Mr. HENDERSON. The Senator will understand me as objecting to the amendment as it now stands. An individual of the Caucasian race, whether he pays a tax in a State or not, is undoubtedly regarded as a citizen of the U.S. Why make it obligatory upon the Indian, owing no allegiance to any tribal authority, to pay a tax before he can be regarded as a citizen of the U.S.? As the Senfrom Indiana IlIl. HENDltICKS] very properly remarked, the U.S. citizenship in that case is dependent upon nothing except the possession of property upon which a tax is actually aid. F suppose that according to the rule adopted in th ent, a State ought to be permittodto exclude anywhite man from taxation, and by sodoing to deny himtherights " nship. Why not? point is that the Indian, if he is connected no tribe, whether he is taxed or not, ought ea citizen of the U.S. What harm, can there be in declaring that fact? What in jury can it do? I ask the Senfrom Minnesota. The State need not admit him to the franchise. He may be acitizen of the U.S., and yet not have all the privileges and all the immunities of a citizen of the State in which he may be. The State may deny him any of them that it chooses to deny. But why not declare him a citizen of the U.S.? What harm can there be in that? It will on able him to sue in the courts of the U.S. to enforce his rights there, and Icannot sec for my part what else it will do. As the Constitution now stands, of course the State cannot be injured in any of its reserved powers. It can certainl do none of the States any harm to declare that the Indian himself, owing no allegiance to any tribe, and thereby notfalling within the exception of the amendment as owing allegiance qmsitoa foreign Power, (regarding the Indian tribes as foreign Powers) separated from the tribe, shall be regarded as a citizen of the U.S. I have heard no reason yet, and I desire to hear it if there be any. I am opposed to the amendment as it now stands, for the reason that it does make an exception. Now that we are fixing the law on the subject, why not declare every man born in the U.S. to be a citizen of the U.S., irrespective of race or previous condition? Is there any objection to it? You may declare him a citizen of the U.S. without doin any harm, as I before stated, and why not o it? Why not make the rule general? You propose to declare that all the negroes are citizens. Isay that is perfectly right, thoughIdo not deem it necessary so to declare by this amendment, becauseI think that is the case already. I do not choose, however. to enter into any argument on that point. I hold that every man born within the U.S., and who has been liberated by the constitutional amendment, is a citizen of the U.S. I shall not now go into an argument inreglard to the powers of the States, to consider whether the States may not deny all the privileges and rights of State citizenship to the negro. I am speaking only of this privilege of each individual, as I hold, to be a citizen of the U.S.; and Ican see no reason operating against the Indian. The negro of Geor in todny, whether he pays a tax or not, is declared to be a citizen of the U.S. Why not? He may pay no tax to the State of Georgia; but should that fact derive him of the privilege of being a citizen of the U.S.? as he not born here? Does he owe any allegiance to a foreign Power? Is he not bound to bear arms in defense of his country? Certainly he is. Cannot the State of California or Minnesota, where the Indian is living among the whites, owing no tribal allegiance, compel him to bear arms in defense of the State and the U.S.? Unquestionably so. Why not, then, make him a citizen of the U.S.? Shall Georgia, or Florida, or Virginia, or any other State, have the power to say, ought it be allowed to say, ” We will not tax the negroes, and thereby nullify the declaration of the U.S. Congress that they are citizens of the U.S.?” If the mere fact of paying a tax inthe respective States shall confer citizenship, why not make that applicable to the negro as well as the Indian? Is there any reason for the discrimination 2 Why discriminate when laying down a great and broad principle? Why not make it general and universal? [here is no reason in the world why it should not be so. We give these Indians in the States no rights that the States may choose to deny to them by simply declaring the universal fact. Let us make it universal. The original proposition of the Senfrom Illinois was correct. What do you mean by “Indians not taxed?" Do you mean not taxed by State authority, or not taxed by F oderal authority? If one of these Indians in Minnesota owns property, whether the State taxes him or not, are you not going to tax him by Federal authority? If he executes an instrument there, must he not procure a revenue stampund use it just as anybody else? If he has an income, does not the U.S. as sessor assess the income of that Indian in minnesota jhst exactly as he assesses the income of the iirhite man? Why then not give him the rights of U.S. citizenship if he is not connected with a tribe and thereby quasi a foreigner owing allegiance to a quasi foreign Power? I do not understand that this discrimination can be rightfully or properly made, and therefore I am opposed to it unless I can hear some better reason given for it than I have heard heretofore. I do not see any good reason for it.