Mr. POWELL offered the following as a new section:

That from and after the first day of July, 1864, all acts and parts of acts granting allowances or bounties on the tonnage of vessels engaged in the Bank or other cod fisheries be, and the same are hereby, repealed.

Which was rejected-yeas 18, nays 20, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Harding, Harlan, Henderson, Hendricks, Lane of Indiana, Lane of KanBas, McDougall, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Powell, Saulsbury, Trumbull, Wilkinson, Willey, Wright-18.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Conness, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harris, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Sumuer, Ten Eyck, Wade, Wilson-20.

May 31-Pending the Internal Revenue bill, Mr. POWELL offered the same section, which was rejected-yeas 11, nays 24, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Conness, Davis, Grimes, Hendricks, Nesmith, Powell, Richardson, Saulsbury, Sherman, Trumbull-11.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Van Winkle, Wade, Wilkinson, Willey, Wilson-24

To prohibit Polygamy in Utah. Second Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress. IN HOUSE.

1862, April 28--The House passed, without a division, a bill to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States and other places, and disapproving and annulling certain acts of the territorial legislature of Utah. (It is the identical bill passed at the first session of the Thirty-Sixth Congress, with the difference that this bill strikes out the exception of the District of Columbia from its provisions, which was contained in the other.) June 3-The bill, amended, passed the Senate-yeas 37, nays 2, (Messrs. Latham and McDougall.)

that be had neither voluntarily renounced his allegiance to the Government of the United States nor yielded a volun tary support to any pretended government, authority, pow. er, or constitution, hostile or inimical thereto; that he will support and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and all laws made in pursuance thereof, against all enemies, foreign or domestic; bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that he takes the obligation without any mental reservation or evasion; and that be will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which he is about to enter. This oath is to be preserved among the files of the court, House of Congress, or depart. ment to which such office may appertain; and any per son falsely taking such oath shall be guilty of perjury, and on conviction thereof, shall, in addition to the penalties now prescribed, be deprived of his office, and rendered incapa ble, forever thereafter of holding any office under the Gor.

ernment of the United States.

Yeas 78, nays 47. The NAYS were:

Messrs. William J. Allen, Ancona, Jacob B. Blair, George H. Browne, Calver', Casey, Cobb, Corning, Cox, Dunlap, Eng lish, Grider, Haight, Harding, Holman, Johnson, Kerrigan, Knapp, Law, May, Menzies, Noble, Noell, Norton, Nugen Pendleton, John S. Phelps, Richardson, Robinson, James S. Rollins, Segar, Shiel, Smith, John B. Seele, William G. Sele, Stiles, Benjamin F. Thomas, Francis Thomas, Vallandigham, Vibbard, Voorhees, Wadsworth, Ward, Chillon A. White, Wickliffe, Woodruff, Wright-47.

June 23-The bill was amended and passed in the Senate-yeas 23,nays 5, (Messrs. Bayard, Carlile, Kennedy, Powell, Saulsbury.)

June 24-The House non-concurred in the amendments of the Senate. A Committee of Conference arranged the differences, and their report, being the existing law, was adopted in the House without a division, and in the Senate-yeas 27, nays 8, (Messrs. Bayard, Carlile, Davis, Henderson, Nesmith, Powell, Saulsbury, Stark.)

Bill to Punish Conspiracies.

The bill to define and punish conspiracies provides that if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States, or to levy war against the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States; or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States; or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States

Declaring Certain Persons Ineligible against the will, or contrary to the authority of the United

to Office.

Second Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.

IN HOUSE.

States; or by force, or intimidation, or threat, to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office, or trust, or place of confidence, under the United States; each and every person so offending shall be guilty of a high crime, and upon conviction in any district or circuit court of the United States having jurisdiction, or district or supreme

1861, December 23-Mr. MOORHEAD offered court of any Territory of the United States having jurisdic this resolution, which was adopted:

Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reporting a bill providing that any person or persons engaged or implicated in the present rebellion against the Constitution of the United States be forever hereafter rendered ineligible to hold any office under the Constitution and laws of the United States, 1862, March 13-Mr. WILSON gave notice of a bill declaring certain persons ineligible to office.

June 4-The House passed a bill declaring certain persons ineligible to office.

It provides that any person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the Government of the United Bates, either in the civil, military, or naval department, shall, before entering on the duties of such office, and before being entitled to any of the salary or other emoluments thereof, take and subscribe an oath that he had never voluntarily borne arms against the Government of the United States since he had been a citizen thereof; had voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; had never Bought or accepted or attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the Government of the United States;

tion, shall be punished by a fine not less than $500 and not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment, solitary or social, and with or without hard labor, as the court shall determ ine, for a period not less than six months nor greater than six years; or by both such fine and imprisonment.

1861, July 15-It passed the House-yeas 123, nays 7, (Messrs. Ashley, Burnett, Diven, Edgerton, Goodwin, Pomeroy, Wood.) July 26-The bill passed the Senate without a division.

Same day-Mr. POWELL presented this protest against its passage:

Protest of the minority of the Senate of the United States
against the passage of the House bill No. 45, entitled “Am
act to define and punish certain conspirators.”
The undersigned, members of the Senate, dissent from the
passage of the bill on the following grounds:

The government of the United States is a Government of specially delegated powers; and though treason is one of the highest crimes known to the law, it is a political offence. To guard against the abuses which in times of high e citement had, in the history of England previous to the rev olution of 1688, too often sacrificed able, virtuous, and innocent men on charges of treason and kindred offences, unaccompanied by acts, the Constitution of the United

kindred to treason, and charged as resting in intent alone, admission of the State of West Virginia into

amendment by inserting after the word "there- | in" and before the word "Therefore" the words

And that all slaves within the said State who shall at the time aforesaid be under the age of ten years shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-one years; and all slaves over ten and under twenty-one years shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-five years.

Which was agreed to-yeas 25, nays 12, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Clark, Collamer, Doolittle, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harlan, Harris, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sherman, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, Wilson of Massachusetts-25.

portance of the question itself, have caused me to delay the answer until now,

Your letter states that "the schooner Elizabeth and Margaret, of New Brunswick, is detained by the revenue cutter Tiger, at South Amboy, New Jersey, because commanded by a colored man,' and so by a person not a citizen of the United States. As colored masters are numerous in our coasting trade, I submit, for your opinion, the question sug gested by Captain Martin, of the Tiger: Are colored men citizens of the United States, and therefore competent to command American vessels ?"

The question would have been more clearly stated if, incan colored men be citizens of the United States; for within stead of saying are colored men citizens, it had been said, our borders and upon our ships, both of war and commerce, there may be colored men, and white men, also, who are not citizens of the United States. In treating the subject, I shall endeavor to answer your question as if it imported NAYS-Messrs. Browning, Carlile, Davis, Henderson, Ken-only this: Is a man legally incapacitated to be a citizen nedy, Me Dougall, Powell, Saulsbury, Stark, Willey, Wilson the United States by the sole fact that he is a colored, and of Missouri, Wright-12.

July 16-The bill was postponed until the second Tuesday of the next December-yeas 63, nays 33.

Third Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress. 1862, Dec. 10-The House passed the bill*yeas 96, nays 57, as follows:

not a white man?

Who is a citizen? What constitutes a ci ́izen of the United States? I have been often pained by the fruitless search in our law books and the records of our courts, for a clear

and satisfactory definition of the phrase citizen of the Uni ted States. I find no such definition, no authoritative establishment of the meaning of the phrase, neither by a course of judicial decisions in our courts, nor by the continued and consentaneous action of the different branches of our political government. For aught I see to the contrary, the subject is now as little understood in its details and elements. and the question as open to argument and to speculative criticism, as it was at the beginning of the gov ernment. Eighty years of practical enjoyment of citizenship, under the Constitution, have not sufficed to teach us either the exact meaning of the word, or the constituent elements of the thing we prize so highly.

In most instances, within my knowledge, in which the matter of citizenship has been discussed, the argument has YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Arnold, Babbitt, Baker, Baxter, not turned upon the existence and the intrinsic qualities of Beaman, Bingham, Jacob B. Blair, Samuel S. Blair, Blake, citizenship itself, but upon the claim of some right or priv William G. Brown, Buffinton, Burnham, Campbell, Casey, ilege as belonging to and inhering in the character of citi Chamberlain, Clark, Clements, Colfax, Frederick A. Conk- zen. In this way we are easily led into errors both of fact ling, Covode, Cutler, Davis, Duell, Dunn, Edgerton, Ed- and principle. We see individuals, who are known to be wards, Eliot, Ely, Fenton, Samuel C. Fessenden, Thomas A. citizens, in the actual enjoyment of certain rights and D. Fessenden, Franchot, Frank, Goodwin, Gurley, Haight, privileges, and in the actual exercise of certain powers, soHale, Harrison, Hickman, Hooper, Horton, Hutchins, Ju- cial and political, and we, inconsiderately, and without any lian, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, William Kellogg, Killin-regard to legal and logical consequences, attribute to those ger, Lansing, Lehman, Loomis, Lovejoy, Low, McKnight, individuals, and to all of their class, the enjoyment of those McPherson, Maynard, Mitchell, Moorhead, Anson P. Mor- rights and privileges and the exercise of those powers as rill, Justin S. Morrill, Nixon, Noell, Olin, Patton, Timothy incidents to their citizenship, and belonging to them only G. Phelps, Pike, Pomeroy, Porter, Potter, John H. Rice, in their quality of citizens. Riddle, Edward H. Rollins, Sargent, Sedgwick, Shanks, Sheffield, Shellabarger, Sherman, Sloan, Spaulding, Stevens, Stratton, Trimble, Trowbridge, Van Horn, Van Valkenburgh, Van Wyck, Verree, Walker, Wall, Washburne, Whaley, Albert S. White, Wilson, Windom, Worcester-96.

NAYS-Messrs. William J. Allen, Alley, Ancona, Ashley, Baily, Biddle, Cobb, Roscoe Conkling, Conway, Cox, Cravens, Crisfield, Crittenden, Delano, Delaplaine, Diven. Dunlap, EngLish, Gooch, Granger, Grider, Hall, Harding, Holman, Jolin son, Kerrigan, Knapp, Law, Mallory, Menzies, Morris, Noble, Norton, Odell, Pendleton, Price, Alexander H. Rice, Richardson, Robinson, James S. Rollins, Segar, Shiel, Smith, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Stiles, Benjamin F. Thomas, Francis Thomas, Train, Vallandigham, Voorhees, Wadsworth, Ward, Chilton A. White, Wickliffe, Wright, Yeaman-57.

1863, April 20-The President issued a proclamation announcing the compliance, by West Virginia, of the conditions of admission.

Colored Men as Citizens.

OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL BATES.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,
November 29, 1862.

Hon. S. P. CHASE, Secretary of the Treasury:
SIR: Some time ago I had the honor to receive your let
ler submitting, for my opinion, the question whether or not
colored men can be citizens of the United States. The ur-
gency of other unavoidable engagements, and the great im-

It includes these counties: Hancock, Brooke, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, Marion, Monongalia, Preston, Taylor, Tyler, Pleasants, Ritchie, Doddridge, Harrison, Wood, Jack son, Wirt, Roane, Calhoun, Gilmer, Barbour, Tucker, Lewis, Braxton, Upshur, Randolph, Mason, Putnam, Kanawha, Clay, Nicholas, Cabell, Wayne, Boone, Logan, Wyoming, Mercer, McDowell, Webster, Pocahontas, Fayette, Raleigh, Greenbrier, Monroe, Pendleton, Hardy, Hampshire, and Morgan.

In such cases it often happens that the rights enjoyed and the powers exercised have no relation whatever to the quality of citizen, and might be as perfectly enjoyed and exercised by known aliens. For instance, General Bernard, a distinguished soldier and devoted citizen of France, for a long time filled the office of general of engineers in the service of the United States, all the time avowing his French allegiance, and, in fact, closing his relations with the United States by resigning his commission and returning to the service of his own native country. This, and all such instances, (and they are many,) go to prove that in this country the legal capacity to hold office is not confined to citi zens, and therefore that the fact of holding any office for which citizenship is not specially prescribed by law as a qualification, is no proof that the incumbent is an American citizen.

Again, with regard to the right of suffrage, that is, the right to choose officers of government, there is a very con mon error to the effect that the right to vote for public officers is one of the constituent elements of American citizenship, the leading faculty indeed of the citizen, the test at once of his legal right, and the sufficient proof of his membership of the body politic. No error can be greater than this, and few more injurious to the right understanding of our constitutions and the actual working of our po litical governments. It is not only not true in law or in fact, in principle or in practice, but the reverse is con-pienously true; for I make bold to affirm that, viewing the n tion as a whole, or viewing the States separately, there is no district in the nation in which a majority of the knowa and recognized citizens are not excluded by law from the right of suffrage. Besides those who are excluded specially on account of some personal defect, such as paupers, idiots, lunatics, and men convicted of infamous crimes, an L. in some States, soldiers, all females and all minor males are also excluded. And these, in every community, make the majority; and yet, I think, no one will venture to deny that women and children, and lunatics, and even convict felons, may be citizens of the United States.

Our code (unlike the codes of France, and perhaps some other nations) makes no provision for loss or legal deprivation of citizenship. Once a citizen (whether natus or datus,

3. The constitution of Illinois, adopted in 1818, in article two, section twenty-seven, declares that "in all elections all We have natural-born citizens, (Constitution, article 2, wale male inhabitants above the age of twenty-one years, sec. 5,) not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this having resided in the State six months next preceding the class is the large majority; in fact, the mass of our citizens; election, shall enjoy the right of an elector; but no person for all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. shall be entitled to vote except in the county or district in As they became citizens in the natural way, by birth, so which he shall actually reside at the time of the election." they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by These three constitutions belong to States widely separ- their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and ated in geographical position, varying greatly from each become citizens or subjects of another nation. For we have other in habits, manners, and pursuits, having different no law (as the French have) to decitizenize a citizen, who limates, soils, productions, and domestic institutions; and has become such either by the natural process of birth, or yet not one of the three has made citizenship a necessary by the legal process of adoption. And in this connection qualification for a voter; all three of them exclude all fe- the Constitution says not one word, and furnishes not one males, but only one of them (Illinois) has excluded the hint, in relation to the color or to the ancestral race of the black man from the right of suffrage. And it is historically "natural-born citizen." Whatever may have been said, in true that the practice has conformed to the theory of those the opinion of judges and lawyers, and in State statutes, Constitutions, respectively; for, without regard to citizen-about negroes, mulattoes, and persons of color, the Constiship, the colored man has not voted in Illinois, and freemen of all colors have voted in North Carolina and Massachu

loquy, asserted his immunity, as " a Roman uncondemned,” from ignominious constraint and cruel punishment, a con straint and punishment against which, as a mere provincial subject of Rome, he had no legal protection. And thus the Roman officers instantly, and with fear, obeyed the law of their country and resected the sacred franchise of the Roman citizen.

because natural-born in the country, and not a free white person, because, though free, confessedly "a man of color." It occurs to me that the discussion of this great subject of national citizenship has been much embarrassed and obscured by the fact that it is beset with artificial difficulties, extrinsic to its nature, and having little or no relation to its great political and national characteristics. And these difficulties, it seems to me, flow mainly from two sources: Paul, as we know by this record, was a natural-born First, the existence among us of a large class of people citizen of Tarsus, and as such, no doubt, had the municipal whose physical qualities visibly distinguish them from the freedom of that city; but that would not have protected mass of our people, and mark a different race, and who, for him against the thongs and the lash. How he became a the most part, are held in bondage. This visible difference Roman we learn from other historical sources. Cæsar and servile connection present difficulties hard to be con- granted to the people of Tarsus (for some good service quered; for they unavoidably lead to a more complicated done, probably for taking his side in the war which resulted system of government, both legislative and administrative, in the establishment of the empire) the title of Roman, and than would be required if all our people were of one race, the freedom of Roman citizens. And, considering the chroand undistinguishable by outward signs. And this, with-nology of events, this grant must have been older than out counting the effect upon the opinions, passions, and Paul; and therefore he truly said I was free born-a free prejudices of men. Second, the common habit of many of citizen of Rome, and as such exempt by law from degraour best and most learned men (the wise aptitude of which ding punishment. I have not been able to perceive) of testing the political status and governmental relation of our people by standards drawn from the laws and history of ancient Greece and Rome, without, as I think, taking sufficient account of the organic differences between their governments and ours. A very learned writer upon the Politics of Greece (Heeren, Bancroft's translation, p. 105) informs us "that the essential character of the new political form assumed by Greece consisted in the circumstance that the free States which were formed were nothing but cities with their districts; and their constitutions were, consequently, only forms of city governments. This point of view (the learned author warns us) must never be lost sight of."

And this immunity did not fill the measure of his rights as a citizen. As a Roman, it was his right to be tried by the supreme authority, at the capital of the empire. And when he claimed that right, and appealed from the jurisdic tion of the provincial governor to the Emperor at Rome, his appeal was instantly allowed, and he was remitted to "Cæsar's judgment."

I have dwelt the longer upon this case of Paul, because it is a leading case in Roman jurisprudence in the matter of the "jus Romanum." And in so far as there is any analogy between Roman and American citizenship, it is strictly ap plicable to us. Its authenticity is unquestionable, and by its lucid statement of facts in minute detail leaves no room And the wise observation of the author applies to Italy as to doubt the legal merits of the case. It establishes the well; for the earliest free cities of Italy were but Grecian great protective rights of the citizen, but, like our own colonies, which (bringing along with them the higher civ-national constitution, it is silent about his powers. It proilization of their parent country, and its better notions of tected Paul against oppression and outrage, but said nothcivil polity) by degrees diffused the light of knowledge, ing about his right of suffrage or his eligibility to office. and consequently the love of liberty among the then bar As far as I know, Mr. Secretary, you and I have no better barous people of the Italian peninsula. The Italians, profit-title to the citizenship which we enjoy than the "accident ing by the good example, founded cities of their own upon of birth "-the fact that we happened to be born in the the Grecian models, and each new Italian city became an United States. And our Constitution, in speaking of natu Independent State. How long this condition of thing con- ral-born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them tinued I know not; but it continued until Rome outgrew such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal priaall the neighboring communities, and subdued them all (the ciple, common to all nations, and as old as political society, Grecian colonies included) under its power. Still the city that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, ruled, and trom time to time granted to such as it would (and and, as individuals, are natural members of the body polwithheld from such as it would) the title of Roman, and itic. the rights of Roman citizens.

In the process of time, when the dominant power of Rome had expanded over Greece and western Asia, the same civil polity was still continued. As it had been in Italy, so it was in Greece and Asia. In the countries and kingdoms subdued by the Roman arms and transformed into Roman provinces, the same system of government still prevailed. Rome, by her pro-consuls and other governors, ruled the conquered nations with absolute sway. And the ruling power at Rome, whether republican or imperial, granted, from time to time, to communities and to individuals in the conquered east the title of Roman and the rights of Roman citizens.

A striking example of this Roman naturalization, of its controlling authority as a political law, and of its benefi cent power to protect a persecuted citizen, may be found In the case of St. Paul, as it is graphically reported in the Acts of the Apostles. Paul, being at Jerusalem, was in great peril of his life from his own countrymen, the Jews, who accused him of crimes against their own law and faith, and were about to put him to death by mob violence, when he was rescued by the commander of the Roman troops and taken into a fort for security. He first explained, both to the Roman officer and to his own countrymen, who were clamoring against him, his local status and municipal relations, that he was a Jew of Tarsus, a natural-born citizen of no mean city, and that he had been brought up in Jerusalem in the strictest manner according to the law and faith of the fathers. But this did not appease the angry crowd, who were proceeding with great violence to kill him. And then "the chief captain commanded that he be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by Scourging," (that is, tortured to enforce confession.) "And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman and uncondemned? When the centurion beard that he went out and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest, for this man is a Roman. Then the chief captain came and said, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said yea, and the chief captain said, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him. And the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew he was a Roman, and be

cause he had bound him."

Thus Paul, under circumstances of great danger and ob

If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it fol lows that every person born in the country is, at the mo ment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the "natural-born" right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circum

stance.

That nativity furnishes the rule, both of duty and of right as between the individual and the government, is a historical and political truth so old and so universally ac cepted that it is needless to prove it by authority. Never theless, for the satisfaction of those who may have doubts upon the subject, I note a few books, which, I think, cannot fail to remove all such doubts-Kent's Com., vol. 2, part 4, sec. 25; Bl. Com., book 1, ch. 10, p. 365; 7 Co. Rep., Calvin's case; 4 Term Rep., p. 300, Doe vs. Jones; 3 Pet. Rep., p. 246, Shanks vs. Dupont; and see a very learned treatise, at tributed to Mr. Binney, in 2 Am. Law Reporter, 193.

In every civilized country the individual is born to duties and rights-the duty of allegiance and the right to protec tion; and these are correlative obligations, the one the price of the other, and they constitute the all-sufficient bond of union between the individual and his country; and the country he is born in is, prima facie, his country. In most cour tries the old law was broadly laid down that this natural con nection between the individual and his native country was perpetual; at least, that the tie was indissoluble by the act of the subject alone. (See Bl. Com. supra; 3 Pet. Rep supra.)

But that law of the perpetuity of allegiance is now changed, both in Europe and America. In some countries by silent acquiescence, in others by affirmative legislation. In England, while asserting the perpetuity of natural alle giance, the King, for centuries past, has exercised the power to grant letters of denization to foreigners, making them English subjects, and the Parliament has exercised at pleas ure the power of naturalization.

In France the whole subject is regulated by written law, which plainly declares who are citizens (citoyens Français) and who are only the French, (Français,) meaning the whole body of the French people. (See Les Codes Français, titre premier.) And the same law distinctly sets forth by what means citizenship and the quality of French may be lost and regained; and maintains fully the right of expatriation