CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



167 



but I am satisfied we ought never in any case 

 to pass so general and sweeping a provision as 

 this. I hope we may have a vote upon the 

 subject, and I shall be content with whatever 

 may be the judgment of the Senate." 



Mr. Sumner : " The section proposed to be 

 stricken out has one single object: it is to 

 bring the legislation of this country and its 

 laws in all respects into complete harmony 

 with the Constitution of the United States. 

 There is no word of color in that text. How 

 can you introduce a word of color in any legis- 

 lation or law under the Constitution of the 

 United States ? 



"The Senator from Ohio (Mr. Sherman) 

 asks me to indicate the particular instances 

 which may need this remedy. Sir, there is no 

 occasion to indicate instances. If the word is 

 introduced into any law or ordinance, whether 

 of the nation or of a State, it is contrary to 

 the spirit of the national Constitution ; it 

 ought to be eliminated ; and the object of this 

 section is to do that very work." 



Mr. Cole, of California, said: "Mr. Presi- 

 dent, the amendment proposed by the Senator 

 from Massachusetts has reference to civil 

 rights, reference to benefits to be conferred 

 upon the colored people of this country, which 

 may be classified as the common rights of citi- 

 zens, and was not intended, as I believe, to 

 comprehend political rights. 



" It is stated, and very truly, that, if the sec- 

 tion which the Senator from Ohio moves to 

 strike out be adopted, it will change our 

 naturalization laws in a most essential particu- 

 lar. It will open the door for naturalization 

 to all classes of people in the world. Inhabi- 

 tants from the centre of Africa, from the South 

 Sea islands, from Asia, and all parts of the 

 world, could come in here under that, and, 

 whether assimilating to our institutions or not, 

 would become citizens of the United States, on 

 the same footing with those who originated in 

 Europe and portions of the Continent of 

 America, who may be presumed to have some 

 sympathy with our institutions, and who are 

 similar to us in their origin." 



Mr. Ferry, of Connecticut, aaid: "Mr. 

 President, as I remarked yesterday, I shall 

 vote against this as against other amendments. 

 But with regard to this one in particular I 

 have a special objection, for the amendment 

 which the Senator from Ohio offers is placed 

 before the Senate upon the one specific ground 

 that, if the section which he moves to strike 

 out remain in the bill, our naturalization laws 

 will be extended so as to embrace the Chinese 

 within the scope of their operations. I do 

 not believe that the present discriminations 

 in the naturalization laws are wise or just. I 

 believe that the tendency of those discrimi- 

 nations is to exclude a most valuable immi- 

 gration into this country. I believe that the 

 one great necessity throughout the central 

 regions of the West and along the Pacific- 

 coast is the advent of labor for the purpose of 



developing the resources and constructing the 

 vast internal improvements of that region, and 

 I think that any act of the Senate of the United 

 States, which must inevitably be construed as 

 in hostility to the immigration of such labor, 

 is hostile to the best interests of the country. 



" Now, placed, as this amendment of the 

 Senator from Ohio is, upon this sole ground, 

 so far as the argument hitherto has gone, that 

 the section as it is will have the operation of 

 extending the naturalization laws, so as to em- 

 brace the Chinese within their scope, I cannot 

 consent to the amendment without thereby 

 consenting to an expression of opinion upon 

 the part of the Senate which I believe would 

 be unwise and unjust. And I must confess 

 my surprise that Senators, who have urged 

 and are urging the amendment of the Senator 

 from Massachusetts upon the Senate on the 

 broad ground of human rights alone, should 

 consent to abandon this section which in its 

 scope more widely reaches and affects human 

 rights than all the rest of the amendment to- 

 gether." 



The question being taken,resulted as follows : 



YEAS Messrs. Blair, Boreman, Brownlow, Cole, 

 Corbett, Davis of West Virginia, Flanagan, Freling- 

 huysen, Goldtbwaite, Hill, Hitchcock, Johnston, 

 Kelly, Norwood, !Nye, Pool, Saulsbury, Sawyer, 

 Scott, Sherman, Stevenson, Stockton, Thurman, Tip- 

 ton, and Vickers 25. 



NATS Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Caldwell, Cam- 

 eron, Carpenter, Chandler, Clayton, Conkling, Cra- 

 gin, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Ferry of Michi- 

 gan, Gilbert, Hamilton of Texas, Hamlin, Harlan, 

 Kellogg, Logan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Ver- 

 mont, Morton, Patterson, Pomeroy, Kamsey, Rice, 

 Robertson, Schurz, Spencer, Sumner, Trumbull, 

 West, Wilson, Windom, and Wright 32. 



ABSENT Messrs. Alcorn, Bayard, Buckingham, 

 Casserly, Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, Edmunds, 

 Hamilton of Maryland, Howe, Lewis, Osborn, Pratt, 

 Sprague, and Stewart 14. 



So the motion to strike out was not agreed to. 



The Vice-President : "The question is on 

 agreeing to the amendment of the Senator 

 from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner)." 



Mr. Frelinghuysen : "I move to strike out 

 on the eleventh and twelfth lines of the first 

 section the words 'of church organizations,' 

 and in the fourteenth line the word ' churches.' 

 I have already given my reasons why I think 

 this amendment should be made." 



Mr. Sumner : " Mr. President, I do not de- 

 sire to protract debate on this question. I 

 have already expressed myself fully upon it. 

 To my mind, it is important to the unity of 

 this measure that the prohibition should be as 

 applicable to churches as to schools and insti- 

 tutions of benevolece. I do not feel the ar- 

 gument of my friend from New Jersey, which 

 he presented so persuasively the other day. 

 To my mind this is simply a proposition to ap- 

 ply to an incorporated association the great 

 principles of our Government, and it does not 

 in any respect interfere with religion, or tend 

 in the least in that way. So it seems to me ; 

 and, having that conviction, I cannot myself 



