MR. CONKLING [of New York]. Whether the objection should be made or not depends perhaps upon this, which I should like to inquire: Has not this bill not only passed twice, I think three times, but has it not become a law certainly once? MR. SUMNER. It has not become a law; at least, it has not found place in the statute-book, and the courts have declined to recognize it as law. Under the circumstances, it has seemed the best and the shortest way for Congress to pass it again, so as to remove all doubt. The bill passed the Senate without a division, and, March 2d, it again passed the other House without a division. Again it failed to receive the signature of the President, nor was it returned with his objections. March 6th, at the opening of a new Congress, with a new President, Mr. Sumner introduced it again, and asked unanimous consent to proceed with its consideration; but Mr. Vickers, of Maryland, objected. March 8th, it passed the Senate without a division; March 15th, passed the other House,--Yeas 111, Nays 46; March 18th, was approved by the President, and so at last became a law.[236] NATURALIZATION WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF RACE OR COLOR. REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL TO STRIKE OUT THE WORD “WHITE” IN THE NATURALIZATION LAWS, JULY 19, 1867. July 19th, Mr. Sumner introduced a bill to amend the several Acts of Congress relating to Naturalization, by striking out the word “white,” and he asked unanimous consent of the Senate to consider the bill at once. Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, objected. Mr. Sumner then said:-- I hope the Senator will not object. I have received a letter from Norfolk, calling attention to the case of a colored person there, an inhabitant for more than twenty-five years, but unable to obtain naturalization because of the words of color in our naturalization laws. It is only reasonable that we should put an end to that grievance. In short, I would punch the word “white” out of the statute-book, wherever it appears. If the Senator from Vermont is disposed to keep it in, then I can understand that he would object to the bill. MR. EDMUNDS. I am not disposed to keep it in---- MR. SUMNER. I did not suppose the Senator was. MR. EDMUNDS. My punch is not quite so case-hardened as that of my friend. And he insisted upon its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary, “so that there may be that examination which will make the bill perfect, if it is not now perfect, to answer the end that my friend from Massachusetts and myself both want to reach.” The bill was referred accordingly. February 17, 1869, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, reported the bill from the Committee adversely. In the few remaining days of the session Mr. Sumner was unable to call it up. THE PRESIDENT MUST BE WATCHED BY CONGRESS, OR REMOVED.