Mr. HENDRICKS. That is the opinion of Mr. Cushing, given on the 6th of July, 1856. I did not intend to discuss this question, but I will make one further rely to the Senfrom Illinois. When the civil rights bill was under consideration I was of the opinion that the term “not taxed” meant nottaxed; and when words are plain in the law I take them in their natural sense. When there is no ambiguity the law says there shall be no construction; and when you say a man is not taxed I presome it means that he is not taxed. I do not know an words that express the meaning more clearly than the words themselves, and therefore I cannot express the meaning in any more apt words than the words used by the Seu ntor from Wisconsin, “Indians not taxed.” When I said that that was making citizenship to rest upon property I recollect, or I think I do, the indignant terms in which the Senfrom Illinois then replied, conveying the idea that it was a demagogical argument in this body to speak of a subject like that; and yet today he says to the Senfrom Wisconsin that it is not a statesmanlike proposition. He makes the same point upon the Senfrom Wisconsin which he undertook to make upon me on the civil rights bill. If it is the pleasure of Congress to make the wild Indians of the desert citizens, and then if 3/4ths of the States agree to it, I preAgain, he same we will get along the best way we can; and what shall then be the relations between these‘people and the U.S. will be for us an for our descendants to work out. are not new citizens; the are subjects. For safety, as a matter of policy we regulate our intercourse with them to a large extent by treaties, so as that they shall assent to the regulations that govern them. That is a matter of policy, but we need not treat with an Indian. We can make him obey our laws, and being liable to such obedience he is sub"ect to tejurisdiction of the U.S. did not intend to discuss this question, but I got into it by the inquiry I made of the Senfrom Illinois.