Mr. BINGHAM. As I have before stated, and I beg the gentlemans pardon for asking his attention to the fact, there has not been such a construction, in my opinion, of a law which imposes only a penalty, or centuries, if ever, in any country where the common law obtains. The construction insisted upon by the gentleman amounts to this, that a law which inflicts a penalty or works a forfeiture for doin an act, by implication authorizes the act to be one for doingwhich the penalty is inflicted. There cannot be such aconstruction of the proviso. It is a nalty. It as "s in terms that if any of the States of the U.S shall disobey the constitution; that if they shall make distinctions in violation of the 2nd section of the 1st article of the constitution, that as a penalty such State shall lose political power in this House, to the extent of e whole class or race against any part of whom the unjust discrimination has been made. If, therefore, the State of SCarolina by a violation of the constitution shall say that white citizens only shall vote, thereby excluding the majority of the free male citizens of the State because they are colored, the proviso is, that then SCarolina, instead of having 6 Representatives upon this floor as she otherwise would have, shallonly have two. Isthat notjust, if the 1/3rd of the people of that State disfranchise 2/3rds of p the free people of that State? It is according to the spirit of the constitution? Is it not just as compared with the allant State of Vermont, a State always faith ul to the constitution, with 320,000 white poulation, which sends 3 representatives? SCarolina, according to the argument of gentlemen, may violate the constitution, may violate every principle of republican government, may by the act o a minorit deny all political rights to the majority, an et for doing so the gentlemen who oppose this amendment say that she shall be entit edto 6 Representatives for her 280,000 returned rebel white citizens, and thereby count 2 to one over Vermont with 20,000 more white population than SCarolina. To prevent so gross an injustice we propose the pen alty that no State, by a denial of right to the majorit on account of race or color, shall be allowe to represent such disfranchised majority of free may e citizens. We say if a State oes this thing such State shall be reduced in political wer on this floor, but shall not be relieved mm the payment of taxes on the whole number of free population. a, You place upon your statutebook a law punishing e crime of murder with death. on do not thereby, by implication, say that anybody may, of right, commit murder. You but pass a penal law. You do not prohibit murder in the constitution you guaranty life in the constitution. You do not prohibit the abuse of power by the majority in the constitution in express terms, but you guaranty the equal right of all free male citizens of full age to elect Representatives; and by the proviso you inflict a penalty upon a State which denies or abridges that right on account of race or color. In doing that we are not to be told that we confer a power to override the express guarantees of the constitution. We propose the penalty in aid of the guarantee, not in avoidance of it. But, sir, if implied powers are to be inferred from the mere penalty proposed, then the objection on that ground applies with equal force to the substitute otferedlb my colleague, [ML Senses] What is imp ied here? say, by my argument, no such implication can be made. But I do say, as a logical sequence it results, if powers are to be implied because you impose as a penalty the forfeiture of political powers on a State that denies or abriifiges the rights of any portion of the people guarantied y the constitution, that the argument urged upon that ground against this proviso operates with equa force against the substitute offered by my colleague. What is that? This is the provision proposed by my colleague, [Mr. cues exz] Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the nion according to the number of male citizens ovoi 21 years of on having the e m requisite f r electorsof the most numerous branch of the State cgislature. Is not the effect of this the same as that of the proviso, differing in degree? It is a penalty. It is the diminution of political power in the State that limits suffrage among the citizens of the U.S. The intent ofiny colleagues substitute is the same as that of the proviso in the resolution reported by the committee. it is to compel those States, upon the penalty of losing political wer, to o equal and exact justice among t 9 free citizens of the U.S. in the regulation of the elective franchise. It results that the argument made against the proviso does aply as well to the proposed substitute of my colleague. Does not that substitute imply, according to the argument we have heard, that all citizens of the U.S., being male persons over 21 years of age, in a State, may not be allowed to exercise the elective franchise? Did not my colleague [Mr. Senns ex] admit in his argument ster ay that this fact was implied? Undou tedly. Does the substitute not imply furtherif, as contended, a penalty for doing an act is an implied power and authority to do itthat the franchise may be conferred in the States upon aliens? Most undoubtedly. Well, is not that a violation of the constitution? Was it not intended by the constitution, as I argued in the heginning, that the political power of this country should be exercised in the several States of the Union only by citizens of the U.S., natural born or duly naturalized? Undoubt edly that is the intent of your constitution. The ballot is the sovereignty of the nation, and should only be in the hands of citizens. A few States of the Union, and buta few, have granted alien suffrage. My colleague, I am sure, is not its advocate. But let gentlemen, when they enter upon this mode of argument, raising implied powers from a restraining law, consider well whither their lo ic leads them. I assert again, without fear o contradiction from any ninii who deliberately examines the subject, that the argument urged against the proviso, that by implication it authorizes an act to be done which it punishes, that the argument lies as well a inst tesubstitute offered by my colleague. there is in my mind no doubt about it. It seems to me, sir, that the JtResolution of the committee has this to recommend it in addition to what I have said over the proposed substitute, that it leaves to every State of this Union, according to the original intent and letter of the constitution, its equal political power in the Union, provided the several States obey its requirements. That is precisely what it proposes. What is the result, if you substitute my colleagues amendment 7 You diminish necessarily the political power of the 10al States while on increase in the same ratiot at of the rebel States upon their admission to representation in this blouse. Now, is it not enough for us to allow them to come in with equal political power upon precisely the same terms with the rest 3 or are we ready to strip the loyal States of the just political power under the constitution which they hold today. I believe it endangers the future safety of the Republic to increase the litical power of the 11 States that have been in rebellion against the Government, and diminish the political power of the 10al States. In my judgment, that would be t ie effect of my cblleaguessubstitute. How? Why, simply thus. Under the constitution as it now is and as it always has been, the entire immigrant population of this country is included in the basis o representation. Eve man knows that the great body of the immigrant population of America always has been and now is confined to the free loyal States. There is no considerable portion of it found anywhere within the limits of the 11 rebel States. By substituting the amendment of my colleague on strike from the basis of representation the entire immigrant population not naturalized, and therefore not yet capable of becoming voters, citizens of the U.S. over 21 years of age. I ask the House to consider whether that is wise. It will be admitted, doubtless, that the framers of the constitution inserted this provision to encourage immigration. The did so, not only by this provision of the organic law, which declared that the whole immigrant population should be numbered with the people and counted as part of them, but by the further provision that congress should have power to pass a uniform naturalization law, and thereby provide that the alien population, by comlyin with the terms of the statute, should be c 0th with the dignity of citizens of the U.S and invested with the rights and powers of citizens. There is no provision of the constitution that is more essential to the future of the republic than this. It is as true now as when the constitution of the U.S. was adopted, that the want of the Republic is productive power. The wise statesmen who fashioned the constitution invited to these shores the toiling millions of the Old World. They in vited the workers and the builders whose honest toil clothes and shelters nations. They came from every civilized nationality, to be numbered among our people, and finally to become one with us as citizens of the Republic. But, say gentlemen now, they shall not be numbered among our people, that we must depart from that policy which has hitherto ven the Republic its strength, which has enab edit to achieve what has hitherto been seen only in the vision of the Seer, a nation born in a ay, a nation that within the memory of living men has peopled this vast country of ours from the western base of the Alleghanies to the gates of the Pacific, and covered the continent with free Commonwealths. Mr. Speaker, I trust that the House will deliberate ong before they substitute any such untried roject for the older, safer way of the fathers of, the constitution. One word more about this muchabused proviso. It offers an inducement to those States lately in rebellion, when they are admitted to their properositions in the Union, if they would assert their political power, not only to make the franchise universa, but if the neces sit exists to which my colleague [Mr. Scumi ex] reerred esterday, to unbar the gates of knowl edge aiiif allow all the citizens of their States the means either of selfculture, or of culture through the beneficence and kindness of otlrers. It is true that this amendment may not, as it cannot, compel the States to grant the meansof mental instruction. This amendment will not accomplish all that we desire, but it will be a step taken toward the attainment of the end. I trust that before this congress shall conclude its session amendments will be sent out to the people by which the Congress may upon their ratification be empowered to provide by law that hereafter no State shall make it a crime for a man, whether he be black or white,:1. citizen of the Republic, to learn the al habst of his native tongue and his rights and uties. Mr. Speaker, I have endeavored in the remarks which I have made to the House to llllOW that the proposed amendment is a simple endeavor, by way of penalty, to enforce the existing grants and guarantees of the constitution of my country. trust that I have succeeded in making the House understand my own views, at least, of this important question. I think that no question more important than this has et come before the House, and that none nore important can come before the House fir its consideration, unless it be the great question whether the constitution shall be so ame rided as to give to Congress the power by constitute law to enforce all its guarantees! I pray gentleman to consider long before they rejec. this proviso . It may not be the best that the wisest head in this House can conceive of, but I ask gentlemen to consider that the rule of statesmanship is to take the best attainable essential good which is at our command. The reason why I support the proposed amendment is that I believe it essential and attainable. I d)not dare to say that it could not be improve l. I do dare to say that it is in aid of the existing grants and guarantees of the constitution i f my 1866. 433 country, that it is simply a penalt to be inflicted upon the States for a specilic isregard in the future of those wise an just and humane grants “to the people” to elect their Representatives and maintain a republican government in each State. Mr. Speaker, the Republic is great; it is great in its domain, equal in extent to continental Europe, aboundin" in the productions of every zone, broad enong and fertile enough to furnish bread and homes to 300 million free men. The Republic is great in the intelli gence, thrift, industry energy, virtue, and valor of its uncon uered and unconquerablechildren; and great in its matchless, wise, and beneficent constitution. I pray the Congress of the U.S. to propose to the people all needful amendments to the constitution, that by their sovereign not they may crown the Republic for all time with the greatness of justice.