Mr. Sumner. Do I understand my friend that a State might adopt a rule founded on the color of the hair, so that all men with light hair should be excluded from suffrage? I insist that a State is not authorized, under the Constitution, to make any exclusion on account of color.
Mr. Henderson. It ought not to be, you mean.
Mr. Sumner. No,—it cannot be. Color cannot be a qualification. There may be a qualification founded on age, or residence, or knowledge, or crime.
Mr. Henderson. You are now coming in conflict with the Committee of Fifteen, who declare by their resolution that the States now have the power, and may yet exclude everybody of a particular race or color.
Mr. Sumner. The Committee propose to place that in the Constitution, which is one reason why I object to their report. I say that they propose to do what our fathers never did.
Mr. Henderson. The Senator from Massachusetts is in theory, perhaps, correct. He is speaking, however, of an ideal Constitution.
The following colloquy also occurred.
Mr. Henderson. The Senator from Massachusetts proposes to do by an Act of Congress what I think can only be done by a Constitutional Amendment. That is the difference now between the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and myself. I think the Amendment can be adopted. Indeed, I feel confident of it.
Mr. Sumner. What Amendment?
Mr. Henderson. An Amendment to the Constitution preventing any discrimination against the negro in the right of suffrage because of color.