Mr. WILLIAMS. I would not agree to this proposed constitutional amendment if I supposed it made Indians not taxed citizens oft eU.S. But I am satisfied that, giving to the amendment a fair and reasonable construction. it does not include Indians nottaxed. The 1st and 2nd sections of this proposed amendment are to be taken together, are to be construed together, and the meaning of the word “citizens, ” as employed in both sections, is to be determined from the manner in which that word is used in both of those sections. Section one provides thatAll personsborn in the U.S and subject to tho jurisdiction thereof.are citizensof the U.S and of the State wherein they reside. If there be any doubt about the meaning of that paragraph, I think that doubt is entirely removed by the 2nd section, for by the 2nd section of this constitutional amendment Indians not taxed are not counted at all in the basis of representation. The words in the 2nd section are as follows: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the iLnagwn, accordingto their respectivenumbers.count the whole number of persons in each State. excludina Indians not taxed. They are not to be regarded as persons to be counted under any circumstances. Indians not taxed are not even entitled to be counted as persons in the basis of representation under an circumstances; and then the section provi esBut whenever.in any State, the elective franchise shall bedenied to any portion of its male inhabitants. being citizens of the U.S., dzc. Now, can any reasonable man conclude that the word “citizens” there applies to Indians not taxed, or includes In iaiis not taxed, when they are expressly excluded from the basis of representation and cannot even be taken into the enumeration of persons rpon whom representation is to be based? I think it is perfectly clear, when you put the 1st and 2nd sections together, that Indians not taxed are excluded from the term “citizens 5” because it cannot be supposed for one moment that the term “citizens, as employed in these 2 sections, is intended to 8 ply to Indians who are not even counted nu er any circumstances as a part of the basis of repre sentation. I therefore think that the amendment of the Senfrom Wisconsin is clearly unnecessary. I do not believe that “Indians not taxed” are included, and lunderstand that to be adescrition of Indians who maintain their tribal relations and who are not in all respects subjectto the jurisdiction of the U.S. In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the U.S. are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. in every sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the U.S. is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, “subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., ” to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. If there was any doubt as to the meaning of those words, I think that doubt is entirely removed and explained by the words in the subsequent section; and believing that, in any court or by any intelligent person, these 2 sections would be construed not to include Indians not taxed, I do not think the amendment is necessary.