the lands constituting the Fort Collins military reservation, in the Territory of Colorado, subject to preemption and homestead entry, as provided for in existing law.

The message also announced that the House had passed, without amendment, the bill (S. No. 671) to authorize the West Wisconsin Railway Company to keep up and maintain a bridge for railway purposes across Lake St. Croix, at the city of Hudson, in the State of Wisconsin.

The message also announced that the House had passed the following bills, with amend ments; in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

A bill (S. No. 448) to establish a system of deposits, to prevent desertion, and elevate the condition of the rank and file of the Army; and

A bill (S. No. 607) to establish the pay of the enlisted men of the Army.

POST OFFICE APPROPRIATION BILL. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 1070) making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department for the year ending June 30, 1873, the pending question being on the amendment of Mr. NYE, which was to add to the section adopted

on the motion of Mr. CASSERLY relative to the continuance of the steamship line between New York and San Francisco via Panama:

Provided, That said requirement shall in all respects apply to any party contracting for the service between San Francisco, China, and Japan, as well as to the Pacific Mail Steamship Company.

The VICE PRESIDENT. This refers to a previous amendment adopted by the Senate yesterday afternoon.

Mr. NYE. I understand that was accepted by my friend from California.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will state that the Senator from California with drew his objection, but a Senator not now in his seat renewed the objection, and on the vote being taken no quorum voted, after which the Senate adjourned.

Mr. WINDOM. I think there is no other objection.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will again state, and then possibly there may be no further objection, that this follows the amendment agreed to on the motion of the Senator from California, and after debate the Senator from California last evening withdrew his objection to the amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. I was not present when the debate occurred and the vote was taken. My intention was this morning to move to reconsider the vote if possible on the amendment of the Senator from California. I do not regard it as very important, but I will suggest to him the idea that occurred to me when I read it in the Globe.

IDAHO AND WASHINGTON ELECTIONS.

Mr. NYE. I ask the Senator to give way one moment. I desire to appeal to the Senate to do one other thing. I gave notice yesterday that I should ask for a vote this morning on the question of the elections in Idaho and Washington Territories. I see the Senator from Oregon [Mr. CORBETT] who is opposed to the bill in his seat. The subject has been fully discussed. I hope, therefore, we may be allowed to simply take the vote on that question.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Pending the consideration of the Post Office appropriation bill, the Senator from Nevada asks unanimous con

sent to allow the vote to be taken on the pas sage of the bill in regard to elections in Washington and Idaho Territories, previously dis cussed in the Senate. Is there objection?

Mr. CORBETT. I shall not object to a vote on that question. I have heretofore stated my objections to the bill, but I do not wish to prevent a vote and a decision upon it.

The VICE PRESIDENT. That is what

the Senator from Nevada asks, simply to have a vote as it has been discussed and explained, without superseding the Post Office appropriation bill.

Mr. WINDOM. If it gives rise to no discussion, I will not object.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no objection, the bill will be reported, after which the Secretary will call the roll on its passage. Mr. EDMUNDS. Let us hear what it is first.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Vermont reserves the right to object. The bill will be reported subject to objection or to a demand for the regular order.

The Chief Clerk read the bill (H. R. No. 1030) to regulate elections in Washington and Idaho Territories.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the passage of this bill. It was previously passed and reconsidered, and unanimous consent is now asked that without further debate the vote be taken on its passage.

Mr. CORBETT. I simply wish to state that some one has said to me that he was informed that I had withdrawn my objection or thought it was not so important as at first stated. I wish simply to say that I stated fully my objections to the bill, and that I still adhere to those objections. I am opposed to the passage of this bill.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 29, nays 18; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Alcorn, Bayard, Blair, Caldwell, Cameron, Casserly, Cooper, Davis of West Virginia, Fenton, Ferry of Michigan, Gilbert, Hitchcock, Johnston, Kelly, Lewis, Logan, Norwood, Nye, Rice, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Stevenson, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, Vickers, West, Windom, and Wright-29.

NÄYS-Messrs. Boreman, Carpenter, Chandler, Clayton, Corbett, Edmunds, Ferry of Connecticut, Flanagan, Hamlin, Goldthwaite, Harlan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Osborn, Pool, Pratt, Sherman, and Sprague-18.

ABSENT-Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Brownlow, Buckingham, Cole, Conkling, Cragin, Davis of Kentucky, Frelinghuysen, Hamilton of Maryland, Hamilton of Texas, Hill, Howe, Kellogg, Morton, Patterson, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ransom, Robertson, Schurz, Scott, Spencer, Stewart, Stockton, Thurman, and Wilson-27.

the effect of these two amendments. I simply wished to call the attention of the Senate to it.

Mr. CASSERLY. I have but a word or two to say on this subject. There is no possibility of any competition now, without my amendment, on the part of any other man or body of men with the Pacific Mail Steamship Company for the new service. Why is there no possibility of it? Because there is no body of men that has at command at this moment a sufficient number of first-class American sea-going steamships of not less than three thousand tons each. That is what your law of 1865 requires, and that law is now in operation.

In addition to that, the new steamships, according to the amendment of the committee adopted by the Senate, are to be American steamships of not less than four thousand tons register. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. MORTON] was perfectly right when he said that though according to the form of words there was to be a competition, yet in fact there would be none. Without my amendment there would be none; and if with my amendment and with the amendment of the Senator from Nevada added there will be none, then it does not alter the situation so far as compe tition is concerned, while it does confer a very great benefit on the coast and on the whole country in insuring the continuance of the steam line between New York and San Francisco, which no longer ago than this very year demonstrated its essential usefulness to the commerce of the country in a very signal man

ner.

I withdraw my objection to the amendment, and I hope it will be adopted if we can thereby end the debate.

Mr. HARLAN. I concur in opinion with the honorable Senator from California, and in stating that concurrence, I desire to call the attention of the Senate to an additional fact on this subject, particularly of the honorable Senator from Minnesota, who seemed to have some doubt in relation to the fact that this company had already provided for a semimonthly service. I have in my hand now a newspaper published in California, the Daily Alta California, in which I find an advertisement that I desire to read:

"For Japan and China. Steamers leave on the first of every month, punctually at noon, for Yokohama and Hong Kong.connecting at Yokohama with the company's branch line for Shanghai, via Hiogo and Nagasaki.

"May 1.-America, Captain Doane. "From May to October, inclusive, an extra steamer will be dispatched on the sixteenth of every month. When the sailing date falls on Sunday the steamer will sail the preceding Saturday.

"Apply at the Pacific Mail Steamship Company's office, at their wharf, corner of First and Brannan streets. ELDRIDGE & IRWIN, Agents."

This advertisement appears to be dated April 19; I find the letters "April 19." The paper itself is published on the 29th of April. This advertisement is signed by parties that claim to be the agents of the company, dated April 19, inviting the public to apply at their office for passage and an opportunity to send freight across the Pacific on semi-monthly steamers. Now, take this in connection with the market news report that was read yesterday, and the advertisement of an earlier date, caused to be read by the honorable Senator from Oregon, [Mr. KELLY,) and it does seem to me that there can be no doubt on the mind of any Senator that this company have already procured the ships, that they will begin to run on the 16th day of the and present month, that the appropriation of five additional million dollars is not necessary to secure this service.

Mr. WINDOM. All I have to say in answer to that is that I stated the other day that during the tea season for two or three months they do run an extra ship. I do not wish to reargue the question.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Nevada.

The amendment was agreed to.

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read the third time. The bill was read the third time, and passed.

RIVER AND HARBOR BILL.

Mr. SCOTT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (Н. R. No. 2208) making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and completion of cer tain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. STOCKTON. I wish to give notice of an amendment to the river and harbor bill, which I desire to have printed and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. ANTHONY in the chair.) That order will be made. Mr. STOCKTON. I should like also for my own convenience and that of other Senators to inquire whether it is necessary to pursue this course in regard to amendments to the river and harbor bill. That bill does not come from the Committee on Appropriations, and I had relied on that fact and supposed it was not necessary to submit the amendments in advance for reference; but I find that it is the common practice of the Senate to submit such amendments in this way.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It is not at all necessary; that bill is not a general appropriation

bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The river and harbor bill has not usually been considered a general appropriation bill.

Mr. SHERMAN. I will state to the Senator from New Jersey that I have not so considered it, and I intend to propose several amendments which I have not yet submitted.

Mr. EDMUNDS. The practice that has grown up is entirely unnecessary.

Mr. STOCKTON. Several such amendments have been offered to-day, and that is the reason why I thought it safer to pursue that course.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representa. tives by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House asked a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. No. 1192) making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian department, and for fulfilling treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes for the year ending June 30, 1873, and for other purposes, and had appointed Mr. A. A. SARGENT of California, Mr. JOHN P. C. SHANKS of Indiana, and Mr. THOMAS SWANN of Maryland, managers on the part of the House.

The message also announced that the House had agreed to some and disagreed to other amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 1654) making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872, and for former years, and for other purposes, and had agreed to other amendments of the Senate to the said bill, with amendments; that it asked a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and had appointed Mr. JAMES A. GARFIELD of Ohio, Mr. LUKE P. POLAND of Vermont, and Mr. SAMUEL S. MARSHALL of Illinois, managers at the same on its part.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

The message further announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the following enrolled bill; and they were thereupon signed by the Vice President :

A bill (S. No. 696) to authorize the construction of a bridge across the Missouri river at Booneville, Missouri;

A bill (H. R. No. 1030) to regulate elections in Washington and Idaho Territories; and

A bill (H. R. No. 1776) declaring the lands constituting the Fort Collins military reservation, in the Territory of Colorado, subject to preemption and homestead entry, as provided for in existing laws.

INDIAN APPROPRIATION BILL.

The Senate proceeded to consider its amendments to the bill (H. R. No. 1192) making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian department, and for fulfilling treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes, for the year ending June 30, 1873, and for other purposes, disagreed to by the House of Representatives, and the amendments of the House of Representatives to other amendinents of the Senate to the said bill.

On motion by Mr. COLE, it was Resolved, That the Senate insist upon its amendments disagreed to by the House of Representatives, and disagree to the amendinents of the House to other amendments of the Senate, and agree to the conference asked by the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. Ordered, That the conferees on the part of the Senate be appointed by the Vice President.

The VICE PRESIDENT appointed Mr. COLE, Mr. HARLAN, and Mr. STEVENSON.

DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION BILL.

The Senate proceeded to consider its amendments to the bill (H. R. No. 1654) making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the ap propriations for the service of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872, and for former years, and for other purposes, disagreed to by the House of Representatives, and the amendments of the House to other amendments of the Senate to the said bill.

On motion by Mr. COLE, it was Resolved, That the Senate insist upon its amendments disagreed to by the House of Representatives, and disagree to the amendments of the House to other amendments of the Senate, and agree to the conference asked by the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. Ordered, That the conferees on the part of the Senate be appointed by the Vice President.

The VICE PRESIDENT appointed Mr. COLE, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, and Mr. ALCORN.

POLITICAL DISABILITIES.

Mr. BOREMAN. Mr. President, in the absence of the chairman of the Committee on the Removal of Political Disabilities, the duty is devolved on me of moving to take up the House bill for the removal of political disabilities, ordinarily called the amnesty bill.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 1050) for the removal of legal and political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. STEWART. I ask unanimous consent that the bill (H. R. No. 1553) relating to the Central Pacific Railroad Company have its second reading, for the purpose of making a motion to refer it.

Mr. COLE. I shall have to discuss that question somewhat. I wish to make some remarks when the bill is up for reference.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will state to the Senator from California that by the usage of the Senate a bill is not a subject of discussion at its second reading. It is only after that time, either when it back or when it is to have its third reading, that it

is usually discussed.

is reported

Mr. COLE. On the question of reference it is certainly open for debate.

The VICE PRESIDENT. This bill has not been read the second time.

Mr. TRUMBULL. There can be debate on the question of reference.

the Chair has said, and again repeats, that until the bill is read a second time it is not subject of debate. It has only been read the first time; it has not been read the second time.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Is it not in order to discuss the question whether it ought to be read a second time? I should like to know the rule there is against that.

Mr. MORTON. I call for the regular order. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Indiana demands the regular order. The Chair will, however, answer the Senator from Ver

mont that is not within the recollection of officers near the Chair, nor of the Chair himself, that a bill has been discussed previous to its second reading; but he will examine the precedents.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I am not on the question question of what has been done; I am on the question of the right to debate the question whether a bill ought to be read a second time, which I think is sometimes important.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It is objected to at this time, and therefore the amnesty bill is now before the Senate.

Mr. STEWART. I think this bill ought to be considered; and therefore I move to lay the pending order on the table for the purpose of having this bill referred. It seems to me it is unusual to treat a bill in this way.

Mr. MORTON. If it can be referred without debate nobody will object.

Mr. STEWART. Senators do object.

Mr. COLE. I want to make some remarks on the question of reference.

Mr. CASSERLY. What is the question before the Senate?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The amnesty bill is before the Senate, which requires a twothirds vote for its passage.

Mr. COLE. When a motion is made to refer the Goat Island bill, I shall move to refer it to the Committee on Military Affairs, and I shall discuss that question.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secretary, as soon as this debate ceases, will read the amnesty bill, which has been taken up by vote of the Senate.

Mr. CONKLING. Is the amnesty bill before the Senate?

The VICE PRESIDENT. It is before the Senate, but has not yet been read.

Mr. CONKLING. Upon that I beg to make one remark before it is read. I think the bill to which the Senator from Nevada has just alluded ought to be referred to a committee and examined; yet I think it so extraordinary for Senators to object to the second reading of the bill, and to everything which can lead to its consideration by a committee, that I say to the Senator from Nevada, who is interested in it, that I will stand by him in taking up the bill at any proper time, and acting on it finally without reference-a very exceptional course, and one to which I think the Senator may fairly resort if a measure which has passed the House, which once passed this body, is so confronted on the threshold that its opponents will not allow it to go to a committee to be examined.

Mr. COLE. I thought the honorable Senator from New York was ready for that, but I will say to him that I want this bill referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, as it relates to matters that are under the charge of the War Department exclusively. It is a proposition to give away a portion of a very important military reservation, and ought to be considered in reference to that and in reference to its influence upon the harbor of San Francisco, as to which information must come from the War Department.

Mr. CONKLING. The honorable Senator remarked—

Mr. EDMUNDS. Let us have the regular order.

California remarks that he expected to find me ready. I infer from this that the Senator was conscious himself of the extraordinary course he has pursued in regard to this matter, not only heretofore, but to some extent now. And, as the Senator seems to mean offense by his remark, I remind him that there was a time when he did not oppose a like bill, when I, in common with others, voted for it before I had ever seen the island in question, and knowing that the Senator from California was well acquainted with it and with the facts, and that he did not oppose its use as proposed. Mr. COLE. The Senator can show no such record, not by any means, I assure him

Mr. EDMUNDS. I call for the regular order if there is one.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Vermont interrupts the Senator from California to demand the regular order. The regular order is the amnesty bill.

Mr. EDMUNDS. And the reading of it. Mr. COLE. I think I may say something upon the amnesty bill.

Mr. EDMUNDS. You cannot say it until the bill is read, according to the rules of order.

Mr. CASSERLY. The Senator from New York was allowed to proceed with a reply to my colleague, which was in fact an attack on my colleague. I trust my friend will not interpose.

Mr. CONKLING. No; I beg the Senator's pardon; it was simply repelling an offensive remark which was applied to me.

Mr. COLE. The Senator from New York arose in the first place

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from California, if the point is made, must suspend until the amnesty bill has been read. Several Senators, in their anxiety to debate another proposition which is not now before. the Senate, have prevented the reading of the bill pending. The Secretary, as soon as he can obtain the hearing of the Senate, will read this bill; but he cannot do it while Senators are occupying the floor.

Mr. COLE. If the Senator from Vermont objects to a single remark from me, I will give way.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will recognize the Senator from California as soon as this bill is read. Its reading has been demanded by the Senator from Vermont.

The Chief Clerk read the bill (H. R. No. 1050) for the removal of legal and political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of each House concurring therein.) That all legal and political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States on persons therein mentioned, because of their having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, be, and the same are hereby, removed: Provided, That this act shall not apply to, or in any way affect or remove, the disability of any person included in either of the following classes, namely: first, members of the Con

gress of the United States who withdrew therefrom and aided the rebellion; second, officers of the Army or Navy of the United States who, being above the age of twenty-one years, left said Army or Navy and aided the rebellion.

SEC. 2. That before any person shall be entitled to the benefit of this act, he shall, within the district where he resides, before a clerk of some court of the United States, or a United States commissioner, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; which oath or affirmation shall be forwarded by said officer to the Secretary of State of the United States, who shall cause a list of all persons complying with the provisions of this act to be laid before Congress at the opening of each session thereof; and the officer before whom such oath or affirmation is made shall give to the person taking it a certificate of the fact, under such forms and regulations as the Secretary of State shall prescribe.

Mr. COLE. I did not oppose the reference of the Goat Island bill, and shall not oppose

by the Presiding Officer that inasmuch as that bill was considered by a certain committee of the House, the committee of the same name in this body ought to have charge of it here; and I suppose the motion will be to refer it to that committee. It is upon the point as to which committee should have control of it that I wish to be heard briefly, not in the way of opposing its reference at all. I am quite willing that it shall have consideration at the hands of some committee, but in my judgment it ought to go to the committee that I have indicated, and I think I can give very cogent reasons why it should go there when it is up. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will state to the Senator from California, if he may be allowed to do so, that he has not intimated that the bill should go to any particular committee; he has only intimated that the parliamentary usage is to recognize the Senator who represents the committee in this body corresponding to the committee from which the bill originated in the other House. After that the motion to refer is open to amendment. Any Senator can move to amend the motion; or if he obtains the floor first, he can make a motion in derogation of the right of that committee, if there is any such right in it.

Mr. COLE. I made no reflection on the Chair at all; so far as he has gone he is probably right; but when the bill came in here, I recollect that was stated by the Chair, properly, of course.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair simply recognized the chairman of the committee from which the bill came originally in the other House.

Mr. STEWART. Can we not have that question disposed of now by general consent? The VICE PRESIDENT. By unanimous consent it can be.

Mr. CASSERLY. I think that will lead to

considerable debate.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The amnesty bill is before the Senate, and the Senator from Nevada asks unanimous consent that the Goat Island bill be taken up for reference.

Mr. SUMNER. If it causes debate, I must object.

Mr. CASSERLY. If the Senators from California can have the weight that is always given to the two Senators from a State, especially when they belong to opposite parties, on a question of reference, there will probably be no very prolonged debate; but if the Senator from Nevada is to control this question in the Senate, it will lead to some debate.

Mr. BOREMAN. It is evident that unanimous consent cannot be had for the consideration of that subject. I insist on the amnesty bill being proceeded with.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The amnesty bill is before the Senate, open to amendment

or debate.

Mr. SPRAGUE. I give notice that tomorrow at one o'clock I shall ask the attention of the Senate to consider the Military Academy appropriation bill, which has been confided to ine.

Mr. BOREMAN. Mr. President, I have no disposition to discuss at any considerable length the subject of amnesty or the removal of political disabilities from those who are laboring under such disabilities by reason of the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I have charge of this bill simply as the organ of the committee on this subject, in the absence of the chairman. I expect, however, to vote for the bill if it shall be put upon its passage in its present form or without any marked amend ments to the provisions as they now exist in the bill. I shall do this for one or two considerations.

In the first place, the war has been over, declared at an end, for some five or six years,

by Congress all the citizens of this country, with some exceptions probably that might be suggested by the Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. SUMNER,] have been restored to their civil rights, privileges, and immunities; and those persons who are under the disabilities prescribed by the third section of the fourteenth amendment, so far as exercising the right of suffrage is concerned, and all other matters appertaining to Government except the holding of office, have been restored to their relations to the State and national Governments.

Their position is an anomalous one, and it seems to me that the time has come, under all the circumstances, when it is better that these distinctions should exist no longer.

In the second place, I shall support the bill on the ground that Congress has passed a number of bills relieving several thousands of persons in a similar condition, some of whom, at least in my judgment, are as objectionable as any of those who are now laboring under these disabilities; and while it may be said that the fact that some of the worst of the late rebels have been relieved of their disabilities is not a good reason for relieving others, yet there is something in it even if there was objection to the general bill. It engenders unkind feeling that some gentlemen in particular States are relieved of their disabilities while others are still subject to them. It seems as if we were not treating these persons all alike when the behavior, the conduct of the latter, is as good as that of the former. That is another reason. Where the conduct of these people has been equally fair, good, and submissive to the laws, I do not think we should relieve a portion of them and not relieve others.

A third reason why I shall vote for the bill is that it will remove a pretext for complaints, and for the disturbances that are existing in the South. The fact that these disabilities exist is made use of for the purpose of stirring up bad feeling, for the purpose of keeping up a state of excitement in the southern States, a state of unrest. Although this ought not to be so, it is nevertheless the fact, and these people, many of them, say, "Although we are citizens of the United States, although we have all the other privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, yet we are marked, we are deprived of aspiring to offi cial positions which the citizens around us are allowed to do;" and they are thus continued in a state of irritation, and they make their disabilities a pretext for not pursuing that course which they otherwise would do; and they have also the sympathy of a great many of those who are around them and can exercise some influence on account of their condition.

Another reason with me is that I regard the party to which I belong as committed, not to universal amnesty, but to the relief of the masses of those in the South who are now under the disabilities prescribed by the fourteenth amendment. The National Republican Re convention which assembled in 1868, to nominate candidates for President and Vice President, passed a resolution, the latter part of which I will read:

"And wefavor the removal of the disqualifications and restrictions imposed upon the late rebels in the same measure as the spirit of disloyalty may die out and as may be consistent with the safety of the loyal people."

That is not an unconditional committal, it is true. Nevertheless the idea is held out in that resolution to these people that if they will conduct themselves as good citizens they will be relieved from the disabilities prescribed in the fourteenth amendment, as I understand it. That resolution was passed for the purpose of conveying that idea to the people of the United States; and in conformity, no doubt, with what the President of the United States understood as being the spirit of the resolution and the policy of the party with message recommended to Congress that they carry out what has been supposed to be the policy of the party. I will read what the President said in that message on this subject:

"More than six years having elapsed since the last hostile gun was fired between the armies then arrayed against each other, one for the perpetuation, the other for the destruction of the Union, it may well be considered whether it is not now time that the disabilities imposed by the fourteenth amendment should be removed. That amendment des not exclude the ballot, but only imposes the disability to hold offices upon certain classes. When the purity of the ballot is secure, majorities are sure to elect officers reflecting the views of the majority. I do not see the advantage or propriety of excluding men from office merely because they were, before the rebellion, of standing and character sufficient to be elected to positions requiring them to take oaths to support the Constitution, and admitting to eligibility those entertaining precisely the same views, but of less standing in their communities. It may be said that the former violated an oath, while the latter did not. The latter did not have it in their power to do so. If they had taken this oath, it cannot be doubted they would have broken it as did the former class. If there are any great criminals, distinguished above all others for the part they took in opposition to the Government, they might, in the judgment of Congress, be excluded from such an amnesty."

Then follows this sentence to call the attention of Congress particularly to this subject"This subject is submitted for your careful consideration."

This is what the President said to us at the beginning of the present session; and, sir, in accordance with what seemed to be the policy of the party, in accordance with the recommendation of the President of the United States carrying out that policy of the party, I think now it is proper to pass some bill on this subject, but, as the President says, not a bill for universal amnesty. The greater offenders against the laws and the Constitution of the country may well be excepted, and I think should be excepted, for I have no hesitation in saying that I will not vote for universal amnesty. I think it well to say that I do not vote for this bill as a matter of magnanimity, nor do I vote for it for the reason the Senator from Massachusetts not now in his seat (Mr. WILSON] some weeks since gave for supporting a similarbill, that he voted for it on the ground of mercy. Nordo I vote for it as a matter of right due to those who are about to be relieved. Not at all. But with me (although it seems to be treated very lightly by those who have heretofore discussed this subject) it is simply a question of policy and expediency, not a question of right, not a right that these men can demand at our hands, but a matter of policy and expediency for the purpose of quieting the country, and of bringing about a better state of feeling; to bring about a state of homogeneity, if I may so speak, in the political and civil relations of these people to the Government. In that view, I think it is right and proper now that the people of this country shall be put upon an equal footing in relation to these different offices; not that I abate one jot or tittle of my condemnation of the great offense these men committed against the country, against the Constitution and laws of the country, and against the civilization of the age. But, sir, the war has passed: years have gone by; and it seems to me now as a matter of good policy, as a matter of propriety and expediency, cy, that these disabilities, so far as the great mass of these people are concerned, should be removed; that the sources of irritation that exist should be removed, and that the people of the southern States should select their officers from those in whom they wish to confide.

Many of the persons who are laboring under disabilities are guilty of great indiscretion, even up to this time. There is no question about that; and if we allowed such considerations to control, it may be that we should pass no bill of a general character. But, sir, we must look beyond that; we must look to the peace, quiet, and harmony of the country.

Not as being an enthusiastic advocate of amnesty, for I make no such pretension, but for the reasons I have stated, I expect to vote

for this bill. I should like to see it put on its passage as it came from the House, as it is a House bill, without subjecting it to any material amendment, without having it encumbered with amendments that may endanger or obstruct its passage, or prevent us from carrying out the spirit of the measure as it is now before us.

This, I believe, sir, is all I have to say on this subject at this time.

am

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I have no desire to discuss the of general question nesty, nor to discuss any other question; but as I am about to make a motion I shall state in one word why I do it.

I propose to move to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert what is generally known as the civil rights bill, being the bill on which the Senate has already voted several times, and which, as is known, is now pending in the other House, but owing to the rules of the House no decision upon it there has yet been reached. I shall take the form of the bill which is now pending in the other House, which in substance and almost precisely in language is that on which the Senate acted. There are one or two verbal changes, but not important in principle or in any way affecting any principle of the bill.

I do this, sir, intending to follow it up by a second motion to strike out the enacting clause, which requires a two-thirds vote, and insert the ordinary enacting clause; and then, in the third place, to strike out the title and to insert the title of the civil rights bill.

I do this as a practical way of giving to our friends in the other House an opportunity of acting on the civil rights bill when they shall be on an equality with those in this Chamber who are in favor of amnesty.

As is well known, the amnesty bill has already passed the other House and only waits a vote in this Chamber, with the signature of the President, to be a law. My anxiety is that the civil rights bill shall, so far as possible, be in the same situation, that it should pass the Senate, and I hope then that it will pass the other House, and I cannot doubt that it will receive the signature of the President.

With this brief explanation, and without one word of argument, content as I am with what has been said already during this session, I send to the Chair the substitute which I ask to have come in after the enacting clause.

Mr. MORTON. Before the question is taken on that, is it in order to perfect a section in the bill proposed to be stricken out? The VICE PRESIDENT. Certainly. Mr. MORTON. Then I offer an amend

ment.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The substitute will first be reported.

Mr. FERRY, of Connecticut. I wish to make a point of order, and the point of order is that the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts is out of order.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair cannot entertain that point until the amendment is read. The Chair does not know yet what it is.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment of Mr. SUMNER, which was to strike out all after the enacting clause of the bill, and in lieu thereof to insert the following:

SEC. -. That no citizen of the United States shall, by reason of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, be excepted or excluded from the full and equal enjoyment of any accommodation, advantage, facility, or privilege furnished by innkeepers; by common carriers, whether on land or water; by licensed owners, managers, or lessees of theaters or other places of publicamusement; by trustees, commissioners, superintendents, teachers, and other officers of common schools and other public institutions of learning, the same being supported by moneys derived from general taxation, or authorized by law; by trustees and officers of cemetery associations and benevolent institutions incorporated by national or State authority. But private schools, cemeteries, and institutions of learning established exclusively for white or colored persons, and maintained respectively by voluntary contributions, shall remain according to the terms of the original establishment.

SEC.-. That any person violating any of the provisions of the foregoing section, or aiding in their violation, or inciting thereto, shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay the sum of $500 to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered in an action on the case, with full costs, and shall also, for every such offense, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, or shall be imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than one year: Provided, That the party aggrieved shail not recover more than one penalty; and when the offense is a refusal of burial, the penalty may be recovered by the heirs at law of the person whose body has been refused burial.

SEC.. That the same jurisdiction and powers are hereby conferred and the same duties enjoined upon the courts and officers of the United States in the execution of this act as are conferred and enjoined upon such courts and officers in sections three, four, five, seven, and ten of an act entitled An act to protect all personsin the United States in their civil rights, and to furnish the means of their vindicapassed April 9, 1866, and these sections are hereby made a part of this act; and any of the aforesaid officers failing to institute and prosecute such proceedings herein required shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay the sum of $500 to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered by an action on the case, with full costs, and shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000.

SEC.. That no citizen possessing all other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law shall be disqualified for service as juror in any court, national or State, by reason of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and any officer or other persons charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors who shall exclude or fail to summon any citizen for the reason above named shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be fined not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000.

SEC.. That every discrimination against any citizen on account of color by the use of the word white," or any other term in any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation, is hereby repealed and annulled.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Connecticut makes a point of order that this is not, under the usage of the Senate, an amendment which the Presiding Officer can entertain. The Chair would like to hear the Senator on the point of order.

Mr. FERRY, of Connecticut. I wish to make a remark in the first place as to my reason for raising this point of order. It was made on a former occasion, and decided by a very small vote of the Senate. That, I think, is the only occasion upon which the point has been raised. It is a matter that may be of grave consequence in the future, and I think it should be determined upon somewhat more deliberation than it was on the former occasion by the action of the Senate itself.

It is obvious that if an amendment requiring a mere majority to attach it to the bill can be attached to a bill requiring a two-thirds vote, so that the whole bill as amended would have to be passed by a two-thirds vote, this mode of attaching such an amendment could be effectually employed to destroy all chance of the passage of such an originalbill; because every such amendment would require for its final passage the two-thirds vote required by the original bill. It seems to me, therefore, that the intent of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution or of the Legislature in reference to any act that may require a twothirds vote may be at all times entirely frustrated by this species of parliamentary machinery, attaching to the bill, by a by a simple majority, an amendment which is incapable, under the circumstances in which the Senate

is placed, of obtaining a two-thirds vote; and, therefore, where the question is so nearly new as this, the most appropriate and the wisest decision to make upon the point of order raised would be to decide that such an amendment cannot be received to be attached to the original bill.

Mr. POMEROY. The Senator does not make his point of order under any particular rule of the Senate or under any particulat provision of the Manual, I think, but only on the common law practice of deliberative bodies. I do not care to discuss the question; I only want to say that under our rules all amendments to treaties or anything that requires a two-thirds vote, anything short of the

final vote is carried by a majority; and this would come under that general provision that any amendment to a bill or treaty that requires a two-thirds vote to pass it can be placed upon it by a majority. That is clearly established. A two-thirds bill can read three times by a majority vote, but on its final passage it requires a two-thirds vote.

Mr. CONKLING. Lest somebody may follow my friend, I should like to inquire whether the point of order is debatable before the decision has been made?

The VICE PRESIDENT. It is not. The Chair was about to decide it, but disliked to ask Senators to stop

Mr. CONKLING. Can I relieve the Chair from that unpleasant necessity by expressing the hope that my friend will not debate the point of order?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair desired the Senator from Connecticut who presented the point to explain it, so that it should formally come before the Senate and be recorded in its proceedings.

Mr. POMEROY. I only desired to say a word, as the Senator from Connecticut did.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair was notified that the point of order would be made on this proposed amendment, and that is the reason why the authorities are upon his table now. The Chair may say, in reply to the suggestion of the Senator from Connecticut, by which he enforces this point of order, that constitutional law and parliamentary law are often quite different. The Chair will not state what his own opinions would be if he were a voter upon the bill presented by the Senator from West Virginia, though they are probably known to the Senate; but the Chair decides this question solely upon the parliamentary law applicable in this body; and upon that, although the decision may appear strange to the Senator from Connecticut and to other Senators, there appears to the mind of the Chair to be no question whatever. The Chair would like to have Senators follow him as he reads from the Manual. On page 255, the thirty-fifth section of Jefferson's Manual declares:

"Amendments may be made so as totally to alter the nature of the proposition; and it is a way of getting rid of a proposition, by making it bear a sense different from what it was intended by the movers, so that they vote against it themselves. (2 Hats., 79. 4, 82, 84.) A new bill may be ingrafted, by way of amendment, on the words 'Be it enacted." (1 Grey, 190, 192.)

Which assimilates to the proposition made to-day. Now, the Chair desires to add to this that by the parliamentary law as practiced in the House of Representatives, which is the parliamentary law as generally understood by Legislatures and parliamentary bodies in the United States, this amendment would be totally out of order. The Chair will read from Cushing's Manual, because that is even better authority than to read from the rules of the House, in reference to the rule of the House of Representatives which absolutely forbids an amendment of this kind in that House; Cushing, paragraph thirteen hundred and sixty-six, says:

No

"This rule, adopted in March, 1822, reaffirmed by every succeeding Congress, and extensively adopted in other legislative assemblies, is as follows: motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.'

But the Senate have refused always to adopt any such rule. They have neither adopted it as a rule nor as usage and practice, and the Chair, in confirmation of that, will read further from Cushing's Manual, paragraph thirteen hundred and sixty-three:

"The inconsistency of a proposed amendment with the proposition to be amended, either in idea or in words, is, as has already been seen, no objection to it in a parliamentary sense, or as a matter of order."

It would be in the House of Representatives because they have a specific rule to that effect; but it is no objection to it in a parliamentary

sense that it is inconsistent with the proposition to be amended.

"And it is ordinarily no objection to a proposed amendment that it is inconsistent with the measure to be amended. This is very commonly, though not universally, the case in the American legislative assemblies; as, for example, in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate, of the United States."

ate.

Cushing draws the clear distinction which the Chair has made between the specific rule forbidding amendments of this kind in the other House and the absence of it and the uniform practice to the contrary in the SenThe Chair, however, does not rest his decision upon that, but he has gone back to the authority of Mr. Vice President Dallas when a matter of a great deal of excitement was pending in this very body in 1849. The Army appropriation bill was pending in the Senate, and Mr. Baldwin, of Connecticut, one of the predecessors of the Senator who makes this point of order, moved to add to the appropriation bill :

"And be it further enacted. That the inhabitants of the Territories of New Mexico and California respectively shall be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus in all cases of unlawful detention or restraint," &c.

The Chair need not read the whole of it. "Mr. YULEE. This I understand to be an appropriation bill for the support of the Army, and the Senator moves an amendment in relation to the government of the people of California. I can conceive of no two subjects more dissimilar."

Which seems to be like the present case.

"The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rule in the House of Representatives is not to admit amendments incongruous to the subject-matter of the bill. There is, however, no such rule here."

After debate this amendment, which was distasteful to a majority of the Senate, but was ruled in by the Presiding Officer because, he said, there was no rule forbidding it as there would be in the House, was rejected by nearly two to one, by a vote of 27 to 17, showing that the amendment was rejected in spirit and in its terms by nearly two thirds of the Senate; and yet in accordance with the rule prevailing here it was admitted. Among the Senators then present in the Senate, none of whom appealed or questioned the opinion of the Chair thus positively stated, were Mr. Corwin, Mr. John Davis, Mr. William L. Dayton, Mr. Hamlin, Mr. Daniel Webster, Mr. Benton, Mr. Berrien, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, Mr. Maugum, and others.

The Chair could read from Hatsell, but he does not desire to weary the Senate; but he will read one precedent from page 84 of the second volume of Hatsell, which is the standard authority in Great Britain, and also here, in regard to parliamentary law generally, where there is no restrictive rule:

"The other mode of avoiding a question is by

altering it by amendments till it bears a sense different from what was intended by the proposers. This perhaps is not quite fair, but has been often done, and the instance relating to the Duke d'Aremberg, of the 10th of April, 1744, is a very remarkable one. So on the 29th of January, 1765, on a question moved by Sir William Meredith, relating to general warrants, the opposers of the question amended it in such a manner that it was impossible for any one to agree to it."

These are the precedents. Coming back, however, to Jefferson's Manual, the Chair reads from page 255. The Chair has only alluded to these precedents of Cushing, Vice Pres ident Dallas, and Hatsell confirmatory atory of this parliamentary law, not in the House, where they have a specific rule to the contrary, but in the Senate where there is none :

as

"Amendments may be made so as totally to alter the nature of the proposition; and it is a way of getting rid of a proposition, by making it bear a sense different from what it was intended by the movers, so that they vote against it themselves. (2 Hats., 79, 4, 82, 84.) A new bill may be ingrafted, by way of amendment, on the words 'Be it enacted,' &c. (1 Grey, 190, 192.)"

another proposition of a different character; but the Chair could read other authorities,

which he does not consume the time of the Senate in reading, showing how jealous the House of Commons, as well as this body, have felt in regard to presiding officers suppressing important amendments upon a question of order, when by parliamentary law proper, or by the usage of the body, the body have a right themselves to determine as to whether they should or should not be agreed to.

The amendment, therefore, is, in the opin-, ion of the Chair, in order under the parliamentary law. But the Senator from Indiana [Mr. MORTON] moves, previous to the vote on this, to perfect the original bill, which is first in order and has priority of the substitute.

Mr. MORTON. I offer the following amendment to come in before the word "said, in the sixth line

Mr. TRUMBULL. I desire to take an appeal from the decision of the Chair.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Illinois then in preference to the Senator from Indiana. The Senator from Illinois appeals from the decision of the Chair.

Mr. TRUMBULL. As I understand the Chair and the authorities read, they do not affect what seems to me to be the point before the Senate. The question is not, as I view it, one of relevancy or irrelevancy in the character of the amendment. The objection to the amendment, and the reason why it is out of order, if out of order at all, is because by the Constitution of the United States the matter pending must be passed by a different vote from that which is proposed in the amend

ment.

The Constitution provides that treaties can only be ratified by two thirds of the Senate, and it was deemed necessary, in order to allow an amendment to a treaty to be adopted by a majority, to make a rule to that effect. It would be competent, doubtless, for the Senate to adopt a rule that an amendment may be made to a bill that requires two thirds of the Senate to pass it, just as it is to make a rule that a treaty may be amended by a majority vote. But in the absence of that rule of the Senate authorizing a treaty to be amended by a majority vote, I apprehend that a treaty could not have been amended except by a vote

of two thirds of the Senate.

The philosophy of the thing is, the reason of it would seem to be, that a bill which could only be passed by a two-thirds vote should not be amended by anything less than a two-thirds vote. The question is not as to the character of the amendment any further than this: that the character of the amendment must be one that does not require a two-thirds vote. It would be competent to amend the bill undoubtedly by adding to it another clause to relieve somebody else that is not relieved by the bill, because that would be an amendment in harmony with the bill. But it seems to me that there is great force in the suggestion of the Senator from Connecticut, that you may destroy

Mr. CARPENTER. Will my friend allow me to ask him a question for information at that point?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly.

Mr. CARPENTER. Suppose an amnesty bill is pending here, and an amendment is offered to it to add disabled persons in another State or of a different class from those already in the bill, could that be incorporated on such a bill by a mere majority vote?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think perhaps it might. Mr. SUMNER. The habit has been so. Mr. CARPENTER. Does not that surrender the point?

Mr. TRUMBULL. No, I do not think it does, because that is a matter which can only be passed by a two-thirds vote. I should think that the test would be that you could add any