Mr. TRUMBULL. I understood the senator, I think. I know he did not say that the clause in the 2nd section was extended all over the country, but he did say that the words “excluding Indians not taxed” were in the 2nd section, and inasmuch as I had said that those words were of uncertain meaning, therefore, having gone for the words in the 2nd section Twas guilty of a great incon sistency. Now, I merely wish to show the Senfrom Maryland that the words in the 2nd section may have a very clear and def inite meaning, when in the 1st section they would have a very uncertain meaning, because lied under very different circum c be 2nd section refers to no perKexcept those in the States of the Union; 1st section refers to persons every hether in the States or in the Terri the DistCol. There 'sm upon the language that I had 0 me, is not a just one. wants to insert the words, 15 not taxed.” I am not Qship in this country de pend on taxation. I am not willing, if the Senfrom Wisconsin is, that the rich Indian residing in the State of NewYork shall be a citizen and the poor (Indian residing in the State of NewYork shall not be a citizen. If you put in those words in regard to citizenship, what do you do? You make a distinction in that respect, if you put it on the ground of taxation. We had a discussion on the civil rights bill as to the meaning of these words, “excluding Indians not taxed.” The Senfrom Maryland, [Mr. Jonssos] I think, on t“hat occasion gave this definition to the phrase excluding Indians not taxed, ” that it did not allude to the fact of taxation simply but it meant to describe a class of persons; that is, civilized Indians. I was inc ined to fall into that view. Iwas inclined to adopt the suggestion of the Senfrom Maryland, that the words “ excluding Indians not taxed” did not mean literally excluding those upon whom a tax was not assessed and collecte, but rather meant to define a class of persons, meaning civilized Indians; and I think I gave that an swer to the Senfrom Indiana, [Mr. HEXmuexs] who was disposed to give it the tech nical meaning that “Indians not taxed" meant simply those upon whom no tax was laid. If it does mean t at, then it would be very objectionable to insert those words here, because it would make of a wealthy Indian a citizen and would not make a citizen of one not possessed of wealth under the same circumstances. This is the uncertainty in regard to the meaning of those words. The Senfrom Maryland and myself, perhaps, would understand them alike as embracing all Indians who were not civilized; and yet, if you insert that language, “Indians not taxed, ” other persons may not understand them that way; and Iremember that the Senfrom Indiana was disposed to understand them differently when we had the discussion upon the civil rights hill. Therefore I think it better to avoi these words and that the lap uage proposed in this constitutional amendment is better than the language in the civil rights bill. The object to be arrived at is the same. I have already replied to the suggestion as to the Indians being subject to our jurisdiction. They are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the U.S.; and the Senfrom Maryland, if he will look into our statutes, will search in vain for any means of tryin these wild Indians. A person can only be tried for a criminal offense in pursuance of laws, and he must be tried in a district which must have been fixed bylaw before the crime was committed. We have had in this country, and have today, a large region of country within the territorial limits of the U.S., unorganized, over which we do not pretend to exercise any civil or criminal jurisdiction, where wild tribes of Indians roam at pleasure, subject to their own laws and regulations and we do not pretend to interfere with them. They would not be embraced by this provision. For these reasons I think this language is better than the language employed by the civil ri his bill.