Thursday,]

PROCTOR-JOHNSON-CHAPIN-KENNEDY.

ples on which that distinguished man now sands, and that his official acts, in connection with this unholy rebellion, shall serve as my guide in the performance of my duties here.

[July 7.

With these views, I am prepared to submit these questions to the action of the Convention, well assured that, whatever action the Convention may take in the matter, it will be such as to meet the approval and indorsement of our respective constituencies.

It now appears as if, when this matter was under discussion in the preceding Convention, some gentlemen who were engaged in that dis- Mr. CHAPIN. I am very glad, Mr. Chairman, cussion must have been imbued with the spirit once more to indulge in the hope that that word of prophecy; for at that very time, while some of" disloyal" will be stricken out. I was anxious the members of that Convention were enun- to have it stricken out in the last Convention, ciating their views in favor of making an ex- and I am still anxious to have it done. I think it ception in behalf of such as should be granted is a dangerous word to have incorporated, in the an amnesty by the Federal Government-on manner it is, in that section, especially in our that very day, I say, when those utterances organic law. It does put too much power into were made, the President of the United States the hands of those officers who have charge of was engaged at Washington in the preparation the various election polls all over the State. of this same celebrated amnesty Proclamation, And who knows how soon it may come to pass which was soon thereafter sent forth to the that our opponents may themselves be the genworld. Now, sir, the position assumed on this tlemen to preside over the ballot-boxes on elecsubject by Abraham Lincoln, who, I hope, is tion day? and then they might decide that I am the preferred presidential candidate of us all-a disloyal man, or that you are, or that any assuredly is of all, save one-for I know that other member of this Convention is disloyal. my friend from Nye, [Mr. Proctor,] is probably In the heat and excitement of an election, waiting for the unveiling of the mysteries of many absurd and ridiculous things are done, the Chicago Conventionand it would not be strange if one or two men could be found to come up to the polls and testify that a man had said or done certain disloyal things. I say, such a provision would operate very harshly, and I feel confident that great injustice and injury might result from a clause of that kind. I therefore hope that the word "disloyal" will be stricken out. In regard to the other amendment, I trust the section will be allowed to remain as it is.

Mr. PROCTOR, (in his seat.) Oh, no; Fre

mont.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that is probably about as objectionable. With this one exception, I apprehend that there is no man in this Convention but stands fully upon the platform of the Baltimore Convention, and unreservedly supports its nominees. I am willing, for one, to place myself squarely on that platform, and now, and upon all future occasions, to labor for the success and defend the public acts of the nominees of that Convention. And I say I am not willing to go beyond that. I am willing to trust to the wisdom and patriotism of the Executive and of Congress, and to let them govern us in this matter of the elective franchise. For that reason, I am opposed to striking out that clause which has been proposed to be stricken out by the gentleman from Washoe. I am willing to embrace within the terms of our Constitution, so far as relates to the rights and privileges of citizenship, all those who may be embraced within the words and within the spirit of the Amnesty Proclamation, or any similar proclamation which may hereafter be promulgated, and I am desirous of excluding all who are not so embraced. I want it distinctly and emphatically understood, that I indorse the sentiments which the gentleman from Washoe has uttered, and the similar sentiments uttered by others, so far as they condemn those who have not purged themselves by the terms of the Amnesty Proclamation, those whose hands are yet dyed in the blood of our fellow citizens, those who have not come up fairly and squarely to the mark and purged themselves from this vile and terrible crime of treason. I am ready to say that such as they shall not be permitted to enjoy the benefits and privileges of the elective franchise. But I am not willing to go further than that, in the manner proposed.

Mr. KENNEDY. Like the gentleman from Ormsby, (Mr. Johnson,) I wish to explain my position. I, like him, am opposed to one of the amendments, and in favor of the other. But, unlike him, I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Washoe, and opposed to the one offered by the gentleman from Humboldt. Like the gentleman from Ormsby, also. I say that my opinions are known by my constituents upon this question. In every precinct in our county, I have advocated those doctrines which I here advocate, and I also have been returned to this Convention.

Now, first in regard to striking out this part of the section, which reads, “unless an amnesty be granted to such by the Federal Government," I believe I may say, in few words, this : That where a man has voluntarily borne arms against the Federal Government, or held any civil or military office under the Confederate Government, that man has been imbued with the spirit of secession to such an extent that you never will be able to make a good citizen of him afterwards. I believe there is such a poison connected with that doctrine, that when a man once voluntarily embraces it he cannot be cured. I believe, further, that it will take generation after generation to root that poison out of the minds of those who have embraced it. For that reason I am opposed to allowing any man who has voluntarily adopted secession

as a good doctrine, to come into this new State and neutralize my vote.

[July 7.

tablish his guilt in a Court of justice, if you were to present them there; still, if the man swears that he has not been convicted of a felony, can the judges and inspectors examine your proofs and say that the man shall not vote? No, sir. If he demands it, they must administer the oath, and let him swear that he has not been convicted, and if he does that, then he has a right to vote, and your only remedy in such a case is to prosecute and convict him of perjury. For these reasons, I say that the word disloyal is right. When I see a man whom I believe to be disloyal coming up to the polls to nullify my vote, I tell him that he must take that oath.

I have known some of these gentlemen. We, in our county, know numbers of them, for those immigrants which have been spoken of, many of them, remain with us, and we are made to feel the practical effects of this poison. I know of men in my own town who have been in the military service of the Confederate Government, and have since taken the oath of allegiance prescribed by the United States Government; and I know, sir, that they are still secessionists, that they are plotting and scheming to injure the Federal Government. I know that they would do anything to kill this very Constitution we are framing, or that of any other loyal State. I have had a little experience with these men, for some of them are my friends, so far as other matters are concerned. I know this measure which I am advocating will occasion some hardship in a few instances. There are cases, no doubt, where a man who has served the Confederate cause may become a good and loyal citizen. A man may, upon the spur of the moment, have been led to commit a crime, and he may have subsequently repented of it, but should we, for that reason Mr. NOURSE. I wish to say a few words in alone, extend to him an offer of pardon? Does relation to this matter. It seems to me there is not the murderer, before his execution, fre- a singular misapprehension, either on my part quently repent in sackcloth and ashes? But when the law is offended, the offender must pay the penalty. Now, then, if treason, if disloyalty of this character, is a greater crime than murder, and I contend that it is, for it embraces all the crimes known to the law, then why in this instance, though they sincerely repent, should we say that the penalty shall not be inflicted?

Now, Mr. Chairman, in regard to this word "disloyal," unlike an old friend of ours who was in the last Convention, I am a little "tenacious," and I will give my reasons. I do not agree with the gentleman from Ormsby, (Mr. Johnson), that it would place it in the power of any petty inspector, or judge of election, to decide upon this question of loyalty. I will state my idea of the object of that word in this section. In the first place, I take it, that to make these questions practical, the Legislature must pass the necessary laws; and I believe that if that word "disloyal" is left in the section where it is, the Legislature will prescribe a certain oath stronger, if possible, than the one we have all taken; and when you challenge a man at the polls on the ground of disloyalty, this oath will be administered to him, and when he takes it, he will have a right to vote. Then, if you can prove that he has perjured himself by taking that oath, he will be liable to a criminal prosecution for perjury. Now can you do more than that in regard to the other disabilities? Suppose a man has committed a felony in the State of California. He goes to the polls, and you challange him on that ground. Suppose, even, that you have all the certified records, all the proofs which would be necessary to es

And that thing, I will say, has been done in some of the extremely loyal towns in our Territory already, and I thank God for it, though, perhaps, it was not altogether legal. Now, I wish to make this a legal proceeding, and not a mere mob law, as I think it has been. If you compel a man to take this oath, and if he is willing to perjure his soul before God and man by taking a false oath, I do not know that we can help his voting, although we may punish his perjury afterwards.

or on the part of other gentlemen, as regards the powers of the Government of the United States upon this matter of voting, or of defining who shall vote. I find no power whatever given in the Constitution of the United States to Congress to point out the class of men who shall be entitled to exercise the elective franchise. There is but one section in the whole Constitution where it is spoken of.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the gentleman permit me to interrupt him. The gentleman from Washoe, when he speaks of those who entertain that singular misapprehension as to the powers of the Government, uses the term "gentlemen "

the plural form. For my part, I do not wish to be included, and from my recollection of the range which the discussion has already taken, I do not understand that there is more than one gentleman in this Convention who now asserts the proposition that it is competent for Congress to prescribe the rules of voting, or the qualifications of voters.

Mr. NOURSE. I understand the gentleman from Douglas, (Mr. Hawley,) also the gentleman from Storey, (Mr. Collins,) who sits near the gentleman from Ormsby, as taking the same view.

Mr. COLLINS. The gentleman from Storey disclaims it entirely.

Mr. NOURSE. I am very glad to hear it. But some of those gentlemen did say that these men whom we propose to exclude from the exercise of the right of suffrage might become grand and petit jurors in the United States Courts, and occupy other positions under the authority of the United States. Now, I have to say that that cannot be, because the grand and

Thursday,]

NOURSE.

[July 7.

petit juries are drawn in the same manner in | mit errors. But, aside from all that, I do not the United States Courts as is practised in the understand that the proclamation of the Presi Courts of the State where such United States dent gives any light in this matter upon the track Courts are held, and this Constitution provides which one gentleman wishes us to pursue. I that all persons who are required to sit on juries, understand the Amnesty Proclamation to take whether grand or petit, shall be electors of the away the punishment which is due to those men State. No man, therefore, who is not an elector who have rebelled-that whereas, before the of the State of Nevada can find a place in the proclamation, those men were all liable to be Grand Jury room of the United States Courts tried, convicted, and punished, for their treain the State of Nevada, nor on juries in the son, now the Amnesty Proclamation comes in State Courts either. So much for that. The and says that upon taking a certain oath they United States do not assume to regulate the shall be relieved of all those disagreeable conmatter in any way whatever. The United sequences of treason. But it does not say that States have no right to assume it; it has never those men may go to Massachusetts and vote. been claimed by any Administration since It does not pretend to lay down any rule of our Government was formed. They leave action for the States. It simply takes away both the matters of the qualifications of jurors and the elective franchise entirely to the State, or to the Government of the State, and while in one State it is provided that a man must be a citizen of the United States in order to vote; in another, the right to vote is given to such persons only as have resided in the State six months, as in the State of Illinois; and so on, through other electoral qualifications. These qualifications vary in different States.

the punishment for the the crime of those men. If they remain in the States where they are, and there is no law, or constitutional provision, prohibiting them from voting there, then they will not be disqualified by their crime. They are not in danger of being disqualified by conviction, because of the proclamation, and they may vote. That is all there is of that. We are here left at perfect liberty to take that course which shall seem to us best, and I insist on coming to that issue without any clap-trap, or anything of the sort. Is it best for this young State to allow those men who have deliberately committed these crimes-and they must have done it willingly, under this provision-to have a voice in making our laws and choosing our officers?

Some gentlemen seem to be tender-footed on that issue. They seem to fear that we shall lose votes by this proposition. We have to submit this Constitution to a constituency, among whom are some such men as have been referred to, who have the right of voting upon it, and they therefore do not want to raise that issue.

Now, I wish to reply to a doctrine which seems to me to be a monstrous heresy, namely, that all citizens have the right to vote. Why, I can remember that there was once-though it seems to me more like a horrid dream than a reality-a decision of the Supreme Court that black men are not citizens, and that they have no rights which white men are bound to respect. But, at the present time, it is conceded that black men are citizens; they are so recognized everywhere; and yet we have struck them out from the list of voters, and they are excluded from the ballot-box even in California. We have excluded them from the franchise in our Constitution, and we find no difficulty on that Now, Mr. Chairman, I do think, in view of score. Again, there is no doubt or question but this objection, that the political condition of that women are citizens, just as much as men things here in Nevada must be most unhealthy. are, and yet we do not allow women to vote, if What do we see? With the exception of one orwe know it. So that question of citizenship in ganization, the Union party, we find that we the United States has no bearing on this matter. have here open and avowed rebels and secesIt is for us to say whether, under the Constitu- sionists of every shade and hue. They are crawltion which we are framing, any man, or class of ing into our caucuses, crawling into our conmen, citizens of the United States, or not citi-ventions, and taking part in our deliberations. zens of the United States, shall be allowed to Instead of having a square stand-up fight vote. Under the Constitution of the United over principles, they get the advantage of States, it is provided that "the citizens of each us by cunning. Cunning copperheads get into State shall be entitled to all the privileges and our political organizations, under our own immunities of citizens in the several States;" banner, and there they manage to defeat the and yet, who claims that a citizen of Massachu- real end and object of Union men. I say that setts can go to South Carolina and vote there, merely because he is a citizen of Massachusetts? Now, as to what course we shall pursue, and as to following Abraham Lincoln, and all that, no man is inclined, I think, to support the Administration more fully and thoroughly than I Now, I ask gentlemen, in all sincerity, to anam. I have had the honor of holding office un-swer to themselves—I do not ask for an answer der the Administration, and I feel grateful to it. And yet I do not feel that that binds me to approve of every act of the Administration, because I suppose our Administration may com

is unhealthy. I say, with all deference, of course, that nothing could be better for this new State, than that the issue should be plainly drawn between unconditional Union men and rebel sympathizers.

here, but at any future time-this question. My acquaintance with this class, personally, is not large, though I have heard of many rebels being among us, but I would like to have gen

Thursday,]

DELONG-KENNEDY-COLLINS BANKS-NOURSE.

[July 7.

tlemen say to themselves whether they know a that policy has not been doubted. It is the law single man that has served in the armies of the of every State, and, I believe, of every civilized rebels, and has got out here at last safely away country on the face of the globe, that among from danger, that is a good Union man? There the consequences of a pardon, is a restoration may be one, two, three, or a dozen, possibly, to all the rights which the person pardoned here in town, but is there one such out of town? possessed before the conviction. Now if the The Convention has already decided-it is said Amnesty Proclamation intervenes, and says to here, in our first article-that "All men are by those who have been shedding our brothers' nature free and equal." We do not mean equal blood on a thousand battle-fields, that their politically or socially, of course. We do not crimes are pardoned, and they are restored to mean to say that all men must weigh one hun- the rights of citizens, and if the power that isdred and fifty pounds each; and we have sues that proclamation is paramount, how can said that blacks are not equal to whites. Now we say that they are not restored to those rights? that we have changed the Ethiopian's skin, I How can we say that notwithstanding that ask if we will go the whole figure and say that proclamation, notwithstanding the law of Conthe leopard can change his spots? Have not gress, here in our midst, with the Constitution we gone quite as far on that tack as we can go of the United States adopted over us, with the Is it possible that the large population which proclamation of amnesty supposed to be made has come to us from the rebel armies-and in accordance with the Constitution by the head more to follow, if this provision is left in the of the Government, we shall assert the negative article before us-will be good, reliable Union of what the President proclaims in that proclamen? They may take as many oaths as you mation? I do not see how we can legally do have a mind to impose, but the reptile snake is it. And I believe that anything in our Constiin them still, and whenever the opportunity is tution contrary to what is provided in that given, the poison will be struck into the heart proclamation, would have to give way to itof our system of government again and again. that any Court would determine that that AmIt is because I have no faith in the taking of nesty Proclamation has the effect of restoring oaths, by rebels, to change their dispositions, the party affected by it to all the rights which and it is because I do not believe that he enjoyed before he became engaged in the Abraham Lincoln's pardon will purge them from their wickedness, that I go for this amendment. It is purely because I believe that this provision, allowing rebels to vote, will prove a misfortune to the State, the effects of which we do not know, and shall not know till the mischief is done, that I desire to have this clause excluded.

rebellion.

Mr. KENNEDY. I wish to ask the gentleman a question. Does he contend that we have not the right, in this Constitution, to fix the qualifications of voters, notwithstanding the Amnesty Proclamation? Could not we shut out any class of men we saw fit?

tution a clause providing that any man who is born in Louisiana shall be prohibited from voting here, it would be not only wrong, but unconstitutional. It would be violative of the spirit of the Constitution and the laws of the Federal Government.

Mr. COLLINS. Will the gentleman state that proposition again.

Mr. DELONG. No, sir. I say we have a Mr. DELONG. The gentlemen who have ad- clause in the Federal Constitution which guardressed the Convention on that side which is antees to the citizen of each State "all the supported by the gentleman from Washoe, (Mr. privileges and immunities of citizens in the sevNourse,) seem to consider the effects of the Am-eral States," and if we embraced in our Constinesty Proclamation in a light entirely different from what I do. It is true, the proclamation only relates to the consequences of crime, and only relieves those who have been guilty of treason, from punishment. But I submit, that when a man is convicted of larceny, or robbery. or murder, or manslaughter, or any other felony, the punishment of which is imprisonment, and one of the consequences of which is that he is disfranchised, unless relieved by the pardoning power; when that power does intervene, it operates exactly like this proclamation of amnesty. It relieves him from the consequences of the crime, and in thus relieving him, it restores the offender entirely to his former position. It is very disagreeable, no doubt, to gentlemen-it is to me, at all events-to see a notorious thief, who has served in the penitentiary, and been pardoned only a few days before the election, perhaps, come up to the polls, and checkmate my influence, by casting a vote in opposition to mine. It seems to be all wrong, as in the ease of the rebel, who comes up and nullifies your vote under this Amnesty Proclamation. But in the former case, the wisdom of Mr. NOURSE. If that be so, why do we say

Mr. DELONG. I say that I believe that if we should embrace in this Constitution a clause saying that a man born in Louisiana, or in the State of Maine, or any other State, shall not be entitled to exercise the right of an elector here, it would be unconstitutional. And that shows that we have no right to discriminate in this way.

Mr. BANKS. I will ask the gentleman, since in some States negroes have a right to vote, and we have provided that they shall have no such right here, whether he does not think the same rule would apply to that provision?

Mr. DELONG. We in effect deny, by the adoption of the first section, that the negro is a citizen.

"every white male citizen," showing that some citizens are excluded?

Mr. DELONG. I do not know the reason for using that language, but I will suggest that it was probably employed in order to leave no doubt on the subject, because there is a very considerable and respectable number of gentlemen who claim that the negro is a citizen, differing from others in their opinion on that subject, and consequently the word "white" may have been put in so that, even if the negro is a citizen, not being a white man, he is still not entitled to vote.

I

But I do not care about discussing that point. say that whether we have the right to exclude those who were included by the amnesty proclamation or not, we should be governed by that policy which prevails in every civilized land, under which, when a man is pardoned by the pardoning power, it is held to be a fair presumption that he was pardoned for good and sufficient reasons, and that the executive, in granting the pardon, has done that which restores him to citizenship. That is my view. We consider that the Governor has good reasons for his action, when he pardons a man from the penitentiary, and restores him to citizenship, although he may have been convicted of an infamous crime, and we do not allow ourselves to doubt but that he has a right to vote; I never have heard it doubted in any legislative body, or any convention, or elsewhere, that in such a case all the original rights of citizenship, including the elective franchise, are restored to him, as purely as if they had never been contaminated.

[July 7.

bellion, and repudiate it more than any other class of men, when once they have so returned to their allegiance in good faith,

I have but little confidence in the oaths of allegiance or in the unionism of southern men who have recently taken these oaths, and proclaimed their unionism so loudly, especially as long as any hope of the success of the rebellion exists. These men have been so long proclaiming the doctrine of secession, asserting the successes of the Confederate troops, doubting the reports of Union victories, and receiving with unquestioning faith the reports of Southern successes, that I am compelled to doubt all their professions of loyalty and unionism. I do not believe a word of it. I do not, to use a common vulgarism, "go one cent on" their unionism and loyalty, whoever or wherever they are. But I say, while we are engaged in making, not a legislative enactment, but a law for all time, a Constitution, which we hope is to endure, perhaps for centuries, we should be very careful how we word our legislation. After this war shall have been ended, and it shall have become a settled conviction that those who were engaged in it have returned in good faith to their allegiance, our Legislature may desire to overlook the past, and allow them again to stand among us as equals; for, if we do not take that course, we may never expect one of them, or their children, ever to be loyal again. We shall have thrown down the gauntlet, challenging them to continue their hostility to the government, and they will continue it. A feeling of hatred, a feeling that they are being subjected to persecution, will animate them. They will Now, I look upon the future, in regard to this feel that we have put them down among the newar, a little differently from my friend from groes and Chinamen, and refused to give them Lyon, (Mr. Kennedy.) As I look upon it, the a chance to be good citizens again, on equal war is now being conducted by southern men terms with ourselves, if they would be. I say, more from a feeling of pride for their section, our adoption of that policy would strike like than from any attachment to their so-called Con- iron to the heart of every proud-spirited southfederacy. I believe that nine-tenths of the men ern man in the Territory. They would say, and who are serving in the army of Jefferson Davis, they would be right in it, that though they may to-day, if brought right down to a fair and can have intended to become good citizens, yet they did exposition of their views, would say that could not do it, because we have an odious prothey disbelieve in the doctrine of secession, and vision of the Constitution, standing there against if they were pressed as to the reason why they them, and impending over their heads for all were fighting in the secession army, they would time to come. There is no encouragement for say they were doing it for the honor of their the evil-doer to repent. I would like to see section, or the honor of their particular State. the amendment defeated, and then I would like They inaugurated this war under a fearful mis- to see this whole section so remodeled as to apprehension. They inaugurated it under the leave out this proscriptive feature altogether, mistaken idea, first, that the northern man leaving the section to read in this manner :— would not fight, and next, under the equally mistaken idea, that northern men would not expend their money to conduct the war. They went into the war laboring under these two fearful mistakes, and after having got into it, their inborn American spirit prompts them to I would not like to have that word" disloyal" fight it out, right or wrong, and they intend to left in as a constitutional provision. Then, fight it through, just from that spirit of pride after amending the section so as to read in that alone; and after the war is through, you will way, I would put in a provision that the Legisfind that they will return to their allegiance in lature may, from time to time, fix the qualificagood faith. And, on the same principle that a tions of voters. I would be willing even to burned child dreads the fire, will they dread re-strike out all these other provisions-to strike

SEC. 2. No person who has been or may be convicted of treason or felony in any State or Territory of the United States, unless restored to civil rights, and no idiot or insane person, shall be entitled to the privilege

of an elector.