exactly in proportion as the right of suffrage should be granted, without distinction of color or race.' Early in 1867 two amendments presenting the following new features were introduced: One to prohibit a State from depriv ing any citizen of the United States from voting at any Federal or State election; the other contained a provision prohibiting any State from requiring more than a $250 property qualification, or as an educational test more than the ability to read the Constitution in English and to write one's name.3 In the early part of the Fortieth Congress, Senator Henderson reintroduced his amendment in somewhat different words. It read: "No State shall deny or abridge the right of its citizens to vote and hold office on account of race, color, or previous coudition." The resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and was not reported until nearly two years later, January 15, 1869, when it was taken as the basis of the fifteenth amendment. In this same year four very similar resolutions were presented." 4 During the second session of the Fortieth Congress, one further attempt was made to secure an amendment on this subject. Mr. Newcomb of Missouri, March 9, 1868, offered a resolution instructing the Committee on the Judiciary of the House to report an amendment which should settle the qualifications of electors impartially and uniformly in all the States." 131. THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT." The experience of the four years following the close of the war showed that the right of suffrage was too important and essential to be left to ordinary legislation. It should be incorporated into the Constitution. The indorsement of the action 'App., No. 1134. Senator Stewart offered an amendment, which he had previously introduced (App., No. 1128) to the committee's proposition. App., No. 1190. App., No. 1197, provided the citizens were of sound mind, unconvicted of any infamous offense, and had attained the age of 21, and had resided in the State one year. App., No. 1203. The same had been presented before, to be printed. App., No. 1194f. 4App., No. 1209 (March 7, 1867). App., Nos. 1212, 1213, 1215, 1217. Mr. Ashley, who presented two of these, proposed that after July 4, 1876, ability to read and write English should be a requirement for the suf frage. App., No. 1227e, conferring the suffrage on all citizens of age, was also introduced by him. "App., No. 1224. Brief history of its proposal and adoption: See Foster, Com. on Const., I, sec. 52, pp. 325-329; Story, II, Chap. XLVIII (by Judge Cooley). The writer has not deemed it necessary to trace the political history of the "reconstruction amendments," as it has already been done many times. of the Republican party at the polls in 1868, convinced the rank and file of the party that another amendment was necessary. Accordingly, at the opening of the third session of the Fortieth Congress, in 1868, eight distinct amendments were introduced, the effect of which, if adopted, would have been to extend the right of suffrage to the freedmen. In a short time three more amendments on this same subject were offered.2 Of these eleven amendments, seven were presented in the House and four in the Senate. With one exception, they were all referred to the Committee on the Judiciary in their respective Houses. The Committee on the Judiciary reported to the House on the 11th of June, 1869, through their chairman, Mr. Boutwell of Massachusetts, a joint resolution proposing an amendment which provided that "the right of any citizen of the United States to vote shall not be abridged by the United States or any State by reason of race, color, or previous condition of slavery of any citizen or class of citizens of the United States."3 This resolution gave rise to extended discussion, as Mr. Boutwell remarked, "This debate has demonstrated two facts, one is, there is a very general agreement that it is desirable to submit an amendment to the Constitution; and the other is, that there is a very great difference of opinion as to the details of the amendment." The truth of this last statement appears throughout the entire discussion preparatory to the passage of the fifteenth amendment in both branches of Congress. Some eleven amendments were offered in the House to the resolution reported by the committee.1 One offered by Mr. Brooks of New York was very peculiar. It provided that the right of any citizen to vote should not be abridged "by reason of his or her race, sex, nativity, or age when over twelve years of age, color or previous condition of slavery."5 Mr. Shellabarger of Ohio, objecting to the amendment proposed by the committee as not preventing the limitation of the suffrage on other grounds such as intelligence and property, presented an amendment extending the right of suffrage to all male citizens of suitable age and "sound mind," except those 1 App., Nos. 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1245. 2 App., Nos. 1249, 1307, 1312. 3 App., No. 1250. 4 App.. Nos. 1251-1260. App., No. 1251. 2 "who have engaged or may hereafter engage" in rebellion.' Mr. Ward of New York offered an amendment allowing all to exercise the right of suffrage, except such as have been convicted of treason or other crimes, on complying with certain regulations concerning registration and naturalization. Mr. Bingham of Ohio introduced an amendment the "same in substance" as his colleague's, with "one exception;" it excepted those who might "hereafter engage in rebellion."3 Mr. Boutwell, in response to the desire of several to test the sense of the House, proposed to add the words "nor shall educational attainments or the possession or ownership of property ever be made a test of the right of any citizen to vote."4 All these amendments were rejected by decisive votes, and the resolution as proposed by the committee, with only one minor change, was passed by the House by a vote of 150 to 42, on January 30, 1869. Meanwhile a similar discussion was taking place in the Senate. The Committee on the Judiciary at last, on the 15th of January, reported a substitute for the amendment introduced by Mr. Henderson of Missouri 5 nearly two years before. Within the next few days seven amendments to the joint resolution were presented. One, offered by Mr. Williams of Oregon proposed that "Congress shall have power to abolish or modify any restrictions upon the right to vote or hold office prescribed by the constitution or laws of any State." Mr. Pomeroy of Kansas submitted an amend ment which stipulated that the right to vote and hold office should not be "denied or abridged by the United States or any State for any reason not equally applicable to all citizens." Mr. Buckalew of Pennsylvania presented as an additional article an amendment making provision for the choice of Presi dential electors. This proposition was later withdrawn, but it was shortly afterwards again presented to Congress. Mr. Dixon of Connecticut moved that the resolution be submitted to conventions in the States for ratification. 10 Mr. Davis of App., No. 1255. Somewhat similar amendments to this were Nos. 1197, 1245, 1252a, 1289a, 1289b, 1311, 1312, limited, however, to male citizens in most instances. 2 App., No. 1256. 3 App., No. 1257. 4 App., No. 1258. Rejected, 45 to 95. Ante par. 130. App., No. 1284. 'App., No. 1285. App., No. 1289. App., No. 1287. 10 App., No. 1286. Post, par. 179. Kentucky proposed a new method of ratification by the vote of the people in each State.' January 30, upon reception of the House amendment, the Senate immediately took it into consideration, laying aside its own resolution. This was done for the purpose of expediting any agreement between the two branches. On the 3d of February Mr. Stewart offered the amendment originally reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. It changed the phraseology of the House amendment, and in addition declared that the right of a person to hold office should not be abridged. At the same time eight other amendments were offered. An Some of these provided that the right to vote and hold office should not be denied or abridged for any reason not equally applicable to all citizens. Others gave the State the right to fix the "conditions of residence and age and registration laws." amendment to prevent the Chinese and Indians not taxed from voting or holding office was also presented. One proposed to insert before the word "citizens" the words "natural born."G Attempts were also made to secure the submission of the amendment either to conventions or legislatures hereafter elected. Between the 4th and the 9th of the month some fifteen substitute propositions were rejected by decisive votes. of these made provision for excluding from the right of suf frage those who had or who may hereafter engage in rebellion." Others prohibited any discrimination in the exercise of the franchise or the right to hold office, but the majority of the propositions were intended to make the terms of the article less stringent. Of this character was the resolution proposed by Mr. Bayard of Delaware which restricted the amendment in the application to Federal offices,10 Mr. Davis of Kentucky proposed as an additional clause an amendment declaring that this provision is not intended to apply to, or in any way affect, App., No. 1288. Post, par. 182. Two others, App., Nos. 1289a and 1289b, were ordered printed. One declared that the privilege of suffrage is hereby declared to be a right incident to citizenship, subject to be forfeited only on conviction of felony. App., No. 1261. 3 Mr. Howard, App., No. 1264. Mr. Pomeroy, App., No. 1289. 'Mr. Buckalew, App., No. 1264. Mr. Dixon, App., No. 1268. Post, pars. 179, 180. * Mr. Warner, App., Nos. 1270, 1282. Mr. Wilson, App., Nos. 1274-1275. Two similar resolutions were proposed as indepen. dent propositions. App., Nos. 1311, 1312. 10 App., No. 1279. the principles and forms of the governments of the several States as organized by their respective constitutions.1 Mr. Sumner, believing an amendment unnecessary, as the same result could be secured by legislation "and because of the reflection the adoption of such an amendment would cast upon the Constitution," opposed the amendment and offered a substitute in the form of a bill expressive of his views, but it received only nine votes. The remaining amendments were to a large extent modifications of, or additions to, the article. Some fifteen of these substitute propositions were rejected by decisive votes. Finally, Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts offered a more "comprehensive" amendment, which proposed to add to the specifications of race and color those of "nativity, property, education, and creed." This proposition gave rise to considerable discussion by those who seriously objected to the prohibition of an educational test, and the amendment failed to secure a majority, the vote standing 19 to 24. Subsequently the substitute suggested by Mr. Wilson was agreed to by a vote of 31 to 27. It read: "No discrimination shall be made in any State among the citizens of the United States in the exercise of the elective franchise or in the right to hold office in any State on account of race, color, nativity, property, education, or religious creed." 5 4 Even after the amendment was ordered to be engrossed, Mr. Morton of Indiana was allowed to introduce, for the Committee on Representative Reform, the amendment which Mr. Buckalew of Pennsylvania had previously proposed, as an additional article. The aim of the amendment was to secure the choice of the election by a popular vote in every State. 1 App., 1272. 2 Senate Journal, Fortieth Congress, third session, pp. 229, 230. 3 App., Nos. 1262-1282. 4 App., No. 1274. 5 App., No. 1275. This "would have altered the constitutions of more than one-half of the States." Foster, Com. on Const., 1, p. 325. At that time the following States required an educational test for voters: Connecticut, by the constitution of 1858; Massachusetts, by an amendment of 1857. Florida, by constitution of 1868, provided for educational qualifications for new electors after 1880. Since that date the constitution of Colorado of 1876 authorized the legislature to provide by law such a qualification for new electors after 1890. The recent constitutions of Mississippi (1891) and of South Carolina (1895) make provision for an educational test of such a nature that the majority of the negroes can be easily deprived of the franchise. On the other hand, the constitution of Alabama of 1875 prohibits any educational or property qualification for the suffrage or office. Rhode Island and Pennsylvania in 1869 both required an elector to own property, and several other States required the payment of a poll tax. Hitchcock, Am. State Constitutions, pp. 27-32. |