Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, the Senfrom Michigan declares his purpose to be not to include these Indians within this constitutional amendment. In purpose I agree with him. I do not intend to include them. My purpose is to exclude them; and the question between us is whether his language includes them and mine excludes them, or whether his language excludes them and mine includes them. The Senator says, in the 1st place, if the words which are suggested by me, “Indians not taxed, " are to govern, any State has it in its power to natu‘ralize the Indian tribes within its limits and bring them in as citizens. Can a State tax them unless they are subject to the State? Certainly not. My friendfrom Michigan will not contend that an Indian can be taxed if he is not subject to the State orto the U.S.; and yet, if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. they are declared by the very language of his amendment to be citizens. Now, sir, the words which I have used are borrowed from the Constitution as it standsthe Constitution adopted by our fathers. We have lived under it for 70 years; and these words, “Indians not taxed, ”are the very words which were used by our fathers in forming the Constitution as descritive of a certain class of Indians which should not be enumerated as a part of our population, as distinguished from another class which should be enumerated as apart of our population; and these are words of description used by them under which we have acted for 70 years and more. They have come to have a meaning that is understood as descritive of a eertain class of Indians that may enumerated within our poulation as a part of the citizens of the U.S., to constitute 0. art of the basis of the political power of the U.S., and others not included within it are to be excluded from that basis. The courts of the U.S. have had ocmsion to speak on this subject, and from time to time they have declared that the Indians are subjects of the U.S., not citizens; and that is the very word in your amendment where they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Why, sir, what does it mean when you say that a people are subject to the juris diction of the U.S.? Subject, 1st, to its military power; 2nd, subject to its political power; 3rd, subject to its legislative tqour legislative power over the reservations upon which these Indians are settled? Speaking upon bot subject, I have to say that one of the mhflihgnished men who ever sat in this body, certainly that have sat in this body since I have been a member of it, the late Senfrom Ver mont, Judge Collamer, time and again urged upon me, as a member of the ComIndAffrs, to bring forward a scheme of legislation by which we should pass laws and subject all the Indians in all the Territories of the U.S. to the legislation of congress direct. The Senfrom Ohio not now in his seat [Mr. SHERMAN] has contended for the same thing, and other members of congress contend that the very best policy of dealing with the Indian tribes is to subject them at once to our legislative power and jurisdiction. “Subjects of the U.S.!’ Why, sir, they are completely our subjects, completely in our power. We hold them as our wards. The are living upon our bounty. hr. President, there is one thing that I doubt not Senators must have forgotten. In all those vast territories which we acquired from Mexico, we took the sovereignty and the jurisdiction of the soil and the country from Mexico, just as Mexico herself had held it, just as Spain had held it before the Mexican republic was established; and what was the power that was held by Spain and by Mexico over the Indian tribes? They did not recognize even the possessor title of an Indian in one foot of the jurisdiction of those territories. In reference to the Indians of California, we have never admitted that they had sufficient jurisdiction over any art of its soil to make a treaty with them. he Senate of the U.S. expressly refused to make treaties with the Indians of California, on the ground that they had no title and no jurisdiction whatever in the soil; they were absolutely subject to the authority of the U.S., which we derived from our treaty with Mexico. The opinion of AttyGen Cashing, one of the ablest men who has ever occupied the position of AttyGen, has been read ere, in which he states clearly that the Indians, though born upon our soil, owing us allegiance, are not citizens; they are our subjects; and that is the very word which is used in this amendment proposed to the Constitution of the U.S., declaring that if “ they be subject” to our jurisdiction, born on our soil, they are, ipsofacto, citizens of the U.S. Mr. President, the celebrated civil rights bill which has been passed during the present congress, which was the forerunner of this constitutional amendment, and to give validity to which this constitutional amendmentis brought forward, and whicldwithout this constitutional amendment to enforce it has no validity so far as this question is concerned, uses the following language: "That all persons born in the U.S and not subjectto any forci Power, excluding Indians not taxed. are hereby colored to be citizens of the U.S." Why should this language be criticised any more now, when it is brought forward here in this constitutional amendment, than when it was in the civil rights bill? Why should the language be more criticised here than it is in the 2nd section of this constitutional amendment, where the same words are used? The 2nd section, in apportioning representation, proposes to count the whole number of persons in each State, “excluding Indians not taxed.” Why not insert those words in the 1st section as well as in the 2nd? Why not insert them in this constitutional amendment as well as in the civil rights bill? The civil rights bill undertook to do this same thin. It undertook to declare that “all personsiorn in the U.S., and not subject to an foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxe, are hereby declared to be citizens of the U.S.” But, sir the committee of 15, fearing that this declaration by Congress was without validity unless a constitutional amendment should be brought forward to enforce it, have thought proper to report this amendment., Mr. FESSENDEN. I want to say to the honorable Senator, who has a cat regard for truth, that he is drawing entire y upon his im agination. There is not one word of correctness in all that he is saying, not a particle, not a scintilla, not the beginning of truth.