Mr. JOHNson. Mr. President, the particular question before the Senate is whether the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Wisconsin shall be ado ted. But while I am up, and before I procee to consider the necessity for that amendment, I will say a word or 2 upon the proposition itself; I mean that part of section one which is recommended as an amendment to the old proposition as it originally stood. The Senate are not to be informed that very serious questions have arisen, and some of the in have given rise to embarrassments. as to who are citizens of the U.S., and what are the rights which belong to them as such; and the object of this amendment is to settle that question. I think, therefore, with the committee to whom the matter was referred, and by whom the report has been made, that it is very advisable in some form or other to define what citizenship is; and I know no better we of accomplising that than the way adopte by the committee. The Constitution as it now stands recognizes a citizenship of the U.S. It provides that no person shall be eligible to the Presidency of the U.S. except a natural born citizen of the U.S or one who was in the U.S. at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; it provides that no person shall be eligible to the office of Senatorwho has not been a citizen of the U.S. for 9 years; but there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the U.S. is an open question. The decision of the courts and the doctrine of the commentators is, that every man who is a citizen of a State becomes 1' so facto a citizen of the U.S.; but here is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the U.S. except through the medium of a citizenship in a State. ow, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the U.S and not subject to some foreign Power for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us shall be considered as citizens of the U.S. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be ciTTr zone of to U.S. entitled every where to the character of citizens of the U.S. there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the U.S., and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the U.S., born of parents who at the time were subject to the authorityof the U.S. I am, however, by no means prepared to say, as I think I have intimated eforc, that being born within the U.S., independent of any new constitutional provision on the subject, creates the relation of citizen to the U.S. The amendment proposed by my friendfrom Wisconsin I think, and I submit it to the senate, sbonld be adopted. The honorable member from Illinois seems to think it unnecessary, because, according to his interpretation of the amendment as it stands, it excludes those who are proposed to be excluded by the amendment of the Senfrom Wisconsin, and he thinks that that is done by aning that those only who are born in the U.S. are to become citizens thereof, who at the time of birth are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ” and he supposes and states very Ositively that the Indians are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. With due eference to my friendfrom Illinois, I think he is in error. They are within the territorial limits of the U.S. If they were not, the provision would be altogether inapplicable to them. In one sense, therefore, they are a part of the people of the U.S., and independent of the manner in which we have been ealing with them it would seem to follow necessarily that they are subject to the (jurisdiction of the U.S., as is anybody else who may be within the limits of the U.S. Bur. when the U.S. took possession England for us in the beginning, and our limits have been extended since of the territory which was originally peopled exclusively by the Indians, we found it necessary to recognize some kind of a national existence on the part of the aboriginal settlers of the U.S.; but we were under no obligation to do so, and we are under no constitutional obligation to do so now, for although we have been in the habit of making treaties with these several tribes, we have also, from time to time, legislated in relation to the Indian tribes. We punish mur der committed within the territorial limits in which the tribes are to be found. I think we punish the crime of murder committed b one ndian upon another Indian. I think my friendfrom Illinois is wrong in supposing that that is not done. I,