I fear also, Mr. President, that in the operation of this bill you will find that we have not been sufficiently explicit in the exclusion of Rebel influence. I have made my best effort to remove doubts and to enlarge the exclusion. But, in saying this, I desire to add, that, in my judgment, all exclusions belong to what I call the transition period. When Reconstruction is accomplished, the time will come for us to open the gates,--but not till then. July 19th, the bill was vetoed by the President, and on the same day it was re-passed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses: in the Senate, Yeas 30, Nays 6,--and in the House, Yeas 109, Nays 25; so that it became a law.[234] SUFFRAGE WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF COLOR THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES BY ACT OF CONGRESS. REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL TO ENFORCE SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION BY SECURING THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE TO COLORED CITIZENS, JULY 12, 1867. March 26, 1867, Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill to enforce the several provisions of the Constitution abolishing Slavery, declaring the immunities of citizens, and guarantying a republican form of government, by securing the elective franchise to colored citizens, which was read twice by its title and printed. He then remarked on the importance of the bill, and said that it was intended to cut the Gordian knot of the Suffrage question throughout the country. At the session beginning July 3d, he made constant efforts for its consideration, challenging objection and argument. July 12th, he moved its consideration, calling it “the Capstone of Reconstruction”; but the Third Reconstruction Bill was pressed by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, to the exclusion of the other. Mr. Sumner would not antagonize his bill with that. As soon as the other measure was disposed of, he pressed his bill again. It was objected to by Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, as not in order under the rule of the session limiting business,[235] and the question of order was referred to the Senate. On this Mr. Sumner said:-- My argument is precisely this, and I ask the attention of my friend from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON]. We all know his eminence at the bar of the Supreme Court, and I submit to him this: We have already by Reconstruction Acts conferred the suffrage upon colored persons in the Rebel States; now is it not important that our legislation should be completed and rounded by conferring the suffrage in the other States as conferred in the Rebel States? You have conferred it in the Rebel States. MR. JOHNSON. What has that to do with the other States?