it is not the purpose of the Republican party, to embrace in its platform all the truths that the world in all its past history has recognized. [Applause.] Mr. President, I believe in the ten commandments, but I do not want them in a political platform.

Mr. TRACY, of California: I move that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Resolutions and Platform.

The PRESIDENT: The motion is out of order.

Mr. STONE, of Iowa: I move that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio be laid upon the table.

The PRESIDENT: That is out of order. It will take the whole with it. The question must be on the adoption of the amendment.

The motion of Mr. Giddings to amend was put to vote and lost.

Mr. WILMOT, of Pennsylvania: I move that the platform be adopted by sections. [Cries of "no," and "take them in a lot," &c.] I have an amendment to offer, which I believe will commend itself to the good sense of every gentleman here. The amendment is this, in the 14th section we say, "that the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws, or any State legislation by which the rights of citizenship, hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands, shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad." My amendment is to strike out the words "State legislation," because it conflicts directly with the doctrine in the 4th section, which reads thus:

"That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment, exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends;

and we denounce the lawless invasion, by armed force, of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

The section would then read: "That the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws, by which the rights of citizenship hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired."

Judge GOODRICH, of Minnesota: I desire to say one word touching the proposed amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Wilmot. It is this. He asked to strike out a certain portion of the resolution now under consideration, for the reason, as he alleges, that it conflicts with State rights. I here say to the gentleman, and to this Convention, that the State of Pennsylvania, or any other State in this confederacy, possesses not a particle of right—a particle of power under the Constitution to enact or modify any naturalization law. The Constitution says that "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform rule of naturalization;" and the Supreme Court have declared on solemn adjudication that no State legislature possesses the power, in any manner whatever, to modify, infract or repeal the constitutional action of the federal legislation upon that subject. I hope then that the genman will withdraw his motion to amend.

Judge JESSUP, of Pennsylvania, the Chairman of the Committee on Platform: The reason why these words were inserted in that resolution, I will state. I desire briefly to state to the Convention that the naturalization laws are producing a state of deep feeling among a large number of the Republican party. A great many Republicans are of foreign birth, and they have felt that it was due to them that the Republican party should affirm, first, that they do not desire to interfere with the present existing naturalization laws; secondly, that they as a party do not approve of the change of the naturalization laws by the several States, and that they do not approve of that legislation which goes to impair the rights which the naturalization laws of the Union give to natural

ized citizens. That, Mr. President, was what was intended by the words which are now proposed to be stricken out. I state, therefore, that it is not proposed to interfere with State rights. It is not proposed, nor does it in the least conflict with any principle, if it be looked at properly, before established in these resolutions. It simply affirms that the Republican party is "opposed to any change in the naturalization laws, or any legislation-State legislation-by which the rights of citizens, hitherto afforded to emigrants from foreign lands, shall be abridged or impaired." Now I wish to know if my colleague from Pennsylvania affirms that he is ready to permit, with his consent, the State legislatures to impair the rights that are guaranteed, under our laws, to emigrants becoming citizens. I think it is a misapprehension on the part of my colleague, of the true intent and import of this resolution. I trust if he looks at it again, he will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. WILMOT, of Pennsylvania: I do not know but I misapprehend this clause. The declaration here reads thus:

"That the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws, by which the rights of citizenship hitherto afforded to emigrants from foreign lands, shall be abridged or impaired."

Now, my amendment was to strike out "or any State legislation." My idea was this (and you may judge whether I was correct or not), that it conflicted with the fourth resolution which declares:

"That the maintaining inviolate of the rights of the States, especially of each State, to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively is essential to that balance of power," &c.

That is a broad declaration of State rights-a just declaration of State rights; and under that, if any State in this Union has a perfect power to prescribe the qualifications of voters, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, or any other State may, to-morrow, if it sees fit, by a change of her constitution, not

only impair the right of foreign citizens, but may modify and impair the rights invested in native born citizens. She may change her constitution and provide that a residence of two years shall be required to entitle a man to vote. That was the old constitution of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania may go back; she may require that any person coming from a foreign land, or from another State, shall not vote until he has been a resident two years; and on the doctrine of State rights has she not a right to do it-and who has a right to complain? But as there seems to be a doubt or misunderstanding—and it has been explained to me here that they do not controvert the right of the State thus to modify the rights of foreign or native citizens, but merely wish to make the declaration that the Republican party, as a party, is opposed to it, as that is the object I agree to it, and in that view I am willing to withdraw my amendment. [Loud cheers.]

Mr. CARL SCHURZ, of Wisconsin: As the amendment is withdrawn by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I find it hardly necessary to address the Convention upon this subject. I wish that this resolution would be passed without opposition. The German Republicans of the Northern States have given you 300,000 votes [Applause], and I wish that they should find it consistent with their honor and their safety to give you 300,000 more. [Increased applause.] A paragraph like this would never have been asked for by the German Republicans if one occurrence had not taken place. The year of 1856 was the era of good feelings-we all joined together in a common cause, and we all fought the common enemy. We did so with honor to ourselves, and with confidence in each other. There was no German Republican, I believe, who would have asked for anything more in the Philadelphia platform but the resolution which is there. But, since it has been found that that resolution is not sufficient to protect them from infringement upon their rights in the States, I will tell you how they reason. They said our rights may be guaranteed to us in a national platform by a general

sentence, and nevertheless the legislatures of the different States may defeat the very purpose for which that national platform was enacted. Of what use, then, is a plank in a platform if its purpose thus can be frustrated by an action of a State legislature? It has been very well said that it was not the purpose of this resolution to declare that no State has the right to regulate the suffrage of its citizens by legislative enactment, but it was the purpose to declare that the Republican party, in its national capacity, is opposed to any such thing in principle, and as such condemns it. [Renewed applause.] Gentlemen, the question is simply this, on one side there stands prejudice, on the other side there stands right.

You go to calculate, will prejudice give us more votes or will right give us more votes. [Applause continued.] Let me tell you one thing, that the votes you get by truckling to the prejudices of people will never be safe; while those votes which you get by recognizing constitutional rights may every time be counted upon. [Immense applause.] Why, gentlemen, the German Republicans of the Northern States have been not only among the most faithful, but we have been among the most unselfish members of the Republican party. We never come to you asking for any favors; we never come to you with any pretensions, the only thing we ask of you is this that we shall be permitted to fight for our common cause; that we shall be permitted to fight in your ranks with confidence in your principles and with honor to ourselves. [Great cheering.]

Mr. FREDRICK HASSAUREK, of Ohio: [Applause]-Gentlemen of the Convention, I am not going to detain you for any length of time in support of the motion now before the Convention, but I am in favor, gentlemen, of the adoption of this resolution; not because I am an adopted citizen, but because I claim to be a true American. [Cheers.] Gentlemen, I claim to be an American, although I happened to be born on the other side of the Atlantic ocean. [Renewed applause.]