Mr. JOHNson. Yes, I do. I am not objecting at all to their being citizens now; what I mean to say, is that over all the Indian tribes within the limits of the U.S., the U.S. may that is the test exercise juris diction.‘ Whethertheyexerciseitin pointoffact is another question; whether they propose to govern them under the treaty making power is quite another question; but the question as to the authority to legislate is one, think, about which, if we were to exercise it, the courts would have no doubt; and when, therefore, the courts come to consider the meaning of this revision, that all persons born within the lim its of the U.S and subject to the juris diction thereof are citizens, and are called upon to decide whether Indians born within the U.S., with whom we are now making trenties are citizens, Ithiiik theywill decide that they have become citizens by virtue of this amendment. But at any rate, without exressing any decided opinion to that effect, as would not do when the honorable member from Illinois is so decided in the opposite Opinion, when th honorable memberfrom Wisconsin, to say ning of myself, entertains a reasonable that Indians would be embraced Wit provision, what possible harm can tl guarding against it? It does n of constitutional umendmleip, in an." is not my purpose, zinc rfjs“ purpose of mypfriendfrom‘ he honorable member that the terms which the We propose to make' A my are a es. cousin proposes to insert would leave it very uncertain. I suppose that my friendfrom Illinois agreed to the 2nd section of this constitutional amendment, and these terms are used in that section. In apportioning the representation, as you propose to do by virtue of the 2nd section, you exclude from the basis “Indians not taxed.” What does that mean? The honorable member from Illinois says that that is very uncertain. What does it mean? It means, or would mean if inserted in the 1st section, nothin. according to the honorable member from I line is. Well, if it means nothing inserted in the 1st section it means nothing where it is proposed to insert it in the 2nd section. But I think m friendfrom Illinois will find that these wor s are clearly understood and have always been understood; they are now almost technical terms. They are found, I think, in nearly all the statutes upon the subject; and if I am not mistaken, the particular statute upon which my friendfrom Illinois so much re ied as one necessary to the peace of the country, the civil rights bill, has the same provision in it, and that bill lieve was prepared altogether, or certainly cipally, by my friendfrom Illinois. I read.ow from the civil rights bill as it passed: “ That all persons born in the U.S.andnot subjectto any foreign Power, excludimr Indians not taxed. are herebydeclaredto be citizens.” What did these words mean? The meant something; and their meaning as they are inserted in that act is the same meanin which will be given to them if they are inserte in the 1st section of this constitutional amendment. But I conclude by saying that when we are trying to settle this, among other questions, for all time, it is advisable and if my friend will permit me to say so, our clear duty to put every provision which we ado t in such plain language as not to he capable of 2 interpretations, if we can. When Senators upon the floor maintain the opinion that as it now stands it is capable of an interpretation different from that which the committee mean, and the amendments clear of that interpretation whi committee do not mean, why should we not adopt it? I hepe, therefore, that the friends and I am the friend of this provision as far as we have gone in it that the friends of this constitutional amendment will accept the suggestion of the honorable member from Wisconsin.