Mr. DAVIS. I will say a word or 2 in reference to what the Senfrom Illinois has said. I assumed that the gentlemans proposition of amendment could not be entertained. 1st, I denied the proposition which he made in his speech of the day before yesterday that anegro was a citizen. I assumed the other proposition that whether a negro was a citizen or not, he was not a foreigner; and not being a foreigner he cannot be naturalized by any act of Congress, special or general; that nobody but a foreigner can be naturalized. Now, by way of repelling the 1st position, the honorable Senator introduces a decision of one of the NCarolina courts that a negro was a citizen in NCarolina. When was he made a citizen in NCarolina if he was a citizen there? It was before the constitution was formed. He had the right to vote in NCarolina. Will the honorable Senator say that if that negro, having the right to vote in NCarolina, had gone over to Virginia, or SCarolina, or Georgia, he would have been a citizen there and entitled to the privileges of citizenship? He might have claimed them, lint they never would have been accorded to im. The mere right to vote does not amount to citizenship. Citizenship, under the Constitution, is something different from what it was before the constitution was formed. Before the constitution was formed every State made its own citizens; every State coined its own money. Since the formation of the constitution, there is but one power to coin money, there is but one power to make citizens, and that is the Government of the U.S. The State of Illinois admitted nnnaturalized foreigners who had been resident in that State 6 months to vote. Did the fact that Illinois permitted an unnaturalized foreigner who had been resident there 6 months to take art in her government make him a citizen of the U.S.? Not at all. My position is that this is a white mans Government. It was made so at the beginning. The charters thatwere granted by the different sovereigns of England to the various colonies Were ranted to white men and included nobody but white men. They did not includeIndians. They did not include negroes. When the trou bles with the mother country commenced in 1764, and culminated in revolution auda Declarationsif Independence in 1776, all of that protracted and important transaction was by white men, and by white men alone. The negro had nothing to do with it, no more than the Indian; he was no party to it. It was not for his grievances that that struggle was made; it was not to reform his wrongs that that bloody war was waged; it was not to establish a Government in which he was to be a party or a power that the DeclarIndep was enunciated tov the world and the 01 Articles of Confederation formed; it was not to make him a party to our present Government that the constitution was formed. He was no party in the Convention; he was not represented in the Convention which framed the present constitution. It is a white mans Government. I say that the negro is not a citizem He maybe made a citizen by power, but it will he in disregard, I think, of principle. I den that this is a Government of amalgamation. deny that the governing population, the population that is clothed Wit political power and politiml sovereignty, is the result o miscegenation. It is a white opnlation, and not a negro poulation or an Indian or a mixed population. hat is the truth of history. It is the truth of principle. Power and numbers may trample that truth under foot and disregard it; but if marshall and Story and Washington and their compeers upon the supreme bench were here to rule this principle, they would rule it as our fathers understood it, in my judgment. I still then reiterate the position that the negro is not a citizen here according to the essen tial fundamental principles of our system; but whether he be a citizen or not, he is not a foreigner, and no man, white or black or red or mixed, can be made a citizen by naturalization unless he is a foreigner. You cannot make a citizen in that way of a native. You cannot make a citizen of anybody that is not a foreigner. You cannot transmute into a citizen any man but one who owes allegiance to a for ei n Government or a foreign potentatc. f the honorable gentleman is so confident in his positions and so Strongly intrenched and forti edin them as he appears to be, let him bring up and examine a principle, adictum, where anybody but a foreignor was ever admitted to be naturalized in the States or in the U.S. Let him bring up a solitary example where a native of the country, who had never become denationalized by leaving it, and who owed no allegiance and no obedience to a foreign Government or a foreign potentate, was ever admitted by any process whatever to American citizenship.