loyalty. These things are like the worms that eat into the
majestic oaks which are used to build vessels to ride the sea, and
decay their strength, so that they fall down and make wrecks of
navies."

Mr. Hendricks had moved to amend the resolution by inserting the words
"inhabitants of" after the word "States." This amendment was rejected.
The Senate then proceeded to take the vote on the concurrent
resolution, which was passed--yeas, 29; nays, 18.

Thus the opinion of Congress was established, by a large majority,
that the two houses should act conjointly upon the whole question of
the representation of States, and that this question was entirely
independent, of the Executive.

CHAPTER XVII.

THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENT--IN THE HOUSE.

A Constitutional Amendment Proposed and Postponed --
Proposition by Mr. Stewart -- The Reconstruction Amendment
-- Death of its Predecessor Lamented -- Opposition to the
Disfranchisement of Rebels -- "The Unrepentent Thirty-three"
-- Nine-tenths Reduced to One-twelfth -- Advice to Congress
-- The Committee Denounced -- Democratic and Republican
Policy Compared -- Authority without Power -- A Variety of
Opinions -- An Earthquake Predicted -- The Joint Resolution
Passes the House.

While the joint resolution proposing a modification of the basis of
representation was the subject of consideration in the Senate, a
constitutional amendment relating to the rights of citizens was made
the topic of brief discussion in the House. It had been previously
introduced and referred to the Committee of Fifteen. From this
committee it was reported back by Mr. Bingham. It was proposed in the
following form:

"ARTICLE--. That Congress shall have power to make all laws
which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the
citizens of each State all privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several States, and to all persons in the
several States equal protection in the rights of life,
liberty, and property."

This proposition was introduced on the 26th of February, and was
debated during the sessions of three successive days.

Many members of the legal profession saw in the final clause a
dangerous centralization of power. It was considered objectionable as
seeming to authorize the General Government to interfere with local
laws on the subject of property, the legal rights of women, and other
matters hithert