Mr. YATES. I will answer that question in the course of my remarks, and will only make the statement now, that neither any State in this Union, nor the Congress of the U.S., has power under the Constitution or under the decision of the Supreme Court to deprive a citizen of the prerogative of the elective franchise. That is the position I assume. I have but just now read from the decision of the Supreme Court, by Chief Justice Taney himsel, to show that the “ people” of the U.S. were the “ citizens of the U.S. Who made the Constitution of the U.S.? “ W; the people” “ do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Did the Constitution make the people of the U.S.? No, sir. The moment a man is a free man, by any law, by any constitution in the U.S., that man becomes one of the body politic. He passesinto the body of the sovereinty, as it is termed by the decision of the upreme Court. He is one of the people. He is one of the citizens of the U.S.A and as I shall presently show, no State, nor ougress, except by constitutional amendment, has an right whatever to deprive a.citizen entirely of the right of suffrage. I will read further from the same decision. i This decision goes on to say, on page 426 of i the same volume: l "No one, we presume supposes that any changein i public opinion or feeling in relation to this unfortunate croaucnet.riyn, sthhoeu civilized cenathtieoncosu of Europe toorthine I. wordsof the Constitution a more liberal construction I in their favor than they were intended to hear when the instrument was framed and adopted. If any of its provisions are deemed unjust, there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which it maybe amended. but while it remains, unaltered it must be construed now as it was understood at the time efits adoption." i But it has been altered; the negro is no longer regarded as a slave or belonging to a subject, race, but as the Gentfrom Maryland. {Mia JOHNSON] even. admits, he is a man, and susceptible of the highest cultivation. lt is in the light of this new estimate of the freedman that we are to consider the provisions for his emancipation new in the Constitution, and to confer upon him the full and equal enjoyment of all his rights. Sir, I do not believe our fathers had any such low estimate as was attributed to them in that decision, but that they did most reluctantly compromise for reasons before stated. I vindicate them from the black stain implied by any construction which would go to show that they meant “all men" except the negro “are created equal." I said, I did not believe the framers of the Declaration meant to exclude any particular class or race of men, when they declared all men equal. Sir, facts are stubborn things, and no lo ie, not even of the most astute and profoun lawyer, can destroy the vfwrec of any important fact. It is a stern, stubborn, historical act that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution the freedmen, inhabitants of the States of NewHampshire Massachusetts, New. York, NewJersey, and NCarolina, were I not only citizens of those States but possessed 1 the franchise of electors on equal terms with the other citizens, and, sir, were not only included in the body of the people of the U.S. by whom the Constitution was made, but vote on the question of its adoption. Is 5 it not strange that the framers meant to say that I they were not included in the DeclarIndep who were suffered to vote whether or not the Constitution should be ordained and established? There is another stubborn fact which goes to show that the fathers did not design to make the distinction in favor of white men onl and that fact is this, that while the Articles O confederation were under the consideration of congress, on the 23dJune 1778, the delegates from SCarolina move to amend the 4th of the fundamental Articles of the Confederation, which reads as follows: “The free inhabitants of each of those states paupers vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the free citizens of the several States." They moved to amend this 4th article by insertingI after the word “ free, “ and before the word “inhabitants, ” the word “white;" so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would be secured only to white persons. Only 2 States voted or it, while 8 voted against it, add the vote of one State was divided, and the language of the article remained unchanged and went into the constitution of the U.S. without any re striction to white persons. But whether or not the fathers meant to exelude free colored persons, the decision in the Dred Scott case was made under the Constitution before the recent amendment and the court, in the following emphatic language, leaves the inference irresistible that the decision would be different in case of an amendment of that instrument. I quote from it! Howard, page 426: “ No one.we presume, supposes that anychangein public opinion or feelin in relation to this unfortuncoeuwnrtacein the civiliz nationsof Europe or in this, should induce the court to give to the words I of the stitutton a moreliberal construction in their favor than theywere intendedto s“tIrfument was framed and adopted. any of its provisions are diecmedunjust. there is a mode prescribedin the instrument itself by which it maybe amended: but while it remains unaltered. it must be construed now as it was understoodat the time of its adoption." The meaning of this, sir, was that a slave or a descendant of a slave could not be a citizen under the Constitution as originally adopted, and that it must be so construed until the constitution is altered. It has been altered, and conforms to public opinion of the present day, which demands the recognition of e manhood of the negro and there is not a word in that whole decision which, under the Constitution as altered, does not go to support the reposition that the freedman, under the amendment, stands upon the same footing of civil and political equality with the white man; subject to the same statutory disabilities, and entitled to all the rights and privileges of the white man. Now, sir, I come to the point to which the Senfrom Delaware has referred, and according to the decision relied upon especially by that Senator, the decision in the Dred Scott case, I here take the position that Congress has no power to make a citizen, except to naturalize a foreigner, or to make him a citizen by naturalization nor has a State any such right.