« AnteriorContinuar »
the President to be necessary for the protection and benefit of all, and in the opinion of the unãersigned they are amply sufficient. Why exact, as a preliminary condition to representation, more? What more are supposed to be necessary? First, the repudiation of the rebel debt; second, the denial of all obligation to pay for manumitted slaves; third, the inviolability of our own debt. If these provisions are deemed necessary, they cannot be defeated, if the South were disposed to defeat them, by the admission into Congress of their representatives. Nothing is more probable, in the opinion of the undersigned, than that many of the southern States would adopt them all; but those measures the committee connect with others which we think the people of the South will never adopt. They
are asked to disfranchise a numerous class of their
citizens, and also to agree to diminish their representation,in Congress, and of course in the electoral college, or to admit to the right of suffrage their colored males of twenty-one years of age and upwards, (a class now in a condition of almost utter ignorance,) thus placing them on the same political footing with white citizens of that age. For reasons so obvious that the dullest may discover them, the right is not directly asserted of granting suffrage to the negro. That would be obnoxious to most of the Northern and Western States, so much so that their consent was not to be anticipated; but as the plan adopted, because of the limited number of negroes in such States, will have no effect on their representation, it is thought it may be adopted, while in the southern States it will materially lessen their number. That these latter States will assent to the measure can hardly be expected. The effect, then, if not the purpose, of the measure is forever to deny representatives to such States, or, if they consent to the condition, to weaken their representative power, and thus, probably, secure a continuance of such a party in power as now control the legislation of the Government. The measure, in its terms and its effect, whether designed or not, is to degrade the southern States. To consent to it will be to consent to their own dishonor. The manner, too, of presenting the proposed constitutional amendment, in the opinion of the undersigned, is impolitic and without precedent. The several amendments suggested have no connection with each other; each, if adopted, would have its appropriate effect if the others were rejected; and each, therefore, should be submitted as a separate article, without subjecting it to the contingency of rejection if the States should refuse to ratify the rest. Each by itself, if an advisable measure, should be submitted to the people, and not in such a connection with those which they may think unnecessary or dangerous as to force them to reject all. The repudiation of the rebel debt, and all obligation to compensate for the loss of slave property, and the inviolability ! of the debts of the Government, no matter how contracted, provided for by some of the sections of the amendment, we repeat, we believe would meet the approval of many of the southern States; but these no State can sanction without | sanctioning others, which we think will not be done by them or by some of the northern States.
To force negro suffrage upon any State by means of a penalty of a loss of part of its representation, will not only be to impose a disparaging condition, but virtually to interfere with the clear right of each State to regulate suffrage for itself, without the control of the Government of the United States. Whether that control be exerted directly or indirectly, it will be considered, as it is, a fatal blow to the right which every State in the past has held vital, the right to regulate her franchise. To punish a State for not o it in a particular way, so as to give to all classes of the people the privilege of suffrage, is but seeking to accomplish incidentally what, if it should be done at all, should be done directly. No reason, in the view of the undersigned, can be suggested for the course adopted, other than a belief that such a direct interference would not be sanctioned by the northern and western States, while, as regards such States, the actual recommendation, because of the small proportion of negroes within their limits, will not in the least lessen their representative power in Congress or their influence in the presidential election, and they may therefore sanction it. This very ineuality in its operation upon the States renders the measure, in our opinion, most unjust, and, looking to the peace and quiet of the country, most impolitic, But the mode advised is also not only without but against all precedent. When the Constitution was adopted it was thought to be defective in not sufficiently protecting certain rights of the States and the people. With the view of supplying a remedy for this defect, on the 4th March, 1789, various amendments by a resolution constitutionally passed by Congress were submitted for ratification to the States. They were twelve in number. Several of them were even less independent of each other than are those recommended by the committee. But it did not occur to the men of that day that it was right to force the States to adopt or reject all. Each was, therefore, presented as a separate article. The language of the resolution was, “that the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of the several States as amendments of the Constitution of the United States, ALL OR ANY OF WHICH ARTICLES, when ratified by three-fourths of the said legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as parts of the Constitution. The Congress of that day was willing to obtain either of the submitted amendments—to get a part, if not able to procure the whole. They thought (and in that we submit they but conformed to the letter and spirit of the amendatory clause of the Constitution,) that the people have the right to pass severally on any proposed amendments. This course of our fathers is now departed from, and the result will probably be that no one of the suggested amendments, though some may be approved, will be ratified. This will certainl be the result, unless the States are willing practically to relinquish the right they have always enjoyed, never before questioned by any recognized statesman, and all-important to their interest and security—the right to regulate the franchise in all their elections. There are, too, some general considerations o bear on the subject, to which we will now refer. First. One of the resolutions of the Chicago convention, by which Mr. Lincoln was first nominated for the presidency, says, “that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States is essential to the balance of power on which the rosperity and endurance of our political fabric epend.” In his inaugural address of 4th March, 1861, which received the almost universal approval of the people, among other things he said, “no State of its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union;” and that “in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.” Second. Actual conflict soon afterwards ensued. The South, it was believed, misapprehended the purpose of the Government in carrying it on, and Congress deemed it imporant to dispel that misapprehension by declaring what the purpose was. This was done in July, 1861, by their passing the following resolution, offered by Mr. Crittenden: “That in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all feeling of mere #. or resentment, will recollect only its uty to the whole country; that this war is not waged, upon our part, in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease." The vote in the House was 119 for and 2 against it, and in the Senate 30 for and 5 against it. The design to conquer or subjugate, or to curtail or interfere in any way with the rights of the States, is in the strongest terms thus disclaimed, and the only avowed object asserted to be “to defend and maintain the spirit of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union, AND THE DIGNITY, EQUALITY, AND RIGHTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES UNIMPAIRED.” Congress, too, by the act of 13th July, 1861, empowered the President to declare, by proclamation, “that the inhabitants of such State or States where the insurrection existed are in a state of insurrection against the United States,” and thereupon to declare that “all commercial intercourse by and between the same, by the citizens thereof and the citizens of the United States, shall cease and be unlawful so long as such condition of hostility shall continue.” Here, also, Congress evidently deals with the States as being in the Union and to remain in the Union. It seeks to keep them in by forbidding commercial intercourse between their citizens and the citizens of the other States so long, and so long only, as insurrectionary hostility shall continue. That ended, they are to be, as at first, entitled to the same intercourse with citizens of other States that they enjoyed before the insurrection. . In other words, in this act, as in the resolution of the same month, the dignity, equality, and rights of such States (the insurrection .*. not to be held in any respect impaired. The several
though a majority of the people of the States
proclamations of amnesty issued by Mr. Lincoln and his successor under the authority of Congress are also inconsistent with the idea that the parties included within them are not to be held in the future, restored to all rights belonging to them as citizens of their respective States. A power to pardon is a power to restore the offender to the condition in which he was before the date of the offence pardoned. It is now settled that a pardon, removes, not only the punishment, but all the legal disabili. ties consequent on the crime. (7. Bac. Ab. Tit. Par.) Bishop on Criminal Law (vol. 1, p. 713) states the same doctrine. The amnesties so de clared would be but false pretences if they were, as now held, to leave the parties who have availed themselves of them in almost every particular in the condition they would have bees in if they had rejected them. Such a result, it is submitted, would be a foul blot on the good name of the nation. Upon the whole, therefore, in the present state of the country, the excite. ment which exists, and which may mislead legislatures already elected, we think ... that the matured sense of the people is not likely to be ascertained on the subject of the proposed amendment by its submission to existing State legislatures. If it should be done at all, the submission should either be to legislatures here. after to be elected, or to conventions of the people chosen for the purpose. Congress may select either mode, but they have selected neither. It may be submitted to legislatures already in existence, whose members were heretofore elected with no view to the consideration of such a measure; and it may consequently be adopted,
disapprove of it. In this respect, if there were no other objections to it, we think it most ob. jectionable. • , Whether regard be had to the nature or the terms of the Constitution, or to the legislation of Congress during the insurrection, or to the course of the judicial department, or to the conduct of the executive, the undersigned confi. dently submit that the southern States are States in the Union, and entitled to every right and privilege belonging to the other States. If any portion of their citizens be disloyal, or are not able to take any oath of office that has been or may be constitutionally prescribed, is a question irrespective of the right of the States to be represented. Against ise dan er, whatever that may be, of the admission of disloyal or dis. qualified members into the Senate or House, it is in the power of each branch to provide against by refusing such admission. Each by the Constitution is made the judge of the election returns and qualifications of its own members. No other department can interfere with it. Its decision concludes all others. The only correc. tive, when error is committed, consists in the responsibility of the members to the people. But it is believed by the undersigned to be the clear duty of each house to admit any Senator or Rep. resentative who has been elected according to the constitutional laws of the State, and who is able and willing to subscribe the oath required by constitutional law. It is conceded by the majority that “it would
undoubtedly be competent for Congress to waive all formalities, and to admit those Confederate States at once, trusting that time and experience would set all things right.” It is not, therefore, owing to a want of constitutional power that it is not done. It is not because such States are not States with republican forms of government. The exclusion must therefore rest on considerations of safety or of expediency alone. The first, that of safety, we have already considered, and, as we think, proved it to be without foundation, Is there any ground for the latter expediency * We think not. On the contrary, in our judgment, their admission is called for by the clearest expediency. Those States include a territorial area of 850,000 square miles, an area larger than that of Gye of the leading nations of Europe. They have a coast line of 3,000 miles, with an internal water line, including the Mississippi, of about 36,000 miles. Their agricultural products in 1850 were about $560,000,000 in value, and their population 9,664,656. Their staple productions are of immense and growing importance and are almost peculiar to that region. That the North is deeply interested in having such a country and people restored to all the rights and privileges that the Constitution affords no sane man, not blinded by mere party considerations, or not a victim of disordering prejudice, can for a moment doubt. Such a restoration is also necessary to the peace of the country. It is not only important but vital to the potential wealth of which that section of our country is capable, that cannot otherwise be fully developed. Every hour of illegal political restraint, every hour the ossession of the rights the Constitution gives is enied, is not only in a political but a material sense of great injury to the North as well as to the South. The southern planter works for his northern brethren as well as for himself. His labors heretofore inured as much if not more to their advantage than to his. Whilst harmony in the past between the sections gave to the whole a prosperity, a power, and a renown of which every citizen had reason to be proud, the restoration of such harmony will immeasurably increase them all. Can it, will it be restored as long as the South is kept in political and dishonoring bondage? and can it not, will it not be restored by an opposite policy? By admitting her to all the rights of the Constitution, and by dealing with her citizens as equals and as brothers, not as inferiors and enemies, such a course as this will, we are certain, soon be seen to bind them heart and soul to the Union, and inspire them with confidence in its government, by making them feel that all enmity is forgotten, and that justice is being done to them. The result of such a policy, we believe, will at once make us in very truth one people, as happy, as prosper
ous, and as powerful as ever existed in the tide
of time; while its opposite cannot fail to kee us divided, jo affect the particular an general welfare of citizen and Government, and, if long persisted in, result in danger to the nation. In the words of an eminent British whig states: man, now no more, “A free constitution and large exclusions from its benefit cannot subsist together; the constitution will destroy them, or they will destroy the constitution.” It is hoped that, heeding the warning, , we wool guard against the o removing its cause. The undersigréd have not thought it neces
sary to examine into the legality of the measures adopted, either by the late or the present President, for the restoration of the southern States. It is sufficient for their purpose to say that, if those of President Johnson were not justified by the Constitution, the same may at least be said of those of his predecessor. We deem such an examination to be unnecessary, because, however it might result, the people of the several States who possessed, as we have before said, the exclusive right to decide for themselves what constitutions they should adopt, have adopted those under which they respectively live. The motives of neither President, however, whether the measures were legal or not, are liable to censure. The sole object of each was to effect a complete and early union of all the States; to make the General Government, as it"did at first, embrace all, and to extend its authorit and secure its privileges and blessings to all alike. The purity of motive of President Johnson in this particular, as was to have been expected, is admitted by the majority of the committee to be beyond doubt; for, whatever was their opinion of the unconstitutionality of his course, and its tendency to enlarge the executive power, they tell us that they “do not for a moment impute to him any such design, but cheerfully concede to him the most patriotic motives.” And we cannot forbear to say, in conclusion, upon that point, that he sins against light, and closes his eyes to the course of the President during the rebellion, from its inception to its close, who ventures to impeach his patriotism. Surrounded by insurrectionists, he stood firm. His life was almost constantly in peril, and he clung to the Union, and discharged all the obligations it imposed upon him, even the closer because of the peril. And now that he has escaped unharmed, and by the confidence of the people has had devolved upon him the executive functions of the Government, to charge him with disloyalty is either a folly or a slander: folly in the fool who believes it; slander in the man of sense, if any such there be, who utters it.
A. J. ROGERs,
VOTES ON PROPOSED. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
The Constitutional Amendment, as Finally Adopted and Submitted to the Legislatures of the States. IN SENATE. 1866, June 8—The Amendment in these words, as finally amended, was brought to a vote: Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of both Houses concurring.) 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 threefourths of said legislatures, shall be valid as part of the Constitution, namely:
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. SEC. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twentyone years of age in such State. SÉc. 3. 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
tion or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Conress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each ouse, remove such disability. SEC.4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions an bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall as: sume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the Uni. ted States, or any claim for the loss or emanci. pation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and . SEC. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. It passed—yeas 33, nays 11, as follow :
YEAs—Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barker. Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Brandegee, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook. Cullom, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farqubar, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Henderson, Higby Homes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbardjomas Hubbard, jr., John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kek ley, Kelso, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, Latham, George W. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, Marvin, McClurg, McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Phelps, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Price, William H. Randall, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sloan, Smith, Spalding, Stevens, Stillwell, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Ellihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Whaley, Wiiliams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, Wood. bridge, the Speaker—138. NAys—Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Boyer, Chanler, Coffooth, Dawson, Denison, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Grider, Aaron Harding, Hogan, Edwin N. Hubbell, James M. Humphrey, Johnson, Kerr, Le Blond, Marshall, McCullough, Niblack, Nicholson, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Strouse, Taber, Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Winfield, Wright—36. Nor voting—Messrs. Culver, Goodyear, Harris, Hill, James Humphrey, Jones, McIndoe, Noell, Rousseau, Starr
United States, shall have engaged in insurrec
Preliminary Proceedings. Prior to the adoption of the joint resolution in the form above stated, these reports were made from the Joint Committee, and these votes were taken in the two Houses:
April 30—Mr. Stevens, from the Joint Select Committee on Reconstruction reported a joint resolution, as follows: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Be it resolved, &c., (two-thirds of both Houses concurring,) 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 said legislatures, shall be valid as part of the Constitution, namely: ARTICLE —. SEC. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. SEC. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State. excluding Indians not oi But whenever in any State the elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age, or in an
way abridged, except for participation in rebel
lion or other crime, the basis of representation
Yeas—Messrs. Allison, Ames, Anderson, Banks, Baxter, Bidwell, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Conler, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, onkling. Cook, Defrees, Dixon, Driggs, Dumont. Eckley, Eggleston, El fridge, Eliot, Grider, Grinnell, Aaron Harding, Abner C. Harding, Harris, Hart, Higby, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard. Ingersoll, Julian, Kelley, Kelso, Kerr, William Lawrence, Le Blond, Loan, Lynch, Marston, McClu McCullough, McIndoe, Mercur, Morrill, Moulton, Nibla Q'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Price, John H. Rice, Ritter, Rogers, Rollins, Ross, Rousseau, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shanklin. Sheilabarger, Spalding, Stevens, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Thornton, Trowbridge, Upson, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, Welker, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge—84. NAYs—Messrs. Alley, Ancona, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Barker, Beaman, Benjamin, Bergers, Bingham, Blaine, Blow, Boyer, Buckland, Bundy, Coffroth, Cullom, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Dawson, Delano, Deuling, Dodge, Donnelly, Farnsworth, Ferry, Finck, Garfield. Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Griswold, Hayes, Henderson, Chester D. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, James Humphrey, Jenckes, Kasson, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, Latham, George W. Lawrence, Longyear, Marshall. McKee, McRuer, Miller, Moorhead, Morris, Myers, Newell, Phelps, Plants, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, Sitgreaves, Smith, Stillwell, Strouse, Taber, Taylor, Thayer, Trimble, Burt Wan Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Warner, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Whaley, Williams, Winfield, Wright—79
The joint resolution, as above printed, then passed—yeas 128, nays 37, as follow :
YEAs—Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blaine, Blow, B outwell, Bromwell. Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Dixon, | Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell, Griswold, Abner C. | Harding, Hart, Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Holmes, Hooper, | Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas | Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, James Humphrey, | Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, George W. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, McClurg, McIndoe, McKee. McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Plants, Price, William H. Randall, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Spalding, Stevens, Stillwell, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Wan Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Ellihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge, the Speaker—128.
NAYs—Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Boyer, Chanter, Coffroth, Dawson, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grider, Aaron Harding, Harris, Kerr, Latham, Le Blond, Marshall, McCullough, Niblack, Phelps, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Rousseau, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Smith, Strouse, Taber, Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Whaley, Winfield, Wright—37.
The amendments of the Senate were made to this proposition, when it was finally adopted by each House, in the form first stated.
The Accompanying Bills.
April 30—Mr. Stevens, from the same committee, also reported this bill: A Bill to provide for restoring the States lately
in insurrection to their full political rights.
Whereas it is expedient that the States lately in insurrection should, at the earliest day consistent with the future peace and safety of the Union, be restored to full participation in all political rights; and whereas the Congress did, by joint resolution, propose for ratification to the legislatures of the several States, as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, an article in the following words, to wit:
o article, see page 102.]
Be it enacted, &c., That whenever the above
recited amendment shall have become part of the