tion thereof the motion to reconsider was agreed to. The Speaker pro tempore: "The question is, Will the House refer this resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary?' The question was decided in the negative. Mr. Lord: "I now propose my substitute, and call for the previous question." Mr. Conger: "Then I insist upon the proposition that this House has decided that this matter is not in the hands of the Judiciary Committee, and therefore cannot be reported from that committee." The Speaker pro tempore: "The point of order is overruled." Mr. McCrary: "I wish the gentleman from New York would allow me a moment." Mr. Lord: "I will as soon as the substitute is read." The Speaker pro tempore: will be read." The Clerk read as follows: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following be proposed to the several States of the Union as an amendment to the Constitution, namely: ARTICLE XVI.-No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations. This article shall not vest, enlarge, or diminish legislative power in the Congress. Mr. Lord: "Before demanding the previous question, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. McCrary), who was not present at the meeting of the committee this morning, and desires to occupy a few moments." for enforcing the amendment after you have made it. Now, sir, a proposition like that is too plain for discussion. If the House, if the people of the country, desire the Constitution of the United States to be amended in this particular, then it follows it ought to be so amended that the legislative body that makes laws for the national Government shall have power to enforce it by proper legislation. "It would be an anomaly, it would be a strange proceeding indeed, to put a provision in the Constitution of the United States and accompany it with another proposition that the law-making power of the United States shall have no power to enforce it. Therefore I hope the substitute will not be adopted, but the original proposition will be sustained by the House." It Mr. Lord: "I must resume the floor. This "The substitute question has been before the Congress for nearly eight months, and has been pressed upon our attention by the President, by the press, and by the most distinguished Republican leader in the House. The Committee on the Judiciary have unanimously adopted his amendment almost in his verbis. I will say that the gentleman who introduced the amendmentand I know his views upon this question, for he stated them to me more than once-never contended that such amendment to the Constitution, which was drawn by him, conferred any legislative power on Congress whatever, and he never intended that it should. But inasmuch as this question, as said by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Hoar), is one that has been watched with some jealousy, and inasmuch as several Congresses in the adoption of past amendments have added a clause to each amendment declaratory of the power of Congress, it was deemed wise to add to this article that it should not vest, diminish, or enlarge' legislative power in Congress. was understood by the committee, and I believe that on reflection it will without exception be understood by the House, that this additional clause does not in any manner change the preceding part of the proposed article. It is simply declaratory; more than this, if Congress had any power over the question before, it is thoroughly and absolutely reserved. The criticism, therefore, of the learned gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Banks) falls utterly to the ground, because the proposed amendment provides that this article shall not vest, diminish, or enlarge' the power of the Congress. Mark the words, shall not diminish the power of the Congress.' Therefore if the Congress has any power now, under any possible view, over the subject-matter of the proposed amendment, such power remains in full force and vigor. The words of limitation only apply to the proposed article; I repeat, any power the Congress has under the Constitution is expressly affirmed and reserved. Therefore, so far from the power of Congress in the premises being affected, even Mr. McCrary: "Mr. Speaker, the situation of this question before the House, as I understand it, is this: The original proposition to amend the Constitution as offered by the late member from Maine, Mr. Blaine, is the main proposition pending before the House. The gentleman from New York offers a substitute for that original amendment, and I suppose the first vote will be on adopting the substitute for the original proposition. I desire to say, sir, that I am in favor of the original resolution, and hope it will be adhered to by the House, and I am opposed to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from New York. "The difference between the two is this: the original is a plain proposition to amend the Constitution upon the matter before it. The substitute embodies the original proposition and adds to it what I consider in no other light than a nullifying clause." Mr. Kasson: "That is it." Mr. McCrary: "It amends the Constitution and denies to Congress the power to legislate to the thousandth part of a hair, we affirm that any power that the Constitution has vested in the Congress heretofore will be there when this constitutional amendment is adopted by the States. And we allege that the proposed article, with the addition made by the committee, will be submitted precisely as its author intended it should be. Under these circumstances I move the previous question." The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the substitute reported by the Committee on the Judiciary was agreed to. The joint resolution, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time. The Speaker pro tempore: "The Chair will order the yeas and nays to be now called, as this is a proposed amendment to the Constitution, and it requires a two-thirds vote." The question was taken; and there were yeas 180, nays 7, not voting 98; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Abbott, Adams, Ainsworth, Atkins, Bagby, John H. Bagley, Jr., William H. Baker, Ballou, Banks, Banning, Bell, Blair, Bland, Boone, Bright, John Young Brown, William R. Brown, Horatio C. Burchard, Samuel D. Burchard, Cabell, William P. Caldwell, Cannon, Cason, Caswell, Cate, Caulfield, Chittenden, John B. Clark, Jr., of Missouri, Clymer, Cochrane, Conger, Cook, Cox, Crounse, Cutler, Danford, Darrall, Davis, Davy, Dibrell, Dobbins, Dunnell, Durand, Durham, Eames, Eden, Evans, Felton, Finley, Fort, Foster, Franklin, Freeman, Frye, Garfield, Gause, Goode, Goodin, Gunter, Hale, Andrew H. Hamilton, Hancock, Hardenburgh, Benjamin W. Harris, Harrison, Hartridge, Hartzell, Haymond, Henderson, Henkle, Abram S. Hewitt, Hoar, Holman, Hopkins, Hunton, Hurd, Hyman, Jenks, Thomas L. Jones, Joyce, Kasson, Kerr, Lamar, Franklin Landers, Lane, Lapham, Lawrence, Leavenworth, Levy, Lewis, Lord, Lynch, Lynde, Mackey, Maish, MacDougall, McCrary, MeDill, McFarland, McMahon, Metcalf, Miller, Milliken, Mills, Monroe, Morgan, Morrison, Mutchler, Neal, New, O'Neill, Packer, Page, Payne, William A. Phillips, Pierce, Piper, Plaisted, Platt, Poppleton, Potter, Powell, Pratt, Rainey, Kandall, Rea, Reagan, John Reilly, Rice, Riddle, John Robbins, William M. Robbins, Roberts, Robinson, Miles Ross, Rusk, Sampson, Savage, Scales, Singleton, Sinneckson, Slemons, Smalls, A. Herr Smith, William E. Smith, Southard, Springer, Stenger, Stevenson, Stone, Teese, Terry, Thomas, Thompson, Throckmorton, Washington Townsend, Tufts, Turney, Van Vorhes, John L. Vance, Waddell, Charles C. B. Walker, Gilbert C. Walker, Walsh, Ward, Warren, Erastus Wells, White, Whitthorne, Wigginton, Willard, Alpheus S. Williams, James Williams, James D. Williams, Jeremiah N. Williams, Willis, Benjamin Wilson, James Wilson, Woodburn, and Yeates-180. NAYS-Messrs. Blackburn, Bradford, John H. Caldwell, John B. Clarke of Kentucky, Forney, Knott, and O'Brien-7. NOT VOTING-Messrs. Anderson, Ashe, George A. Bagley, John II. Baker, Bass, Beebee, Bliss, Blount, Bradley, Buckner, Burleigh, Campbell, Candler, Chapin, Collins, Cowan, Crapo, Culberson, De Bolt, Denison, Douglas, Egbert, Ellis, Ely, Faulkner, Fuller, Gibson, Glover, Robert Hamilton, Haralson, Henry R. Harris, John T. Harris, Hatcher, Hathorn, Hayes, Hendee, Hereford, Goldsmith W. Hewitt, Hill, Hoge, Hooker, Hoskins, House, Hubbell, Hunter, Hurlbut, Frank Jones, Kelley, Kim ball, King, George M. Landers, Le Moyne, Luttrell, Magoon, Mead, Money, Nash, Norton, Odell, Oliver, Phelps, John F. Philips, Purman, James B. Reilly, Sobieski Ross, Sayfer, Schleicher, Schumaker, Seelye, Sheakley, Sparks, Spencer, Strait, Stowell, Swann, Tarbox, Thornburgh, Martin I. Townsend, Tucker, Robert B. Vance, Wait, Waldron, Alexander S. Wallace, John W. Wallace, Walling, G. Wiley Andrew Williams, Charles G. Williams, William Wells, Wheeler, Whitehouse, Whiting, Wike, B. Williams, Wilshire, Alan Wood, Jr., Fernando Wood, Woodworth, and Young—98. So (two-thirds voting in the affirmative) the joint resolution was passed. In the Senate, on August 7th, the President pro tempore laid before the Senate the joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and it was read twice. Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, said: "Mr. President, the people of our country are seriously and profoundly in earnest on this subject. This amendment, as the Senate will see, prohibits the appropriation of any school-funds to any school that is under control of any sect or denomination, and prohibits the division of such fund among different denominations. So far it is very well as a pronunciamiento; but suppose a State for the purpose of propitiat ing some religious denomination does make an appropriation in violation of this amendment, what are we to do about it? The amendment is a mere brutum fulmen; it has no sanction and there is no one to enforce it. If the power was given to Congress by legislation to enforce the amendment, we could make it a high crime for any officer to pay or for any one to receive the money, or we could by legislation appoint some official, possibly the Attorney-General of the United States, whose duty it should be to bring the violation to the attention of the courts. The only remedy now under the amendment, and I do not know whether that could be without further legislation, would be for a tax-payer to seek the courts and after the money had been paid and spent, and after tedious years perhaps the tax-payer might recover his contribution to that fund. Therefore it seems to me that another section should be added giving Congress the power to enforce this amendment. "But there is a more serious objection to the amendment than that I have noticed. The amendment only applies to a school-fund, and prohibits its being appropriated to schools under denominational control. There is not a word in the amendment that prohibits public money from being appropriated to theological seminaries, to reformatories, to monasteries, to nunneries, to houses of the Good Shepherd, and many kindred purposes. We know that in one State within a decade $1,200,000 was voted Protestant institutions for which the Catholics of the country were taxed, and we know that in the same period several millions of dollars were voted to Catholic institutions for which Protestants were taxed. Besides, sir, even in reference to schools this amendment only prohibits appropriating the school-fund to denominational schools. It does not by any means forbid appropriations from the Treasury generally even to denominational schools. "I call the attention of the Senate thus briefly to this subject. "The amendment should cover the whole subject. I propose a substitute to be referred to the committee with the pending resolution." The President pro tempore: "The Senator's substitute will be read." Mr. Sargent, of California, said: "I offer a substitute.' The President pro tempore: "The substitute proposed by the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) will first be read." "For what purpose, now? I call attention to the limitation no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor "That is, a public fund for public schoolsnor any public lands devoted thereto "That is, devoted to public schoolsshall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any moneys so raised or lands so devoted"Limited all the way to the public schoolsbe divided among religious sects or denominations. raised for public schools or after lands have "It simply prohibits, after a fund has been been devoted to public-school purposes, the diversion of that fund or those lands to sectaThe Chief Clerk read as follows: rian schools or for the benefit of churches. ARTICLE XVI., Section 1.-No State shall make any That is all it does. law respecting the establishment of religion or pro- schools where any particular system of religTheological schools, in biting the free exercise thereof; and no public propion is taught, are not the public schools; and ery and no money raised by taxation in any State, Territory, or District, or derived from public lands, there is no prohibition there upon the States or other public source, shall be appropriated to any raising any amount of money or devoting any school, educational, or other institution that is under amount of public lands to the support of prithe control of any religious sect or denomination; and no such appropriation shall be made to any revate schools for instruction in the religion of ligious sect or denomination or to promote its inter- any sect. ests; nor shall any public money, land, or property be divided between religious sects or denominations. Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. The President pro tempore: "The substitute proposed by the Senator from California will now be read.' The Chief Clerk read as follows: ARTICLE XVI., Section 1.-There shall be main tained in each State and Territory a system of free common schools; but neither the United States nor any State, or Territory, county, or municipal corporation shall aid in the support of any school wherein the peculiar tenets of any religious denomination shall be taught. Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. Mr. Christiancy, of Michigan, said: "Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from New Jersey that the people are in earnest on this question; but whoever may be the father of the provision contained in this joint resolution and proposed to be made a part of the Constitution, if he really meant to meet the evil, I do not think he ought to be at all proud of his offspring. The defects in the resolution have not been fully pointed out, and I will proceed to read the resolution as it passed the House and is sent here, and it will be seen that there is a defect in it to which the attention of the Senate has not yet been called: No State shall make any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "Thus far it is simply imposing on the States what the Constitution already imposes on the United States, and that is all correctand no money raised by taxation in any State "This resolution, then, prohibits the States from committing the wrong when it is attempted indirectly, but leaves the States full power to commit the same wrong whenever they choose to do it directly. There is the defect of this resolution, and that is the main defect. But there is another defect. It simply prohibits the States from doing these things; it does not prohibit the United States; and under the Constitution of the United States, as it now stands, it is entirely competent to devote lands or impose taxes and appropriate money for sectarian purposes. The amendment, therefore, which should be submitted to meet this entire evil ought to cover the whole ground; it ought to prohibit the Federal Government, as well as the State governments, from doing anything of this kind. I prepared on Saturday last a substitute which I propose to offer and have sent to the committee, which covers the entire ground. It is true I have said nothing in it prohibiting a division, because the language used prohibiting an appropriation or donation for any such purpose covers this ground and would prevent a division if it were raised for public-school purposes; it would prevent a diversion, and, as I may wish to make a remark or two on this as I proceed, I will read the substitute. The first clause is the same as that which passed the House: for the support or in aid of any theological school or seminary, or of any school or seminary teaching the peculiar religious doctrines or subject in any respect to the control or direction of any church, religious society, sect, or denomination. And no special or denominational system of religion or religious belief shall in any State or Territory or in the District of Columbia constitute any part of the course of study or instruction in any school or institution of learning supported wholly or in part by taxation or by the donation of any money or propperty by any State or by the United States. "This substitute, as I have said, covers the entire ground. It takes up the poisonous tree by the root, while the resolution sent us by the House cuts off but a minor and unimportant branch. I will send the substitute to the Chair and ask to have it referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, with the resolution of the House." Mr. Morton, of Indiana, said: "I wish to express my surprise at the reading of this resolution as it has come to us. It is very clear that you can drive an omnibus through it. All it provides is that a fund raised for the benefit of the public schools already dedicated and set apart for that purpose cannot be diverted to a sectarian school; but it does not prohibit a State from appropriating money out of its general Treasury that was not raised for school purposes for the support of sectarian schools; and it does not prevent a State from levying an original tax for the support of sectarian schools. It simply protects a school-fund raised as a general school-fund dedicated for that purpose from being afterward diverted to sectarian schools, and leaves every State free to make an appropriation out of the general Treasury, out of moneys raised for all purposes, to the support of sectarian schools or even to create a special tax for that purpose. It is competent, therefore, for any State to appropriate money out of the general Treasury of that State for the support of Catholic schools or Protestant schools, or to levy a tax directly upon the people for that purpose. This amendment would not interfere with any legislation of that kind. I hope it will be properly amended and sent back to the other House in time to be passed, so that it may go before the States next winter." The joint resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, with the various amendments proposed. On August 11th the Committee on the Judiciary reported an amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause of the joint resolution, and in lieu thereof to insert the following: That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, shall be valid as a part of the said Constitution, namely: ARTICLE XVI.-No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under any State. No public property and no public revenue of, nor any loan of credit by or under the authority of, the United States, or any State, Territory, District, or municipal corporation, shall be appropriated to or made or used for the support of any school, educational or other institution under the control of any religious or antreligious sect, organization, or denomination, or wherein the particular creed or tenets of any relig ious or anti-religious sect, organization, or denomination shall be taught. And no such particular creed or tenets shall be read or taught in any school or institution supported in whole or in part by such revenue or loan of credit; and no such appropriation or loan of credit shall be made to any religious or anti-religious sect, organization, or denomination, or to promote its interests or tenets. This article shall not be construed to prohibit the reading of the Bible the effect to impair rights of property already vested. in any school or institution; and it shall not have Sec. 2. Congress shall have power, by appropriate legislation, to provide for the prevention and punishment of violations of this article. The President pro tempore: "The question is on the amendment reported by the Committee on the Judiciary as a substitute for the House resolution." Mr. Randolph, of New Jersey, said: "The amendment proposed by the Judiciary Committee is an altogether different affair from that the people have asked for or the press discussed. It opens, if adopted, many grave questions, good enough for the welfare of the legal profession, but bad enough for the bodypolitic. It will leave in doubt much that is now deemed settled, and, as it seems to me from the hasty perusal I have been able to give to the paper to-day, instead of disposing of a vexed question, taking it out of politics and contention, its main result, if it is not its object, will be to arouse anew, and unneces sarily, an element of discord. "I can take no part in any such legislation, save to attempt to prevent it. I have labored hard all the session to have an amendment passed substantially like that sent to us from the House. It is reasonable in character, acceptable to most men of all creeds and denominations, has no latent purpose to excite, no new scheme to add to the already dangerous powers of Congress, and, as is believed by most men, would prove a just and peaceful settlement. "For the House amendment I shall steadily vote; for all alterations of that proposition I shall vote against, as I believe most of the true friends of education should. The adoption of the House amendment concludes congressional action and relegates final action to the States." The result was announced, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Anthony, Booth, Boutwell, Burnside, Cameron of Wisconson, Christiancy, Conkling, Cragin, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harvey, Hitchcock, Howe, Ingalls, Logan, McMil lan, Mitchell, Morrill, Oglesby, Paddock, Patterson, Sargent, Spencer, Wadleigh, and West-27. NAYS- Messrs. Bogy, Cockrell, Cooper, Davis, Eaton, Gordon, Kelly, Kernan, Key, McCreery, Maxey, Norwood, Randolph, Ransom, and Steven Bruce, Cameron of Pennsylvania, Clayton, Conover, Dawes, Dennis, Dorsey, Goldthwaite, Hamilton, Hamlin, Johnston, Jones of Florida, Joues of Nevada, McDonald, Merrimon, Morton, Robinson, Saulsbury, Sharon, Sherman, Thurman, Wallace, Whyte, Windom, Withers, and Wright-29. So the amendment was agreed to. The joint resolution was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole was concurred in. The President pro tempore: "The question is on ordering the amendment to be engrossed and the joint resolution to be read the third time." The result was announced-yeas 27, nays 15; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Anthony, Booth, Bout well, Burnside, Cameron of Wisconsin, Christiancy, Conkling, Cragin, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harvey, Hitchcock, lowe, Ingalls, Logan, McMillan, Mitchell, Morrill, Oglesby, Paddock, Patter son, Sargent, Spencer, Wadleigh, and West-27. NAYS-Messrs. Bogy, Cockrell, Cooper, Davis, Eaton, Gordon, Kelly, Kernan, Key, McCreery, Maxey, Norwood, Randolph, Ransom, and Steven 800-15. ABSENT-Messrs. Alcorn, Barnum, Bayard, Bruce, Cameron of Pennsylvania, Clayton, Conover, Dawes, Dennis, Dorsey, Goldthwaite, Hamilton, Hamlin, Johnston, Jones of Florida, Jones of Nevada, McDonald, Merrimon, Morton, Robertson, Saulsbury, Sharon, Sherman, Thurman, Wallace, Whyte, Windom, Withers, and Wright-29. So the amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the joint resolution to be read a third time. On August 14th the resolution was taken up for the final passage. The President pro tempore: "The question is on the passage of the resolution upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered." Mr. Kernan, of New York, said: "Mr. President, the Senate, by a majority vote, has substituted the article reported by the Judiciary Committee for the article proposed and passed in the House of Representatives and sent here. "That was the proposed article which had been brought to the attention of the public many months ago by a gentleman of distinction (Mr. Blaine) in the party with which he acted, and very well known to the country; and I believe that it met with no considerable opposition in any quarter. It declares that money raised in a State by taxation for the support of public schools or derived from any public fund therefor, or any public lands devoted thereto, shall not be under the control of any religious sect or denomination, nor shall any money so raised be divided among the sects or religious denominations. Were this before the Senate I would support it. "I should be opposed, if the people of a State were entirely of one denomination, and that the one to which I belong, to placing money raised for the support of public schools under the control of that religious denomination. "But there has been another article proposed here and adopted by a majority of the VOL. XVI.-12 A Senate; and as I wish to call the attention of the Senate to this proposed article, I cannot, with my views of what is wise either for the Federal Government or for the people of the respective States, vote for this proposed article. I ask the attention of Senators to the leading principle or idea which the wise men who framed the Constitution of the United States followed in framing it. It was that the Federal Government, which was to be the Government, and to act for the people of all the States, should have those powers which were essential to action by that Government on subjects as to which the people of all the States had a common, general, national interest. It was to be a Government with power to make treaties with foreign countries, to provide for the general defense, to furnish a currency, to regulate commerce, and to have jurisdiction over other matters of like character, in which all the States had a common, general interest, and upon which the people of the several States could not properly act. The framers of the Constitution believed also that it was wiser and better that the people of the several States should reserve to themselves and exercise all those powers of government which related to home rights, if I may use that term, to the internal affairs of the State, to the regulating of the domestic relations, to the title to property, the modes in which it could be transferred; in a word, that the people of each State should have the exclusive power to manage their local and internal affairs as they thought best for their own happiness and prosperity. I think all experience shows how wise this was and is. The "It was and is wise in reference to the perpetuity and strength of the Federal Government, which extends over a very wide section of country, over communities living in different States and having different views as to their local matters and State governments. Federal Government will be strong and the people contented while the people of each State manage their own local affairs, and the Federal Government in its action is restricted to general national affairs. But when in reference to these local affairs of a State, these home matters, the representatives from Massachusetts or New York have a voice as to what shall be done in California as to local State matters, the people of Ohio shall have a voice in the local affairs of Missouri, we can readily see that there will not be as much contentment, and I do not believe there would be as much of good government and prosperity, as if the people of each State managed these local affairs for themselves. It makes the Federal Government strong to leave local affairs to the people of the State, because the people of different States then do not come in conflict in the Halls of Congress as to local government and policy, in regard to which they may have very different interests and views. The founders of the Federal Government had the wis |