 ment to the Constitution, there may not be 

 established by the States any and every other 

 test but the two only that are excepted ? " 



Mr. Bingham : " That is exactly what I have 

 said touching the proposition of the gentleman 

 from Massachusetts (Mr. Boutwell)." 



Mr. Eldridge: "Not only a religious test, 

 but every test that the mind of man can con- 

 ceive, that does not come under the head of 

 property or of education ? " 



Mr. Bingham : " Certainly." 



Mr. Maynard, of Tennessee: "I would ask 

 the gentleman if his objection will not apply 

 equally to every form of amendment we may 

 adopt, unless we undertake to declare affirma- 

 tively what shall be the qualifications of a 

 voter ? This proposed amendment speaks only 

 negatively when it speaks of the qualifications 

 of a voter, stating that certain matters shall 

 not be a test against a voter, leaving every 

 thing else open." 



Mr. Bingham: "I am glad to have an op- 

 portunity to answer the question of the gen- 

 tleman from Tennessee (Mr. Maynard). If 

 there were nothing at all here except the first 

 section, I might see a great deal of weight in 

 the gentleman's suggestion. But there hap- 

 pens to be added to that a second section, 

 giving to Congress the express power to en- 

 force the prohibition. The result of the whole 

 matter is, that, if we amend this first section, as 

 suggested by my honorable colleague as well 

 as by myself, by the second section Congress is 

 invested with express authority to enforce the 

 limitation." 



Mr. Jenckes, of Ehode Island, said: "Does 

 the gentleman understand that this second 

 section gives to Congress the power to pre- 

 scribe affirmatively the qualifications of elec- 

 tors in these elections ; or does it simply give 

 the power to enforce the prohibition upon the 

 States ; in other words, can that power be ex- 

 ercised by Congress so as to secure uniformity 

 of qualification of electors in all the States of 

 the Union?" 



Mr. Bingham: "I answer the gentleman 

 that I have not the least doubt on the ques- 

 tion as a question of law. There are other 

 negative provisions in the Constitution of the 

 United States ; for example, the express nega- 

 tive provision that 'no State shall pass any 

 law impairing the obligation of contracts.' By 

 virtue of your judiciary act, as it has been in 

 force from the foundation of the Government 

 to this day, that limitation upon the power of 

 the States is uniform, and, whenever or wher- 

 ever any State has undertaken by legislative 

 enactment, or by constitutional provision, if 

 you please I care not which to impair the 

 obligation of contracts, that wrong has, by the 

 operation of your law, been righted ; so that 

 the provision of the Constitution has operated 



