Mr. POMEROY. I think the Senfrom Massachusetts underestimates or undervalues the importance of the amendment just moved by the Senfrom RhdIsland. The Senfrom RhdIsland has not moved the amendment in the language of the committee. The committee's amendment disfranchised persons who had voluntarily left this District to join the rebellion. That, as the Senfrom Massachusetts well says, might be a small affair, being confined to a few persons. But the amendment now moved by the Senfrom RhdIsland is a restriction on all persons who have been engaged in the rebellion, whether they left the District to join it or not. I do not know that the fact of having left the District added particularly to their offense, and the Senfrom WestVirginia thinks it was a palliation; because in the District they had no political rights, and, therefore, could not have committed a crime like that of a man who left the responsibilities of a State to join a rebellion against the U.S. But the Senfrom Massachusetts must be aware that this bill if it becomes a statute is to remain as we hope for all time to come, and I think it is important to have a statute here that shall disfranchise men engaged in the rebellion whether they left the District for that purpose or whether they now come for the 1st time. I regard this bill as important, in the 2nd place, because it is a sort of model, to be copied and patterned after by the States. In the Northwest I know there are States that have not hitherto given suffrage to colored men, but they are moving in that direction, and will copy this very statute, if we make it one, for their law. That is a reason why I think we ought to have the statute perfect here. I shall vote for the amendment of the Senfrom RhdIsland because I believe that it is right. If a man who is so poor and unfortunate as not to be able to support himself is to be disfranchised; if a man who has been guilty of no crime, but who is not able to read and write, is to be disfranchised, why not disfranchise a man who has been engaged in rebellion; who has been for years making war on the Government; and even, perhaps, taken an oath of allegiance to another Government? such a man ought to be naturalized, at any rate, before he comes back to our Government. Let him wait 5 years. I agree with what the Senfrom Massachusetts has said in regard to the requirements of reading and writing as a qualification for voting. That might be entertained in a State where all the people were allowed to go to school and learn to read and write; but it seems to me monstrous to apply it to a class of persons in this community who were legislated away from school, to whom every avenue of learning was shut up by law. When the vote comes to be taken I shall vote to give the ballot to every man of the prescribed age and of the proper residence who has not been guilty of a crime, I care not for his complexion or his nationality. I have found that there are Americans who were, not born here. A man is an American if he has got an American heart in him. Those of us who were born here could not help it. The man who is an American from choice deserves a little something in addition to those who are Americans from necessity. Therefore, I say I would not disfranchise those who come here joyfully to yield themselves to the moldering influence of American civilization. I think we ought to have this amendment of the Senfrom RhdIsland incorporated in the bill. In my opinion it would be better to vote dowu the amendment of the Senfrom WestVirginia, and move this proposition as an amendment to the amendment reported by the committee.