Mr JOHNSO. Mr. President, but for the decision in the Dred Scott case, to which allusion has been made, perhaps the question would be free from all difficulty; at, as the Senate are already informed, the decision in that case was that, because of the particular condition of the African, neither he nor any of his descendants were citizens. The Senate will find, by referring to that decision, that the court put it entirely upon the ground that the Africans were imported into the U.S. as slaves, and bong 1tand sold as property, and according to the view that the court took all their descendants partook of that condition; that is to say, they inherited the disqualification of the ancestor. The sins of the ancestor, if they could be called sins, were visited upon the children. They a plied that principle by saying that the disqualification of the ancestor because of his condition was to be visited upon the children. It is very obvious upon the reading of that opinion that the court would have come to a different conclusion, provided the African: had immigrated to the U.S. as immigrants, instead of coming here as property. If they had come as men and had not been brought in as chattels, then they would have been citizens of the U.S. It is also evident that if the Supreme Court had taken the view taken by the honorable member who has just addressed the Senate, [Mr. Guam] that there were in the States Africans or descendants of Africans at the time of the adoption of the constitution who were citizens of the States in which they might be, they would have been citizens of the U.S. That is obvious, as I think, from a paragraph in the opinion to which I invite the attention of the Senate, which will be found in 19 Howard, page 406: The court say, after stating the ease: “The question then arises, whether the provisions of the constitution in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should been titled, embraced the negro African race at that time in this country or who might afterward be imported. who had then or should afterward be made rec in any State: and to ppt it in the owner of State to make him a citizen of the U.S., him with the full rights of citizenship in other State without their consent.” The court put the question and say: "The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained.” and then follows the passage to which I wish to make particular reference: “It is true that every person,". Without reference to color, black or white recognized as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body. but none other: it was formed by them and for the mand their one else. Then the court, after entering into a historical examination of the fact whether these people were recognized as citizens of the seve ral States, and coming to the conclusion that they weie not so recognized, came to the consequent result that, not being citizens of the States according to the view taken by the court, they were not under the constitution made citizens of the U.S. But if the court had taken the view taken by the honorable member from NewHampshire, that there were in the State of NewHampshire Africans who were citizens of the State, recognized as citizens of the State, participating in the political government of the State, and therefore participating in the election of members of the Convention, and participating in the question whether the constitution was to be adopted or not, they would have come to the conclusion that they were citizens. The error, therefore, that the court have committed, if they have committed an error at all, a question that I do not propose now to discuss, is not in the principle maintained by the honorable member from NewHumpshire but in the historical fact, were or were not negroes in the States of the U.S. citizens of such States, all or anyone, at the time the constitution was adopted. If the court, to repeat, had come to the conclusiOn that they were such citizens, then according to their own view it would have followed that they became under the constitution citizens of the U.S., it being true, to repeat the language of“ the court That every person and every class and desoription of persons who were at the time of the adoption of the constitution recognized as citizens in the several States became also citizens of the U.S. ” But the Supreme Court have decided that negroes are not citizens, and the decision stands be ore us. Whether it will be recognized here after when the question arises in that tribunal at any subsequent time is a matter that I do not propose now to inquire into: there it is, and awe have a right to suppose that it may control subsequent decisions; and if it does control subseqluent decisions, the result will be that this law wl not be operative because the court came to the conclusion that no African who was brought into the country as a slave and sold as a slave was himself, or any of his descendants, a citizen of the U.S. within the meaning of that term as found in the constitution of the U.S. But now suppose that those who take a view different from that taken by the Supreme Court take the properview, that they may be made citizens notwithstanding the constitution of the U.S.; let me for a moment address myself to the objection stated by the honorable member from Kentucky. I understand the honorable member as saying that, under the constitution of the U.S., no person can be made a citizen of the U.S. by legislation except under that clause of the Constitution which gives to Congress the authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. hat is his proposition. N ow, where does that lead us? See the condition in which we should be placed if that ronosition is right.