Mr. TRUMBULL. My own opinion is that all these persons born in the U.S and under its authority, owing allegiance to the U.S., are citizens without any act of Congress. They are nativeborn citizens. That is my judgment about it; but there is a difference of opinion upon that subject. The Senfrom Kentucky [Mr.] thinks differently, and some of the courts in the southern States have held differently. The recent AttyGen gave it as his opinion that free persons of color were citizens at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and are now. The Senfrom Kentucky, who has based his argument and his hours speech upon the supposition that negroes cannot be citizens because they were not citizens when the constitution of the U.S. was adopted, has forgotten the history of the country. By the Articles of Confederation free persons of color were citizens, just as much citizens as white persons. The 4th of the fundamental Articles of the Confederation was as follows: The free inhabitants of each of those States papers vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States.” That was one of the Articles of Confederation, that the free inhabitants, excepting paupers vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, should be citizens of the several States; and when that clause was under consideration in the convention which adopted the Articles of Confederation it was move to insert the word “white " and this meets the precise question put by t a Senfrom Kentucky. e wants to know if the southern States would have submitted to have Africans or negroes made citizens. They did submit to it, and there were only 2 States opposed to it. On the 25th of June, 1778, the Articles of Confederation being under consideration by the Congress, the delegates from SCarolina moved to amend this 4th article by inserting 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. 2 States voted for the amendment, 8 States voted against it, and the vote of one State was divided. I Now, is there any question or could there be any, that free persons of color were citizens under the Articles of Confederation? How was it in NCarolina? I happen to have before me the report of the decision made in 4 Devereuxs an Battles Reports, in the case of The State vs. Manuel, in which the opinion was delivered by Judge Gaston. He says: to the laws of this State all human within it, who are not slaves, fall within one of 2 classes. Whatever distinctions may have existed in the Roman laws between citizens and free inhabitants the are unknown to our institutions. I before our Revolution all free persons born within the dominions of the King of GreatBritain, whatever their color or complexion were nativeborn British subjectsthose born out of his allegiance were aliens. Slavery did not exist in England. but it did in the British colonies. Slaves were not in legal parlance persons but property. The moment the disqualification of slavery, was Became persons, and were the neither British subjects, or not British subjects, according as they were or were not born within the allegiance of the British king. Upon the Revolution no other change took place in the laws of NCarolina than was consequent on the transition from a colony dependent on a European king to a free and sovereign State. Slaves remained slaves. British subjects in NCarolina became NCarolina free man. Foreigners. until made members of the State Remained aliens. Slavesman admitted here became free man; and therefore if born within NCarolina are citizens of NCarolina and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. The constitution extended the elective franchise to every free man who had arrived at the age of 21 and paid a public tax; and it is a matter of universal notoriety. that under it free persons without regard to color and exercised the until it was taken from free men of color a few years since by our amended constitution.” This is from the opinion of a court in NCarolina, and that opinion is referred to in subsequent decisions of the courts in NCarolina with approbation. The Senfrom Kentucky says if they are already citizens by the constitution, why do you declare it in a law? We often pass laws to remove doubts, and I should like to remove the doubt even. from the mind of the Senfrom Kentucky, if that were possible. But the Senfrom Indiana objects that this amendment as now proposed, including Indians not taxed, is an invidious distinction. He does not want to see this idea of property introduced into the law as a requisite for citizenship; he would not recognize property as giving this high privilege of being an American citizen. The constitution of the U.S. has used this language in regard to the Indians. The Indians have separate governments of their own. They do not recognize nor are they made subject to the laws of the U.S. They may e and administer their own laws; they are not counted in our population; they are not represented in our Government; and the constitution of the U.S. in determining who shall be represented says: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons. including those bound to service for a term of years and not taxed, 3/5ths of all other persons. Does the Senfrom Indiana want the wild, roaming Indians not taxed, not subject to our, authority, to be citizens of the U.S. persons that are not to be counted in our Government? If he does not, let him not object to this amendment that brings in even the Indian when he shall have cast off his wild habits and submitted to the laws of organized society and become a citizen. I can see no objection to the amendment in its present form. I hope it may be adopted for the purpose of removing doubts, not because I suppose it necessary, for I believe that the nativeborn person of African descent now who is a free man in this land is as much a citizen as any of us.