Mr. HEN DRICKS. The act of Parliament to which I refer, is the chapter of the 2nd of George HI. will ask Senators who apologize for this proposition whether citizenship is a natural right. It is very clear that it is not. The man who comes from a foreign land into our country is not, by virtue of any natural right, a citizen. He becomes a citizen becauseocommunity agree to it. The right of citizenship is a conventional right; yet as a punishment, in direct terms, for crime, Congress has said the right of citizenship shall be taken away; I refer to the act passed in 1865 punishing desertion. It is on the same line of thought suggested by the Senfrom Wisconsin: “That, in addition to the other lawful penalties of the crime of desertion from the military or naval service, all persons who have deserted the military or naval service of the U.S. who shall not return to said service or report themselves to a provost marshal within 60 days after the proclamation hereinaftermentioned shall be doefnod and taken to have voluntarily relinquished and forfeited thgir rights of citizenship and their rights to become citizens; and such desorters shall be forever inapable of holding any office of trust or profit under the U.S., or of exercising any rights of citizens thereof.” Expressly as a punishment. It is not, certainly, and no lawyer will say. it is, important by what term this is known. The question is, is the proposition a punishment for an act done? I suppose in all the States disfranchisement is found as one of the punishments. I will read from one section of the laws of Indiana, with which I am more familiar than with the laws I of other States. As a part of the punishment for larceny, it is provided that upon conviction thereof the party “Shall be fined not exceedingdouble the value of the goods stolen, be imprisoned in the State prison not less than 2 nor more than 14 years, and be disfranchised and microi incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any period.” determinate I suppose similar legislation is found in the other States. I have not taken the trouble to examine. Then, sir, a proposition to take away the right of voting from 68 men by an act of Parliament because of an offense committed before that time was regarded as a bill of attainder, a bill of pains and penalties. The act of Congress to which I have referred, the act of Congress to which the Senfrom Wisconsin has referred, applies in express terms to the stripping of the citizen of his citizenship as a punishment for a crime, and the laws of the State do the same. In this bill we propose to take away from men the right to vote which they now enjoy under existing laws because of a crime committed before this time. Can that be done when the Constitution prohibits the enactment of an expostfacto law? Upon the general proposition, I have but very little to say in regard to this bill. I will not vote for it. In regard to the people of this District, I hold that I occupy the same relation to them that I would to the people of the State of Indiana were I a member of the Legislature of that State. The people of the district I understand to be my constituency in passing laws that are to govern them and them only. By a very large vote, almost unanimous, they have declared that they want no such law as this. if I were a representative in the Legislature of Indiana, and all the people of the State of Indiana at a popular election, except 35, were to say to me not to vote for a bill, would I dare to vote for it? Would any Senator in his State Legislature, being instructed by all the people except 35 to vote against a measure, dare to vote for it? I think every Senator will say he would not, that he would regard so strong an expression of the popular desire as controlling his conduct. Then, sir, when we legislate for the people of this inistrict, enacting a law not affecting our constituencies at ido at all, but only affecting the people of this District, why have they not the right to instruct us? If all the people desire that a law shall not be passed, why will we not respect that instruction? Icannot understand that Congress being clothed with the legislative power for this jo.has the power to disregard the desires of the people. Are laws not to be made agreeable to the people that are to obey them? Is not that a general principle of popular government? But because these people in the District do not elect us, because we are not dependent upon their votes for our offices, have we a right to disregard their wishes?. In regard to the people of Indiana, when the law affects them I should obey their wish; and when I come to vote upon a bill that affects only the people of the District, it seems to me, for the purposes of that bill, they are my constituency and I must respect their will.