The classes enumerated in the several State censuses are as follows. In Kentucky and Tennessee, qualified voters; in Pennsylvania, taxable inhabitants; in Michigan, white inhabitants and civilized persons of Indian descent not belonging to Indian tribes; in Indiana, white male inhabitants over twenty-one years of age; in Illinois, Oregon, and Texas, white inhabitants; in Maine, the whole population, except foreigners not naturalized and Indians not taxed; in Nebraska and Wisconsin, the whole population, except Indians not taxed, and soldiers and sailors in the army and navy of the United States; in New York, the whole population, except aliens and colored persons not taxed. In all the other States where a census is required, the whole population is taken.

Besides the works already referred to, the following may be consulted on the general subject: Sinclair (Sir John), “ Analysis of the Statistical Account of Scotland," 8vo, Edinburgh, 1825; Macaulay's "History of England," Vol. I. chap. 3; McClintock and Strong, "Encyclopædia of Biblical, Ecclesiastical, and Theological Literature"; Smith, "Dictionary of the Bible," 3 vols., 8vo, London, 1860-63; Smith, "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities," 8vo, London, 1842; Babbage, “Ninth Bridgewater Treatise," 8vo, London, 1837; “Journal of the Statistical Society of London," Vols. I. to XXXIV., 8vo, London, 1839; Hume, Essay on the Populousness of Ancient Nations," Philosophical Works, Vol. III., Boston edition, 1854; Captain John Graunt (Sir William Petty), “Natural and Political Observations upon the Bills of Mortality," 5th edition, 16mo, London, 1676; "Annuaire de l'Économie Politique et de la Statistique," 1-28 année, Paris, 1844-72; "Journal des Économistes," 1"-28" année, Paris, 1841-69; "Report of the Proceedings of the International Statistical Congress, Fourth Session, at London, 1860," 4to, London, 1861; "British Almanac for the Year 1872," 12mo, London, 1873; Ad. Quetelet, " Statistique Internationale" (Population), 4to, Bruxelles, 1865; and, "Physique Sociale, ou Essai sur le Développement des Facultés de l'Homme," Bruxelles, 1869, 2 vols., 8vo; Moreau de Jonnès, " État Économique et Social de la France depuis Henri IV. jusqu'à Louis XIV.," Paris, 1867.1

1 In the Cyclopædia this article is credited to Mr. Garfield and B. A. Hinsdale, President of Hiram College. It is proper to say that Mr. Garfield cast the whole article, and that he wrote all of it except the subsections "The Jewish Census," and "The Census of the United States," both of which were written by Mr. Hinsdale.

AMNESTY.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

JANUARY 12, 1876.

THE Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Sec. 3, imposed civil disabilities as follows: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or Elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each house, remove such disability."

At different times Congress legislated upon this subject, removing disabilities both from individuals and from certain disabled classes. The following act was approved, May 22, 1872: "Be it enacted, etc., (two thirds of each house concurring therein,) That all legal and political disabilities imposed by the third section of the Fourteenth Article of the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congress, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States." This act left the disabilities imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment resting upon comparatively a small number of persons, Mr. Garfield says in the

following speech, upon only seven hundred and fifty.

December 15, 1875, Mr. S. J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, introduced this bill in the House of Representatives: "Be it enacted, etc., (two thirds of each house concurring therein,) That all disabilities imposed and remaining upon any person by virtue of the third section of the Fourteenth Article of the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States be, and the same are hereby, removed, and each and every person is hereby forever relieved therefrom."

January 6, Hon. J. G. Blaine submitted the following, which he said he should offer as an amendment at the proper time: "Be it enacted, etc., That all persons now under the disabilities imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, with the exception of Jefferson Davis, late President of the so-called Confederate States, shall be relieved of such disabilities upon their appearing before any judge of a United States court, and taking and subscribing in open court the following oath, to be duly attested and recorded, namely: "I, A. B., do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of a citizen of the United States."

Pending this subject, Mr. Garfield addressed the House in the following speech. The day after his speech was delivered, the Randall bill was sent to the Judiciary Committee, from which it came back with an amendment requiring the person who wished to take the benefit of the proposed amnesty to take an oath of allegiance before a United States judge, or a State court of record. January 14, the bill fell, failing to receive a two-thirds vote, as the Constitution requires.

MR.

R. SPEAKER, -No gentleman on this floor can regret more sincerely than I do the course that the debate has taken, especially that portion which occurred yesterday. To one who reads the report of that discussion, it would be difficult to discover the real question at issue, or to learn the scope and character of the pending measure. I regret that neither the speech of the gentleman from New York, nor that of the gentleman from Georgia,2 has yet appeared in the Record. I should prefer to quote from the full report, but, replying now, I must quote them as their speeches appeared in the public journals of yesterday and to-day. But they are here, and can correct any inaccuracy of quotation. Any one who reads their speeches would not suspect that they were debating a simple proposition to relieve some citizens of political and legal disabilities incurred during the late war. For example, had I been a casual reader and not a listener, I should say that the chief proposition yesterday was an arraignment of

the administration of this government for the last fifteen years. If I had been called upon to pick out those declarations in the speech of the gentleman from Georgia which embody the topic of debate, I should have said they were these:

"If, with the history of the last fifteen years fresh in the memory of this people, the country is prepared to talk about the grace and magnanimity of the Republican party, argument would be wasted. With masters enslaved, intelligence disfranchised, society disorganized, industry paralyzed, States subverted, legislatures dispersed by the bayonet, the people can accord to that party the verdict of grace and magnanimity, may God save the future of our country from grace and magnanimity !" 1

I should say that the propositions and arguments arrayed around that paragraph were the centre and circumference of his theme. Let me, then, in a few words, try to recall the House to the actual subject of this debate.

A gentleman on the other side of the House, a few weeks ago, introduced a proposition in the form of a bill to grant amnesty to the persons who are not yet relieved of their political disabilities under the Constitution. That is a plain proposition for practical legislation. It is a very important proposition. It is a proposition to finish and complete forever the work of executing one of the great clauses of the Constitution of our country. When that bill shall have become a law, much of the Fourteenth Amendment will have ceased to be an operative part of the Constitution. Whenever so great and important a matter is proposed, a deliberative body should bring to its consideration the fullest and most serious examination. But what was proposed in this case? Not to deliberate, not to amend, not even to refer to a committee for the ordinary consideration given even to a proposition to repeal the tax on matches. No reference to anybody; but a member of the House, of his own motion and at his own discretion, launches that proposition into the House, refusing the privilege of amendment and the right of debate, except as it might come from his courtesy, and proposes to pass it, declaring as he does so that the time has come to do justice to an oppressed people.

Under circumstances like these, Mr. Speaker, a large number of gentlemen on this floor felt that they had a right-under the

1 Congressional Record, January 11, 1876, pp. 345, 346.

rules of the House and in the forum of justice and fair-dealing, an undoubted right-to deliberate on the proposition; that it should be open for amendment and debate. Every expression on this side of the House showed that we were earnestly in favor of closing the drama of war so far as it relates to disabilities; that it should be closed forever, closed in good faith and with good feeling. We deeply regretted that the attempt was made to cut us off from deliberation and amendment, and we therefore threw ourselves back upon our rights; and it is by virtue of those rights that we debate this question to-day.

The gentleman from Maine1 offered a criticism on the bill. He suggested that there were two points in which it ought to be changed. One was that the seven hundred and fifty persons who are still forbidden to hold office under the Constitution should have free and absolute amnesty whenever they declare, by taking the oath of allegiance in open court, that they want it; that, like God's mercy and perfect pardon, amnesty should be granted on the asking for it. It was suggested that we should follow the rule that we have followed hitherto in all sim

ilar cases. That was the first point. Another point was suggested, that there is one person, and only one, who ought to be excepted from the operation of the proposed law. Now these criticisms may have been wise, or they may have been unwise, as a matter of statesmanship, but they were questions deserving debate, deliberation, and answer.

The proposition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 2 is an affirmative one, and should be supported by affirmative reasons. If we allege any reasons against it, we ought to be answered. Two allegations have been made: first, that there ought to be an oath of allegiance before a court; and, second, that one man ought to be excepted. How have these propositions been met? How have these suggestions been answered? The first response was a speech full of brilliant wit and personalities. It was like joking at a funeral to joke on such an occasion. They have been answered, in the second place, by the speech of yesterday, which arraigns not the Republican party alone, but arraigns twenty-five millions of people, arraigns the history of the republic for fifteen years, including everything that is glorious in its record and high and worthy in its achievements. I