Smith, Strouse, Taber, Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Whaley, Winfield, and Wright-37.

Applause on the floor and in the galleries greeted the announcement that two-thirds of the House having voted in the affirmative the joint resolution was passed.

The heavy majority by which this measure passed the House indicated an effect of the President's steady opposition, the opposite of what was anticipated. The amendment secured two votes which were cast against the Civil Rights Bill, while it lost no vote which that measure received.

It is remarkable that the joint resolution should have been carried with such unanimity when so many Republicans had expressed dissatisfaction with the third section. This is accounted for, however, by the pressure of the previous question, in which fifteen Democrats joined forces with the radical Republicans to force the undivided issue upon the House. A large minority of the Republican members were thus prevented from voting against the clause disfranchising the late rebels until 1870.

In the Senate, as will be seen, the amendment assumed a shape more in accordance with their wishes.

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENT-IN THE SENATE.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISCUSSIONS IN THE HOUSE AND IN THE SENATE—MR. SUMNER PROPOSES TO POSTPONE-MR. HOWARD TAKES CHARGE OF THE AMENDMENT-SUBSTITUTES PROPOSED THE REPUBLICANS IN COUNCIL-THE DISFRANCHISING CLAUSE STRICKEN OUT-HUMOROUS ACCOUNT BY MR. HENDRICKS -THE PAIN AND PENALTIES OF NOT HOLDING OFFICE-A SENATOR'S PIETY APPEALED TO-HOWE vs. DOOLITTLE-MARKETABLE PRINCIPLES-PRAISE OF THE PRESIDENT-MR. MCDOUGALL'S CHARITY-VOTE OF THE SENATE-CONCURRENCE IN THE HOUSE.

TH

HE joint resolution providing for amendments to the Constitution in relation to the rights of citizens, the basis of representation, the disfranchisement of rebels, and the rejection of the rebel debt, having passed the House of Representatives on the 10th of May, awaited only similar action of the Senate to prepare it to go before the several State Legislatures for final consideration. A fortnight had elapsed before it was taken up by the Senate. That body was much behind the House of Representatives in the business of the session. Notwithstanding the great size of the latter, it was accustomed to dispatch business with much greater rapidity than the Senate. The hour rule, limiting the length of speeches, and the previous question putting a boundary upon debate, being part of the machinery of the House, caused legislation to go on to final completion, which would otherwise have been swallowed up and lost in interminable talk.

The Senate, consisting of a smaller number, did not realize the need of such restrictions. Senators sometimes indulged themselves in speeches of such length as, if permitted in the House, would have proved an insurmountable obstacle to legislation.

The contrast between the discussions in the two houses of Congress was never more marked than in connection with the amend

ment relating to reconstruction. In this case the members of the House by special rule limited themselves to half an hour in the delivery of their speeches, which were consequently marked by great pertinency and condensation. In the Senate the speeches were in some instances limited only by the physical ability of the speakers to proceed. In one instance the case of Garrett Davis -a speech was prolonged four hours, occupying all that part of the day devoted to the discussion. The limits of a volume would be inadequate for giving more than a mere outline of a discussion conducted upon such principles, and protracted through a period of more than two weeks.

The joint resolution was taken up by the Senate on the 23d of May. Mr. Sumner preferred that the consideration of the question should be deferred until the first of July. "We were able," said he,, " to have a better proposition at the end of April than we had at the end of March, and I believe we shall be able to accept a better proposition just as the weeks proceed. It is one of the greatest questions that has ever been presented in the history of our country or of any country. It should be approached carefully and solemnly, and with the assurance we have before us all the testimony, all the facts, every thing that by any possibility can shed any light upon it."

The Senate proceeded, however, to the consideration of the joint resolution. Owing to the ill-health of Mr. Fessenden, who, as Chairman of the joint Committee on Reconstruction, would probably have taken charge of the measure, Mr. Howard opened the discussion and conducted the resolution in its passage through the Senate. He addressed the Senate in favor of all the sections of the proposed amendment except the third. "It is due to myself," said he, "to say that I did not favor this section of the amendment in the committee. I do not believe, if adopted, it will be of any practical benefit to the country."

Mr. Clark offered a substitute for the third section-the disfranchising clause-the following amendment, which, with slight modifications, was ultimately adopted:

"That no person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or permitted to hold any office under the Government of the United States, who, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution thereof, shall have voluntarily engaged in any insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort thereto."